Defending 9/11 skepticism
Many seem to have accepted the official story of 9/11—that 19 hijackers, led by Osama Bin Laden, flew three planes into U.S. buildings and a fourth plane into a field in Pennsylvania—since it was first proposed back in 2001. However, much like in the case of the John F. Kennedy assassination, a growing number of people have begun to question and seriously doubt the government’s version of 9/11. And, I will confess, I place myself among them. The reasons for this are many and varied, but suffice it to say here that, in general, the 9/11 skeptics (often derided as “conspiracy theorists”) argue that the nature, scale and complexity of the sequence of events from 9/11 are too great to be explained merely by 19 hijackers flying planes into buildings.
To provide a fairly straight-forward example of this, consider that on 9/11, two buildings are believed to have been struck by hijacked airliners in the World Trade Center (WTC) complex, yet three buildings in the complex completely collapsed that day (the third being a 47-story steel framed building known as WTC 7). What the 9/11 skeptics doubt is that the two airplane crashes are sufficient, by themselves, to explain the destruction of the three WTC buildings, and therefore argue that there is good reason to at least consider the possibility that something besides the airplanes contributed to the destruction of these buildings—especially WTC 7 which was not struck by a plane.
Now, I am not here to defend a 9/11 skeptic’s position on the grounds that their assertions about 9/11 are necessarily correct; rather, I am here to defend the reasons one might have in challenging an official story (like 9/11) in general, from the standpoint that it is better to debate all ideas openly than it is to restrict the range of public discourse to topics that are “politically correct,” emotionally “neutral” or otherwise believed to be “self-evident.” My motivation for this is the observation that much of mainstream society (including political networks, the mainstream media, and the U.S. population in general) have responded to 9/11 skepticism with either a high degree of ridicule, or a heavy dose of hostility—sometimes both. Individuals who have vocalized their doubts over the official story of 9/11 have had their reputations attacked, their careers jeopardized and their “patriotism” challenged simply because they believe there are serious questions about 9/11 that remain unanswered.
Having monitored the topic of 9/11 skepticism for many years now, I believe it is fair to say that mainstream media outlets have either belittled those who doubt the official 9/11 story, or completely ignored them. Consequently, much of the U.S. population (who largely relies on mainstream outlets for their information) has adopted a similar standoffish attitude about 9/11 skepticism. I believe that this general attitude is, at its least extreme, counterproductive to the interests of both the U.S. and the world’s at large; and, at its most extreme, highly dangerous. I say this because events of 9/11’s magnitude have consequences—serious consequences—for all parties involved, and any error in judgment, no matter how slight, can literally alter the lives of millions. The events of 9/11, and its subsequent interpretations, have already clearly impacted the lives of millions of people around the world (e.g. the war in Afghanistan and, to a debatable extent, the war in Iraq, as well as increases in aggressive policing and detention practices due to the so-called “war on terror”). What would the consequences to the world be if the official story of 9/11 was inaccurate in some regard?
I think it is fair to assume that most would agree that if—theoretically speaking—the official story of 9/11 was found to be flawed in a fundamental way, then a large portion of subsequent U.S. policies, both foreign and domestic, would be drastically misguided at best, and outright appalling at worst. It is with this backdrop in mind that many 9/11 skeptics (I cannot speak for all) challenge the official 9/11 story. In other words, it is out of a desire for accuracy over matters of heightened historical importance that 9/11 skeptics voice their dissenting opinions—not out of spite for a particular faction or ideology. Therefore, the standoffish attitudes that many hold toward 9/11 skeptics runs the risk of suppressing legitimate inquiries into the understanding of the events of 9/11 and, by extension, runs the risk of negatively influencing judgments made in response to 9/11. In my opinion, it is far better to take 9/11 skepticism seriously than it is to dismiss it on its face.
So my argument here is that we, as a society that purports to embrace free and open discourse about public issues, are far better off if we err on the side of too much debate (including excesses in the diversity of viewpoints) than we are to draw sweeping conclusions based on incomplete (and often times emotionally driven) pieces of information. In my opinion, 9/11 remains to this day an unsolved mystery that, in spite of its uncertainties, is dictating a significant proportion of U.S. policy. Of course, I understand that the issue is sensitive for many because, no matter how you look at it, 9/11 was a tragic event; however, reactions based on misconceptions about the event are potentially just as tragic, if not more so, than the initiating event itself.
Furthermore, the topic of 9/11 itself is educational (official story or otherwise) insofar as it integrates many elements of public interest into one pressing issue. For example, in order to discuss 9/11 and its implications, one must learn something about history, the role of government and its power structure (including emergency powers), civil liberties (and the suspension thereof), the military, national security, the news media, just war theory, morality, crash physics and high-rise engineering, the Federal Aviation Administration’s policies and regulations, foreign culture and belief, etc. To neglect to embrace this topic in public forums is a sorely missed opportunity—especially when so much effort and attention is devoted to celebrity gossip and “reality” TV in the mainstream—and, for the reasons mentioned in this article, such neglect may even be hazardous to the millions of people affected by our understanding of 9/11.