RE: "I would have thought that circumstantial evidence is not proper evidence."
First of all, much of the evidence surrounding 9/11 is far from circumstantial. Aiding and abetting a criminal act, in law, is the same as committing the act. The evidence of destruction of evidence, and a multitude of examples of cover ups and intimidation of witnesses, is as hard as it gets. Under the Patriot Act, PNAC by definition is a terrorist organization, simply by endorsing a "New Pearl Harbor".
The evidence the WTC complex was destroyed by explosives is rock solid. The evidence that investigations were intentionally derailed is rock solid. The evidence that our defense network was intentionally compromised is rock solid. The evidence Bush knew the attacks were coming is rock solid. The evidence Bush appointed members of PNAC to positions which gave them direct control over allowing the attacks to proceed is rock solid. The evidence that Mossad agents were directly involved in operations related to 9/11 is rock solid.
In addition to the above, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that ties everything together in a neat package that completely eliminates any possibility of reasonable doubt.
There was considerably less evidence in the Scott Peterson trial of a few months ago. Means, motive and opportunity were established and the case eventually hinged on evidence he made weights to sink the body.
All of that aside, I think the point you're missing is not only has the Bush Crime Family not been convicted based on the evidence, the Bush Crime Family has not been named as suspects based on the evidence.
You've looked at as much of the evidence an anyone. I'm now appointing you to the jury. Is Bush innocent or guilty? Did those PNAC members he appointed to oversee every aspect of 9/11 aid and abet the crime? Did the Kean Commission, Mayor G, and FBI agents aid and abet the crime by hiding and destroying evidence? |
