Pete, I see by your website that you are in earnest about this terrorism schism.

But I have to say that you have repeated the official fallback line on the hijackers:

"Wealthy Arabs from Saudi Arabia and the UAE formed the majority of the 9/11 bombers."

Mate - can you show me a passenger list from any 9-11 plane with an alleged hijacker's name on it? If not, why would they bother to conceal their names? Does a bloke with one eyebrow sign on as Jock McTavish? The authorities made up the story on the strength of a scrap of paper found in an abandoned van.

- is that good enough for you?

No hijacker turned up on an airport security video.

- is that good enough for you?

No 9-11 plane was forensically identified - nyet - zilch. For the first time in the history of modern airplane crashes, the scraps were not lovingly assembled in a hangar in order to find the telltale serial number on some virtually indestructable part.

- is that good enough for you?

- - -

Grab your spade and come with me to the official passenger lists down this page:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=750&st=30

Then to the Social Security Death Index which is mirrored on Rootsweb (it's not perfect, but pretty darn good):

http://ssdi.rootsweb.com/

Now try and see how many passengers from Flights 77 and 93 you can find. This is the best fun since Rubik's Cube, and hey, I always had a secret desire to be a grave robber. I must have read too much Dickens.

Bushbred,
I don’t think I was arguing that the US "SHOULD" control the UN.
Rather, that it’s perceived domination was not surprising, given its disproportionate input.

By all means make the UN more democratic/representative, but make the input/contributions even too. As at the national level, on the international level, too many people/groups/nations want a free ride.

As for my qualifications, they are not going to be disclosed at this point in time.

Chris

My post above was about many aspects of the Article - not just its weakness in view of 9/11.

Thanks for visiting my sight but I say to 9/11 skeptics - its fine presenting innumerable links "as evidence", however, as with anyone trying to prove a major point it needs to be argued in their own words.

As the suggestions of 9/11 skeptics often appear way out - from intentional errors, to massive coverup, to conspiracy, to a joint CIA/Mossad operation, you'd need to write many words indeed to prove your case.

Given the enormity of interactions on 9/11 you'll get strong inconsistences following any theory from official to "CIA did it". It seems to depend on a person's political outlook about which theory they want to believe or followup - and much of that depends on general attitude to the US Government.

If you want to set up your own website (own words) on 9/11 I'll visit it and comment.

Regards

Pete

Chris,

Come on now, be reasonable.

Remember that after those massive fireballs and under all that rubble from the collapsed towers, somebody managed to find the intact passport of one of the alleged terrorists. It must have been hidden under one of the black box recorders.
(I forget, they never found the recorders).

They used personal ID to identify the London bombers too because the security camera footage originally presented could not have been true, due to timetable anomalies on the day. (Except that the ID of one of them was found at two different bomb sites.)

There's probably rational explanations for all this stuff.

I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

While everyone here is flexing their pseudo-intellectual muscles trying to find a politico/scientific argument to the problem of islamic terrorism - no one is talking about a solution.

Major totalitarian ideologies have been squashed before islam. It happened mostly from the people living under those regimes. i.e. people power / revolution.

So why do you look at the "West" or outside the islamic regimes for answers? Muslems are the ones living with the problematic regimes. Terrorism is just their frustration relief which we have to endure until they realise that they must own the problem of their false religion.

Islam, like any other evil before it, has to be exposed for what it really is. The Qur'an is the source of evil and has to be openly scrutinised BY MUSLEMS.

The failure to attack a cancer and eradicate it from its roots is total stupidity.

Draining the swamp will only expose the problem - not cure it.

Marilyn Shephard,

you say that the U.S forced the Iraqi people to accept Saddam Hussein?

How did they do this?

You're not one of those extremist leftists who believe that the U.S are omnipotent and the C.I.A are experimenting on half man half machine soldiers are you?

The U.S didn't install Saddam Hussein, they simply used him. And why shouldn't they, given their aim is to promote stability so they can hock their wears?

Arming Iraq was a great idea, it set the mad mullah's in Iran back 20 years, which is why we are only hearing about their nuclear program now.

The middle-east is a pit of racist tribesmen who can't tolerate each other, it has nothing to do with the west. Saddam Hussein toppled his leader for power, that is their natural state over there, democracy is an alien concept, which, although good to try, it can never work in this region.

As for ending the allure of terrorism, this won't happen either until the populist politics employed in every Muslim nation, that the west is to blame for all their ills, even to blame for the reason their leaders take child-brides, and hang 16 year old girls from cranes for being raped (those immoral wenches!) nothing will change.

But it doesn't help when westerners put forward garbage ideas, as the U.S certainly did not create Saddam Hussein.

The world isn't just us, it's a savage place with cruel, backward cultures who have no concept of tolerance. Better the Americans use such leaders in their interest than have them as an enemy, for then one gets an Iran.