Saturday, September 10, 2011

9/11 - After Ten Years, What Do We Know?

*******

*******
Jumping rope and 9/11 truth - how the sheeple have been trained to avoid unpopular truth about WTC 7
by Mike Adams
Sunday, September 25, 2011
(NaturalNews) I think I was in the second grade at the time. We were in gym class, and the teacher had encouraged us to jump rope and count out 10 jumps as part of an obstacle course. It was an ambitious plan, we soon learned, as very few second graders can jump rope at all. Even worse, it turns out they can't count either, because to my great surprise, some classmates stood there counting rapidly from 1 to 10 as they attempted to jump the rope, regardless of how many revolutions of the rope were actually achieved.
This frustrated my gym teacher, and he asked us to halt our little exercise and listen up for a moment. He queried a student to determine why they were counting from 1 to 10 even though they weren't actually jumping the rope 10 times. The student had no idea what he was talking about. So he decided to do a little counting test in front of us all. "I'm going to turn in circles, and I want you to count out loud how many times I turn around."
Fair enough, right? So he proceeded to slowly rotate to his right, and after having achieved not more than 45 degrees of rotation, to my great astonishment my classmates started counting out numbers. "One! Two! Three!" He continued rotating into 90 degrees, and then 180 degrees, at which point some of my classmates were already at "four!" and "five!" By the time he reached 360 degrees (one complete rotation), some of my second-grade classmates had already counted to 10.
It was at this point that I shouted out, "One!" The teacher looked at me and said, "You're the only one who got it right" and I can only imagine he spent that evening pulling his hair out, trying to understand why second graders could be so stupid on basic concepts such as counting.
I have long since wondered the same thing myself.
Although the core answers to that remain a mystery, some good did come out of the experience. It was on this day -- and this is a true story from my childhood -- that I realized America has a serious IQ deficit.
And, importantly, the intelligence-impaired individuals in America outnumber the rest of us by a frighteningly large factor. This ratio has not appreciably changed in the 35 years or so since I was in the second grade, it seems, and the really scary thing is that those very same people who couldn't count in the second grade are now running the country -- where they still can't count because we're now deep into the nation's deepest financial deficits ever!
9/11 is a modern-day IQ test
Those second-grade classmates I grew up with, you see, are all in the forties now, and they're probably working in government, or local businesses, or perhaps even at the FDA. And while they probably eventually learned how to properly count rotations and such, they no doubt fail to see the obvious in other things such as the readily evident fact that the WTC 7 building was brought down by demolition charges.
Here's a great (and short) video introducing all this. It's called "This is an Orange"
Today's "national IQ test," if you will, is whether people yet realize 9/11 was an inside job. To watch the WTC 7 building fall into its own footprint, demolition style, and somehow fail to grasp that this was a carefully-planned demolition job is just as idiotic as not being able to count how many times you jump rope. IQ-impaired people may grow up and look like adults, it seems, but they are no more intelligent at understanding events in the world around them. And 9/11 is perhaps the best test in recent times at exposing the lack of raw intelligence that's still surprisingly common in our society today.
At times, people who cannot understand the simple things around them are described as "morons." This is not meant to be insulting; just factual. "Moron" is a description of a very low IQ individual, having an IQ between 50 and 70. It means they can "work under supervision," says TheFreeDictionary.com. This is the perfect description of people who think 9/11 was pulled off by terrorists and that WTC 7 collapsed due to office fires. They are able to think "under supervision" -- to believe what they are told -- because they can't think for themselves.
In contrast to all this, thousands of architects and engineers have proven they are not morons by publicly stating that the government's official story on WTC 7 is complete nonsense. They're part of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth movement, which you can read about at: http://www.ae911truth.org
Watch the videos there and give yourself America's IQ test! Anyone who watches WTC 7 fall and then thinks that the perfectly synchronized free-fall collapse of a every single support column in that building could have been caused by a small office fire is clearly running a serious IQ deficit.
The government thinks we're all morons, of course, which is why the government weaves these fantastical
and truly unbelievable stories of what happened on 9/11. Like the fairytale that there were no black boxes recovered from any of the planes that crashed that day. Or that one terrorist's passport was blown out of the explosion and landed on the sidewalk unscathed. Or that a man on one of the planes called someone with his cell phone from 31,000 feet and reported the plane was under attack by terrorists with box cutters. In 2001, airplanes had no cell phone service, duh!
In fact, in 2001, cell phones hardly even worked if you walked to the wrong side of the office or drove under a bridge. But the government wants us to believe multiple crystal-clear calls were made from a plane flying at 31,000 feet even though cell towers are only designed to handle calls from the ground (their antennas don't even cover high-altitude callers because there are none!)
The fairytales go on and only become increasingly ridiculous with each one. They've become so absurd, in fact, that the U.S. government has now been forced to rewrite the laws of physics in insisting the fireproofed steel beams used to construct the WTC 7 building magically melted from common office fires and all experienced total structural failure at exactly the same moment!
Here's a video that shows you what really happens with a steel-and-concrete building burns:
For anyone to believe that WTC 7 collapsed from a few office fires (which were extinguished at the time of the collapse, by the way), they seriously have to be a complete moron. And yet, to my great surprise, a great majority of the public actually believes all this. They've swallowed this official story hook, line and sinker. Like good little marks lining up in the drive-through lane of Brainwashes-R-Us.
But remember: These are the same people who couldn't count a jump rope in elementary school. These are the same people who don't understand basic economics and how their money is stolen from them through the printing of fiat currency. These are people who have no idea there's fluoride in their water, or that the mainstream media consistently lies to them and runs complete hoaxes as actual news. If you get right down to it, you see, most people simply aren't able to understand even the fundamentals of the world around them.
Abandoning science in order to stay politically correct
My favorite part in all this is when you see mainstream "scientists" and physicists come out and declare that questioning 9/11 automatically qualifies you as a "conspiracy theorist," by which they maliciously attempt to discredit everything you say by tagging you with a label. You see, they're so desperate to remain popular and go along with the conventional storyline on 9/11 that they're willing to make themselves look like complete morons by denying WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
To these scientists, I suppose, being politically correct is far more important than being scientifically accurate. If the White House announced that the wind was created by trees moving their branches, all these scientists would no doubt go along with that, too. Or, hey, maybe the sun is a giant woodstove in the sky and we need to send it more wood or it will burn out and leave our planet a lifeless block of ice. But such is the fabric of the modern scientific community, which is steeped in all sorts of downright hilarious fictions and fairytales about vaccines, psychiatric drugs, consciousness and even the laws of physics itself.
I say that any scientist who is willing to abandon the process of asking scrutinizing questions and examining the actual evidence isn't really a scientist at all. Rather, they are merely cult members in a politically-motivated cabal of morons who all agree to defend the "official" announcements on 9/11, no matter how much those conclusions violate the laws of physics. Perhaps they should just announce the Sun orbits around the Earth and be done with it. Reality be damned, there's politically-expedient science to defend!
The simultaneous collapse of 24 support columns and 57 perimeter columns
The primary argument about WTC 7, by the way, really has nothing to do with the temperature at which structured steel loses its integrity, or how hot the fires burned in WTC 7. Rather, it is a question of how did all the support columns for the entire building simultaneously shatter and bring the building down at free-fall acceleration into its own footprint?
Only an IQ-challenged individual would say this could happen from anything other than a deliberately planned demolition job. Even in severe earthquakes, large concrete-and-steel buildings don't fall straight down into their own footprints. To achieve that kind of symmetry requires careful planning and weeks of preparation where you drill into the columns of the building and plant explosives which are all wired up to a rather complex control board. The detonation sequence also needs to be meticulously calculated so that the 24 inner columns are shattered just moments before the 57 outer columns in order to make sure the building falls into itself rather than "peeling away" and expanding its outer walls as it falls.
Demolitions is a rigorous scientific endeavor, and to achieve the symmetrical collapse of a large concrete-and-steel structure like WTC 7 required strict adherence to understanding explosives, support structures, architectures and the laws of physics. Thus, the people who brought down WTC 7 honor the laws of physics, while those quacks who claim WTC 7 was caused by "office fires" stand in total violation of the laws of physics.
To say that the WTC 7 collapse wasn't a carefully planned demolition job is to announce to the world that you are a complete and total moron. This, of course, includes nearly all the mainstream media talking heads, government officials, and a surprisingly large number of bobble-headed people who mistakenly refer to themselves as "scientists."
In times of great deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act
Once you realize the truth about WTC 7, you realize that 9/11 had to have been an inside job. Whether that statement is popular or not, it is the only conclusion supported by the rather obvious facts. And just as I dared to shout "One!" in the second grade, even as all my moron classmates were counting to ten, today I dare to shout the same obvious truth about 9/11. WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. It is as obvious as the sun in the sky (which isn't a woodstove, by the way), and no amount of blabbering idiocy by a crowd of wannabes can change the cold, hard facts about the laws of physics.
I would also say to those who still somehow believe the government's ridiculous story on 9/11 that if your opinions are formed primarily by what's popular, then you're not a clear thinker. Politically correct opinion is almost always flat wrong. But some sheeple feel so compelled to go along with the herd that they will actually delude themselves into believing anything as long as their peers go along with it. Can you say "Weak-minded?"
I prefer to operate with a strong mind powered by clear, independent thought. I operate a lot like Galileo in that I will declare the Sun to be the center of our universe even if everybody else says the Earth is in the center. I don't care whether declaring the truth is popular at the moment or not. Even a thousand people shouting in disagreement with the laws of physics does not alter those laws. Crowds can be dead wrong. In fact, history shows they usually are.
I'm the kind of guy who openly shouts the Emperor has no clothes. Why? Because on the 9/11 issue, the Emperor is walking through the streets butt naked, even as the rest of the IQ-challenged people hold their fantastical delusions of seeing whatever they've all agreed should be there. The economy is in a recovery! America is a land of freedom! The terrorists are out to get you! Television news reports the truth! If you see something, say something! And sure, the Emperor wears glorious flowing robes made of magic thread, and the government is creating new jobs, too!
Additional evidence cinches the case
Just in case you want to be really, really sure about WTC 7 actually being a demolitions job, here are two other bits of evidence you'll want to see on this.
The first is the video interview with Larry Silverstein who comes right out and openly admits "they made the decision to pull it." This term -- "pull it" -- is the term used by demolitions teams when they make the decision to bring the building down.
But here's the real gotcha in all this: The BBC, in a live news broadcast, reported the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it happened! How could this happen? They apparently got their time zones mixed up and ended up airing video of a reporter declaring the Saloman Brothers building (WTC 7) had collapsed even while it was standing in the background behind her!
This clearly and obviously indicates prior knowledge that the building was about to be brought down. Watch that video at:
And read an accompanying explanation at:
This video is a truly hilarious example of total 1984-style propaganda and media theater, much like CNN's outrageously faked reporting from the Gulf War. Watch it by clicking the link below. It features a comedian reporter named Charles Jaco who looks like he's playing the lead role in a bad S&N skit, but it was aired as "live" CNN television news from Saudi Arabia:
Click forward to 6:45 to see a particularly hilarious bit when Charles Jaco fakes like he's been attacked with poison gas and he furiously puts on his gas mask -- while his guest slaps on a helmet! It is possibly the funniest moment of fake CNN news that has ever been broadcast in history. This is totally FAKE news, folks. A complete network news psy-op that could only be believed by complete and utter morons mainstream media viewers.
Stay informed and stay sharp
If you want to read a fantastic book on all this, check out the recently updated book by Jim Marrs: The Terror Conspiracy Revisited: What Really Happened On 9/11, And Why We're Still Paying The Price (http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Conspi...)
In the mean time, keep your wits about you, folks. All the really smart people out there -- the independent thinkers and sharp-minded people -- read Alternative News sources such as NaturalNews. We've even launched a new website about Alternative News called -- you guessed it -- www.AlternativeNews.com
There, you can find a daily serving of news for sharp-minded thinkers who rise above the morons and actually think for themselves. People like you, I would imagine, since NaturalNews is only really enjoyed by free-thinking individuals who absolutely refuse to act like morons.
And never abandon common sense in a quest to be popular or politically correct. Stick with what the evidence reveals, no matter how many morons on the other side attack you for it. Only a true idiot would abandon the evidence and declare WTC 7 to have collapsed from "office fires" (even though it was made out of fireproofed steel and concrete). By attacking you for sticking to the truth, these people only out themselves as morons.
Remember, every time you see someone denying WTC 7 was a demolition job, ask in your mind, "Are these the same people who couldn't count to ten while jumping rope?"
They are, indeed.
In fact, the really really shocking realization in all this is that most Americans have no idea what WTC 7 is! They've all been trained to focus on the collapse of the TWO buildings hit by airplanes, not the third building which was brought down with demolitions charges. WTC 7 has been almost completely kept out of the minds of the public because the government doesn't want people to be aware of it at all.
Videos to watch that reveal more
9/11 Truth: What Happened to Building 7
WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11
How did WTC 7 fall?
This is an Orange
WTC 7 - Showing shaped charge explosions
WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse
*******
Psychologists: Questioning 9/11 Is the Sane Thing To Do
Alleged "Conspiracy Theorists" are not Mentally Insane Crackpots...
by Washington's Blog
Global Research, September 22, 2011
The 9/11 Commissioners and Other Officials Don’t Believe the Government
The 9/11 Commissioners and congressional investigators into 9/11 themselves don’t believe the government’s description of events.
Much of the world doesn’t believe the official story.
Mental Health Professionals Say that Questioning 9/11 Is the Sane Thing To Do
Many mental health professionals have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false, and that those who believe the official version suffer from defense mechanisms. For example:
Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Lester Grinspoon, MD
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk
Distinguished Professor in the Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, Professor of Medicine in the Department of Internal Medicine and Distinguished Professor of Global Health in the College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Michael D. Knox
Professor Emeritus, Psychology and Neuroscience, Beckman Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Michael Gabriel
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Retired Psychiatrist. Former Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Jefferson Medical College. Former Major, U.S. Army Medical Corps, Vietnam Veteran 7 years service, Jon Bjornson, MD
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
PhD in clinical psychology from Texas Tech Michael Green
PhD in educational psychology Brent Igo
PhD psychologist Paul Johansson
PhD psychologist Gail Maudal
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
There are many other mental health professionals who agree.
And watch this must-see 15-minute interview with psychologists:
*******
*******
Sociologists have also shown that fear makes people believe false things about 9/11.
******* 
America's Culpability in 9/11
By Frosty Wooldridge
September 19, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
This reality pains me more than anyone can understand. I am the son of a career U.S. Marine. My grandfather served and earned a Purple Heart in WWI. My father served in WWII and Korea, and died in service. My brother served in the U.S. Army in Desert Storm. I served as a U.S. Army officer during Vietnam.
War is hell and it scrambles men’s and women’s minds. From the Vietnam War alone, over 200,000 once healthy men committed suicide after coming back from Nam in 1975. Hundreds of thousands more suffered broken marriages and descended into drugs and alcohol. The expectations for suicides from Iraq and Afghanistan run into the 150,000 range. Those suicides can be based on the lunacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Nixon and now, George Bush and Barack Obama.
For the record, I personally know Peter Gadiel the father of a young boy who died in one of the twin towers on 9/11. His pain continues today because he has battled the U.S. government to stop illegal immigration and secure our borders for 10 year, but they have not. The incompetence or the “on purpose” path of supporting illegal immigration as well as relentless legal immigration shows a grand design to destroy the sovereignty and culture of our country by some very powerful elites at the top of the power structure.
My heart goes out to every American and non-American that suffered in the 9/11 massacre. This past 9/11 Sunday, America mourned. I mourned.
I love America with every cell in my body. At the same time, I urge a reality check to Americans as to open door for 9/11. Nothing in this universe or in this world happens without a cause. We live in a cause and effect world. Something or some act causes a corresponding reaction.
A bit of history from the United States of America
When the European settlers came to this country, they slaughtered the Native Americans with superior, mechanized violence. It proved deplorable yet humanity tends toward self-aggrandizement. Conquering human tribes always write history in their own best interest. They (our forefathers) grouped the Indians into detention camps called “reservations.” Our forefathers took away their freedoms, cultures, customs, languages, religions and ways of life. We introduced them booze and small pox. We broke treaty after treaty with the Indians. We massacred men, women and children. Read Trail of Tears, Sand Creek Massacre and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee if you want to appreciate a really in-depth understanding of white men’s violence toward Native Americans.
They have not recovered. They live on welfare, on reservations, drink endless booze, live on hopelessness and suffer domestic violence as they attempt and fail to adjust to the white man’s world. We also turned their pristine continent into a chemical, carbon, paved, polluted and littered trash pit. Look them in the eyes and one can feel their emptiness. How can we look in the mirror ourselves and feel nothing?
During Harry Truman’s administration, his advisors cooked up the idea that we should halt communism by fighting in Korea. We jumped in to kill hundreds of thousands while suffering 33,000 deaths ourselves—in a conflict that we had no business entering over 10,000 miles away from our shores. The Korean War killed countless tens of thousands of people and did absolutely nothing to move the world toward peace. North and South Korea today stand as ardent enemies with no solution.
