Why Americans Refuse to Believe 9/11 Evidence!

WHY AMERICANS REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE 9/11 EVIDENCE!!!
An Analysis by TvNewsLIES.org - April - 2005

The attacks of 9/11 were so unthinkable that most Americans would refuse to believe the complicity of their own government, even if presented with a mountain of evidence.

Very simply, it is possible to escape blame if you do something that nobody in the world believes you could do.

MUST READ:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/refusing_the_9_11_evidence.html

A mountain of evidence and a mountain of speculation.

Speculation abounds, evidence is scant.

Please note I am not trying to say the official (and as yet incomplete) 9/11 story is 100 percent accurate, but there is no evidence that the US government is complicit in the attacks

I trust you are speaking in reference to the "official story".
Can you say "magic bullet"?

How involved are you in the independent citizens inquiry? You say that as if you have researched this. If you attended even one independent hearing you would be stunned. It would change your life forever.

There is so much evidence that the official story is bogus that it is actually comical.

We are not talking speculation. The official story is bogus and can not hold water. the entire time-line in the final report was made up. It does not match ANY evidence or testimony. It does not get any more obvious that that when you are trying to find holes in their story.

Evidence is on the side of the skeptics, not the official story.
It is alarming both to know the uncovered information and to realize how few people actually know or care about this.

I believe that it is the people who buy the "official" story that are the true conspiracy theorists. They'll do anything to try to discredit anyone who is not in "step".

I'm with you. :patriot:

:boring:

LARED, YOU and your gullible confrères are the best proof that the US government was complicit.

Tell me...how involved are you in the research effort? You simply decalare this?

There is so much evidence that it is shocking. You have a taped confession to the demolition of Building 7 by the owner of the WTC for Pete's sake! How much evidence do you need?

Motive has been established. Means has been established. Cover up has been established. And the official story has been shreded.

Where do you get off declaring something like that with out backing it up?

Holy cow, I can pick apart almost every element of the official story and I hardly know anything compared to the full time researchers.

Get involved and then make your delcarations. Comments like that are infuriating! If you got involved you would understand. One meeting is all it would take to convince anyone.


The problem is not the evidence, it is getting people like you to examine the evidence.

I think you misunderstood my posting and the posting of drdtroit,too.

My research effort? Try google this:

Flight 11 - The Twin Flight
The Cleveland Airport Mystery
The Secret Hijacking
How To Steal An Airliner And Fake A Hijacking Parts I and II

;-)

Is there ANY direct evidence that the US government is complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

Is the any evidence from genuine experts or eyewitnesses, that is material and relevant to making a case that the US government is complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

Seriously.

Is there anything other than hearsay, speculation, and wishful thinking?

If there is, I'd love to see it.

The US government has a huge amount to lose by admitting they were complicit in the attacks. Therefore they will do everything in their power to cover up their involvement. EVERYTHING-- and think how much power the government has. Moreover, many people's careers are threatened if they tell the truth about what they know.

Nonetheless, there IS a mountain of circumstantial evidence that the govenrment knew of the attacks, and perhaps even facilitated them.

Here is a thumbnail of the case for government complicity:

State-Sponsored False-Flag against one's own citizens (Synthetic Terrorism)
-- Italy's "Strategy of Tension" in the 1970's and 1980's; Operation Gladio

US has considered using Synthetic Terrorism
-- Operation Northwoods Plan (early 1960's)

9/11 was not Unexpected
-- NORAD/US military ran terrorist hijacking drills and hijacked planes into building drills prior to 9/11

Forewarnings of 9/11
-- FBI whistle-blowers warning of Arabs in flight schools
-- Moussaoui arrest but his case is stalled by FBI higher-ups
-- Multiple hijacking warnings to FAA

