portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

9.11 investigation

The Irony of 9-11 "Conspiracy" Theories

What I find amusing behind all the theories of what happened on 9/11/01 is that ironically, it's the so-called "mainstream" theory that actually has the most revolutionary implications.
You see, if it was some sort of a deliberate inside job by a corrupt government,[1] then it's possible for a less-corrupt government to have prevented it. A plausible case for piecemeal reformism can easily be built. Just elect folks that don't consciously choose to target their own citizenry.

But if it's an emergent property that happened despite the wishes of anyone in that power structure, as a result of players acting on their own short-term greed and the desire to string the system along (such as, say, by refusing to follow up on intelligence leads because they fingered too may Saudis and worsening ties with the House of Saud might cause oil supply disruptions), then it's the whole system itself that's driving things to hell in a handbasket.

Putting more honest folks in positions of power can't fix things because the system itself constrains its leaders in ways to make them powerless to stop the inevitable from happening. Anyone political party that locked horns with the Saudis would quickly find itself the enemy of the ruling class and out of power. The public -- brainwashed into obedience and consumerism by the ruling elite -- would likewise be up in arms over no longer being able to drive their SUV's whenever and wherever they wanted.

Given this weak point in the system, it was only a matter of time until those who wished to destabilize it in the name of promoting their own ruling elite discovered the weak point and exploited it. In fact, there's even a quasi-evolutionary process at work here: terrorist groups exploiting those of their allies that can easily be brought into line by the US tend to be crushed out, while those who exploit allies who can't be brought into line tend to grow and spread.

And given the ugliness of neo-imperialism and how many people it hurts, it's inevitable that some of those hurt feel motivated to fight it. And, to reiterate, it's not possible -- absent radical change -- for the nations practicing imperialism to repudiate it. Wanting the bourgeois state to not be imperialist is like wanting water to not be wet.

It doesn't matter who's in the seats of power, what they want, or how honest they want to be. Absent radical change, the system is sure to simply produce more of the same.

[And that's all for now. More pressing things than on-line back-and-forths demand my attention.]

[1] And I know many of you think I'm the antichrist or something because I don't buy into such theories.

address: address: Portland

Great theory, except for one little thing... 03.Jun.2005 21:25


The events of 9/11 themselves. They absolutely don't fit the official explanation. Therefore, neither does your theory.

Response 03.Jun.2005 23:23

Black Rain

I totally agree with you expat. But there are various groups out there with different agendas exploiting the 911 cover up for their own agendas. Currently and possibly the most prominent is the American Far Right. They couldn't care less all those people died. They're just using 911 as propaganda and 911 and the Bush administration's response to it has provided them good fodder. The Far Right doesn't care about the discrepanies or whether their propaganda is right or wrong. They have an agenda and the is to get in the Whitehouse in 2008. They've hoping the corrupt, murderous, and incompence of the Bush administration will only get worse in the next four years and considering what a moronic administation it is they might get their wish. The Bush administration is increasingly opening the gates for a fascist government. And if you think Bush was bad you haven't possibly seen anything yet.

Black Rain

Succinct questions 04.Jun.2005 00:00

Yumi-Chan Cat

Well put, I completely agree. And the BASICS of the official story do indeed match the events (as opposed to everything in it, such as the administration's lies to cover their own incompetence, or even an intent to let it happen, I'll grant that as plausible). Many of the conspiracy theories, though CONCEIVABLY true, tend to emphasize "bad guys" rather than systems of oppression, an analysis of which would entail more historical knowlege, let alone critical thought, than is presently displayed by many of the 9/11 "Truth" (tm) people.

And even if someone reading this still believes it was an inside job - and they are entitled to that opinion - they should welcome the criticism of their own movement since they can use it to strengthen their own position, in the true sense. That many of them simply dogmatically reject criticism is the precise reason why that criticism is necessary.

That legitimate questions have yet to be answered regarding the events of Sepember 11th (I readily admit that) obscures the fact that the "Truth" Movement (tm) is a cult in the making.

Furthermore... 04.Jun.2005 00:14

Yumi-Chan Cat

I also agree with Black Rain that if folks think it's bad now (which it is), just wait until the shit REALLY hits the fan. Think the empire's military capacity is overstretched, for example? Well look at this: during WWII the US had TWELVE MILLION under arms, as compared to the current 3 million, despite the country having less than half of today's total population. Just wait until (if) they impose a draft. Does antone think indymedia, for instance, would even EXIST, let alone those of us who post on it, if the US was truly totalitarian?

This isn't meant to explain the current danger away, but PRECISELY to explain that danger's relevance.

sorry folks... 04.Jun.2005 05:58

this thing here

... but i've "been" won over by the trolls. it is now "clear" to me that the most revolutionary and progressive position to take regarding 9-11 is to agree completely with the bush administration's version of events. we must get out on the streets and tell the world that the bush administration is "right". "yes", as should be "clear" to everyone now, that makes so much "sense"....

