Largest Swiss Newspaper Asks if Bush Was Behind 9/11

Inkslinger · 05-30-2008, 07:35 PM

By Elie Peter - Sept 15, 2006, BLICK newspaper, Zurich, Switzerland
(translated from German into English, but not yet published online in English)
2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed themm. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel and Daniele Ganser raise new questions.
"Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and here he refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.
The university professor confirms his criticism in BLICK: "Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication". Dr. Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon: "For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World Trade Center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear."
There are three theories, which we should treat equally":

1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.
2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars. 3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.

I think the wheels on this should spin alot faster.
I know the suspicion alone constitutes an independent investigation. (not to mention the wall of evidence, turncoats and coincidences)
This article is world news and I'd appreciate it if it stayed right here.
This is no different of a conspiracy theory than stating that BushCo is innocent of 9-11.

Latherty · 05-30-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

By Elie Peter - Sept 15, 2006, BLICK newspaper, Zurich, Switzerland
(translated from German into English, but not yet published online in English)
2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed themm. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel and Daniele Ganser raise new questions.
"Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and here he refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.
The university professor confirms his criticism in BLICK: "Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication". Dr. Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon: "For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World Trade Center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear."
There are three theories, which we should treat equally":

1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.
2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars. 3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.

I think the wheels on this should spin alot faster.
I know the suspicion alone constitutes an independent investigation. (not to mention the wall of evidence, turncoats and coincidences)
This article is world news and I'd appreciate it if it stayed right here.
This is no different of a conspiracy theory than stating that BushCo is innocent of 9-11.

OK Inky - Sep 2006 and never been officially translated?
There is no support for the alternative theories, just recognition that the evidence supporting the official story is incomplete.

This indicates there is little support / nothing new of interest in the article. sorry - you know that I am studiously critical of the accusation that OBL was behind 9-11, but this article does little to convince in any direction...