Ten Reasons Why They Don't Want You To
Know That No Hijackers Were Involved in 9/11
Jon
Rappoport | July 2 2004
I keep pounding away on the fact that we have
never seen convincing evidence that the 19 hijackers named by the FBI were
really on board those 9/11 flights.
Here are ten reasons that "evidence" has never
been presented in a coherent way:
10. The FBI and the White House consider that offering
real evidence betrays weakness. Not weakness in the matter of proof. Weakness
in the exercise of power. "We don't owe you an explanation. We assert;
you accept."
9. Offering evidence could lead to disclosing the source
of the evidence. For example, the Mossad. An agency that obviously has its
own agendas, cover stories, and secret ops.
8. Offering evidence could reveal that these Saudis were
actually acting in ways, before 9/11, that revealed absolutely no ascetic
"Islamic fundamentalist" connection. Doing major amounts of drugs,
partying with women, etc.
7. We could learn, for the hundredth time, that between
4 and 9 of these suicide hijackers are still alive.
6. We could revisit the director of the FBI's own statement
that the assessment of the hijackers' identities probably contained "errors."
5. We could realize that, if there is no solid proof the
19 were on those 9/11 planes, the whole matter of who flew the planes into
the Towers and the Pentagon is thrown into complete chaos.
4. We could revisit the "planes flown by remote control"
hypothesis.
3. We could realize "the 19 Arab hijackers" is
a cover story.
2. We could be forced to face 9/11 as a complete covert
op designed to draw the US into Iraq.
1. We could realize that "using 9/11 as a pretext
for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq" translates into "designing
9/11 as that pretext."