When Dwight D. Eisenhower finished his two terms as president, he warned about the Military Industrial Complex. Quite simply, that is a group of men and organizations that feed on wars, and as we have seen, they create and engineer wars. We American citizen did not heed Ike’s words.
Thus, the U.S. Military Industrial Complex created the Vietnam War. It did not create it to make America safer; those elites created it to make more money and wield their power. We waged it for 10 years because that’s how long those engineers could manipulate us. It would still be going if not for the “reaction” of the college students screaming, “Hell no, we won’t go!”
The architect of Vietnam, Robert McNamara, before he died at 92 a year ago, wrote Fog of War. He admitted that, “Vietnam was a mistake.” His mistake killed over 2.1 million Vietnamese and poisoned their country with Agent Orange. It still causes ecological mayhem and birth defects throughout Vietnam in 2011. Since we don’t see or feel the consequences, we feel immune to our causing them.
The Gulf of Tonkin fraud provided the pretense for the Vietnam War. But that’s all it took for Johnson to start bombing and sending 53,267 men to their violent deaths with another 350,000 amputated or maimed emotionally. The “Silent Majority” felt no culpability for the deaths of 2.1 million Vietnamese any more than it felt culpability for the massacres of Native Americans. When might we understand that we are not the final “father figure” of the planet?
Then, in the early 1990s, we stuck our noses into Kuwait and Iraq. We killed a few thousand people with our firepower. We lost just short of 400 kids. At that time, Osama bin Laden warned us to leave Muslim lands. Several other imams demanded that we leave Muslim lands or face jihad. We didn’t believe them because we felt immune to the law of cause and effect.
In 1993, Muslims tried to bomb the World Trade Towers at the basement level. They failed while bin Laden again warned us to leave Muslim lands. We still didn’t listen in 1993. We do not listen in 2011 at what costs to our young men and women? Answer: 4,200 American soldier (kids) deaths and 42,000 maimed.
On September 11, 2001, not Afghanistan and not Iraq, but 17 of the 19 men from Saudi Arabia hijacked our airplanes and flew them into the towers, Pentagon and a Pennsylvania cornfield. Some very cogent proof shows that 9/11 was an inside job and that someone in high places concocted the entire terrorist act to get us into another war. Building #7 collapsed because it was rigged with explosives.
From there we have bombed and killed tens of thousands of “insurgents” in that goat herder country of Afghanistan that lacks a single fighter jet or helicopter. Isn’t it amazing how the finest army in the world can’t conquer a bunch of illiterate goat herders and poppy seed growers?
Then, as usual, the Military Industrial Complex boiled up “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” which allowed George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to start bombing a country that did not have any weapons of mass destruction. They used and made a fool out of General Colin Powell. Subsequently, Bush/Cheney killed hundreds of thousands as they created 2.5 million refugees and contaminated Iraq’s soil and water with depleted uranium “shock and awe” bombs. I charge George W. Bush and coward Dick “five draft deferments from Vietnam” Cheney with crimes against humanity. Their total arrogance in the face of Muslim leaders’ warnings borders on Hitler’s megalomania.
In the meantime, Bush and Cheney stroll around their mansions with endless money while our precious, though naïve volunteer soldier/kids walk around with plastic arms, legs and other body parts. Not only that, 100,000 combat soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan will commit suicide in the coming years as well as suffer horrible broken families and orphaned children. Of special note, one young man this past week earned the Medal of Honor while millions more earned a PTSD diagnosis. (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is another term for having your brains scrambled for life.)
We mourn that dreadful moment on 9/11, yet our own government’s actions and the Military Industrial Complex caused 9/11. Today, we harbor over 572,000 military personnel on over 700 bases in over 100 countries around the world. In effect, we foist our standing army into every corner of the Earth. We push our empire onto everybody else’s country without merit and without reason.
The results: as a nation, we’re broke, in-debt and spiritually vacuous. We suffer 14 million unemployed while spending $12 billion monthly for two wars of 10 years. Our schools turn out illiterate kids and our country suffers from insidious malaise such as “flash mobs.”
Our Congress features a 12 percent approval rating and our president suffers from a 46 percent approval
rating, worst in the modern era. He has failed on every pledge to get Americans back to work and bring peace to our country. Obama’s Nobel Peace prize is a contradiction as he added to and lengthened the war in Afghanistan. His floundering represents our floundering. What could that $12 billion monthly war bill do for our citizens within our country? Plenty! We have spent over $1 trillion blowing up two ancient countries.
As you now appreciate, 9/11 didn’t occur out of the ether. By our apathy and refusal to listen to Muslim demands to leave their countries, our government and the Military Industrial Complex caused 9/11. We’re accountable because we supported Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and Iraq with our silence and apathy.
Taking responsibility powers change for a more positive outcome. Doing nothing as we citizens have done for 50 years—allows the Military Industrial Complex to continue without pause.
How do we stop our Congress, presidents and the Military Industrial Complex from creating and starting more wars?
1. We need term limits to stop the good old boy network that allows men like Mark Udall, Orrin Hatch, John McCain and Charles Schumer to languish in office for decades, accomplishing little as politicians.
2. Invite fresh minds and statesmen (women) to move our country forward.
3. We must elect presidents that honor the Constitution instead of emotions, hunches or other indolent manners of leadership that start wars.
4. We citizens must cease supporting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with our apathetic complicity.
5. We must abandon our ethnocentric arrogance for a 21st century integrity that understands that all humans matter in their own countries—versus our long standing superior view of America’s power.
May this be America’s time to move toward authentic power with equitable, moral and spiritual actions—understanding that we are part of the human family. To maintain our current imperialism will invite another 9/11.
*******

*******
9/11: What the Telephone Records Reveal about Calls from AA Flight 77: Did Barbara Olson Attempt Any Calls at All?
by Elizabeth Woodworth
Global Research, September 16, 2011
*******
Boeing 767-306/ER (AA Fl. 77) Can 5 men fit in this two-seater cockpit?
*******
Abstract: This essay presents new evidence that further erodes the accepted story of the hijacking of Flight 77 by men with knives and box-cutters. The story of the phone calls from CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, Theodore Olson, then Solicitor General of the United States, was flashed around the world on September 11, 2001, from a CNN interview with Mr. Olson.
This essay closely examines the raw data from the AT&T telephone records, and confirms the work of Dr. David Ray Griffin, who has argued that Barbara Olson’s one attempted call, which was unconnected and lasted “0” seconds, could not have conveyed the hijacker story to her husband.
The essay also includes new information suggesting that the digital technology of the day could have routed the calls that appeared to emanate from Flight 77, from the ground up to the aircraft and back again.
Illuminating information has recently come to light in the form of the raw Claircom (AT&T Wireless) telephone data for AA Flights 11 and 77.
These records, if authentic, present many doubts to the credibility of the telephone calls widely reported in the media between US Solicitor General Ted Olson and his well-known CNN commentator wife, Barbara Olson, who was allegedly aboard Flight 77.
But first, the significance of these purported Olson calls cannot be over-estimated.
Implications of the official interpretation of the raw telephone data for Flight 77:
Two world-changing perceptions were created by Ted Olson’s reports of the Flight 77 telephone calls he received from his wife Barbara.
First, the CNN interview that carried Ted’s description of Barbara’s calls was broadcast around the world later the same day. It instantly created dramatic imagery between two credible public figures whose shocking fates were embraced by a TV-centric world as gospel. Like the sensationally memorable collapses of the Twin Towers, the on-air imagery of these two prominent personalities, people known and recognizable almost as friends, was indelibly imprinted on the American psyche.
Second, Barbara’s phone call conveyed the only report from all the flights that the hijackers were armed with cardboard cutters, which carried the following implications:
“Since unlike guns, metal knives and bombs, it was legal for airline passengers on September 11th 2001 to carry aboard box-cutters and plastic knives, the claim that they used such devices to commandeer the planes that destroyed the World Trade Center is a functional fictoid. Not only does it serve to shield the airlines, airports and airport screeners from massive liability from the victims at the World Trade Center, it protects the Bush Administration by diverting attention away from concern that airport security at three Federally-supervised airports was dangerously lax.”
As Rowland Morgan has remarked, “I think the Olson call(s) were so important that they had to happen.”
Are the raw data authentic?
The data are part of a leaked government document that is housed on the document-sharing website, Scribd (www.scribd.com). Because it has seldom been cited in the 9/11 literature, it will be new to many people.
It takes the form of a fax of an AT&T database printout that was received in a Department of Justice office on September 13, 2001. The fax was later forwarded by the US Assistant Attorney General to the 9/11 Commission Counsel on April 26, 2004.
I will treat the AT&T database printout as authentic, for the following reasons:
It bears the fax imprint, format, font, and page numbers that were typical of fax machines of the day;
Its printout has been examined by a former Claircom system designer, who has written (letter of March 25 2011) that “the elements of the call record data listed in the fax are consistent with my recollection of Claircom call records and how Claircom listed that data in reports.”
It breaks down the calls into non-user-friendly record segments, typical of databases of the day, according to former Telco IT professional David Brown.
If the database printout were a completely forged document, it is difficult to understand what its purpose might have been, for it falls far short of proving that more than one call was completed.
Note that although I believe the database printout itself to be authentic, there is a possibility that it was tampered with, as we shall see below.
What kinds of calls were possible on the Claircom system?
Under normal circumstances the system was designed for a swiped credit card. These calls were designated “swipe and dial” under “Call Type.”
However, after examining the records, the IT executive who designed the system commented: “It looks like some callers used their calling cards to make their calls. Others made the equivalent of 911 emergency calls.”
Notes made on Record 4 (see below) show that it was possible to contact a live operator in the OSPS (Operator Services Position Station) domain, without a card number showing in the card fields at the bottom of the record.
The notes also indicate that collect calls were possible.
Evidently it was possible to bypass the credit card swipe in these ways, by using “Call Type” = “Dial & Dial”.
What do the AT&T primary (raw) records show?
A careful examination of these records shows that they were undoubtedly the primary source of the FBI’s Zacarias Moussaoui trial graphic presentation for seatback calls made from Flights 11 and 77, as seen in the 2006 public trial exhibits.
Note that the time zones in the primary data reflect the location of the various ground stations, whereas the graphic presentations always presuppose the Eastern Time Zone, which is EDT in September.
Several people with information technology backgrounds have examined the raw data and agree that each record represents one of the electronic stages in a telephone call; thus it requires several records to track the routing of a completed call.
These records were reported in clusters on the printout. Each cluster, representing one call, would have a common CSC Call ID, and an identical “Start Time.”
The Moussaoui trial public exhibits identified the callers and recipients of only three calls from Flight 77. Two were allegedly from flight attendant Renee May, and one “unconnected” call of “0 seconds’ was purportedly from Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Only one call from Flight 77 allegedly had any duration – a 158-second call from Renee May to her parents.
Four other lengthy calls, however, were reported as “connected calls to unknown numbers”. The Department of Justice drew the unlikely conclusion that not only was the famous CNN commentator Barbara Olson the only one of 53 passengers aboard Flight 93 to make any calls at all, but that she in fact made all four of these unknown calls to the office of her prominent husband.
However, the raw Claircom data shows a strange and unique irregularity in the calls manually numbered 4 through 7 on the Flight 77 faxed report.
Records 4 through 7 represent one call that started at 07:15:34 (09:15:34 Eastern Time), and lasted 102 seconds. This call was given special attention, with explanatory comments typed into the record to show that the customer dialed a live AT&T Operator (Operator Services Position Station, or OSPS) and that the “Time is not tracked because OSPS bills.”
*******
*******
Because the customer dialed “0”, the typing implied, there was no “Terminating #” (meaning no recipient) except for “0”. The call was then handed off to the AT&T Operator and the “domain” changed to OSPS. This 102-second call, to be billed via the AT&T Operator, was not traceable to a recipient listed on the raw data report, and there was no credit card number showing on it, so the call, as recorded later on the trial exhibit graphic, was deemed to have been made to an “unknown number”.
However, if we look further down the raw data list, at Records 8 and 9, we will see the one call, at 07:18:58 (09:18:58), that was directly attributed to Barbara Olson. Again, the call was placed to “0” for Operator in Record 8,
*******
*******
but in this case the call (of “0” seconds) was subject to an “air party disconnect” (see Record 9) before reaching the OSPS Operator domain. Yet somehow it was claimed to have reached a “terminating” number, as seen in Record 9, and that supposed number appears to have been redacted beneath a square vacant box:
*******
*******
On the corresponding publicly released Moussaoui graphic record (shown below), the call for this time shows the Washington DC (202) prefix and the first three digits of a partially blocked-out telephone number, yet the call was said to have been “unconnected”. If a call is unconnected, would it register a number at all? If not, then this is a contradiction.
Also, why would this number belonging to the Solicitor General, which is a public number, have been blocked out on the Moussaoui Trial graphic?
*******
*******
Finally, why the unknown hand typed “9/11 Personal Privacy”, in a different font to the computer printout, next to the redaction on Record 9?
These contradictions, along with the raw data records for call 4-7 above, on which were written the information that an operator-dialed call would not show time tracking or a recipient number, would suggest that the redacted number on the Olson call may not in fact have been under the redaction, and that the number partially visible on the Moussaoui trial graphic, which was based on the raw data, was contrived.
If we turn our attention to the other three Flight 77 calls to “unknown numbers” on the graphic record, we see one at 09:20:15 for 274 seconds; one at 09:25:48 for 159 seconds, and one at 9:30:56 for 260 seconds.
On the raw data reports, the 07:20:15 (09:20:15) call, represented by records manually numbered 10-15, was also an Operator-placed call, and did not show any recipient number, or time tracking. Instead, the AT&T Operator’s office, as noted on the (4-7) call, retained these records for billing purposes.
Similarly call 07:25:48 – or 09:25:48 EDT – (manually numbered 16-19) was Operator-dialed and showed no recipient.
And the third call, 07:30:56 – or 09:30:56 EDT – (manually numbered 20-23) was also an Operator-dialed number showing no recipient.
These three Operator-dialed calls are identical in pattern to the call manually numbered 4-7, which had the typed explanations on it. And yet the only identified call, the “Olson” call (Records 8 and 9), manifested the same pattern of calls 4-7 having no record of time tracking, and no credit card charges.
If the number 202-514-XXX shown on the Moussaoui Trial graphic received a telephone call at this time, what is there to prove that it was from Barbara Olson on Flight 77?
It seems unavoidable that the “Olson” call to the “redacted” number (which was operator-dialed) lasted “0” seconds and showed no time tracking, was among the calls placed to unknown numbers, and that there is no way to conclusively link it to Barbara Olson.
It also seems unavoidable that there is no reason to believe that Barbara Olson made calls to any of these unknown numbers. These calls were reportedly placed from different handsets (i.e., CSC Call ID numbers) than the single 09:18:58 call (Records 8-9) that was attributed to her in the Moussaoui trial evidence based on these records.
The last “unknown number call” the 9/11 Commission attributed to Barbara Olson took place from 09:30:56 to 09:35:16, at which time there was an “air party disconnect” shown on the primary record.
However, according to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) report on Flight 77, at 9:34 AM when the plane was at 7,000 feet and 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, it began a 330-degree descending right turn, entering a steep spiral dive before crashing into the Pentagon at 9:37:45.
Yet there was no mention by Ted Olson or his staff of this dramatic change in course, which reportedly took place for a full minute during the alleged telephone call from Barbara.
What other telephone records could have been consulted?
The Department of Justice allegedly left no stone unturned in its efforts to trace the telephone calls from the 9/11 flights. The findings of the 2004 report, “Department of Justice briefing on cell and phone calls from Flight 77”, were derived from an exhaustive study of the phone records, and from interviews conducted with family members of passengers and crew.
We must therefore ask why, since the Flight 77 calls were so extensively researched by the DOJ, did the government not report the full details of the “unknown calls”, which could have been obtained through the AT&T operator, where we are told on primary records 4-7 that they would have been billed from?
Or, if the calls were collect, as was indicated as a possibility on the typed notes (“Collect or credit card could have been used”), why were the calls not verified as showing up on the Solicitor General’s account?
This inexplicable failure to report on such obvious aspects of the investigation strongly suggests a cover-up.
Other evidence has been presented to support this possibility.
To cover up questionable calls from Barbara Olson on the primary telephone records, all that was needed to bring them into line with the claim that Olson had called her husband was to insert the redaction square that covered the seemingly non-existent number of the “0-second” call.
The AT&T raw data records above do not verify that Barbara Olson made a call to the Solicitor General’s office – nor has telephone record verification been advanced from other sources.
Until the government produces such routinely kept records, the evidence points to the reported calls to Ted Olson’s office as having come from somewhere else.
Where might the calls have come from?
Three people in the Solicitor General’s office and two AT&T operators reported having had contact with the Olson calls from Flight 77.
Renee May’s parents also reported receiving a phone call from their daughter.
How is it possible to reconcile these reports with the lack of substantiating telephone records?
Perhaps we need to look outside the box. The fact that people received these calls does not necessarily mean that the calls were made from Flight 77.
