Letter to the Editor published by the Peoria Journal-Star Sept. 10th, 2010, also to be published by two other Illinois newspapers:
Forum: Questions about 9-11 attackers remain
9-11 always reminds me of reading the early newspaper reports that Mohammed Atta and cohorts were not Muslim fundamentalists. All the accounts from neighbors, cab drivers, bar owners and even a girlfriend who was a stripper were consistent in describing those guys as drinking, drugging, womanizing egomaniacs who cared nothing whatsoever for Islam or Allah.
I think it may shockingly emerge that Muslims were framed for the horrendous crimes of 9-11, so that the powers-that-be could have "a reason" to use American blood and treasure for invading and occupying the Middle East with its resources.
Once you know that a year prior to 9-11, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush and others published exactly such proposals - look up PNAC (Project for a New American Century) - then it becomes alarming that they further stated their military goals could not be accomplished without some "catalyzing and catastrophic event - like a new Pearl Harbor." A year later, George W. Bush called 9-11 a new Pearl Harbor.
My point is: What if Muslims didn't do it? And what would that mean in terms of a new direction in world history?
Connie Cook Smith