I think people will be very surprised to discover that when they watch the sequel, I outline the reality that official stories have more truth to them than are given credit. Sounds like a weird thing to say but when you see the movie, I hope people will use their intellect and their intuition. I am known for using the mainstream media to cite my work. I have found that more of the "official" story with the 9/11 topic is actually true, however, people seem to have confused or misunderstood that there is a significant difference between not disclosing information and lying.
I don't know if I agree with much of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists these days because I have reviewed almost every written work and video production on the conspiracy theories and gone out to verify or disprove the claims only to find that there is a lot of cherry picking and paranoid judgements on aspects of the topic that officially have reasonable explanations or the opposite and have absolutely no explanation. When there is nothing said about something, or worse, when their is not enough said about a topic or aspect, people seem to want to fill in that void with their own opinions and unfortunately tend to pick the most drastic fears they suspect when they probably should have just recognized that very little is known or proven with the issue and national security was at interest since this was an attack on our country. Having researched intelligence books and cold war stories most of my life, I can confidently say that there is more than enough evidence for a cover-up, however, I think that some of it can be explained innocently and that some of it can be explained due to a sincere inability to find answers to questions that may not have direct answers, only theories.
The fear of admitting that not much can be proven and only suspected is something a lot of people have a hard time doing and it is clear that the implications of society rationalizing a serious breach of national security possibly took place by a well organized, well trained, well financed group of threats that may not ever be known because their tracks were covered up. That alone is enough to cause enough panic and chaos that it might be something to consider if people would have even been capable of functioning in their personal life. Trauma from witnessing events, for example terrorism, can be so severe, the anxiety alone can cause people to breakdown and stop functioning normally. People need closure to issues, more importantly, they need to be made to feel like they have nothing to worry about, sometimes because it is their interests at that time to maintain the masses if the implications of an event could trigger even worse realities if that effort to calm people isn't made.
This country was freaked out on 9/11. Many people left work, and for most school students, people went home. The country stopped and was so freaked out that people were not flying anymore because of severe anxiety. What if people don't recognize that sometimes the government isn't going to tell the people everything right away and what if the reasons for that are because of concern for our survival and health. People have to understand that when a major crime takes place, that might cause an even bigger series of crimes to take place simply by bringing attention to it before authorities can make arrests, or with something like 9/11, be able to correctly make geo-political decisions to deal with the threat that was discovered. What if this country was facing something so big that it could have triggered a collapse of the economy, or worse, the collapse of our defenses that keep us safe?
When a police officer is found to have broken the law, is it fair for people to exploit that incident to justify support for political removal of police altogether? Of course not. This is kind of what happened with 9/11. People took serious advantage of one of the most serious national attacks in history to inject political agenda simply because authorities were not disclosing everything, which according to what I discovered, was both because it was an active investigation and because perhaps some answers were not ever known and the simple fact that this could be true scares the crap out of people. No one wants to think about the reality that very little can be proven about "who" was also involved in the attacks but people don't hesitate to jump to conclusions the moment they see that intelligence agents or law enforcement may have had some association with the suspects in question. Remember, before 9/11, authorities needed a lot of probable cause and needed to be able to produce charges in a court of law.
Terrorism is a controversial topic because it can't technically be dealt with before the crime is committed based on our old laws before 9/11 because unless you can prove that someone has "done" something, saying that you "think" they are going to do something in a country that has so much freedom to do what you want wouldn't hold up in any court of law if you tried. Think about it.
Is it illegal for people to take flying lessons?
Is it illegal to travel to this country?
Is it illegal to practice religion or have controversial political views?
What did the authorities or the 19 hijackers actually "do" that you can prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, enough for a case of premeditation? I am saying that during the time before 9/11 happened, that period of time, legally, what could you prove against ANY of these people? Not much. After 9/11, you STILL can't prove much. You want to know the REAL truth about 9/11? The Truth is this.
