What, then, do this majority, believe? The 'weakest' form of belief among this dissenting majority would be this:
- Construction of a false account - US officials played no active role nor expected the attacks, but that White House covered up failures – such as security, intelligence, military responses etc. Perhaps for "National Security", or to cover up embarrassing facts, or policy failures, or bureaucratic inefficiencies, or even gross negligence from individuals in positions of power.
This might be called the mainstream view. It no doubt contains a large number of uninformed people, who perhaps naturally expect their government to lie, to cover their own backs. Perhaps they are vaguely aware of alternative theories and take the mainstream view as a 'middle ground', where they neither support the whole official account, nor the theory that there was complicity. Additionally, this group includes those who believe that the involvement of 'friendly' foreign governments was covered-up: perhaps Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (the "Michael Moore view").
However, the number of people who, like the 9/11 Truth Movement, believe there was complicity from United States officials ('insiders'), has been growing quickly. In a November 2007 Scripps-Howard poll, 62% of people believed that it was at least "somewhat likely" that "the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings."
It seems that, despite the mainstream media portrayal of the matter as unequivocal, the majority actually believe there was complicity - at the very least that insiders, at some level, knew the attacks were coming, and through action or inaction, deliberately allowed the attacks to take place.
Theories of complicity are often divided into two main forms. The weakest form is the "LIHOP" (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory. This theory suggests that al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks, but that insiders who knew the attacks were coming conspired to allow them to happen, or even enhance them, and then covered up (or convinced the White House to cover up) their complicity. LIHOP theories have a number of varieties, based on two questions: how specific were the warnings that were deliberately ignored, and how high in the government the warnings were received. Evidence supporting at least the LIHOP theory are the following claims:
- Warnings were deliberately suppressed and ignored.
- al Qaeda investigations, and investigations into the hijackers in particular, were blocked to limit the warnings, and prevent the plot from being foiled.
- The hijackers were given assistance by the intelligence services, and were allowed immunity.
- The military was deliberately disabled to ensure the planes reached their targets.
The intelligence services and/or military may have done this without the knowledge of al Qaeda. They may even have 'enhanced' the attacks by causing the complete destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings using explosives.
It is conceivable that these insider actions may not have involved the White House, but that the White House, despite being 'left in the dark', decided to cover up for its agencies. However, most LIHOP theories assert that the warnings were indeed received at the highest levels, and that the Bush Administration ordered, or assented to, such actions being taken. This is cited to explain the strange behaviour on the day of President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other top officials, along with the Secret Service, and their lies and eagerness to cover up the truth.
A stronger form of complicity would involve collusion between insiders and those carrying out the attacks. That is, al Qaeda were knowingly working with insiders in planning the attacks and making sure they were successful. This is known as the "MIHOP" (Made It Happen On Purpose) theory. In this theory, the Bush Administration and the Bin Laden family are using al Qaeda as a tool to carry out their plans. al Qaeda operatives, lower down the chain, may not know that their leaders are working in collusion with, not against, the United States; it is likely that al Qaeda jihadists are certainly not aware of it.
Evidence of the close relationship between al Qaeda and the CIA, and an examination of the role of foreign intelligence agencies such as the Pakistani ISI, reveals that this may well be the case. The evidence of the ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family is well known.
Historical evidence of false-flag attacks, along with the well-articulated desire for an event such as 9/11 from powerful insiders, also suggests that the events were, in fact, fully orchestrated by insiders. It wasn't by chance that terrorists from the oil-rich Middle East suddenly decided to attack America, just when the Bush Administration were seeking to launch their long-planned invasion of the Middle East and begin their "War on Terror".
Furthermore, there is evidence that the most basic facts of the mainstream account are untrue. And the way that they are untrue strongly suggests that insiders must have been involved in executing the attacks. Namely, the following claims are strongly supported by the evidence:
- The World Trade Center Twin Towers were not destroyed by aircraft impacts and fires; they were destroyed by controlled demolition.
- World Trade Center Building 7 was not destroyed by debris damage and fires; it was destroyed by controlled demolition.
- Hani Hanjour did not fly Flight 77 into the Pentagon; it was likely flown by computer.
- Flight 93 was not deliberately crashed by the hijackers; it was shot down.
Next Page: The Official Account
No comments:
Post a Comment