Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

9/11 Conspiracy Fantasies

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media. Posted September 7, 2006.


President Bush's policies of deception are breeding an increasing number of fringe theories about the 9/11 attacks.
Hutchinson

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Nader Plays the Race Card
Nader holds Obama to a different standard than he holds McCain or any other white mainstream politician; a standard based solely on his color.
Jun 30, 2008

The Danger Obama Faces Is Real
America's history of hate and violence is more than enough reason to be concerned about the safety of prominent political figures like Barack Obama.
Jun 13, 2008

Singer R. Kelly Reinforces Racial and Sexual Stereotypes
R. Kelly and other musicians who cultivate a thuggish persona perpetuate a sexually rapacious cardboard image of young blacks.
May 30, 2008

More stories by Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Conspiracy theorists are gearing up for a big blast on the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks. At a three day fest in New York they'll again claim that the attacks were part of a gigantic plot by President Bush, the GOP, the CIA, FBI and Justice Department to wipe out civil liberties protections, impose a national security state, create a pretext for the attack on Iraq, regiment the American people, and strengthen the hand of the pro Israeli lobby in U.S. politics. There's nothing new in any of this.

The instant the planes slammed into the World Trade Center, the conspiracy mill spun into high gear and it hasn't slowed since. Conspiracy theorists allege that explosives were planted at the WTC, Jewish and Israeli Tower workers and occupants were warned the day before to stay away, a missile slammed into the Pentagon, the government hid the wreckage of the United Airlines plane that terrorists crashed in Pennsylvania. The theories are groundless, and have been debunked by a legion of scientists, technicians and investigators.

So why do so many Americans believe them? And there are millions that do. A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that more than a third of Americans believe that the government knows more than it's telling about 9/11 or had some hand in it. This should not surprise. Four decades ago, historian Richard Hofstadter in an essay coined the term the "paranoid style." That paranoia has long gripped many Americans. There are packs of groups that span a political spectrum of extreme rightists, Aryan Nation racists, Millennium Christian fundamentalists, leftist radicals, and fraternal lodges and societies. Their Internet sites bristle with purported official documents that detail and expose these alleged plots. These groups and thousands of individuals believe that government, corporate, or international Zionist groups busily hatch secret plots, and concoct hidden plans to wreak havoc on their lives.

Hollywood and the TV industry have also horned in on the conspiracy act. They churn out countless movies and TV shows in which shadowy, government groups topple foreign governments, assassinate government leaders, and brainwash operatives to do dirty deeds.

9/11 conspiracy theories have had enduring shelf life for two other troubling reasons, and neither is totally groundless. Government agencies, such as the FBI, CIA, Army intelligence, with the connivance of presidents, have often played fast and loose with the law and even the rules of democracy. They have spied on, harassed, and jailed thousands of Americans from Communists to anti-war activists. The FBI engaged in a ferocious and patently illegal decades long campaign against Dr. Martin Luther King the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party, the NAACP and other black groups.

The CIA has waged or funded secret wars in Laos, Nicaragua, and Angola, and Afghanistan. The Iran-Contra weapons trading scandals, the secret operations to topple radical or leftist governments in Iran, Lebanon and Chile have been well documented. Government agencies and officials have routinely lied, engaged in cover-ups, and omitted facts and information regarding illicit activities from Congressional investigating committees. Than there's Bush's admission that the CIA locked up suspected terrorists in secret jails in various countries.

The second reason is the fervent loathing that many Americans have of President Bush. The furor over the Florida vote debacle in 2000 raised deep suspicions among many Americans that Bush and the GOP hijacked the election and the White House. It was only a short step from that to the belief that if they were capable of that they were capable of any lie or deception to win and hold power.

Though the 9/11 Commission in its final report let Bush off the hook for any blame for the terror attacks, it still obliquely chided the administration for its lack of preparedness. And that stirred even more speculation that Bush knew more than he let on about the 9/11 attacks. There is no evidence of that. Yet Bush has profited mightily politically from the war on terrorism. At times he has made shameless hardball use of the war on terrorism to hammer the Democrats, and rev up Congressional and public support for his administration's war policies. In the 2004 presidential elections, the terrorism issue was Bush's main, indeed, only trump card to win back the White House. Polls consistently showed that voters believed that he'd do a better job than Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry in combating terrorism.

