|
|
|
|
9/11
As somebody who writes and commentates in the media on conspiracy theories,
Nick Pope is frequently asked for his views on the idea that 9/11 was an ‘inside
job’ or that it was allowed to happen.
Nick Pope is sceptical of these conspiracy theories and has debated the issue
several times on various TV and radio shows. His position statement is as
follows.
I worked for the Ministry of Defence for 21 years. My last posting was in a
security-related job and because of this, when I left the Department, I was
asked by some people to look into the various conspiracy theories surrounding
the tragic events of 9/11.
I did this in an even-handed way. I watched the film Loose Change, looked at
various websites and attended lectures by Calum Douglas and Gordon Ross. I met
and discussed the issue with Tim Sparke, Ian Henshall and former MI5 officer
Annie Machon. I then read the
9/11 Commission Report from cover to cover
(something very few people in the so-called 9/11 truth movement have done). I
also read the
March 2005 Popular Mechanics article and the
material on the State
Department website, both of which summarise and respond to the main conspiracy
theories. I concluded that the conspiracy theories were unfounded and that 9/11
was a terrorist attack, not an 'inside job' and not an attack that was "allowed
to happen".
Many of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 arise because of fundamental
misunderstandings of the way in which governments, the military and intelligence
agencies act. Others arise because facts and comments have been misunderstood
or, in some cases, deliberately misrepresented.
Notwithstanding the above, there were clear failures in the US intelligence
community (e.g. in areas such as information-sharing between various agencies),
which could have done more to prevent the attacks. There were also failures in
the US response on the day. These points have been acknowledged in the 9/11
Commission Report and the authorities have done their best to learn lessons from
the terrible events of 9/11.
There are also legitimate issues surrounding the health of rescuers, survivors
and others in the vicinity. There is medical evidence to support the idea that
they have health problems (mainly lung ailments) resulting from inhalation of
toxic dust after the towers came down. But it is quite wrong to link this issue
– as some have tried to do – to the conspiracy theories.
Much has been made of the fact that some of the 9/11 Commission Report authors
have subsequently been critical of certain aspects of the inquiry. While this is
true, it is important to stress that none of them have supported the idea that
the attacks were an inside job. One of the things that most irritated the
Commissioners was NORAD's insistence that they would have intercepted and shot
down United 93 had the aircraft not crashed, following the intervention of the
passengers. The Commissioners were not convinced by this argument. It may be
that this was wishful thinking on the part of NORAD officials, or it may be the
case that some officials were trying to downplay NORAD's lack of preparedness
and the mistakes that were made on the day.
9/11 was a tragedy. If the US authorities could have prevented it, they would
have done so. The attack succeeded because the terrorists responsible had a
combination of good planning and good luck. It also succeeded because FAA and
NORAD protocols understandably assumed that the hijackings would follow the
pattern of previous hijackings, with the terrorists forcing the pilots to land
at an airport and then making demands. But as a NORAD official observed as the
events unfolded, this was “a new type of war”.
The 9/11 Commission Report rightly describes al Qaeda as “sophisticated,
patient, disciplined and lethal”. There is no doubt in my mind that al Qaeda
planned and executed these attacks, with no inside help.
A TV show in which Nick Pope debated 9/11 with conspiracy theorists