Defenders of the official 9/11 story argue that those who question the government are giving "aid and comfort to the enemy".

Are they right?

Pre-9/11

First, let's look at the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

As reported by the New York Times, the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 world trade center bombing, but had -- at the last minute -- cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake power for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view). See also this TV news report.

And the CIA is alleged to have met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11.

Indeed, the government appears to have trained a number of the hijackers at military bases.

Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

And an organization virtually controlled by the CIA provided funding to the 9/11 hijackers.

Moreover, it is undisputed that the administration had numerous warnings of a specific nature about the attacks, and yet failed to take any real action to stop the attacks.

Didn't these government acts give aid and comfort to the enemy?

9/11

The evidence is overwhelming that the government allowed the attacks to succeed (if you don't believe that, skip ahead and read up about the 9/11 Commission, and then come back to this section).

Indeed, elements of the government may even have actively carried out the attacks.

Didn't that give aid and comfort to the enemy?

The Investigation

After the attacks, the government engaged in a cover-up and whitewash of epic proportions. For example:

• Military officials lied to the Commission, and the Commissioners considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

• The co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

• Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

• The former head of the FBI said there was a cover-up by the 9/11 Commission

• The very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now "question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report", and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and "suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts".

• A former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated".

• The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times.

• There are indications that false evidence was planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.

Didn't the fact that the investigation was an obvious farce give aid and comfort to the enemy?

Post-9/11

The anthrax attacks -- which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists -- used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility, the Fort Detrick military base. Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong"; and see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer; and this statement by a distinguished law professor and bioterror expert. It is also interesting that the only congress people mailed anthrax-containing letters were key democrats, and that the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing Patriot Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of congress into passing that act without even reading it. And it might be coincidence, but White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks occurred.

And the CIA commander in charge of the capture stated that the U.S. LET Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan.

Don't those acts of treason give aid and comfort to the enemy?

Another False Flag Attack

Many very smart people are saying that elements within the U.S. government are planning to carry out a false flag attack and blame it on Iran, in order to justify war against that country. For example:

• A current Republican Congressman has said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran".

• A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

• A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

• The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

• A member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

And, as General Tommy Franks has said, if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government" . Likewise, Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

Wouldn't that give aid and comfort to the enemy?

And Pulitzer-priz

Indeed, a wide variety of very high-level U.S. military officers, congress people, and other patriotic Americans believe from across the political spectrum believe that not questioning 9/11 gives aid and comfort to the enemies.

In the final analysis, the real question is whether the most dangerous enemies are "inside the gate" or somewhere on the other side of the world. Anyone who enables the biggest criminals is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If the most ruthless killers are, indeed, inside our country, than the talking heads and shills who support their lies are the ones giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I am not saying that there are not some radical Islamic terrorists. There might be a handful. However, as everyone from the Los Angeles Times to the BBC have shown, the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype). Indeed, a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".

Moreover, according to to the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the massacre against Vietnamese civilians, high-level U.S. government officials are currently helping to fund Al-Qaeda.