All those speculations about controlled demolitions serve only one purpose: to shift the focus of the public discussion from the main RATIONAL question: what did the US government (and its agencies) really know about the terrorist acts in preparation, and what could the government obviously do to prevent it but DID NOT do? In other words, DID THE US GOVERNMENT HELP THE ATTACKS take place in one essential way or another??!!
That's the right and by the way absolutely legitimate question, because 1. Bush-Cheney team, being extremely hawkish, would have had potentially every interest in and motive for helping such like attacks and the obvious political possibilities and opportunities it would give them; 2. The US government in general case has the technical and organizational capacity and ability to help such attacks indirectly and heighten probability of such attacks to one degree or another, taking them from the category of 'almost improbable' to the category of 'quite possible' 3. It stems from the evidence already known for the public that quite probably they had the best opportunity possible for helping the 911 attack because the CIA and FBI data had just before pointed unambiguously to some terrorists efforts going on to organize some large scale attacks in the US territory (volumes have been said already on this topic. Some FBI agents, like Coleen Rowley or Bogdan Dzakovic even gave very accurate predictive assessments as to when this kind of terrorist attacks were to be reasonably expected with an accuracy of up to a one-two months).
You cannot get inside the head of Bush or Chaney (or Hitler for that matter) to
look at intentions, but you can, at least in theory, establish the objective degree of
knowledge and whether or not some obvious measures that ought to have been taken
to prevent the apocalypse were taken by the government... No
presumption of innocence in this case, cos the Bush administration was
an interested party: there's a preponderance of evidence to believe that
the political consequences for the Bush/Chaney team from the 911 attack
were highly positive. They were hawks they never hid it, they always
liked playing the war card, and one didn't need to be Einstein to predict,
that the 911 event gave almost infinite freedom and public all-clear for starting any wars (any that could be physically possible without
immediate disruption of the economic fabric of the US).
In the modern semi-democracies like the US the Government actually DOESN'T NEED to act directly to get as a result some terrorist acts on their home territory. If the US highest figures in power would wish to bomb the US for their own political purposes, they would try to do it with the hands of real terrorists - of course not by paying and giving them special VIP invitations, but just refraining from putting some critical obstacles in their way (cos the concentration of publicly uncontrolled and informationally non-transparent power in the quasi-democracies is HUGE - that's why they are not the true democracies). Yes it would probably require involvement of some very high figures in federal security agencies (like CIA or something), but this is not a problem, considering the objective interests of those agencies (the more terrorism the more need for them), their absolute secrecy and non-transparency (even inside themselves), intrinsic immorality, iron immunity to any checks from parallel branches of power, historical addiction to impunity and the historical experience (Bush needed some cheap falsification of the presence of nuclear sites in Iraq, and hey presto CIA in less than no time gave him a heap of very bad quality stuff (suitable only for 10 year olds), but they DID with pleasure. Simple friendly request was apparently enough.
So in my
view, if the Government structure(s) KNEW about these things being prepared and they didn't do something to prevent it which reasonably should have been done, it would already give enough grounds to accuse the
government in HELPING the attackers and attacks. Together with
additional 5000 American boys and girls sent to their death to Iraq and
Afghanistan 'meat grinder' such accusations would more than suffice to
make it sensible to organize a nation wide criminal process - something
like a 21th century Nuremberg - against the crimes of the US government
committed against its own people (not to mention the victims beyond the national frontiers).
For me all these talks about the involvement of the US highest rank state figures in the 911 attack confirm some important points that don't directly relate to the tragedy as such:
1. Despite sometimes naive quality and formulation of the Americans' 'conspiratorial' suspicions of the their own government's involvement in the 911 massacre, or, better to say, involvement of the STATE, those suspicions show a very low level of trust of the people of America to their own state (or to the state that owns them).
2. Those who don't trust the state system in the US (whether intuitively or quite consciously and reasonably) are quite legitimate and RATIONAL in their disbelief. This is one of the manifestations of the complete obsolescence of the American 'democratish' model, which, in fact, not only doesn't give to the people nearly enough power and levers to control what the state is up to, but also in this modern age very fast neutralizes and incapacitates those 300-year old 'primeval' tools.
3. Once more it confirms the old truth told by John Acton: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any state system, when gets more much more practical control over the people than is itself controlled starts to pursue only its own interests, becoming the main enemy and TRAITOR of its own nation: these truths have been proved by history countless times. Time for reform of the democratish system, the goal of which is using outward democratic cover and procedure to legitimize the existing state, into a real democracy, the main characteristic of which is TOTALITARIAN control of the civil society over the state power-invested structures, ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY, and non-stop direct participation of the society in changing the state management mechanisms and laws. NO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE can be granted to governments (in the form it is now anyway).
See also on the related topics:
The US has a hopelessly out-of-date political system: reform urgently needed
How to avoid ridiculously 'freak' wars like in Iraq and Afghanistan in future?!
Yes, Bradley Manning and Assange deserve the Nobel prize possibly more than Obama does!
EU tribulations have political, not economic roots: no democracy - no legitimacy
Don't be afraid of the word 'socialism' in the 21th century, it can be helpful