[This post and the one following will be a simple overview of the details of three interpretations* of 9/11 which disagree in some way with the official government narrative. I will mention several issues which have caused suspicion and questioning, but I do not intend, nor have the time, to provide a great amount of detail or much evidence for claims or theories. I will include links to outside sources when it is possible for anyone who is interested in reading more about the theories and claims to determine for themselves to what extent they may be plausible. By no means should anything written here be accepted at face value or as hard fact. My primary goal in presenting the reasons for different 9/11 theories is to simply create awareness of most of the important questions surrounding 9/11 to promote critical thinking and a closer examination.]
*see part 1 of this post to review the four interpretations of 9/11 listed.

Motives

The main connecting question regarding all three of the alternative 9/11 interpretations I have presented is the question of motive. Whether one thinks the government was responsible for 9/11 or just merely exploited the attacks for political gain, the questions of why anyone could actually do such shameful things or take such a great risk are likely to be among the first asked…

The starting point for most alternative theorizing about 9/11 has often been first asking the question “Cui bono”- i.e. “Who benefits”? Interestingly, for many powers that be, 9/11 did produce some curious political benefits, strategic military benefits, and even some huge financial benefits for some. Many have focused primarily on the benefit to the strategic military interests of the Bush administration or rather the overall “neoconservative” agenda. One year before 9/11, there was a report published by the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, And Resources For A New Century. This report revealed a broad plan for growing U.S. military strength to ensure continuance of American global leadership/preeminence. One certain “smoking gun” of the report is the statement;

“the process of transformation, (i.e. military/defense buildup) even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor” (emphasis mine).

This is significant for two reasons: 1) At least two of the authors of this report; Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Paul Wolfowitz would later become members of the first Bush administration, and many foundational members/associates of PNAC would also later become part of the Bush administration as well; e.g. Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, etc. These neoconservatives also clearly had prior interest in the Middle East; in deposing Saddam Hussein; taking action against Afghanistan, etc. 2) 9/11 in fact was exactly the kind of “catalyzing event” the report referred to and has frequently earned natural comparisons to Pearl Harbor. 9/11 did, in fact, conveniently provide a perfect context for implementing their prior military buildup/action plans.

In this context it is not hard to argue then that at least members within the administration and influences without stood to benefit more than any terrorist group who were immediately chased down and put on the run. And it is notable that members within the administration were openly aware of the opportunities such an event would provide to fulfill their plans. Therefore, it seems, 9/11 was either an extremely coincidental opportunity or an inside orchestration/instigation/allowance to facilitate ulterior motives. No matter what really happened though, I definitely think there were more workings behind the plot than merely 19 Al Qaeda terrorists directed by Osama Bin Laden.

Theories

Regarding the official government story of 9/11, I will simply state for now, as I have stated before, it is not a sufficient explanation of the events for me. Some detailed reasons why should become apparent throughout this post and the next. One blog reader’s comment I saw recently says it quite well:

I would also simply add that, legally, Osama Bin Laden’s guilt has yet to be sufficiently proven by the government. Keep that in mind because I will be coming back to it in the next post.

The second interpretation seems to be the favored cynical yet safe intellectual response. Perhaps the most notable holder of this view is Noam Chomsky. Chomsky has publicly made the point already referred to on this blog; that the attacks of 9/11 provided a beneficial opportunity for the U.S. government and other governments around the world to exploit; an opportunity which they immediately did exploit. Still Chomsky believes the idea that any part of the U.S. gov’t having foreknowledge of or engineering the attacks is far too unlikely to even warrant speculation; that the risk of getting found out would be far too great. Though I generally respect Chomsky’s intellect and – from what I have read – tend to agree with much of what he has said regarding the U.S. Gov’t, I can’t help but feel he’s falling a little short on this issue. Namely, in that – starting from his presupposition that gov’t complicity is not at all probable – he has stated that the fact there was much coincidence and unexplained phenomena doesn’t tell us anything because even controlled scientific experiments are full of unexplained phenomena. I think this is a key problem though. Many people either have not even acknowledged the strange anomalies on that day or if they have – as Chomsky has – they – like Chomksy – don’t even question them or simply accept whatever “official scientific” claims are made to explain them away. As we will later see though, seriously questioning some of these events – without certain presupposed beliefs – becomes very crucial to trying to adequately explain the outcome of the attacks.

I do agree with Chomsky in one sense. In Chomsky’s view the important thing to realize is the result of 9/11; that it simply gave systems of power an excuse to expand that power over their own people as well as excuse for unnecessary agression in warfare. Chomsky merely sees such actions/reactions of systems of power as completely historically predictable. In one sense it seems most important for me to similarly say I stand in complete disagreement with this country’s actions since 9/11 regardless of who caused the attacks. But Chomsky also says even if the attacks did involve gov’t conspiracy, “who cares?” Surely this is because he has no fantasy illusions or naivete about the possibility of the U.S. gov’t or others having benevolent/altruistic interests anyway. But for the majority of people who do entertain such illusions, it would be incredibly devestating and important if there are shreds of evidence that the attacks weren’t merely done by autonomous Islamic terrorists. Any such evidence would cause the very foundation of “the War on Terror” to completely crumble. Therefore, questioning 9/11 is no small matter.

This brings us to the third interpretation. This interpretation involves the old question, “What did they know and when did they know it?” I must admit this is the area of 9/11 interpretations I’ve studied the least. This is due, in part, to the fact there seems to be such a fine line between allowing and orchestrating/facilitating the attacks. For “alternative theorizers”, if you will, most of the suggestions of gov’t foreknowledge eventually lead, to deeper, darker implications of complicity (even moreso if you agree with the earlier notion that members of the administration saw, all too well, the great benefit to their agenda in such an attack). Of course official explanations have handled all suggestions of gov’t foreknowledge by mainly chalking it up to “disorganization”/”confusion” or “lack of communication between intelligence agencies.” In fact, rarely, it seems, do official explanations ever even suggest simple negligence and/or incompetence among anyone in charge that day. It was all simply “unpredictable failure” to alleged “unforeseeable events”. Sure they had some information here, some clues there, but they just couldn’t “connect the dots” right? At least that is their story and they’re sticking to it.

Because I feel most suggestions of foreknowledge do lead – at least in my mind – to bigger questions about possible complicity, I will save mention of such specific issues for a part 3 post discussing the fourth interpretation of 9/11 and why people have come to believe 9/11 was an inside job. I will also discuss, in fair detail, the specific questions and arguments surrounding the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings; certainly one of the most compelling and mysterious elements of 9/11.