Sunday, September 11, 2005


Wow, its been 4 years. A lot has happened since. The world has changed, or at least our perspective of it. The inevitable question to ask is, are we more prepared now for possible future attacks? I think the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a disaster on par with the death and destruction of 9/11, has made many of us second guess our government's preparedness claims. Dick Cheney's pre-election suggestion that we would somehow be in more danger if we were to elect Kerry seems to be losing credibility, if it ever had any to start with. Perhaps the real question is, did we really have anything to prepare for in the first place, besides a natural disaster?

Remember the famous phrase, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself." That seems to have disappeared from our collective consciousness along with the evidence for the official explanation of the WTC collapse, Pentagon damage, and aircraft debris from Flight 93 in PA. This Administration has done a fantastic job of bringing the American people to their knees and begging them to protect us, for vengeance. So we went to war, twice, but with whom and for what? Things get a little hazy for me on these points, what with all those "straight forward" talking points coming from the Administration about the Taliban, Al qaeda, Osama, and Islamic fundamentalism; or was it WMDs, Saddam, free the Iraqis, democratize the Middle East, oil... ooops, strike that last one. What country were those hijackers from again? Which one is the number one supplier of oil to the United States? Are you with us, or against us Saudi Arabia?

Supposedly 19 hijackers, predominantly from everybody's favorite country Saudi Arabia, with a base of operations in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan, managed to carry out highly coordinated, trained, and skilled attacks on the lone world superpower with the largest military power, most sophisticated technology and intelligence personnel, armed with nothing more than religious fanaticism and box cutters (according to the official story).

A year and a half later, Iraq becomes the greatest threat to national security, and is invaded on the basis of weapons of mass destruction under control by madman Saddam Hussein. Whoa, wait a minute here, what happened to Osama bin Laden? Has Al qaeda ceased to be a threat? Remember President Bush saying we will hunt down the men who committed the acts of 9/11, and bring them to justice, dead or alive? Had we given up on all hope of ever finding a man in a cave, a criminal mastermind who somehow outsmarted the world's greatest superpower with nothing more than an army of crazed Islamic radicals armed with some mediocre piloting skills (who needs to land) and box cutters (that's not a knife, this is a box cutter)?

I mean, if one man can inspire so many to do so much harm with so little, wouldn't you consider him a major priority? Unless, of course, this man actually had little or nothing to do with carrying out the actual attacks, but was merely a convenient scapegoat. Of course that is just crazy talk for those conspiracy theorists who have nothing better to do than question the government that never ever gets anything wrong, or tell a lie. Its just silly to believe public officials could be so incompetent, or perhaps just simple liars. We elected them to because of their competence and honesty, right?

Who needs evidence anyway. Just go along with the official story, because I am certain the government would never ever mislead anybody or misinterpret evidence when it comes to such an important historical and tragic event. I mean, look at the Warren Commission, now that was a great piece of work! If it wasn't for that doosie, we may never have known who shot JFK! Wasn't Richard Nixon the most honest President we ever had? Or how about that Bill Clinton? Iran-contra you say, never heard of it. Japanese interment camps, what are those? Certainly not in America.

What about those Fortune 500 company stock put options being traded en masse prior to 9/11? This suggests prior knowledge of the attacks, because anyone selling these profited handsomely when shares fell dramatically in price after the attacks. These companies include airliners, insurance, and brokerage firms, all hit especially hard with the collapse of the WTC. A put option basically means that you are betting that stock prices will fall. Is all this just coincidence? Could all of this massive trading been done by terrorist organizations around the world trying to undermine capitalism? There was evidence of similar circumstances with other companies around the world, and suggests this would have had to been planned for years in advance without raising suspicion, a very unlikely scenario. Unless, of course, they had help in high places.

For those of you interested, there is a documentary called Loose Change on 9/11. It raises some very interesting and serious questions, both scientific and speculative, about the official government story on that day's series of events. There are even individuals in the mainstream who take these claims seriously but who have been shut out by the mainstream media, because of the challenge to official sources, a no-no for contemporary professional journalism. Two of these individuals include Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, D-GA. and Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. and chief economist for the Dept. of Labor at the time of the attacks. Reynolds has a background in Criminal Justice as well as economics, and brings forward some of the same questions that are found in Loose Change. Please read his article at this link:

1 comment:

  1. So... the government is not big enough and we need more regulations... (i.e. "corporate media bias"), but it is also ineffective (i.e. Katrina).... what to do... less goverment anyone?