I'm going to do some reminiscing here— about 9/11. After all, that's where this war on Iraq thing started according to Mr. Bush. Iraq is now being targeted because of its alleged connection to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. But in going back to 9/11, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Nothing we're being told by our government makes sense to me. Let me give you the list of things that bother me about the whole "bin Laden did it" thing.

1. Why the World Trade Centers? If you want to get back at America, why attack something that is so international in character? The WTC was to a unified global economy what the UN is to a unified global government. And guess who hates the UN? The ultra-right "patriot" movements (another name for white supremacists) and the radical religious right, who have been predicting the "end times" for about a decade now and it's just not happening. What better way to prove "white supremacy" than to make it seem like the Arabs attacked us? ANd what better way to start the holy war that is predicted as part of the end times than to make it seem as if it was Islamic forces who attacked us?

2. Why attack before 9 am? The business world in the US opens at 9 am. Had they waited an hour, there's have been almost 100,000 people in those two buildings and there'd have been a MUCH higher death toll.

3. Why fly into the top floors and from the direction they did? Had they wanted to do massive damage, they would have come in from the water, hit the buildings much lower and had that jet fuel start fires all around the WTC and the buildings would have come down almost instantly due to the extra weight above the failed sections, creating a much higher death toll and far greater damage on the ground.

4. I find it hard to believe that the two most sophisticated intelligence operations in the world, the US and the Israelis, a.) didn't know this was coming and b.)can't find one man when they can take a picture of my license plate from a satellite in space. And yet, despite us not knowing anything about this attack, within about 72 hours, we not only had the identities of all the hijackers (who could have used fake names and fake addresses on the airline's list of passengers), but we also knew virtually everything about them and what htey had been doing for the last month, including video tapes of them making trips to Wal-mart. Now pardon my skepticism, but does anyone know how hard it is to pick out an individual from a video taped surveillance camera? That in itself is a difficult task, but then throw in the number of Wal-marts in the country, the number of people that go into those Wal-marts and you're talking about massive quantities of time spent viewing tapes looking for one individual. And why would the FBI even think to look on a Wal-mart surveillance tape to see if one of the hijackers was on it? It all seems a bit too "coincidental" to me. (And I don't believe in coincidence....)

5. Why 9/11? It has no significance to the "terrorists"? It means "help" in America. The latest "elevated terrorist threat" was given because it was a Muslim holiday— or the end of a Muslim holiday. 9/11 isn't anything in the Muslim world, so in terms of elevated terrorist threats, we should be looking at days that have significance to Muslims and elevate our alert status on those. And while we're on the subject of heightened alerts, how many Americans have read the reports about how those alerts are more hype than fact? It would be really easy for someone in a position of power who is using fear to control a large population using tactics that are infringing on civil liberties of all citizens to provide reports on "heightened threats", then when nothing happens (because there was no real threat to begin with), many (most?) of the population says "Oh, the policies in place are working!"

6. The tapes that have been supposedly made by bin Laden since the attack are suspect— with technology the way it is, it would be very easy to make such a poor quality tape. Do you remember the call to Hollywood by the administration shortly after 9/11? Allegedly, it was to get their input on possible scenarios for terrorist attacks. And then suddenly, out of the blue comes some tapes by bin Laden— all of them saying exactly what Mr. Bush needs them to say to justify his actions. One tape has already been declared a fake by a team in Sweden (I think it was...)

7. The US economy took a nose-dive the day after the election results that showed Bush "won" were in. It never recovered...and in the past, the US economy has always surged with the start of a war. It started to when this one started, but it stopped...and so now Bush has to expand the war and take it to Iraq too. As a matter of fact, since Eisenhower, every Republican president has gotten us involved in some military action— from Viet Nam to Grenada to the Philippines to Somalia to the first Gulf War. Mr. Bush is just the latest Republican to do so.

8. A war on terrorism is unwinnable because you can't fight ideas or ideals. No matter what restrictions you put on the activities of people in this country and those vising it, if someone is determined to use terrorism against US citizens, they will succeed. In addition, terrorism is relative: George Washington was a terrorist in the eyes of King George. The war on drugs should have taught us that a war on ideas (in this case, the right to put into one's body what one wants in the pursuit of happiness)is unwinnable. Prohibition proved that and I don't believe that government officials can't see the parallel between the two-- it just gives them another reason to sieze the property of private citizens and to keep tabs on people they consider "dangerous".

9. The vast majority of the hijackers were of Saudi nationality. Yet we're not attacking the Saudis.

I have no reason to trust what the government tells me (I'm sure they have a file on me at the FBI— I'm a gay rights activist who has the audacity to speak out against Bush and against Israel)— not after the JFK assassination, Vietnam, Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, etc., etc. I have no reason to trust what the media tells me— and the media gets their information on this issue from who? The government.

I'm leaning towards the belief that the election results were fixed in Florida...that Bush essentially "stole" the election. (I don't find it a coincidence that the state that got him elected was the state in which his brother is the governor). He had the financial support of the radical religious right (the thing that sticks most in my head about 9/11 or the next day is Pat Robertson from the Christian Coalition saying "I predicted something like this would happen.") I don't know whether the government actually financially backed the plan and/or executed it themselves or if they simply did nothing to stop what they knew was coming, seeing it as both the chance to wage their holy war and to destroy the biggest threat to a "one world economy". I have no doubt that the radical religious right would instigate something to make their end-time predictions come true since God/dess doesn't seem to be cooperating with their predicted time schedule.

However, when anyone voices these kinds of opinions, they're called "anti-American", pro-terrorist, and a whole lot of other not-so-nice names. Plus they probably get their own file with the FBI. ;-)

Do I have proof for my intuitive feelings about 9/11? Nope— just a lot of unanswered questions.

©1998-2013 Rainbow's End Press
All graphics on all pages are created by Rainbow's End Press unless noted otherwise. Written permission from Rainbow's End Press must be secured for use of any graphics contained on these pages. For problems with this website, please email the webmistress.