I have been waiting five years for the Independent to start asking some hard questions about 9/11. The articles by Godfrey Cheshire and Bob Geary barely touched the big questions about the infamous day itself, but at least talked about the alliance of self-interest between Bush and bin Laden, and the insanity of the Bush response.
Bush's behavior is that of a poker player who insists that he has won the hand, but refuses to show his cards. Suspects were hidden away in gulags; WTC evidence was whisked away to the recyclers; investigations were stonewalled as long as possible, starved for funds when finally started; Bush testimony was not under oath, but still in the presence of Dick Cheney, presumably to help them keep their stories straight. The FBI confiscated all of the videos of the Pentagon strike, and does not even list Osama as wanted for the 9/11 attacks. Suspicious behavior worthy of additional questioning. I note that the Indy editors felt the need to add a "no explosives" disclaimer to Peter Eichenberger's excellent article ("In the U.S., business comes before patriotism," Sept. 6), when nothing was said about explosives. The cited National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) fact sheet can say that there was no evidence for explosives, because NIST did not actually do any tests for them. Go here for a good analysis of the NIST Q&A: 911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html.
The Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves theory has almost no supporting evidence, other than Osama's John Mark Kerr-like confessions, timed to provide maximum aid to the GOP in our elections. It does not explain where the jets were on 9/11. It is seriously lacking in scientific validity, as explanations it provides for the tower collapses are in open contradiction to the laws of physics.
For an independent media outlet like yours, this topic is a gold mine with Pulitzer potential, worthy of more questions--not disclaimers.