Following on from my previous blog about Robert Kennedy, I happened upon a really well-written book about 9/11 and I’ve been whizzing through it. When I first heard the conspiracy theories about this I thought they were at best silly and at worst offensive. But I kept picking up intriguing snippets which made me want to explore it further, and I’ve now read quite a bit about it. After reading “9.11 The New Evidence” by Ian Henshall, I’m more convinced that ever that there are many important things about the event that have been hidden, and that there are too many fishy “coincidences” for the official story to be true.
It is a long and complex story and I won’t attempt to do it justice, but among other points there is the fact that there was a hijack exercise being carried out on the same day; that the alleged pilots (who with one exception were supposedly never filmed by airport CCTV at any point when boarding the craft) simply would not have been capable of flying large passenger jets at 500mph into specific targets; and that all three towers (including, and especially the little-known WT7 tower) collapsed perfectly and uniformly in on themselves – all of which were built to withstand multiple aircraft strikes and major fires.
What really happened and why is very puzzling. To me, the theory that best fits most of the available information is that people in power wanted a major terrorist incident in order to justify an attack on Iraq and so turned a blind eye to a something about which they had advance knowledge – BUT that they expected a conventional hijacking which they felt they could deal with with little or no loss of life. Quite who turned it into such mass slaughter and why I don’t know – but I’m sure it wasn’t a group of amateurs, at least one of whom made his teacher so nervous that he refused to be piloted by him in a light aircraft any further.