9-11

Today is the eighth anniversary of the attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and as I observed last year, many questions continue to gnaw at us. There is enough evidence, raised by Michael Ruppert in his book Crossing the Rubicon, and by the 9/11 truth movement, to allow reasonable people to reasonably doubt the official version of events.

I do not know what the truth is about 9/11. I have not investigated the claims of the 9/11 truth movement; and while I have looked at Crossing the Rubicon, the book is a very dense presentation of evidence that I frankly do not have the time or the interest to read through.

I do know this. The "truthers" include the strangest bedfellows in the history of American politics: liberals intent on destroying what legacy President George W. Bush has left; and the John Birch Society, which is trying to establish malfeasance by the federal government. I have read of engineering studies that cast doubt on whether the Twin Towers could have fallen the way they did as the result of the aircrafts' impacts alone. It is evident to me, in the way the federal government has handled such investigations, that it has something to hide; just as the federal government has never addressed the evidence presented by the Zapruder film of a second assassain of John F. Kennedy.

Why should we care? It is, after all, history. It is past, and some would argue, it is time to move on. Here is why we should care: The Kennedy assassination and 9/11 have left suspicions, which appear well-grounded by known evidence, that the federal government has not been truthful with the American people.

We have the right to know the truth, whatever that truth is. If the official version is correct, it will withstand all of the evidence and questions presented against it. Otherwise, it is reasonable for us to assume that the federal government has something to hide; which will only add to the reasons Americans have for separating themselves from it.