My current views on 9/11 – brief summary

Since July of last year, I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying various arguments and counterarguments about what happened on 9/11. Below is a brief summary of my current thoughts.

There is evidence of at least criminal negligence on the part of high officials in the Bush administration. (See the Complete 911 Timeline on the Cooperative Research site. For a quick overview, see The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11 by Paul Thompson.)

There is also strong evidence of both a coverup and conflicts of interest on the part of the 9/11 Commission. (See the Cooperative Research site’s pages about the 9/11 Commission. See also The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts by Sibel Edmonds & Bill Weaver.) Hence the need for a new, independent investigation.

I do not, currently, take a definite position as to whether anyone in the U.S. government is guilty of anything worse than negligence in connection with 9/11. I suspect at least treason and possibly LIHOP or worse, but the evidence for these isn’t nearly as strong as the evidence for at least criminal negligencs.

I’m an activist against religion-based bigotry, but I strongly disagree with the idea that, in order to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry, one must deny that there were any live human hijackers on 9/11. There is not enough evidence for the pure “MIHOP” view (see What is your HOP level? Ten 9/11 paradigms by Nicholas Levis), whereas there is, alas, plenty of evidence that there were indeed live human hijackers on 9/11, although one may legitimately question some of the specifics.

As for the question of whether someone in some relevant position of authority decided to supplement the 9/11 plane crashes by doing something else to the WTC buildings, I’m currently undecided. There are reasons to be suspicious, especially about WTC 7, but the evidence (especially regarding the Twin Towers) isn’t nearly as strong as some people think. As I’ve been pointing out for a while now, many fallactious (or at least incomplete) arguments have been made. (See my post Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please.)

My current top reason to suspect at least criminal negligence, by high officials in the U.S. government, is the following combination of facts:

1. Saudi Arabia’s less than wholehearted cooperation with the U.S. government’s attempts to investigate the hijackers.
2. The Bush family’s continued friendship with the Saudi royal family, despite #1.
3. The continuing close alliance between the U.S. government and Saudi Arabia, despite #1.
4. The evidence that Osama bin Laden still maintained ties with both his own family and the Saudi royal family, contrary to officially-stated policy.
5. The FBI’s and CIA’s informal policies of avoiding investigations that might embarrass the Saudis (and other U.S. allies such as Pakistan and Israel), both before and after 9/11/2001.

For documentation of the above five points, see the Cooperative Research site’s page on Saudi Arabia. See also my recent post about U.S. government sponsorship of Islamist terror.

For more reasons to suspect at least criminal negligence and possibly worse, see my post My main reasons for being suspicious about 9/11.

Anyhow, due to the coverups and conflicts of interest of the 9/11 Commission, a new and independent investigation is called for even if no one in the U.S. government is guilty of anything worse than incompetence.