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: Wild Conspiracies and Rational Concerns
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Why McCain and the GOP Are So Afraid of Discussing the Economy
Frances Moore Lappe
Democracy and Elections:
Seven Ways Your Vote Might Not Count This November
Steven Rosenfeld
DrugReporter:
Obama's Biden Pick Signals 'More of the Same' Stupid Drug Policies
Paul Armentano
Election 2008:
The GOP Has Turned a Major Election into an Episode of the Mommy Wars
Judith Warner
Environment:
Boatloads of Trouble: How We Are Importing Our Way to Destruction
Stan Cox
ForeignPolicy:
The Bush Administration Checkmated in Georgia
Michael T. Klare
Health and Wellness:
Hospitals' Lessons From Hurricane Gustav
Sheri Fink
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
Leader of Anti-Immigration Movement Calls Issue a "Skirmish in a Wider War"
Eric Ward
Media and Technology:
Only in America Could a Two-Faced Creature Like McCain Attain Such Media Status
Rory O'Connor
Movie Mix:
Does "Working Girls" Still Work?
Ariel Dougherty
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Rutgers Center Helps Women Enter Politics
Alison Bowen
Rights and Liberties:
On Top of Jail Time, Prisoners Now Face Fees and Surcharges
Emily Jane Goodman
Sex and Relationships:
What Republicans Can Learn from "Gossip Girl"
Sarah Seltzer
War on Iraq:
One Fifth of Iraq Funding Goes to Private Contractors
Willam Fisher
Water:
Is California on the Brink of Environmental Collapse?
Rachel Olivieri
According to a recent Zogby poll, less than half of all Americans agree that "the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about U.S. government involvement is nonsense."
You could almost hear a wail of frustration rising up from the gatekeepers of acceptable discourse.
Just after the Zogby poll was released, William Arkin, the Washington Post's normally circumspect military affairs columnist, had a fit of apoplexy over some e-mail from 9/11 skeptics. "National security is men's work," he wrote -- absurdly bringing gender politics into a debate that's already quite muddled -- and conspiracy theorists are, presumably, not real men, but "predatory and devious, seekers of polarization and not light, abusive of the political system [and] contemptuous of anything that even resembles the 'truth.'"
One wonders what he really thinks.
Outside of the world of punditry, the 9/11 conspiracies should come as no surprise, especially when you consider how ripe the events of 9/11 are for "alternative" analysis.
That begins with the basic premise that underlies the most common conspiracy theories. I, for one, have no problem accepting the notion that a small group of true believers -- people like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the neocon "cabal" -- used the attacks of 9/11 to seize and consolidate power. And I'm comfortable accepting that they view liberal democracy as a threat, their political opponents as a national weakness, and American militarism as the best hope for humanity.
They've proved, to my mind, that they're happiest when governing in secrecy -- a prerequisite for a conspiracy. Think about the administration's obsession with classifying everything under the sun, or Dick Cheney going all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid divulging who, exactly, crafted America's energy policy.
The administration's hardliners also represent a nexus between the more authoritarian end of our political spectrum and the anti-egalitarian business Right; the administration and its backers, allies and former partners are making an unprecedented fortune in all corners of the "war on terror," and that goes to motive.
It's a group of ideologues that knows its prescriptions aren't popular. The Project for a New American Century, where a "White House in waiting" of hard-right operatives weathered the Clinton years, urged a massive "rebuilding" of America's military capabilities (PDF), but warned that it wouldn't be easy unless there was a major attack on the American homeland. "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor," they wrote.
And while Arkin might consider the preceding paragraph evidence of the most "predatory and devious" kind of fringe thinking, I’d say it’s simply naïve to dismiss the many occasions in history when exaggerated or false external threats were used to rally a nation to a war footing (and abridge civil rights at home) -- from the explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor to the Reichstag fire to the Gulf of Tonkin.
So you have suspects and motive, and they accord more or less with some distinctly mainstream progressive analyses. That's not, however, evidence of anything. So, to repeat, while there's a pretty clear record of Bush Republicans taking advantage of 9/11 - think Rudy Giuliani's 2004 GOP convention speech that mentioned September 11 four score times - there's nothing concrete to suggest that they were behind it.
Indeed the place to start considering the events behind 9/11 is to look at the federal government's official version of what happened and see if it's accurate. If there are holes or serious flaws -- and there are -- then we should try to get an accurate version of what happened and proceed from there.
Let's start with a simple fundamental problem with the 9/11 report:
We may not know who all the hijackers really were.
Three days after the attack, the FBI released the names of those infamous 19 hijackers (photos here).
But the following was reported, not on some fringe website, but by the BBC on Sept. 23:
Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »