Gosh. I wasn't expecting an essay on the subject Paul, and frankly I don't want to dwell on this either, but would you simply indulge me with a quick a 'true' or 'false' response to this: The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret, in spite of it's large scale and huge numbers of insiders who could have leaked it, over a greater length of time than would have been necessary in the case of a 9-11 cover up. The reason I think this point is worth making is that the "it would have leaked" theory seems to be the only thing that can end speculation on government cover up. Given that you don't want to spend time & energy on this, "it would have leaked" is a perfect way to quickly end such a debate. But if history has shown this not to be the case I would hope you would see the value in knowing it.

Well, let me repeat: "this is not where I personally am going to invest scarce moral and intellectual energy." Go for it...I won't be along for the ride. Somebody above (evan I think) noted how the post's main and broad political issue got lost. That's exactly what the conspriacy approach generally does in my opinion. So I guess we need a conspiracy analysis of conspiracy theories....

Yes Paul, my thoughts on a gov 9-11 conspiracy a couple of years ago was exactly as you put it: The leaks would have been inevitable. Then after reading a few chapters of 'The New Pearl Harbor' by David Ray Griffin, I had to reconsider. Griffin sited The Manhattan Project as an example of a much larger covert government project involving thousands of insiders, and was kept secret for much longer without leaks. Any thought?

Well, I said above that I doubt a full-blown government conspiracy (Griffin delineates three possible levels of possible government involvement) on 9/11 scale could have been covered up...too many folks would have had to be involved. Leaks are pervasive in the government and Seymour Hersh would have the sources for a big expose by now. I also think the likely perpetrators had means and motive. I personally had been expecting a big al Qaeda operation of some sort on NYC and/or Washington DC (I thought 9/11 was sort of mild compared to what I was expecting) since the late 1990s and didn't think there was all that much they could do stop something big from happening. If I recall correctly, Griffin's first book on 9/11 (a great read) did a decent job of mentioning some of what might be the leading problems for a conspiracy approach and I don't recall everything he said and my copy of the book is packed away somewhere. I am not a 100 percent of anything on JFK or 9/11 or black holes outside the galaxy ... This is not where I personally am going to invest scarce moral and intellectual energy. The biggest scandal is that US imperial government values world hegemony more than it does its own citizenry's safety and survival itself. If people want to go on 9/11 conspiracy hunts its their choice of course but they should be careful: it'll be a gigantic energy- and time-consuming pursuit.

Paul, I cannot say that I disagree with anything you have said in your very well written article. But to me, it still misses the mark. First, a MCorbin says, there are no reasons given why we should believe that there was no government involvement. Secondly, as you say, the power structure is such that those in power can create much benefit to their own objectives from such tragic events. But that same structure also allows the conditions upon which those same people can take but one additional small step in actually custom designing that tragic event - both planning and execution. You have said nothing that would prevent such masterminding, and by implication, you even support such a possibility. But I am open to greater understanding of those events and the evidence remaining, so if you indeed have emprical evidence to support the official government story, then I too would be most interested.

Great article Paul, thanks for the reference. I was however hoping you would comment on why you would rule out government involvement in the particular case of the 9-11 attacks. In light of how little information is know about the evnts sourrounding 9-11, I am curious to hear how anyone can be so certain.