We don't know much about it. How scary is that? We know all kinds of associations, training, incompetence, prior knowledge that wasn't put together and even if it was wasn't enough for arrests since we officially didn't have prior knowledge of suspects, and so on. If you really want to tell people the truth about how scary the day was, and even scarier, the suspects, then tell them that we don't know much for a court of law, and again, even scarier, we have tons of leads on suspects that have no connection to each other and most of it is circumstantial evidence, hearsay, speculation and stuff paraded around that is not admissible in a court of law...This is true with both the conspiracy theories and the official story. What if the REAL conspiracy theory with 9/11 has never actually been shared? What if the REAL conspiracy theory is that we have TONS of theories due to a serious lack of evidence, not just any evidence, but a lack of HARD evidence.
You want to talk about a scary topic? Try telling that to people the day it happened and tell me if you can live with the fact that you just told people something that not only are we vulnerable, we were infiltrated, our national security was breached on such a level that our fundamental way of life, our constitution and bill of rights will be called into question, and worse, our due process and court system will be readdressed. You want to upset a bunch of Americans with the idea that the attack not only took away lives, it took away our way of life. It is said that the terrorists who attacked us did so because they "hated our freedoms." If that was true, then I guess we gave in because we, ourselves, took away our freedoms. 9/11 wasn't just an attack on our country, it was a moment in time when all fundamental pursuit of liberty would be attacked. The statue of Liberty represents a lot of these fundamental truths about inalienable rights that we are born with, and yet, Lady Liberty stood just across the water watching liberty as it was destroyed along with the world trade center. How ironic.
Back to what I was saying about the "suspects" both in the conspiracy theory circles and in the official story, if you look at what people have provided as "evidence" for their case, how much could really be done about people you suspect things with if you can't actually charge them with a crime, you can only speculate they might be planning something? Now hear me out on this. People have political agendas and rather than point out that there is suspicion leading to ALL kinds of parties with 9/11, they choose to pick just one of them using all the same methods and speculation that could be used to point the finger at any of the other suspects using that same "method" of speculation. There are circumstantial threads of pure speculation that go to all kinds of suspects that have no common theme, and then there are the really speculative and highly improbably 9/11 conspiracy theories that take it too far and go off the deep end. In fact, it is fair to say that most theories and alleged "facts" of 9/11 conspiracy theory are actually common misconceptions or misunderstandings.
Rather than attack me for being the person who dare say all this I ask that people consider I am someone who is already associated with 9/11 conspiracy theory websites so please spare me the accusations of being someone who is not understanding the theories. I am someone who is saying, look, if you want to make a case for a conspiracy with 9/11 and use suspects like intelligence assets or agencies, countries, governments, aliens, whatever, I have read them all, then the least that can be done by the parties proposing these "theories" is they can make a solid case for it, which means, do us all a favor; Stick to what you can present in a court of law and you will not be debunked in the court of public opinion.
Now am I saying that there is not the possibility for some of these theories? Of course I am not saying that. I am saying that sure there is the possibility for many of the theories that can't be proven with hard evidence, but because there is little amount of hard evidence, I suggest people call most of the stuff out there what it really is, 9/11 conspiracy speculation. Some of the conspiracy theorists for 9/11 attack each other, even accuse each other of being agents or assets because they don't agree with each other. In-fighting is actually more of a sign that you are probably being messed with either by your own mind or by someone exploiting that reality.
Now I sound like a conspiracy theorist.
What I am saying is that a truly rational discourse, even if you disagree with someone, shouldn't need to include accusations of being an agent or asset simply because they don't agree with you unless you really have evidence for that claim, and remember, if you truly are a person who seeks the truth, in all honesty, then you also believe in innocent until proven guilty, which means that you give people the right to explain themselves, even though you might have the most harsh and impassioned feelings about their guilt. If you read something on the internet, no matter WHAT it is, you are taking a giant leap of assumption that it is true because of it being posted on some website or the perhaps it is believed just because the author is so trusted as "credible." I am not saying to discount the speculative theories all the time, I am saying what most journalists do when they have that situation in front of them is that they then use the information as a "lead" to then go independently verify that what they read or saw is true and then try to disprove it to see if it holds up, which of course is followed by giving the benefit of the doubt and asking for an explanation for the information, which is usually done in interviewing suspects and things like that. Then again, the journalists goes and tries to either independently verify what the person told them in their defense or has dis-proven their explanation.
