If a crime were committed and immediately afterwards "experts" appeared on the scene claiming knowledge that no one could possibly have about it what would you think?
Two major 9/11 anomalies have been thoroughly documented, specifically:
1) The stand down of US air defense on the morning of 9/11 that ... all » permitted commercial jet aircraft to fly erratically and in restricted air space without challenge
2) Overwhelming physical evidence that World Trade Center buildings #1, #2, and #7 were brought down by controlled demolition
A third significant anomaly has not been discussed, let alone acknowledged: the reporting by the major US TV news networks in the first few hours immediately after the attacks.
1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while
both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.
2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.
3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.
How was it that these stories - based on no fact, no research and no inquirry - appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?
Were these stories prepared in advance?
There's an old intelligence saying that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action."
Because most of these clips ran only once and were not repeated after they'd done their job, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for viewers to analyze them critically.
Now, thanks to the magic of video tape and a few people who immediately started taping the news after the attacks, we have this important evidence that at the very least these attacks appear to have been anticipated and prepared for by forces that have the ability to exert strong influence over the output of the newsrooms of major US news networks.