Here is a link to a ZNet piece I did on June 6th, 2002 under the title "Misunderstanding Power: Refuting and Explaining the Popularity of Conspiracy Theories": http://sf.indymedia.org/mail.php?id=131778 Maybe I'm a little dogmatic about it all, but I'll stand by the conclusion of this article: "As when applied to other events, conspiracy theories regarding 9-11 reflect two core misunderstandings of power and how it operates in the US. The first, broadly encouraged by the American educational, political, and media establishments, holds that the US is in fact a democracy. People who accept this fairy tale - the Founding Fathers' (most of whom agreed with John Jay that "those who own the country ought to run it") and the modern business class's ultimate shared nightmare - cannot easily grasp policy outcomes that dramatically serve the interests of the few over the many. For them, the temptation is strong to see such outcomes as the product of a dark conspiracy operating behind the back and against the wishes of their elected representatives and other leaders of the society's main institutions. " "The second misunderstanding is of a different, even opposite nature. It wraps itself in an all-knowing sneer of cynicism yet holds a curiously wide-eyed and fantastic view of the masters or at least some part of the ruling class. Common among those who have been disabused of democratic myths and feel especially powerless in the face of concentrated power, it holds that dastardly elites manipulate the course of history from on high, pretty much in accordance with their own wishes. Little happens in the course of human events, some conspiracy theorists think, without the approval and intervention of an all-powerful but strangely secret elite. " "Real understanding of power is found outside these poles of illusion. Those who possess it know that the weight of dominant influence over sociopolitical decision-making and public information (mass persuasion) is rooted in historically developed structures of concentrated power, "state and private, closely inter-linked" (Chomsky). They do not conclude from this that certain select members or designated operatives of the master class have been granted limitless potency to shape history from above. History, they know, is full of remarkable developments, some inspiring --- the early phases of the Russian Revolution, the anti- Vietnam War movement, for example --- and others quite horrific (9/11 for example) from a radical-democratic perspective, that took place much to the surprise and against the wishes of the power elite. " "That elite, they are aware, possesses exceptional capacity to make unexpected and initially unwelcome developments into pretexts for the expansion of their wealth and power. In the past, for example, it turned the initially unwelcome (for the privileged) existence of the Soviet Union into a pretext for the historically unparalleled expansion of the military-industrial complex. It turned the antiwar movement, urban racial unrest, and antipoverty programs of the 1960s into pretexts for the expansion of a rigidly authoritarian criminal punishment state and workfare regime that enforces harsh class and race inequality in contemporary America. Now, with special assistance from an initially unwelcome and truly historic and evil terror attack last September, it has made the threat of terrorism into a pretext for an endless expansion of imperialism, militarism, and class privilege." "To note these outcomes, rooted in structurally encoded inequalities of ideological and policy power, however, is very different from saying that the masters have "cooked up" the developments they were able to exploit. The latter conclusion reads history through the rear view mirror and exaggerates the power and foresight of the ruling elite." "In truth, ordinary people would be fortunate if the masters of war and wealth needed to work behind or otherwise undermine the United States' leading institutions to achieve regressive and repressive policy results like those we have seen since 9-11. At the same time, we can be thankful that those masters have not become the God-like manipulators of history and consciousness, capable of creating historical events like something out of a bad X-Files episode. History lurches forward, in all its horror and glory, full of possibilities that continue to be chained and tragic consequences that remain predictable unless and until we develop and act upon an appropriate understanding of power and how it operates."

MCorbin/ Paul Under usual circumstances, I would agree with Paul in that it is pointless to pursue a subject that seems confined to the realm of crackpots. But the collapse of the WTC towers is different. And here is why, in my opinion. When a plane crashes, or a train is de-railed, or a ship sinks, or a building collapses, or a subway is bombed, or other such major events, there is a mandatory investigation by an impartial agency charged with such investigations. Here we have not one, but TWO major skyscrapers collapse after being hit by highjacked (maybe) planes, and ONE skyscraper that apparently collapsed after an office fire - all on the same day! And there was NO investigation. The only investigation that took place was a Congressional committee with the President's hand-picked chairperson and whose scope was limited to the shortcomings of the Intelligence agancies, and was specifically denied the ability to conduct a detailled investigation of the collapse of the buildings themselves. Under normal circumstances all evidence at the scene of the accident would have been frozen in place until a proper investigation could be done. Not so with the WTC. All remains were immediately removed. Even the Fire Department was amazed that this could happen. So yes, I might be a crackpot, or a follower of crackpots, or I might just be a reasonable citizen who has reasonable questions and can't get them answered because no fucking investigation was ever done.

When so few facts are known about such a critical event in the US, speculation will run rampant. Why shouldn't it? The only solution to these ongoing, "crackpot" theories, is reliable information as to what actually occurred. Paul said: "Beyond practical empirical impossibilities that make the conspiracy line on 9/11 a crackpot pursuit" I think the White House probably did not orchestrate the 9-11 attacks, but this is also speculation, due to lack of reliable facts that can prove or disprove any theory. Why are you so sure of your conclusions Paul? What are the "empirical impossibilities" you site? Forgive me if they should be obvious.

on the WTC thread, i think the larger point here is that bush et al are "daring us to do something about it" whether the conspiracy theories are right or wrong. further, it's unlikely that such a large-scale cover-up is possible, but--more importantly, if you want *this* to be what's important--it's even more unlikely that you can do *enough* homework to prove such a cover-up occurred. in light of that, step back for a second... the tragedy of 9/11 *was* exploited, conspiracy theories be damned [crucially, it was exploited in a way that falls right in line with the systematic oppression that's been going on since long before 9/11]. did the bush administration "let" 9/11 happen? i don't know, but they certainly "let" the war on iraq happen. they "let" themselves roll back civil liberties, attack the environment, etc etc etc. drop the quotes, they *let* many people die in new orleans. there are so many things right out in the open to be outraged about. why spend so much energy lurking in the shadows of conspiracies regarding 9/11, JFK, UFOs, etc? even if gw got some guy to fly a plane into the WTC (which he pretty certainly didn't), it wouldn't be any worse than what we all watched happen with katrina, iraq, etc. our battles are right here to be fought, we should fight them rather than chase mysteries.