That is how truth is found out. It is done by constantly verifying stuff ON YOUR OWN, in person, constantly questioning everything and trying to find verification of things. If you were an attorney, you would need to produce most of the same results so that you could explain your case and then prove it, rather than just say it and make way for someone to provide defense against it simply because you took someone's word on the internet or didn't bother to do your homework on something to see if what you found out was inaccurate or made up. I can't tell you how many times I have encountered this problem in conspiracy theory circles.
I have even fallen victim to this issue. I have to say, I have learned a lot over the years and still learn more everyday simply by making mistakes. I wish I could take them back but I have learned that you have to document everything you do, have a daily journal, even be able to explain yourself, at all times, as much as possible, if you truly want people to hear what you have to say. If you are still learning, it is best not to jump to conclusions, but hey, we all make mistakes and this is just the internet. Sometimes people take things too seriously too and don't understand that the internet is the place we tend to go to learn, if anything less. Whether you are having fun, playing games, conducting business, researching for school, blogging or commenting, social networking, whatever. We go to the internet to use it as an extension of ourselves, usually discovering things as we go.
Investigative journalism is NOT telling people what you think about something. Investigative journalism is NOT showing people one side to something. Investigative journalism is supposed to be an experience for the receiving audience that they are watching someone explore an issue in an attempt to see what people have said about it, then try to prove or disprove the claims and continue this battle until a clear understanding can hopefully be made. Sometimes, if not most of the time, people assume the journalists have taken a "side" in the issue but in reality they may not have ever found the other side, or perhaps it never presented itself. Perhaps there was no other side because there was no proof for it, which is respectable because if you can't prove something with verification through hard evidence, than you can certainly present it so long as you understand the responsibility to tell people what it rightfully should be called at that point, which is speculation.
Then again, you should also respect that if you never found hard evidence, you should focus on finding that before anything else because without that, to be honest, people will ignore you. This is more common in 9/11 conspiracy theories than anywhere else. The taboo topic is so controversial and so complex that people don't want to touch it. People don't even want to look at it because usually it has never been presented to them in a responsible way and it isn't presented in a way separating speculation from verified fact. Again, it is usually something I have noticed people don't always want to admit that if there is NO information on something, it means there is no verification. This is not evidence of something. It is evidence of nothing. The idea of finding nothing out on an issue and verifying that you can't find anything out, either because nothing was said, it wasn't addressed or it can never be proven either way, now that is one of the scariest moments a person can experience because it doesn't disprove conspiracy theories, but at the same time, it doesn't validate them.
That is scary. That is what I found. I found that more than anything else. If you want to know the truth about 9/11, the truth that I was able to verify, it is that you can't verify much. It leaves room for conspiracy theories to take hold. That is the whole reason they have gained so much momentum is because we have such a serious lack of hard evidence that people have taken this to the most wild extreme of their paranoia.
Direct evidence is also called hard evidence. There is TONS of speculation with 9/11 conspiracy theories, but when you actually explore what can be proven, you end up proving that not much could go to court because not much is backed up by hard evidence, this probably explains why we don't have much to go on with 9/11 in terms of a solid case.
