Thank you, Greg Barns for having drawn our attention to this critical trial.

In fact, some of this has been discussed on an extremely lengthy forum on Larvatus Prodeo (1495 posts as of now) in which I have disputed the whole Official US Government account of the September 11 attacks. (Another forum in which this is discussed is "9/11 Truth" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=83)

There has been some discussion about the principle defendant Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) at http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/09/12/saturday-salon-208/#comment-825349

As far as I am aware all the supposed evidence against him was extracted under torture and there is no other corroborating evidence.

It is noteworthy that Osama bin Laden for whom KSM was supposedly second in command is not even wanted for the crime of 9/11. See his FBI wanted poster at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

In 2001 Colin Powell promised to the UN evidence that would prove the guilt of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Had it been produced the UN would have been a legal partner in the so-called 'War on Terror', but it never was. Equivalent documentation that was used to secure NATO's participation in the "War on Terror" was never made public.

---

Before a fair trial of the five defendants can be held, we need to know the full truth about 9/11. 80,000 New Yorkers signed a petition calling for a referendum to be put which called for New York City Council to set up a proper inquiry into 9/11 at the recent council elections of 2 November, but those wishes were over-ruled by a Council bureaucrat and the courts (see http://nyccan.org) To date, not one Citizen Initiated Referendum has been put to New Yorkers.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

The sham inquiries held by the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ignored vast amounts of evidence from eyewitnesses, video and physical evidence. Much of that evidence points overwhelmingly (I would say conclusively) to the 'collapses' of three high rise steel buildings, one of which was not even struck by an aircraft --- three unprecedented engineering disasters on the one day, if we are to believe the official account --- being controlled demolitions.

This hypothesis should have been investigated, but was not.

If it is established that the three collapses were controlled demolitions, there is no way that al Qaeda could have gained the necessary access to these buildings to plant the demolition charges. So, if the five defendants played any role whatsover in 9/11 it would have been minor subsidiary roles most likely as patsies manipulated by US intelligence agencies.