Liberals are possibly more disparaging of the 9/11 truth/justice movement than conservatives. Noam Chomsky's response to a question about the authorship of 9/11 was, infamously, 'who cares'? I am not the first to point out that 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 or that that the families and friends of those who were murdered on 9/11 might just 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'.
I have to confess that for many years after 9/11, I myself tended to dismiss with a smirk anybody who questioned the official narrative about the attacks as a 'conspiracy theorist'. In doing so I was 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 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 aerial manoeuvres and their distinct lack of pilot training; the (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 analyzed back in the noughties in the books of David Ray Griffin, but they have never been adequately dealt with by defenders of the official story. Of particular significance 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. To discuss these problems and questions is not necessarily to advance any particular 'conspiracy theory', but rather to point out that we still lack a coherent account of what happened on 9/11.
We should, I think, be highly critical of those conservatives, and especially liberals, who use the term 'conspiracy theory' in order to dismiss dissenting opinions, as though conspiracy were not part of the very system they seek to defend. After all, mainstream media promote 'conspiracy theories' all the time. Just consider the various evidence-light anti-Russian confections in the British and US media recently, most notably that of the alleged hacking of the 2016 US election (indeed, it is becoming more and more obvious that 'Russiagate' has been coordinated by Western intelligence services). It's hardly outlandish, therefore, to consider the 9/11 Commission's story that the attacks were carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers directed by a sick man in Afghanistan as a conspiracy theory. 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, or had knowledge of 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. But the doubts and questions of independent investigators and victims' family members are not so easily laughed off. To this day, many people are aware 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 activities in secrecy and disinformation. Power prefers darkness.
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. 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', from the Patriot Act and Guantánamo Bay in the early days of Bush's War on Terror to the Uyghur internment camps of China's Xinjiang province today. The rhetoric of the war on terror has also normalized anti-Muslim prejudice; 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 surrounding 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 largely dormant for a decade. But the families and friends of those who died, and of those tortured and killed across the globe in the name of the war on terror, certainly deserve truth and justice.