9/11 was the scariest occurrence of, "you can't prove that," but at the same time was also the biggest case of, "you can speculate that," I have ever seen. It is just a giant mess with no answers. Unfortunately, opportunists took advantage of the reality I am describing to inject their opinions about "who" and "why" when in reality, if you really study this for a long time, there is plenty of speculation to lead to different agencies, different countries, different networks and so on. Were they "all" in on it? Maybe just one of them or some of them. Maybe some or one of them were but others took advantage of the situation and then you have to ask yourself what advantage did they take and why, what can you prove? Was it advantage before or after the attacks? Was it just enough that you can't prove it but you can suspect it? Perhaps people tried to do something but were told not to because of legal issues. Anything is possible. Just because someone can make a statement that can't be disproven about something, this is not ground for using at as a case to say you can "prove" something. Someone could say that they saw a UFO but because you can't disprove them, perhaps (lets say hypothetically for the case here), this doesn't mean that is clearly true just because no one can disprove them. If there is no hard evidence for something, than it is speculation. That is not to say that there are not good theories based from speculation and observation. I have seen tons of completely logical and coherent theories on 9/11 that are possible and make sense, however, they lack direct evidence. Therefore, unfortunately, there is a gap between people that actually do the work to prove something and people who just want to talk about it because they can.
Perhaps the authorities couldn't do anything in pursuit of these alleged hijackers because they weren't communicating (like they said was the reason) and some suggested the possibility that because we were double-crossed by trusted "allies" or whatever, who may have been believed to have been allies or assets up until that moment and no sign or knowledge was obtained by the right people in time to clearly identify the threat, the issue was just overlooked.
This is actually the official story, and in all honesty, it is a completely defensible position for authorities because it can explain things. Whether it is true or not is another issue.
Some conspiracy theorists have suggested that the alleged hijackers were setup and were not guilty of anything, which many conspiracy theorists believe that planes were not even hijacked but actually "taken control of by remote control."
Let's hypothetically explore the possibility that if that is honestly the case, then it kind of proves what I am saying that a person being used as a "patsy" who is being "setup" for something can arguably also be someone not "in" on the conspiracy since, assuming they are some kind of "patsy" as conspiracy theories suggest, that alleged innocent person framed as a "hijacker" would object to their own guilty involvement to something if they realized they were being setup beforehand. If someone is being framed, although you can assume they would choose to do it at will if you believe in some kind of other theory, the odds are they would not be in on the crime they are being framed for.
What I am saying is that if that were the case, then authorities who might have came across these alleged hijackers were being honest in saying they didn't have enough to arrest them since these alleged hijackers (according to some conspiracy theories) were patsies. It would mean that they were just regular people who broke no laws. There may be a case for suspicion or alarm, but not enough for arrest. Once the 9/11 event happened, well then it would obviously make perfect sense that the FBI and intelligence knew right away a lot of info on the guys because they had just enough to notice them but not enough to do anything about it. Of course the moment it happened, assuming this conspiracy theory is even true here, they would immediately kick themselves and realize what a terrible reality it was that they knew just enough to notice them but not quite enough to make arrests for actual crimes that were committed because, again, these alleged hijackers never did anything illegal (according to the official story) before the attacks.
I don't see the problem in just telling people the truth about what one can verify, I just think people need to understand, no matter how dark or scary the idea of something is, remember, if it was something that could be "proven" in a court of law, you can assume it would have been done by now. Unfortunately, not much has been proven in the case for conspiracy theories but a lot of room has been made for them in the court of public opinion because there are so many unanswered questions that the assumption by people is that there is a cover up because of complicity. Maybe there is a cover up because of national security. Maybe there is a cover up because they don't want people to know that they really don't know much because this was done by a group of privately funded assets, either of suspected former intelligence that went rogue (as the official story suggests since Bin Laden was former CIA) or because they were being hired by some entity. But what is the entity that would have allegedly been behind it then? People jump to the conclusion that since they think there is evidence for a certain aspect of 9/11 that it "proves" US government complicity. Actually, I have never seen any evidence to "prove" US Government complicity. I have seen tons of suspicion and circumstantial evidence to "suggest" the possibility for that, but on the same hand, one could say that it could be an isolated rogue element that "infiltrated" government as a party to an external threat or that it was, in worst fears, really originated by the inside. Realistically, one could take this anywhere they want because the way the actual evidence points is just enough to give people the idea that there are other players involved in 9/11, but no hard evidence showing "who" and just tons of evidence that the US Government was withholding, redacting, classifying their investigation and even told the people no answers on many aspects of the attacks. This has in turn fueled conspiracy theorists because they use that to make claim that it proves the government's alleged complicity when anyone who has looked at the sensitivity of national security and the real possibilities that this could have been a SERIOUS breach of national security on a scale yet to be fully recognized knows that most people who would be able to come to these realizations would have made drastic and controversial decisions in the name of national security to withhold any or all information suggesting that.
