VIEW Recent Articles
Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

Another Contemptuous Columnist ODs on 9/11 Junk Food for Thought

CleanPrintBtn gray smallPdfBtn gray smallEmailBtn gray small

’9/11 Truth’ Movement: Just Weird to Completely Insane

Commentary

by Paul C. Campos

Scripps News Service

July 18, 2006

Editor’s Note:
Instructive look into the recently 9/11-jostled mind of a bright but clueless liberal facing the wild Internet bazaar of “9/11 truths”. His logical revulsion at holograms, satanists, passenger consolidation, etc. is expected and reasonable, and he does seem to want to sort hypotheses in a somewhat rational way (at least one that coincides with his own timid preconceptions and doesn’t require any tedious research to sustain). Especially interesting is his concluding meditation on 9/11 scepticism’s enduring media invisibility and how the right might have changed all that if Gore was president on that day.

Recently I wrote a column that included an offhand comment about how I was pretty sure people who believed the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 terror attacks were pathetic lunatics living in basements whose Web sites got 10 hits per day. I’ve since heard from many such people, assuring me that they don’t live in basements, that they aren’t crazy and that their Web sites are very popular.

I was also encouraged to check out the “9/11 Truth” movement, for what I was assured was conclusive evidence of an unspeakably evil government plot. Having done so, I’ve discovered a number of interesting things.

First, the 9/11 Truth movement features a wide variety of claims, ranging from the quite plausible (the government’s negligence prior to the attacks was not wholly displeasing to certain members of the Bush administration), to the wildly improbable (the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions), to the certifiably insane.

The latter category includes claims such as that 9/11 was a plot to steal $160 billion in gold buried under the WTC (this theory is put forth in the film “Loose Change,” which has purportedly sold 100,000 DVD copies); that no airplanes hit the towers (the theory here involves sophisticated holographic imaging equipment); and that the passengers supposedly killed on the four flights hijacked that day were all herded onto United Airlines Flight 93, which landed safely in Cleveland before the passengers were transferred to a top-secret NASA facility.

If you’re curious, you can also find plenty of stuff about how it was all really the work of Satanists, or an elite secret society that was set up several thousand years ago by space aliens. (A morbidly amusing sidelight to the 9/11 Truth movement is that many of its members have become convinced that other members are either unwitting dupes or conscious agents of the government, who are propagating obviously outlandish theories for the purpose of discrediting the movement as a whole.)

Anyway, in a couple of respects my comment was clearly wrong: 9/11 conspiracy theories have gained quite a bit of cultural traction, and they’ve garnered a number of at least superficially respectable advocates. (This group includes people like Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant treasury secretary and Wall Street Journal associate editor; Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor.)

Indeed, the most noteworthy aspect of the movement is its almost-complete invisibility in the mainstream media. For example, my own ignorance can be explained by such facts as that, as far as I could discover, The New York Times has run exactly one story that even mentions the movement’s central claim: that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition (the story immediately dismissed this as absurd).

Which leads me to suggest a little theory of my own: Suppose that on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Gore had been president. Suppose further that Saddam Hussein had plotted to kill Gore’s father. And suppose that from the first days of the Gore administration, plans had been drawn up to invade Iraq. My guess is that, within a few months, some of the less obviously crazy 9/11 Truth types would have found a forum for their theories on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. The more unhinged advocates would start popping up on Fox News specials with titles such as “9/11: What Really Happened?” In the blogosphere, academics like Glenn Reynolds would post chin-scratching ruminations, demanding a “truly independent investigation of these troubling charges,” which would in turn inspire demagogues of the Michelle Malkin variety to screech nonstop about “the biggest cover-up in American history.”

All this would bully journalists into writing “balanced” stories about even the nuttiest allegations, in an attempt to counter right-wing charges regarding how “liberal media bias” was keeping such allegations from getting the serious attention they deserved. And, eventually, 38 percent of the public would believe Al Gore blew up the World Trade Center. How’s that for a conspiracy theory?

End
Source article here.


Fair Use Notice

This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.