For some reason, there are many people on the so-called left who don't believe that 9/11 was a false-flag operation.1 They base this on the fact that there are many wild speculations about the details of events of that false-flag operation. In particular, they take exception to the no-plane theories. Well, we don't believe in the no-plane theories either. They also doubt controlled demolition. Well, while the destruction of the twin towers is subject to some leeway, building seven (WTC7) especially deserves a commission at least half comprised of real questioners, not fully comprised of those who will automatically dish out what the Empire tells them is the "right answer." The fox should not be investigating itself, which is exactly what the 9/11 Commission represented. Every honest person knows that and will say it openly.
There are those who purport that pipelines ruptured due to debris from the towers hitting WTC7. They say that diesel fuel for the generators spilled out and caused the fire that weaken the building ultimately bringing it down.
Where did the oxygen for such a fire come from? The windows walls appeared to be mostly intact.
Al Qaeda is an US asset
More importantly, these anti-conspiracy pushers ignore that al Qaeda was airlifted from Afghanistan by the very forces ostensibly sent there to destroy al Qaeda. How can anyone believe the official reports of a government that would lift to safety the supposed terrorist group responsible for 9/11? It's insane.
There are whistleblowers
There is all this talk about how if there were a conspiracy, all these people would have come forward but none has. That's completely false. The list of whistleblowers is long and deep, but they are not covered by the mainstream media in any reasonable way.
The media have changed
Look, the media have changed radically over the last thirty to forty-five years. There used to be CBS News and several others that would dig. That's all gone now. Look at Germany. Where were the leakers about the concentration camps? They could have yelled it at the top of their lungs, but they would have been silenced one way or the other.
Well, people are under court orders not to speak. Others who have spoken about governmental wrong-doing have been fired and kept out of the media by the oligarchy that owns it-that owns the country (the Federalists).
Also, the flying saucer sightings of the late 1940's and earlier 1950's are cited as proof of national hallucinations. That's just totally wrong. People were seeing real manifestations. Even NASA filmed flying objects in space that fit the descriptions. The objects travel at superhuman speeds. They make sudden, sharp turns. They are white and bright. What's more they didn't show up on the infrared cameras that were simultaneously filming the same areas.2
The conspiracy deniers are under the spell
The truth is that those who don't believe that the US neocon government was behind 9/11 are the ones under the spell. Satan has done a great job on them. They just don't know how evil, evil can be.
Immediately upon finishing this article, we came across a response to George Monbiot who had attacked the film, Loose Change, that put forth some of the more wild theories. The response may be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2011648,00.html.3
1 George Monbiot. "Short Changed." Monbiot.com. February 12, 2007. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02/12/short-changed/. (last accessed: Wednesday, February 14, 2007); and
Manuel Garcia, Jr. "We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist." CounterPunch. November 28, 2006. . (last accessed: Wednesday, February 14, 2007). Return to text body.
We don't subscribe to every bit of the speculation offered in this film, but it does show the actual footage from the NASA satellites and gives facts about NASA's position on the UFO's sighted by NASA: David Sereda. Evidence: The Case For NASA UFO's - Part 1, a video. . (last accessed: Wednesday, February 14, 2007). Return to text body.
3 Tim Sparke. "Response: Don't believe the official 'conspiracy' theory." The Guardian. February 13, 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2011648,00.html. (last accessed: Wednesday, February 14, 2007). Return to text body.