911 : Is It Real or A Huge Government Conspiracy?

It was the most devastating act of terrorism in America's history.  

The official story is that Osama bin Laden was the terrorist mastermind behind the attack.  But some believe 9/11 was a smokescreen for a far bigger American conspiracy, one that would ultimately lead to war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein...   ...and allow the United States access to Iraq's most prized commodity, oil.     

Within a week of the devastating 9/11 attacks, Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was named as the perpetrator.  But investigative journalist Webster Tarpley believes bin Laden was just a convenient fall guy.  Bin Laden was already on the FBI's Most Wanted list, for the bombing of the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.  He'd killed over 200 people, and in 1998, issued a fatwa against America. 

But professor of chemistry, and conspiracy theorist, Niels Harrit believes it's very strange that he didn't step forward in the wake of the biggest attack ever on American soil. A month after 9/11, America invaded Afghanistan.  And just four months later, George Bush announced America's intentions against Iraq, due to its support of global terrorism.

Conspiracy theorist Wayne Madsen claims America's decision to go from the Afghanistan invasion to a declaration of war on Iraq, some 1,300 miles away from bin Laden's alleged hideout, is a clue as to who was really responsible for 9/11.  Madsen claims the real culprit wasn't Osama bin Laden, but someone a lot closer to home and within the US government. But if Madsen's incredible claim is right, and the American government had a hand in destroying the Twin Towers to gain control of Iraqi oil, how did they do it? 

Professor of chemistry Niels Harrit believes he has the answer.  He claims to have found scientific proof that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by controlled explosions, not by the impact of the hijacked planes and the subsequent fires. Harrit suggests that these explosions of smoke are controlled demolitions which brought the building down.     Harrit spent a year analyzing samples of the dust which engulfed Manhattan when the towers fell, and claims his findings back up his controlled explosion theory. Harrit claims the iron found in the dust can only be a by-product of the thermite reaction, which would not be caused simply by planes crashing into the towers.  He alleges thermite devices created such high temperatures that the steel structure of the towers melted, causing them to collapse in the way they did.  But if thermite was involved in the collapse of the Twin Towers, how did it get there?

Investigative journalist Webster Tarpley claims thermite devices were deliberately placed at key points in the buildings prior to the attack. To be convincing, the alleged thermite devices would have had to have been rigged to go off at exactly the same time as each of the two planes flew into the towers.  Tarpley believes he knows how that was done.

Tarpley suggests the planes were flown remotely, but the terrorist’s pilots were patsies who had an important role to play. The conspiracy theory that 9/11 was simply a US-led smokescreen to allow America to get access to precious oil reserves in Iraq...  is just too complex. 

Lawrence Archer was the lead juror in the resulting court case, where five men were charged with conspiracy to commit murder.  The key evidence of the trial was a pestle and mortar that tested positive for ricin at the scene.  It was a key detail that quickly found its way to the media, something that Archer believes could have only come from one source.    Just three days after the raid, the media was full of reports of the alleged danger. 

But when the case came to court two years later, it was revealed that a more accurate test, carried out at the government chemical weapons facility in Porton Down, two days after the raid, had found no traces of ricin. Yet it's claimed that the police were told that ricin was present, something that Lawrence suggests the scientist in question had difficulty explaining when he appeared in court. The failure to pass on the true facts to the press is, many believe, a clear indication of the government's desire to build up the threat of international terrorism, and of Saddam in particular.        

Within weeks of the police raid on the flat in North London, details of the so-called ricin plot were reportedly being used to convince the UN to go to war against Iraq. It's claimed the ricin plot wasn't the only time the British public were misled about the level of the terror threat.  In February 2003, a month before the invasion of Iraq, another imminent threat was reported, this time at Heathrow airport, where tanks were fueling the fear of terrorism. Lindsey German helped organize the Stop the War march in London, which took place only days after the reported missile threat.  She's convinced the timing of the Heathrow threat was no accident.  German believes that the UK government ordered the tanks there to try to reduce the impact of the protest march.

 

For journalist Simon Jenkins, both the missile threat and the ricin plot  were used by the British government to bolster the case for war  in the two months before UK soldiers arrived in Iraq.  But military historian and former UK intelligence officer,  Dr Lynette Nusbacher, believes it was panic, not propaganda, which motivated the UK government's responses to terrorism.  Whether the press and public were being manipulated,  the war with Iraq went ahead.  Saddam was toppled and bin Laden eventually shot dead.  But for some, as long as there are governments in power, we must always question how far they will go to achieve their aims. 

You might also be interested in :

*The website, shiningpost.com, provides information regarding health articles, weight loss information, conspiracy theories, documentaries, technology articles and reviews.

The articles contain here are not meant to identify, deal with, cure or avoid any type of disease. The information offered by this web site or this business is not an alternative to an in-person examination with your doctor or subject specialist as well as must not be interpreted as specific medical or information suggestions. The endorsements on this web site are specific situations as well as do not assure that you will certainly obtain the same results. All content, consisting of message, graphics, images and information, had on or available via this website is for general details functions only.