9/11 plus 5

Where were you on the morning of September 11, 2001?
 
I slept in because I was working the night shift. I got up after 0830 or so and started my day. My girlfriend at the time, called me and told me the news. I turned on my TV and flipped to watch the coverage. The rest, as they say, is history.
 
What I knew then and what I know now about the events of 9/11 has improved over the past five years. I've read books, websites, magazines. I've screened documentaries from independent producers and I've seen and heard a ton of mainstream media coverage. I’ve talked to people from different backgrounds because I wanted to learn more. I believe that we all must do our civic duty and get involved in the political process and part of that process is staying informed. I figure that if I stay informed then I know I can make a better choice or decision about a particular event. When it came to 9/11, a most significant criminal act, I not only wanted to know who committed the crime but also its meaning in the context of history. And history is extremely important when you consider 9/11.
 
But who can I trust?
 
Mainstream media isn't reliable as it used to be, because it's now under profit driven ownership. And they’ve been very soft on the official story. Public broadcasting, CBC and PBS for instance, is often self conscious about its coverage particularly if it comes close to offending someone or some institution. Their work has been good, but short of critical thought.
 
So I've tried to gather information from as many different sources as I can over the past 5 years about 9/11, be it mainstream or alternative media [of which there is plenty]. From there, I weigh the pros and cons of legitimate discussion. Some sources are better than others for their references and logic.
 
Barrie Zwicker has just released a well written book called, Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11. [New Society Publishers] It is an excellent discussion about the crime of 9/11. It's assertive without being caustic and logical without being academic. It's a personal story of one journalist's crusade to find the truth about 9/11 and to test his own notions of movements on both sides of the political spectrum. Chapter 5, for example, is a critical evaluation of the work of Noam Chomsky. It is a well-reasoned examination of one of the most popular thinkers on the Left and how he has failed to acknowledge the holes in the "official story" about 9/11. This chapter stands apart from the rest of the 360 page book [plus notes] and could easily be expanded into a full-fledged tome on its own. I strongly recommend this book and the sources Zwicker cites in it.
 
I used to feel that the 9/11 story was too big to understand; too complicated to grasp for us mere mortals. It's a complicated story;  a mystery inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Consequently, to argue that 9/11 was an "inside job" is never easy. [Based on my research, I can only conclude that it was a false flag operation designed to control the last oil reserves in the world] But rather than preach from the pulpit, I think you must draw your own conclusions. Zwicker's book is a very good place to start because he puts 9/11 into its proper historical place. And History is the best teacher of all.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.