Like I said, the economy could have completely collapsed at that exact time. You actually don't want to realistically know how bad it could have been if people really understood how probable it was then, as it still is now, that we really don't know exactly "who" did this and they had a crap ton of training, financing and left all kinds of trails from "within" our own system either because it was deliberately left there to blackmail people or an echo of treason...
It could be either or. If the conspiracy theories are true and there was something so organized and so well planned that it involved what some people are speculating and suggesting it does, than one would have to assume that a group of people that intelligent would obviously be smart enough to leave evidence pointing away from them, or even smarter, right back at the people they just attacked. In fact, when you think about it, that would be an even SCARIER possibility that NO ONE in 9/11 conspiracy theory circles wants to admit. It is JUST as probable using all the same statistics and probability that the circumstantial evidence found suggesting an alleged "inside job" could have simple explanations and perhaps whatever attacked us knew it would ultimately cause people to then become in fear of a government suspect that may be innocent, in turn causing people to either revolt or worse. That would be an "internal" attack to take out an enemy that would be so intelligent, one would have to assume it is on the same intelligence that requires the amount of planning and coordination the conspiracy theorists suggest. You can take this in circles and go around and around for endless time suggesting it is blackmail on top of a framing of patsies on top of legitimate intelligence assets on top of claims they were rogue on top of that just being a "cover" for their actual orders on top of the possibility they were hired by outside sources and on and on.
See what I mean?
The lack of information is in some ways more scary than the idea we actually know it and are just not doing anything about it. One implies an enemy unknown and out there, with massive financing and operation while the other just flat out tells you that it is right in front of your face and of course is provoking you to react or defend yourself. Unfortunately, many 9/11 conspiracy theorists have taken that position, even worse, have radicalized their opinions into political action that is dangerous.
The irony is that some of the most active people I met in 9/11 conspiracy theory groups were some of the least educated on the topic. Even worse, they were also people that were coerced and encouraged to get out there and act as representatives of the issue, when that ended up working against much of the cause. It was good to see people who wanted to be active about it.
It should be noted that just as many 9/11 conspiracy theorists have acted oppositely and chosen non-violent and grassroots methods of getting their information out, again, I question many of the people on both sides in that I don't know if they truly have been their own researcher. Most of the people I noticed or met on my journeys in the 9/11 conspiracy theory groups are people who verified nothing on their own, had picked up no books to read and either listen to a personality they like or watched a movie and assumed it was the truth and nothing but the truth.
In other words, I encountered a lot of people I think do NOT know much about 9/11 conspiracy theory, but in fact, are much like the "sheep" they accuse the rest of society of being because they are followers themselves who made no attempt to learn things and verify them on their own. Cult of personality is true not just with presidents and political leaders in the mainstream, but also in the underground. If you really understand this, you will see that "group think" and the like are more common in activist scenes than is given credit.
The official story claims agencies failed to communicate and had they performed that task better they might have prevented the attacks. How is that not an accurate statement?
