The conspiracy theories of 9/11 as they pertain to the American government - Essay Example

?Running Head: 9/11 CONSPIRACY The conspiracy theories of 9/11 as they pertain to the American government On September11, 2001, the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon, and quite possibly the White House were targeted for terrorist attacks that were defined by the use of airplanes as weapons of destructions through ramming them into these venues. The destruction was devastating, taking lives and changing the fabric of American life. There are those that believe that the American government was the actual perpetrator of these events, using them as a way to enter the Middle East under the drums of war. In an article by Michel Chossudovsky (2008), some of the inconsistencies that occurred are contrasted to the research on those events to see if his concepts hold up. While some seem to have some validity, his facts seem to be somewhat biased and do not hold up under scrutiny. As defined by the nature of conspiracy, the events that occurred on that fateful day are specifically a conspiracy, but defining who actually masterminded the events will likely remain somewhat of a mystery as the facts have become so mythic that the truth is lost somewhere in between all of the shadows that remain. The conspiracy theories of 9/11 as they pertain to the American government Introduction Fenster (2008) defines conspiracy theory as two propositions, the first as “the conviction that a secret, omnipotent individual or group covertly controls the political and social order or some part thereof, circulates solely on the margins of society” (p. 1). He defines the second as “conspiracy theory has come to predominate society” (Fenster, 2008, p. 1). Through these two propositions, the second provides context for the way in which the first had become a dominant discourse within the culture. Everyone sees and believes, to some extent, in conspiracy theory. It is in our films, sometimes in the news, often in talk show rhetoric, and part of the cultural media discussion that occurs about major events. The events of September 11, 2001 are no exception, and the many ways in which people have invented concepts of how the events occurred are wide and varied, thus providing a great landscape from which to choose belief. The odd thing about this event, however, is that it was, in fact, a conspiracy. Members of a group determined to enact certain events in concert in order to create a disturbance within the security of the United States. The disturbance was intended to make a statement for that group. How these events were constructed, on the other hand, is still only evaluated from known facts and without much in the way of direct witness information. The one person who had the most information on the events, Osama Bin Laden, was recently killed on May 4, 2011, thus ending the idea that any Western individual would hear the story of the events of 9/11 directly from the leader who ordered the terrorist act (Dwyer, 2011). Therefore, theories are how the events are constructed, some from extracting elements from eyewitnesses, others from constructing context from cultural concepts that fit the facts, and still others from suppositions that are founded in conspiracy theories that are defined by associating groups who could benefit from the events to ideas of how they might have formed and implemented the plans for the events. Many wild theories, as well as those supported by factual and educated guess scenarios, exist about all of the events that led up to the terrorist attack on 9/11. His essay will explore the ways in which the timing of the events and the announcements by the government do not add up to investigative conclusions, nor in fully supporting the idea that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center. Through an article by Michel Chossudovsky, dated September 11, 2008, the discrepancies that lead some to believe that this was an American plot meant to begin the war in the Middle East are evaluated. Using this article as the center of the investigation, the nature of the concepts or ‘facts’ will be explored to see if they have validity. Even if they are found to be valid, this does not mean that the evidence is factual. Therefore, it will be further explored to determine if the appearance of validity has any weight when evaluating the theories. President Bush The first way in which Chossudovsky (2008) presents his ideas is through the timing of the events on September 11, 2001. The first piece of evidence that he uses is that by 11am on September 11, 2001, President Bush announced that the actions of the day had been committed by Al Qaeda, an announcement that came prior to any investigation and without the time to evaluate the events of the day. According to Mark Ellis (2002), a citizen who documented all of the events of the day, and the movements of President Bush, the President spoke exactly 219 words in which he spoke haltingly and mispronounced words. The evening speech that President Bush made on September 11, 2001 included no reference to Al Qaeda (Youtube). One of the events of the day, the nature of the event of reading to school children in Florida while the attack was continuing and the fact that instead of immediately stopping what he was doing and attending to the information that had just been passed to him, President Bush went back to reading to school children for seven minutes while the world changed in New York, appears to suggest that he knew what was occurring and was waiting out the storm (Achenbach, 2004). However, considering the nature of his leadership skills, this would not be out of character. As President Bush repeatedly made assumptions throughout his career as leader of the United States, it would clearly make sense that he would choose to do something that in hind sight made no sense. However, he was never a ‘jump to the helm’ sort of leader, thus his late start in participating is not outside the possibilities of the experience that he was providing in government. Collusion within the American government The idea that the American government, with President Bush at its lead, had the organizational capacity to create this act seems outside of the realm of possible outcomes. Before the events of 9/11, President Bush was floundering, his administration suffering from his inability to focus, to be present as its leader, and to have a decisive voice as such. This does not seem to be the nature of a leader who had helped to mastermind a plan that would begin a war in the Middle East. He had some high quality advisors, including Vice President Dick Cheney, despite his politics, who might have had the organizational capacity to create this event, but it seems unlikely that it would have occurred this way. The example that Hurricane Katrina provided with slow response times and overall disorganization suggests that the central government was not equipped for high level operations. However, the example of Hurricane Katrina brings up an interesting point that was made by Chossudovsky (2008). He states that within three weeks of 9/11, the American military had engaged Afghanistan in war. Chossudovsky (2008) states that it takes months of preparation to go to war, the nature of