Bush, of course, is no different than other mediocre politicians whose foreign and domestic policies are in shambles. Politicians have long known that war fever, and national security jitters is a sure fire ticket to boost their poll ratings, secure public allegiance, and increase the political dominance of whichever party is in power. If a president is doing a really terrible job in handling domestic problems, and Bush has more often than not been such a president, it also deflects public attention from those failures.

The rub is that the conspiracy theorists don't need to spend three days spinning 9/11 conspiracy fantasies to make that case. If anything, they'll just give critics more ammunition to laugh them off as kooks, crazies, and loonies. Maybe that's part of the conspiracy too. 

Digg!

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author of the forthcoming book The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006), a hard-hitting look at Bush and The GOP's court of black voters.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Say What?
Posted by: ConnecttheDots on Sep 7, 2006 2:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hutchinson seems to be saying that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a goddam duck. Go figure!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Say What? Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: Say What? Posted by: marked for re-indoctrination
Look First
Posted by: rwa on Sep 7, 2006 2:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
False Flag Operations: Declassified Military Documents Show How US Government Planned Terrorist Attacks Against its Own Citizens



New York, NY (PRWEB) September 7th, 2006 – As reported by ABC News, stunning military documents codenamed "Operation Northwoods" were declassified in recent years and show how in 1962, the top US military leaders planned an operation to create terror attacks against its own cities and kill US citizens. See: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1


The documents state that through the fabrication of false evidence, the US would blame Cuba and gain public support for an unpopular war against Castro. They included developing a fake Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, the use of airplanes, and much more.

For further details, the now declassified military documents are available at the National Security Archive of the George Washington University: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

In his newly published book "Towers of Deception – The Media Cover-Up of 9/11," Barrie Zwicker, writes about Operation Northwoods and many other such operations that the military and intelligence community refer to as "false flag operations." http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3932

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Look First Posted by: AnarchX
» RE: Look First Posted by: deaudonnee
Very sad Earl
Posted by: fifthworld on Sep 7, 2006 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps Senor Hutchinson should find another news-site to blog on, because this is a shameful display of denial and general hooey. It really is beneath AlterNet.

I'll just give you one amazing line from this piece that tells us where's he's coming from:

"The theories are groundless, and have been debunked by a legion of scientists, technicians and investigators." Which theories? Not the ones, for example, propounded on such many sites as Scholarsfor911truth.org. The opposite of what you say is the case, particularly with regard to the tower demolitions: the issue is who is willing to come forward; and fortunately every day another senior intelligence ex-official (Repub's I might add ) or politician or new candidate (Bob Boman, FL!) not to mention the legions of well-regarded scientists and engineers (incl. on-site, first-hand accounts as evidence) confirming the studies and refining them, comes on board and helps contribute to putting the big lies to the official accounts.

Not to mention the slips from the horses' mouths themselves, about "pulling" WTC -7, and all the endless rest, from Bush on out.

Look, "conspiracy theory" itself is a derrogatory, dismissive term, and extremely offensive to those of us who are serious about the issue and the cover-up, the many unanswered questions -- although more are being answered as we move. Using the term only shows ignorance, fear and an unwillingness to probe. Sure, there might be some bunk out there, but the central players in the scientific and other communities addressing the big scam deserve your full hearing.

I have to say that seeing a piece of rubbish like this on this site makes me really angry. Damn it, do your research Earl!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You ARE conspiracy theorists Posted by: brunowe
» I love it Posted by: fifthworld
Paul Craig Roberts
Posted by: rwa on Sep 7, 2006 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Five Years After and We Still Don’t Know

By Paul Craig Roberts

09/07/06 "Information Clearing House " -- -- In the five years since three World Trade Center buildings collapsed into their own footprints in virtually free fall time, the convincing power of the official explanation of that day’s events has evaporated. Polls show that 36% of Americans do not believe the official account. As Lev Grossman writes in Time magazine (September 3, 2006), “Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.”

