Review: Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate

An Imperial Connection?
In the last issue we printed a review by Mike King under the title ‘The Triumph of, Common Sense?’ in which he took the view that the analysis of the book Debunking 9/11 Myths is a sober account of the genuinely difficult questions arising out of the tragedy and supplied solid arguments to refute all the principal claims of a conspiracy theorists. In previous issues I myself reviewed David Ray Griffin’s earlier books, the first of which has now appeared in a second edition. Mike has made a detailed analysis on his web site of the arguments for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7, and these in turn have been subjected to critical analysis by Chris Lyons. In his review, Mike himself remarks that people are instinctively inclined to be either conspiracy theorists at heart or what he calls incompetency theorists. I think this is probably true, but one should add that the incompetency (or cock-up) theory applied to 9/11 entails accepting at face value a large number of coincidences pointing towards complicity by the US government. Griffin leaves readers to decide for themselves, while calling for a fuller investigation. In his second book, The 9/11 Commission: Errors and Omissions, he provides a detailed critical review of this document, pointing out that its starting point presupposes the truth of the official account (also a conspiracy theory). There is a sense in which Debunking 9/11 Myths similarly assumes the truth of the official account and cites The 9/11 Commission and the NIST Reports in support of their arguments while failing to address directly many of Griffin’s points. Hence there is an element of circular reasoning.

However, before considering the content of these new books on 9/11, it is worth stepping back to review the more general issues raised by conspiracy theories and analysed in a series of essays edited by David Coady. Much of the use of the term conspiracy theory is rhetorical and pejorative; proponents are assumed to be irrational purveyors of error and confusion. The book offers some useful definitions of both conspiracy and conspiracy theory. Conspiracies involve a group of agents acting together in secret, while a conspiracy theory is defined as ‘an explanation that is contrary to an explanation that has official status at the time and place in question.’ Coady adds that when ‘the official version of events itself invokes a conspiracy, it is unlikely to be thought of as a conspiracy theory.’ This is true in the case of 9/11. Further on, Lee Basham gives a slightly different slant to his definition by saying that it is ‘an explanation of important events that hypothesises the intentional deception and manipulation of those involved in, affected by or witnessing these events.’

The shadow of David Hume lurks behind many contributions. Hume’s Essay on Miracles (demolished by Alfred Russel Wallace) argues that even if they may be true, it is never rational to believe them. Hence Brian Keeley’s term ‘unwarranted conspiracy theories’. With more justification, Simon Clarke warns against degenerating research programmes where auxiliary hypotheses are successively modified in the light of new evidence to protect the original theory from refutation. Coady counters this by guarding against the opposite error of being excessively unwilling to believe conspiracy theories, which brings us back to the question of temperamental bias noted by Mike King. It is worth remembering that sometimes conspiracy theories turn out to be true, for instance Watergate, the Iran Contra affair and, more recently, the revelations around the intelligence suggesting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Brian Keeley advances the curious theory that it is sensible to dismiss conspiracy theories even though they possess greater explanatory power on the grounds that ‘given the imperfect nature of our human understanding of the world, we should expect that even the best possible theory would not explain all the available data. One’s theory should not fit all the available data, because not all the available data are, in fact, true.’ The reason for this is that conspiracy theories explain both the data of the received account and the errant or anomalous data that the received theory fails to explain. Much depends, of course, on what is considered anomalous. Many commentators complain that conspiracy theorists put too much focus on these anomalous data. However, from a scientific or philosophical point of view, the core issue is the relationship of evidence to hypothesis and argument. Normally, the hypothesis with greater explanatory power is preferred, but not in this case. Keeley also cautions against seeking purposive explanations where none exist, but this raises the question of intent where some events that look like accidents are in fact covert operations. Covert operations are by definition conspiratorial and are meant to deceive the public – more on this below.

The title of the Popular Mechanics (PM) book contains the loaded and associated words ‘debunk’ and ‘myth’, redolent of organisations like CSICOP and publications like The Skeptical Enquirer. Indeed, the skeptic Michael Shermer makes an appearance when he is quoted as remarking ‘the mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the so-called evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.’ He might have added parapsychology to his list as he is a long-time opponent of this field and stout defender of scientific materialism. The format of the book makes it look authoritative by setting up the so-called claim against the ‘facts’. However, a number of these facts are actually interpretations of data and in some cases structured as post hoc, propter hoc arguments.

For example, in discussing the collapse of the Twin Towers, they state ‘the fires themselves likely would not have brought down the Towers, but in combination with the damage from the crashes they proved fatal.’ They espouse the controrversial pancake theory of collapse and cite demolition expert Mark Loizeaux to the effect that ‘the explosives configuration manufacturing technology’ to bring the towers down does not exist. Moving on to WTC7, whose collapse seems to me identical with other examples of controlled demolition (Loizeaux is not quoted here), PM claims that the collapse was brought about by long-burning fires and damage caused by debris from the North Tower. NIST proposes that the building underwent ‘progressive collapse; but this seems little more than a form of words and even FEMA admits that this explanation ‘has only a low probability of occurrence’ especially given the free fall rate of collapse. Larry Silverstein’s recorded remark (he was the owner of the complex) suggesting that it was time to ‘pull it’ is unconvincingly reinterpreted as meaning ‘pull the firefighters out of the building’ (why not ‘pull them’?)

I would not like to convey the impression that none of the arguments advanced in this book can be taken seriously, as they do raise substantive points that deserve careful investigation.. They certainly can’t assume that they have the only rational explanation for the events of 9/11 and there are many claims that are not addressed. The difficulty is that there are so many claims and counterclaims, so many issues at so many levels to be dealt with, that the average reader is soon swamped by information which it is impossible on a practical basis to follow up without this becoming a full-time research programme.

