So there is no real epistemological barrier to 'believing' that elements of the state apparatus might have been involved in 9-11 - and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting such a view. Further, as pointed out in the SF Bay Guardian (of all places) recently, "Everyone who has seriously considered the 9/11 attacks is a conspiracy theorist. To not try to put the pieces together is to be incurious about the most profound event of this new American century." In other words, it is double standard (though presumably not a racist one) - to call a view that elements of the USG were involved in 9-11 a 'conspiracy theory' but not the view that elements of Al Qaeda were involved. And incidentally, hasn't a key characteristic of racism in America been to convict black/brown people in the racist court of public opinion - in this case one fueled by a long history of negative sterotypes of Arabs - without a fairly adjuducted trial? How different has post-9-11 military action been from an extra-judicial posse of white men going after a group of 'presumed guilty' brown people? There has been no fair trial of those accused of carrying out the attacks and the prosecutors have some very serious conflicts of interest.
Further from the SF Bay Guardian:-
"It's absolutely true, for example, that the government's theory has never been subjected to the usual rigors applied to a case of mass murder. The government has never sought to have any of its evidence heard in a court of law. In fact, its refusal to make relevant witnesses and evidence available has caused the only successful 9/11-related prosecution – a German court's conviction of Mounir el-Motassadeq on charges of helping alleged 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta's terrorist cell in Hamburg – to be overturned on appeal last year.
Even Zacarias Moussaoui – an alleged coconspirator who acted suspiciously at flight school and was arrested by Minneapolis FBI agents the month before the attacks (agents who at the time told FBI headquarters they were "trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center," according to testimony to the 9/11 Commission) – has been ordered released by a judge because the federal government refuses to allow for his fair trial.
Congressional inquiries were obstructed and denied documents and testimony by the White House, yet even with a cursory review of the intelligence documents they could get, the hearings revealed the fact that the Bush administration had received dozens of urgent, credible warnings that the attacks were coming."
http://www.sfbg.com/39/25/cover_conspiracy.html
Joe W.
>From: "John Lacny" <jlacny at earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Ward Churchill & 9-11
>Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:51:22 -0500
>
>Don Chuck bravely sallies forth and knocks down another straw man:
>
> > I'm SO SORRY that I believe that brown people can be organized
> > and intelligent enough to bring the U.S. government and its economy
> > to its knees. I have no time for leftist fantasies about an omniscient
> > U.S. government that watches radicals every minute of the day and
> > planned the 9/11 attacks to boot. Sure the U.S. state used 9/11 to
> > launch wars and more repression--that doesn't mean that they
> > planned 9/11.
>
>I never said they did, and I think people who DO believe that are nuts --
>not even worth debating, really. You are confusing me with Wanzala.
>Icepick-wielding "Stalinist" three-quarters-Polish-Americans on the one
>hand
>and conspiracy theorists from Africa on the other do indeed look alike on
>the Internet, though, so I guess I don't blame you, particularly since
>you're clearly not the readin'-comprehension type.
>
>
>Further, Chuck unleashes another really, really dumb cliche, making it
>difficult to believe that he really is this stupid, but there you are:
>
> > I have a plan. I work with people who have plans. We accomplish
> > shit, unlike you and your petit bourgeoise liberal friends.
>
>If nothing else, Chuck, you're occasionally good for a laugh. Just not with
>this one. Some things are so dumb, they're funny. And other things are even
>dumber still -- and as a result, not funny at all.
>
>By the way, you misspelled "bourgeois."
>
>
>- - - - - - - - - -
>John Lacny
>http://www.johnlacny.com
>
>Tell no lies, claim no easy victories
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk