The simple reason why I presume that the official story is probably true is that it seems to me by far the most credible one. I’ve explained why in earlier posts, and also why the whole matter is very far from high priority for me.
Since there is such a flood of letters about this matter, mostly to me personally, perhaps it is worth adding something that I’ve left out because I do not want to become embroiled in what seem to me pointless discussions, diverting energy from matters that seem to me far more important.
One of these is to focus attention on the Bush administration’s ongoing contributions to enhancing the risk of terrorism, including very serious terrorist attacks against the US. Even if the cyberspace and other conclusions about 9/11 were credible they would not begin to compare with Bush administration actions that are hardly controversial and that have or threaten far more hideous effects. In comparison with these clear cases, for which evidence is overwhelming from the most respectable mainstream sources, the involvement of the Bush administration in 9/11, if it could be supported, would amount to very little. To take an obvious example, consider the invasion of Iraq.
Quite apart from the massive crimes against Iraqis, the invasion was undertaken with the expectation, since amply confirmed, that it would increase the threat of jihadist terror of the kind that the Reaganites organized in the 1980s, as well as proliferation. Former defense secretaries (including McNamara) and prominent strategic analysts estimate the likelihood of nuclear terror in the US at about 50% in the next decade: alongside that, and its likely aftermath, 9/11 would pale into insignificance. And that’s the least of it. The policies of aggressive militarism and “transformation of the military” are, as predicted, driving potential rivals to react in ways that greatly enhance the risk of possibly terminal nuclear war, maybe by accident, maybe by leaking of WMD technology to terrorists, maybe in other ways.
All of these matters are well-established, rarely discussed, and vastly more significant that any possible Bush administration involvement in 9/11.
…I might perhaps add that this whole matter reminds of a DOD document on declassification a few years ago. It suggests that “interesting declassified material” such as information about the JFK assassination could be released and even posted on the internet as a “diversion,”
which might “reduce the unrestrained public appetite for `secrets’ by providing good faith distraction material.” The idea, according to the
(outstanding) British intelligence analyst who published the document, is that if investigators are absorbed with the grassy knoll they won’t probe into serious areas where they are unwelcome.