Grossman acknowledges that alternative explanations of 9/11 are more compelling than the official explanation. Grossman offers a psychological explanation for the success of alternative explanations: “a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it.”

However, Grossman’s psychological explanation fails on its own terms. Which is the grandest conspiracy theory? The interpretation of 9/11 as an orchestrated casus belli to justify US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the interpretation that a handful of Muslims defeated US security multiple times in one short morning and successfully pulled off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history simply because they “hate our freedom and democracy”? Orchestrating events to justify wars is a stratagem so well worn as to be boring. Indeed, it is the fantastic conspiracy of the official explanation that makes it unbelievable.

The scientists, engineers, and professors who pose the tough questions about 9/11 are not people who spend their lives making sense of their experience by constructing conspiracy theories. Scientists and scholars look to facts and evidence. They are concerned with the paucity of evidence in behalf of the official explanation. They stress that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, and that the numerous security failures, when combined together, are a statistical improbability.

The call by 9/11 skeptics for an independent investigation by an international panel of experts is not a conspiracy theory. In principle there is nothing wrong with such an investigation. In practice, it might be difficult to create a truly independent panel. How many physicists, for example, have careers independent of government grants, and how many engineering firms would risk being branded “unpatriotic” and lose business by coming down on the “wrong” side of the issue?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Paul Craig Roberts Posted by: brunowe
Let the conspiarcy wingnuts agitate...
Posted by: pzzp on Sep 7, 2006 3:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...let them loose upon the wingnuts now in power. Maybe this clash of uncivilizations will cancel each other out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deconstructing "Conspiracy Theorizing"
Posted by: kenadrian on Sep 7, 2006 3:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are convenient labels used ridicule anyone who dares to question authority.

In a democracy we DO question our politicians' officially stories though, especially when they don't appear to make sense - when they are MANY loose ends.

Did the gov't lie about Pearl Harbour? Yes. Did they lie about Vietnam? Yes. Did they lie about Iraq? Yes. History reveals that the gov't is CAPABLE and WILLING to deceive it's own citizens for self-interested, political reasons.

In spite of this historical fact, those of us who want complete transparency, full disclosure, real accountability are "the crazy ones"... at least that's what people like Earl are saying.

Let's look at Earl's rhetoric:

"Conspiracy theorists are gearing up for a big blast on the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks... There's nothing new in any of this."

That's true, there IS nothing new in the fact that we're not buying 'the official story'. Why should we when it leaves out so many crucial details of evidence, ignores so many historical facts, defies the laws of physics, etc.?

Earl continues:

"The instant the planes slammed into the World Trade Center, the conspiracy mill spun into high gear..."

Notice how the conspiracy theorists (and their theories) are all bundled together as one great big bunch of 'wing-nuts'. This is another form of Ad Hominem which treats all theories as one and, again, ignores the facts.

"The theories are groundless, and have been debunked by a legion of scientists, technicians and investigators."

Not true. This is Earl's opinion, unsupported by references to credible and reliable scientific research.

"So why do so many Americans believe them? And there are millions that do."

Answer: Because Americans are not as stupid as their gov't has the arrogance to believe... and they're not willing to "take Earl's word for it" either. We prefer to weight ALL of the evidence for ourselves. Sorry Earl.

"Hollywood and the TV industry have also horned in on the conspiracy act..."

Hollywood produces works of fiction. They also produce non-fictional documentary works. This author wants to bundle them together; again Ad Hominem. Earl's basically saying that those Hollywood types are crazy too... oh, and they're profiteering from it all (not true as many of the docs are donating profits to charity).

The CIA, FBI, and other commentary. Well, since Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset for many years during the original war in Afghanistan and his family are/were friends of the Budh family, and since they were the ONLY people allowed to leave the U.S.A. on the day of this tragedy, we still want some questions answered. Sorry Earl, we're curious that way.

