Is 9/11 Any Diiferent?

            In each case, America was 'forced' by the dastardly actions of others to defend itself,to fight back,and to do what it had in mind all along! The Alamo? Set it up for the US to take 50% of Mexico. The Maine? Set it up to grab not only Cuba but also Puerto Rico,Guam and also the Phillipienes from Spain. The sinking of the passenger liner the Lusitania by the 'Huns' set the US up for entry into world war I. Pearl Harbor? Allowed us to get into the second wrold war. Korea? The alleged North's invasion of the South set us up for the invasion of the north.And of course,the Gulf of Tonkin attack allowed us to further attack North and South Vietnam. America is always innocent,never at fault,never starts anything. BUT in every case there is doubt - the Maine exploded,for example, and did not implode as it had to do if the Spanish sank it; the Lusitania's destroyer escort was pulled by the British (on churchill's orders without telling the captain who traveled at half-spead into the arms of the waiting u-boat;it took the Roosevelt administration 2 years to get the Japs to attack,the last straw was blocking all oil shipments to them from anywhere; the south Koreans invaded the North and were pushed back by the north;and, nothing at all happened in the Gulf of Tonkin!.9/11 seems different,however, or does it? As President Bush said in 9/12, "we've hit the trifecta!" and look what happened: what was the take-away from 9/11? Who/what benefitted? Did the 'butler' do it? Or,was it maybe an inside job? You decide. America has the repeated history of being attacked first before attacking others with the full consent of the population and Congress. The history is too compelling over 150 years to just accept the offical story,especially in the light of so many 'strange' things happening that day-from the lack of fighter planes rising into the sky to Atta's passport landing almost unscathed on the other side of the building on the sidewalk to be- found!.