But I find there to be too many co-incidences in the official story for it to be as simple as an isolated terrorist attack organised by bin laden. I think the PNAC rebuilding americas defence document carries weight in establishing that the neo-cons had a motive. And the fact that an independent inquiry was only established due to pressure from the victims families, suspect individuals were appointed to head the enquiry (henry kissinger, Phillip D. Zelikow), much evidence has been blocked or dismissed by the commission (in some cases destroyed by the pentagon.. ie. able danger) and that the self admitted purpose of the investigation was "not to assign blame to individuals for 9/11"... are a remarkable set of co-incidences if no one in the establishment had a hand in causing the events to happen. If people in the establishment did cause them to happen in some way, it makes perfect sense.
I don't think you quite understand what a coincidence is; you need two somewhat unlikely but highly related events together to make a coincidence. Is it unlikely that the administration would resist a commission to place blame on individuals for failing to stop 9-11? Is it unlikely that when forced to create a commission by public pressure that the government would put people it trusted on that commission?
Able Danger appears to be a bunch of hooey; I read the report and you would have to believe in the most unlikely events in order to believe that it had identified Atta. For example, one man claims to have had a chart with photos of Able Danger-identified men including Atta on his office wall for several years and often showed it to people, post-9-11. And yet he could come up with no people who recalled seeing Atta. Is that likely, considering that Atta's face is probably one of the most recognized in America today? He also claimed that when he tried to take down the chart to move to a new office, that the chart "disintegrated". Is that likely for a chart made of (say) 5-year-old paper?
The weight of these co-incidences is backed up by another set of unusual events on the day which for me includes the incredible collapse of WTC7, the Pakistani ISI wire transfer, the NORAD standdown and contridictory blackbox/video data concerning flight 77, the passport falling out of the plane onto the street intact and handed to a police officer by an 'anonomous 30 year old male in a suit', curt weldons testimony that the able danger group had information on the hijackers that was deliberately isolated from other agencies, the death of John O'Neil at the WTC on 9/11, the put options linked to Buzzy Crongards firm, Bush's erie 'Let us not tolerate conspiracy theories concerning the events of 9/11' speech and the record number of terror drills taking place that day(some involving hijacked jets) which caused confusion and slowed response times . If all these events are innocent co-incidences then it really is the greatest most amazing series of co-incidences in history.
Again, almost none of these are coincidences, with the arguable exception of John O'Neill. Let's see, the World Trade Center hires a man who was directly responsible for the apprehension of a terrorist who launched an attack on that building complex? Is that an unlikely event?
Is it unlikely that there would be a "30-year-old male in a suit" in downtown Manhattan? Is it unlikely that Bush would get annoyed at the conspiracy theories (assuming for the moment that he was not behind it)? How do you know that the "terror" drills were "a record number"? What is an average day's worth of terror drills?
Others have addressed the ISI connection. The Buzzy Krongard connection? How likely is it that a commission made up equally of Democrats and Republicans would ignore this if there were anything there? The NORAD "standdown" doesn't exist; try reading the recent Vanity Fair article on this topic and you'll discover that the most warning that NEADS (a division of NORAD) had of a hijacked airliner before it crashed was 7 minutes, and that was for Flight 11, the first plane into the WTC.
I'm guessing you guys feel that this is inconclusive, and perhaps it is. It is my opinion and is probably influenced by my political thoughts and feelings on human rights and what I think the globalists are capable of. i'm not going to demand that you subscribe to my own beleifs. But I have to say that I think the belief that 9/11 was an isolated alkaeda attack, carried out with no foreknoweldge is one based on very weak evidence. I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions.
Obviously 9/11 was not an isolated Al Qaeda attack; just look at Zacharias Moussaoui for confirmation. He was training to be a pilot but not a 9-11 pilot; they intended to do this again. Al Qaeda has pulled attacks before and since--the embassy bombings in Africa, the Bali nightclub bombing, the Madrid trains bombing and (arguably) the 7/7 attacks in London.