Clear foreknowledge of 9/11
-- Suspicious trading of American Airlines and United Airlines stocks right before 9/11 (trades not by the terrorists since story has been covered up); CIA has strong links to wall street
-- Massive numbers of financial transactions run through WTC right before planes crashed
-- Israeli company Odigo warned its employees of WTC attack

Examples of contacts of US intelligence agencies with Al Qaeda
-- Extensive interactions between CIA and Pakistani ISI and Pakistani ISI and Al Qaeda
-- FBI informant lived with two 9/11 hijackers in San Diego right before attacks

There is a lot more to the 9/11 story than the official version; THE GOVERNMENT IS COVERING UP MANY KEY FACTS ABOUT 9/11 and the mainstream media has been compeltely complicit in not quesitoning the official story:
-- LIVE-FLY HIJACKING EXERCISES run by NORAD ON 9/11
-- Not one of the eight pilots on the four hijacked planes signaled they were hijacked to air traffic control: how did knife and boxcutter-armed hijackers do this?
-- Perfectly controlled collapse of WTC building 7, a 47 story building housing several government agencies including the CIA and Secret Service: building had only a limited fire and was not hit by an airplane
-- Witnesses described bombs in WTC towers
-- WTC towers had massive central core section that was built to withstand impact with large jet airliner: WTC structure has been misleadingly portrayed by the media to promote pancake collapse story
-- Jet fuel fires should not have been hot to enough to weaken steel beams in WTC tower core
-- Strange and very difficult flight path taken by flight 77 pilot to hit Pentagon
-- Damage to Pentagon and debris not consistent with 757 impact
-- Where is the black box data for flights 11, 175 and 77?
-- How did flight 93 really crash; what explains Ed Felt's phone call from that plane?
-- Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI-translator, is being gagged from telling what she knows about 9/11-- WHY????

The FBI has engaged in a massive cover-up about the hijackers
-- CIA/military/drug dealing connections to several of the hijackers, particularly Mohamed Atta

The Bush Administration Cover-Up
-- Stonewalling of appointment of the 9/11 commission
-- Appointment of Henry Kissinger initially to chair the commission
-- Limited time and budget allotted to 9/11 commission
-- Bush and Cheney testify to commission together
-- Conflicts of interest with all the 9/11 commission members

Reasons and Motives for 9/11
-- geopolitical strategy, maintenance of US global dominance by creating permanent US bases in middle east and asia
-- incitement to war to capture middle-east and caspian oil reserves
-- disgruntled military officers wanted a war after many years of relative inaction
-- Neocon motives: clash of civilzations with the west and Islam; Islam perceived as threat to long-term US global dominance and to Israel
-- Massive insurance fraud by Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC, and others

Most important question: who gained the most from 9/11 -- Al Qaeda or the US military industrial complex/Bush administration?


One wonders, LARED, if you think all this evidence is just speculation and heresay.

LARED-- what evidence do you really want to see to convince you? No one is going to confess to being involved except the Al Qaeda patsies.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=191&bold=||||

n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. .......

State-Sponsored False-Flag against one's own citizens (Synthetic Terrorism)
-- Italy's "Strategy of Tension" in the 1970's and 1980's; Operation Gladio

US has considered using Synthetic Terrorism
-- Operation Northwoods Plan (early 1960's)

9/11 was not Unexpected
-- NORAD/US military ran terrorist hijacking drills and hijacked planes into building drills prior to 9/11

This is all speculation. The fact that these may exist does not proves a fact through reason.

Forewarnings of 9/11
-- FBI whistle-blowers warning of Arabs in flight schools
-- Moussaoui arrest but his case is stalled by FBI higher-ups
-- Multiple hijacking warnings to FAA

I'll grant you this could be circumstantial evidence if it was material to 9/11. Meaning that you would need to establish these types of snafus are unique to 9/11. I don't think government ineptitude started just prior to 9/11

Clear foreknowledge of 9/11
-- Suspicious trading of American Airlines and United Airlines stocks right before 9/11 (trades not by the terrorists since story has been covered up); CIA has strong links to wall street
-- Massive numbers of financial transactions run through WTC right before planes crashed
-- Israeli company Odigo warned its employees of WTC attack

How does suspicious trading get linked to the government? Unless you have that it's speculation. BTW, an employee of Israeli company Odigo sent a message. Again unless you can establish a link to the US government you are speculating.

