There have been thousands of articles about the events surrounding 9 / 11, and the flood does not seem to slow down.
There are basically four main currents of thought surrounding 9 / 11, each with its own group of followers who believe they know the truth.
The first group believes the official version of 9 / 11: the attack was done under the direction of the Saudi mastermind Osama Bin Laden of 19 Arab hijackers who used box cutters to hijack four passenger planes and turn them into flying bombs. United Airlines flights 11 and 175 crashed into the twin towers of World Trade Center, while a third, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. A fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was heading toward the White House, but crashed into a Pennsylvania field after several heroic passengers said: "Let's roll" and fought with the hijackers. The Twin Towers burned and collapsed due to the stress of impact and the heat generated by burning jet fuel. Warnings that might have allowed the authorities to prevent the attack were lost in the bureaucratic maze of large intelligence agencies like the CIA overburdened.
People in this group feel that the government is doing its honest best to preserve the security of the nation, but that led to terrorists and unconventional are hard to stop, even with the utmost vigilance. The intelligence agencies can be cumbersome and should be streamlined, but officials have shown enough care and attention that no one should be accused of egregious negligence. This is the version of events presented by the U.S. government and mainstream news media like Fox and CNN.
The second group believes that most of the official version, with some minor clarifications. The main difference is that the second group supports a round of firing to do with what they feel government officials are incompetent.
They excoriate the president to continue reading "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren, instead of responding instantly to the tragedy, and accuses the Vice President to go into hiding instead of standing in solidarity next to the president and rallying the public to time of the attacks. They believe that intelligence agencies indifferent attitudes to important information warning of an imminent terrorist attack, that airport security was too lax, and that appropriate diligence by the authorities would have prevented the whole scenario. They claim to radically improve the way foreign intelligence is collected and treated, and I feel that with adequate supervision, America can be made safe from the threat of terrorist attacks abroad.
People in both groups before and the second is likely to see the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps are necessary evils in the fight against a foreign enemy. Both groups display a basic faith in the soundness of the American government and institutions. Islamic fundamentalists have a penchant for violence well documented, and the 9 / 11 attacks are just another manifestation of what Samuel Huntington has called "The Clash of Civilizations". Many of these people feel that since America is innocent of any role in fomenting the attacks, it is useless to engage in a dialogue with the Arab discontent, and only military action can stop an enemy who hates America for its democratic values.
The third group is much more critical of the role of American foreign policy and national cause terrorism. Islamic fighters in Afghanistan have received financial support during the American War 1979-1988 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. These mujahedeen who fought the Soviets, with training and weapons supplied by the CIA, were the forerunners of the Taliban, a group of Wahhabi religious radicals who sheltered Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
The followers of this school of thought stressed the close ties between the Bush administration and the Bin Laden family (and, of course, the Saudi regime in general). Immediately after 9 / 11, when all other planes were grounded, the members of the Bin Laden family was allowed to leave America without being interrogated for information about their relative prodigal. In addition, American has a history of overthrowing democratic governments in the Middle East, who are opposed to U.S. policies (such as the Iranian Premier Mossedeq in 1953), to install pliant dictatorships in their place. These actions create hostility that leads to terrorism, and the Americans could and should have seen the attacks to come.
According to this group, the Islamic world does not love America more for what they do than for what he is, America gives unwavering support for Israel and support Arab dictatorships, provided that service America needs for oil. American dependence on foreign oil provides further entanglement with dangerous Islamic fundamentalists resentful. This group believes that the corrupt American foreign policy is largely responsible for the attacks, and to support changes in existing U.S. policies and disengagement from the Middle East.
Examples of this school of thought is the filmmaker Michael Moore, whose film "Fahrenheit 9 / 11" exposed many examples of government abuse of power surrounding the attacks. These people are less likely to support greater security, they feel the existing laws and agencies, as long as the proper functioning, are more than enough to deal with foreign threats. They heap scorn on the staff of the airport security search that grandmothers in the name of political correctness, and is unlikely to support a large, intrusive security. Terrorism is seen as a structural phenomenon, likely to disappear regardless of any military or security-related actions to address the root causes are eliminated.
The fourth group is made up by conspiracy theorists who accuse the government without the means to commit the attack, and the use of slogans such as "9 / 11 was an inside job." They believe that rogue elements in the CIA and the Pentagon orchestrated the entire event in order to provide a pretext for pre-planned invasion of Iraq and the Arabs, if they have been involved at all, were not the masterminds .
They point to scientific and architectural evidence that the WTC was built to withstand more stress than would be generated by the impact of two planes, and jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel. The collapse of the Twin Towers collapse and the identity of a third building nearby (the Seven World Trade Center, which has never been hit by a plane), are said to be due to controlled demolition, set up by explosive experts. Question the idea that 19 amateur non-military armed only with boxcutters could lead to control of 4 large commercial aircraft. The field of debris left by 8 miles along flight plan 93 points coming apart or exploding in the air (or, even more disturbing, shot was made by a missile), do not strike the ground intact. A number of other irregularities in the mountain of forensic evidence and testimonies available are examined as well.
These people have a very unpleasant view of American government. They recall the long history of involvement in U.S. military false-flag attack planned and executed for the sole purpose of manipulating public opinion in favor of various wars, as the attack on the USS Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods .
This group sees the increasing levels of security and public surveillance is not only unnecessary (given the lack of foreign enemies), but as signs of incipient police state. They have a general distrust of the military-industrial American and speak fearfully of a "New World Order", an elite cabal of globalists who have no concern for the lives of ordinary members of the public.
People in this group, regardless of the merits of their claims, receive no exposure to the mainstream media because their statements are so arsonist that the ramifications would destroy public faith in government. However, this lobby is a growing industry on the Internet, search for "9 / 11 Conspiracy" produces 10,200,000 results.
Of course, there is considerable cross-pollination between the four groups. And 'quite possible to believe, for example, that American security agencies worked well on 9 / 11 (first group), while also believing that the nation is too dependent on foreign oil (the third group). However, these broad categories generally describe the different opinions about what happened on 9 / 11, and people often have collections of points of view as a "package". Someone who supports the government's domestic policy is also likely to agree with foreign policy, while the skeptics are often suspicious of authority generally.
So that's it: an event, and four radically different interpretations and worldviews. When it comes to 9 / 11, everyone has a pet theory. Like the Kennedy assassination, this will keep both amateur and professional historians busy for many years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment