In his essay “Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report,” as well as the afterward “The Conspiracy Industry: Afterward to PM Expanded Investigation,” James Meigs satirizes the ridiculous conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks. This essay is published in the magazine Popular Mechanics, mostly known for it’s scientific and technological articles. Therefore, this article was likely read by a relatively well educated and logical audience. Meigs wrote and revised this essay years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, thus a wide variety of evidence and interpretations about the attack were available. For these reasons, Meigs uses much credible and specific research surrounding 9/11 to support the widely accepted, belief that Osama Bin Laden
…show more content…
He states numerous facts and studies to prove the validity of his argument as well as frequently quoting professors, businessmen, engineers, and other experts to ensure the credibility of his evidence. Ethos is heavily relied upon throughout his essay as Meigs lists the attainments of the experts he quotes. He cites “Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego” as only “one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted” to write this essay. Through specifically listing the exact job of the quoted expert, down to where and what he teaches, as well as making the extra statement that 6 other experts were consulted, there can be little doubt in the validity of the facts referenced. This specificity emphasizes the credibility of his sources. When discussing the pentagon windows, Meigs even quotes the “executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured, and installed the Pentagon windows.” Not only does Meigs quote many reliable and intelligent experts, but he cites people with the exact knowledge necessary to prove the validity of his claims. Based on his audience, Meigs uses logical statements that reasonable people fully understand and accept. He argues against conspirators claims by pointing out the rationality of the accepted view. Conspirators may try to point out that the …show more content…
The overly simplistic organization of the essay subtly mocks the simple-mindedness of conspiracy theories by categorizing them into misconceptions about the Planes, the World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and Flight 93. Also the repetition of the basic style of stating a “claim” followed by a “fact” emphasizes how easy it is to disprove, repeatedly, conspiracy theories. Meigs often emphasizes the absolutism of conspirators claims by using extreme examples of conspirators claiming there is “NO WAY” they are wrong and “it is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (...such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crashed,” or “all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.” He intelligently selects some of the most absurd sounding conspiracies because he knows his audience will understand their absurdity. Thus, making conspiracy theorists sound completely nonsensical and discrediting the entire group. His blunt statements mock conspiracy theories through demonstrating the obviousness of the proven facts surrounding 9/11. After stating credible research and logical facts disproving conspiracy theories he sarcastically states “[t]ranslation: no bombs,” it’s as simple as that. He uses sarcasm to indirectly make fun of conspirators. He calls out
He states numerous facts and studies to prove the validity of his argument as well as frequently quoting professors, businessmen, engineers, and other experts to ensure the credibility of his evidence. Ethos is heavily relied upon throughout his essay as Meigs lists the attainments of the experts he quotes. He cites “Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego” as only “one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted” to write this essay. Through specifically listing the exact job of the quoted expert, down to where and what he teaches, as well as making the extra statement that 6 other experts were consulted, there can be little doubt in the validity of the facts referenced. This specificity emphasizes the credibility of his sources. When discussing the pentagon windows, Meigs even quotes the “executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured, and installed the Pentagon windows.” Not only does Meigs quote many reliable and intelligent experts, but he cites people with the exact knowledge necessary to prove the validity of his claims. Based on his audience, Meigs uses logical statements that reasonable people fully understand and accept. He argues against conspirators claims by pointing out the rationality of the accepted view. Conspirators may try to point out that the …show more content…
The overly simplistic organization of the essay subtly mocks the simple-mindedness of conspiracy theories by categorizing them into misconceptions about the Planes, the World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and Flight 93. Also the repetition of the basic style of stating a “claim” followed by a “fact” emphasizes how easy it is to disprove, repeatedly, conspiracy theories. Meigs often emphasizes the absolutism of conspirators claims by using extreme examples of conspirators claiming there is “NO WAY” they are wrong and “it is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (...such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crashed,” or “all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.” He intelligently selects some of the most absurd sounding conspiracies because he knows his audience will understand their absurdity. Thus, making conspiracy theorists sound completely nonsensical and discrediting the entire group. His blunt statements mock conspiracy theories through demonstrating the obviousness of the proven facts surrounding 9/11. After stating credible research and logical facts disproving conspiracy theories he sarcastically states “[t]ranslation: no bombs,” it’s as simple as that. He uses sarcasm to indirectly make fun of conspirators. He calls out