SEPTEMBER 11 WAS NOT THE WORK OF TERRORISTS

SEPTEMBER 11 WAS NOT THE WORK OF TERRORISTS: IT WAS A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY Prina Patel

WHAT SCHWEIKARTS THINKS Shweikwart believes that the 9/11 attack was not a conspiracy by the United States Government. He questioned the fact that before the attack happened President Bush had been warned that there would be an attack. He bought to attention of Hillary Clintons observation that he did not heed to this. He argues that those who believe that the airplanes brought them down are fools. The editors of the Popular Mechanics thought that the airplanes carried tremendous amounts of fuel in them which could if heated to the right temperature could weaken the steel in the buildings.

CONTINUED… Then the plane would crash into it making it all come down. Some argue why the collapse of the World Trade Center was so clean. That there would’ve had to been explosives inside of the building. But there are no witnesses that have seen people coming in or out carrying explosives refutes Schweikarts. Schwiekart criticizes the people who believes that missiles hit the World Trade Center, since it was easily identified that the parts were indeed airplane parts. Conspiracy theorists say that it was a military pod. Which was stupid according to Schweikart because the eyewitnesses saw the passengers board the plane, there was a radar that tracked him, and there were passengers that called

WHAT WAS REALLY HAPPENING…. The 9/11 attack was not a government conspiracy, it was a terrorist attack against American Forces. This attack was planned by a terrorist group known as Al Qaeda who had a grudge against the American Government. There is no reason that the American Government would try to tear down its own country and a group of people even hijacked a flight. Most of what Schweikart has written are truths. But President Bush was not directly informed about the attacks. According to Daniel Klaidmen the source of information about the attacks first started with the FBI whistleblower

CONT. Coleen warned her boss about the a Al Qaeda suspect. The suspect was taking flight-training classes in Minneapolis. The memo had been sent to FBI Director Robert Mueller, who thought nothing but smoke was being blown in the air. Even before that happened the CIA had followed the Al Qaeda members to their rendevouz point in Malaysia. It got to the point where the CIA even followed them while they were entering the United States. After they entered the United States the CIA did not chase them anymore and they did notify the FBI until it was late.

CONT. After the attack the U. S had gone into Afganistan in 2001 and stopped them from being able to launch attacks that would cause the same death and destruction as the 9/11 attacks had. After that President Bush’s approval rating which had been 51% had gone up 86% a total of 35 points. If this had been a government conspiracy there could’ve been no way that they would’ve have know that his popularity would go up after the attack. It could’ve have gone down seeing how he was not able to prevent 9/11

CONT. There are witness accounts of people that saw flight 93 go down. Some witnesses claim to seeing a small white jet flying low over the area where the plane went down. A website called Blog. D. com claims that it is a missile sent by the Air Force. It’s true that there was a white jet there but it was a not a government jet. It was Dassault Falcon 20 jet owned by the W Corporation of Greensboro, North Carolina. The jet was just landing at Johnston-Cambria Airport when they got a call from the FFA to investigate what was happening. It stopped to 1500 ft. above the fire and circled around and found the exact location.

SCHWEIKART In reading Schweikarts account I thought he was not biased a lot. Most of what he had written was reasonable but it seems as though he doesn’t have a lot of information about what he wrote. It is as though he left it incomplete for us to figure it out for ourselves. He goes great lengths to prove that only he is right. He will go on and on about one subject using others as a crude example, saying all of how it is ridiculous. Although he does give reasons on why he thinks they way he does. He did bring light to some theories that were not even mentioned in most of the articles that are written.

DIFFERENT SOURCES, DIFFERENT STORIES… Using one source is not reliable most times the author is very biased or is misinformed about the subject. Using more sources will give you access to different point of view and chance to reassess everything. It can show you different arguments too and give you more information. It is important to make sure that what another source is saying is right and a way to do that is having more sources. You can confirm that what you have written is right so you will not look like an ignorant fool.

WHAT THESE OTHER SOURCES PROVIDED Using this sources I found out that most of what Schweikart has written is not all that accurate. Most of the blame that is in 9/11 is not to be thrown on President Bush. There are headlines claiming that ‘He Knew’ and ‘What was he hiding’. The truth is that the warning had been given to FBI who did not act on it. A member of their own had even brought it up only to be blown off. People were even keeping tabs on the terrorist group but then gave up thinking it was futile. I learned more about what happened after it to since the articles mentioned it, in the Schweikarts version there

CONT. In this it mostly mention what other people think and why it is wrong. When reading the information given by all four sources(including Schweikart) I didn’t see a lot of bias most of what I really saw was emotion and reasoning. More content on what happened, what was happening to them at the time and how all of this was being portrayed. What new information was being found out, and the author would back that information up with reliable sources who had been involved in this affair. They identified all the rumors that had been going around and disproved them.

WORKS CITED Klaidmen, Daniel. “The Day of Infamy. ” Newsweek 31 Dec. 2012: 70 -73. Print. Rocca, Michael S. “ 9/11 and Presidential Support in the 107 Congress. ” Congress & The Presidency 36. 3 (2009): 272 -296. Print. Chertoff, Benjamin. “Flight 93. ” Popular Mechanics 182. 3 (2005): 80 -81. Print.