Just as it has come to light in a recent study that over a dozen aircraft were unwittingly transmitting the hijack code (7500) on the morning of 9/11 [29], it has also come to light that in 2001, “it was theoretically possible to route an [AT&T] call from one location, through a ground site, to an aircraft and then back down to another ground site.”
If this was possible, then the voice morphing of two calls from Barbara Olson and one call from Renee May, and routing them from the ground through Flight 77 and back, would not have been out of the question.
It would certainly explain why the billing records were not available.
What about the calls we can actually listen to?
There are only two calls for which public recordings have been released: the first four minutes of the 27-minute Betty Ong call from Flight 11, and the 45-second CeeCee Lyles voice-mail from Flight 93.
The CeeCee Lyles Voice-Mail from Flight 93:
Flight attendant CeeCee Lyles was reported to have left voice-mail for her husband Lorne Lyles at their home at 9:47:57 AM.
Though the primary phone records for United Airlines Flight 93, which used the GTE aircraft communications system, are available, they are much more difficult to interpret than the Claircom records, and the call is difficult to verify there. However, the Moussaoui trial graphic shows this alleged airphone call, plus a cell phone call.
The recording of the 45-second voice-mail call was publicly released and may be heard on the Moussaoui trial website. The call has a studied quality to it, and is unnatural in its choice of words for the circumstances, in that CeeCee says to her husband, “Please tell my children that I love them very much.”
However, according to a news report in late October, 2001:
“After coaxing soft-spoken, handsome police dispatcher Lorne Lyles to join the force in 1997, she married him three years later and made his sons, Justin and Jordan, her own.”
Though CeeCee had two children of her own, it seems very odd that she would, while calling him “Babe” every few seconds, use this formal wording, to distinguish only her own children – rather than saying “tell the kids” – on what she thought might be her final call to him.
Other reasons to suggest that this phone call was simulated include CeeCee Lyles’ apparently simulated Florida driver’s license that was allegedly found at the crash site of Flight 93. This license was a duplicate, issued in 1997 under her married name to Lyles. However, at that time she was still married to her second husband, three years before she married Lyles in 2000. That this “duplicate” drivers license was found at all is highly questionable, considering the report of a volunteer fireman at the scene, who saw “debris everywhere, pieces of metal, paper, insulation, wiring, and I just looked around, and no people, and I’m thinking, ‘where are the people?’”
In summary, if people were at work simulating calls for the September 11th flights, some of these simulations could have been prepared in advance. The fabricators, knowing the routes flown regularly by flight attendants, could have easily captured voice samples for the regular stewards on the four routes, and prepared non-interactive calls for them. Then, on the morning of the 11th, they could have selected the calls prepared for the people who were scheduled for duty that day and used those. If the call was answered, they could cut if off; if it was not answered, it could be left as voice-mail.
The CeeCee Lyles call, which has a scripted, unreal quality to it, would fit the description of a call prepared in this manner.
The Betty Ong call from Flight 11:
The Ong call was made at 8:18:47 AM PDT to a remote American Airlines ticket reservation and sales office in Cary, North Carolina, where, instead of being transferred to her flight service department at Logan Airport (which is where her fellow flight attendant Amy Sweeney called), her call was held for 27 minutes by people untrained to deal with an emergency, until 8:45:47, 53 seconds before Flight 11 crashed at 8:46:40 AM.
Additionally, the Ong call, which was the longest and most informative of all the 9/11 calls, was made to an office that would not know or recognize Betty Ong’s voice.
The 4-minute recording is highly questionable in that:
Ong begins by saying she is on Flight 12, not 11;
The call is disjointed and confused – almost as if it were non-interactive in places – with Ong giving “replies” unrelated to the questions she is asked, e.g.,
Sadler: “Ma’am what seat are you in?”
Ong: “We’re…we just left Boston we’re up in the air.”
Ong fails to provide her seat number until asked a fourth time. She says “we can’t breathe in business class”, which is near the front, yet says that she is sitting in her jump-seat at the rear of the plane;
Ong is inexplicably calm throughout her reports of multiple stabbings and Mace;
Ong asks someone returning from business class, which people have been stabbed. An unidentified background voice, sounding almost cheerful, says “I don’t know, but Karen and Bobbie got stabbed.”
Ong refers to the intruders as “they”, but never describes them, or is asked to describe them, and claims that “they” are in the cockpit (apparently all five of them, with the pilots. Three photos of a Boeing 767 cockpit make this claim ludicrous).
Though Ong later reported that the first class and business class passengers were moved to the rear to coach class, no one seemed to know anything about the hijackers;
Ong’s reported Mace should have debilitated the hijackers as well as the crew and passengers;
The passengers are not audible in the background, though they had been plagued by stabbings and Mace, and not one of the 76 passengers was reported as having made a phone call, though there were seatback phones available in AA Boeing 767s in 2001;
Both the pilot and the first officer failed to punch in the hijack code while the intruders were reportedly breaking down the locked cockpit door.
The foregoing oddities and contradictions strongly suggest a fabricated call to the remote and unlikely AA reservations desk by someone using a sample of Betty Ong’s voice. Most of the recording was interactive and therefore probably occurred in real time, but it may not have originated, digitally, from Flight 11.
How the Ong and Lyles Call Irregularities Affect the Olson “Calls”:
In light of the non-interactive sequences in the Ong and Lyle calls, a re-examination of the testimony from Lori Lynn Keyton, the secretary who transferred Barbara Olson’s “hysterical” calls (whereas Ted said that Barbara “did not seem panicked” ) to her husband, seems relevant. Keyton was rushed by the hysteria, cut Barbara off, and put the calls right through. There was evidently no back-and-forth discussion. It was one-sided.
Thus the Olson calls to recipients other than Ted Olson did not have to be interactive, and could have been simulated anytime before 9/11, using readily available voice samples from the famous CNN commentator, and then routed up from the ground into the Flight 77 Claircom system at the strategically required time.
Conclusion:
As things stand, the whole question of phone calls from the doomed flights is so fraught with contradictions and impossibilities that it is time to stand back and start asking how digital technology, possibly from within the military or intelligence community, may have been used to subvert our perceptions of what actually happened that morning.
*******
The "Critics" of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, September 13, 2011
The short answer to the question in the title is no.
The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.
Let’s examine the case against "the truthers" presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.
But first let’s define who "the truthers" are.
The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of "9/11 conspiracy theorists".
Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.
Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.
9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.
For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.
The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.
The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by
professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.
It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones.
It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.
It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.
The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists.
When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.
When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.
When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel--and their testimony is backed up with photographs--in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there.
When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.
When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.
It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.
That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.
What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says: “Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29113.htm
Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?
Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.
Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one
phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here. http://barnhardt.biz/
Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”
Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable. Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris
she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.
Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.
Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because Dick Cheney’s agents--scores of them--methodically planted demolition charges.”
Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”
Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.
Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon--they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both--stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”
If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.
I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.
Cockburn’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.
Cockburn's willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.
Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.
Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?
They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.
Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.
There is no 9/11 debate.
On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.
The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.
*******

*******
September 11, 2001: The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11: Creating the Osama bin Laden "Legend"
by Chaim Kupferberg
Global Research, September 11, 2011
This incisive and carefully researched article was first published more than nine years ago by Global Research on June 13, 2002 (revised 19 September 2002). The original URL of this article was http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html
"My hypothesis: that the events of September 11 were planned by those who not only had the motive, means, and opportunity to carry out the plan, but also were best placed to manage the consequences stemming from it, as well as managing the flow of information. If this were an "inside job", the first thing to do was to look at who conveyed specific information on bin Laden before - and I stress, before - 9/11, for they were most likely involved wittingly or not with those who masterminded it.
"Read for yourself, and decide, at the end of the day, how much credibility you will continue to accord to those who claim to be the proper trustees of your fate and well-being." (Chaim Kupferberg, June 2002)
The mystery surrounding the death of John O'Neill
In the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the finger of guilt was directed toward the only plausible author for such a sophisticated and ruthless act of terror - Osama bin Laden.
Throughout the late '90's, we were informed that bin Laden had declared war on America by reason of the American military presence on Saudi soil in the wake of the Persian Gulf War. We were told how bin Laden, ensconced in Afghanistan, headed up a world-wide terror franchise whose sophistication and global reach dwarfed that of the Iranian-financed Hizballah or Islamic Jihad (previously, the most widely known of the terror organizations among the masses in the Middle East). Bin Laden's organization, al-Qaida, was presented to us as something entirely new in the annals of terrorism - a far-flung, sophisticated empire of terror, possessing - possibly - weapons of mass destruction, while having no clear or viable state sponsor behind it (as the Afghani Taliban were merely its resident protectors). In short, by September 11, the United States now had a bona fide enemy - and, as they say in criminal justice parlance, a suspect with motive, means, and opportunity.
And while I was a bit taken at how quickly - and confidently - the fingers were pointing only hours after the
9/11 bombings, I was positively shaken by the first red flag that popped up. His name was John O'Neill - or more precisely, he is the seam that shows. Dated September 12, in a Washington Post article by Vernon Loeb, it was revealed that O'Neill, who died in his capacity as head of security for the World Trade Center, was also formerly the New York FBI Counterterror chief responsible for the investigation into Osama bin Laden. That could perhaps be written off as one of those freak synchronicities. There were the other items - reported quite blandly, in that "there's nothing to see here, folks" tone - that gave me that sinking feeling. Apparently, O'Neill had a falling-out with the Ambassador to Yemen over his investigative style and was banned from returning there. But then there was that other nugget that I had trouble digesting - that O'Neill had resigned from a thirty-year career in the FBI "under a cloud" over an incident in Tampa - and then left to take up the security position at the WTC (only two weeks before!).
The seam that shows...
For the bulk of his career, like most of his FBI colleagues, John O'Neill was largely unknown to the public at large - respected in his circle, to be sure, yet scarcely meriting much mention in the media - beyond being referenced now and then as an expert on counterterrorism. Yet in the few months leading up to September 11, O'Neill was now suddenly the subject of a series of seemingly unrelated controversies - the first, in July, involving his dispute with the State Department over the conduct of the bin Laden investigation in Yemen; and the second, in August, in which he was reported to be under an FBI probe for misplacing a briefcase of classified documents during an FBI convention in Tampa.
In the light of the aftermath of this second controversy - the documents were found, "untouched", a few hours later - one wonders why this seemingly minor news would merit such lengthy coverage in the Washington Post and New York Times. Keeping in mind the fact that these latter articles on O'Neill appeared a mere three weeks before he was to die in the rubble of the Twin Towers, one wonders if this wasn't a well-orchestrated smear campaign against O'Neill, with a bit of unintended "blowback" - as this now-discredited counterterror chief in charge of all bin Laden bombings would finally make the news as a fatal casualty of bin Laden's final bombing. Coincidence? Or was there something more here that would bear investigating?
My gut told me that, in the months preceding September 11, somebody was out to either discredit John O'Neill or, alternatively, to plant disinformation that could later be used to divert any investigator from a fruitful reconstruction of the forces behind 9/11. Or, quite possibly, was a mistake made - one pointing the way toward a plan whose scope goes well beyond the designs of Osama bin Laden? In other words, could we spot the telltale fingerprints of a propaganda campaign preceding 9/11?
Well, as they say, a hypothesis is only as good as its usefulness in ferreting out reality. My hypothesis: that the events of September 11 were planned by those who not only had the motive, means, and opportunity to carry out the plan, but also were best placed to manage the consequences stemming from it, as well as managing the flow of information. If this were an "inside job", the first thing to do was to look at who conveyed specific information on bin Laden before - and I stress, before - 9/11, for they were most likely involved wittingly or not with those who masterminded it.
Virtually the first "smoking gun" was presented the day after 9/11, when Vernon Loeb and Dan Eggen reported in the Post that Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the Al-Quds al Arabi newspaper in London, "received information that he [bin Laden] planned very, very big attacks against American interests" only three weeks before 9/11. Moreover, the article reported that Atwan "was convinced that Islamic fundamentalists aligned with bin Laden were 'almost certainly' behind the attacks." Incidentally, Atwan had personally interviewed bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1996 - among the very few to do so. As reported by Michael Evans in the August 24, 1998 issue of The Times, Atwan "is trusted by bin Laden."
Curious, perhaps, that Atwan seemed to be one of the major "point men" used in elaborating the Osama bin Laden "legend", as they say in intelligence parlance. In a U.S. News article dated August 31, 1998, Atwan informs us that bin Laden "is a humble man who lives simply, eating fried eggs, tasteless low-fat cheese, and bread gritty with sand. He hates America." No flash in the pan, this interviewer. Apparently, bin Laden kept Atwan's business card tucked away in his toga pocket. "Bin Laden phoned this newspaper, phoned me last Friday," Atwan revealed in an ABC News LateLine Transcript dated August 25, 1998. We'll come back to ABC News shortly.
While solidly implicating bin Laden the day after 9/11, Atwan was also the media's "go-to" guy back in 1998
when he informed us, after President Clinton bombed tool sheds in Afghanistan, that bin Laden issued this threat against the United States: "The battle has not started yet. The response will be with action and not words." In the same article (which I took from Nando Times), ABC News is the source for an additional threat called in by Ayman al-Zawahiri, a senior bin Laden aide: "The war has just started. The Americans should wait for the answer." Only a few months before that, ABC had conducted its televised interview of bin Laden. By the summer of 1998, primed by Atwan, ABC NEWS, and a surprisingly small clique of well-worn sources, we had come to know bin Laden as America's latest "Saddam", "Qaddafi", "Noriega" - take your pick and set your bomb sites.
By October 2000, when the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in Yemen, in case there was any doubt, Atwan offered Reuters his helpful analysis with regards to the source of blame: "I do not rule out that this was undertaken by Osama bin Laden. Yemeni groups don't have the experience to carry out this kind of operation." Atwan informed Reuters that bin Laden "was unlikely to claim direct responsibility for Thursday's attack for fear of U.S. reprisals." One can imagine, then, that Atwan gave his trusting phone mate cause for many a sleepless night. With friends like these...
Leading up to 9/11, by the Spring of 2001, an incriminating wedding videotape, apparently implicating bin Laden in the Yemen bombing, was circulating around the Middle East after being broadcast on the ubiquitous al-Jazeera television station (reconstituted from the BBC TV Arabic Service - more on them later). In the video, bin Laden, according to the Saudi-owned al-Hayat newspaper (more on them later, too), recited a poem celebrating the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (shades of deja vu here?) This from the ABCNEWS.com site dated March 1: "Al-Hayat, which carried a photo of bin Laden and his son at the wedding, said its correspondent was the only journalist at the ceremony, also attended by bin Laden's mother, two brothers and sister who flew to Kandahar from Saudi Arabia."
And yes, here, too, Atwan offers his thoughtful review of the bin Laden video, courtesy of PTI, datelined London June 22, 2001: "[Atwan] said the video was proof that the fugitive Saudi millionaire [the Bruce
Wayne of terrorists] was fit, well equipped and confident enough to send out a call to arms." Why this sudden need for proof? According to Atwan in the same article: "There have been rumours that [bin Laden] is ill and that he is being contained by the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is quite clear from the film that he is in good health to the point where he can fire a rifle, and is free to operate as he chooses." In other words, limber enough for his starring role in the months ahead.
So who is Abdel Bari Atwan and why is he anxious to tell us so much? According to the Winter 1999 issue of INEAS (Institute of Near Eastern and African Studies), Abdel Bari Atwan, a Palestinian, was born in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip in 1950. Educated at the American University of Cairo, Atwan moved to Saudi Arabia and worked as a writer for the al-Madina newspaper. In 1978, he moved to London, where he became a correspondent for the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. In 1988, after shuffling around between Saudi-owned papers, Atwan was offered a position as editor of al-Quds al-Arabi. By his account, he was offered a position as the executive editor of the Saudi-owned al-Hayat (of the bin Laden wedding video coup), yet turned it down to produce a more independent newspaper as a challenge to the "empires" of the Saudi-dominated dailies.
Al-Quds began production in April 1989. A little more than a year later, Saddam invaded Kuwait and al-Quds stood alone as the only Arab newspaper opposed to the Persian Gulf War - at least by Atwan's account. According to Atwan: "Without the Gulf War, we wouldn't have taken such political lines, which made us well recognized and well respected." In November 1996, Bari-Atwan braved a twelve-hour car ride through muddy roads, attired in shabby Afghani rags in below-zero weather, and gave us the early scoop on bin Laden, conducting a one-on-one interview in bin Laden's [bat]cave. From then on, the mainstream media - CNN, ABC, BBC, Sky News - looked to Bari-Atwan and al-Quds as the "independent" voice of the Arab street.
