Until the very last statement there's nothing wrong with what she says. There are many inconsistencies in the official story and it is healthy to question. If you look at everything that has come out, both fully and partially through the Freedom of Information Acts etc about mind control experiments or American plans to blow up an air line, blame Cuba, in order to create a reason to invade etc ... well all of these things were denied at the time. Some at the time would have questioned the veracity of the official line and the media would of portrayed them as insane or trouble causers etc but years later it's found to be all true! And is it that the papers and the media at the time were hoodwinked or were they part of the hoodwinking?
Former defence advisor to 2 American presidents, Zbigniew Brzezinski states in his book "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," 1997.-
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... In that context, how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
She, as a European has every right to be concerned and critical of a country that advocates "dominating" the "prize of Eurasia."
Specifically back to 9/11 - in the Project for the New American Century it states “The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbour."
This was written 1 year before the pre-emptive attacks on the US. It's worth a puzzle over at least and I'd suggest a bit more. Anyway, there's too much to cover in the whole 9/11 Zionist war hawk debate but I think she, struggling in a second language, did okay until the daffy ending.
