AlterNet Covers 9/11 'Wild Conspiracies' versus 'Rational Concerns'

9/11: Wild Conspiracies and Rational Concerns - AlterNet

Even when you cut through the conspiracy theories about 9/11 and head straight for the facts, the government's version still seems fuzzy.

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.
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.
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.
Having taken a long bath in the world of 9/11 conspiracism, I still think the most likely scenario is that the Bush administration was obsessed with rival powers -- Russia and China -- and ignored the terror issue. After the attacks, the security agencies were under enormous, unrelenting pressure to show Americans they were in control and they needed to show that they were on top of the investigation at all costs. These things would certainly require sanitizing in the 9/11 report and other official narratives for the sake of expediency and creating the appearance that the government was on the job.

Having said that, I'd also be receptive to evidence that the Bush administration had a far greater degree of knowledge about the how and why of the attacks, and looked the other way and let them happen. All I'd need to buy that would be a bit of evidence. After all, we've recently learned in a report published on AlterNet that New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who had a direct link to the most powerful office in Washington (Dick Cheney's), said she had been warned of a terrorist attack.

Be sure to swing by and send in some reasonable feedback to Joshua Holland, one of the few bloggers in the liberal blogad ring to even discuss the subject.

Thanks Scott and Ray for the heads up!

so the only way a jackass

so the only way a jackass like this will believe anything is if it comes from someone like Judy Miller and The New York Times? anyone else see the irony in that?

and whats up with

and whats up with this?:Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone that participated.


Radom article: "45% Doubt

Chris- Some people just


Some people just refuse to consider the possibility... I mean if true, it would change the world as we know it. (I think for the better, if we can stop these elitist fucks)

i know, i just find it

i know, i just find it utterly hilarious that the guy who wrote that piece made the comment that Judy Miller said she knew about an impending terror attack before 9/11. the same Judy Miller that parroted the WMD lies.the same New York Times that printed the Chalabi lies. friggin hilarious.

bleh, that comment is pretty

bleh, that comment is pretty general...

but goddamn closing the comments! wtf!!! how long were they open for? that's just ridiculous.

Yeah when i heard that Judy

Yeah when i heard that Judy Miller said that i'm like "great, she's a credible journalist"...

i wish these "bloggers" + "journalists" would actually do the research. People making comments are always more informed.

It dawned on me today that

It dawned on me today that more adults think 9/11 may have been an inside job than voted for Bush.

I'm glad to see that you are

I'm glad to see that you are reporting the Alternet story. People here at 911Blogger need to visit that site on a regular basis, because they seem to have a 9/11-related story (even if it is only loosely related) at least once every two or three weeks (or maybe even every week or two). Search their archives to see what I mean. None of those stories have taken the side of the truth movement, but they always provide their readers with a great "alternative mainstream" forum in which to try to set the record straight, and, unlike the losers at Crooks & Liars (among others), they allow us to say whatever we please. That's why I've been pestering people here in recent weeks to check out those Alternet stories. Even as it stands, the majority of their regular commenting readers seem to be truthers, which is very encouraging.

As for their shutting down the comments to this particular story, that's quite unusual; however, as a regular Alternet reader, I can assure you that it is extremely unusual for any of their stories to get 414 comments, as this one did (before they shut it down). That may be approaching past record levels, which says a lot about the desire of the American people to expose the lies. The total number of comments to that article might well have been in the 600s to 800s by now if they hadn't shut it down. Is it possible that they were finally feeling a little overwhelmed by the amount of opposition to their official position? ;-)

There are a lot of really

There are a lot of really intelligent and well thought out comments supporting new investigation of 9-11. I think they probably shut down the thread due to bandwidth issues.

I think we should be happy with the direction of the movement. People are getting exposed to new ideas and alternative interpretations of events.

The media is finding it harder and harder to ignore/belittle those asking the questions. The Coulter attacks come to mind also as shills try to cover the tracks left by what is so obviously a false flag operation.

NPR is discussing the religious aspect of the arrests in Canada at the moment, and I have to really pay attention to get through all the BS and turn off the 9-11 "official story" filter.

I agree with the possibility

I agree with the possibility of the bandwidth limit. I was contemplating such a possibility, too, while I wrote the previous comment, but I'm not a bandwidth expert, so I deleted it and went with (poorly attempted) humor instead.

That guy clearly has some

That guy clearly has some catching up to do. How about the fact that buildings 1,2 and 7 were turned into powder.