Incidentally, in a discussion concerning the matter of Saudi domination of the Arabic media, taken from the
Carryon.oneworld.org site, Atwan, as editor of his struggling independent, was facing off against Jihad Khazen, the editor of the Saudi-owned al-Hayat. As Atwan proudly related in support of his independence: "One day I was called by the BBC-TV Arabic service [whose staff later reconstituted itself as al-Jazeera television]: 'There's a story on your front page today, saying such and such. Is it true?' I asked why he should doubt it and he replied: 'It's not published in al-Hayat [his job offer] or al-Sharq al-Awsat [his alma mater].' " Atwan boasts: "At least I can say we are 95 to 96 per cent independent" - leaving out the 4 to 5 per cent spent on bin Laden, I presume. Whether or not al-Quds truly is independent, this is the cover story the mainstream media buys into when they come trolling for their "independent" evidence.
So, to elaborate further on this (so far) fruitful hypothesis, it is my contention that al-Qaida and bin Laden are elaborate "legends" set up to promote a plausibly sophisticated and ferocious enemy to stand against American interests. I am not, however, implying that bin Laden himself is a total fabrication. Rather, it is my contention that confederates, believing themselves to act on behalf of bin Laden, are being set up in a "false flag operation" to perform operations as their controllers see fit. And who are these controllers? If they're anything resembling the folks who brought you Hizbullah and Hamas, you wouldn't be sweating the suitcase nukes (made in America), the Ames strain anthrax (made in America), the MI5-like "sleeper agents" and coded "go" messages. Instead, you would be dodging primitive nail bombs and road mines - and not needing Abdel Bari Atwan to feed you the lowdown on the blame.
In view of the fact that bin Laden is of Saudi origin, that much of the "evidence" on the Arab side initially originated from Saudi-owned or Gulf Anglo-client state sources, and that Saudi Arabia is the major financial sponsor of the Taliban brand of fundamentalism in Afghanistan (as a counter-point to Iran), I believe it is fair to say that Saudi Arabia might possibly be implicated. " Most likely, the Saudis performed their roles as subservient proxies. We'll get to the ultimate controllers soon enough (if you haven't already guessed where this is going). And now, to fill out the picture further, it is necessary to name an equally essential partner as proxy - Pakistan, or, more specifically, Pakistan's version of the CIA - the ISI (Interservices Intelligence Directorate).
And this is where we begin to "close the circle" of our close-knit pre-9/11 propaganda clique. Returning again to the above-mentioned Dan Eggen and Vernon Loeb Post article of September 12, we're offered - in a powerful little side-bar - more critical evidence implicating bin Laden for the attacks the day before. This time, the bombshell is offered by Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail, Abu Dhabi Television's bureau chief in Islamabad. According to Ismail, a bin Laden aide called him "early Wednesday on a satellite telephone from a hide-out in Afghanistan," praising the attack yet denying any responsibility for it. As it turns out, Ismail was also among the select few to conduct his very own bin Laden interview, published by Newsweek in its April 1, 1999 issue. Here is how Newsweek described Ismail's good fortune: "Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail's mobile phone rang just before prayers on December 18. 'Peace be upon you, ' said the voice on the line. 'You may not recognize me, but I know you.' " And thus was Jamal Ismail invited on his own mud-soaked incursion to the bin Laden [bat]cave.
Searching deeper, I found an interesting obscure article penned by respected Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufszai in The News Jang, and dated May 3, 2000. It details the detention of two men of Kurdish origin, accused by the Taliban of spying for American and Israeli intelligence. As Yusufszai relates it, he spoke to the only journalists allowed by the Taliban to interview the detained men - Jamal Ismail and his cameraman. Apparently, Ismail had a special relationship with the Taliban, allowing him this rare privilege above other journalists. And, as we shall shortly see, so does Yusufszai. One wonders who debriefs them at the end of a workday. But more interestingly, by May 5, as reported by Kathy Gannon for the Associated Press, the story acquires - as they say - "new legs." Not only are the basic elements of the Yusufszai story mentioned, but the article leads off with the bombshell that one of the detained men revealed that he was recruited by the United States to find Osama bin Laden. It finishes with a little coda implicating bin Laden in the 1998 embassy bombings. Thus, in the space of two days, Yusufszai's Pakistani "spy" article sprouts a bin Laden addition when fertilized by the American Associated Press - and nicely provides a plausible explanation as to why a Kurd would be prowling around Afghanistan on behalf of the United States.
Yusufszai, incidentally, moonlighted as an ABC News producer, charged with guiding ABC News correspondent John Miller through the Afghani marshes to the bin Laden [bat]cave - one of the very few American journalists to be accorded such an honour (and also, as it happens, a good friend of bin Laden arch-foe John O'Neill. But not chummy enough to direct O'Neill on to bin Laden's hideaway). Moreover, Ismail and Yusufszai are mentioned together in a CNN article posted January 4, 1999 - the former for his Newsweek interview, the latter for his own bin Laden dialogue for TIME Magazine the day later.
Rahimullah Yusufszai, regarded by New York Times reporters John Burns and Steve LeVine as "one man who has seen more of the Taliban than any other outsider," is also named by The Nation, in its article of January 27, 1997, as "one of the favourite journalists of [Pakistan's] ISI...one of the organizations funding and arming the Taliban. "
It's a small world after all. In the September 29, 2001 article of PressPlus, Yusufszai's ABC colleague, John Miller, mused about running into his buddy John O'Neill in Yemen while reporting on the U.S.S. Cole bombing the year before. "He said, 'So this is the Elaine's of Yemen.' "
"There is a terrible irony to all this," Miller said. I'll say: Miller, one of the very few Americans who can give a first-hand account of bin Laden, bumps into his friend, bin Laden's chief investigator, while both are investigating a bombing in Yemen that will later be tagged onto bin Laden - and only a year before O'Neill dies at the hands of... allegedly ...bin Laden.
Now, following the logic of my hypothesis, if the bin Laden threat was, pre-9/11, a close-knit propaganda campaign, one would expect to find the same names showing up repeatedly in combination with one another. This, too, applies to the American commentators. Let us return to the August 1998 American bombings of bin Laden's tool sheds as an example. The night of the bombing, Rahimullah Yusufszai received a call from bin Laden aide Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a report from the Associated Press. Later, Yusufszai obtained for ABC News exclusive photos of the damage to bin Laden's camp. Further commentary describing the layout of the bin Laden camp was furnished to the Washington Post by former CIA analyst and terrorism expert Kenneth Katzman, as well as Harvey Kushner of Long Island University. Only little more than a week before that, Katzman and Kushner were offering their assessment of bin Laden's culpability for the embassy bombings in Africa in a Washington Post article penned by Vernon Loeb and Walter Pincus. They were joined in this effort by Vincent Cannistraro, the ABC news analyst who also escorted John Miller to his bin Laden interview, as well as provided running commentary in the days immediately following 9/11. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, provided covert aid to the Afghani mujaheddin in the late '80's, as well as supervised CIA operations with the contras. He was also one of the point men in the notoriously circumspect investigation at Lockerbie. In the above-noted Loeb and Pincus article - in which bin Laden is quoted from the ABC News Miller and Yusufszai interview - Cannistraro weighs in with his assessment of the embassy bombings: "I believe Osama bin Laden is the sponsor of this operation, and I think all of the indications are pointing that way."
Soon after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, a Vernon Loeb Post article, dated October 13, 2000, proceeded to implicate bin Laden through the detailed information provided by Kushner, Katzman, and Cannistraro. Earlier, in a Vernon Loeb Post article dated July 3, 2000, Yusufszai, Kushner, and Cannistraro unveiled bin Laden aides Ayman al-Zawahiri and Muhammed Atef as the men to watch as bin Laden's likely successors, with a helpful tidbit on the Zawahiri biography thrown in by the Saudi-owned al-Sharq al-Awsat.
None of the above, of course, is offered as the "smoking gun" pointing the way to a propaganda conspiracy, nor are my chosen examples meant to be exhaustive in evidencing this point. According to Felicity Barringer, in a New York Times article dated September 24, 2001: "A good deal of the public information on bin Laden comes from the journalists who went to Afghanistan to interview him, including [Peter] Bergen, ... Peter Arnett, John Miller, Rahimullah Yusufzai, and Jamal Ismail." The article further makes reference to Vernon Loeb, Al Quds al-Arabi (Atwan), Judith Miller, Al Jazeera, and Brian Jenkins (formerly of Kroll Associates - the security firm that obtained the WTC position for John O'Neill by way of Jerry Hauer). Clearly, I have also not heretofore made mention of the other experts who have worked assiduously toward building our knowledge base on bin Laden - Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Yossef Bodansky, and various British and EU elites. However, the above examples do show how the information flow on bin Laden could be plausibly managed by the skilfully placed revelations of a relatively insular clique of "experts" called upon repeatedly by the mainstream media.
Here is how it would work: A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the "scoops" that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources - the four TV networks, TIME, Newsweek, CNN - where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain. In other countries, this is what is known as propaganda - or, put less politely, psychological warfare.
But before I leave this topic, I would like to provide an example of "news management" that is revealing for what is omitted - that is, the "smoking gun" of Pakistani ISI involvement in the events of 9/11. On October 9, 2001, the Times of India dropped this little bombshell: "Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that [ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad] lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmud."
What makes this particular piece so devastating is that only days before, much of the mainstream American media was touting the news of a "key link" in the chain of evidence linking bin Laden to the events of September 11 - namely, a $100,000 wire transfer to the hijackers from a shadowy operative linked to bin Laden. Yet once this operative was "outed" as being linked instead to the Pakistani ISI Chief, any propaganda gains initially made through this evidence would now crumble. One possible reason might stem from this Karachi News item, released only two days before September 11:
"[Pakistani] ISI Chief Lt-Gen Mahmood's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, State Department sources say he is on a routine visit in return to [sic] CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad...What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmood's predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by Mahmood in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys..."
In other words, this was a propaganda piece that went disastrously wrong. After October 9, bin Laden's alleged paymaster could now be linked to a U.S. "ally" who spent the days before 9/11 in deep consultation at the Pentagon. The US authorities immediately went into damage control mode by insisting on the quiet retirement of the "outed" ISI chief. Thus removed from the public eye, the ISI Chief's role in all this could be effectively ignored, and an American media black-out could be safely assumed.
Such a scenario certainly fits in snugly with my hypothesis, which I will now proceed to elaborate completely. The events of September 11 were masterminded by those who were in the best position to manage the consequences - namely, those most able to manage the flow of information, those most able to coordinate all the elements necessary for the perpetration of a successful operation (subverting airport security, guiding the planes to their specific targets), and most significantly, those who stood to reasonably benefit in the aftermath. Conspiracies, by their very nature, are not crimes of passion. They may involve rational, albeit cold-blooded, attempts to achieve a desired end by employing the most effective means available. It is for this reason that "mainstream" terror groups like Hamas and Hizbullah largely avoid attacking American interests where such attacks would serve no practical interest. For all their talk of Jihad, these terror groups tend to plan their specific attacks with an eye to the consequences that could reasonably be expected to follow. Thus, knowing the moral and political constraints of Israeli deterrent strategies, they calibrate their attacks to elicit consequences that are most tolerable for them - and hence, manageable. Yet surely, in the light of the cult of suicidal martyrdom, such considerations no longer hold sway. Perhaps. But then, in the case of such a far-flung anti-Zionist movement as al-Qaida, one would expect at least a little more exertion against Israeli interests than has heretofore prevailed - unless, of course, the "point" of al-Qaida was to provide a plausible dire threat to American interests where none had then existed. In any case, as nobody has noticed this particular anomaly, there was no need for any needless exertion of resources in order to bolster a credibility that needed no bolstering in this one particular sector.
Motive, means, and opportunity. While I presented the Saudis and Pakistani intelligence as clear-cut proxies, the only motive these elements would have to benefit from a crime of this nature is an assurance that no punishment would be forthcoming but rather, they would be on the right side of power and wealth among those in a position to determine the booty.
Another anomaly: on the very day that the ISI Chief was in deep consultation at the Pentagon, Ahmed Shah Massoud, the head of the Afghani Northern Alliance - a cultishly popular figure within that group, and a mortal foe of Pakistan's ISI - was assassinated by two terrorists posing as cameramen. Keeping in mind the fact that, throughout the '90's, American leaders such as Clinton, and American companies such as Unocal, were largely throwing their support over to the Taliban in opposition to the Northern Alliance (or United Front), it seems rather convenient that, in the aftermath of 9/11, the way was now cleared for the Northern Alliance to be co-opted as an instrument for setting up a more pliant Afghani government (now headed, incidentally, by a former consultant to Unocal).
So who are the ultimate controllers? To begin with, the circumstantial evidence seems to point to an operative clique primarily based out of New York City and the State of Florida. I stress the word "operative", as this clique appears to consist of subservient agents involved in laying the preparations. Once again, John O'Neill serves as an effective Rosetta Stone in interpreting the raw outlines of this operative clique (which is by no means a "rogue" clique). The FBI and CIA elements involved in counterterrorism have a checkered past. For one, Oliver North in the 1980's served as Counterterrorism Chief while he used his office as a cover to deal with such narco-terrorists as Monzar al-Kassar (who figures in the crash at Lockerbie - also investigated by Cannistraro). In the late '90's, O'Neill was transferred from the federal office of Counterrorism to the New York Counterrorism Office of the FBI - and it was the New York branch which was then designated as the primary investigator of all overseas investigations involving bin Laden. Moreover, this branch was also involved in the somewhat suspect investigation of TWA 800 - investigated by O'Neill and reported upon by ABC's John Miller, who was formerly the Deputy Police Commissioner of Public Relations for the NYPD before he joined up with ABC.
As regards New York, there is another element involved in germ warfare operations. Actually, a multi-million dollar bunker - serving as a command and control center in the event of a biological attack - was set up at 7 World Trade Center at the direction of Rudolph Giuliani, who also oversaw the mass spraying of malathion over the boroughs of New York City when the West Nile Virus hit town a few summers previously. The man Giuliani placed in charge of that operation, Jerry Hauer, also happened to be the man who found John O'Neill the position at the World Trade Center, as well as being the one who - by his own admission - identified O'Neill's body.
Moreover, there has been a widespread campaign on to link the threat of al-Qaida with that of a mass biological attack. At least the day after September 11, the link - as the Anthrax mailings had yet to arise - was not so apparent. Yet on PBS' Frontline, the New York Times' Judith Miller (no apparent relation to John Miller, as far as I'm aware), accompanied by the New York Times' James Risen, was interviewed as an expert on al-Qaida. Several weeks later, Judith Miller would once more make the headlines as the apparent recipient of an anthrax mailing which turned out to be a false alarm - yet was all the same conveniently timed with the well-publicized launching of her book on...germ warfare. As was later discovered, the anthrax mailings petered out once the news leaked that a DNA test revealed the material to be of the Ames strain of anthrax, an agent synthesized out of a CIA laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Nevertheless, this was sufficient to fast-track Bioport's exclusive license for the anthrax vaccine toward FDA approval. Formerly, Bioport's experimental anthrax vaccine was being forcibly administered - under threat of court-martial - to hundreds of thousands of American servicemen (in conformity with Bioport's exclusive and lucrative contract with the Department of Defense).
Incidentally, Judith Miller, along with Jerry Hauer, was among 17 "key" participants in a biowarfare exercise known as "Dark Winter" - a think tank-funded scenario that aimed to study the nationwide effects of a hypothetical smallpox outbreak. One of the sponsors of that exercise was the Anser Institute of Homeland Security, an organization established before September 11, 2001. Interestingly enough, the curious phrase "homeland security" was starting to creep up with increasing frequency in the vocabularies of certain political cliques (Dick Cheney, the Hart-Rudman Commission, et al.) in the year or two leading up to 9/11.
The point of the above-noted information is to draw attention to an apparent propaganda campaign to prepare the public for a catastrophic biological attack. As with the Twin Towers, the blame for any coming attack may be duly and plausibly assigned by those who carefully laid the groundwork in preparing us for this eventuality.
As for Florida, the connection with this state is obvious, for not only was the first anthrax mailing directed to the Florida offices of the National Enquirer, but many of the accused hijackers were also reported to receive their pilot training from flight schools in Venice and Tampa. Notably, it was a Florida bank account to which hijacker Mohamed Atta allegedly deposited his 9/11 pay cheque. Moreover, Florida, by way of the MacDill Air Force Base, is also Central Command for the war in Afghanistan. In addition to its function as Central Command for the war on terrorism, MacDill is -outside of Langley - also a major base of the CIA. Thus, in the CIA's own backyard, we find the infrastructure and financial support that went into the planning for the events of 9/11. And, as we so often find with events surrounding 9/11, another synchronicity - for coincidentally enough, the woman who reportedly happened to find an apartment for one of the alleged hijackers was the wife of the senior editor of the National Enquirer. Moreover, her husband, Michael Irish, also happened to make use of an airfield that reportedly served as flight training for some of the hijackers. I emphasize the word "reportedly," as the possibility always exists that this "reported fact" may be nothing more than disinformation, strategically placed to divert attention from a possibly more subtle truth. In intelligence operations, foreign assets are often placed with resident "controllers" whose job it is to supervise the asset as well as provide accommodations as the need arises. Who are Michael and Gloria Irish? Or, perhaps more revealingly, what kind of social circles do they run with? This is certainly an avenue worth exploring - by reason of its many synchrocities if for nothing else. Again, the seam that shows.
