I'm a Finn researching the events of September 11th. As the discussants on these forums often don't seem to be able to really
discuss issues, I thought it might be profitable to just exemplify some of the reasons why many of my countrymen and -women find it difficult to believe the official story of 9/11.
The point below is therefore not which side of the argument is right, but to shed light on what factors cause many of us to be disbelievers. I will show that such disbelief has its grounds in official secrecy, lack of transparency, and unresolved problems in the official story. The doubts and disbelief cannot be expelled through name calling, but only by thorough, open research, which to a large extent still has to be done by the authorities.
I'll begin with the case of WTC 7, which has hardly been covered by the mainstream media but which many "conspiracy theorists" see as the crux of the matter. Many of my fellow Finns with whom I've discussed the 9/11 issues cite WTC 7 as the most obvious reason for their inability to believe the official story.
Just read this: a few days ago my 14-year-old relative, having done some research into the building's collapse, emailed me as follows (the following is obviously my translation of what he wrote):
"There doesn't seem to be any other alternative than controlled demolition, the building came down in vertical free fall and left a neat pile [of debris]".
Now, it did come down the way he wrote, as you can see by viewing the collapse videos of WTC 7 at
http://www.wtc7.net/...
Another example. A colleague of mine at work wrote to me last week (again, my translation):
"... and the 'collapse' of WTC 7 is just plain ridiculous."
I just counted that at least 14 of my colleagues whom I know personally and with whom I've discussed these issues do not believe the official story of September 11. Others are uncertain. Some, of course, believe the official story.
Now, how could this be? Returning to WTC 7, could the following facts have something to do with this apparently widespread skepticism?
The collapse of WTC 7 has still not been officially explained -- almost 5 years after its destruction. NIST has again postponed its report.
The material evidence had been destroyed by the time FEMA published its preliminary report in May 2002, a report that called for further investigation. Many individuals and organizations protested the rapid shipping away of evidence.
In May of this year, the NIST lead investigator confessed in a New York Magazine interview that they have had "trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." Oh, really? With all that lack of material to investigate?
And what did the 9/11 Commission do? They didn't investigate WTC 7. In fact, they did not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 in their report. No matter that WTC-7 is only the third-worst building catastrophe in the world...
To me, with an "investigation" like this and the lack of transparency, it would be a miracle if conspiracy theories hadn't emerged. The silence about WTC 7 in the mainstream media is also strange. Wouldn't such a huge disaster warrant massive coverage? Our national daily Helsingin Sanomat, for example, devoted a total of 1 or 2 sentences to its fate, simply mentioning that it, too, was destroyed, and never returned to the subject again, as far as I know. Unbelievable.
If the mainstream media have done their best to keep silent about WTC 7, they haven't tackled any contradictions in the official explanations either.
Allow me to give you an example. The U.S. Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta told in his detailed testimony to the 9/11 Commission that Vice-President Cheney was in the White House command bunker at 9:25, talking with his subordinate about the plane approaching Washington. Mineta's testimony appears in the Commission's transcript, but has been cut from the Commission's video archive.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/...
Cheney's presence there at that time is confirmed by other sources as well, including a White House photographer and the New York Times. Richard Clarke's account suggests that Cheney went to the command bunker before 9:15.
http://www.911truth.org/...
Mineta's testimony was also confirmed by ABC News:
"Vice President Cheney and National Security Adviser Rice, in their bunker below the White House, are told by an aide that an airplane is headed toward Washington from 50 miles away. The plane is Flight 77. FAA deputy Monty Belger says, 'Well We're watching this target on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off. So we have no identification.' They are given further notices when the plane is 30 miles away, then ten miles away, until it disappears from radar."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...
What did the 9/11 Commission do?
It completely ignored all this evidence and said that Cheney arrived at the command bunker at 9:58 at the earliest and claimed that the strike against the Pentagon came as a surprise.
One can only ask: what is going on here?
The commission also didn't provide reasons for the two earlier official explanations for the lack of air defense response during the 1 hour 50 minute hijacking drama. The second explanation had been held onto for years until the commission came up with a third, their own, one, which was very different from either of its precedents. This is covered in detail by David Ray Griffin in the following article:
http://www.911truth.org/...
My final example deals with the fact that several of the alleged hijackers turned out alive after 9/11, but in its report the Commission just used the original name list without any reservations whatsoever, as if nothing had happened. For example, Saeed al Ghamdi said in a Telegraph interview on September 23, 2001:
"I was completely shocked. For the past 10 months I have been based in Tunis with 22 other pilots learning to fly an Airbus 320. The FBI provided no evidence of my presumed involvement in the attacks."
On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Waleed al Shehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.
"His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
http://911review.org/...
http://propagandamatrix.com/...
This gives the impression that the FBI and the Commission were not really interested in the identities of the hijackers. This is what my above-mentioned colleague also touched upon in his email. Again, the Commission clearly and simply ignored all the evidence that seemed to contradict the official story.
I hope my "foreign view" has managed to convey some idea of the grounds for many people's skepticism here.
I believe that it is the duty of the free Western media to investigate the kinds of information, contradictions and open questions that I mention above. That is, to do their best to find out what really happened. I'm afraid that the mainstream Western media have exhibited very little critical attitude towards the official story, tending instead to label people who asks any questions "conspiracy theorists" (as if the official explanation were not a conspiracy theory) -- in other words, to punish individuals who do what the journalists should be doing.
This kind of situation is unacceptable. The massive suspicion towards the official story is well-grounded and will not go away as long as the politicians and the media do not openly address and seek answers to the questions that absolutely need answering. Unfortunately, I see few signs of this happening.