9/11 theorists. Conspiracies of dunces

From Douglas Rushkoff

I believe that 9-11 theorizing debilitates the counterculture. It robs us of some potentially creative thinkers. It replaces truly important questions with trivial ones. It marginalizes more constructive investigation of American participation in the development of Al Qaeda as well as its subsequent aggravation.

And that’s where I suspect all this theorizing really takes us: to the heart of a racist jingoism worse even than the triumphalism justifying our foreign policy to begin with. They can’t bring themselves to accept that our big bad government can really be so swiftly outfoxed by a dozen relatively untrained Arab guys.

Which of course is exactly what 4th Generation Warfare is, a tiny opposition inflicting major damage on a much larger, vastly more powerful foe. Military theorists familiar with 4GW have no problem understanding how twelve people could do a 9/11 attack.

The 9/11 conspiracists take a few discrepancies in the accounts of the attacks then make a huge and unsupportable leap into saying a multitude of US government officials must have known and planned this in advance. Yet they offer zero proof of any actual complicity. Further, their assumption posits that the Bush Administration is highly competent, yet, as Rushkoff points out, the Bushies can’t even fire a few lawyers without tripping over their own feet.

By looking under the rug for what isn’t even there, we neglect the horror show that is in plain view. In the process, we make it even easier for the criminals running our government to perpetuate their illegal, unethical and un-American activities.


  1. This is a pathetic mess of an attempt. Almost every sentence contains a lie or a distortion, strung together with juvenile reasoning. Keep sucking your thumb while the rest of the country wakes up to the awful truth.

  2. And those lies and distortions are…?

  3. Daniel Rivera-Franqui

    As always, these conspiracy morons cannot offer an ounce of evidence. Even if they could travel back in time and be proven wrong by being at the places of the events, they still wouldn’t believe it. They won’t accept any truth other than their own, even if reality smacked them in the face… pathetic!

    Yet, most don’t put their efforts into something that CAN be proven and is in plain sight: The W administration led us to war based on pure lies, they’d be a hundred times more prosecutable for that than any story they might come up with.

    Bob, don’t waste your time with these morons…

  4. The problem with arguing with 9-11 conspiracy people like “obvious inside job” is that they’ve been studying all these ludicrous details and “facts” and most of us haven’t. But you don’t need to look at the case from the bottom up (the detailed facts); look at it from the top down.

    9-11 conspiracy people make a big deal about Building 7. OK, answer this – why on earth was Bulding 7 “blown up”? Did someone think that the American people wouldn’t be sufficiently riled up to go to war after only Buildings 1 and 2 fell, so they needed that extra “icing on the cake” of Building 7? For that matter, why Buildings 1 and 2; surely blowing up one of them would have been enough to initiate the “national security state.” And every additional building that was “rigged” to blow up means more people involved, more time, more risk of exposure of the “plot,” and so on. There is no way an actual “inside job” would have decided to blow up three buildings, it’s preposterous.

    One more “big picture” question: it wasn’t a plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile? Simple question: where was it fired from (and who fired it)?

  5. I think it’s a mistake to lump everyone who questions the official story as a conspiracy nut. It’s obvious that some people have made some rather wild allegations and assumptions regarding 9/11 with little or no evidence to back them up. At the same time, we do know that prior to 9/11 no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire and yet on 9/11 three such buildings fell. And, remember, the official story is that the fires, not the planes, brought those buildings down. Moreover, a well known physicist from BYU has explained in detail why the official story defies the laws of physics.

    All I’m saying is the official story doesn’t hold water. And I don’t think it’s very hard to believe that our government might actually use a “commission” to white wash an event like 9/11. It’s happened many times in the past.

    It’s been made pretty clear that any and all evidence regarding Saudi Arabia has been kept from public view. Is it that hard to believe there are other things they have hidden from us?

    At the end of the day I don’t think it’s something that needs a whole lot of time and energy devoted to it and much of the speculation, I would agree, is counter productive to affecting real change and building lasting movements towards peace and social justice. At the same time, I think it’s a good idea to be mindful of the fact that governments do lie and that they probably did quite a bit of lying in regards to 9/11.

    I’m just asking that you not pigeon-hole me into some conspiracy nut category because I don’t accept government dogma as the gospel.



  6. Dave, the Saudi link may well be why the Bushies want no mention of any of this, since they’re supposed to U.S. allies and all that.

    But the 9/11 theorists offer no links, no evidence that I can see that the neocons did 9/11.

  7. The point I was trying to make is simply that not all of us who find the official account of 9/11 untrustworthy do not immediately jump to the conclusion that Bush ordered the destruction of the towers. I would recommend checking out Steven E. Jones from BYU. He’s a physicist and points out why the “official” story doesn’t pan out.


  8. Popular Mechanics did a 192 page rebuttal on the conspiracy theories, including.

    “Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.”

    Even if the unsupportable claim is made that one of the towers was wired for explosives, 9/11 theorists offer no evidence that neocons were responsible. None.

Comments are closed.