9/11: conspiracy cannot be dismissed
John Moeller, in his article ‘The “nine eleven truth” movement’ (Solidarity 3/110) makes a number of good points. But he fails to recognise that because some proponents of a theory are crackpots one must not dismiss what others, with some evidence to support them, are saying. History is replete with examples of conspiracies of all kinds, economic and political. Of course, we don’t need a ‘secret plot’ to explain alienation. But the link between fundamental economic exploitation and alienation is mediated by political events, some of which do involve conspiracies.
Moeller ignores the fact that in 2001 when the horror of 9/11 occurred the United States had lost the excuse which had enabled it to attack opponents of its policies at home and to keep its foreign “allies” on side: the bogey of communism and the Soviet “threat”. 9/11, whoever caused it, was a convenient replacement, giving the President credibility for declaring his “War on Terrorism”. Under this banner Britain and other countries could be enrolled as “allies” and all passed laws which greatly reduced their citizens’ freedoms and human rights. It was also used as an excuse to make war and thus further encourage the very acts which it purports to stamp out.
One of the serious sites to examine what really happened on 9/11 is “9/11 Research” [http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html]. A disclaimer on the homepage states: “9/11 Research does not promote incivility, junk science, or “no-jetliner” claims”. It further warns that “It is common to see links or references to 9-11 Research next to other sites promoting some of the most transparently nonsensical theories — such as 911Review.org, which features ad hominem attacks against Jim Hoffman.” Contrary to such sites and the kind of people John Moeller seems to have encountered, 9/11 Research takes one through a detailed examination of the evidence, the misinformation which has been spread, and then makes an analysis of a vast quantity of data which this has uncovered. Carefully following all this, one cannot but question the official story.
I hope that it will be possible for you to correct the impression which John Moeller’s article creates. It is important to understand the complex politics of the new imperialism if we are to defeat it and achieve the goals which John Moeller clearly stands for.
Ronald F. Price, by email