As a little side-note, Tampa experienced its own mass spraying of malathion, a mutagenic pesticide, when it encountered a med fly outbreak the year before New York's West Nile outbreak. In the end, the flies were contained through a sterile med fly program administered out of MacDill Air Force base.
So, to sum up, it appears that the events of September 11 were planned years in advance, with the groundwork being carefully laid by a propaganda campaign orchestrated to convince the public that the United States has a plausibly sophisticated nemesis with the motive, means, and opportunity to perpetrate a devastating act of terror against Americans. Toward that end, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been used as the primary proxy agents to run a "false flag" operation, setting up and financing the infrastructure of al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Through madrassas based in Pakistan, Saudi and Yemenite militants were instructed in the Saudi brand of Wahabbi Islam, and subsequently "graduated" to the camps that were set up in Afghanistan - again, under Saudi and Pakistani sponsorship. Stateside, the operative agents were mostly based out of New York City and Florida. In the aftermath of 9/11, elements in the American government are now widely disseminating information in vast quantities, overwhelming the populace and lending credibility to the government's version of events. Thus, post-9/11, the actions of this formerly insular propaganda clique are no longer perceptible. Information is now being doled out in generous portions to credulous reporters who are outside the loop, yet perform their unwitting service as "bottom feeders" in the downward flow of information.
In all cases, the actions of these proxy agents and operative planners are sufficiently distanced and compartmentalized from the true masterminds to create a condition of "plausible deniability". In short, the proxies have also been set up as possible patsies with evidence that has been carefully laid to incriminate them should cracks in the "official story" become too discernible. Moreover, the groundwork has already been carefully laid to cast aspersions on another convenient patsy - the Jews, by way of the State of Israel and its supporters. Already, for those prone to perceive Jewish conspiracies, the reliable vein of anti-Semitism - combined with anti-Zionism - has been mined to distract the masses and to create a modern version of the ritual blood libel, thereby further "muddying the waters" should the true masterminds be threatened with exposure. In other words, the present difficulties in the Middle East work perfectly to set up the State of Israel as a plausible alternative suspect with motive, means, and opportunity. Toward that end, a low-level "buzz" has been circulating over the Internet (and especially in Europe) of an Israeli spy ring that was rounded up in the days after September 11. Whether or not these reports are credible is not the point. Most likely, there was a spy ring operating, and various Israelis were unwittingly set up as patsies, to be exposed should the need arise. Thus, while evidence may be marshaled to taint the Saudis, Pakistanis, or Israelis, the real guilt must inevitably lie with those in the best position to manage the flow of information as well as reliably benefit from the new order created, primarily, the political and corporate elites of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union - also, as it happens, the very parties orchestrating the global war on terrorism. In this respect, the Saudis, Pakistanis, or Israelis have far less to gain (other than the benefits of going along with the designs of the rich and mighty).
I could go on and further highlight the obvious geostrategic gains of those who are clearly managing the flow of information - the proverbial pipelines, oil, wealth, and so forth. But I think those purported benefits are a bit of a "red herring" - more of a side benefit than the main motivating factor. Americans and their allies would have easily supported a thrust into Afghanistan for a provocation far less costly and bloody than this (such as Kuwait in the early '90's). It is no small act to intentionally take down such an overarching symbol of financial stability as the Twin Towers, and chance killing thousands in the process. Such a conspiracy, if in fact perpetrated from within, would by its nature necessitate a huge structural, cultural, and demographic change. The very brazenness of the act, the naked aggression, would necessitate a tenacious determination to achieve the ends for which these actions were perpetrated. There is no going back now. An infrastructure is being laid out - one that will, finally, provide a dissident-proof totalitarian oligarchy composed of like-minded elites served by an under-class kept under constant surveillance. The edifice of this regime is being constructed, brick by brick, with the mortar of the Office of Homeland Security (to centralize and coordinate an effective police state), the Freedom Corps (to indoctrinate the most idealist - and therefore activist - elements of the populace toward service to the state), and the Patriot Act (to provide the legal basis for subverting long-held rights under the screen of national security). If all of this sounds strangely familiar, if it is redolent of Huxley and Orwell, that is perhaps because Huxley and Orwell were both intimately involved with the elites of their time - in fact, were fully subsumed among them - in ways that made their future projections abundantly prescient, and, in their minds, inevitable. With further refinements in mind control technologies - yes, they do exist - as well as the monopolization of the food supply by way of sterile seed "terminator technology" - the approval for which was granted in the months following 9/11 - the masses may be perpetually culled and exploited by those who hold the keys to this fully managed society.
If this notion of reality strikes you as somewhat dissonant, at odds with your own personal experience, it may be perhaps that we have not quite arrived there yet, and that you have personally not felt the corrosive lash of political corruption and governmental malfeasance. In all likelihood, you have not read the mountain of evidence detailing political and elite deviant behaviour in this country. You may even be dismissive of "conspiracy theories", yet wholly unaware of the well-documented attempts by the CIA and FBI to subvert, surveil, and propagandize the populace through programs such as Project Mockingbird (media infiltration) and MK-Ultra (mind control through chemical, hypnotic, or electro-magnetic means). These programs are effected primarily through "think tanks" that are set up across the United States for the purpose of disseminating information and propaganda under the rubric of "expertise". Moreover, various foundations, such as the Rockefeller or Ford Foundations, are often used as funnels to finance and feed the arteries of these propaganda networks. In the 1970's, a good deal of this structural corruption was officially exposed - in a "limited hang-out" - by way of the Church Commission, as well as the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Thereafter, much of the most damaging revelations were played down or ignored by the mainstream media, and the waters were then muddied by a stream of outlandish conspiracy theories - aliens, Elvis, etc. - that merely served to discredit the information that was most credible. "Muddying the waters", incidentally, is a tried and true staple of the intelligence craft.
It is really just a matter of familiarizing yourself with all the documented anomalies that do not accord with the received, mainstream reality put forth to you by the mainstream media. As a practical guide to begin, you might want to confine your search to strictly "mainstream" sources, as I have sought to do in attempting to construct my case on 9/11. My evidence is by no means exhaustive. In fact, it is merely the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Yet proceeding in this direction, under my hypothesis, has been most fruitful in analyzing the various anomalies that pop up now and then.
Any simple keyword search of the following terms may be helpful in pointing toward a more substantive understanding of the elites who ultimately guide your fortunes: "Iran-Contra" , "Mena", "BCCI", "Project Paperclip", "Michael Aquino", "Paul Bonacci", "Operation Northwoods", "MK-Ultra". Much of the information on these topics is credible and well-documented. More disturbingly, it highlights behavior committed by the very same elites who are now interpreting the events of 9/11 for you. Read for yourself, and decide, at the end of the day, how much credibility you will continue to accord to those who claim to be the proper trustees of your fate and well-being.
*******

*******
9/11/11: Orgy of Deception
by Henry Makow, Ph.D.
September 10, 2011
http://www.henrymakow.com/9-11_-_why_the_world_wants_to.html
(left, spinning high treason by our 'leaders' into a maudlin appeal to patriotism.)
An atrocity such as 9-11 does not require commemoration. It requires justice! The murder of more than 3,000 Americans hasn't been avenged. Instead, it has been used to justify war and tyranny.
For me, the 9-11 Commemoration is a repeat of the original outrage and therefore very painful to witness.
The original attack was mass trauma brainwashing perpetrated by a traitor class within America. Now, they're reinforcing the original programming. It was all designed to justify perpetual war and strip Americans of their civil rights under the bogus pretext of a terrorist threat.
Americans are acquiescing in their own enslavement, and many seem willing to go along. I think the majority know it was an inside job but are afraid to say so.
9-11 is being spun as a mini "holocaust" - a cathartic event that "changed everything." Illuminati Satanist Lady Gaga is asking the question, "What will you do to remember?"
An atrocity such as 9-11 does not require remembering. It requires justice!
The perpetrators must be exposed and punished. Otherwise, they will continue these false flags in the form of "terrorist attacks," oil spills, stock crashes, viruses or "natural" disasters.
The politicians who wax eloquent about 9-11 are among the main accomplices. You have to admire their ability to lie so brazenly; no doubt it's a job requirement.
This spectacle demonstrates that we live in a de facto Communist society where the means of production and weapons of mass deception are controlled by the State, a.k.a. the central bankers. Our "leadership" class are traitors who have sold their souls for "success."
The situation is analogous to the JFK Assassination, where half the people at the funeral had foreknowledge of the hit and participated in the coverup.
The Official Storyline
The official 9-11 story has more holes than Swiss cheese. If this were a free and open society, there would be widespread and genuine interest in addressing the questions. Instead, there is repression, fear and a cover-up.
I'm not going into review the questions again. I refer you to this review of David Ray Griffin's new book, "9/11 - Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed." [see below]
I refer you to "9-11 For Dummies -Five Facts Everyone Should Know" which points to the absence of bodies or plane wreckage.
I refer you to 1600 architects and engineers who say the destruction of the WTC was a controlled demolition. WTC owner Larry Silverstein admitted WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Are we expected to believe the Twin Towers weren't?
9-11 was perpetrated by the London-based Illuminati (Masonic) central bankers (Rothschilds, Rockefellers etc.) to advance their centuries-old plan for one-world-government (i.e. tyranny.) It was executed by the CIA, Mossad and elements within the US military and covered up by the political and media class who are mid level go'fers. They are accessories after the fact and criminals.
No one within the US Establishment was punished for allowing this mind boggling attack to occur. If it were not an inside job, there would have been hundreds of court marshals and resignations beginning with G. W. Bush's.
The mass media, whether government or "privately" owned have been discredited as liars and mind control agents. Reporters and announcers are traitors. All three original TV networks were founded by the Illuminati bankers. Fox is no different.
Americans suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. They are hostages who think that if they play along, the Illuminati bankers won't harm them.
According to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the people are "accustomed to listening to us only who pay it for obedience and attention. In this way, we shall create a blind mighty force which will never be in a position to move in any direction without the guidance of our agents...The people will submit to this regime because it will know that upon these leaders will depend its earnings, gratification and the receipt of all kinds of benefits." (Protocol 10)
Sounds like our vaunted freedom is Stockholm Syndrome.
Conclusion
Yes, I am sad about 9-11. The murder of more than 3,000 Americans has not been avenged. 9-11 is a litmus test, demonstrating how completely society has been subverted by a satanic cult, the Illuminati.
What remains for people like us? We must uphold the truth in the face of all scorn. But on a personal level, we shouldn't exhaust ourselves by proselytizing. The truth does not go begging. We'll share our knowledge when asked. Thus, we can have cordial relationships with everyone, including dupes. We were also dupes once.
We must live our lives as constructively as possible, grateful for the freedom and prosperity we still enjoy. We mustn't be depressed by the human condition. Eventually the Illuminati will self-destruct. Evil is inherently dysfunctional.
---
Related- Cowardly Wisconsin Professors Avoid "9-11 Experts" Film Launch
Related- From Brasscheck TV - This is one of the more shocking documentaries about the attacks of 9/11. Shocking because it's NOT full of 'conspiracy theories'. There is no guess work here as to how or why, "911 IN PLANE SITE" simply revisits the news broadcasts of that day and points out how much of the story simply disappeared as the 'Official Story' took shape. It reviews 'forgotten' video evidence of that day and points out how much of it contradicts the present view of events.
Video: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/4960.html
*******
Book Review:
9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed
By Thomas C. Fletcher (Petaluma CA USA)
(REAL NAME) This review is from: 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed (Paperback)
David Ray Griffin in his new book, 9/11 TEN YEARS LATER: WHEN STATE CRIMES AGAINST DEMOCRACY SUCCEED, takes stock of what we know, after the passage of a decade of intensive grassroots research and analysis, about what really happened that day, and of the present state of the 9/11 truth movement - its strengths and its weaknesses, and how it can move forward most effectively. The book is a combination of important lectures given by Griffin in the last few years, revised and updated for publication, and of completely new essays on key topics, such as the strong evidence that the phone calls from the hijacked airliners must have been faked, and the powerful consensus about the Pentagon events that has been achieved by the movement.
The first four chapters highlight the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and the clearest implications of that evidence: the lack of evidence that Muslims attacked the US on that day (making clear that the ten-year-long series of wars on Muslim nations is morally and legally unjustified); the multiple occasions on which the laws of physics were miraculously inoperative in the destruction of the World Trade Center, if the official account so ferociously defended by erstwhile critics of government like Bill Moyers, Robert Parry, Alexander Cockburn and many others is to be believed; and the extraordinary case of WTC 7's classic demolition, which has been assiduously covered up by the mainstream media and government agencies (its collapse was never even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, and the final report on its destruction issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in November 2008 was fraudulent).
Chapter 5, "Phone Calls From The 9/11 Planes: Why They Are Not Authentic," examines all the evidence that has been discovered regarding phone calls from the hijacked airliners. The phone calls have been a crucial part of the official story of the day's events, purportedly establishing that the planes were hijacked by Arab Muslims and that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. But after a careful, critical analysis Griffin is forced to conclude that the phone calls were not made from the planes. First he shows that there is no evidence that the alleged hijackers actually were ever onboard any of the planes, and further, that the failure of any of the eight pilots to "squawk" the hijack code into their transponders is "strong evidence that the official story about the 9/11 planes -- that the cabins were taken over by hijackers - is false." He then shows that the calls to Deena Burnett, which registered on her caller ID as calls from her husband Tom Burnett's cell phone (he was a passenger on board Flight 93), could not have been completed because cell phone technology in 2001 was not capable of completing calls from airliners at high elevation. Griffin concludes the calls had to have been faked, and suggests that they were faked by voice morphing, already a well-established technical capability at the time. After examining the claims made for many other calls, including those for Barbara Olson, wife of then Solicitor General Ted Olson, which were the basis for the claim that Flight 77 was still in the air and subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, Griffin concludes that "the evidence that the `calls from the planes' were faked is strong, ... far stronger than the evidence for the view that the calls were made by passengers and flight attendants, describing the activities of Middle-Eastern hijackers."
Chapter 6 discusses Vice President Dick Cheney's changing account of his whereabouts and activities at key times during the morning of 9/11. After admitting on national TV five days later that he had been present and in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center in the basement of the White House before the Pentagon was attacked, he changed his story in November and claimed he did not reach the PEOC until after the Pentagon attack. Griffin shows that the 9/11 Commission Report upheld Cheney's otherwise unsupported second account, which absolved him of responsibility during two key incidents, the Pentagon attack and the destruction of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. He shows further that much evidence, ignored by the Commission, contradicted Cheney's second story, including Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's testimony before the Commission, Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke's published account of the morning, and reports from ABC News on the first anniversary of 9/11, all of which the Commission buried without mention.
The gem of the book is the seventh chapter, "The Pentagon: A Consensus Approach." In this very detailed analysis Griffin shows that the 9/11 truth movement has developed a complex, broad-based refutation of the official story of what happened at the Pentagon (that "the Pentagon was attacked by American Airlines Flight 77... under the control of al-Qaeda"). He examines fourteen facts which have been established by independent researchers, upon which there is universal agreement, and any one of which is enough to demolish the official account. Griffin argues that the movement should concentrate its Pentagon energies on further strengthening and advocacy of these points of agreement, and avoid dissipating time, energy and trust on a question which has taken up much of these resources in recent years, the question of "what hit the Pentagon?" He shows that this question is unanswerable with the evidence available; only a genuine investigation of the 9/11 attacks will enable it to be answered.
Chapter 8 illuminates the psychology of resistance to the truth about the 9/11 events which is so widespread, arguing that the real faith of the nominally-Christian US is "nationalist faith." The critique of the official story laid out by the 9/11 truth movement is literally unthinkable for many, even for devout Christians whose religion calls upon them to avoid all kinds of idolatry, including nationalism. Griffin concludes that "[w]hen Christian faith is subordinated to faith in American goodness ... it becomes a blinding faith, producing Christians with eyes wide shut."
The subtitle of the book indicates that the 9/11 attacks, in being a false-flag operation carried out by elements of the US government, were a "State Crime Against Democracy" or SCAD, with the primarily political purpose of imposing policies by force upon the country, and that the failure to carry out a genuine investigation, arrest the perpetrators and reverse the policies adopted by the government after 9/11 means that the operation has succeeded. But only to this point in time: the future is still open. Griffin provides in a powerful conclusion (Ch. 9, "When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed") suggestions for how the 9/11 truth movement can continue to press forward to the necessary investigation of the 9/11 crimes and the reversal of the tragic course taken by the US while under the control of the criminals.
This superb book is written with the usual clarity, logic and argumentative power readers have come to expect from David Ray Griffin, which he has now employed in ten books on the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 TEN YEARS LATER continues his advance at the cutting edge of 9/11 truth, and should be read by everyone who wants to take stock of what the movement has achieved and how to press on into a future in which illegal, immoral wars have been stopped and the country's democratic ideals reaffirmed.
