CEDRIC H. RUDISILL / GETTY
FBI agents, firefighters, rescue workers and engineers
work at the Pentagon crash site on September 14, 2001,
after a highjacked American Airlines flight slammed into
the building on September 11.

From the Magazine | Cover
Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away
Turns out, we need grand theories to make sense of grand
events, or the world just seems too random
By LEV GROSSMAN
# Web Guide: 9/11 conspiracy theories
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1531250,00.html
# Poll Results: Americans Have Adapted to Terror Reality
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1531267,00.html
Posted Sunday, Sep. 3, 2006
Take a look, if you can stand it, at video footage of
the World Trade Center collapsing. Your eye will
naturally jump to the top of the screen, where huge
fountains of dark debris erupt out of the falling
towers. But fight your natural instincts. Look farther
down, at the stories that haven't collapsed yet.
In almost every clip you'll see little puffs of dust
spurting out from the sides of the towers. There are two
competing explanations for these puffs of dust: 1) the
force of the collapsing upper floors raised the air
pressure in the lower ones so dramatically that it
actually blew out the windows. And 2) the towers did not
collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the
ensuing fires. They were destroyed in a planned,
controlled demolition. The dust puffs you see on film
are the detonations of explosives planted there before
the attacks.
People who believe the second explanation live in a very
different world from those who believe the first. In
world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the
destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S.
government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial
jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93
did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it
was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter.
The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by
federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a
pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by
extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the
power of the Bush Administration.
The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might
think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month
found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or
"somewhat likely" that government officials either
allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the
attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot
of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a
mainstream political reality.
Although the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy
believers refer to their passion, has been largely
ignored by the mainstream media, it is flourishing on
the Internet. One of the most popular conspiracy videos
online is Loose Change, a 90-min. blizzard of
statistics, photographs, documents, eyewitness accounts
and expert testimony set to a trippy hip-hop backbeat.
It's designed to pick apart, point by point, the
conventional narrative of what happened on Sept. 11,
2001.
For all its amateur production values--it was created by
a pair of industrious twentysomethings using a laptop,
pizza money and footage scavenged from the
Internet--Loose Change is a compelling experience. Take
the section about the attack on the Pentagon. As the
film points out--and this is a tent-pole issue among
9/11 conspiracists--the crash site doesn't look right.
There's not enough damage. The hole smashed in the
Pentagon's outer wall was 75 ft. wide, but a Boeing 757
has a 124-ft. wingspan. Why wasn't the hole wider? Why
does it look so neat?
Page 1 of 3 1 | 2 | 3 Next >>
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-2,00.html
Page 2 of 3 <
>
Experts will tell you that the hole was punched by the
plane's fuselage, not its wings, which sheared off on
impact. But then what happened to the wings? And the
tail and the engines? Images of the crash site show
hardly any of the wreckage you would expect from a
building that's been rammed by a commercial jet. The
lawn, where the plane supposedly dragged a wing on
approach, is practically pristine. The plane supposedly
clipped five lampposts on its way in, but the lampposts
in question show surprisingly little damage. And could
Hani Hanjour, the man supposedly at the controls, have
executed the maneuvers that the plane performed? He
failed a flight test just weeks before the attack. And
Pentagon employees reported smelling cordite after the
hit, the kind of high explosive a cruise missile
carries.
There's something empowering about just exploring such
questions. Loose Change appeals to the viewer's common
sense: it tells you to forget the official explanations
and the expert testimony, and trust your eyes and your
brain instead. It implies that the world can be grasped
by laymen without any help or interference from the
talking heads. Watching Loose Change, you feel as if you
are participating in the great American tradition of
self-reliance and nonconformist, antiauthoritarian
dissent. You're fighting the power. You're thinking
different. (Conspiracists call people who follow the
government line "sheeple.") "The goal of the movie was
just really to get out there and show that there are
alternate stories to what the mainstream media and the
government will tell you," says Korey Rowe, 23, who
produced the movie. "That 19 hijackers are going to
completely bypass security and crash four commercial
airliners in a span of two hours, with no interruption
from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace
in the United States and the world? That to me is a
conspiracy theory."
It's also not much of a story line. As a narrative, the
official story that the government--echoed by the
media--is trying to sell shows an almost embarrassing
lack of novelistic flair, whereas the story the
conspiracy theorists tell about what happened on Sept.
11 is positively Dan Brownesque in its rich, exciting
complexity. Rowe and his collaborator, Dylan Avery, 22,
actually started writing Loose Change as a fictional
screenplay--"loosely based around us discovering that
9/11 was an inside job," Rowe says--before they became
convinced that the evidence of conspiracy was
overwhelming. The Administration is certainly playing
its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to
war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction,
is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch?
Page 2 of 3 <>
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-3,00.html
Page 3 of 3 <
But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with
most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about
them, the more you realize how much they depend on
circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or
documentation, quotes taken out of context and the
scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses. (For
what it's worth, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology has published a fact sheet responding to some
of the conspiracy theorists' ideas on its website,
www.nist.gov. The theories prompt small, reasonable
questions that demand answers that are just too large
and unreasonable to swallow. Granted, the Pentagon crash
site looks odd in photographs. But if the Pentagon was
hit by a cruise missile, then what happened to American
Airlines Flight 77? Where did all the real, documented
people on it go? Assassinated? Relocated? What about
eyewitnesses who saw a plane, not a missile? And what
are the chances that an operation of such size--it would
surely have involved hundreds of military and civilian
personnel--could be carried out without a single leak?
Without leaving behind a single piece of evidence hard
enough to stand up to scrutiny in a court? People, the
feds just aren't that slick. Nobody is.
There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy
theories are so seductive. Academics who study them
argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the
magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the
magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny
causes can have huge consequences feels scary and
unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11
needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "We tend to
associate major events--a President or princess
dying--with major causes," says Patrick Leman, a
lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of
London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief.
"If we think big events like a President being
assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor
individual, that points to the unpredictability and
randomness of life and unsettles us." In that sense, the
idea that there is a malevolent controlling force
orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way,
comforting.
You would have thought the age of conspiracy theories
might have declined with the rise of digital media. The
assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a
private, intimate affair compared with the attack on the
World Trade Center, which was witnessed by millions of
bystanders and television viewers and documented by
hundreds of Zapruders. You would think there was enough
footage and enough forensics to get us past the grassy
knoll and the magic bullet, to create a consensus
reality, a single version of the truth, a single world
we can all live in together.
But there is no event so plain and clear that a
determined human being can't find ambiguity in it. And
as divisive as they are, conspiracy theories are part of
the process by which Americans deal with traumatic
public events like Sept. 11. Conspiracy theories form
around them like scar tissue. In a curious way, they're
an American form of national mourning. They'll be with
us as long as we fear lone gunmen, and feel the pain of
losses like the one we suffered on Sept. 11, and as long
as the past, even the immediate past, is ultimately
unknowable. That is to say, forever.
Page 3 of 3
==================
PAGE 1
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html
=======================
APFN 9/11 INFO AND LINKS:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm