Before I get into some more of the reasons why many have come to believe 9/11 was an inside job, I think it would be good to first share some statements I just came across on RedBlueChristian.com. These are a good illustration of the way those who question 9/11 are often misrepresented and unfairly discredited as simply crazy, paranoid, and hateful “conspiracy theorists” or “cranks” as the title of the post says. Ron Ballew writes:

I have been trying to figure out why so many people have fallen for conspiracy theories about 9-11. There seems to be an inherent distrust in anything American and a deep antipathy towards Bush…
The polarisation and hatred emanating from conspiracy theorists seems to be almost pathological. Notice I am speaking about conspiracy theorists here and not just the left. They mistrust a president and political party so much that what they want to believe is more important than truth…
…This ignorance [about Islam] mixed with a paranoid fear of conservatism has bred something ridiculous.

A reader then commented with another explanation attempt:

The insight goes like this. 9/11 and these other events are incredibly important and life-changing, so our subconscious wants to find an equally complex explanation. The official explanations don’t satisfy: One lone gunman can’t have taken down a young charismatic president; a few terrorist cells couldn’t demolish two towers and severely damage the Pentagon; all those UFO sightings can’t all be weather balloons; those Christians must have had something to do with Rome’s fires.

The first key problem with these two statements is that they fail to take into account any of the actual valid reasons why these “conspiracy theorists” have called 9/11 into question and determined the official story to be untrue.

Unfortunately, this is very common.  Many people have only addressed alternative 9/11 theories not by truly examining the claims, but by writing off the people making the claims as fanatical “Bush haters” or, to use Rush Limbaugh terminology, “cook fringe wacko liberals”.

Many would like you to believe the entire “9/11 truth movement” is made up of “crazy liberals” who have concocted these “crazy theories” purely out of blinding hatred for Bush and conservatives. I can certainly say, though, the primary “leaders” of the movement are really not biased “liberal Democrats” who unreasonably hate Bush and sit around thinking about the “good ol’ days” when Clinton was in office. They are equally critical of politicians in both parties and of the U.S. government’s current state as a whole as created and perpetuated by both parties.

Another problem with the statements is their false or unfair foregone assumptions. As I’ve already said regarding the first statement, these alternative theories have not necessarily arisen only in a vacuum of Bush hatred, but have largely come in response to strange anomalies and holes in the official story. The false or unfair assumption of the second statement is its suggestion all such conspiracy theories arise merely because we need more complex explanations for tragic events.

I, for one, am living proof that neither of those assumptions are guaranteed to be true.  I wasn’t introduced to alternative 9/11 theories until about 2 to 4 months before the 2004 Presidential election.  Before then I had no animosity towards Bush or the Republican Party at all.  In fact, though I had been growing more cynical of politicians, I still thought of Republicans as the preferable choice over Democrats, and I was going to vote for Bush.  This, I think, had more to do with my unquestioned pro-Republican upbringing than anything, but my thinking then broadened.  I came to no longer identify with Republicans – nor Democrats for that matter – but I didn’t fall into blind hatred of Bush or his administration.  I came to mistrust them, certainly, and, all-in-all, came to be more aware of deceptive propaganda on both sides and generally critical of both parties and especially the new wave of intense militarism. 

My experience also challenges the idea that people simply have an innate need for more complex explanations of important tragic events.  For my part, I do admit though, conspiracy theories can be appealing, but clearly with 9/11 I had never thought to question the official explanation until good reasons to do so were presented to me.  This seems to be the case for the great majority of Americans as well who unquestioningly accept the government’s explanation.  Many people have no problem believing the official story. There seems to be a compelling irony to the story – that “these 19 terrorists caught the strongest nation on earth by surprise in a way we just couldn’t have imagined.”  It has a rather odd plausible air to it in its dramatic and emotional quality.  And it is certainly easier for many to believe that than to believe something as awful as their government being involved in such treachery.

In the interest of slightly resembling brevity, I am going to split this post into two parts as well. I promise I am not intentionally teasing with the long lead up to the final part of this series. As I’ve said before, 9/11 is a very complex matter when one tries to take all theories and views into account. It is also a fairly under-discussed matter as well so there is much to cover, and it is very difficult to be brief.

Continuation coming soon…