The 04.Jun.2005 06:21

love terrorist

1] And I know many of you think I'm the antichrist or something because I don't buy into such theories.

Don't flatter yourself, you just sound creepy to me. I don't think your the anti-christ, I just think that you feel powerless, so to overcome that feeling of powerlessness you will intellectually flatulate whatever fits the fluff, some turn to a "higher power".

"If the theory don't fit, you must admit." But by all means, continue to replace what is known, with alternative theories to fit your dissonance. I think the sun will still come up tomorrow though.

Reminds me of the fox that jumped for those grapes all day, finally, when the fox couldn't get them, the fox said, "well, I didn't want those anyway, they're probably sour"

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself", said JFK, wich reminds me, he was the guy that decided not to pull operation northwoods.

Don't be afraid, if there is another terrorist attack, it's the administrations fault. Psychological warfare is meant to confuse, misdirect, INSTILL FEAR.

In either case, "bad guys"(whomever you think they are), KNOW THIS. That's what terrorism is meant for. Why do you let the "terrorists" scare you? Because you feel powerless. So you create a theory that will justify, "more security", "less rights", and anything but confronting the big lie.

But that's just another theory, don't take it personal.
Fascism Sucks
Fascism Sucks

irony 04.Jun.2005 10:30


"...the irony...the irony.." ... Kurtz in Apocalypse Now

All you have to do is read the cover-up report 04.Jun.2005 11:26


The cover-up report is so packed with falsities that it implicates itself. David Ray Griffin's Ommissions and Distortions exposes it all. No real irony there.

Correction 04.Jun.2005 11:28

Yumi-Chan Cat

Yo, love terrorist, it was FDR that said that "nothing to fear" line.... not JFK

oops 04.Jun.2005 12:16

love terrorist

always messin up with 3 letter presidents & mlk to, wish he was around

no theory 04.Jun.2005 15:41


Pre 9-11, the big news was enron and bushit and cheney's links to it. 9-11 made that go away for long enough to sweep their involvement under a rug. Who died in the twin towers?? Hundreds of stockbrokers that's who. Screaming witnesses they'd have been.
My theory: Had it been foreign instead of domestic terrorists, they'd have hit the statue of liberty or wall street, and the white house instead of an unused part of the pentagon.

Beware of those who beat a steady drum and are "flooders" 04.Jun.2005 17:53

Black Rain

In order to protect the confidentiality and privacy of this one person (or perhaps several using the same email address) I will refuse to name names. That is really unimportant and not germane anyway to this post. Suffice to say the Far Right has been actively engaged in this and other cells may as well. However, I'm focusing on the Far Right because they represent the greatest possible threat to the 911 truth seeking movement and potentially to our society should they ever rise to power. Be aware, as most of you already are, the Far Right has powerful and wealthy people which have injected themselves into the 911 truth seeking movement purely for purposes of exploitation.

Now comes the interesting part. The Far Right in flooding certain Yahoo Groups and individuals, including myself and perhaps you, posts some articles and links which are legitimate and raise questions about the 911 attacks and the current administration's policies. Other articles are blatantly absurd in their absoluteness and others are on spying, the elections process, etc.

Given a recent history of the U.S. government it is easy to bash it. For example, what is this about the U.S. Supreme Court deciding who is president? Irrespective of the results of that election this shows something really went a miss. Why was President George W.B. Bush re-elected over Kerry? One can surmise the American people are largely scared ignorant sheeple and that the Far Right saw him as a better alternative for their future purposes. Or, as the Far Right would have you believe the voting is rigged. In some places this may be the case but not the entire country. Unfortunately, I think the majority of Americans support President Bush. This can possibly be seen in all the ribbons of "support our troops" which are literally on millions of cars. This doesn't necessarily mean all of these people suppport Bush but just that they support our troops. I do too in the sense of seeing any of our country men killed and deformed over in Iraq. However, don't forget it was the Bush administration which sent them over there. And not only are our troops being killed and severely maimed but our troops have killed innocent iraqis as well, even if unintentional, and their electricity has been wiped out in certain areas and medical and food supplies scarce. For what? To bring democracy to Iraqi people? LOL! No, for oil and to create an Iraqi government which is friendly to U.S. corporate interests. You know what I say to this administration's goal? Good luck. It's clear the Muslim world has been spurred against this and many of the top insurgents are from several Muslim countries and have set up operations in Iraq. If the current moron in the Whitehouse invades Iran it will be a cataclysm for the Muslim world and I can't imagine there not being severe repercussions for America. Nope, the U.S. war with Iraq is somewhat similar to the Vietnam War and I don't think our U.S. military can sustain a presence over there for 12 years. And there are some Americans who wear those ribbon stickers on their car not because they care about the troops but just want to blend in.