"Though the 9/11 Commission in its final report let Bush off the hook for any blame for the terror attacks, it still obliquely chided the administration for its lack of preparedness. "

Imagine that! The Commission appointed by the President let him off the hook! Will wonders never cease?!

"The rub is that the conspiracy theorists don't need to spend three days spinning 9/11 conspiracy fantasies to make that case. If anything, they'll just give critics more ammunition to laugh them off as kooks, crazies, and loonies. Maybe that's part of the conspiracy too."

Right, so now the author switche language. Conspiracy FANTASIES now... and he punctuates this with his main assertion that anyone who dares to question things is crazy... and we should ridicule them.

Earl's not crazy. He believes whatever he's told even if that official story doesn't make sense or is incomplete.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, they'll be others... Posted by: brunowe
» Yes THERE WILL be others Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: Oh, they'll be others... Posted by: ignition
More questions than theories
Posted by: hezekiah on Sep 7, 2006 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The theories are groundless, and have been debunked by a legion of scientists, technicians and investigators."
(You fail to mention, sir, that the legitimacy of the questions raised by so-called 'conspiracy theorists' have also been supported by legions of scientists, technicians, and investigators, as well as by eyewitnesses.)

The proliferating calls for truth concerning the events of 9/11, and the justifiable wish to bring to justice those who are responsible for, or have profited from, the tragedy are in no way based on some deep-seated wish for the more radical theories to be accurate. It would greatly ease my mind to have all these theories debunked, but that has not happened.

The 9-11 Commission Report was little better than the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald fired a 'magic' bullet. I am sorry, but magic is more loony than the 9/11 Truth Movement. History has proven time and again that our government is not the beneficent democracy of, by, and for the people it claims to be. Some examples of conspiratorial malevolence on the part of government (of both parties) and corporate interests are detailed, though by no means exhaustively, in this very article. And I applaud the author for re-iterating some of them. The eagerness and bravado with which he brands all doubters as "kooks, crazies, and loonies" is however, very disturbing. Calling a duck a duck is fair. But in this case, the author is resorting to name-calling in an ongoing debate in which the burden of proof has shifted to those supporting the official line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simplistic interpretations...
Posted by: ahmlco on Sep 7, 2006 4:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Above someone states, "...or the interpretation that a handful of Muslims defeated US security multiple times in one short morning and successfully pulled off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history simply because they “hate our freedom and democracy.""

Baloney. It only makes sense if you frame the question in those terms.

First, they don't hate our "freedom and democracy". They do see many of our values as corrupt and opposed to their religous beliefs, quite a few hate our support of Israel and our often narrow, coporate self-interests, as well as our tendencies to support "stability" in the region by regime change and government overthrow in pursuit of those interests. In short, we meddle.

As to "defeating security", you make it sound like a major feat. Pre-9/11 I once forgot I had a 3" folding knife in a North Face jacket coat pocket. The airline security screener found it, opened it, measured it against his palm, grunted, put it back, and waved me through.

Do I think there's questions yet to be answered? Yes. But paranoia for the sake of paranoia is not the way we're going to get there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Passenger manifests Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: Passenger manifests Posted by: brunowe
empty article
Posted by: spanky on Sep 7, 2006 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author frames the issue as if it were black and white and one need only decide to believe the official story all the way, or believe none of it.

What if one accepts the entire official account, except for a single element, for example the fact that WTC7 collapsed on its own even though there is very little evidence available to support this? Does this constitute a conspiracy theory?

AlterNet blew it by allowing this excrement to be published.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: empty article Posted by: famouspipeliner
Ofari: Slouching Toward the "Mainstream"
Posted by: Nuuon on Sep 7, 2006 5:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I considered adding my won scientific critique of
Mr. Hutchinson's pathetic rant, but I believe the
responses provided so far handle Mr. Hutchinson's
foolishness adequately.

