You might also want to review an article called "There Is No War On Terror" by Robert Dreyfuss, in which he lists ten important facts about terrorism that everyone needs to be aware of.
The only mistake each of these sources makes, with no examination of the impossible logistics involved, is the assumption that a small, unsophisticated group of radical Islamic terrorists "got lucky" and was somehow able to pull off history's largest terror attack on 9/11. Does this flaw invalidate the rest of their work? I don't think so. I think it shows that they were either simply afraid to make the charge of government involvement in 9/11, or they just got one aspect of their respective stories wrong.
A small group of Islamic radicals would never have been able to gain the access required to wire the Twin Towers with the explosives that brought them down. Where is the proof of explosives, you ask? Watch the videos of the towers falling. Each one fell in approximately ten seconds, at essentially freefall speed, or a rate of better than ten floors per second. Even if we only count the floors below where the planes hit, we're still talking about a rate that is very near freefall. What this means, of course, is that the fully intact floors below the initial collapse point (and there were a lot of them in each building) provided no resistance whatsoever.
This is not speculation or a crazy conspiracy theory. It's a fact that anyone who cares to look can see for themselves. It's just plain physically impossible for the towers to have fallen the way they did without the use of explosives. Period. The NIST can write all the ten thousand page reports they want, but they simply cannot change the reality that anybody with the most basic understanding of physics can see with their own eyes.
If there is something wrong with one aspect of the "official story" of 9/11 there is something wrong with the whole thing. Anyone who insists on clinging to the Bushco fantasy version might want to ask those same Bushies exactly why, if they're so sure and have so much evidence that Osama bin Laden is ultimately responsible for the attacks, does his wanted page on the FBI website NOT mention 9/11?
While you're at it, perhaps you can also ask why it is that five years after 9/11, Osama has yet to be indicted or even charged (neither of which he need be present for) in the attacks. Then you can remind them that it only took three months for bin Laden to be indicted for the American embassy bombings in 1998.
And don't forget to ask that if they have so much solid evidence against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the supposed "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks (who has just been transferred from one of Bush's secret CIA prisons abroad to Guantanamo), why must he be tried by one of Bush's proposed kangaroo Gitmo tribunals? Why can't they just bring him into a American courtroom and try him like any other accused mass murderer?
Could it be because Bush's kangaroo courts would allow "evidence" derived from torture, deny defendants the right to be present at their own trial, deny them the ability to see evidence against them, and deny them the right to confront their accusers, and that none of this would ever be tolerated in a traditional American court of law?
Anyone who cannot see what's really going on with the Bush administration is not really looking. That they prefer to focus the public on who is to blame for allowing the most tragic day in our nation's history to happen, instead of making an all-out effort to bring the perpetrators to justice is glaring evidence of their involvement.
I am a proud member of the 9/11 truth movement, because I think it's extremely important that the whole truth be told if we are to have any chance of saving our country from the murderous neocons who have held America hostage for nearly six years.
Resort to the shallow tactics of questioning my sanity, assailing my character, and pronouncing me unpatriotic if you must. But remember that there is nothing more unpatriotic than blind faith in corrupt government. Only when we have true justice for the victims, families, and real perpetrators of 9/11 will the path from 9/11 be clear.
The only mistake each of these sources makes, with no examination of the impossible logistics involved, is the assumption that a small, unsophisticated group of radical Islamic terrorists "got lucky" and was somehow able to pull off history's largest terror attack on 9/11. Does this flaw invalidate the rest of their work? I don't think so. I think it shows that they were either simply afraid to make the charge of government involvement in 9/11, or they just got one aspect of their respective stories wrong.
A small group of Islamic radicals would never have been able to gain the access required to wire the Twin Towers with the explosives that brought them down. Where is the proof of explosives, you ask? Watch the videos of the towers falling. Each one fell in approximately ten seconds, at essentially freefall speed, or a rate of better than ten floors per second. Even if we only count the floors below where the planes hit, we're still talking about a rate that is very near freefall. What this means, of course, is that the fully intact floors below the initial collapse point (and there were a lot of them in each building) provided no resistance whatsoever.
This is not speculation or a crazy conspiracy theory. It's a fact that anyone who cares to look can see for themselves. It's just plain physically impossible for the towers to have fallen the way they did without the use of explosives. Period. The NIST can write all the ten thousand page reports they want, but they simply cannot change the reality that anybody with the most basic understanding of physics can see with their own eyes.
While you're at it, perhaps you can also ask why it is that five years after 9/11, Osama has yet to be indicted or even charged (neither of which he need be present for) in the attacks. Then you can remind them that it only took three months for bin Laden to be indicted for the American embassy bombings in 1998.
And don't forget to ask that if they have so much solid evidence against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the supposed "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks (who has just been transferred from one of Bush's secret CIA prisons abroad to Guantanamo), why must he be tried by one of Bush's proposed kangaroo Gitmo tribunals? Why can't they just bring him into a American courtroom and try him like any other accused mass murderer?
Could it be because Bush's kangaroo courts would allow "evidence" derived from torture, deny defendants the right to be present at their own trial, deny them the ability to see evidence against them, and deny them the right to confront their accusers, and that none of this would ever be tolerated in a traditional American court of law?
Anyone who cannot see what's really going on with the Bush administration is not really looking. That they prefer to focus the public on who is to blame for allowing the most tragic day in our nation's history to happen, instead of making an all-out effort to bring the perpetrators to justice is glaring evidence of their involvement.
I am a proud member of the 9/11 truth movement, because I think it's extremely important that the whole truth be told if we are to have any chance of saving our country from the murderous neocons who have held America hostage for nearly six years.
Resort to the shallow tactics of questioning my sanity, assailing my character, and pronouncing me unpatriotic if you must. But remember that there is nothing more unpatriotic than blind faith in corrupt government. Only when we have true justice for the victims, families, and real perpetrators of 9/11 will the path from 9/11 be clear.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
