Welcome Empress. Looks like we have a newcomer with a new angle.
I'm sorry, I admit I had some difficulty parsing exactly what your theory is, so I'm going back to your list of observations... please correct me if I misinterpret your position.
The key issues? The cover-up is the key issue.
Your theory is that there is a cover-up. Fair enough. Hard to exhaustively disprove, unlike the nonsense about controlled demolition, although I personally don't think there was one. It will help if we have some details about this cover-up, i.e. what was covered up, who covered it, and how.
1. The USA is a constitutional republic. Mass murder is the most serious crime one can commit. Shouldn't there be a criminal investigation "USA vs. Unknown, case: the massmurder of September 11th 2001"? Instead of this the FBI came up on the first day with this list of 19 Highjackers which wasn't changed till then, they showed us a crappy videostill of Atta entering an Airport, his passport and a Koran and a Testament in his alleged car. Where is the chain of evidence for the official CT?
Erm... There was an investigation, but the 19 Hijackers was a pretty simple conclusion. In brief, we know they boarded the planes (passenger lists, video evidence, eyewitnesses in the airports), have corroborating descriptions from phone calls from the hijacked planes, found at least some of their DNA in wreckage, voice recorder evidence, and have video claiming responsibility from their conspirators. Do you have evidence that casts doubt on this conclusion? If so, that would be grounds to reopen the investigation, but I'd like to see it before casting judgment, if you don't mind.
2. The FBI investigated in Florida for a few weeks, then they were ordered back to investigate the "Anthrax letters". They never returned and a lot of people say, the FBI told them not to talk about their experiences. Who was behind the anthrax letters the FBI so diligently investigated?
What makes you think the
entire FBI was taken off one case and put on another? Sounds sketchy. Can you support this assertion? Who are these "lot of people" you're talking about, and what do they know that was overlooked?
(I don't know who was behind the anthrax letters either, but it may have been totally unrelated. Let's stick to one investigation at a time, please.)
3. The people I mentioned in 2. were interviewed by Daniel Hopsicker - he has to do the work of the whole investigative apparatus of the US. He found out that Mohammed Attas trail leads directly into the international organized crime scene and that the "Commision Report" can indeed be called an "Omission Report".
You didn't mention any people in 2., just said that there were some. I gravely doubt that Hopsicker "had to do the work of the whole investigative apparatus of the US." That's balmy, sorry. You'll need to show a whole lot of evidence before I believe this trail of breadcrumbs leading to International Organized Crime, and you haven't shown any whatsoever.
4. Evidence was destroyed or is under closure.
What evidence? Prove it.
5. The Legend was tweaked several times and people like the alleged masterminds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh are not on trial or were even allowed to witness in the Moussaoui-trial.
I don't know what "The Legend" refers to. Anyway, this is a non sequitur. I'm not the least bit satisfied with how the Moussaoui trial was handled myself, but I don't see the guest list supporting your allegations of a 9/11 coverup. They didn't let me in to witness the OJ trial, either, for what it's worth.
6. "Coincidently", parts of the "Truth movement" have connections to the very same people that should be under investigation and their net of "woo"-spreading clowns.
I have no idea what you're talking about. It almost seems that you're implying the Loose Changers should be jailed and questioned -- surely that can't be what you mean?
YOU are the people who don't get the bigger picture - not the folks over at the LC Forum.
If so, how about you help us get the picture? Like with some evidence? You've posted several quite fantastic statements above without a shred of support, so I would suggest you back it up. Otherwise, this is quite an arrogant thing to say.