However, I would like to point out that what Mr.
Hutchinson is really railing against is the
911 MOVEMENT, not just a mere "theory." The
fact that this MOVEMENT won't go away is what really
bothers people like Mr. Hutchinson. Apparently this
911 MOVEMENT is also beginning to scare some aspects
of-- yes I'm going to say it --our Secret Government.
They have acknowledged the 911 MOVEMENT's growing
power and influence: based on the growing attacks
on same.

Mr. Hutchinson is either extremely lazy or extremely
opportunistic-- perhaps both. He is pandering for
some reason, maybe hoping he will get some invites
to CNN and MSNBC; proving that he is "safe" by his
baseless rant regarding the 911 MOVEMENT.


If Mr. Hutchinson really had something to say, one
would expect him to show some courage and debate
someone publicly on the subject. But based on the
vehemence of his rant, I bet he got burned on this
issue more than once already.

People like Mr. Hutchinson represent the New
McCarthyism
: He yells "conspiracist" in the
same way that Sen. Joseph McCarthy used to yell
"communist." And the use of the "conspiracist"
buzzword is designed to have the same oppressive
affects. The buzzword is designed to shut down
rational thinking, not promote it.

Shame on you, Earl. Lives are at stake and you have
proven that you can't be trusted in a crisis.

It's as simple as that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Typical self-importance Posted by: brunowe
» Not a movement? Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: Not a movement? Posted by: brunowe
» What bullshit Posted by: fifthworld
» Ah, how typical Posted by: brunowe
» Share of paranoia Posted by: fifthworld
Gee, I guess al-Jazeera is in on the cover-up too
Posted by: brunowe on Sep 7, 2006 6:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kosovo Posted by: brunowe
Al Jazeera
Posted by: rwa on Sep 7, 2006 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is a government controlled media in an occupied country (puppet statelet). Created by and totally subserviant to imperial power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Al Jazeera Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Al Jazeera Posted by: colek
Never mind, you win.
Posted by: fifthworld on Sep 7, 2006 7:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back to K street, you've got some phone messages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a "leftist radical" I gotta say...
Posted by: peacechicken on Sep 7, 2006 9:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is really disappointing to see on Alternet... if this were on Digg it'd be thumbs down ASAP.

I have to 2nd everything kenadrian said, especially:
"The terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are convenient labels used ridicule anyone who dares to question authority... In a democracy we DO question our politicians' officially stories though, especially when they don't appear to make sense - when they are MANY loose ends... History reveals that the gov't is CAPABLE and WILLING to deceive it's own citizens for self-interested, political reasons."

Earl says the theories are groundless? Really? Has he done any real investigation into this? Maybe some of the theories are a little kooky, but there are some that make too much sense to dismiss. Just because a person believes there's an alternate explanation doesn't mean they subscribe to every alternate explanation.

One of the 9/11 Scholars for Truth, a Vietnam combat veteran and Congressional candidate named Dr. Robert Bowman, sums it up the best:
“If the government has nothing to hide, then why are they hiding everything?”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for the Bowman Posted by: fifthworld
Interesting article.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 7, 2006 10:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It places the emphasis on finding a way to best deal with a problem, rather than explaining physics and engineering to those who have (more or less) let their justified (more or less) anger at the administration take a front seat over their objectivity.

Conspiracy theorist aren't bad folks; they are just overly passionate about their faith-based belief structures. I've never called someone a bad name for going to church, and I'm certainly not about to call someone a bad name for believing in whatever didn't occur in NYC 5 years ago.

The wonkies do, however, tend to distract--albeit just a little--from solutions that must be reached in the real world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting article. Posted by: hezekiah
Wow
Posted by: angrylefty on Sep 8, 2006 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So I get this email yesterday asking me to donate some money to Alternet. "We're running out of money", they say. "Where else can you get this type of news coverage?", they implore. So I dutifully donate some of my hard-earned cash because, of course, I agree with them.

Cut to today. By way of thanks, Earl Ofari Hutchinson is now telling me to shut up, get in line, and buy into the "official" fable of 9/11? I am to believe the steaming pile of "facts" that are being shoveled down my throat by one of the most corrupt administrations in history? Well, I could have gotten this type of coverage at CNN.com, couldn't I? For Free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this poll bothers me
Posted by: mazel on Sep 8, 2006 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that more than a third of Americans believe that the government knows more than it's telling about 9/11 or had some hand in it."

