Chris Ernesto
RINF Alternative News
If only it had been proven that 9/11 was an inside job. Maybe then it would be easier for Americans today to believe that their government is supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and was on the same side as ISIS in Syria (before declaring them enemy No. 1.)
The US government probably couldn’t get away with its current bombing campaigns inside Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen if it had been shown that it was the US, not “Muslim terrorists” who blew up the Twin Towers.
Maybe a new war inside Syria could be averted if the American media and people were skeptical of any claims made by the US government if previously it had been proven that the Bush administration lied about who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Given the US staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident to initiate a war in Vietnam, it’s completely believable that the US government may have been responsible for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, but only circumstantial evidence, not proof has been presented that 9/11 was a false-flag incident.
In order to get people to believe the US government would kill its own people in such dramatic fashion, there would need to be solid, irrefutable proof. Something like a video of Dick Cheney and Richard Perle discussing plans to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center. Or a memo released by WikiLeaks detailing a conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger developing plans to attack Afghanistan and Iraq after they hired Muslims to strike the Twin Towers.
Unfortunately, this hasn’t happened, and most of the American public believes the government’s narrative that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by foreign enemies, which today makes bombing al-Qaeda (and offshoot ISIS) more palatable to the American public.
Just because the majority of people believe something to be true doesn’t mean it is actually true, but in this case, there are two pieces of information that suggest the American public may be correct in believing the 9/11 attacks were NOT carried out by the US government.
First, if the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, then the US would have claimed that the 19 hijackers were from Afghanistan and Iraq. If you recall, it wasn’t until a February, 2002 Associated Press report exposing the national origins of the hijackers that much attention was given to the topic. When a US official confirmed that 15 of 19 were from Saudi Arabia, it raised a lot of questions about why the Bush administration was going into Afghanistan and Iraq, and not Saudi Arabia to retaliate.
If people within the US government planned the 9/11 attacks in order to push for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they certainly would have made sure that the 19 hijackers were from those two countries. Immediately following the attacks, they would have had the pictures, names and national origins of the 19 ready to be plastered all over the news. In all likelihood, they would have said some of the hijackers were “Saddam loyalists.”
Compared to the planning required to have hijacked airplanes precisely strike targets in heavily protected airspace, it would have been very easy to simply claim that those responsible for the attacks were from Afghanistan and Iraq. By doing so, it would have made the Bush administration’s push for war in Iraq much easier than was actually the case.
Second, whether or not the Twin Towers were intentionally imploded does not explain WHO struck the towers. The image used by the Bush administration to bring about the outrage required to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq was the one showing the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers, not the image of them imploding. If the towers had never crumbled, Bush still had all the imagery he needed to begin his push for war.
If in fact the Twin Towers were intentionally imploded, as the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth believes, then it does suggest foul play and that the US government’s story about how the towers fell is not true. But it doesn’t prove who was responsible for flying the airplanes into the towers on 9/11.
Two months after the 9/11 attacks, Michael Ruppert gave a lecture in Portland, Oregon where he provided government documents, official statements and verifiable press reports exposing flaws in the story being told by the US government. Given he had limited time to prepare his presentation, Ruppert’s analysis of the situation was remarkable, but it was not meant to offer proof that 9/11 was an inside job. If anything, Ruppert showed that the US knew the attacks were imminent and chose to do nothing, either because of incompetence, or because Washington wanted the attacks to occur in order to start a new round of wars in the Middle East.
This makes sense given the US is actually creating its “terrorist” problem via its hyper-aggressive foreign policy. And this makes it understandable why some people would believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Unfortunately after 13 years, factual, absolute proof of this being the case has not been presented.
But what is fact, and what the US is guilty of, is bombing six Muslim countries since 9/11, supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and once being on the same side as ISIS in Syria.
These may not be as earth-shattering as the notion of 9/11 being an inside job, but they are provable and very damning, regardless of who was responsible for the attacks in 2001.