war requiring careful strategy and planning, but the United States deployed troupes and equipment very quickly in the aftermath of 9/11. At a time when it might seem that disorganization and carefully constructing a plan would be the nature of the response, a response was made very quickly against a country, rather than specifically targeting the group who was responsible. Chossudovsky (2008) states that “The myth of the ‘outside enemy’ and the threat of ‘Islamic terrorists’ was the cornerstone of the Bush administrations’ military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America”. According to Brunner (1994), American politicians need what he refers to as the ‘justifying myth’, the object of belief from which action can be applied (p. 1). In 1994, Brunner made the observation that “We may be going under a transition in which the formal and effective powers of the people are mobilized to set aside politics in order to deal with pressing problems - and in the process disregard Congress and other Constitutional constraints on the uses of power that stand in the way of emotionally satisfying solutions” (p. 2). The ‘justifying myth’ was found within the ‘outside enemy’, the nature of the ‘other’ creating the excuse that brought about unconstitutional changes in the way in which the United States engaged in justice and war. Through dismissing civil liberties and creating an out of country prison in which rights were not granted and torture became acceptable, the emotional satisfaction factor rose above the Constitutional beliefs of American ideology. The concept that without citizenship, rights were not valid created a world where the aspects of founding father ideologies were tossed aside in order to satisfy vengeance and enact pain for pain. This was only accomplished through the heightened fears and insecurities that people felt after the events of 9/11 as it seemed to serve as an experiment to see how far government could go outside of the Constitution in order to satisfy the belief in the myth and the need to fulfill that lack of security that it supported. Terrorism and 9/11 According to Enders and Sandler (2005), the nature of terrorism has changed since 9/11. Where hostage taking had once been the preferred method of terrorism, with the affect that 9/11 had on the United States, bombing has now become in vogue. It is difficult to imagine that terrorism is subject to fashionable methods of engaging targets, but apparently terrorists follow one another in form and effect in order to maximize their influence on culture. The effect of over 3000 dead in the World Trade towers, the most that had ever been killed in a terrorist act, was to change the fashion of terrorism away from hostages and towards maximum carnage through bombs (Enders & Sandler, 2005, p. 260). If 9/11 was a result of unscrupulous politicians who wanted to push for a war in the Middle East, using Middle Eastern fanaticism in order to create their discourse, then the result was better than they could have anticipated. The liberal nature of Constitutional rights was tried in the American public and lost in the face of threat to the security of the Nation. The fashion of terrorism may have changed, but the uncomfortable relationship that the West held with the Middle East, the need to define ‘other’ and make it an enemy to justify the nature of war and inhuman engagement with those of a different culture was held to be stronger than the ideologies that had founded the nation. The nature of equality and fair treatment was defined through the actions of a government set on dictatorship rules, a nation that had championed the rights of freedoms then creating an ‘us’ and a ‘them’ in which the statement ‘If you are not with us, you are against us’ became a manifesto in which all those who dared to speak against the actions of the government were considered enemies of the state. It happened so quickly, this fall from ideological grace, that the American people almost missed it. Discussion The terrorism that was the result of this event was not only outside of the government, but within it. The result was to create a new fashion in terrorism, but also to support the idea that doing whatever is necessary is enough justification became a central theme to the actions of the political machine that seemed to be thriving in the aftermath of such terrible events. However, the idea that this had been done by American politicians is so terrible that it seems too far out of realistic consideration. Even though there are many discrepancies and inconsistencies that suggest a faction from within the government could have been responsible, it is unfathomable that such events could ever be justified by American people against American people. The article by Chossudovsky (2008) does pose some interesting questions, making the events seem contrived and part of a governmental plot to subvert Constitutional rights. The comments by Brunner provides context for the nature of the American public providing a fertile resource for such a plot to take shape and be enacted. The justification for going into the Middle East and waging war was viable as a reason for this type of conspiracy to have occurred. However, it is unlikely that the United States government was able to organize enough to pull off such a coup. The nature o the terrorism plot was so complex, if created by a faction in the government, that it would have taken precision that is hard to denote when the nature of the act is considered. Although Chossudovsky (2008) makes some good observations, they are flawed and it is unlikely that his concept of the events has validity. It is most likely that the original plot was executed much better than was intended by Al Qaeda. The nature of terrorism is to hit small, concise targets and whilt the original targets were large, it is doubtful that the terrorists believed they would be that successful. As a result, their religious leader was found, executed, and his body buried at sea where no one can find it. That was unlikely the intended result. References Achenbach, J. (19 June 2004). On 9/11: A telling seven-minute silence. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53548- 2004Jun18.html Brunner, R. D. (1994). Myth and American politics. Policy Sciences. 27(1), 1-18. Chossudovsky, M. (11 September 2008). The truth behind 9/11: Who is Osama Bin Laden?. Global Research. Retrieved from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php ?context=viewArticle&code=20060910&articleId=3198 Dwyer, D. (4 May 2011). Bin Laden death: Americans divided over credit for Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton. ABC News Online. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Politic s/osama-bin-laden-death-presidents-obama-bush-clinton/story?id=13518395 Elsis, M. R. (9 September 2002). 911 timeline. Love earth network. Retrieved from http://911timeline.net/ Enders, W. & T. Sandler. (April 2005). After 9/11: Is it all different now? Journal of Conflict Resolution. 49(2), 259-277. Fenster, M. (2008). Conspiracy theories: Secrecy and power in American culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Youtube. 15 October 2006. President Bush Speech on 9/11. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMiqEUBux3o Read More