No, not literally. But a "9/11 coverup" suggests a coverup about the substance of the events on 9/11, rather than a coverup about the extent or manner of intelligence operations that preceded it. Calling it a "pre-9/11 intelligence gathering coverup" would be more helpful.
but lets not pretend that's not on peoples minds when they read the title. it seems like it ought to be going out of its way to avoid that implication.
I did not interpret the headline that way. I’m not sure why someone would jump straight to that aside from the “Bush did 9/11” memes that get circulated every now and then.
Ya thats one reason. It's an incredibly well known conspiracy theory. I think most readers would've passed over the thought when reading the title and assumed thats what it was referencing.
I’m still not buying that “most readers” are so familiar with that conspiracy theory that they would jump to “FBI agents have taken it upon themselves to publicly accuse the CIA in involvement in 9/11”
There is so much room for discussion about incompetence and bad systems when talking about 9/11. There was even a whole tv show with Jeff Daniels a few years ago that managed to talk about it without reading like lyrics from an Anti Flag album.
They might not settle on that as the most likely interpretation, but I would bet money that it was one of if not the first interpretation that came to mind for most. I think title authors are accountable for such things, and less discriminating readers will not make their way all the way to more reasonable interpretations.