Friday, August 17, 2007


After I posted TOO MANY SUSPICIOUS ANOMALIES ABOUT 9/11 in the ATHEIST FOR Human Rights meetup, I received an emailed reply from Marie Castle. I published this reply on one of the 9/11 Truth group's meetups.

By Robert Halfhill

All I said in the "off the wall" question I asked Ellison was that
since the families of the 9/11 victims wanted a new investigation
because 9/10ths of their questions were not answered, and the Co-
Chairs of the 9/11 Commission had called for a new investigation,
would he, Ellison, call for a new investigation? The DISSENTING
conspiracy theory I support, as opposed to the OFFICIAL conspiracy
theory that a religious fanatic hiding in a cave in Afghanistan
directed 19 men with box cutters to infiltrate the U.S., hijack some
planes, and crash them into buildings, was not presented until I sent
out my article, TOO MANY SUSPICIOUS ANOMALIES ABOUT 9/11. As you
yourself have pointed out, people often ask public officials about a
variety of issues when they appear at public forums, so if that was
the reason the off the wall opponent of dissenting views about 9/11
considered my question off the wall, he was off the wall. I have
never defended, and in fact disagree with, the statement that there
were no terrorists, so I do not see the relevance of bringing that
up. I also disagree with those who say that there were no planes but
missiles instead and with Jim Fetzer's off the wall contention that
the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by powerful lasers
beamed down from space satellites.
I do agree with you that Bush, Cheney and the other neo cons knew
about Al Qaida's planned attack and let them succeed. They let Al
Qaida succeed instead of thwarting them at the last minute because a
thwarted attack would not have produced enough of the shock and awe
that Bush, Cheney and the neo cons needed. (Cheney may be the real
power behind the throne.) But planes hitting and damaging the World
Trade Center would not have produced the absolute super patriotic
hysteria that the neo cons needed.
I originally thought that the claim that explosives were pre
planted to bring about the controlled demolition of the World Trade
Center was a crackpot theory. But them I remembered the dissonance
in the back of my mind when the press reported that most of the mass
of the World Trade Center buildings was piled up on the surface area
the buildings stood on instead of being flung all over their
surroundings. Then I remembered the controlled demolition of
downtown Minneapolis buildings and that controlled demolition was the
only way to collapse buildings on to the surface they stood on.
I too had disagreed with the controlled demolition theory because
I did not see how anyone could sneak enough people into the buildings
to pre plant the explosives. But then I realized that most of the
workers need not even know what they were. doing. The explosives
could be conceaked inside containers of some sort and the workers
could have been told that they were hooking the leads from the
containers into the buildings' electrical systems to upgrade the
electrical systems or, alternatively, to improve the transmission of
email messages among all the computers in the buildings.
And then it turns out that President Bush's brother, Marvin, is
part owner of the company that provided security for not only the
World Trade Center but also for the two airlines whose planes were
hijacked on 9/11.
For these reasons as well as all the other reasons I cited in my
article, I have gone from believing that the neo cons let 9/11 happen
to they made it happen, simply because that is where the evidence
leads. It is not a question of whether I and others "need" to go
from let it happen to made it happen.
And 9/11 is relevent to the purview of an Atheist group simply
because one of the aims of the neo cons in making 9/11 happen is to
enshrine fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity as the state
religion of their new American Empire and make it mandatory for all
to profess.
Robert Halfhill


Post a Comment

<< Home