The 9/11 "cover-up" started to look more like a giant legal claim a corporation would do to "cover their butts" because of massive incompetence and negligence just as easily as it can be said of any other theory. What if this really was just a giant mess for everyone and not much was "legal" about pursuing these alleged hijackers before 9/11, just enough to gather intel on them and the moment it happened they clearly knew right away because their suspicions were right, however, they couldn't quite do anything about it? Would people make trades on the stock market and then NOT collect them almost as if to tell people "we suspected this but couldn't prove it, so we did this trade to show you we CAN do something about this but legally we can't unless we make some changes..." Talk about a resume to get you a job in intelligence, oh wait, thats kind of what the insider trading was, when you think about it. Whoever made trades clearly had more knowledge than they were letting on, when I investigated that, turns out, they went to the CIA. This would suggest that either they were REALLY ballsy and made an attempt to "prove" themselves worthy of that industry or it shows that they know something and wanted people to be able to go back and say, wait a second, people knew about this but didn't do anything to stop it. Why would someone do that? That would ALL suggest that people are DELIBERATELY leaving clues because they want you to know something about the attacks, and it is either because they were saying something about themselves, about their clients, about their suspicions, about our national security loopholes, about our legal loopholes in law enforcement or "red tape" that prevents the authorities from doing anything, or it means something bad...
All of these are conveivable. What if it was a "protest" decision to demonstrate that they tried to say something or tried to warn us but we, as an administration at that time, either didn't take it serious or said it wasn't enough to make arrests because we still didn't know "who." We know now, looking back, they identified "targets, dates, method of attack, suspected Bin Laden was behind it" and that is about it. On a separate thread of information, there were FBI agents saying they had suspicions that people training at flight schools were terrorists, however, according to James Woods and other people, these alleged terrorists at the time had been observed on flights doing absolutely nothing. Were those flights a "dry run" or a "test" or maybe just a "diversion" to throw FBI off in getting them to think that they were onto nothing and didn't have enough for arrests?
Had the FBI been communicating to the Abel Danger unit at the Pentagon, they would have made the connections in time and identified the men as "Al-Qaeda" and it would have probably been prevented...
Oh wait a second, what was the official story again? Lt. Col. Anthony Shaefer said that 3 meetings he tried to setup with the FBI were each canceled by military lawyers. Why? Before 9/11, agencies and military were not communicating and law enforcement as well as attorneys were all not communicating. There was a practice then, as there is a practice now (trust me as a person who is learning the behavior or mainstream media) that people want to "own" their stories and information because it gets them bonuses, pay raises, advancement in their offices and so on. Can this be proven? Nope. Is it illegal? Absolutely. Did it happen? We don't know. Was it investigated? Nope.
There.
So can we honestly speculate about this and still tell people we are "truthers" when in fact, what truth are we honestly sharing? Then you have to ask yourself the bigger question of who would be using alleged patsy hijackers if they were setup, and I am still open to that idea, I am just saying it is the most difficult case to prove when so much evidence has been presented and reasonable explanation has been shared that can't be easily discarded. It is a pretty big leap, legally, to prove this claim, yet it has so much momentum. You have to explore the reality that people plan things to make it look like someone else is behind it, so naturally, a conspiracy allegedly involving the government would of course be so "clearly" or "assumingly" organized that they wouldn't stop at planting evidence, yet one would have to prove that were the case, not speculate it. Again, I am open to that idea, I am saying it hasn't been proven. If not, then why not? If it can't, than just tell people that too. Problem is, no one has proven that actual elements of the official story and its hard evidence to lead to the hijackers hijacking the planes was planted. It certainly has been stated that it "appears" to look like it was planted and one could say that about any criminal case, I guess. Does it mean it is right to just say it? Nope. It means if you really think that, then prove it. If something was planted, it shouldn't be hard to prove it was planted.
OJ Simpson proved that DNA was planted against his defense and that threw the ENTIRE case out the window. Forget about whether he did it or not. The moment it was "proven" that evidence was planted, even if detectives feel so passionately that someone is guilty, any planted evidence is immediate mistrial, and it is all over at that point because ANYTHING can be called into question for its authenticity. Why has nobody done this with evidence in 9/11 claimed to have been "planted?" There is speculation about phone calls being made up, again, not quite proven and not quite disproven. Shady grounds, but not quite enough for a legal case. I hate admitting that as much as anyone else. There is a substantial "lack of evidence" in a lot of cases, but again, that is not evidence at all so it doesn't go anywhere. Then there is lack of forensic analysis because of the mishandling of the response, the aftermath and the investigation. That is not evidence of involvement, just a good case for negligence and incompetence, maybe worse, but certainly no case for "premeditation and planning" of the attacks."