I have actually found some of the stuff the Far Right has sent me as legitimate and there have been interesting links to the Washington Post and other publications. I have actually found some of the videos on ReOpen911.com to be interesting, such as Silverstein's apparent statement on PBS, "We decided to "pull" building #7. Did the 911 commission have on its body any demolition experts, fire fighting experts, experts on how the WTC Towers could have collapsed on themselves vertically?

The "message" of the video was that building #7 could have been a control center for the demolition of the other WTC Towers since according to the video it had been renovated and reinforced by Mayor Guiliani and there was a control center inside. The theory is most of the airplane's fuel blew up outside the WTC Towers accounting for the dramatic fireballs we saw. Then once the planes has gone through the WTC Towers somebody in the control center of building #7 detonated C4 shaped explosive charges in the building, probably the basement, and there was demolition of the buildings.
I'm not an expert but how could the NYFD within just seven hours demolish building #7? According to the video, the NYFD isn't even trained for this.
I don't know enough about any of these subjects to confidently endorse or not endorse them but the potential for propaganda is unlimited.

Apparently. if this is what occurred (and I'm not necessarily saying it is) then the jets crashing into the WTC Towers were used as a pretext for demolishing the buildings with C4 explosives or other type of placed charges. The WTC building #7 was "pulled" because of the incriminating evidence which might be found in its "control center".

Other discrepanies I've seemed to find is a cellphone above 6,000 feet becomes increasing difficult to reach contact with ground cellphone towers. We've all heard about those high up in the mountains being not able to use cell phones as well as those who claim when you're inside a tall public building it is difficult or impossible. Why then the stories of multiple cellphone calls, one which allegedly lasted more than 30 minutes, being made on Flight 93. We're all these cellphone calls made from a commercial airliner at or below 6,000 feet? My impression was no.

Another discrepancy is whether Flight 93 was shot out of the sky by a missile. If a plane crashes on impact why is there a crater with hardly no evidence and a 10mph wind blew such items as clothes and books as far away as 6-8 miles? Assuming there were passengers on board when it became apparent they might take over the cockpit, did the U.S. military decide to shoot the plane down because it compromised the mission and the passengers would be able to identify the hijackers?

As skilled and prepared as these hijackers were why did they hit the West Wing of the Pentagon instead of the East Wing where Rumsfeld and others they would have supposedly wanted to kill?

Enough circumstantial evidence has been gathered to convince me at the very least the U.S. government is covering 911 up. The question is why? Unfortunately, without some forensic evidence and the testimony of experts which would surely be countered by the government's experts, there is no possibility of a serious criminal grand jury. Just like what was left of JFK's brain and skull disappeared and the files were supposedly closed for a hundred years, we can likely look forward to the same with 9-11. Any insider of 911 would be marked for death if they came forward to testify against the government. Considering what Silverstein stated I'm surprised he hasn't already been eliminated. He well may be. Many people associated with JFK ended up dead mysteriously in the aftermath of the assasination.

You just don't go up against the corporate elite, the U.S. government, likely powerful foreign citizens, and possibly the mob unless you have an ironclad case and hundreds of witnesses to come forth who don't chicken out. Otherwise you're just presenting a piece of meat for many lions to eat.

But back to the original point about the Far Right spamming folks with all kinds of material. You're going to have to use your own critical thought and judgment to separate the wheat from the chaff. Many people don't do this. This is exactly what the Far Right wants.

EH? 04.Jun.2005 18:25


Enough circumstantial evidence has been gathered to convince me at the very least the U.S. government is covering 911 up. The question is why?


WTF? 05.Jun.2005 19:37


I'm unsure of your comment here. My intuition tells me you think its obvious why there was a cover up. I'm assuming you thing there was a U.S. government cover up and the "why" was obviously to throw the American public into believing the conventional story. That's part of it. What I meant was what was the motivation behind it? To invade Afghanistan and Iraq? If so I would say they fucked up on both accounts, both the cover up and the invasion of Iraq. It's now clear the 911 attacks didn't happen the way our government says they happened and the invasion of Iraq has so far been a disater in terms of creating a Iraqi government friendly to our corporate interests. The rich are profiting from the oil but politically it has turned into a nightmare like Vietnam. If that fucking moron in the Whitehouse decides to invade Iran it will be a cataclysm in the Muslim world with severe repercussions for America.



YOU ignorant TROLL. DO YOU THINK ANYONE HERE IS FALLING FOR YOUR SHIT? say, I LOVE YOUR 'SUPPORTER'. YUMI CHAN CAT. WHAT A GREAT FAKE NAME. ACTUALLY IT'S LAMER THAN SHIT. GUESS WHAT? ALMOST EVERYONE WHO FREQUENTS THIS SITE K-N-O-W-S 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. GO SLINK BACK INTO YOUR HOLE TROLL. Can you believe the moronic audacity of this guy? What faulty reasoning and what a PATHETIC, IMPOTENT attempt to spread doubt and despair. No wonder we're losing the Iraq War, look at the idiots in charge of damage control right here. They can't even FAKE going from A to B. I gotta go pee now, I'm laughing so much.