9/11 Attack: Conspiracy Theories & Causes - Essay Sample

Introduction

The 9/11 attack is, undeniably, one of the most shocking and horrid terror attacks in US history. This attack entailed the hijacking of four passenger jets by Al Qaeda extremists, which flew into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, blew up buildings and ultimately killed about 3000 people (Bell, 2018). Following this incidence, the question of what caused the attack has been subject to intense arguments. Could it have been an inside job? Several conspiracy theories have emerged in line with these questions to explain how the terrorists orchestrated the 9/11 attack. This paper argues that the 9/11 truth movement has had multiple conspiracies in different perceptions with time such as the paranoid style and cultural sociology theories that have changed the understanding of the event.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Conspiracy Theories

Wood and Douglas (2013) described conspiracy theories as beliefs that powerful individuals are scheming secretly for an evil purpose by deceiving the public. In essence, the conspiracy beliefs, which are propagated by conspiracists, depict their distrust in other people. In the aftermath of the dreadful 9/11 terror attacks, Jones (2010) acknowledged that conspiracy theories surfaced at the public and state levels, which were held by the "9/11 Truth Movement" and the Bush government. At the public level, about a third of Americans believe that some officials in the Bush administrations were either aware of the planned attacks in New York and Washington on 11th September 2001 and did not prevent the attacks, or were among the perpetrators of the attack (Olmsted, 2011). Just like in the case of President Kennedy's assassination, the 9/11 truth activists blamed a clique of government officials for lying and conspiring. These activists dismissed state-level claims by the Bush administration that the attacks were perpetrated by terrorists, whose planes collided and exploded leading to the collapse of the buildings.

With regards to how conspiracy beliefs spread across the public, conspiracists have constantly opined that everything is connected, which is justified by the linkages that 9/11 truth activists have formed in websites and through media. Bell (2018) stated that the reinforcing nature of the internet space, where people post statements regarding what they believe transpired during the attacks, has seen the propagation of these conspiracies for about 15 years. One such statement is by David Rostcheck, an internet user, who said, "Is it just me?".... "or did anyone else recognize that it was not the airplane impacts that blew up the World Trade Center?" (Bell, 2018). Even though the Bush government maintained that the WTC collapsed due to inferno from the planes, Rostcheck's statement shows that he did not consider this position to be satisfactory. This statement also shows that conspiracists are always looking for an explanation that befits the incidence. To understand the explanations given by conspiracists better, I will utilize two conspiracy theory camps, namely the paranoid style and the cultural sociology perspectives.

The Paranoid Style

Stempel, Hargrove and Stempel III (2007) stipulated that the paranoid style theory advances the idea that conspiracies are more rampant among marginalized groups such as the minorities and women due to their weak communalities, powerlessness and status insecurities. Less controlled media platforms such as talk shows and blogs contribute significantly to advancing conspiratorial thoughts. In this line, Wood (2013) stated that high-traffic internet conspiracy discourses provide a conspiratorial opinion of events as they occur to counteract popular reports by mainstream media houses and state agencies.

A case in point is a blog by Bell (2018) on the third tower (WTC7) in Manhattan, where he discusses how BBC reported the incidence. His position was that the collapse of this tower during the 9/11 attack was not caused by fire from the planes as reported by the media. He continues to acknowledge that the misunderstandings created by mainstream media accounts on the attacks have attracted a significant number of audiences to believe in conspiracists views. One such misunderstanding is the unanswered question of how two planes would have resulted in the crumbling of three buildings, as recounted by the BBC. Another inaccurate reporting by the BBC that caused misunderstandings was that WTC7 crumbled twenty minutes before the tower collapsed. The BBC, however, addressed this misreporting in 2007 through their editors' blog by clarifying that the correspondents were only reporting an on-air statement on the looming structural breakdown of the WTC7 shortly before its actual collapse (Bell, 2018).

In another case away from media, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) attempted to disprove the conspiracists' views by stating, through a 2008 report, that WTC7 crumbled due to a fire-induced progressive failure of its columns. However, Roland Angle, a 9/11 truth activist, has disputed this report by arguing that it is erroneous. He has organized more research on the validity of this report, whose findings are yet to be made available (Bell, 2018). Roland believes that there is a hidden serious account on the attack beyond what the government reports.

Equally, Steven Jones, a fellow of 9/11 Scholars of Truth, purported that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by neoconservatives in Bush's administration to inflate army budgets and vindicate the occupation of Arab states (Asquith, 2006). The 9/11 Scholars of Truth were quick to refute the official conspiracy theory by the government that 19 terrorists who got into the country and others hiding in Afghanistan were responsible for the attacks single-handedly. They believed that these terrorists were aided by inside men to launch the attacks. As bizarre as this twist in the event's explanation may have sounded, Steven and other scholars were resolute in advancing their claim that the 9/11 attack was a scheme. A better way to understand this explanation is to perceive it through the lens of the cultural sociology theory.

