On the 10-year anniversary of 9-11, the air-waves have been inundated with chatter about whether or not this was an 'inside' job rather than a diabolical plot by an Al Qaeda terrorist at some remote mountainous location more than 13,000 miles away.
One talk-show host got rudely snippy with a caller, and angrily denounced him as a 'conspiracy theorist' because he dared to question how the Towers that were hit could collapse at all, and especially as rapidly as they did, in their own footprints - demolition style. He also questioned how building 7 could collapse about 8 hours later in exactly the same demolition-style manner without being hit at all.
To all these obvious questions, the host replied, that there was "no shred of evidence" that this was an 'inside job', and he would not let the airwaves be polluted with this conspiratorial line of questioning. My response to "no shred of evidence..." is, whoever was wealthy and powerful enough to pull this off, was equally able and powerful enough to ensure there would be "no shred of evidence" linking them to this crime. So I'm not persuaded with the 'lack of evidence' that this talk-show host and many others find so compelling.
I had to chuckle about all this not only because these are valid questions, but the 'terrorist' who was labeled the 'mastermind' of this action and headed up our Most-Wanted list for 10 years, Osama Bin Laden, WAS NEVER INDICTED FOR 9-11! Few Americans know that he was never indicted for his alleged crimes against America - why not? If all the evidence pointed to him as the architect of this outrage, why was he not indicted? And because he was never indicted, should he have been 'killed' extra-judicially without an indictment and trial?
So all this raises other questions - since he was not captured and put on trial for his alleged crimes, how do we know he did it and how do we know the person allegedly killed was in-fact, Bin Laden? Further, why was he buried at sea or disposed of so hurriedly and no pictures of his body produced? Who wanted him not to be put on trial and not testify in his defense? Could this be further evidence that the powers-that-be who have successfully ensured that there was "no shred of evidence" linking them to this crime, wanted to prevent him from testifying and providing the 'shreds of evidence' that would have been the smoking gun linking them to the conspirators or perpetrators of this crime?
Don't forget that all this was used as the pretext and justification for invading and occupying two mineral-rich Middle Eastern countries, and for drastically restricting our civil liberties while trebling our national debt and doubling the size of our Military Industrial Complex.
I'm convinced that in my lifetime we will never know the true story about 9-11. We have as many unanswered questions now, as we had in the Kennedy assassination, and Malcolm X's and Martin Luther King's assassination. I believe that the answers I seek won't be provided until the next life, and I'm looking forward to getting all my questions answered then!
Finally, I'm reminded that Bin Laden, Sadaam, Noriega, Mubarak, and Khadafy - were all on the CIA payroll as proxies at various times in the past. Isn't it strangely interesting how all have either been executed, overthrown or jailed as terrorists as we approach this anniversary?
One talk-show host got rudely snippy with a caller, and angrily denounced him as a 'conspiracy theorist' because he dared to question how the Towers that were hit could collapse at all, and especially as rapidly as they did, in their own footprints - demolition style. He also questioned how building 7 could collapse about 8 hours later in exactly the same demolition-style manner without being hit at all.
To all these obvious questions, the host replied, that there was "no shred of evidence" that this was an 'inside job', and he would not let the airwaves be polluted with this conspiratorial line of questioning. My response to "no shred of evidence..." is, whoever was wealthy and powerful enough to pull this off, was equally able and powerful enough to ensure there would be "no shred of evidence" linking them to this crime. So I'm not persuaded with the 'lack of evidence' that this talk-show host and many others find so compelling.
I had to chuckle about all this not only because these are valid questions, but the 'terrorist' who was labeled the 'mastermind' of this action and headed up our Most-Wanted list for 10 years, Osama Bin Laden, WAS NEVER INDICTED FOR 9-11! Few Americans know that he was never indicted for his alleged crimes against America - why not? If all the evidence pointed to him as the architect of this outrage, why was he not indicted? And because he was never indicted, should he have been 'killed' extra-judicially without an indictment and trial?
So all this raises other questions - since he was not captured and put on trial for his alleged crimes, how do we know he did it and how do we know the person allegedly killed was in-fact, Bin Laden? Further, why was he buried at sea or disposed of so hurriedly and no pictures of his body produced? Who wanted him not to be put on trial and not testify in his defense? Could this be further evidence that the powers-that-be who have successfully ensured that there was "no shred of evidence" linking them to this crime, wanted to prevent him from testifying and providing the 'shreds of evidence' that would have been the smoking gun linking them to the conspirators or perpetrators of this crime?
Don't forget that all this was used as the pretext and justification for invading and occupying two mineral-rich Middle Eastern countries, and for drastically restricting our civil liberties while trebling our national debt and doubling the size of our Military Industrial Complex.
I'm convinced that in my lifetime we will never know the true story about 9-11. We have as many unanswered questions now, as we had in the Kennedy assassination, and Malcolm X's and Martin Luther King's assassination. I believe that the answers I seek won't be provided until the next life, and I'm looking forward to getting all my questions answered then!
Finally, I'm reminded that Bin Laden, Sadaam, Noriega, Mubarak, and Khadafy - were all on the CIA payroll as proxies at various times in the past. Isn't it strangely interesting how all have either been executed, overthrown or jailed as terrorists as we approach this anniversary?
Is this a coincidence, a conspiracy or a catastrophe for their country and ours?