Examples of contacts of US intelligence agencies with Al Qaeda
-- Extensive interactions between CIA and Pakistani ISI and Pakistani ISI and Al Qaeda
-- FBI informant lived with two 9/11 hijackers in San Diego right before attacks

The ISI, CIA and al-Qeada have ties going back to late 70's. This is not circumstantial evidence. The FBI agent living with 9/11 hijackers is new to me.

The rest is mostly silly sophistry or speculation.

You asked what would convince me the US government was complicit in the attacks. Direct evidence. There should be plenty. Is it possible to pull off a plan this big without leaving a tangible trail? I don't think it is.

what evidence do you want, considering as I said, no one is simply going to confess here?

Isn't there some evidence of complicity beyond a REASONABLE doubt?

See above

Notes:

• All of the following excerpts are from the article found at http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/refusing_the_9_11_evidence.html
  
• Bold in original
  
• Italics mine

Here's where I thought it started to get slightly interesting. First, because of the reference to "a mountain of evidence." I was not aware of this mountain being referred to, but was looking forward to seeing it when, I assumed, it would be presented later on in the article. And second, because I do not believe in God, nor do I have blind trust in the Bush administration. Which must mean that I am not refusing the 9/11 evidence, as suggested in the title, and yet I still am not convinced that the government orchestrated the attacks that day.


"...the meaningless rant of a lunatic."
"...sounds too far fetched or irrational to believe."
They said it not me. Why is it so difficult to present a rational, reasonable case based on the credible and tangible evidence unearthed thus far? Maybe eliciting the help of a good PR firm would be beneficial.


Well, if I have to consider that the US government may have participated in an unthinkable atrocity, I will. There really is no reason to believe the US government would commit or participate in atrocities. (Except maybe for the current war in Iraq that was based on lies and deception. And support of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war period when he was using chemical weapons on Iranian troops and on the Kurdish population in his own country. Let's not forget that the US was trading arms to Iran for portions of the same time period. Some might believe Vietnam to be an atrocity. And maybe Laos and Cambodia too. And perhaps Panama. And the Gulf War. And the firebombing of cities in Japan and Germany in World War Two, using atomic bombs on Japan. Let's not leave out Indonesia and the Philippines. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, the treatment of the Native Americans, etc., etc.) Hmmm, now that I think about it, I guess it is just barely possible that the US government might actually knowingly kill people.

But I don't know if it's possible for me to reject my "mistaken belief that those in charge of our nation can do no wrong." (Well, they have fucked up that Iraq War thing pretty badly. Hell, they completely forget to plant some WMD's. And Afghanistan isn't exactly without its problems. And trying to reform Social Security with Private Accounts - what a miscalculation that was. Where was I again...."if they were to accept the facts"...oh, yeah...)

I'd like to actually see the facts before I accept them, I'm still waiting for the "mountain of evidence" to be revealed. Maybe it's in the next paragraph....

I have no faith in the US government - I believe the foreign policy of the US is designed for the purpose of creating a favorable business climate in, and establishing control over, as much of the planet as is economically feasible regardless of the pain and suffering it may cause to any people that may happen to live there. I further believe that the primary method employed to do this is to claim to be fighting for democracy, human rights, and freedom while at the same time actually acting in ways that undermine those very things.

"...people end up believing what they must, rather than what is true. As time passes, they totally erase the distinction between fact and fiction in order to believe..."
I could not have said it any better. Although I may be applying that conclusion primarily to a different group of people, I feel that to some extent it is present in all of us.


For all this talk of conclusive evidence, this article seems to be severely lacking in that respect. Maybe it's at the very end...