The Cultural Sociology Theory

Stempel, Hargrove and Stempel III (2007) posited that the cultural sociology perspective emphasizes the social structuring of beliefs, where, like in the paranoid style theory, marginalized and disempowered people are also likely to believe in conspiracies. Nonetheless, this perspective underscores more the rational elements of conspiratorial thoughts. As such, rather than marginalizing these people further, conspiracies in the cultural sociology perspective act as anti-elitist protests by outsider groups against influential individuals in government and society. These outsider groups often consist of politically engaged individuals.

This cultural sociology perspective is evident in the association between the 9/11 Scholars of Truth and prominent colleges to validate intellectually conspiracies that were believed by some Americans. The Americas' belief in conspiracies was due to their disagreement with the approaches used by Bush's administration in fighting terror and their struggles in the Iraq war (Asquith, 2006). These scholars argued that they had gathered sufficient scientific evidence to substantiate the claim that the neoconservative group, which was comprised of powerful government officials such as the then vice president and defense secretary, planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. They argued that the neoconservatives intended to use this attack as a pretext for proactive antagonism against Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

Some of the evidence gathered by these scholars were eyewitness reports of loud blasts on the lower floors of the WTC7, which they believed point to the conclusion that the tower crushed due to explosives rather than the collision of two planes. Furthermore, the inferno from these planes could not weaken the tower's columns and beams structurally since fire from jet fuel cannot melt steel bars (Asquith, 2006). Arguably, this was the most logical explanation to support the argument that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. As such, the 9/11 Scholars of Truth concluded that the government's claim that WTC7 broke down due to the planes colliding was a ploy to sway the public from learning the truth of what transpired.

Rebuttal to the Conspiracy Theory on the Use of Explosives

Despite more Americans increasingly believing in the above conspiracy theories, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been constantly refining its position that the buildings were brought down by explosives, by adding that Nano-thermite was also used to control the demolition. However, this refining of the conspiracists view has drawn sharp criticism. One such criticism is by Thomas (2011), who found the Truth advocates' claim as being inconsistent in that they maintained that the expulsion of debris several meters away from WTC7 must have been due to explosives, while also insisting that Nano-thermite was used to collapse the buildings quietly. He argued that the reaction caused by Nano-thermite melting steel beams is slower but hotter than that caused by explosives. As such, he stated if Nano-thermite was used as the Truth advocates insisted, noticeable pools of molten steel should have been traced at Ground zero. However, these pools were only found months after the attack, which could not be associated directly with reactions from Nano-thermite. Besides, Nano-thermite is also ineffective in conducting controlled demolitions. As such, Thomas (2011) dismissed the Truth Movement's claim that the attack was an inside job as being unconvincing.

Analysis and Conclusion

The above rebuttals raise questions on the validity of the Truth advocates' conspiracy theory. The conspiracists views seem to contradict as further explanations emerge to justify the belief that 9/11 attacks were an inside job. However, going by the monological nature of conspiracy theories, Wood, Douglas and Sutton (2012) pointed out that even if these theories may be wrong, the central proposition cannot be disproved entirely since the new conspiracy layers tend to vindicate any piece of negating evidence. In the 9/11 incidence, the key proposition by conspiracists is that the official position by the government that the towers collapsed as a result of the collision of the two planes hijacked by terrorists, was untrue. The conspiracists consider this position to be a cover-up for a convoluted sinister plan by some government officials to launch the attacks.

The disproof by Thomas (2011) only disagrees with the refined view by the 9/11 Truth Movement that the towers' collapse may have been caused by Nano-thermite. Even though he maintains that Nano-thermite did not cause this collapse due to the high temperatures required for it to melt steel, pockets of melted steel were found later at the scene of the collapsed towers. In as much as this evidence may be insufficient to support the refined argument, it points to the possibility that other forces led to the towers collapsing other than the official statement that this collapse was due to an explosion after the aircrafts collided. Therefore, based on a monological perspective of these conspiracy beliefs, I think that the central proposition that the government was deceptive in its official statement about the cause of the 9/11 incident and, as such, I believe that this attack may have been an inside job.

References

Asquith, C. (2006). Who really blew up the twin towers? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/sep/05/internationaleducationnews.highereducation

Bell, C. (2018). The people who think 9/11 may have been an 'in...