William Gibson Slams the 9/11 Truth Movement
Contrarily to his pseudoscientific psychological analysis, a government that would be ready to sacrifice the lives of its fellow citizens as an excuse to massacre more people in wars is nothing to be reassured about. It is a threat far closer to home than terrorists living in a cave on the other side of the planet. If anything, this would make people avoid the theory like the plague because it is far too discomforting regardless of how simplistic it supposedly is.
Although the US government certainly got the results it wanted from the crime it committed, it was by no means competent in covering it up, as the onslaught of evidence and the explosion of the 9/11 Truth Movement coming out every week will tell.
If the 9/11 events were so complicated as claimed by Gibson, then why would a group of 19 Arabs, far less competent and without state resources, have been succesful where a government wouldn't have been? On the other hand, if allegations that the attacks were sponsored by the government were so simplistic, then why would the US government have been incapable of it?
Anyone who would study the non-official theories of 9/11 would find that it involves many complexities, such as compartmentalisation of the actors involved in the conspiracy, and explanations of why the media has been complicit with government, not only for 9/11 but also for the war in Iraq, and in promoting a war against Iran.
Is it not far more simplistic, on the other hand, to claim that 19 arabs would plot in a backwards country to smash airplanes in buildings because 'they hate our freedoms'?
Gibson's comments on conspiracy theories have nothing original about them; those are propaganda talking points repeated over and over by the US media. Gibson should have known better than blindly believing those assumptions. I am the co-author of an article that addresses them, many of which originate directly from a CIA memo:
For a more detailed analysis of anti-conspiracy propaganda: