posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:07 PM
A combination of all three choices, if anything...
There is plenty of evidence to prove that Islamic terrorists were the perpetrators, and their motives for the attacks are clear and obvious.
I am fairly certain that the U.S. government had prior knowledge that an attack was imminent, and did nothing to stop it. It seemed clear to me right
from his election in 2000 that George W. Bush was eager to exercise American military might, and more specifically to finish what daddy started in
However, the idea that the September 11th attacks were carried out by the government itself is too far fetched, and the so-called evidence which
suggests this does not hold up. The idea that the twin towers were hit by converted military aircraft has been debunked in previous ATS threads.
The collapse of the WTC7 building is highly suspect, and is the basis of the main argument for government involvementas far as I'm concerned. I do
not believe, however, that any conspirators faking a terrorist attack would be stupid enough to blow up a building which had not even been hit by an
aircraft or affected in any way by the collapse of the other two buildings.
Investigations have shown that the twin towers were not brought down by controlled demolition. They collapsed because burning aircraft fuel melted
the steel trusses supporting each floor, causing them to fall and creating a domino effect which brought the towers down. This was due to inadequate
fireproofing on the steel structure of the buildings, which can be seen in footage filmed a few weeks prior to the attacks.
My overall view is that the government was involved to some degree, although I doubt Bush's administration was directly responsible. They were,
however, at least negligent. I also think that after 9/11, they jumped at the opportunity to use it as a mandate to invade Iraq in a most dispicable
manner. 9/11 was shamelessly used as an excuse to justify the pursuit of the Project for the New American Century and the neo-conservative agenda of
The whole episode bears a startling similarity to the Reichstag Fire in 1934, blamed by the Nazis on communist insurgents. The way in which the
Patriot Act was passed under the premise of protecting the U.S. from the terrorist threat which had apparently materialised all of a sudden reminds me
of the way Hitler used the Reichtag fire as an excuse to pass the Enabling Act, which clamped down on political opponents and give the Fuhrer absolute
power - leading to subsequent laws which restricted the freedom of the German people. There is still considerable doubt as to who started the fire.
Not that I'm comparing Bush to Hitler, the point is people never learn from history.
If only people were more cynical.