9/11 and the American Empire and Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11 raise some of the same questions but look at the events in a larger political, economic, strategic and theological perspective. Daniele Ganser, Morgan Reynolds and David Ray Griffin all make the point that the a priori argument that the US government does not lie to its people and is morally incapable of deceiving the public and trumping up wars for Americans to fight and die in is historically false. The mission may sound noble enough, but the history of covert CIA operations is well documented, and the targeting of civilian populations with terrorism has long been part of a ‘strategy of tension.’ Various examples are given involving the US and other governments, which may even involve collusion with terrorists in order to help bring about an event that can be blamed on enemies and opponents. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was manufactured and led directly to US involvement in the war in Vietnam. Hence the question: was 9/11 also a false flag operation to justify the war on terror and accelerate US plans for world domination?

The Project for the New American Century and associated organisations have been formulating plans for US unipolar domination under the banner of Pax Americana since the early 1990s. They had been advocating the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan long before 9/11 and are on record as saying that something like a new Pearl Harbor would be required in order to swing Americans behind the policy and generate the necessary military budgets. Exponent of realpolitik Zbigniew Brzezinski says this in so many words: ‘it will be difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat’ - which was conveniently provided by 9/11. Ola Tunander explains the background, showing that some of the most wanted terrorists had either been working for or collaborating with various security or intelligence services. Some are even permitted to carry out bombings with a view to discrediting the insurgency they represent. In some circumstances, he remarks, terrorist attacks may be required in order to restructure the security system against terrorism, or even to provide a pretext for war. The mind may boggle at this.

Tunander argues that terrorism has been used on a global scale precisely in order to introduce a Pax Americana. His disturbing analysis links this unipolar vision to ongoing military conflicts or terrorist attacks ‘that are able to define the global system in primarily military-political terms.’ He continues: ‘by presenting the world in terms of terrorism and military threats, the US has been able to profit from its military-intelligence hegemony to transform the global system into a unipolar world order.’ Perpetual violence induces fear and enables measures like the Patriot Act to be introduced which curb civil liberties and help ensure that aspirations towards a civilian multipolar system are kept in check by a military unipolar world order which, incidentally, helps drive the US economy and provides massive dividends for many highly placed individuals including Vice President Cheney. The value of his stock options in Halliburton rose from just under $250,000 in $2004 to $8 million in 2005. The firm’s defence contracts totalled $427 million in 2001 but by 2003 it had $4.3 billion in contracts, of which approximately a third were sole source agreements.

The second half of Griffin’s new book consists of the Christian critique of the 9/11 and American imperialism. After presenting the case for imperial motives for a new Pearl Harbor, he moves on to discuss how Jesus viewed the Roman Empire, the theology of the divine and the demonic and the way in which the current American foreign policy project can readily be identified with demonic evil. Jesus did not regard the Roman Empire and Pax Romana as benign, but rather as demonic. Rome used terror to intimidate the people while Jesus formulated an anti-imperial religious movement, which, ironically later became a force for imperialism itself. The Kingdom of God is explicitly put forward as an alternative to the reign of empire.

If divine power is always characterised by universal compassion and active goodwill, demonic power is exercised on the basis of hate or indifference to the welfare of those affected by it. History shows that there has been a far greater drive for power than for love and compassion in political terms, reflected not only in the military industrial complex and war system but also in our increase in coercive power to control, destroy and intimidate. Griffin concludes that demonic power is now in effective control of the trajectory of civilisation.

Neoconservatives see American power as both benign and divine, ‘permitting other nations to enjoy the benefits of freedom, democracy and self-determination.’ The reality, however, differs sharply from the rhetoric and does not reflect either Christian or universal moral principles. Griffin uses these principles to assess some US interventions during the Cold War, bringing his analysis right up-to-date with the war in Iraq. He shows conclusively that successive administrations have treated other countries and peoples as a means to realise their own ends and interests and, while claiming to protect freedom and democracy, have done the exact opposite. With respect to 9/11, he concludes: ‘only if we understand the nature of the American Empire, along with ideas for extending it that were developed in the 1990s, can we understand why the attacks of 9/11 occurred. On the other hand, the attacks of 9/11 play a revelatory role in relation to the American Empire.’ Even if one disagrees with Griffin’s assessment of 9/11, his theological analysis is in my view persuasive: the exercise of coercive power in general and the US power in particular is demonic and is subverting the long-term possibility of peace and harmonious coexistence. Christian principles may apply at home but are regarded as an unrealistic in foreign policy, thus creating a terrible rift in our value system, as Tolstoy indicated over a century ago. We still don’t seem to have learned that violence breeds violence and that peace cannot be achieved through force.

We all appreciate that 9/11 is a pivotal event of our time. It is therefore crucial that we come to understand its many dimensions and implications, as explored from different angles in these books. The existence of the Internet is a step towards greater transparency and makes it more difficult for information to be suppressed. At the same time, it generates an overload of information, which makes it harder to see the wood from the trees. As Mike King concluded in his review, the trust of citizens in their governments is at stake. The political analysis provided here makes it clear that there are good reasons to distrust government, but opinions differ about whether to trust the US government and its account of 9/11. The material in these books will certainly enable readers to arrive at a view on this question. I summarised my own strategy in a lecture entitled ‘Wise as Serpents, Gentle as Doves’, based on some advice given by Jesus to his disciples. We need a clear head in trying to work out what is actually going on, but this should not take up all our energy and distract us from the task of building a new culture more securely based on universal values such as love, wisdom and truth.

*Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate

*Debunking 9/11 Myths

*9/11 And American Empire

*Christian Faith And The Truth Behind 9/11

*The New Pearl Harbor (Second Edition)