02 February, 2009
9/11 - A Matter of Semantics
Most 9/11 researchers (including David Ray Griffin, because I asked him) don’t bother to specifically state “who” took down the towers, but point to the vast evidence that the towers did not fall by fire or the weight of the airplanes, but rather were imploded. (In fact the buildings were specifically built to with-“stand” the weight of a 707, and a 747 doesn’t weigh that much more.)
First, Many people do not “want to believe” the benevolent U.S. government was involved to any major degree in 9/11 due to the discomfort level in accepting it. There is no psychological comfort level attainable with regard to this subject. But yet when you say “CIA” you’re no longer speaking about an agency of the U.S. government. The CIA has become a “rogue” secret group with no accountability or oversight. The CIA is not entirely like saying “the U.S. government”. Also the "U.S. government" is riddled with foreign agents. And "the U.S. government" was never really your friend anyway. So that’s our first semantic hoop.
Second, If the U.S. government “covered up” the the true perps of 9/11, it could be on “national security” grounds. David Ray Griffin points out massive errors, oversights and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report in his many books, 7 to date. This is a coverup very similar to the Warren Commission Report in many ways, as Griffin also points out. Anyone who has not read any of Griffin's books is in no position to say what they believe.
There is more than one possible scenario regarding Bush Administration “complicity”. David Ray Griffin’s “Levels of complicity” from The New Pearl Harbor (his first book on 9/11) are a really good way to explain these possible scenarios. Al Hidell and I wrote an article entitled 9-11 and Peculiar Behavior (written in 2002) to clarify. The following is from that article and the link to it is below.
Following is a concise articulation of Griffin's attempt to clarify what us conspiracy nuts might mean when we allege "official complicity":
1. Construction of a False Account. The view that US officials played no role in facilitating the attacks and did not expect them, but constructed a false account of what really happened, perhaps for reasons of national security, the embarrassment factor, or to exploit the attacks to enact their own agenda.
2. Something Expected by Intelligence Agencies. The view that although they had no specific information about the attacks in advance, some intelligence agencies did expect some attacks to occur and did nothing to prevent them.
3. Specific Events Expected by Intelligence Agencies. The view that intelligence agencies (but not the White House) had specific information about the timing and targets of the attacks.
4. Intelligence Agencies Involved in Planning. The view that intelligence agencies (but not the White House) actively participated in the attacks.
5. Pentagon Involved in Planning. The view that the Pentagon (but not the White House) actively participated in the attacks.
6. Something Expected by the White House. The view that the White House expected some sort of attacks and did nothing to stop them.
7. Specific Advanced Knowledge by the White House. The view that the Bush Administration had specific foreknowledge of the events, including targets and timing.
8. White House Involved in Planning. The view that the Bush Administration itself was a party to planning the attacks.