*******
The truthers are out there: Toronto Hearings on the events of September 11
Megan O'Toole
Sep 9, 2011
*******
Sept. 11 panellists Kevin Ryan, left, Lance deHaven-Smith and David Ray Griffin will eventually write a report on the matter. The truthers are out there: Toronto Hearings on the events of September 11
Matthew Sherwood for National Post
*******
Sept. 11 panellists Kevin Ryan, left, Lance deHaven-Smith and David Ray Griffin will eventually write a report on the matter.
As people across Canada and the United States publicly remembered the tenth anniversary of 9/11 this week, a small group at Ryerson University were examining another angle altogether: the “myth” of 9/11. The four-day Toronto Hearings kicked off Thursday with a trio of experts and academics offering their opinions on why the official narrative of 9/11 as a terrorist attack is flawed. The Post’s Megan O’Toole looks at the day’s highlights.
The Legal Angle
Though the Toronto Hearings have so far played out more like a conference than a legal hearing, organizers referred to each of the three experts who took to the podium as “witnesses.” No lawyers were there to cross-examine them; instead, a panel of three academics and an Italian judge peppered the speakers with friendly questions. The panel, which will ultimately draft a report on the matter, may address the question of whether another state-sponsored inquiry is needed to help answer all the lingering questions about 9/11. “We know that the official story does not fly,” organizer Graeme MacQueen said. “It’s full of holes.”
Conspiracies Abound
Florida State University professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who addressed the panel first, came right out and said it: “Maybe [9/11] was an inside job to advance a war agenda.” He cited evidence that the collapse of New York’s twin towers resulted from controlled demolition, a theory popular among the so-called 9/11 Truth movement. “What is more disconcerting in some ways is that this was not investigated,” Mr. deHaven-Smith told the mostly older crowd of about 100 people. By labelling such views as conspiracy theory, the U.S. political elite “silences and stigmatizes” legitimate questions, Mr. deHaven-Smith said. He drew a parallel between 9/11 and a host of other historical U.S. “state crimes against democracy” — or SCADs, for short — including the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, the 2001 anthrax scare and the disputed presidential elections that put George W. Bush in the White House for two successive terms.
Suppressing the Truth, Part I
The official report from the 9/11 commission is replete with glaring omissions, said speaker David Ray Griffin, who wrote the book 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed. “There were continuing signs the Bush administration didn’t want the truth of 9/11 to be discussed,” Mr. Griffin said, pointing to the appointment of Bush crony Philip Zelikow as the commission’s executive director. “The commission was the White House investigating itself.” The resulting report failed to include relevant information about the alleged hijackers, including the revelation that some were still alive after the attacks, he said. In addition, Mr. Griffin questioned the discovery of alleged ringleader Mohamed Atta’s will in a suitcase that was supposed to be on the plane with him. Why put your will in a plane destined to crash, Mr. Griffin asked.
Suppressing the Truth, Part II
Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, was similarly critical of a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) into how and why the twin towers, and a third building in the World Trade Center complex that was not hit by any plane, collapsed in the fashion they did. “A steel structure does not collapse suddenly when attacked by fire,” Mr. Ryan said, noting the NIST report “distorted many important facts.” The fires raging in either tower were not hot enough to melt the steel structure, he said, nor would the plane crash have created sufficient force to pull the building’s exterior columns inward, as the NIST report suggested had occurred. “This is the opposite of science,” Mr. Ryan fumed.
The Audience
In addition to dozens of guests, speakers and experts, a number of amateur filmmakers were on scene to record the Toronto Hearings, while security posted outside the door ensured anyone entering had an appropriate badge. Critics have questioned the timing of the hearings, coming when so many people are grieving their losses. Mr. MacQueen, however, said the goal was not to delegitimize their mourning, but rather to sift through the “myth and deception” surrounding 9/11. Attendee Bruce Sinclair, a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, said the purpose of the event was not to point fingers. “I would hardly describe us as conspiracy theorists in the pejorative sense,” he said. “What we’re trying to do is find the facts.”
National Post
*******
The post-9/11 decade of lies
The myth of 9/11, imbedded inextricably into the fibers of society and culture...
by Larry Chin
Global Research, September 8, 2011
It has been and will be the same since the day it happened. The same exhausting exercise, whether one, five years, ten or fifty years since 9/11. Another orchestrated orgy of mass propaganda-stoked ignorance and “war on terrorism” hysteria.
The propaganda myth of 9/11, imbedded inextricably into the fibers of society and culture, and into the brain cells of naïve, willfully uninformed people, is back for another sickening “commemoration”.
Who chooses to “commemorate” the lie of 9/11? Undoubtedly, the high officials and elites who planned the event, who successfully achieved everything they wanted---unending war for oil, naked fascism and militarism, and economic conquest---from this ultimate false flag operation. The atrocity of 9/11, the desperate act of an empire facing extinction, was not an “intelligence failure”, but the greatest intelligence success and criminal operation in history.
Underneath all of their somber play-acting, they’re celebrating. They are all laughing, from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to Barack Obama, the Osama-killer "avenger of 9/11". You should be able to hear peals of laughter from the members of the Bilderberg Group and elite think tanks, and laughs must certainly echo in the halls of CIA headquarters, the offices of the Pakistan’s CIA subsidiary, the ISI, and in the offices of
multinational oil companies and Wall Street banks.
They are all dancing on the graves of 9/11. And George W. Bush does it literally, every time he dares stand on the ground of the World Trade Center that he helped bring down.
And along with the criminals, the legions of victims and witnesses who still, after ten years of unabated suffering under the lash of empire, continue to dance to the tune of the official propaganda myth, every time it is played.
How many of those who never hesitate to worship first responders have bothered to understand who and what actually those brave men and women into the flames of the Twin Towers? How many of those who have proudly sacrificed their children to the wars have truly questioned the official lies that resulted in the destruction of their families?
On this day, rather than drown in the familiar waves of conspiracy theory that is the official 9/11 myth, know that a decade of conspiracy fact has long shattered this myth, exposing the ugly reality for those who choose to know the truth. This body of conspiracy fact not only exists, but it continues to grow, despite years of intimidation, cover-up, attempted derision.
This true history and exhaustively compiled evidence can be found in Michael C. Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon and Michel Chossudovsky’s America’s ‘War on Terrorism’, to name just two landmark studies among hundreds, too many to name. Their work remains as vital today as the day they were penned.
Tragically, every single thing that whistleblowers of 9/11 have predicted has come about. This is the tragic, bitter vindication for everyone who has spoken and written the truth. The world around us speaks for itself, and it is a harrowing death scream.
Today’s world---of endless war for oil, endless false flag terror operations and atrocities, unabated political criminality, economic looting, social upheaval, fascism, and a global war/intelligence-industrial police state---is the fruit of 9/11. So too is the post-9/11 Peak Oil wreckage that is the United States, its population embracing open fascism, and with a proposed Keystone tar sands pipeline cutting through the very heart of the continent.
Consider this single conspiracy fact: energy-rich Libya is being overthrown and conquered by NATO, in
attacks spearheaded by CIA, its allied intelligence branches, and Al-Qaeda.
Yes, Al-Qaeda. What happened to the “war on terrorism” fiction? Why is the arch-enemy, Al-Qaeda, working openly with NATO?
This, too, is 9/11’s bounty. It brings us to the conspiracy fact of historical record:
Islamic “terrorists”, including CIA asset and (and US ally in Kosovo) Osama bin Laden, have been in the continuous employ of western forces and the CIA since the Cold War---before, during, and since 9/11. Al-Qaeda and “Islamic terrorism” is an instrument of Anglo-American intelligence, propaganda, and geostrategy. Al-Qaeda has always been an American-made and CIA-sponsored brand.
Just as is the case with the many other false flag terror events and wars since 9/11, any careful analysis of the forces behind the destruction of Libya brings us back to the same places, pointing to the same inevitable conclusions.
The “war on terrorism” is a lie, founded on the Big Lie of 9/11.
On this day, rather than commemorating propaganda, truly commemorate the work of those who have dared tell the truth, who have never stopped telling the truth. These are the real heroes of 9/11, the ones who truly honor the memory of those who died.
These people, not the liars or the murderers and criminals in high office, remain the only dim light in this post-9/11 apocalypse that continues to unfold.
*******

*******
9/11 Analysis: From Ronald Reagan and the Soviet-Afghan War to George W Bush and September 11, 2001
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, September 9, 2010
This article summarizes earlier writings by the author on 9/11 and the role of Al Qaeda in US foreign policy. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005
"The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings....The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..", (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
"Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad." (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)
"Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, ... Since September 11, [2001] CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden." (Phil Gasper, International Socialist Review, November-December 2001)
Highlights
-Osama bin Laden, America's bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US
sponsored jihad. He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.
-The architects of the covert operation in support of "Islamic fundamentalism" launched during the Reagan presidency played a key role in launching the "Global War on Terrorism" in the wake of 9/11.
- President Ronald Reagan met the leaders of the Islamic Jihad at the White House in 1985
-Under the Reagan adminstration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic "freedom fighters". In today's World, the "freedom fighters" are labelled "Islamic terrorists".
-In the Pashtun language, the word "Taliban" means "Students", or graduates of the madrasahs (places of learning or coranic schools) set up by the Wahhabi missions from Saudi Arabia, with the support of the CIA.
-Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. The US covert education destroyed secular education. The number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.
The Soviet-Afghan war was part of a CIA covert agenda initiated during the Carter administration, which consisted in actively supporting and financing the Islamic brigades, later known as Al Qaeda.
The Pakistani military regime played from the outset in the late 1970s, a key role in the US sponsored military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan. In the post-Cold war era, this central role of Pakistan in US intelligence operations was extended to the broader Central Asia- Middle East region. From the outset of the Soviet Afghan war in 1979, Pakistan under military rule actively supported the Islamic brigades. In close liaison with the CIA, Pakistan's military intelligence, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), became a powerful organization, a parallel government, wielding tremendous power and influence.
America's covert war in Afghanistan, using Pakistan as a launch pad, was initiated during the Carter administration prior to the Soviet "invasion":
"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention." (Former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, 15-21 January 1998)
In the published memoirs of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who held the position of deputy CIA Director at the height of the Soviet Afghan war, US intelligence was directly involved from the outset, prior to the Soviet invasion, in channeling aid to the Islamic brigades.
With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". (Dipankar Banerjee, "Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry", India Abroad, 2 December 1994). The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. (Ibid)
Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:
"Relations between the CIA and the ISI had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia’s ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime. … During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984." (Ibid)
The ISI operating virtually as an affiliate of the CIA, played a central role in channeling support to Islamic paramilitary groups in Afghanistan and subsequently in the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union.
Acting on behalf of the CIA, the ISI was also involved in the recruitment and training of the Mujahideen. In the ten year period from 1982 to 1992, some 35,000 Muslims from 43 Islamic countries were recruited to fight in the Afghan jihad. The madrassas in Pakistan, financed by Saudi charities, were also set up with US support with a view to "inculcating Islamic values". "The camps became virtual universities for future Islamic radicalism," (Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban). Guerilla training under CIA-ISI auspices included targeted assassinations and car bomb attacks.
"Weapons' shipments "were sent by the Pakistani army and the ISI to rebel camps in the North West Frontier Province near the Afghanistan border. The governor of the province is Lieutenant General Fazle Haq, who [according to Alfred McCoy] . allowed "hundreds of heroin refineries to set up in his province." Beginning around 1982, Pakistani army trucks carrying CIA weapons from Karachi often pick up heroin in Haq’s province and return loaded with heroin. They are protected from police search by ISI papers."(1982-1989: US Turns Blind Eye to BCCI and Pakistani Government Involvement in Heroin Trade See also McCoy, 2003, p. 477) .
Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan's
Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official,
Milt Bearden at a mujahedeen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.
(source RAWA)
Osama Bin Laden
Osama bin Laden, America's bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihad. He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.
During the Reagan administration, Osama, who belonged to the wealthy Saudi Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities were used to finance the recruitment of Mujahieen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden.
The Reagan Administration supports "Islamic Fundamentalism"
Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". CIA covert support to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.
In December 1984, the Sharia Law (Islamic jurisprudence) was established in Pakistan following a rigged referendum launched by President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Barely a few months later, in March 1985, President Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), which authorized "stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen" as well a support to religious indoctrination.
The imposition of The Sharia in Pakistan and the promotion of "radical Islam" was a deliberate US policy serving American geopolitical interests in South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. Many present-day "Islamic fundamentalist organizations" in the Middle East and Central Asia, were directly or indirectly the product of US covert support and financing, often channeled through foundations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Missions from the Wahhabi sect of conservative Islam in Saudi Arabia were put in charge of running the CIA sponsored madrassas in Northern Pakistan.
Under NSDD 166, a series of covert CIA-ISI operations was launched.
*******
*******
The US supplied weapons to the Islamic brigades through the ISI. CIA and ISI officials would meet at ISI headquarters in Rawalpindi to coordinate US support to the Mujahideen. Under NSDD 166, the procurement of US weapons to the Islamic insurgents increased from 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983 to 65,000 tons annually by 1987. "In addition to arms, training, extensive military equipment including military satellite maps and state-of-the-art communications equipment" (University Wire, 7 May 2002).
Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)
*******

 *******
With William Casey as director of the CIA, NSDD 166 was described as the largest covert operation in US history:
The U.S. supplied support package had three essential components-organization and logistics, military technology, and ideological support for sustaining and encouraging the Afghan resistance....
U.S. counterinsurgency experts worked closely with the Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in organizing Mujahideen groups and in planning operations inside Afghanistan.
... But the most important contribution of the U.S. was to ... bring in men and material from around the Arab world and beyond. The most hardened and ideologically dedicated men were sought on the logic that they would be the best fighters. Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad. (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Afghanistan and the Genesis of the Global Jihad, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)
Religious Indoctrination
Under NSDD 166, US assistance to the Islamic brigades channeled through Pakistan was not limited to bona fide military aid. Washington also supported and financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the process of religious indoctrination, largely to secure the demise of secular institutions:
... the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..
The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.
... AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.
"It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction," Stratos said. "But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity."
... Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994." (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
The Role of the NeoCons
There is continuity. The architects of the covert operation in support of "Islamic fundamentalism" launched during the Reagan presidency played a key role in launching the "Global War on Terrorism" in the wake of 9/11.
Several of the NeoCons of the Bush Junior Administration were high ranking officials during the Reagan presidency.
Richard Armitage, was Deputy Secretary of State during George W. Bush's first term (2001-2004). He played a central key role in post 9/11 negotiations with Pakistan leading up to the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. During the Reagan era, he held the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. In this capacity, he played a key role in the implementation of NSDD 163 while also ensuring liaison with the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus.
left: Richard Armitage
Meanwhile, Paul Wolfowitz was at the State Department in charge of a foreign policy team composed, among others, of Lewis Libby, Francis Fukuyama and Zalmay Khalilzad.
Wolfowitz's group was also involved in laying the conceptual groundwork of US covert support to Islamic parties and organizations in Pakistan and
Afghanistan.
right: Paul Wolfowitz
Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, who now serves the Obama administration, was also involved in setting the groundwork for CIA covert operations. He was appointed Deputy Director for Intelligence by Ronald Reagan in 1982, and Deputy Director of the CIA in 1986, a position which he held until 1989. Gates played a key role in the formulation of NSDD 163, which established a consistent framework for promoting Islamic fundamentalism and channeling covert support to the Islamic brigades. He was also involved in the Iran Contra scandal. .
The Iran Contra Operation
Richard Gates, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage, among others, were also involved in the Iran-Contra operation.
Armitage was in close liaison with Colonel Oliver North. His deputy and chief anti-terrorist official Noel Koch was part of the team set up by Oliver North.
Of significance, the Iran-Contra operation was also tied into the process of channeling covert support to the Islamic brigades in Afghanistan. The Iran Contra scheme served several related foreign policy:
1) Procurement of weapons to Iran thereby feeding the Iraq-Iran war,
2) Support to the Nicaraguan Contras,
3) Support to the Islamic brigades in Afghanistan, channeled via Pakistan's ISI.
Following the delivery of the TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran, the proceeds of these sales were deposited in numbered bank accounts and the money was used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras. and the Mujahideen:
"The Washington Post reported that profits from the Iran arms sales were deposited in one CIA-managed account into which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia had placed $250 million apiece. That money was disbursed not only to the contras in Central America but to the rebels fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan." (US News & World Report, 15 December 1986).
Although Lieutenant General Colin Powell, was not directly involved in the arms' transfer negotiations, which had been entrusted to Oliver North, he was among "at least five men within the Pentagon who knew arms were being transferred to the CIA." (The Record, 29 December 1986). In this regard, Powell was directly instrumental in giving the "green light" to lower-level officials in blatant violation of Congressional procedures. According to the New York Times, Colin Powell took the decision (at the level of military procurement), to allow the delivery of weapons to Iran:
"Hurriedly, one of the men closest to Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Maj. Gen. Colin Powell, bypassed the written ''focal point system'' procedures and ordered the Defense Logistics Agency [responsible for procurement] to turn over the first of 2,008 TOW missiles to the CIA., which acted as cutout for delivery to Iran" (New York Times, 16 February 1987)
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was also implicated in the Iran-Contra Affair.
