I would like to add to what a previous commentor said--not only is it incorrect to allege that "the government" did it, because we know that corrupt individuals often act against their oaths of office, but we must also recognize that non government actors both foreign and domestic have been corrupting our democracy for years now through the corrosive combination of bribery and espionage. Nothing less that our sovereignty is at stake.
It must also be noted that far from being a uniform bloc of opinion, skeptics of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 can have very different views of the events. There are those, for example, who believe (against evidence in my opinion) that the Bush administration knew of al Qaeda's plans and "let it happen on purpose", otherwise known in skeptics' circles as the LIHOP theory. While this was a more popular view in the past, it has been disowned by most serious 9/11 skeptics, most notably the unquestioned "Dean of 9/11 Skeptics" Prof. David Ray Griffin. In our country EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty, and the "evidence" thus far presented of the guilt of the named 19 Arab Muslim hijackers does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Those who want to know what genuine 9/11 skeptics understand to be the many problems with the official account need look no further than Griffin's latest book The New pearl Harbor Revisited. A quick survey of Amazon reviews will show that he deserves his reputation as the most distinguished and accomplished reporter of these disturbing facts.
Oh, and it is exceedingly clear by this point that the twin towers and 47 story building 7 did not collapse into piles of fine rubble and dust simply because of the impact of two planes. As others have pointed out, independent researchers have shown that the official NIST report that admits it conducted no tests for explosive or incendiary residue was at best incompetent, at worst (and more likely) a deliberate cover up. The question we should all be asking is what is being covered up--who is being protected?
However much I disagree with Hunter's conclusion, I applaud his approach. It is high time someone pointed out that the most dangerous "conspiracy theorists" are those who operate under cover of official positions or a journalistic pretense. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission Report is one long conspiracy theory based largely on the alleged testimony of one Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was (also allegedly) tortured for the information. So my question to the author is, if the Bush administration and media could allow a war to be sold on false pretenses, would they really be above silence about the true nature of 9/11? I also do not believe that "the government" did 9/11 as official policy, but I do believe that certain parts of our government have serious problems in terms of infiltration by people with divided loyalties.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper