Radical Conspiracy Theories

The two rather radical conspiracy theories, the first states that although the government knew in advance about the attacks, it did not act to deter them and still let them get carried out. The second, as its name indicates, suggests that elements within the American government purposefully engineered and carried them out as part of an inside job. Both ‘letting it happen on purpose’ and ‘making it happen on purpose’ theories are divisive topic of debate which relies on the representation of democracy in a theoretical framework. Despite the radical nature of the two theories to suggest the full involvement of government, research reveals the increase in government secrecy was result of such theories to emerge. In addition to the failure
This conceptualization of- security and security threats, had significant impact on American that led to disastrous and arguably illegal public policies. Thus they served a false justification to wage war on Iraq, the rationalization of torture, and the unprecedented invasion of privacy, wire-tapping, to collect data on individuals. By implication, Bush administration was composed of government officials that supported such illegal policies that invested billions in the national security (non-transparent system) and argued that American security was threatened by Afghanistan and Iraq. After Bush’s ‘war on terror’ a critique in the mainstream media, Washington Post, launched a two-year investigation. The Washington Post Investigation that stated the “top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.” Hence, the Bush’s administration used al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks as justification to increase government secrecy by classifying information associated to war on