"America would never ever regain its credibility in the world. We would never again be respected or trusted. We would immediately relinquish our leadership position in the world..."
Talk about people "believing what they must, rather than what is true." I think the credibility, respect, and trust in America has been absent for many years. But even so, we will not lose our leadership position for quite some time to come. We have the largest economy and the largest military - therefore we are the leader.


What about the people who are not blindly loyal, and also do not care for the nation? What about the millions of people in the rest of the world that would also like nothing better than to see America brought down? What is stopping them from revealing the truth?


Some of the evidence is real, some of it is not. People will reach different conclusions based on what evidence they see and what they believe to be credible. That does not mean they are refusing to see the truth, it just means that they have a different perspective of what the truth may be.

-Make7

I'd like to actually see the facts before I accept them, I'm still waiting for the "mountain of evidence" to be revealed. Maybe it's in the next paragraph....

Where's the mountain of evidence that would convict AlQaeda and bin Laden? We were told just hours after the event that bin Laden was responsible. Don't you find that a bit suspicious?

But even so, we will not lose our leadership position for quite some time to come. We have the largest economy and the largest military - therefore we are the leader.

Our economy is dependent on huge trade deficits and massive increases in military and security spending. How long will it be before the petrodollar loses its stranglehold on international oil transactions? How many more nations will buck the American Imperial grip of the World Bank,IMF,free trade agreements etc.? Things could get out of hand and fast.

So did Richard Clarke. After you find out what they knew, what they based that intuitive guess on, you don't find the identification of bin Laden's group very remarkable at all.

And as I recall, it took a day or two for the government to finally confirm that they were looking at the bin Laden group as the perps. The media said bin Laden pretty quickly, but the government didn't say al-Qaeda officially until a couple of days later.

If you're looking for some evidence, check out the recent Moussaoui documents. There's a huge statement of facts that Moussaoui has accepted as true. His indictment papers list more facts, including a paper trail on the hijackers in the weeks before 9/11. That's what evidence looks like.

No one in high government circles would dare to dispute government decree without risking their lives and ruining their careers.The media was getting its nod from the government. Obviously the CIA and other intel agencies are going to leave a paper trail. Why can't you understand this?

Why can't you grasp this? Why? Why? I have no doubt that there were cells of CIA infiltrated Arab terrorist hijackers who were making plans. This again is typical intelligence procedure. There always are patsies.After all, the CIA,MI6 etc want us to believe their false flag operation. The intent of 911 in great part was to make you believe in the official story.Thus they create a "legend" They have in great part succeeded.

Speaking of documents,are you aware of the 2001 July document that granted Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defence full power to initiate plane interceptions in case of a domestic hijacking?

Were you aware that NORAD at Cheyenne Mountain has the surveillance capacity to identify all airborn objects bigger than a monkey wrench? Flight 77 would been identified throughout its entire course, transponders or no. It is absoluely inconceivable that Rumsfeld would not have known of the plane heading towards the DC area.

Are you aware that that the Pentagon is the most fortified building in the world? Why wasn't #77 shot down?

Are you aware that when asked why the hijackers didn't plow into the nuclear power plant that was right on course to NY that Sheik Khalid Mohammed(alleged 911 mastermind being interrogated at an undisclosed location) said that they were concerned about anti-defense missiles? But they do fly a plane into the Pentagon? The most fortified building of all? I suggest you listen to Michael Dietrick out of KPFA.. http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=13&limit=N ,an experienced pilot of 20 years give his lecture on the August 25,2004 archive of Guns and Butter.

Did you know that UAL pilots have been given a 911 gag order and therefore are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs?

I never even heard about Michael Dietrick.
I just listened to his talk.
That was REALLY worth while!

