The Psychotic Discourse of 9/11 Truth

  • Jodi Dean
Part of the Rhetoric, Politics and Society book series (RPS)


In a 2004 poll conducted by Zogby international, 49.3 percent of New York City residents said that some US leaders “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001 and that they consciously failed to act” (“Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence” 2006). According to a New York Times–CBS News poll carried out in October 2006, only 16 percent of those surveyed thought the Bush administration was telling the truth about what it knew prior to September 11 about possible terrorist attacks on the USA (“Half of New Yorkers Believe” 2004). Fifty-three percent of respondents said that they thought the administration was hiding something. Twenty-eight percent thought the administration was mostly lying. A Scripps Survey Research Center-Ohio University poll carried out in July 2006 asked the more pointed question as to whether respondents thought 9/11 was an “inside job.” Thirty-six percent of respondents found it very or somewhat likely that “federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them ‘because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East’” (Hargrove and Stemple 2006). The press release for the poll notes that this 36 percent is slightly less than the 40 percent convinced that a lone gunman was not responsible for the death of President John F. Kennedy and the 38 percent who believe the government is withholding proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life. It also reports that those suspecting 9/11 was an inside job are more likely to get their news from the internet than from mainstream media sources, which is hardly surprising given the hundreds of websites devoted to investigating the day’s events, criticizing the official account, and finding patterns in facts scattered throughout and virtually ignored by the mainstream media.


World Trade Center Bush Administration Truth Movement Mainstream Medium Symbolic Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence. 2006. Angus Reid Global Monitor. Last modified 14 Oct 2006.
  2. Ashley, Victoria. 2006. Steven E. Jones: A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9/11; Reason, Publicity, and Reaction. 9-11 January 14.
  3. Brooks, David. 2006. The Paranoid Style. New York Times, May 4.Google Scholar
  4. Dean, Jodi. 1998. Aliens in America: Conspiracy Cultures from Outerspace to Cyberpace. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2002. Publicity’s Secret: How Technoculture Capitalizes on Democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. DeMott, Benjamin. 2004. Whitewash as Public Service. Harper’s Magazine, October, 35–45.Google Scholar
  7. Dundar, David, and Brad Reagan, eds. 2006. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts. New York: Hearst Books.Google Scholar
  8. Fetzer, James H. 2006a. An Open Letter About Steve Jones. November 19.
  9. ——— 2006b. Scholars on its First Anniversary. November 25.
  10. Fetzer, Jim. 2007. The Dynamic Duo Transcript. January 2.
  11. Firmage, Joseph P. 2006. Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11. Journal of 9/11 Studies 2.
  12. Gravois, John. 2006. Professors of Paranoia? Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23.
  13. Grossman, Lev. 2006. Why the 9/11 Conspiracies Won’t Go Away. Time, September 11.,9171,1531304-1,00.html
  14. Half of New Yorkers Believe U.S. Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9/11 attacks and Consciously Failed to Act, 66% Call for New Probe of Unanswered Questions by congress of New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Polls Reveals. 2004. Zogby International. Last modified 30 Aug 2004.
  15. Hargrove, Thomas, and Guido H. Stemple III . 2006. Anti-Government Anger Spurs 9/11 Conspiracy Beliefs. Scripps Howard News Service, August 2.
  16. Holmgren, Gerald. 2006. Scholars for 9/11 Plagiarism and Disinformation. February 6.
  17. Jones, Steven E. (2006). Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? Journal of 9/11 Studies 3.
  18. Krugman, Paul. 2006. Who’s Crazy Now? New York Times, May 8.Google Scholar
  19. Lacan, Jacques. 1997. The Psychoses 1955–1956. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book III, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller, trans. Russell Gregg. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  20. Lividlarry. n.d. I’ve been somewhat torn…. Alaska Free Press.
  21. Pope, Justin. 2006. 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving. ABC News, August 6.
  22. Sales, Nancy Jo. 2006. Click Here for Conspiracy. Vanity Fair, August: 112–116.Google Scholar
  23. Santner, Eric L. 1996. My Own Private Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. The Top September 11th Conspiracy Theories. 2006. Last modified 25 Oct 2006
  25. Twohey, Megan. 2006. UW lecturer’s 9-11 media blitz is rapped. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, August 4.
  26. Wood Judy, and Morgan Reynolds. 2006a. The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis. The Journal of 9/11 Research and 9/11 Issues, December 14.
  27. ———. 2006b. Why Did Indeed the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? No More Games.Net, October.
  28. Zizek, Slavoj. 2000. The Fragile Absolute. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2006. The Parallax View. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jodi Dean
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceHobart and William Smith CollegesGenevaUSA

Personalised recommendations