Sunday Times: Doubts deepen on 9/11 attacks

Frank Ho's picture

Source: The Sunday Times
Date: Sunday
June 06, 201
Url: The Sunday Times

 

By Hameed Abdul Karim

There have been so many stories on 9/11 that one does not know which one to pick. But one thing is sure, all the stories - at least in what is called the 'mainstream media', stress on one thing. It was a terrorist outrage carried out by al-Qaida headed by Osama bin Laden. There are no holes in the so many stories that might suggest otherwise. So Osama bin Laden is the culprit.

Talking privately I have heard so many people so say many things suggesting that the
narratives we read and hear in the 'official' media simply don't add up.

Take for example the manner in which the second plane hit the 'un-bombed' tower. TV footage shows that the aircraft was off target and then suddenly it swerves and straightens out to
eventually hit the target spot on - bang in the middle. Could a first time flier accomplish such a complex operation?

Could someone who had not bowled in a cricket match in his entire life send down a toe
crushing in-swinging yorker in the very first ball he bowls? Or if you are a golf enthusiast, tell me if any first timer could drive a ball some 200 metres away and get it in the hole with the curve and swerve that we often see World Class golfers do on TV? How then can four hijackers flying civilian aircrafts for the first time in their lives carry out an operation of this magnitude and that too with such sophistication?

Talking of sophistication another question comes to mind. How come al-Qaida has not hijacked civilian planes in Pakistan or India or Afghanistan and crashed them into places like the US Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan or the Green Zone in Baghdad? If Osama bin Laden can hijack planes in New York where CIA, FBI and Mossad agents are crawling like ants, not to mention the ever efficient NYPD that we see in TV shows, then hijacking a PIA or an Air India flight would be a piece of cake, wouldn't it?

Then there is the question of the Saloman Brothers Building a few hundred yards away
from the Twin Towers which collapsed in just 6.6 seconds in its own footprint. How did this happen when no plane had crashed into it? Why, not even a bullet was fired at the building and yet it crumbled like the proverbial pack of cards. How come? And why is it that we constantly hear of the Twin Towers tragedy and hardly a word on the Salomon Brothers building collapse? Rather curious.

And now, in a sensational disclosure, Alan Hart the former BBC correspondent and author of many books, says he has been assured by a top level demolitions/engineering expert that the three World Trade Centre skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolitions, and not by the
'plane crashes and fires' theory that we have been bombarded with ceaselessly.

Alan Hart is no conspiracy theorist, that for sure. And if he's right, then there is more to the terror attacks than meets the eye, so to speak.

*The writer is Vice President of Sri Lanka-Palestine Solidarity Movement

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
gretavo's picture

minor quibble...

"TV footage shows that the aircraft was off target and then suddenly it swerves and straightens out to
eventually hit the target spot on - bang in the middle."

In fact the plane hit the south tower a bit to the side, and flying away from the center of the building. I do like the suggestion that if al Qaeda were real it would have hijacked planes in other parts of the world and attacked US military targets... I guess flight lessons are too costly to splurge like that....

Frank Ho's picture

You're right about the spot.

You're right about the spot. But the real news is the fact that the Sunday Times has published these kind of doubts. Sometimes the deed is more powerful than the information itself ;-)

gretavo's picture

well, yes...

...though it's only the Sri Lankan Sunday Times. I guess we have to take what we can get! :)

Frank Ho's picture

Agree, that's a little

Agree, that's a little downgrading ;-)

BTW, I like your approach. Looking forward to contribute.

http://waarheid911.com [Dutch]
News feed twitter: W911 [English]

gretavo's picture

glad to have you on board, Frank!

we try to keep it real, fair, and fun. we're in this for the long haul.

juandelacruz's picture

Asia times online 50 questions

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI11Ak02.html

Middle East
Sep 11, 2009

THE ROVING EYE
Fifty questions on 9/11
By Pepe Escobar

It's September 11 all over again - eight years on. The George W Bush administration is out. The "global war on terror" is still on, renamed "overseas contingency operations" by the Barack Obama administration. Obama's "new strategy" - a war escalation - is in play in AfPak. Osama bin Laden may be dead or not. "Al-Qaeda" remains a catch-all ghost entity. September 11 - the neo-cons' "new Pearl Harbor" - remains the darkest jigsaw puzzle of the young 21st century.

It's useless to expect US corporate media and the ruling elites' political operatives to call for a true, in-depth investigation into the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. Whitewash has been the norm. But even establishment highlight Dr Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski, a former national security advisor, has

admitted to the US Senate that the post-9/11 "war on terror" is a "mythical historical narrative".

The following questions, some multi-part - and most totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission - are just the tip of the immense 9/11 iceberg. A hat tip goes to the indefatigable work of 911truth.org; whatreallyhappened.com; architects and engineers for 9/11 truth; the Italian documentary Zero: an investigation into 9/11; and Asia Times Online readers' e-mails.

None of these questions has been convincingly answered - according to the official narrative. It's up to US civil society to keep up the pressure. Eight years after the fact, one fundamental conclusion is imperative. The official narrative edifice of 9/11 is simply not acceptable.

Fifty questions
1) How come dead or not dead Osama bin Laden has not been formally indicted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as responsible for 9/11? Is it because the US government - as acknowledged by the FBI itself - has not produced a single conclusive piece of evidence? ...