To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.~ Ayn Rand
By Craig McKee To believe the official story of 9/11 you have to swallow an awful lot. You have to believe the laws of physics can be suspended for a day, that planes can disappear after crashing, …
The financial cost of the War on Terror is incalculable. The Iraq and Afghan wars, including the medical costs for veterans, are estimated to end up costing the U.S. at least $4 trillion dollars. Intelligence budgets have doubled, on top of more than $800 billion spent on “homeland security.” Billions of dollars have been wasted on fruitless projects – like a failed plan to install radiation detectors at airports, which cost the government $230 million.
To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years.
Honestly, nobody is going to get away with non-biased opinion ranting over the myriad 911 subjects, at least not without a great deal of difficulty. With regard to Flight 93, I trust there will be many dozens more references I myself will be posting, in time. I have researched (read) a few hundred over the years, made notes, did further referencing, yada yada. I posted an excerpt from a blog entry recently from “Shoestring” that was comprehensive and relatively authoritative. By and large the author was neutral when the material called for it… thus my reasons for posting a link to his article.
[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The “unitedflight93” article was written entirely by Michael D. Fortner, who’s education is in journalism and history.[/pullquote]
On the other hand, I came across what seems to be the mother of all self-appointed experts on flight 93, shortly afterward. This character had even gone to the trouble of obtaining the ostensibly “official” URL for his “official” site. I am including his material in the interest of presenting two sides to the story.
From Mr. Fortner’s intrepid journey through his journalism degree and minor in history, oh, and his computer repair work – I believe someone is supposed to infer he picked up some mad skills in criminal investigation, NTSB protocols, FEMA procedure and the government’s terror response and intervention process on 911. Mr. Michael D. Fortner summed up his tome of pontificating with mostly this:
“ALL their SUPPOSED evidence can be proven false and discarded by this same kind of reasonable analysis. But some people just WANT to believe in conspiracy, and they will continue to believe in it regardless of how much evidence points to the hijackers as the people who planned and executed the operation. These nuts are the kind of people who would not believe that we went to the Moon. Yes, it is true; there are many conspiracyists who believe that we FAKED THE MOON LANDING! They just don’t have the ability to believe in anything. They are natural born disbelievers and spread their false conclusions throughout the world online. “
Clearly, I would need weeks to address most of the crap Mr. Fortner professes as the gospel. The absolute facts Mr. Fortner feels he has somehow empirically proven I presume he gleaned utilizing his many years of experience as a criminal investigator. However, I would say that the “typical” foolishness involved here is when anyone, in this case Mr. Fortner, honestly believes the information he had access to and thus based his expert opinion (stated as proven fact, however) on, was thorough, complete, flawlessly accurate and derived from all necessary sources. Moreover, I’m sure Mr. Fortner is provably certain there are no facts, no information and absolutely nothing he could possibly be in the dark about with regard to what complicity the government did or didn’t have in the event, as he seems to indicate in is writing.