The Golden Crescent Drug Trade
The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997).
Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer." (Ibid) Various Islamic paramilitary groups and organizations were created. The proceeds of the Afghan drug trade, which was protected by the CIA, were used to finance the various insurgencies:
"Under CIA and Pakistani protection, Pakistan military and Afghan resistance opened heroin labs on the Afghan and Pakistani border. According to The Washington Post of May 1990, among the leading heroin manufacturers were Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan leader who received about half of the covert arms that the U.S. shipped to Pakistan. Although there were complaints about Hekmatyar's brutality and drug trafficking within the ranks of the Afghan resistance of the day, the CIA maintained an uncritical alliance and supported him without reservation or restraint.
Once the heroin left these labs in Pakistan's northwest frontier, the Sicilian Mafia imported the drugs into the U.S., where they soon captured sixty percent of the U.S. heroin market. That is to say, sixty percent of the U.S. heroin supply came indirectly from a CIA operation. During the decade of this operation, the 1980s, the substantial DEA contingent in Islamabad made no arrests and participated in no seizures, allowing the syndicates a de facto free hand to export heroin. By contrast, a lone Norwegian detective, following a heroin deal from Oslo to Karachi, mounted an investigation that put a powerful Pakistani banker known as President Zia's surrogate son behind bars. The DEA in Islamabad got nobody, did nothing, stayed away.
Former CIA operatives have admitted that this operation led to an expansion of the Pakistan-Afghanistan heroin trade. In 1995 the former CIA Director of this Afghan operation, Mr. Charles Cogan, admitted sacrificing the drug war to fight the Cold War. "Our main mission was to do as much damage to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade," he told Australian television. "I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout. There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes, but the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan." (Alfred McCoy, Testimony before the Special Seminar focusing on allegations linking CIA secret operations and drug trafficking-convened February 13, 1997, by Rep. John Conyers, Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus)
Lucrative Narcotics Trade in the Post Cold War Era
The drug trade has continued unabated during the post Cold war years. Afghanistan became the major supplier of heroin to Western markets, in fact almost the sole supplier: more than 90 percent of the heroin sold Worldwide originates in Afghanistan. This lucrative contraband is tied into Pakistani politics and the militarization of the Pakistani State. It also has a direct bearing on the structure of the Pakistani economy and its banking and financial institutions, which from the outset of the Golden Crescent drug trade have been involved in extensive money laundering operations, which are protected by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus:
According to the US State Department International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (2006) (quoted in Daily Times, 2 March 2006),
“Pakistani criminal networks play a central role in the transshipment of narcotics and smuggled goods from Afghanistan to international markets. Pakistan is a major drug-transit country. The proceeds of narcotics trafficking and funding for terrorist activities are often laundered by means of the alternative system called hawala. ... .
“Repeatedly, a network of private unregulated charities has also emerged as a significant source of illicit funds for international terrorist networks,” the report pointed out. ... "
The hawala system and the charities are but the tip of the iceberg. According to the State Department report, "the State Bank of Pakistan has frozen more twenty years] a meager $10.5 million "belonging to 12 entities and individuals linked to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the Taliban". What the report fails to mention is that the bulk of the proceeds of the Afghan drug trade are laundered in bona fide Western banking institutions.
The Taliban Repress the Drug Trade
A major and unexpected turnaround in the CIA sponsored drug trade occurred in 2000.
The Taliban government which came to power in 1996 with Washington's support, implemented in 2000-2001 a far-reaching opium eradication program with the support of the United Nations which served to undermine a multibillion dollar trade. (For further details see, Michel Chossudovsky, America's War on Terrorism, Global Research, 2005).
In 2001 prior to the US-led invasion, opium production under the Taliban eradication program declined by more than 90 percent.
In the immediate wake of the US led invasion, the Bush administration ordered that the opium harvest not be destroyed on the fabricated pretext that this would undermine the military government of Pervez Musharraf.
"Several sources inside Capitol Hill noted that the CIA opposes the destruction of the Afghan opium supply because to do so might destabilize the Pakistani government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. According to these sources, Pakistani intelligence had threatened to overthrow President Musharraf if the crops were destroyed.
'If they [the CIA] are in fact opposing the destruction of the Afghan opium trade, it'll only serve to perpetuate the belief that the CIA is an agency devoid of morals; off on their own program rather than that of our constitutionally elected government'" .(NewsMax.com, 28 March 2002)
Since the US led invasion, opium production has increased 33 fold from 185 tons in 2001 under the Taliban to 6100 tons in 2006. Cultivated areas have increased 21 fold since the 2001 US-led invasion. (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 6 January 2006)
In 2007, Afghanistan supplied approximately 93% of the global supply of heroin. The proceeds (in terms of retail value) of the Afghanistan drug trade are estimated (2006) to be in excess of 190 billion dollars a year, representing a significant fraction of the global trade in narcotics.(Ibid)
The proceeds of this lucrative multibillion dollar contraband are deposited in Western banks. Almost the totality of the revenues accrue to corporate interests and criminal syndicates outside Afghanistan.
The laundering of drug money constitutes a multibillion dollar activity, which continues to be protected by the CIA and the ISI. In the wake of the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan.
In retrospect, one of the major objectives of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was to restore the drug trade.
The militarization of Pakistan serves powerful political, financial and criminal interests underlying the drug trade. US foreign policy tends to support these powerful interests. The CIA continues to protect the Golden Crescent narcotics trade. Despite his commitment to eradicating the drug trade, opium production under the regime of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has skyrocketed.
The Assassination of General Zia Ul-Haq
In August 1988, President Zia was killed in an air crash together with US Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Raphel and several of Pakistan's top generals. The circumstances of the air crash remain shrouded in mystery.
Following Zia's death, parliamentary elections were held and Benazir Bhutto was sworn in as Prime Minister in December 1988. She was subsequently removed from office by Zia's successor, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan on the grounds of alleged corruption. In 1993, she was re-elected and was again removed from office in 1996 on the orders of President Farooq Leghari.
Continuity has been maintained throughout. Under the short-lived post-Zia elected governments of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, the central role of the military-intelligence establishment and its links to Washington were never challenged.
Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif served US foreign policy interests. While in power, both democratically elected leaders, nonetheless supported the continuity of military rule. As prime minister from 1993 to 1996, Benazir Bhutto "advocated a conciliatory policy toward Islamists, especially the Taliban in Afghanistan" which were being supported by Pakistan's ISI (See F. William Engdahl, Global Research, January 2008)
Benazir Bhutto's successor as Prime Minister, Mia Muhammad Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) was deposed in 1999 in a US supported coup d'Etat led by General Pervez Musharraf.
The 1999 coup was instigated by General Pervez Musharaf, with the support of the Chief of General Staff, Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad, who was subsequently appointed to the key position of head of military intelligence (ISI).
From the outset of the Bush administration in 2001, General Ahmad developed close ties not only with his US counterpart CIA director George Tenet, but also with key members of the US government including Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, not to mention Porter Goss, who at the time was Chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence. Ironically, Mahmoud Ahmad is also known, according to a September 2001 FBI report, for his suspected role in supporting and financing the alleged 9/11 terrorists as well as his links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America's "war on Terrorism, Global Research, Montreal, 2005)
Concluding Remarks
These various "terrorist" organizations were created as a result of CIA support. They are not the product of religion. The project to establish "a pan-Islamic Caliphate" is part of a carefully devised intelligence operation.
CIA support to Al Qaeda was not in any way curtailed at the end of the Cold War. In fact quite the opposite. The earlier pattern of covert support took on a global thrust and became increasingly sophisticated.
The "Global War on Terrorism" is a complex and intricate intelligence construct. The covert support provided to "Islamic extremist groups" is part of an imperial agenda. It purports to weaken and eventually destroy secular and civilian governmental institutions, while also contributing to vilifying Islam. It is an instrument of colonization which seeks to undermine sovereign nation-states and transform countries into territories.
For the intelligence operation to be successful, however, the various Islamic organizations created and trained by the CIA must remain unaware of the role they are performing on the geopolitical chessboard, on behalf of Washington.
Over the years, these organizations have indeed acquired a certain degree of autonomy and independence, in relation to their US-Pakistani sponsors. That appearance of "independence", however, is crucial; it is an integral part of the covert intelligence operation. According to former CIA agent Milton Beardman the Mujahideen were invariably unaware of the role they were performing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". (Weekend Sunday (NPR); Eric Weiner, Ted Clark; 16 August 1998).
"Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA." (Michel Chossudovsky, America's War on Terrorism, Chapter 2).
The fabrication of "terrorism" --including covert support to terrorists-- is required to provide legitimacy to the "war on terrorism".
The various fundamentalist and paramilitary groups involved in US sponsored "terrorist" activities are "intelligence assets". In the wake of 9/11, their designated function as "intelligence assets" is to perform their role as credible "enemies of America".
Under the Bush administration, the CIA continued to support (via Pakistan's ISI) several Pakistani based Islamic groups. The ISI is known to support Jamaat a-Islami, which is also present in South East Asia, Lashkar-e-Tayya­ba, Jehad a-Kashmiri, Hizbul-Mujahidin and Jaish-e-Mohammed.
The Islamic groups created by the CIA are also intended to rally public support in Muslim countries. The underlying objective is to create divisions within national societies throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, while also triggering sectarian strife within Islam, ultimately with a view to curbing the development of a broad based secular mass resistance, which would challenge US imperial ambitions.
This function of an outside enemy is also an essential part of war propaganda required to galvanize Western public opinion. Without an enemy, a war cannot be fought. US foreign policy needs to fabricate an enemy, to justify its various military interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia. An enemy is required to justify a military agenda, which consists in " going after Al Qaeda". The fabrication and vilification of the enemy are required to justify military action.
The existence of an outside enemy sustains the illusion that the "war on terrorism" is real. It justifies and presents military intervention as a humanitarian operation based on the right to self-defense. It upholds the illusion of a "conflict of civilizations". The underlying purpose ultimately is to conceal the real economic and strategic objectives behind the broader Middle East Central Asian war.
Historically, Pakistan has played a central role in "war on terrorism". Pakistan constitutes from Washington's standpoint a geopolitical hub. It borders onto Afghanistan and Iran. It has played a crucial role in the conduct of US and allied military operations in Afghanistan as well as in the context of the Pentagon's war plans in relation to Iran.
*******
10 years later, 9/11 still shrouded in mystery
By Will Bunch, bunchw@phillynews.com 215-854-2957
September 07, 2011
IF YOU THINK that on the 10th anniversary you know the whole story of 9/11 - and here I'm addressing conspiracy-minded "truthers" and the 13 percent who approved of the job Dick Cheney did as vice president - actually, you don't.
*******
*******
Time has upheld the broad story line of how hijackers loyal to Osama bin Laden hijacked four planes and killed nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001 - claims about holograms being used to attack buildings instead of jetliners notwithstanding. At the same time, the dictum of famed investigative reporter I.F. Stone about all governments - i.e., they lie - is no less true about 9/11 than any other event.
Here are 10 questions about 9/11 that remain unanswered.
1. Did the CIA cover up its advance knowledge of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers?
Richard Clarke, the national counterterrorism czar on 9/11, thinks so. In an interview for an upcoming radio documentary, Clarke claimed that top-level CIA officials deliberately withheld from the White House and the FBI knowledge as early as 2000 that two al Qaeda members - Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar - were living in San Diego.
The former anti-terror chief said he believes that the CIA kept the info under wraps because it wanted to recruit the two Saudis to serve as double agents within bin Laden's organization. Instead, the two terrorists ended up hijackers on American Flight 77. George Tenet, who was CIA director, claims that Clarke is "reckless and profoundly wrong."
2. How strong is the connection between the 9/11 site cleanup and cancer and other diseases?
Last week, the New York City Fire Department's Dr. David Prezant published research in the prestigious medical journal Lancet showing that male firefighters who responded to 9/11 now have a cancer rate that's 19 percent higher than unexposed co-workers. That comes on top of earlier reports of higher rates of asthma and post-traumatic stress disorder among the responders at Ground Zero.
Indeed, the real questions are a) Why was the Bush administration so lax in issuing warnings about the toxicity of the site in 2001? and b) Why did it take a comedian, Jon Stewart, to shame Congress into funding a health-care bill for the ailing heroes of Ground Zero?
3. Who was really in charge on the morning of 9/11 - Bush or Cheney?
The administration claimed that at some point shortly after the initial 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush - speaking in Sarasota, Fla. - gave Cheney the verbal OK for an order to shoot down hijacked planes if necessary, which Cheney then passed down the chain of command.
But there's no record of such a call. In 2006, Newsweek reported that "none of the [9/11 Commission] staffers who worked on this aspect of the investigation believed Cheney's version of events" about the call - but bureaucratic wrangling kept that out of the final report.
Cheney recently insisted that the call took place, but he added more mystery when he admitted that he had urged Bush not to rush back to the White House. Was that for the president's safety, or did the man whom some aides called "Edgar" - after famed ventriloquist Edgar Bergen - have other motives?
4. Why did NORAD mislead investigators about what happened on 9/11?
In the days following the 2001 attacks, officials assured the public that the military did get planes in the air quickly and was ready to shoot down the final jet, United Flight 93, if it had come near D.C.
Investigators for the 9/11 Commission concluded that generals provided false information - claiming, for example, that they responded to the Flight 93 hijacking at 9:16 a.m. when tapes proved the jet wasn't even hijacked until 12 minutes later. The Washington Post reported in 2006 that commission staffers debated referring their suspicions to the Justice Department for a possible criminal probe.
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," said John Farmer, the top lawyer for the commission.
But why lie? Most likely it was to cover up incompetence, but the true reason is still a mystery.
5. Did top Saudi officials provide financial support for the hijackers?
In a new book, The Eleventh Day, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan make a compelling argument that the Saudi royal family paid what amounted to "protection money" to bin Laden as early as 1995 and that there may have been contacts between Saudi representatives in the United States and some of the hijackers in the months leading up to 9/11.
In July 2002, three Saudi princes met bizarre deaths within a week of each other - allegedly after they had been named in the interrogation of a captured al Qaeda member, Abu Zubaydah. Coincidence?
6. Who killed five Americans with anthrax in fall 2001?
The initial belief was that the attacks were linked to 9/11 either through al Qaeda or Iraq's Saddam Hussein, but forensics showed that the biological weapon came from American stockpiles. One U.S. researcher was publicly named, then exonerated. In 2008, the government announced that its newer prime suspect - a scientist at Maryland's Fort Detrick named Bruce Ivins - had committed suicide and that the case was considered closed.
But is it? Remarkably, a disputed U.S. Justice Department filing just this July claimed that Ivins didn't have access to the equipment needed to execute the attacks, causing some members of Congress to call for a new probe.
7. Did Pakistan's notorious spy agency, the ISI, support the 9/11 hijackers?
In the days after 9/11, there were numerous reports of links between the ISI - longtime supporters of Afghanistan's Taliban that had sheltered bin Laden before 9/11 - and the hijackers. For example, al Qaeda suspect Zubaydah, who fingered top Saudis, also named a high-ranking Pakistani air-force officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, who died in a plane crash in 2003 (sound familiar?).
Most of these questions are still not answered and probably won't be, given the sensitive relationship between the U.S. and nuclear-armed Pakistan. But it didn't clear things up when bin Laden was found hiding in Pakistan.
8. Why did so many Bush officials fixate on Iraq in the hours after the attacks?
Despite a lack of any evidence tying Saddam's Iraq to 9/11, Bush administration officials looked immediately toward Baghdad. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld questioned whether to "hit S.H." - Saddam - "at the same time" while the Pentagon was still on fire, and Bush immediately pressed Clarke on whether there was an Iraqi connection.
Ten years later, U.S. troops are still in Iraq, but why? Was the motivation purely oil, or revenge for Saddam's assassination plot against Bush's dad, or an excuse to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia but keep them in the Persian Gulf?
9. What really happened aboard Flight 93?
In the immediate period after 9/11, based on accounts of phone calls from the hijacked passengers aboard the doomed flight, it was widely speculated that they'd succeeded in storming the cockpit, wrested control of the United jet and caused it to crash well before its intended target, reportedly the U.S. Capitol.
But transcripts from the recovered cockpit voice recorder offered evidence that although the passengers were indeed trying to enter the cockpit, there's nothing to suggest that they got there. Instead, comments from the hijackers led investigators to theorize that they crashed the plane on purpose, but the real story of the doomed jet will never be known.
10. Has the 9/11-fueled "war on terror" really made America safer?
The "pro" argument: Improved intelligence and domestic-security measures at airports and elsewhere, and regime change in Afghanistan, have led to no new major attacks inside the U.S., and bin Laden and many of his former lieutenants from a decimated al Qaeda are dead or behind bars.
The "con" argument: The $1 trillion-plus cost of the post-9/11 wars, including the completely unnecessary one in Iraq, the morally unconscionable torture program OK'ed by Bush and Cheney, and the gulag-like prison at Guantanamo have depleted not just America's coffers but its moral standing in the world, while inspiring a new generation of terrorists.
