9/11 - a matter of belief or logic?

Thank you, Douglas, for your comments and for the question you've asked.

I approached the whole 9/11 issue in the same manner as the Bhutto case and in the same way that I tend to dissect all media reports. For me, it's not a matter of belief but of what seems most logical. I found no logic in the official story of 9/11. The flight patterns alone, executed with military precision, would have been impossible given the official scenario.

Most of all I question who might benefit from any given event.

I wouldn't say the US government staged 9/11. No matter what government takes office in the US, and now probably in Canada, they are essentially only fronts for the three hundred or so corporations - the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against - who are really calling the shots and literally wrenching from the world's populations the freedom to operate with impunity anywhere on the globe, without restrictions of any kind and without any need to feel responsible for human rights or loss of human life.

Capitalism is what free-market proponents believe in, not democracy. As a result, democracy has been reduced to merely the right to vote, even if elections have to be rigged to safeguard the free-market.

Capitalism has become synonymous with ruthless competition. It is important to western corporations, including the weapons industry, that they achieve world dominance, facilitated and protected by a strong military presence across the globe. This requires the destabilization of certain Middle Eastern and Asian countries by means ranging from support for compliant dictatorships to creating artificial pretexts for war where compliance can't be bought (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran). 9/11 (conflated with "Al Qaeda" and "Islamofascism") continues to serve as the necessary pretext - as did Hitler's Reichstag fire.

(Whenever I hear the term Islamofascism I wonder if it leapt out of a Freudian urge to make a distinction between the "enemy" and Amerofascism.)

Ordinary common sense says that if no fire has ever before or since completely demolished a skyscraper, even after long hours of burning, then if the north and south WTC towers - plus building 7 -were literally pulverized in very short order, there must be some other factors involved. Having seen pictures of controlled demolition, that is what seems most likely in this case. And knowing that there's a lot of skilled and time-consuming preparatory work involved in controlled demolition, it could not possibly have been carried out by a few angry young Arabs.

Add to this all of the many unanswered questions (WRH) - some of which are so bravely and eloquently stated in my all-time favourite 9/11 video (YouTube) - and one wonders how anyone can avoid having doubts about the official story.

As for me, it seems only logical that whether or not Bush himself had a direct hand in it (which I doubt, although his father may well have, and Cheney certainly seems to have been involved, and I suspect Rudy Giuliani as well), it had to have been expertly orchestrated from within the United States - for instance to keep NORAD at bay and response teams confused by staging practice exercises at the same time - and Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice had to have known that the 9/11 event, or something like it, was imminent and that it would work to the advantage of theirs and future administrations, whether Democrat in name or Republican.

There are plenty of resources listed on my 9/11 and Al Qaeda page, a thorough study of which I think should at least make an agnostic out of one. In that case, the solution should be the same as that of the "believers" - a proper inquiry, one that looks at all the questions, and especially one that requires Bush and Cheney to testify separately, under oath and with a transcript, not just having a friendly discussion together as they did with the intimidated 9/11 Commission, who saw Bush as being "generous with his time" rather than as performing an important presidential duty.

Bush was terribly generous with America's time when he continued to read a goat story for 20 minutes after being told that America was under attack, and I don't think it's coincidental that reading to little children served to make Bush appear benign, kindly and harmless on that infamous day.