Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Letters > Letters

The 9/11 conspiracy is about more than just the forensic evidence

Within the US, this ninth anniversary of 9/11  has been more heated, at least in terms of media focus, than all the others combined. This is happening as the US begins its pullback from Iraq, and at least begins to talk about a pullback from Afghanistan.

Amidst all this, there are still conspiracy theorists who question the details surrounding the physical events of 9/11. A trawl through YouTube presents questions about the rate of fall of the twin towers, about why building 7 had to collapse at all, and whether there was thermite residue, why were the steel beams immediately carted away etc.

These conspiracy theorists may never get an official, final, investigation to their satisfaction. Irrespective of the plausibility or implausibility of the forensic evidence surrounding 9/11, we can certainly rationally question the degree of "surprise" that 9/11 presented to the highest levels of the executive branch of our government.

The question we can ask is: IF the direct response to 9/11 was so venal and so cynical, then it's plausible to question the veracity of the "surprise" of 9/11 itself.

Nine years on, most people conclude that the two very costly wars that were initiated as a direct consequence of 9/11 have not objectively made the world any safer, even though so much treasure has been expended.

In fact, the 2003 Iraq war merely culminated a pseudo state of war (punitive sanctions) that had been dragging on over the entire prior decade. It was the stale culmination of well-known, prior, US geo-strategic intents.

Then there is the Afghan war, whose "results" are yet to be determined over eight years after the start of conflict. Data released by WikiLeaks shows that the number of violent engagements with the enemy have in fact been increasing as US troops have remained in that country, starting from a very low baseline level.

If the executive branch was really surprised and hurt by 9/11, why would they present a response that blamed an old boogeyman? The fact that they did do this, in the face of violent new information, then what does it say about them? (Remember the old definition of madness: "you react the same to all stimuli"?)  Why has the Afghan war not borne any fruit. Why have we never caught Osama bin Laden? Was the war ever intended to bear fruit?

Even in the absence of a resolution of conspiracies about the forensics, these questions cast the "top" decision makers in government in a light as negative as the original forensic conspiracy theories.

And how interesting, that the internal rhetoric in the US is peaking just as we start to wind down our two conflicts.

Kiers Soni

New York, NY

Sep 11 2010 - 11:25pm