OpEdNews.com vs. 9/11: The Roots of Paranoia in the Nation Magazine

Coverage of 9/11 Truth in The Nation

by Josh Mitteldorf


My print copy of The Nation just arrived, with a cover story on 9/11. In sharp contrast to its skimpy, disdainful coverage of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the past, the oldest, most respected progressive journal in America no longer ridicules or dismisses the movement. The title ("roots of paranoia") implies that skeptics of the government account are deluded, but have at least a reason to be skeptical. The article begins by noting that 1/3 of Americans believe the Federal Administration was complicit in staging 9/11, but then proceeds as if readers of The Nation were all in the other 2/3 (though, in fact, we might expect skeptics of the official account to be substantially over-represented among readership). It concludes by acknowledging that there is something worth investigating, while curiously stopping short of a demand for an investigation.

The article is written by an English professor, and its greatest logical pitfall is a misunderstanding of how science works. Hayes dismisses as "physical minutiae" the scientific demonstration that the official version of events was physically impossible in its broad outline. The central fact is that the way in which the Twin Towers fell - sudden, symmetric, with a rapidity that implies zero structural resistance - is not consistent with airplane impact or localized fires. Most readers of Op-Ed News know that there was a third tower that fell in the same way, looking to all the world like controlled demolition, and for which no official explanation has even been proposed.

Activists in this area will want to seize this crack in The Nation's shameful complicity in cover-up of the 9/11 story, and express their views both to The Nation and to Dr Hayes. Letters to the Nation can be submitted here. Christopher Hayes maintains a blog at http://www.chrishayes.org/. His email is christopherlhayes@gmail.com


9/11: The Roots of Paranoia
Christopher Hayes

According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East. This is at once alarming and unsurprising. Alarming, because if tens of millions of Americans really believe their government was complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens, they seem remarkably sanguine about this fact. By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers. Unsurprising, because the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding?

This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. As these theories--propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement--seep toward the edges of the mainstream, they have raised the specter of the return (if it ever left) of what Richard Hofstadter famously described as "the paranoid style in American politics." But the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders.

The Truth Movement's recent growth can be largely attributed to the Internet-distributed documentary Loose Change. A low-budget film produced by two 20-somethings that purports to debunk the official story of 9/11, it's been viewed over the Internet millions of times. Complementing Loose Change are the more highbrow offerings of a handful of writers and scholars, many of whom are associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Two of these academics, retired theologian David Ray Griffin and retired Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, have written books and articles that serve as the movement's canon. Videos of their lectures circulate among the burgeoning portions of the Internet devoted to the cause of the "truthers." A variety of groups have chapters across the country and organize conferences that draw hundreds. In the last election cycle, the website www.911truth.org even produced a questionnaire with pointed inquiries for candidates, just like the US Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club. The Truth Movement's relationship to the truth may be tenuous, but that it is a movement is no longer in doubt.

Truth activists often maintain they are simply "raising questions," and as such tend to focus with dogged persistence on physical minutiae: the lampposts near the Pentagon that should have been knocked down by Flight 77, the altitude in Pennsylvania at which cellphones on Flight 93 should have stopped working, the temperature at which jet fuel burns and at which steel melts. They then use these perceived inconsistencies to argue that the central events of 9/11--the plane hitting the Pentagon, the towers collapsing--were not what they appeared to be. So: The eyewitness accounts of those who heard explosions in the World Trade Center, combined with the facts that jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,500, shows that the towers were brought down by controlled explosions from inside the buildings, not by the planes crashing into them.

If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.

To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the US government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist. That fact changes little about the Nazi regime, or its use of the fire for its own ends. It's true the Nazis were the chief beneficiaries of the fire, but that doesn't mean they started it, and the same goes for the Bush Administration and 9/11.

The Reichstag example also holds a lesson for those who would dismiss the very notion of a conspiracy as necessarily absurd. It was perfectly reasonable to suspect the Nazis of setting the fire, so long as the evidence suggested that might have been the case. The problem isn't with conspiracy theories as such; the problem is continuing to assert the existence of a conspiracy even after the evidence shows it to be virtually impossible.

In March 2005 Popular Mechanics assembled a team of engineers, physicists, flight experts and the like to critically examine some of the Truth Movement's most common claims. They found them almost entirely without merit. To pick just one example, steel might not melt at 1,500 degrees, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, but it does begin to lose a lot of its strength, enough to cause the support beams to fail.

And yet no amount of debunking seems to work. The Internet empowers people with esoteric interests to spend all kinds of time pursuing their hobbies, and if the Truth Movement was the political equivalent of Lord of the Rings fan fiction or furries, there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention. But the public opinion trend lines are moving in the truthers' direction, even after the official 9/11 Commission report was supposed to settle the matter once and for all.

Of course, the commission report was something of a whitewash--Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice about Al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report.

Here is a quote from the


This article by Chritopher Hayes is the usual twisted garbage reasoning of those who want to continue to put down the 9-11 truth movement but pretend that is not really what they are doing.

The only positive thing this writer said about the 9-11 Truth movement was the fact that it is indeed "a movement."

Then he goes on to hurl the "conspiracy theorist" epithet as well as "paranoid theorists" and refers to the "delusion" of the movement.

I am thankful for Dr. James Fetzer's jumping on these magazine and newspaper articles right away and pointing out their faulty reasoning.

Dr. Fetzer wrote a letter to the editor as well as published his excellent rebuttal of this article and it is in the "responding to" area of st911.org.

The title of Dr. Fetzer's article is...

"Rathional Beliefs are Not Paranoid"

"Since a conspiracy only requires collaboration between two or more persons to commit a crime, the official account clearly involved a conspiracy. If belief in conspiracies is enough to qualify as "paranoid", then the highest officials of our government should be escorted to homes for the mentally bewildered, since they have been propounding a conspiracy theory even prior to investigation. "

'Blessings from Dachsie in Austin.