Robert Fisk says "I'm no 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but..."
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
I need to preface this rant with a rant -I AM A CONSPIRACY THEORIST! JFK, RFK, MLK and even G Wallace WERE ATTACKED BY THE SAME BUNCH!!!
My main gripe against the theory that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" is the "official story" that emerged. The "officials" could have chosen whatever story met their purposes.
BUT whereas the neocons apparently wanted to take over Iraq, the asserted "official story" named the hijackers, referred to them as associated with "Al Quieda", and placed them (at different times) in training at camps in Afganistan, of all places, setting up (obviously) an ATTACK ON AFGANISTAN!! Whereas IF THE 9/11 ATTACK WAS ACTUALLY SET UP AS A PRETEXT FOR A U.S. ACTION TO TAKE OVER IRAQ, THE "OFFICIAL STORY" SHOULD HAVE INSISTED THAT THE HIJACKERS WERE IRAQUIS, maybe acting in concert with "Al-Quieda", but leaving the American public with the impression that Iraq was the enemy FROM THE GET GO! (After all, once the attacks took place and the planes were in ruins, the authorities could say anything they wanted to about the hijackers - those same authorities were the only sources for any information about the hijackers - and yet what was said only inflamed feelings motivating an invasion of Afganistan - not Iraq)
The fact that it took MONTHS for the Admin to blame Saddam for any connection to the attack IS PLAIN EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT PLAN 9/11 TO SET UP A PRETEXT FOR INVADING IRAQ! They blamed him after the fact, in an afterthought.
The mysteries concerning building 7's collapse, and the strange way in which both of the towers fell could point to Mossad - they certainly would have had the motivation and expertise.
1 comment:
I need to preface this rant with a rant -I AM A CONSPIRACY THEORIST! JFK, RFK, MLK and even G Wallace WERE ATTACKED BY THE SAME BUNCH!!!
My main gripe against the theory that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" is the "official story" that emerged. The "officials" could have chosen whatever story met their purposes.
BUT whereas the neocons apparently wanted to take over Iraq, the asserted "official story" named the hijackers, referred to them as associated with "Al Quieda", and placed them (at different times) in training at camps in Afganistan, of all places, setting up (obviously) an ATTACK ON AFGANISTAN!! Whereas IF THE 9/11 ATTACK WAS ACTUALLY SET UP AS A PRETEXT FOR A U.S. ACTION TO TAKE OVER IRAQ, THE "OFFICIAL STORY" SHOULD HAVE INSISTED THAT THE HIJACKERS WERE IRAQUIS, maybe acting in concert with "Al-Quieda", but leaving the American public with the impression that Iraq was the enemy FROM THE GET GO! (After all, once the attacks took place and the planes were in ruins, the authorities could say anything they wanted to about the hijackers - those same authorities were the only sources for any information about the hijackers - and yet what was said only inflamed feelings motivating an invasion of Afganistan - not Iraq)
The fact that it took MONTHS for the Admin to blame Saddam for any connection to the attack IS PLAIN EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT PLAN 9/11 TO SET UP A PRETEXT FOR INVADING IRAQ! They blamed him after the fact, in an afterthought.
The mysteries concerning building 7's collapse, and the strange way in which both of the towers fell could point to Mossad - they certainly would have had the motivation and expertise.
Post a Comment