Anti-Conspiracy Reasoning

I spend a fair amount of time looking at liberal web-sites (such as Eschaton, Hullabaloo, Daily Kos, and so forth) and reading the comments people post there. What strikes me, is that even among highly partisan democrats, there is quite a bit of reluctance to think that Bush had anything to do with 9/11 or that 9/11 was a conspiracy with US government involvement. The worst that people seem to want to think is that Bush was simply negligent in responding to terrorist threats, and this is of course a major idea that is allowable by mainstream people about 9/11. When Richard Clarke's revelations came out last spring, I actually was highly susceptible to the idea that Bush and his administration was simply incompetent in responding to the "Al Qaeda" threat. Although, even on the day of 9/11 itself, I always suspected that there was more to it than outside terrorists sneakily attacking us. I suspected from that day that the government had let its citizens down in a very huge way. In any case, I often wonder why more people aren't suspicious about 9/11. I can think of three basic reasons:

1) most people just can't comprehend or don't want to believe that the government might be involved in something involving the killing of thousands of its citizens.

2) people think the official 9/11 explanation is completely convincing on its own.

3) people immediately associate any hint of government involvement in 9/11 as part of some kooky or nasty conspiracy theory and don't want to have anything to do with it.

I think that most people use a combination of these three reasons to dismiss any idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy invoplving the government.

But taking them one by one:

1) there is a clear historical precedent for governments using terror as a tool to sway public opinion. Moreover, such plots have been seriously considered in the US (i.e Operation Northwoods). Moreover, there is a whole seamy underworld to US government actions, that most people aren't aware of and certainly don't want to think about because it so disturbing. But this reason for not believing in a 9/11 conpsiracy doesn't really hold up.

2) this of course is the easiest idea to dismiss, because if people are properly educated about the many strange aspects of 9/11, then there really is no basis for this particular opinion. Although, still, there probably is a strong sentiment in a lot of people to blame the outsider for 9/11, and the offifical theory does this very well.

3) This is a more powerful reason, and as I discussed in my first post, there is a lot of kooky stuff out there on 9/11, which undoubtedly turns people away. And this is probably why a lot of these kooky theories get put out in the first place: to turn people away from thinking about alternative theories to 9/11. Then there are theories about 9/11 that have to do with Israeli involvement, the "nasty" theories that most people discount because they sound anti-semitic and hateful. I have to admit I am susceptible to this last part. How to seprate the true abnormalities of 9/11 from the fake and contrived ones? Well, that is part of the reason for this web-log. I feel confident, nonetheless, that there is solid evidence of government complicity in 9/11. The reason that this is not apparent to most people is simply that this damning information is dispersed all over in many different sources and doesn't yet form a coherent whole.

Thus, I think that logic and education about clear facts can be used to enlighten people about possible US government complicity in 9/11. The bottom line is that we do not know the whole story of 9/11-- that is very clear. And the government won't tell us, in order to guard "national security interests". And I think much of guarding national security secrets is simply covering up the governments own dirty work.