The 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were certainly the result of a conspiracy. Just who was part of that conspiracy has become something of an alternative media controversy.

It's widely and officially accepted that the four airplanes were hijacked by 19 men, most from Saudi Arabia, and whose identities, and links to Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are satisfactorily documented. Other, darker scenarios suggest (or insist) that the Bush White House was responsible, or the Israeli secret services. The Bush White House, meanwhile, would like us to find Sadaam Hussein part of the conspiracy.

Most of the alternative theories of 9-11 don't hold together any better than the "official" story they attempt to correct. A big part of the problem with debunking the official story is that there isn't one. There is a vast collection of semi-official stories. Contradictions between these semi-official stories isn't proof of a conspiracy so much as a demonstration of different perspectives, memories and the unreliability of second hand information.

And that points to the main problem with 99% of what passes for conspiracy "research" in general: absolute lack of consistency in either the gathering or analysis of information. While it is good that people are suspicious enough of official sources to pursue their own inquiries, if those independent inquiries don't apply discipline in their research, they aren't really a useful alternative to the official sources.

As with any kind of research, the main point is to separate the useful information from the useless information. Generally speaking, the more first hand and directly relevant a source of information, the more useful it is to painting a picture of what happened. Most conspiracy theories, however, seem to weigh information not on where it came from, but on how useful it is in bolstering the theory.

One persistent theory is that the Bush administration, or some cabal within, was either aware of or behind the attacks, and used them as cover to institute both a domestic police state and an imperial war on the world.

The Bush administration has certainly used the attacks to institute programs it had longingly dreamed of. There is some evidence that some parts of the US government suspected that terrorism or hijackings were likely on or around September 11. There is almost no evidence that the administration knew the exact nature of the attacks and the targets.

The fundamental hurdle for theories that the Bush gang was behind the attacks is the choice of targets. For capitalists and militarists like the Bush crew, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are much too valuable to be blowing up when so many other less costly targets exist.

It's not convincing to say that the wing of the Pentagon that was hit was under renovation and virtually abandoned; there was no reason for insiders to hit the Pentagon at all. A massive terrorist attack on Disneyland or a crowded stadium would have served the same purpose without the risk of something going wrong and taking out Rumsfeld by mistake. SImply crashing a plane into one of the Twin Towers would have been plenty. Another set of buildings in another city would have been equally horrifying and much less expensive to the American economy and corporate profits.

While it's not impossible that cynical US insiders would construct such a plot, the theorists on such matters bear the burden of proof. And they need more proof than simply the fact that government statements don't quite add up, or that some suspicious connections exist. Yes, the US government lies -- every chance it gets. And if the FBI, CIA et al. were caught off guard, they could be expected to lie to cover their asses. If George Bush was completely out of the loop during the crisis, which is not at all implausible, the White House would lie to make Bush come off as engaged and presidential.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about 9-11, among them the question why the White House has been so reluctant to have an independent investigation into the matter. There are suspicious ties between the Bush family and the bin Laden family, between the CIA and al-Qaeda, and between the intelligence community and the terrorist underworld in general. There are numerous reports that Israel's secret services were tracking the hijackers and knew in advance the attacks were coming. There are reports of politicians being told not to fly on that day.

These are all worth investigating, and publicizing. But it's not useful to decide on the answer first and then compile evidence to support it.

If we suspect government agencies of spreading disinformation, we only make their job easier by spreading our own. If we criticize the corporate media for sloppy research, glossing over details and putting a spin on the facts, we shouldn't do those things either -- unless we are conducting a propaganda campaign of our own. But if we believe that the truth is important, we need to reach for it, even if that's harder than just spinning our suspicions.

Among the key elements of the 9-11 conspiracies is the behavior of Bush during the time that the attacks were taking place. He continued to read to a classroom of Florida school children for 30 minutes instead of being whisked off to safety. Some see this as an indication that he knew what to expect already and therefor had no reason to be alarmed.

But it seems equally to be evidence that the White House was taken by surprise. It doesn't seem unusual that it took 30 minutes for the Secret Service to decide what the danger was and prepare to take Bush to safety. In the meantime, why shouldn't Bush keep reading to school kids? On its own, it isn't proof either way.

Much of the evidence for alternative 9-11 conspiracies is the same way, not conclusive on its own terms but presented with appended commentary that steers the reader toward the foreordained conclusion. Is it unusual that it took fighter jets 20 or more minutes to take off? Maybe, or maybe not -- none of the conspiracy theories offer any definitive answer to how long it is supposed to take. The fact that the response "seems" longer than necessary isn't proof of anything.

The official 9-11 stories probably aren't the truth. But most of the non-official stories aren't the truth, either. If we think the truth about what happened is important, we should be equally skeptical of both.