I suspected Bin Laden when the first tower was hit, and when that plane slammed into the second tower, I was certain it was him. This was before any talking head had mentioned his name. Today, however, things are much murkier to me.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's suppose that a group positioned within the US govt, within what we may call the military-intelligence-Wall Street-war profiteer complex, and represented in the Bush administration, planned and organized the 9/11 attacks. What would be the most important elements in the planning? I would think that it would be of overriding importance to 1) avoid, as far as possible, having any evidence pointing to official complicity, and 2) have a set of designated culprits ready for law enforcement or intelligence agencies to track down.

Is this what happened? I don't know. But the official story, as presented in the 9/11 Commission report, is not at all convincing. The story of the alleged mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is particularly dubious, as is the absence of Omar Saed Sheikh in the (revised) official narrative. And I'm still not sure who Bin Laden really is. The manager of the Bin Laden family's heroin and money laundering business? A key agent of Saudi intelligence? A key agent of Pakistani intelligence? A key agent of US intelligence? The ceremonial head of the global jihad? All of the above? Or, perhaps, simply the leader of a small terrorist group whose capabilities have been grossly exaggerated.

If you're looking for hard, decisive evidence, I don't think it exists for any of the many scenarios that have been advanced, the official one included. There are, however, plenty of things that indicate that the official narrative is partly fictitious, and that there has been a lot of effort to cover up this fact. It would require a hundred pages to go through it all, but here's a few points:

- The fact (so it seems to be) that General Mahmood Ahmad, head of Pakistani intelligence, ordered $100,000 to be wired to alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta before the attack. Ahmad was in Washington on 9/11 2001, he had been meeting with the DoD, NSC, CIA and the joint intel. committee.

- The man who wired the money on Ahmad's orders, Omar Saed Sheikh (or Umar Syed Sheikh) has been replaced by another person in the official narrative, as represented in the 9/11 report. Omar Saed is an interesting figure, a known asset of Pakistani intelligence and possibly of the CIA. He is sentenced to death in Pakistan for the murder of Daniel Pearl, which he probably didn't commit (Pearl's widow is one of those who think he is innocent), while he has not been indicted for any involvement in 9/11. According to the latest version of the offcial story, it was alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who killed Pearl, which of course is convenient.

- The alleged mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is another suspected asset of Pakistani intelligence, and he was reportedly accused of being a double-agent (cooperating with the Americans) by Pakistani agents. Moreover, the story about his arrest in March 2003 appears to be fictitious. The occupants of the house that he allegedly was arrested in, in Pakistan, denied that he ever was there when visited by British journalists. US authorities have not disclosed where he is held, by whom, or what is going to happen with him. Pakistani forces reported that they killed him in September 2002, half a year before his "arrest", they even gave a graphic account of how it happened.

- The lifestyles of the alleged hijackers and co-conspirators strongly contradict the story that they were devout Muslims. Mohammed Atta dressed like a pimp, wore expensive jewellry, snorted coke, was frequently drunk, loved to party and lived with a pink-haired stripper girlfriend in Venice, Florida. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the "mastermind") led an extremely lavish life in the Phillipines in the 90s, he reportedly hired a helicopter once just to fly by the window of a girl he liked. Omar Saed Sheikh frequented and partied with the upper reaches of Pakistani society.

- There appears to be a drug trafficking connection to almost everyone involved. Bin Laden has quite posibly been or is one of the big players in the global heroin trade. The hijackers appear to have been involved in protected drug trafficking while in the US, and they appear to have been rather well-connected - not a "lone cadre" at all. This includes Moussaoui, if we are to believe Daniel Hopsicker:

"Six weeks later Simpson picked up the wealthy Saudi’s wife at Khal's Venice apartment and drove her back to the Orlando Airport. When he arrived to pick up the fare he was asked to help carry a heavy chest down to the cab, so heavy it took two people to carry it. “It must have weighed at least 150 pounds,” exclaimed Simpson. “A big bald guy (Zacharias Moussaoui) helped me.”

What had made the chest so heavy? Curious, we asked a former intelligence operative.

