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.
http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/peculiarbehavior.html
Suspicious pre-911 insider trading indicates foreknowledge of attacks.
ReplyDeleteCheck out:
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
Yes, good point. So now we play the game above. What level of complicity would such foreknowledge and insider trading involve? Would that be a 3, 4 or 8? Would it necessarily require an 8?
ReplyDeleteI might pick a 3 on that one.
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.
So that's how it works on each point you can bring up on 9/11. I think this is the type of analysis that's needed.
The planes that the Arabs hijacked were 757s and 767s, not 747s as alluded to in the post. "(In fact the buildings were specifically built to with-“stand” the weight of a 707, and a 747 doesn’t weigh that much more.)"
ReplyDeleteIt was the fire that caused the skeletal structure of the buildings to buckle and let the floor joists give way, and not the weight of the planes. On the upper floors it had already been established that due to corruption in the construction of the buildings, the proper amount of fire retardant material had not been applied.
"The planes that the Arabs hijacked..."
ReplyDeleteThere is no proof that "Arabs" had anything to do with 9/11.
"It was the fire that caused the skeletal structure of the buildings to buckle and let the floor joists give way..."
Anyone that even remotely thinks this explanation is possible needs to do some homework!
America needs to wake up and smell the Thermate!!
You've been seriously duped by the psychopaths that were in power. They wanted you to feel that pain so you would support their crusade to go over and pillage the Middle East.
And, the only reason they got away with it was because you were blinded by your own faith in the contrary.
I would give the government's Arab hijacker conspiracy theory (the 19 Arabs who used boxcutters and whose very faces appeared on the front page of the newspaper the next day), a #4 on the levels of complicity. It requires specific planning (beyond simply foreknowledge) in order to come up with passports, video, luggage, vehicles, etc of the alleged perpetrators.
ReplyDelete4. Intelligence Agencies Involved in Planning. The view that intelligence agencies (but not the White House) actively participated in the attacks.
You people who believe Arabs had nothing to do with 9/11 probably still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
ReplyDeleteYou've been lead to this fantastic belief by people who have their own agenda of lies and deceit, or are downright morons.
Do you all belong to the Flat Earth Society?
I had always thought Paranoia magazine published its more hokey articles as a tongue-in-cheek kind of thing, but reading Joan d'Arc's posts here, I realize she probably believes all the stuff Paranoia prints, and that's scary! Never did I think anyone could be so crazy. The only sane voice among you is Devin.