I have referred to the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the War on Terror a number of times in my last few posts. Thus far I have made reference to 9/11 and terrorism mainly as they may pertain to current events, statements and/or attitudes within the media and government. I plan to continue to do this of course in the interest of shedding light on the deceptive and distracting jingoistic propaganda and scaremongering coming from our media and leaders. That said, there is just so much to say about the issues and views surrounding 9/11 and the War on Terror, I feel I should attempt to give an overview of the differing views of the events of 9/11, the actions following 9/11, and what all of this has meant for the world and what it might mean for the future.

Scholar David Ray Griffin has nicely boiled down the major 9/11 theories into four interpretations of what happened on that day and why. I will share them here in my own words.

The first interpretation is the acceptance of the official government story (which, yes, can also be called a theory) that, in a surprise attack, 19 men, in conjunction with the terrorist group Al Qaeda, boarded four airplanes and, after hijacking them and taking over the cockpits, flew two of them in the two towers of the World Trade Center, flew the third into the Pentagon, and were forced to crash the fourth plane in a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers allegedly decided to rush the cockpit to take back the airplane.

The second interpretation is also an acceptance of the official gov’t story of a complete surprise attack, but is also a belief that the attacks were immediately exploited by the Bush administration and used as an excuse to carry out previously laid plans (i.e. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq) and expand executive power.

The third interpretation goes much further as a theory that high-ranking elements* of the United States gov’t knew the attacks were coming beforehand and simply let them happen anyway – if not helped them to happen by standing down security.

The fourth interpretation pushes the idea of leaders wanting attacks for exploitation purposes to its furthest conclusion in its full assertion that elements* of the U.S. gov’t not only knew attacks were coming, but actually fully orchestrated and caused the attacks to happen.

Currently I float back and forth in the land between the third and fourth interpretation (I will discuss why in part 2). I realize the third and fourth interpretations may seem quite preposterous particularly without listing reasons for such theories. I assure you, though, there is a great deal of compelling information and independent investigation on this, much of it quite convincing to an open mind. I have alluded to some of this information in the past and I will continue to share more in limited amounts as it seems appropriate. I have felt it more important, though – as far as this blog is concerned – to focus more on the harmful actions and propaganda perpetuated since and directly because of 9/11. It really should be clear to everyone, regardless of what really happened on 9/11, the Bush administration (and other administrations around the world) have used the attacks consistently to justify expanding the size and power of the government and have exaggerated the new “threat” from terror for political gain and to achieve what I believe are ulterior agendas.

It should be noted, though, that this concern of ever-growing abuse of power under the guise of “fighting terror” is very much at the heart of the 9/11 truth movement. Those who are fully convinced that the administration somehow had a hand in the 9/11 attacks focus on spreading that message in the hopes of exposing the perpetrators to strip away their power. While I believe a good case can be made against the Bush administration’s “War on Terror” doctrine, as it is, with or without proving any complicity in the 9/11 attacks, we must realize, solely because of 9/11, many people have been effectively indoctrinated to believe nearly all means are justified by the end goal of wiping out the perceived threat of terrorism (however long it may take). This makes examining the problems with the official 9/11 story quite important as breaking it apart could help diminish the manipulative fear of terrorism and strengthen the case against the administration’s scaremongering and disproportionate and expansive reactions.

In part 2, then, I will reflect on my thoughts and conclusions concerning 9/11 and try to examine the four interpretations as independently as possible.