“Gold,” he replied instantly."
(http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6312004.html)


- The Guardian (London), July 22, 2004:

Sibel Edmonds… has been quoted as saying: "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included (terrorist) money laundering, detailed and date-specific information... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country (the US)... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up".

Sibel Edmonds is indeed talking about intelligence related to 9/11, but she is under a "state secrets" gag-order imposed by John Ashcroft.

- "The entire United States intelligence community knew of the 9/11 attacks before hand, including the fact that commercial jets were to be used as bombs; they also knew the approximate dates and possible targets but were called off their investigations."
(http://www.yuricareport.com/911/Davis_CompellingEvidenceForComplicity.html)

- "Mohammed Atta had attended International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama; Abdulaziz Alomari had attended Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force base in Texas; Saeed Alghamdi had been to the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. These are all names of identified hijackers, so why has the U.S. government attempted to deny the match? As early as three days after the 9/11 attacks, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III claimed that these findings were new and had not been known by the FBI previously. This claim is a lie.

Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested after his flight trainers at the Minnesota flight school, Pan Am International Flight Academy, reported highly suspicious behavior. He was greatly unqualified; he wanted to learn to fly a 747 but wasn't interested in takeoffs or landings; he was traveling on a French passport, said he was from France, but could not speak French.

When contacted, the French said he was a suspected terrorist connected to Al-Qaeda. However, a special counter terrorism panel of the FBI and CIA reviewed the case and dismissed it."
(Ibid.)

- Robert S. Mueller III, who started in his job as FBI director just before 9/11, has a history of being involved in botching investigations that might otherwise have proved "embarrassing" to say the least (BCCI, John Gotti, Noriega).

- Insider trading which, the SEC concluded, was "not terrorist-related", but which nevertheless occurred (suspicious "shorting" of 38 companies that would suffer from the attacks, suspicious activity in 5-year Treasury bonds - including one $5 billion trade - and unexplainable activity in oil and gold).

- Greg Palast has uncovered a "back off" order concerning Saudi ties to terrorism, which was imposed on law enforcement and intelligence agencies shortly after the Bush admin took office, and which was lifted Sept 13, 2001. This prevented, among other things, the investigation of Osama's relatives Omar and Abdullah Bin Laden and their WAMY, known for channelling money to terrorist groups around the world. Omar and Abdullah lived a couple of blocks down the road from two of the 9/11 hijackers in Fall's Church, Virginia. When the restrictions were lifted, Omar and Abdullah were out of the country.

- There was an unexplainable surge in financial transactions going through the computers in the WTC immediately before and during the attacks. It was described as "extraordinarily high" by German company Convar Systeme Deutschland GmbH, who were given the task of recovering the data from the WTC hard-drives. At least $100 million, probably a lot more, was moved through the computers during a very short period of time. Shortly after this revelation, Convar was acquired by Kroll Associates, a company known as a CIA front (Kroll is currently under investigation in Brazil for espionage, and is known as the "CIA of Wall Street"). No more has been made known about the investigation into these transactions since the acqusition.

- The Anthrax letters, which were probably prepered before 9/11, contained Anthrax that in all likelyhood originated in US military laboratories. The "official story" is that a "lone biowarfare specialist" were behind them. They did of course serve to get the Patriot Act quickly through Congress, as two of the recipients were the two Democratic senators, Daschle and Leahy, that were the greatest potential obstacles to it passing.
"The perpetrator was probably ready before Sept. 11", according to the Federation of American Scientists' analysis:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm


That'll do for now, just from the top of my head.

I don't think that proving whether al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11 or not will actually prove one way or the other whether the US government had something to do with it.

Is it really just a simple either or proposition? Either bin Baden did it, or Bush did it. I don't think it is.

