Liberals are possibly more disparaging of the '9/11 truth' movement than conservatives. Noam Chomsky's response to a question about the authorship of 9/11 was, infamously, 'who cares'? This was a strange thing for the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy to say about the biggest terrorist attack on American soil; indeed, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the families and friends of those who were murdered on 9/11 might have a passing interest in whether their loved ones were killed by Muslim terrorists or by 'their own' government. And does Chomsky really believe that nobody in the US will 'care' if 9/11 were definitively revealed to be, say, an 'inside job'? After all, he himself has pointed out that such a revelation would destroy the Republican party forever and would result in 'firing squads'.
Then again, I have to confess that for many years after 9/11, I myself tended to dismiss with a smirk those who questioned the official narrative about the attacks as 'conspiracy theorists'. In doing so I was, I now see, merely following the crowd. And I can understand why there was so little appetite for critical questioning in the wake of the atrocities. It's hard for those exposed to seismic acts of terror to retain their critical faculties. On the contrary, traumatized people often take refuge in group think and myth-mongering or indulge in fantasies of violent retribution. That's why it was so easy for politicians and journalists in 2001 to spin the atrocity as an assault on the US and its values by an evil, non-Christian Other. In line with the propaganda dynamics outlined in Naomi Klein's 2007 book The Shock Doctrine, the view prevailed that 9/11 was an attack on 'our way of life' that demanded not critical analysis, but immediate, bloody revenge against the supposed perpetrators.
Over the last few years I have - rather belatedly - read many books about 9/11 and listened to a lot of the professional critics of the official account. And like many others - a 2016 study suggested that more than half of Americans believe that their government is concealing information about the attacks - I've concluded that the official version of events makes no sense at all. It is undermined by, inter alia, the bizarre failure of all air defences (for which multiple, mutually contradictory explanations have been supplied by officials); the lack of any photographic evidence that the alleged attackers had boarded the planes; the mismatch between the alleged hijackers' extraordinary manoeuvres and their lack of training; mainstream media reports that some attackers were still alive after the event; the refusal of official investigators to consider first-hand accounts of multiple explosions before the plane impacts; the near-miraculous discovery of an incriminating passport amid the ashes of the Twin Towers (shades of the London 7/7 attacks there); and so on. The full catalogue of improbabilities was usefully summarized back in the noughties in the books of David Ray Griffin. Of particular significance, too, are the so-called 'intelligence failures' at Alec Station, whereby the CIA did not pass its information about Khalid al-Mihdhar and Salem al-Hazmi to the FBI, and the recently recrudescent question of Saudi complicity in the organization of the attacks.
Over the years, I have learned to reject the label of 'conspiracy theory' that is so often lazily wielded by liberals to dismiss dissenting opinions. After all, mainstream media promote their own 'conspiracy theories': just consider the various evidence-light anti-Russian confections in the British and US media recently, from the hacking of the 2016 US election to the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK. When these kinds of geopolitical 'conspiracy theories' are propounded by powerful politicians and media organizations, they are known simply as 'the news'. Moreover, as many critics point out, the 9/11 Commission's story that the attacks were carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers directed by a sick man living in Afghanistan is itself a conspiracy theory - and not a convincing one. This should not even be particularly controversial. After all, even Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, the chair and vice chair of the Commission, state in their 2006 book Without Precedent that their investigation was underfunded and 'set up to fail' and that they were lied to by officials.
Precisely which organizations and individuals were behind the 9/11 attacks is still unclear. Plenty of ludicrous theories have been put forward by assorted lunatics and even intelligence agents. Remember David Shayler, the MI5 officer who, during the high-tide of the 9/11 truth movement, argued that the 'planes' that struck the Twin Towers were in fact missiles camouflaged by holograms? Perhaps in order to ensure that nobody could take his theory about 9/11 seriously, Shayler also claimed to be the Messiah (move over, David Icke) and to be able to control the footballing fortunes of Middlesbrough F.C. All of this was certainly an effective way to discredit those asking serious questions about the attacks. Back in the real world, however, the doubts and questions of independent investigators and victims' family members are not so easily laughed off. To this day, many people are justifiably concerned that, in the title of Jon Gold's useful recent collection of interviews, We Were Lied to About 9/11 and they are looking for serious answers to the question: what actually happened?
It is possible that elements the US state either played a part in orchestrating 9/11 or allowed the attacks to happen, something the US has done certainly before as a pretext for war (Griffin, who advocates the 'inside job' theory, famously termed 9/11 'the new Pearl Harbour', borrowing the Project for a New American Century's phrase from 1997). Contra Chomsky, it would be worth knowing if this was indeed the case. For one thing, it would provide the families of the victims with closure. It might also help to convince those who need convincing that the bourgeoisie is thoroughly Machiavellian. Indeed, fear of being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' (a fear that is widespread among Marxists and anarchists, it seems to me) should not prevent us from recognizing that ruling classes - yes, even our own - shroud their undercover activities in secrecy and disinformation.
Whoever was responsible for them - and here Noam Chomsky does have a point - the 9/11 attacks were used as a pretext for the subsequent resource-grabbing invasions of Middle Eastern countries and a wholesale assault on civil liberties and human rights across the world. More generally, for the US and most other ruling classes around the world, 9/11 has provided a golden opportunity to ramp up the repression and surveillance of Muslims and other 'suspect communities'. The rhetoric of the war on terror has also normalized anti-Muslim prejudice across the Western world (see, for instance, Boris Johnson's recent quip about burka-wearing Muslim women looking like 'bank robbers'). Shortly after the attacks, US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld declared that 9/11 presented 'the kind of opportunities that World War II offered' to 'refashion the world'. In numerous big and small ways, 9/11 has helped the world's rulers to do just that.
Yet the events leading up to 9/11 remain cloaked in mystery. I have no idea whether we might one day have a clearer understanding of what happened on the day, or whether a new official investigation would be useful or even possible; at this point, the '9/11 truth movement' has been pretty much dead for a decade. But the families and friends of those who died, and of those killed subsequently in the name of the war on terror, deserve truth and justice.