Word has it Michael Moore is making a new documentary about 9/11. Well that's pretty exciting. I always wondered why his Farenheit 9/11 wasn't really about 9/11 (see Rosebud #147, below). Maybe this time, he'll ask some of the questions I've been waiting to hear someone like him ask. Meanwhile, today, in the New York Post, there was a story on page 9 about a lawsuit some of the 9/11 victims' families have launched against the bin Laden family. The Post spin says the families are "pursuing the bin Laden family's vast fortune." Actually, what many of the family members are interested in is information about how their loved ones died. As part of the lawsuit they have demanded the disclosure of information pertaining to Osama bin Laden's funding and the identity of his backers—information which they have seen blocked at every turn.

According to the Post, "They suffered a setback last month when U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas turned down many of the requests for information about financial ties between bin Laden and his family, saying, in essence, that the plaintiff's requests had become petty..." Since the bin Ladens have close friends in the Bush administration, and the Bush family, it isn't likely anyone's going to make them cough up the books. For more on that relationship, go back and watch Farenheit 9/11.

Here's a reprint of Rosebud #147:

Watch the clip "Michael Moore Eats Wolf Blitzer for Breakfast" at Gawker.com. Moore rips Wolf a new one. Great stuff.

But how come no one ever asks the belligerent Moore:

Hey Michael, how could you make a movie called "Farenheit 9/11" and never once talk about the many serious flaws in the government's official story?

How could you never mention the inexplicable collapse of Building 7? Or the fact that no steel-frame building in history has ever "melted," except for, allegedly, Building 7 and the Twin Towers?

How come you didn't interview the many reputable scientists and physicists who can explain why this "melting" theory is impossible?

Why did you, a man who likes to think of himself as a straight-shooter, never show how the collapse of the buildings looks exactly like a controlled demolition?

Why didn't you ask developer Larry Silverstein, Building 7's owner, why he said in a TV interview that Building 7 had been "pulled," or demolished? Or ask him about the $4.68 billion dollars in insurance claims he was awarded, for a policy he had leased just six weeks prior to 9/11?

Come on, Michael, why didn't you ask the tough questions?

Why didn't you talk about how Ground Zero was never treated as a crime scene? Or how the rubble was immediately shipped overseas? Or how the clean-up was so rushed, more than a thousand bodies were never recovered?

Why did you never get into the lack of video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon (which you actually mentioned in an interview, later, so we know you're aware of at least some of this stuff)?

How come you never talked about the inexplicable failure of the United States' vast air defense on 9/11? Or the many war games that were going on, on that day, leaving the eastern seabord exposed?

How about the multitudinous terror warnings and investigations over the summer of 2001 and before, which were ignored—some even thwarted—by the Bush administration?

Come on, Michael, you love to stick it to the Bush adminstration. But how come not about 9/11?

Why didn't you interview the whistleblowers? The victims' families?

Why didn't you talk about the CIA's reported relationship with Mohammed Atta? Or for that matter, Osama bin Laden?

Why didn't you attempt to track down some of the alleged hijackers who are reportedly alive? How come you never asked the airline executives why they have never released any passenger lists which include the hijackers' names?

How come you never mentioned that Osama bin Laden is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks by the FBI, which has said that there is no evidence against him?

How come you didn't interview Bruce Lawrence, the Osama bin Laden scholar, who says that Osama's "confession tape" is a fake?

How come you never talked about the contradictions of the 9/11 Commission Report, or the conflicts of interest with the members of the 9/11 Commission—which was formed 411 days after 9/11, only after extreme pressure from the victims' families, and which ignored 70% of their questions?

Why didn't you talk to the many firemen and journalists and survivors who heard explosions in the Towers prior to their collapse—or hell, why didn't you just run the clips of them where they said so in the media?

How come you let us down, Michael?

www.911truth.org
www.911blogger.com