It starts to become more evident that, again, not much can be "proven" with the 9/11 story if you follow any of the explanations whether official or underground simply because hard evidence is just so hard to find, and when found, doesn't really say much. People bring up the thermite issue to me all the time and I have to remind them, unfortunately, that there is no way in any court of law that people "claiming" that dust kept from New York that day, sent years later, is enough for any court pursuing "innocent until proven guilty" to just "trust" these people's word that thermite wasn't added, or that the dust is really even original dust. Evidence has to legitimately be documented coming from the crime scene and unless it is legally secured by experts with credentials, you can pretty much expect that to never be admissible in a court of law, not necessarily because the court is rejecting the idea of thermite, but that this approach to proving it is not the right one.
Unfortunately, the moment you say that, it both throws out the thermite evidence people have made claim to and at the same time makes people paranoid and accuse that I am some kind of debunker. I am not anything other than a simple person trying to actually find out what can be "PROVEN" and what is total BS or sometimes, what is not "legally admissible" simply because I am smart enough to know what it TRULY means to pursue TRUTH and that people are INNOCENT until proven guilty. If someone is guilty of something, you should be able to figure out how to prove it.
If people are not creative enough or intelligent to do that, it suggest 2 realistic probabilities.
1 - It was never true, hence why it can't be proven
2 - It can't be proven because we never had enough to prove it in the first place either due to a lack of investigation, a forensic scrubbing of the site, an incompetent investigation, etc, etc, etc...
One thing is for certain, it doesn't "prove" that the "US Government" actually premeditated and planned, then carried out the attacks. It proves one thing alone thing only, that they just covered it up.
That's all.
That is the only thing that can be "proven." We can "prove" that it was all covered up and not investigated for crap, and yet still we have to be honest with ourselves here, a large majority of information in the investigations is still classified and redacted, so honestly, how far can one defend saying that the US government investigations didn't look into things if even the people have still not seen their investigative reports in full?
We can't. People are sure jumping to conclusions though. Even worse, people are having paranoid eat them alive.
Now I don't know anyone in the 9/11 conspiracy theory culture that has TRULY been objective about the issue but have met a few who I think are capable to do it or demonstrated their ability to be that to the best of their ability.
I am honestly going to show people all the credible angles on this issue and show them just how complicated it is when you start wanting to point the finger at "someone" or "something" and how it is next to impossible to "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt these allegations with any of the alleged suspects people say are even suspects, even with the ones the official 9/11 mainstream media tells us are there.
For all the same reasons it is so difficult to prove Bin Laden behind it in a court of law it could be said the same for most of organized crime history. Our legal system has to be able to present direct evidence or a crap ton of testimony and with the mafia, people kept their mouths shut. Sometimes people just ended up dead before testifying. Then when you consider that with Al Capone, they couldn't even charge him on all the murders or crimes he was suspecting of being behind because he didn't actually do them himself, personally. The mafia was VERY smart because they worked through MANY layers of people, making it almost impossible to prove anything. Even financially, people could easily explain innocent responses to accusations made that they financed things because books were cooked or even shown to have legitimate applications, which then turned into lawyers arguing that people can do with money what they want after receiving it legitimately and that they can be manipulated or extorted sometimes simply because they were not legally advised of the measures they got themselves in.
Then you look at how terrorism allegedly operates. It is almost identical only it is on steroids. Legally speaking, in ALL honestly, there wasn't much that could be done, as in most cases with criminal matters, unless you can prove evidence of an actual crime that has been committed. Evidence of conspiracy to commit a crime carries a very light sentence and only prolongs the inevitable because it suggests that it will happen again since there is a hidden hand.
