Ten years of the wtc conspiracy

A review

"conspiracy theories reduce complex events to a simple cause (Sundenbock) and are therefore often used as a means of propaganda", had written my note on the morning of the 11. The title of my book on conspiracies and conspiracy theories, which I had started a few months earlier, was: "The events of September 2001". On the basis of historical examples, in an analysis of their structure and functioning, I wanted to arrive at a kind of meta-theory of conspiracy theories, and thus at a better understanding of this universal phenomenon.

For just as conspiracies – secret agreements, discreet betrayals, clandestine activities – occur almost everywhere, from love to business, from interpersonal relationships to those among corporations and nations, so frequently (or even more frequently) do the corresponding suspicions, the speculations or hypotheses of a possible conspiracy, or conspiracy theories, also exist. After a call from a friend that something had happened in New York, I sat in front of the TV like the rest of the world, amazed, and forgave my work in the face of the almost incomprehensible events.

The towers were still standing when the name Osama Bin Laden was first mentioned as a possible perpetrator, which in the following hours mutated from possible to suspected to only suspected. The next morning he was in all the news as the main culprit – and I wondered: on the one hand a surprise attack of almost unimaginable dimensions, and on the other hand you immediately know who is behind it?

I remembered the note from the day before, in which "Sundenbock" and "Propaganda" were underlined. I entered the name of the alleged perpetrator in Google and stumbled upon Who is Osama bin Laden?, an article about the collaboration of Bin Laden and the CIA, which Michel Chodovsky had just put online. That was the end of my previous book concept, and the beginning of the Telepolis series link on /special/wtc/default.html, because in the following days and weeks what I wanted to investigate structurally and historically unfolded topically and live in the wild: the unexplained conspiracy to commit mass murder was seamlessly followed by an unproven conspiracy theory of the culprits.

Open questions

That from the first "conspiracy theoretical remarks" the series "WTC Conspiracy" was not a plan. I amed – somewhat naively, I suppose, from today’s perspective – that the oddities I had noticed could not have gone unnoticed by other journalists and had to become the subject of inquiries, research and reporting. As for example the "Elephant tracks" the perpetrator at the airport and the clear questions they raised:

"Why do such super terrorists leave Arabic flight documents in rental cars? Why they book domestic flights – for which there is no ID control – under their real names? Why do bags remain hanging at the airport, containing suicide notes? Who would be reading these letters if the bag had come on the plane?? If they were real farewell letters to relatives, why were they not simply dropped in the mailbox before departure? Why there is no confession letter? Who fades in such a mega-action without confessing afterwards? Why is there, as usual with every gross terrorist attack, no political demands, no statement, nothing at all?? Why does the mysterious Dr. No, who is behind this James Bond-like terror, not with a sequel, sets ultimatums, exerts prere? (Primate politics and prohibitions on thinking, 19.09.2001)

Was it un-patriotic, anti-American, anti-Semitic or crazy to ask these questions? No – even though accusations of such caliber subsequently poured in, they completely missed the point and only served to bludgeon the ambassador because people apparently didn’t want to hear the message:

There are many, many unanswered questions – starting with the apparent "Operation Opium Poppy" of the secret services and the air traffic control, which woke up from their coma only when it went bang – and it is much too early to demand an immediate answer to all of them. But these questions must be asked, and they must be asked now. Not in order to reduce the confusing complexity of the situation to a simplistic theory of conspiracy – this is precisely the mainstream of the media – but, on the contrary, in order to prevent, in the service of finding the truth, simplifications that make people stupid and their dangerous consequences.

This accusation of the role of the media – that they did not report about 9/11 in the service of finding the truth, but spread a dull conspiracy theory – was the real reason why these first comments became the series on Telepolis and meanwhile three books. Until today and especially at the anniversary, the media mainstream continues to unabashedly spread an unproven conspiracy theory as an unquestionable historical truth.