I was always under the impression that in order to prove something (i.e. the US government was involved), you actually had to make a case for it (i.e. provide evidence).
____________________________

Of course it is possible that things could fall apart for the American Empire quickly. It is just my opinion that it won't happen for some time to come (at a very minimum a few decades). But the sooner that countries get out from under the policies of the World Bank, IMF, and various free trade agreements, the better. Hopefully my prediction is wrong. We'll just have to wait and see.

-Make7

I believe there IS substantial physical evidence that moves us away from AlQaeda. And there is tons of circumstantial evidence.

A "few decades" is a long time. I think we're at least do for a severe recession very shortly...maybe worse.

Even if it is proven beyond a doubt that al Qaeda was not behind the attacks, that still does not prove the US government was behind them. The case for that must be made with its own set of evidence.
__________

I was talking about the United States being able to use its economic and military dominance to maintain its leadership role. Even if there is a recession, which I agree could come very soon, I don't think it will have enough of an impact to unseat the United States as the lone superpower. I just don't think that will happen any time soon, but that's just my opinion.

:shrug:Make7

it is obvious they were collaborating, probably along with private intelligence groups.

Haven't any of the hundreds of connections of Al Qaeda to the CIA and the FBI going back over a decade made you suspicious by now?

they simply haven't been paying attention, or done their homework. Like cross-checking the 9/11 Commission report with other sources.

"It is obvious." - spooked911

Why didn't you tell me sooner? That's a "slam dunk."
____________________________________________

First of all, I did not say Al Qaeda was not behind the attacks - I said that if someone were to prove that Al Qaeda was not involved, that would not necessarily prove that the US government was involved. It was meant as a statement of logic, not as a statement of the facts pertaining to the events that day.

Second, who said I'm not suspicious? However, I do realize that suspecting something and proving something are not the same thing.

Third, collaboration would not necessarily mean operational knowledge of everything an organization is involved in. For example, which of the following are true:

1. The United States and Russia collaborated during World War Two, Russia was behind the use of the Atomic Bombs on Japan.
   
2. The United States has collaborative relationships with Britain, France, and Israel, therefore the United States was behind the invasion of Egypt during the Suez Crisis.
   
3. The United States and Israel have a history of collaborating, therefore the United States was behind the attack on the USS Liberty.
   
4. The United States and Indonesia have a collaborative relationship, which means the United States was behind the invasion of East Timor.
   
5. The United Sates was collaborating with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, so the United States was behind the attack on the USS Stark.
   

-Make7

It's not a matter of either/or, and talking about "the government" is of course extremely simplistic. There's a third option, for instance, which is a "private" group other than "al-Qaeda" (but connected to people associated with "al-Qaeda"). Eric Margolis wrote shortly after 9/11 that "many intelligence people believe Bin Laden is a front for as yet unknown groups". It is not entirely impossible to imagine a group that has people positioned within the military-intelligence-Wall Street-war profiteer complex, and which is also represented within the Bush administration. Perhaps rather a looser network of acquaintances and connections than a real organization, secretive, shadowy - sounds implausible, but isn't that precisely how al-Qaeda is described, and people seem ready to accept the reality of that particular shadowy network. Is it impossible to imagine an "al-Qaeda" in which a substantial portion of the "members" are white caucasians?

Sibel Edmonds has hinted that the FBI was infiltrated by a private intelligence organization, which was protected by higher-ups (which would mean Robert Mueller), which is connected to several well-known Americans (including elected offcials) and which was in some way connected to 9/11. "It just doesn't boil down to countries anymore" she said in a radio interview.

I agree that just using the term "the government" does over-simplify the matter, but it is easier than trying to list all the possible parties that might be involved every single time. (As you are no doubt aware, this can amount to a fairly long list.)

One of the main problems, as I see it, is the lack of information. Without enough solid information (about intelligence and/or terrorist organizations) to base conclusions on, it is largely conjecture. That doesn't mean the information available can't point someone in the right direction, but the very nature of these organizations makes it difficult to find a "smoking gun." They keep to the shadows as much as they can.

-Make7