Skip to main content

Raimondo: Inside job or not, 9/11 questions unanswered

Antiwar.com journalist Justin Raimondo challenges the official story of 9/11. I think Raimondo gets to the heart of the issue by avoiding getting lost in the trees of blackbox recorder data and nano-thermite molecules while missing the forest of the implausibility of the official explanation.

Take a look at his archive of articles detailing the evidence of involvement of foreign intelligence services, particularly the Israelis, within the US. Unmentioned in this article is the unusually cozy relationship between the CIA and ISI and their joint involvement with bin Laden pre-9/11. The official story is obviously sanitized and the single most important question surrounding the events of 9/11 is why. If the official story is so obviously true, then why does it need to so heavily redact the relevant facts? And by "facts", I mean accepted, uncontroversial facts, not speculations about whether WTC 7 was demolished or what trajectory the Pentagon plane actually flew.

We should never forget that our government alone is responsible for the deaths of 100's of thousands of innocent human beings (our involvement in European carpet bombing, fire bombing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Operation Keelhaul). We should never forget 9/11 and we should never stop asking questions wherever the facts do not fit with the "accepted" explanations. The government refused to do a proper investigation of this tragic event, so that leaves the US citizenry with no choice but to do our own, without the millions of dollars of tax funding.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...