9/11 Interpretations

[cantfixstupid]

9/11: Four interpretations distilled from lecture by David Ray Griffin delivered at the University of Wisconsin at Madison on April 18, 2005, and first broadcast by C-Span2 (Book TV) on April 30.

1. 9/11 was a surprise attack on the US government and its people by Islamic terrorists.
2. 9/11 was a surprise attack that was exploited by the Bush administration to extend the American empire.
3. 9/11 was not a surprise attack as the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming and intentionally allowed it to happen.
4. 9/11 was not merely foreknown by the Bush administration; they were the principal architects that orchestrated it.

[link:https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00129/david-ray-griffin-911-and-the-american-empire.htm|

[Effete Snob]

1. For those interested in more from David Ray Griffin...

...be sure to Google up his appearance on Alex Jones' Infowars podcast. That will probably provide you with some relevant background information to evaluate the reliability of David Ray Griffin as an authority on anything.

[cantfixstupid]

3. David Ray Griffin

It appears that you're implying that Griffin is not an authority on anything just because of his appearance on Alex Jones' Infowars podcast.

I have listened to and read much of the official version of events by the administration(s) and the mainstream media and I came to much the same conclusions even before I ever heard of David Griffin.

From the sound of your post it seems that you accept the official version of events, namely; that 9/11 was a surprise attack on the US government and its people by Islamic terrorists.

If you do in fact believe that be sure to Google up Neocons and Project for A New American Century (PNAC).

https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement%20of%20principles.pdf
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Noteworthy excerpts from the second link:
1. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
2. In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” [RMA] the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces.

[rickyhall]

2. #2 is the most obvious, but I still wonder about #3 due to the stand down.