Aftermath: Unanswered Questions from 9/11

Hi,

I have an important question in passing through the "good beginning" stage of analysis. And let me say I've seen part of this film and hope to see all of it because it is absolutely excellent and deserves massive distribution throughout the world.

The major "terrorist" incidents on the soil where this country resides have been hotly contested as inside jobs again and again. Oklahoma, Waco, the first WTC bombing attempt, all had some level of government instigation, cover-up, etc. claimed by a large and active group. One of the major reasons given by laypeople is simply, "This country's security is too tight to have allowed such things to happen." E.g., the AK-47 firings near the CIA base in Langley. "No way someone could have gotten away". The one exception I can think of would be the Unabomber.

Ironically, there is reputedly a history of bombings in this country, small and large, depending on the historical time, which usually go unreported or underreported in the media so as not to encourage more such actions. I once read a source claiming thousands of bombings around the time of the Vietnam war. Maybe most of them were fireworks? Maybe that was government invention as well? But it leads one to wonder...

WHAT IS THE COMPARATIVE FREQUENCY OF BOMBINGS IN THE USA, THEN AND NOW?

This question might help understand just how "tight" security really is. Are bombers usually caught? Pre-empted? Have they stopped operating? Why?

Now the government is claiming high alert for terrorist incidents. Just taking photos of buildings is reputedly cause for arrest. The media jumps at any opportunity to show Al-Qaida lurking in middle America. You'd think if there were "thousands" of bombs, we'd hear about one or more.

Just wondering...are they so good at stopping such actions now that it impeaches the idea that they couldn't stop 9-11? Or are they still censoring such actions in such numbers? Or have such actions stopped? Or did they never really exist?

Hey, I sincerely hope that this will get answers to all those unanswered questions re September 11th.

Certainly I am still waiting for a possible cause. I do not, nor have I ever, accepted the official explanation especially when one considers the location of a passport supposedly found at the scene. The mind boggles.

I find the official, yet grudging, explanation much more plausible than any mass government, X-file conspiracry: i.e. that *maybe* in all the Internet chatter and reported clues that the machismo of the CIA and FBI got in the way, and that prevented the two agencies from working together and sharing sources and leads and potentially learning of this threat. Then there's the plain old stupidity of that FDA (I think) official who didn't think it worthwhile to report as troubling an interview with a man (Mohammed Atta, as it turns out) who insulted her because she was a woman and who repeatedly refused to deal with this official, and then asked her pointed questions about a picture of the World Trade Towers on her wall. Maybe it's just me, but I find reports about laziness, ill-placed pride and idiocy more reliable when talking about a large bureaucracy than best-case conspiracy scenarios. Even the "X-Files" found some things too far gone to be plots for their stories... Think about how lazy your coworkers are, then imagine ALL of them AGREEING on some outlandish, dangerous and deadly plot and then putting it into operation.

Listen, we're all lazy. Watch this with your coworkers in mind and *then and only then* report back how plausible this theory is. If you've flown in the past year and witnessed the unthinking idiotic incomprehension of the TSA towards things like, oh I don't know, shoes or water bottles, just tell us how smart you think they are and how willing and able you think they all are to put together a plot like this.

Then and only then, maybe I'll listen to you.

That's the problem with conspiracy theories -- there would always be somebody who would screw it up, either before or after.

Remote controlled airliners, cruise missle into the Pentagon, all of the alleged hijackers haven't been seen since, familes of the alleged hijackers saying their sons had become fundamentalists and apologizing to the American people, etc.

To manage this scale of deception would be impossible. The "official" story is infinitely more plausible.

A conspiracy of people who dance in the street shouting, "Death to America!"

Sounds pretty plausible to me.

So what level of proof would you require? A videotaped confession by bin Laden? Crowds dancing in the street on 9/11? What, exactly?

Ha! What a joke. To be honest, there is nothing more obvious than the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. The mountain of evidence is simply overwhelming, from the faked bin laden confession video, to the collapse of the trade towers in FREE FALL, a sure sign of demolition. (This is not to mention the mysterious collapse of building 7, also straight down in free-fall consistent with a demolition, despite NOT being hit by a jet.) Then we have Bush's non-reaction to the event while he read to school kids, the 10 hijackers or so who are still alive as reported by the BBC, the MISSING PLANE at the Pentagon etc. etc etc. I mean really, is there any part of the official story that stands up to the evidence? I don't think so.

Also, I really don't see what the folks at the TSA have to do with anything, as they are mostly just innocent stooges of the system. The operation was surely done by experienced 'black-ops' professionals.

>Think about how lazy your coworkers are, then >imagine ALL of them AGREEING on some >outlandish, dangerous and deadly plot and then >putting it into operation.

What do one's co-workers have to do with anything? For example, in the army, when if they storm a heavily guarded bunker against the odds, the top brass agrees on an outlandish dangerous deadly plot, and then it is put into action. Co-workers would screw it up what the army could do it just fine. Co-workers would screw up what the CIA would do just fine etc.

My interpretation: The staging of 9/11 was done at the behest of capitalists as part and parcel of CLASS WARFARE to supress civil liberties and begin the imperialistic 'war on terror'. I'm sure 9/10 capitalists agree that it's good to have people held in terror. It makes it easier to do things like e.g. take their Miranda rights away etc, which gives them more power and more control over the USA in particular, which of course is the strategic platform for global conquest, de-population and de-indistrialization of rivals, and a permanent, electronic surveliance state where fasism is administered with a special find of efficency only a computer could manage (think of all the computerized 'customer service' writ large). By the way all the software will be contolled by, you guessed it, the CAPITALISTS. Welcome to the New World Order.

"My interpretation: The staging of 9/11 was done at the behest of capitalists as part and parcel of CLASS WARFARE to supress civil liberties and begin the imperialistic 'war on terror'. I'm sure 9/10 capitalists agree that it's good to have people held in terror. "
============

Your interpretation is like a bad book report by a too-clever-by-half 10th grader.

I am that 1 in 10 capitalist who doesn't like terror of any kind. And you "are sure" 9 out of 10 aren't like me. What a joke.

By 'capitalist', I meant someone who had major stakes in the means of production or other types of industry, not just someone who merely thinks capitalism is great. Lets face it, wealth is power, and power is very much a filter which removes those who are not sufficiently ruthless to crush rivals and protect their interests. No one is going to hang on to the kind of power that the Bush family fronts for unless they are hell-bent on dominating the rest of humanity...and one of their major strategies for dominating Americans is to keep them in a permanent state of FEAR.

You mean like this confession video?

http://www.robert-fisk.com/faked_video_inin.htm

As the link says, any fool with eyes can see that the guy who's supposed to be Bin Laden ain't Bin Laden.

Do you think this 'evidence' should be admissable in court? HAHAHA!