There's a big difference between the government knowing more than they're telling and having a hand in it. I don't believe they had a hand in it, but I do believe they know more about it than they're telling, and I admit that belief is based more on the fact that they are a bunch of sneaky, underhanded pathological liars than anything else--there is no way in hell they are going to tell us everything they know about anything that happens.

I don't think this belief should lump me with conspiracy wackos. This poll should have been more precise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Me too Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: Me too Posted by: mazel
Theories and Praxis
Posted by: talkville on Sep 8, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, theorizing. 9/11/2001 happened. Actual, flesh and blood people responded. How is this event being utilized? By whom?

Most books I read contain an Introduction, a Preface; a pre-text. Clever people are adept at transforming an event into a valuable and critical tool; individualism, competition, corporatism and ego do the rest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

canipanic
Posted by: canipanic on Sep 8, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we now know,the reason for going to war in Iraq...oh wait a minute..weren't all the reasons given debunked?yet there we are.i don't want to add another "conspiricy theory"..we still haven't been told the truth,so all we are left with are "theories"..there seems to be one thing said that i haven't heard debunked yet,not a word...we were assured we were not going into Iraq for the oil.if all the other things said were found to be untruths,why would people still believe we did not go to iraq for the oil?heres my theory:greedy rich peole want the oil,and Bush thinks God is speaking to him...it's the only thing that makes sense to me...that is also why we will never get to the bottom of all these mideast distubances.the oil companies do whatever they want(record profits as gas prices rise) and Bush will never admit God is talking with him..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another sheeple...
Posted by: Xphilechef on Sep 8, 2006 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very disappointing article to see on Alternet. Since 9/11 I have seen very little information in the mainstream media regarding the suspect events that occured that day and how our government may be involved, even though there is AMPLE evidence to suggest that is the case. The mere fact that suggestion is called a "conspiracy theory" by those in the media immediately implies to the general public that there is no credence in these beliefs. However, the fact remains that there is more than enough factual evidence to suggest that the official 9/11 myth espoused by the Bush administration is an outright lie. I am not going to go into the wealth of evidence here because it would take way too long, but I do encourage people to check out a few websites. I know that other people have mentioned www.scholarsfor911truth.com, and that is a fabulous site. Also, check out www.loosechange911.com and watch the free documentary which is a pretty good intruduction to researching the 9/11 myth. For those of you that discount this based on the notion that a bunch of left wing radicals got together to simply slander the government, please just take a look and challenge yourself. Try to ask yourself this question: who stands to gain from 9/11? Nothing is as black and white as the Bush administration would like sheeples to believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

basic facts
Posted by: spanky on Sep 8, 2006 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's get one thing straight. There is a difference between those that allege that a drone aircraft crashed into the Pentagon; or that flight 93 landed in Cleveland and the passengers were abducted by aliens; or whatever... and those that are simply pointing out that BASIC elements of the official story do not appear to make sense.

While I do not discount any of the various theories, what's more important is just looking at the basic evidence and asking if parts of it do not hold up to scrutiny.

1) Is it unusual that *all three* WTC buildings collapsed straight down like they did, when there is no precedent for this? Esp WTC7, which was not hit by a plane.
2) Why won't the govt won't release the confiscated footage of the Pentagon crash?
3) Why did it take so long for fighter jets to get up in the air?
4) Why did eyewtinesses in NYC report hearing explosions prior to the collapse of the WTC buildings?

I am advancing no theories. Just asking the questions. Since I have not seen answers to these and other questions, I think it's logical to ask for answers. What's the alternative???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

left gate keeping fantasies
Posted by: Micahyah on Sep 8, 2006 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government's story is not consistent with how WTC 1, 2, and 7 fell.

