|
|
03/20/10
|
|||||||||||||||
|
June 22,
2004 The subjects concerning this evidence come entirely from the book, The New Pearl Harbor, Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, by David Ray Griffin. I highly recommend this book. It is written from an objective perspective and offers both sides of the issue for examination by the reader. A government that would refuse to explain, without objection, all these allegations is unfit to govern and totally unfit to attempt to spread this kind of “democracy” to any other country! After each statement, ask yourself why this was done-or could happen, and then demand from your government an impartial investigation by a team that has absolutely no connection to the State, with full access to all relevant documents and testimony. There is substantial evidence: 1. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were already planned for geopolitical reasons, so that 9/11 provided not the reason for the wars but merely the pretext. 2. That men with connections to al-Qaeda were allowed into the United States in spite of regulations that should have kept them out. 3. That men with connections to al-Qaeda were allowed to train in US flight schools. 4. The attacks of 9/11 could not have succeeded without an order from the highest level of government to suspend normal operating procedures for responding to hijackings, 5. That US political and military leaders made misleading and often false statements about their response to the hijackings. 6. In particular that the presently accepted official account, according to which jet fighter planes were scrambled but arrived too late was invented some days after 9/11. 7. The collapse of the WTC buildings was brought about by explosives, so that the participation by the US government in the prevention of an adequate inspection of the debris, especially the steel, constitutes evidence of its participation in a cover-up. 8. Someone in authority sought to insure that there would be deaths in the attacks on the second WTC tower and the Pentagon by not having these buildings evacuated. 9. Whatever hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757 but a much smaller aircraft such as a guided missile. 10. That flight 93 was shot down after the authorities learned that the passengers were gaining control of it. 11. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld revealed advance knowledge of two of the attacks. 12. President Bush on 9/11 feigned ignorance of the occurrence and seriousness of the attacks. 13. President Bush and his Secret Service knew on 9/11 that he would not be the target of attacks. 14. The FBI had specific knowledge of the time and targets of the attacks at least a month in advance. 15. The CIA and other intelligence agencies would have had very specific advance knowledge of the attacks by means of the "put options" purchased shortly before 9/11. 16. The Bush administration lied about not having had specific warnings about the attacks. 17. The FBI and other federal agencies prevented investigations prior to 9/11 that might have uncovered the plot. 18. US officials sought to conceal the presence of the ISI (Pakistan’s Military intelligence) chief in Washington the week of 9/11. 19. The FBI and other federal agencies blocked investigations after the attacks that might have revealed the true perpetrators. 20. The United States did not really seek to kill or capture Usama bin Laden before or after the attacks. 21. That figures central to the Bush administration had desired “ a new Pearl Harbor” because of various benefits it would bring. A motive provided by the predictable benefits that this event, called by Bush himself “the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century” did bestow on the Bush administration. 22. Against the alternative explanation-the incompetence theory-provided by the fact that those who were allegedly guilty of incompetence were not fired, but were in some cases promoted. The standard defense by those who support the Bush administration and their shills in the media (Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter etc.) is that all the above is nothing but a thinly veiled attack by the left in this country, just does not fly here. We must have a full and accurate accounting of this event-for the families of those who lost loved ones in these attacks and in the subsequent war on terror-and for the strength and vitality of our country. Anything less and we become nothing better than the Nazis or the Bolsheviks! If you are a Republican, you would want all of the above investigated impartially-just to prove the liberal media bias and the extent they would go to to trash the conservative element. If you are a Democrat, you would want an impartial investigation to prove all of the above so that you could win the White House and Congress in 2004 and show everyone for once and for all the decadence of the “party of the rich.” If you are simply a defender of the omnipotent State, you would stonewall and prevent any impartial investigation into the facts, because the truth would prove the tyranny/criminality of the State and the steps it is willing to take to achieve its goals. If you are a Jeffersonian, Libertarian or Constitutionalist, you would demand an impartial investigation to prove exactly what the defenders of the State do not want anyone to know. Which category
fits you?
|
The Constitution Is Not The Answer Watch Out Gun Owners: The Republicans Are Selling Us Out Again Who Profits From Insider Trading? There Ain’t No South—It’s Just North Of Mexico “How The Hell Did These People Get In Our Army?” Massive Gun Owner Sell Out Of Basic Rights Republican Presidents And War Crimes - Nothing New Here It Depends On Your Definition of "Support The Troops" We Are Not Even Fighting The War We MUST Win Complete Archives for Michael Gaddy | |||||||||||||
 |
Submit
Feedback
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|