VWood there's no ad hominim in my comment. None. I am not singling out you or any other individual. Very smart people often fall for what I consider to be a crackpot approach to certain events. I simply happen to think that pursuing a conspiracy line on 9/11 is a waste of time and a black hole and generally also a way of avoiding substantive issues that are best addressed through a power structure approach. You or anyone else are obviously free to spend however much time, intellectual energy, and ink or movable type as you want on conspiracy narratives (in relation to the towers, in relation to the Pentagon, in relation to the PA flight, ...)in relation to 9/11 and I have no illusion about closing off others' avenues of inquiry. I read David Ray Griffin's first book on this and found it very entertaining and provocative. Empirically my main issue is that there's no way they could have covered up a conspiracy that would have been as big as 9/11 would have required. There's more but the conversation is just a black hole that rapidly loses interest to me at least. I wish American democracy was strong enough that conspiracies were required for the power elite to carry out things like the invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act, etc. Sadly, this is not the case. They don't need grandiose conspiracies and serious analysis of existing social relations, ideologies, and institutions tells us why.

Paul I think you are essentially incorrect both when you seem to imply through an ad hominem attack that anyone seriously questioning the reasons behind the demise of the WTC buildings is a crackpot (or a follower of crackpots?), and when you state that the political and power structures in place are not capable of mass manipulation by people in high places. Neither of these statements are true, in my opinion. There are some excellent questions being posed by many of these "crackpots", and to simply diss them with a wave of your hand tells me something about your intellectual openness. There are many questions. They haven't been answered - even by the "experts". There are laws in place that forbid military/intelligence psyops from being used against our own people. These laws were not put into place lightly. The power of psyops are well-proven and rest upon a solid scientific and psychological base. (Even left leaning intellectuals are at risk... :-)) I believe that Bush considers himself above those laws.

VWood you constructed a bigger narrative than relates to my single-sentence comment. Your first comment suggests certainty on 9/11 as a conspiracy involving Bush administration. Your next comment has you "wondering." My suggestion is leave the wondering to others..it's a black hole like the JFK thing and UFOs...a terrible and horrible diversion. Beyond practical empirical impossibilities that make the conspiracy line on 9/11 a crackpot pursuit, the big problem with such wondering is that it drastically underestimates the capacity of the elite to implement terrible policies basically through the normal daily operation of the standard authoritarian political and power structures. Serious analysis of those structtures tends to crush conspiracy-based explanations.

We all (even you, Paul) try to obtain some understanding of why things happen, who makes them happen, and why. If this is the promotion of "conspiracy theory", fine - then I freely admit to such a position. But so should you. The word "Conspiracy" should not be an emotive word. Whenever two or more people together plan and execute some defined action, they are said to conspire. It's only when we begin to draw irrational conclusions based upon fantasy that we should be considered "consiracy theorists", an unfortunate term that seems to justify preemptive ad hominem attacks on those who search for truth. In the event of the WTC and the events surrounding that, there are, in my opinion, legitimate questions remaining that might never be answered, but which beg for answers. And there are unanswered questions as to how Bush used the WTC event to provide fodder for invading Iraq. These issues, and more, require "conspiracy" at the highest levels of government and industry. Anytime you ascribe hidden motive to an act of our government or industry, you are, in effect, supporting a conspiracy theory of some kind, whether you might want to admit that or not. So I am not at all ashamed to admit to wondering if a conspiracy, as incredible as it sounds, took place within the highest levels of our military, government and industry to put our country on a permanent war footing that likely would not have happened otherwise without the support of the American people.

I don't do the conspiracy thing on 9/11 (sorry). See Salim M.'s latest reflections (probably by now with some pro-conspiracy reader commentary) at In These Times: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2444/

If Bush & Co. do not get their way with the Patriot Act, don't be surprised when the US suffers another planned WTC-style attack upon a major population center. The Administration got the original Patriot Act passed by that means. He and Cheney won't hesitate to do it again if it means they can succeed in placing the entire US under permanent marshall law. I believe that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the WTC buildings collapsed not from airplane impact but from a well-planned demolition. The motive, the opportunity, the ability to execute and the benefits from such a venture could only have come from one source - and it wasn't the Al Qaeda. Yes, Bush and Co. are pushing beyond the edge and will continue to do so.