Check it out, from the horses mouth itself. PNAC is pulling out the Pearl Harbor comparisons again, and making yet another pathetic attempt of linking Iraq to 9/11. Jon Gold made the following clever statement that may one day be spoken at a future 9/11 trial:

"...And on the 4th Anniversary of that dreadful day, your so called, "Think Tank" dared to legitimize your actions by comparing them to the very event that inspired you in the first place. As a way to legitimize your crime. How dare you... "

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20050911.htm

Are we as a nation safer for having invaded Iraq? Was the decision to remove Saddam from power after 9-11 a step forward in the war on terror, or not? The answer is yes.

Is the answer absolutely, yes? Of course not. Wars don't work that way. Did the decision by the country to wage war on both Japan and Germany in the wake of Pearl Harbor make the U.S. safer at first? No. Even after critical successes at Midway, in North Africa and Italy, thousands of Americans still lost their lives. The war had to be won, and the cost was high precisely because our enemies knew it was going to be a fight to the death. And Americans understood that security could not be had in a piecemeal fashion given the nature of the enemies we faced.

http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/showarticle.php?articleid=48804

...

My argument is as straightforward as it is secure and convincing: Our government was behind the terror attacks of 9-11.

To be believed, the argument requires that one think adult thoughts, have a more than casually informed view of history, and be willing to distinguish a fact from a sweet, soothing fiction.

We are told that on 9-11, 2001, we were attacked by a band of terrorist prodigies. 19 fanatical Arab wunderkinds of terror. They eluded our vast intelligence network and somehow managed to take out the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

I guess its not that people are afraid to talk, its that they are afraid of losing their jobs.

http://valis.cjb.cc/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=77

I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal.

Reports from FEMA and NIST which attempt to explain how airplane impacts and the subsequent fires brought down the towers on 9/11 suffer from two major flaws. First of all, investigations by government agencies can hardly be considered independent; secondly, both documents attempt to explain the collapses based on the foregone conclusion that the airplanes impacted the towers creating a set of circumstances eventually resulting in their collapse. These reports concede that the collapses were not brought down by the impacts themselves nor the burning jet fuel, but rather by the resultant infernos which were responsible for weakening the structure of the towers causing their demise. Considering the fact that a third tower collapsed that day without suffering any airplane impact or jet fuel fire, the official story DEMANDS that plain old office fires caused the collapses, because if they didn't, the official story falls apart.