We all know the official story of September 11th: 4
jetliners were hijacked by groups of four and five Arabic men armed
, who proceeded to fly three of the four jets into the Twin Towers
and the Pentagon. Subsequently the World
Trade Center Towers, weakened by the impacts and fires, collapsed into
piles of rubble.
The FBI had compiled a list of hijackers within three days,
and it was so obvious for them that Osama bin Laden had masterminded the operation from
caves in Afghanistan, that there was no need to seriously investigate the crime
or produce evidence. The "retaliatory" attack on the Taliban would
soon commence.
Is this story true?
Its central assumptions have never been tested by an official government body
whose members lack obvious conflicts of interest. There are numerous flags
in the official story, which requires a long series of highly
improbable coincidences. Questioning
that story is an act of responsible citizenship.
President George
W. Bush addressed Congress, argued that the evidence pointed to al-Qaida, and
called for a “war on terror” that “will not end until every terrorist group of
global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” He issued an ultimatum
against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which he accused of harboring bin
Laden and his network of terrorists. Most Americans Start wondring about U.S Complicity in this tragedy after all the materiel proves founded.
There is a mountain of
physical evidence that directly implicates high-level government
knowledge and participation in the planning and execution of September 11.
Perhaps the most damning evidence lies in the bizarre collapse of WTC Building 7. Anyone familiar with
the story of 9/11 knows about the collapse of the WTC North and South
Twin-Towers. But a third high rise also fell that day. At 5:20 p.m., the massive
47-story steel frame Building 7, untouched by the hijacked airplanes, imploded
in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition
Also Money connections between Bush Republicans and Osama bin Laden go way back and
the political and economic connections have remained unbroken for 20 years. Conveniently ignored in all of the press coverage since the tragic events of
Sept. 11 is the fact that on May 17 Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a
gift of $43 million to the Taliban as a purported reward for its eradication of
Afghanistan's opium crop this February. That, in effect, made the U.S. the
Taliban's largest financial
I agree with Robin Cook , when he said that The most high-level source used to support the "al Qaeda doesn't exist" , Robin former British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
I hope in the future Truth comes out . America become more strong after this act, I wish the State government think about people lifes, and families before any politic actions,or fake incident . At the end we the people who pay for the big War, The war of power .
If someone needs to pay the price must be Bush , he is the real terrorist .His actions,and silent made a thousand of people lose their lifes
“Even the smallest act of service, the simplest act of kindness, is a way to honor those we lost; a way to reclaim that spirit of unity that followed 9/11.” Barack Obama
Interesting post. I like the passion that you have around this subject, and I think you've done a good job of questioning the government's alleged responsibility in the 9/11 attacks.
But you veered away from the focus of this post, which was supposed to explore whether the US overreacted to the attacks.
Basically, did these attacks justify 2 wars, the Patriot Act, the the expansion of the NSA, the collapse of the economy, the use of drones, the discrimination of Muslims, etc.
I wanted the focus of this post question the US's reaction (as a society). You focused on the event itself, and whether the Bush Administration knew what was going on. Your post is very interesting, but it strayed away from the assignment goal.
As for conspiracy theories: beware. Yes, Bush said that he saw the image of the first crash on TV, but that does not prove that he was complicit. It does show, though, how incompetent he was.
I think that many people see many inconsistencies with the event. I think that the administration had heard warnings about such attacks, but I don't think they were in on it. Did the attacks give the administration new powers and new political clout? Absolutely. It worked out for them in the end (politically, financially). But I don't think that they had anything to do with the attack - except gross negligence.
Your post is very well written, and I like the video that you posted. Also, I like that you've started to use quotations from "experts" to support your views. Keep infusing more and more facts, so that your readers will be convinced by your writing.
I actually thought it is so important to provide this information because i believe it is more dangerous when a government fake this kind of incident, also extremely warning when people lives have no value for them. I think it was overreacted specifically against Muslims because its the State fault first of all . to me its just a way to get to Iraq oil .
Jalila,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. I like the passion that you have around this subject, and I think you've done a good job of questioning the government's alleged responsibility in the 9/11 attacks.
But you veered away from the focus of this post, which was supposed to explore whether the US overreacted to the attacks.
Basically, did these attacks justify 2 wars, the Patriot Act, the the expansion of the NSA, the collapse of the economy, the use of drones, the discrimination of Muslims, etc.
I wanted the focus of this post question the US's reaction (as a society). You focused on the event itself, and whether the Bush Administration knew what was going on. Your post is very interesting, but it strayed away from the assignment goal.
As for conspiracy theories: beware. Yes, Bush said that he saw the image of the first crash on TV, but that does not prove that he was complicit. It does show, though, how incompetent he was.
I think that many people see many inconsistencies with the event. I think that the administration had heard warnings about such attacks, but I don't think they were in on it. Did the attacks give the administration new powers and new political clout? Absolutely. It worked out for them in the end (politically, financially). But I don't think that they had anything to do with the attack - except gross negligence.
Your post is very well written, and I like the video that you posted. Also, I like that you've started to use quotations from "experts" to support your views. Keep infusing more and more facts, so that your readers will be convinced by your writing.
But, try to stay on task.
GR: 80
I actually thought it is so important to provide this information because i believe it is more dangerous when a government fake this kind of incident, also extremely warning when people lives have no value for them. I think it was overreacted specifically against Muslims because its the State fault first of all . to me its just a way to get to Iraq oil .
ReplyDelete