Other problems with the government's story that have been proven is that there were multiple war games, at least 5, on 9/11, some of which involved hijacking. Also, Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 commission of what went on between Cheney and the aide concerning an order about the plane approaching the pentagon. Cheney said he wasn't there, but then when he testified to the 9/11 commission, it was behind closed doors.

Also, the $100,000 sent to Atta from the same Pakistani ISI general that is having breakfast with Porter Goss, Powell, Bob Graham, on 9/11.

I say use Occam's Razor, and think about what is more likely, that Mineta just made up the conversation in his TESTIMONY to the 9/11 commission? Or did Cheney lie to the public about his actions related to the plane heading towards the Pentagon?

Is it more likely that Al queda "Lucked out" and had their attack on the same day of 5+ wargames going on, or is it more likely that officials who moved those war games to that date were complicit in the attack?

Is it more likely that PNAC just caught a 'lucky break' ? on 9/11, a year after saying they wanted to implement a foreign policy that would take a new pearl harbor to implement? Or was there complicity?

Look at all the 'coincidences' that have to be explained away by the government's account. If you look at the probability alone of all these things just being coincidences it is so miniscule it wouldn't be believed.

Think about who was executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow. He's not only part of the Bush transition team from 2000, and a writer of the Bush doctrine of 2002, but also a co-author and colleague from Bush I of Condoleeza Rice, the National Security Advisor that 'failed' on 9/11. That is a ridiculous conflict of interest. And then you look at Zelikow's expertise - political myths. Read some of his writings prior to 9/11 about what the effect of a dramatic terror attack would do to the American people.

It's far more likely that there was complicity than there was no complicity. The physical evidence AND the circumstantial evidence goes against the government's explanation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» clarification Posted by: mazel
Alternot rules the opposite world!
Posted by: dainin on Sep 8, 2006 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The official story is not only a conspiracy theory, but it is one that appeals to our most contemptible instincts.

The only thing more contemptible is a media ho calling anyone who questions this racist shite a “conspiracy theorist”.

Alternot rules this new opposite world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you a fool?
Posted by: Wish on Sep 8, 2006 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Earl Ofari Hutchinson, you are a fool if you belief your government won't do heinous acts just for their own selfish and megalomanic porposes. You don't have to be a what you call "conspiracy theorist" to see that. It's in every word and act.

So instead of ridiculing these socalled 'conspiracy theorists'. ridicule your government. Kick butt.
Expose your government any way possible. Your 'government' that made this world the dangerous place it is now. They are criminals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Are you a fool? Posted by: colek
Summation: still the prevailing fear and innocence
Posted by: fifthworld on Sep 8, 2006 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is so incredibly hard to fathom that we're living under a ruthless, monstrous homicidal/genocidal regime (fading into or fronting the 'shadow govt' behind it) that, shall we say gently, implemented 911. It's called cognitive dissonance. But it's true.

"Conspiracy theory" is a reflex response, like vomiting. When you can't handle and don't want to examine the realities of the whole scenario and its contexts, specifically the neocon fantasy of 'full-spectrum domination' - you just lump together all who simply ask questions. All who might simply want to question authority for gods' sakes! And that is a damned shame. It is a way of reacting, fight or flight, rather than responding.

With such massive evil afoot now in the US, the stakes are high, and sides do get polarized. But I think the best coming-together point has to be a large-scale insistence by the sober minds out there on a NEW INVESTIGATION. Not an original thought I know, but one that needs propounding. An INDEPENDENT people's commission, with senior scientists called on regardless of political afilliation. Perhaps it is some of the victims' families who should choose this commission, or be instrumental in that process at least. A local activist here, from NJ, makes note of the Jersey Girls, and warns they're set to kick some serious butt!

Remember too, this whole campaign for 911 truth is unfolding far faster, and at a higher level and with much greater clarity and focus, than the Kennedy assassination. An unfortunately incommensurate analogy, given the overwhelming scope of "that fateful day" and the unanswered q's, but so be it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Titanic down, arks up Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: Titanic down, arks up Posted by: brunowe
Here's One Conspiracy That Should Not Be Overlooked
Posted by: pelle_in_goal on Sep 8, 2006 7:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Critics of the critics of the 9/11 Commission Report are mostly found on the Cable news channels. They are usually the pundits and political agendists -- like Mr. Hutchinson -- and not investigative journalists. They are paid a king's ransom to label EVERYTHING from the left as crazy, kooky, and lunatic. People on the left know that all too well.

