The Bushites obviously believe that, if they can get a public court conviction for Moussaoui, then the American and world public will fall in line and the haemorraging that the 'official story' is currently experiencing will stop. The fact that Moussaoui is French is just a bonus, and can only work in the favor of US government and mainstream attempts to associate 'true blue' American patriotism with sending your son or daughter or father or mother to be blown to pieces in a foreign country for no reason.

But why did it take the US government so long to prosecute Moussaoui? Why, in so many other cases, did the US government refuse to publicly prosecute other alleged 9/11 planners? What are the so often cited 'security reasons' that prevent other alleged terrorists in US custody from being publicly cross examined? Should we be wary of anything that the US government says when it refuses to provide evidence for any of its claims and hides behind 'security reasons'? When there are several alleged terrorist individuals in US and foreign custody who could reveal the extent of their contacts with the FBI prior to 9/11, yet the US government refuses to allow them to testify in public, should we be even a little suspicious?

As part of the proceedings, Moussaoui was questioned by the prosecution. He told the court he knew the World Trade Centre attack was coming and had lied to investigators when arrested in August 2001 because he wanted the operation to continue.

Prosecutor Spencer asked: "You knew on August 16 that other al-Qaida members were in the US?"

"That’s correct," Moussaoui replied.

Spencer: "You knew there was a pending plot?”

"That’s correct."

Spencer: "You lied because you wanted to conceal that you were a member of al-Qaida?"

"That’s correct."

"You lied so the plan could go forward?"

"That's correct."

What needs to be kept in mind here is that certain FBI agents would give exactly the same answers as Moussaoui to the above questions. From the details of the trial to date, it is quite clear that its goal is to distract from the FACT that the FBI, CIA and the Bush government all had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks yet failed to do anything to prevent them, and to place the focus on a likely 9/11 patsy. We are being told that, if only Moussaoui had told what he knew to the FBI the 9/11 attacks could have been stopped, but this is not true, because the FBI and Bush administration WERE informed of the likelihood of an upcoming spectacular attack using planes as missiles yet they refused to take any action whatsoever. In fact, they deliberately obstructed FBI agents in their attempts to know more from Moussaoui, as the LA Times reported last week:

"The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui weeks before Sept. 11 told a federal jury Monday that his own superiors were guilty of "criminal negligence and obstruction" for blocking his attempts to learn whether the terrorist was part of a larger cell about to hijack planes in the United States."

Ask yourself "why?"

Moussaoui is a patsy, plain and simple, and in classic patsy style his story has already performed at least one 180 degree turn. For example, during the trial defence attorney Gerald Zerkin asked Moussaoui:

"Before your arrest, were you scheduled to pilot a plane as part of the 9/11 operation?"

Moussaoui answered: "Yes. I was supposed to pilot a plane to hit the White House."

Yet this account by Moussaoui is a complete contradiction of his previous statements, including his confession when pleading guilty last April when he said he had no involvement in the September 11 plot. Instead, he has said he was taking pilot lessons in the upper Midwest state of Minnesota to fly a 747 jetliner into the White House later should the US refuse to release a radical Egyptian sheikh imprisoned for separate terrorist convictions.

Ritualised psychological and physical torture does strange things to the mind of a human being. Rather than being the best way to get the truth out of someone, it is in fact the worst way as it tends to force the victim to disassociate from their normal cognitive awareness and enter a state where the lines between reality and fantasy are either blurred or non-existent. This effect has been known for a long time. The real benefit of this type of torture therefore is not to get at the truth but to create 'truths' in the mind of the victim. 'Truths' which the victim can then be relied on to reveal, in a court of law for example. Consider the fact that Moussaoui's defence team attempted to undercut his testimony by calling on the written testimony of two 'high-ranking al-Qaeda captives', (who could not appear in person for 'security reasons') in which they claim that Moussaoui had no role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed, it seems that Moussaoui’s lawyers have been having a hard time with their client and, according to Seymour Hersh are already doubting his sanity/p>

When Moussaoui's mother, Aicha el-Wafi, travelled from France to attend his trial he ignored her. Such was the extent of the difference between the man in the dock and the man she remembered as her son, Moussaoui's mother broke down and declared "that is not Zachary," claiming that her normally fiery son must have been drugged to appear so sedate.

Add to all of this the fact that the intelligence agencies of America, Israel and Britain have, for many years, been recruiting members of alleged terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda. What they actually do with these recruits we cannot know for sure and while we are told that they are used to try and gain inside knowledge about terrorist plans, such attempts appear to have failed on every occasion. In fact, the involvement of these intelligence agencies with the alleged terrorists, if anything, seems to have aided the terrorist's success rate.

The CIA employed many of the people that they today allege are 'al-Qaeda' members as mercenaries in Afghanistan in the 1970's, in Bosnia in the 1990's and in Chechnya over the past 10 years. In each case, the goal of these fundamentalist Islamic mercenaries (who nevertheless were well paid) was to foment ethnic conflict between Muslims and Christians. What is clear is that the 9/11 attacks have done more than any other event to make a 'clash of civilizations' between Islam and the West a reality. Is it a mere coincidence then that the same people who work(ed) for the CIA at inflaming world-wide Muslim-Christian tensions had a hand in the 9/11 attacks that facilitated Bush's religious crusade against Middle East Muslims?

At this point, I have little more to say about 9/11 and the alleged war on terror. It has all been said. Evidence that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks is overwhelming. Why should I, or anyone else, continue to repeat ad nauseam that which is patently obvious for all to see? The only thing left to do is sit back and watch what happens when a group of psychopaths are entrusted with absolute power and normal humanity appears to have entirely lost its will to resist.