Circumstantial evidence and speculation is worth nothing in my opinion. It is enough to be used as a "lead" and this is what journalists and investigators do, they take the speculation and the circumstantial stuff and recognize they don't have enough for a legal case but they don't throw it out, they go and they do REAL work, REAL JOURNALISM, and they see if they can prove their suspicions or intuitions another way, LEGALLY, and if they were right, it should be able to be done. With the 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is next to impossible to be done and I believe in most cases, can't be done, and this is a harsh reality that scares people who are not objective. The 9/11 conspiracy theories thrive on taking advantage of people's fears and paranoia by not following the practice I am talking about and, like I am saying, once a person applies this practice, to the most educated and honest way they can, they will see what I have seen, that a lot more of the "official" explanation of things, even when there wasn't one given, is actually just about all one could "legally" say about it.
See what I mean?
So this goes back to what I started with. I think people will be surprised to discover that I can explore the 9/11 conspiracy theories without necessarily debunking them, although I will indirectly debunk a lot of them without having to mention them, and at the same time not necessarily confirming conspiracy theories either, and this is a reality that it just might actually be.
That is why I found 9/11 conspiracy theory to be so fascinating. Because it is completely possible, if you see the right thread of possibilities, and once you do that you realize, it is still possible that this was deliberately left to make it "look" like that because of an attempt by a foreign threat to get us to suspect our own government, or worse, the small threads of weird unanswered questions are really what conspiracy theories say they are and we should fear an internal threat that we don't know who or how or why "specifically" only that our system was either infiltrated by traitors or they were blackmailed, or perhaps they were just rogue. Anything is possible when you think about it, if you are truly an honest person not passing judgement on speculation and keeping possibilities where they deserve to be, in the realm of speculation.
Look, if you have ANYONE who is well trained by the CIA for heavens sake, then ANYTHING is possible. Especially if they have billions of dollars, countless recruiting methods and tons of sympathetic support. Oh wait, Bin Laden has this as much as many of the other alleged suspects in conspiracy theory do, whether foreign and/or domestic intelligence agencies, private interests, banking interests, oil interests, political regimes, whatever.
We used tax evasion to put Al Capone in jail because we could never "prove" much with him. He went through a "Consigliere," which is a position within the leadership structure of Sicilian and American Mafia crime families, and then that usually was passed down to lower level positions like "Capo" or "Soldier" and so on. In other words, the people who are usually behind the organized criminal conspiracy are usually the ones who finance it, don't actually even plan it, sit back and just dictate what they want done and it is done because of a loyal following backed up with the serious fear of being killed if they are double crossed. These kinds of syndicates thrive when people don't trust anyone but their own kind, whether racially, religiously, militarily, politically, whatever.
So would the FBI admit that they can't place the 9/11 attacks on Bin Laden's most wanted posted because they honestly can't "charge" him for it because he is innocent of it, or is it because they know that like any organized criminal conspiracy (which 9/11 was), the REAL people behind it will NEVER be known...
What is the scariest part about 9/11 conspiracy theories? It is the fact that we really don't know who is "behind" the hijackers for sure, 100%, in a way that is concrete. We have insider trading, we have massive intelligence failures, our nation's air defense was tied up in drills that may have hindered the response, the drills may have actually been a cover for the attack, the drills mirroring the attacks may have been known before hand and were exploited because the software used in the attacks was outsourced to private companies, those companies can be traced to whoever you want whether you want to point the finger at intelligence agencies or rogue elements, foreign or domestic threats, etc...
Could the knowledge of the drills have been sold on some kind of black market? Are human beings capable of not caring about the lives of others just to make a buck? Does a bear crap in the woods? What sound does a tree make when it falls and no one is around to hear it?
Welcome to 9/11 conspiracy theory. You will never know, you can not prove, you have just enough to suspect, but the implications are too scary and every single person you talk to thinks you are nuts...
Have a nice day!
That is the truth. And you can take that to the bank...
Film Credits for the First Installment of Core of Corruption. The first Film in the series is called
Raymond D. Powell
Lt Col. Bob Bowman