That means that Earl can spare us the rest of the bullshit.

Mr. Hutchinson is neither an architect, structural engineer, physicist, physician, or demolitions expert. Nor does he have experience in counter-terrorism. He is simply not qualified to rebut alternative theories to the government's own conspiracy theory. Nor is he qualified to uphold the government's version of the 9/11 attacks. Ironically, in his one apparent area of "expertise" -- as an expert on the functions of government -- he doesn't seem to sense the ultimate need for all of them to cover up damaging evidence of incompetence, shift blame onto others, demonize a largely overblown enemy of the state, and ultimately cover their respective asses.

People whose lives have been irrevocably compromised are holding a rally that is not based on junk science, or half-baked and unsworn testimony given to an underfunded and strait-jacketed Federal Commission. It's based, rather, on the realities of their deteriorating health.

Thanks to another Hutchinson -- the one then at the EPA -- the public who worked, lived, or took part in rescue operations were ASSURED that the air they were breathing during rescue operations was safe enough not to wear respirators.

Seeking redress for being lied to is definitely not a conspiracy theory; there have been too many medical records and research studies done which place the human cost of exposure to 9/11 related toxins beyond the mere theory stage of scientific investigation.

Nor is a conspiracy theory necessary to understand the motive behind the false assurances given the public soon to be working and living again in lower Manhattan. The financial markets were to be opened as quickly as possible. Just ask Warren Buffet. He was the one who Bush met at Offutt AFB the day of the attacks.

I wonder what they ever could have been talking about.

Both the Warren Commission and the House Select Sub-Committee on Assassinations say a lot about the Feds' never-ending commitment to make evidence fit the desired conclusions. That there was a conspiracy involved in the JFK assassination is beyond question. Even the FBI admitted so. Evidence was overlooked or destroyed in order to avoid suggestions of Cuban or Soviet involvement leading to a possible nuclear confrontation. As we later learned, any ties exposed by the Warren Commission of Oswald to Castro and vice versa may also have exposed the Operation Mongoose plot against Castro and with it the involvement of the Chicago and New Orleans mob. By any definition, this is a conspiracy to obstruct justice -- involving the highest levels of government.

I will say one thing in his favor. Earl makes one hell of a lapdog.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

interesting bullshit as usual
Posted by: cosmicgold on Sep 9, 2006 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone taken notice of the recent news that Pakistan and the Taliban have reached a mutual peace accord?? Now the media is ready to whip up the frenzy of fear again.....saying that if the Taliban and all those other well groomed idiots of danger...can now do another spectacular demolition somewhere on this planet that represents western interests..Interesting how the Internal Revenue service can find any errant tax payer-anywhere in the world in 24 hours...yet it is sadly laughable that we cant seem to get a small group of ragtag men interested in destroying our country....my fear is that this is what the cabalists want us to do..be fearful of another eminent attack..and probably in perfect timing before the nov elections....as for conspiracy theories..thank the heavens for them..they are the only thing that can vindicate sound reasonable minds from the bullshit of mass hystaria, mayhem,paranoia, that prevents us from truly seeing the truth as it is....Thank you alternet..at least for another choice of information to debate

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The NTSB
Posted by: magistre on Sep 9, 2006 3:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Hutchinson, is the NTSB a "conspiracy theorist organization"? I ask because the NTSB showed in testing done prior to 9/11 that JETLINERS WILL NOT PENETRATE TO ANY APRRECIABLE DEPTH THE SURFACE OF THE MODERN SKYSCRAPER( with the possible exception of the engines). This does not say you can't fly jetliners into buildings but what it does say is that they will"splat" on the side like an over-ripe watermelon. Quite