Five Years Later

or, The Real Truth About 9/11

I clearly remember that morning five years ago. I had been home sick for several days and was sleeping in, and was awakened to the news of what had transpired in New York and Washington. At first I was sure it was fiction, like the old War of the Worlds broadcast, but before long it became obvious that this was entirely too real. Radical Islamic terrorists, under the direction of Osama bin Laden, had hijacked planes and flown them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There was never any question of what had happened.

At least, not right away. There were lots of other questions — how many had perished, how could this have taken place, where was bin Laden and how long until he was captured or killed? As these questions were answered, or found to be unanswerable, new questions came up. More and more those questions were directed against the basic story of what took place. A lot of people just could not, or would not, stomach the official story and instead blamed everyone from US government (either for incompetence, for allowing terrorists to operate, or for actively plotting and executing the events directly) to Israel to the Illuminati to the government of Saudi Arabia. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find a website which blames extraterrestrials.

The most prevalent conspiracy theories argue that the US government actively participated in the plot. This includes suggestions of explosives planted at the WTC, a cruise missile fired at the Pentagon, and commercial aircraft being swapped out in favour of bomb-laden Predator drones. You can find literally hundreds of websites touting variants of these and other theories. And disbelief in the official story of 9/11 is hardly limited to a few wackos — a recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University survey found that 36% of Americans either think that the US government either stood back and allowed this to happen or actually made it happen.

The notion that the American government actually plotted to demolish the tallest structures in New York and attack the headquarters of its own military is of course completely ludicrous. The fact that so many people apparently buy into this lunacy is astounding, and somewhat disturbing. Perhaps it's because the current administration has so many vocal opponents that casting the blame in that direction seems somewhat credible. Or perhaps the crowd of voices asking questions (but not generally providing much in the way of answers) has raised so much doubt that people don't know what to believe.

I don't think for a minute that I have all the answers to everyone's questions. I do have a few compelling reasons why you should believe that radical Islamic terrorists are behind the September 11 attacks, however, and why the US government (although it might have fumbled the ball in preventing this) is not.

The main reason to believe that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network are behind 9/11 is that they had threatened major attacks on US soil for years. Indeed, in 1993 they attempted to blow up the WTC with a truck bomb. Al-Qaeda struck various other US affiliated targets in Africa and Asia in the years following, notably the near simultaneous 1998 Kenya-Tanzania embassy bombings. The attacks of September 11, 2001, are exactly the sort of thing bin Laden would want to do. The fact that most of the hijackers were Saudi nationals fits with his desire to drive a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia.

This isn't complicated. If I announced that robbing banks was a good idea, and had perhaps robbed a small bank branch in the suburbs, when the main branch downtown is robbed, the police would be idiotic not to bring me in for questioning. Al-Qaeda wanted to attack America, said they were going to attack America — why assume that they had nothing to do with it? After all, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, odds are it will be tasty with orange sauce.

As for the US government, specifically the Bush administration, there are two huge problems with their involvement. First, there is no real motive. Don't say money — there are far easier (and smarter, less riskier) ways to cash in than blowing up the heart of Manhattan's financial district. In fact, as clever get rich quick schemes go, this isn't even on the map. And don't even suggest that 9/11 was needed as justification to go to war in Iraq. No, that was all about WMDs and Colin Powell making a complete jackass of himself at the UN. I have yet to hear a credible motive for the US government participating in terrorism against itself. But when your hatred for the president burns with the fire of a thousand suns, you don't really stop to ask about a solid motive.

As for the second problem, there is the issue of cover up. It's hard to keep secrets. Especially secrets that people are likely to feel guilty about later. I don't know about you, but I'd feel pretty guilty about causing the deaths of 3000 people (especially when, as established, there's no solid motive behind it). To pull off an operation of this size within the US government and pin the blame on muslim terrorists would require hundreds of people to be privy to much of the scheme, and probably many hundreds more involved to a lesser extent. That's an awful lot of people to keep their mouths shut for the last five years. As Richard Nixon learned, all it takes is one well placed leak to bring down a president. The notion that perhaps a thousand conspirators have held their silence through 1825 days of guilt and nightmares defies any belief.

Finally, let us apply that great principle of logic, Occam's Razor, i.e. a problem should be explained in the simplest terms possible. In other words, Why look for a complicated solution when a simple one will do? The idea that people who said they wanted to attack America actually attacked America makes a lot more sense than coming up with scenarios in which people charged with protecting America did the exact opposite. When you stop and think about it, it's only common sense.