Reply #28: Not Really Believable

[durutti]

Sorry, but this article is full of dubious claims.

First of all, it's worth noting that Davis has his PhD in Physical Education. In other words, he really isn't qualified to say definitively some of the things he says.

Davis writes, "It is well known that Bin Laden's close working relationship with the CIA began in the 1980s. The claim is that they have since fallen out, but this story is a lie." First of all, bin Laden and the CIA never had a "close working relationship". It is true that the CIA used the Pakistani ISI to funnel resources to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Among those supporting the mujahedeen was Osama bin Laden. But there's no evidence that the CIA ever met with Osama bin Laden let alone had any kind of "close working relationship" with him.

Davis gives absolutely no evidence to support his assertion that the alleged CIA falling out with the bin Laden family is "a lie".

Davis then writes, "According to the mainstream media spin, this is OK, because the rest of the family has disowned Osama for his terrorist activities and anti-US views. This spin is also a lie." Again, Davis gives absolutely no evidence to support his assertion. I wonder why the bin Laden family changed their name to Binladin, in order to disassociate themselves with Osama? (In fairness, there is credible evidence that some of Osama's relatives continue to support him. But it's wrong of Davis to omit the opposing view.)

Furthermore, if the CIA was somehow supporting bin Laden, then why would he want to attack the United States?

Davis continues, "How was it possible for the World Trade Center's two towers to have completely collapsed as a result of two jet planes? The towers in fact stood for forty-five and ninety minutes after the crashes. The official story is that the burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. However, there is simply no credibly scientific evidence to support this story. The WTC towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707. It is highly unlikely that fire from the jet fuel could have melted the steel girders. This is especially true of the South tower since the plane did not hit it directly. Therefore most of the fuel did not fall inside the building. The South Tower was hit second and fell first. Both towers collapsed evenly and smoothly in a manner consistent with that caused by a planned demolition. Based upon scientific evidences, photos and videos of the event, and reports of scientists, the WTC architect and engineers, it is highly unlikely that the Towers collapsed because of burning jet fuel rather than demolition."

Davis is not an engineer or a physicist. He has absolutely no qualification to definitively state any of the above. I've yet to find any credible scientist supporting this view.

And bombs in the WTC would increase the complexity of the conspiracy considerably, making it even harder to believe that it could be successfully orchestrated.

Davis asks, "Eleven bin Laden family members were flown safely out of the same Boston airport where the highjacking took place a few days earlier. Why were they not detained for questioning?" In fact, they were questioned extensively by the FBI.

Davis's last point is that "ejecting claim that the evidence for collusion is over-ruled by a belief that no country would do this to its own citizens, simply requires pointing out that the contemplation of terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record."

This is simply not true. Davis is referring to Operation Northwoods, in which top military and intelligence officials contemplated a number of measures to allow for an invasion of Cuba. Among these were attacking Cuban immigrants, attacking U.S. military targets, and faking an attack on a U.S. civilian airliner. An attack on American civilians was never considered.

Davis also writes that "Roosevelt is believed to have known about beforehand" about the attack on Pearl Harbor. This idea is not accepted by credible mainstream historians. As Howard Zinn notes in A People's History of the United States, the evidence just isn't there.