The answer? Get back to us on the 20th anniversary.
******* 
You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story
by Jesse Richard
Global Research, September 2, 2011
I don't believe the official story of 9/11 because I know the official story of 9/11!
During the past 10 years I have not met a single individual who, after doing research on the subjectpen, switched from questioning the official narrative of the events of 9/11/2001 to believing the official narrative of those events.. It is always the other way around. Why do you think that is? There are good reasons for this, and I will try to explain this phenomenon right now.
The term "conspiracy theorist", perhaps the most misapplied description in our vernacular, is often used to describe 9/11 truthers. Perhaps that term does apply to a segment of the 9/11 truth movement. But in most cases a more accurate description of 9/11 truthers is probably "expert", or "scholar", or "researcher." You see, much of the doubt cast on the official narrative of the events of 9/11 has not come in the form of speculated accusations, or "theories." In fact, it has come in the form of questions that have been raised after a careful study of the official and undisputed events and details.
Ten years have passed since the infamous events of September 11th, 2001 took place, and the majority of people still don't know a damn thing about the actual details of that event. They don't know what was going on in the country with regard to our military that day. They don't know the history or the activities of key members of our government, defense establishment or intelligence community, on, or during the weeks, and in some cases the years leading up to that day. They don't know what took place during or immediately following the events of that day. And they don't know what actions were taken by those key people following that event.
As is the case with so many issues, people tend to stand strong and argue a position or voice an opinion about an event like 9/11. But, when questioned about the many details surrounding that event they have no answers. They are clueless. And they are, in the end, dumbfounded.
I can not tell you how many times I have discussed the events of 9/11 with an outraged citizen who can not believe that I would "accuse our own government" of such a terrible thing as conducting a false flag operation, only to hear the phrase "no, I did not know that, is that true?" repeated over and over as I "educate" them about those little things called DETAILS. I can not count the pale-faced stunned looks on people's faces as I exposed them to some of the "official facts" they never suspected, and never knew. I have walked away from many a confrontation with newly educated "patriotic Americans", only to worry about whether or not they would again resume breathing correctly.
They would never do such a thing
A common start and end to any intelligent discussion about the events of 9/11 is prefaced by the assumption that no American would betray his or her country by allowing or conducting an attack on the American people. Well, the people who take this position know nothing about history, let alone human nature. They also don't know about the public positions, declarations, speeches and published documents written by the people who ran our nation on that day.
False flag operations have taken place for generations, in this nation and nations around the world. Many of these operations have been exposed, but proof of many of these activities is probably hidden away in secret documents that may one day come to light. You can however, start your exploration on the topic by researching one plan for American self-inflicted terrorism that became public, Operation Northwoods. Do I detect my first "I did not know this, is it true?" May I suggest you also peek into the neoconservative teachings of the principles involved in running our nation at the time of the "new Pearl Harbor" that took place in 2001.
But the 9/11 Commission did not find anything wrong
I can not believe how many people do not know the genesis or mission of the 9/11 Kean Commission. From the initial appointment of one of America's most nefarious political figures as its original leader, Henry Kissinger, - to its executive director whose area of expertise and education were in the creation and maintaining of public myths, Philip D. Zelikow,- people have no idea as to who comprised or what the mandate was for this commission.
To give you some kind of idea as to why the "findings" of this commission can NOT be used to back up any talking points on the topic of 9/11, let me remind you what the official task of this commission was. The Kean Commissions was told to document the official story and make national security recommendations based on that story. The only information that was to be included in the official report had to match the official story. If any one member of the committee objected to any testimony or finding, that piece of information was to be left out of the report For some examples of this you can talk to the thousands of people who became 9/11 truthers as a result of their testimony being omitted from and contradicted by the final report.
Start with the WTC worker credited with being the last man out of the WTC William Rodriguez. See if he can tell you why, after being invited to the White House and meeting with George W. Bush, his testimony about witnessing explosions in the sub basement of the WTC moments prior to the first plane hitting the building was omitted from the Kean report. And for more details you can read David Ray Griffin's book called The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. It pretty much translated the Kean report into a stack of rather harsh and useless toilet paper. Are the "I did not know this, is it true?" responses piling up yet?
Are you even qualified to discuss the issue?
What people don't understand when discussing issues like 9/11 is that not everyone is qualified to join the discussion, let alone impose an "opinion" on the topic. 9/11 is not really a topic that is open to opinion. The conclusion you draw from the facts are open to opinion, but what many people don't realize about the 9/11 truth movement is that its opinions are based on facts, and grounded in the reality that its members know more of the facts than the average person. If you have a discussion with a doctor about medicine your opinions and views on the subject don't exactly merit the same consideration as do those of a group of physicians..
Similarly, someone like me (and many 9/11 truthers), has the equivalent of 3 PhD's on topics such as 9/11. I am a full time journalist. I research this kind of stuff every single day and I have been doing so since 2003. Not everyone is qualified to debate me on an issue like 9/11. We can discuss it. You can ask a great number of questions and perhaps inform me about aspects of the issue of which I am not aware. But you can't impose your "opinions" on me, nor can you do that to a majority of 9/11 truthers. And by the way, when it comes to opinions vs. facts, facts win. FOX News watchers don't seem to be able to grasp this concept.
People have to realize that what separates the unsuspecting mainstream masses from the 9/11 truth movement are factual information and details. Forget the claims and accusations. You don't need to go that far to understand that there is something fishy going on here. Just look at the official body of evidence. It's all there and it will make your head spin. Don't listen to the accusations, just examine the evidence.You'll understand so much if you really take a good look. In time, if you do your research thoroughly you may just compile a list of suspects, as have many of the 9/11 truthers. I have. But we are not there yet. We really have enough official evidence to lead to quite a few criminal indictments, and I am not kidding about this. But for now let's just talk about the facts and hope that some day we will have the real answers declared by juries in courtrooms. Chances are that many truthers would be proven correct in their accusations - but again, for now, just look at the facts and understand that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. And, find out that it's okay to say, "I did not know this, is it true?"
So, are you qualified to take part in a discussion with a 9/11 truther?
If you don't know about the "coincidental" military drills taking place on September 11, 2001, or about the interesting little political cabal known as PNAC or the Project for a New American Century, or if you don't know what WTC7 is, or the 1,500 plus architects and engineers who have serious questions about how and why it dropped like a pancake on 9/11, or if you don't know about the fact that up until his supposed murder, the FBI did not list Osama bin Laden as wanted for the events of 9/11 because, in their own words, they had no proof of his involvement, then you are not qualified to enter a discussion about the event. You have a lot of homework to do before you can chime in. So on you go...study...but finish this article first. I'll bet the ranch that you'll be saying, over and over, "I did not know this, is it true?"
Why don't we accept the official story?
Here is a question that you should really think about. Don't just chime in with your own uninformed opinion because I am going to give you the answer to this question; the real honest answer. Why do you think I, Jesse Richard, founder of TvNewsLIES.org, have drawn the conclusion that the official narrative of the events of 9/11 is a crock? The answer to that is this...I did not always feel that way. As a matter of fact ,within hours of the event I emailed to all my friends a blistering attack on Islamic fundamentalism. And while some things that happened that day, or did not happen that day, (and week I should say,) seemed odd, I was not immediately suspicious of the "story" being told on TV about the event.
It took me almost two years before I saw enough "official" information to make me realize that there was something, actually many things, that were very wrong. I came across so many disturbing, yet official and undisputed facts that I started asking others about it. Most people did not know what I was talking about. Nobody knew the details. So your answer is this...I don't believe the official story because I know the official story! I don't believe the conclusion, and the little tale of 19 buffoons overtaking our national defense all by themselves. The official position on that by the way, is that they, the FBI, have no proof of the identity of the so-called hijackers or that there were any hijackers at all. They are not listed on the passenger lists, but you would not know that.
BUT...the official story and facts are what made me realize something was very wrong with the public perception of what took place that day, and who was responsible for what took place that day. The official story, when accepted and believed, morphs by any logic into a total and absolute fabrication!
So if you believe the conclusion to the official story, you had better know that story from start to finish. Don't approach this they way the Kean Commission approached it, by starting out accepting the explanation as truth. Study the events, study the officially acknowledged body of evidence and study the people who told you the story in the first place...and I bet it won't be long before you have as many questions as do I about that infamous day and about the people who control our government. And, of course, you'll be saying, "I did not know this, is it true?"
Okay, then, who really was behind the attacks on 9/11?
9/11 truthers make the mistake of starting their discussions with conclusions...I am not doing that. All I am saying is that there are a lot of questions about what happened that day that are not answered by the official conclusion or explanation. I would like some answers that add up. I did the math myself and I have my own "theories", but I am a journalist, and I deal in the facts, not the fables.
The official story, as fed to the American public is filled with unsupported and implausible explanations designed to convince a gullible public that they should ask no questions and trust their leaders to take revenge on those who hated us for our freedom. Volumes can be, and have been written about so many of them. For the most part, you have not read any of them.
In this article, I've posed many questions and have provided links to their answers - so that you will more clearly understand that there is SO much we have not been told about the attacks that took place a decade ago. But, those facts are the tip of a very well hidden iceberg, because there are so many questions that still remain unanswered.
So, I will end this article with a sampling of the questions that must be answered, or in the very least, investigated by impartial truth seekers.. They must NOT be ignored, or accepted simply because they were offered to a frightened nation by an administration defined by its lies. They are legitimate questions, based on legitimate suspicions. They are not, for a single moment, conspiracy theories"
Why did the news agencies report that WTC 7 collapsed almost 1/2 hour before it did, even though it was not hit by a plane, only had a few floors on fire, and gave no indication that it was in any serious danger?
Why do we still believe the tale of the 19 hijackers when so many of the accused hijackers showed up ALIVE within days? And why do we sill believe the fable of the 19 hijackers when the FBI admitted that they are not sure about either the identity of the hijackers or if there were any hijackers at all?
Why was WTC 7 rebuilt, reopened and reoccupied with no press attention? Wouldn't this be an important victory in American resolve and perseverance?
Why were the NORAD rules changed for the first time several weeks prior to 9/11, taking responsibility/authority for shooting down hijacked lanes away from NORAD military command for the first time in its history, and given to a civilian, Donald Rumsfeld, and then returned to NORAD the day after 9/11?
Why would hijackers planning on attacking NY and Washington DC drive from Florida, pass both DC and NY, and drive all the way to Maine and hinge this huge operation on a connecting flight from Maine to Boston, where we are told they hijacked their plane? Why wouldn't they fly out of any of the airports that are visible from their targets, like Newark, La Guardia or JFK...or even some of the smaller local airports that would have given them a clear easy path to their target and reduce the amount of time that our air defense systems would have to stop them?
Who placed all of those put options on the airlines just prior to the event, as if they knew that the stock prices on those specific airlines would lose a huge amount of value?
Why did George W. Bush's Secret Service detail not rush the president to safety when it was evident that the nation was under attack? If the nation was under attack, and they did not know the scope of the attack, and the president's location was known, how did they not worry about being attacked in Florida?. Why did they act as if they knew that there was no threat? And why, when our nation was under attack, did the president not rush into action? If you say he was concerned about upsetting the children, you are the ultimate apologist. He could have told them that his mommy was on the phone and he had to see what she wanted. Our county was supposedly being attacked and he/they waited 20 minutes before they moved. This is the smoking gun of smoking guns.
Why did the FBI never list Osama bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11? Actually, we know this one...because they admitted that they had no evidence linking him to the event.
Why was their molten metal flowing under the wreckage of the WTC for months? No jet fuel can melt metal, and nothing explainable could melt that much metal and keep it hot enough to remain molten for a month.
How did a passport of one of the so called hijackers make it through the huge fireball and end up on the street?
Why have photos from the 80+ cameras confiscated at the Pentagon never been released?
Why did the airplane that supposedly crashed at Shanksville vaporize so that nothing remained, not bodies, not luggage, not metal, - nothing - for the first time in aviation history? However, we are told that even though the plane vaporized at Shanksville, a hand-written note from a hijacker was found.
Of course, there are so many more. We deserve the answers. We deserve the right to ask these questions in public forums like the corporate media....who will not touch them with the proverbial ten foot pole. We have gate keepers on the Internet who actively ridicule and dismiss anyone who dares to raise these questions. Will you be one of them? Or, after really thinking about them, will you hope that one day, when we know what went on before, during and after the attacks on 9/11, - we can all say: "I did not know this, but I'm now absolutely convinced that it is true."
Think about it...it's really time to think about it.
*******
9/11 conspiracy theories
BBC News Magazine
29 August 2011
Conspiracy theories have proliferated following the attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, and over the last decade these theories have taken many twists and turns, explains Mike Rudin.
Ten years on from the attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people, conspiracy theories have continued to evolve. They now question every aspect of the official account, despite the fact that every year has provided more witnesses and evidence to bolster the official explanation.
An opinion poll, carried out by Gfk NOP for BBC's The Conspiracy Files in 2011, found that 14% of people questioned in the UK and 15% in the US did not believe the official explanation that al-Qaeda was responsible, and instead believed the US government was involved in a wider conspiracy. Among 16 to 24-year-olds that belief rises to around one in four.
Since 9/11 there have been numerous lengthy and painstaking official reports - the 9/11 Commission, congressional investigations and many inquiries by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. None has ever found any evidence of a wider conspiracy.
The myriad of conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are rarely spelt out in great detail - perhaps because when they are, they have been quickly debunked. Nor is a motive usually explained.
Underlying distrust
The starting point for 9/11 conspiracies is that many people find it hard to believe 19 young men, armed with just knives and box-cutters, could casually walk through airport security, hijack four commercial planes and then within the space of 77 minutes destroy three of the iconic symbols of America's power, in the face of the world's most powerful and technologically-advanced military superpower.
It is a shocking thought.
As with many conspiracy theories there is a distrust of anything official and disbelief that government and security forces, which are so often portrayed as invincible, can be beaten by a small group of poorly-armed men.
It is a similar argument that questions whether a lone gunman could have killed President John F Kennedy, then the most powerful and best-protected man on the earth, or how someone so special as Princess Diana could die in a car crash.
Nothing is taken on trust about 9/11. If an eyewitness, an official or an expert counters a conspiracy theory, their motives are immediately questioned.
And the theories are ever evolving. When evidence comes forward that casts doubt on a theory, one rarely hears an admission that the theory must be wrong. Instead the focus shifts to the latest "unanswered question".
"We don't know the full story of exactly what happened," says American radio talk show host Alex Jones. "We know the official story is completely unproven and a fairy tale. I'm saying that it needs to be investigated."
Controlled demolition
A number of conspiracies focus on the actual collapse of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center.
Initially many questioned how such huge skyscrapers, which had dominated the Manhattan skyline for so long, could be brought down by an hour or so of fires - alluding to the possibility of some kind of controlled demolition.
But then the official report set out a rational explanation. And it also pointed out that contrary to the conspiracy theory, controlled demolition is always bottom up and not the top down collapse of the Twin Towers.
So then the focus shifted to World Trade Center Building 7 - another huge skyscraper which also collapsed on 9/11, but which was not hit by a plane.
The theory is that tonnes of explosives and an incendiary called thermite were used in a controlled demolition to destroy the building from the bottom up.
But when it is pointed out that thermite has never been used in controlled demolition, the theory once again moves on and claims that new and secret types of explosives and incendiaries were used.
So what is the attraction of conspiracy theories? And why are they so persistent?
Writer and producer of 90s US television series The X-Files, Frank Spotnitz, offers an explanation. He argues that we live in an age of anxiety, where we do not know who to trust and what to believe in. Conspiracy theories, he says, offer "a magic key that fits all the pieces together" and makes sense of our uncertain world.
'Fantasy event'
Other conspiracy theories question whether a commercial Boeing 757 even hit the US military's
Pentagon headquarters in Washington DC.
And another suggests the fourth plane, which crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, was shot down by a American military missile.
Even the death of Osama Bin Laden in May 2011 is questioned. A host of different conspiracy theories suggest he died as early as 2001 or even that he was captured by American forces some time later.
"It is utterly astonishing that we should be able to kill a man who actually died nine years earlier in this fantasy event in Pakistan," says Prof Jim Fetzer.
But judging by the BBC's opinion poll, belief in conspiracy theories about 9/11 seems set to continue for a long time to come.
Gfk NOP carried out the opinion poll for the BBC in the UK and USA in July. Both were telephone polls with 1000 adults and the margin of error is +/- 3%
Question: Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by 'Al Qaeda'. However some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?
*******
9/11: Who Really Benefited?
Fact and Not Fiction...
by Captain America
Global Research, July 24, 2011
Global Research Editor's Note
We bring to the attention of our readers this provocative review of the strategic and corporate interests behind 9/11 including Wall Street, the Texas oil companies and the defense contractors.
The statements in this article are corroborated by numerous studies, books, news articles and research reports published since September 2001.
In the course of almost ten years, Global Research has conducted a detailed review and analysis of the 9/11 attacks, focussing on their broad implications as well as their historical significance. See our 9/11 and the War on Terrorism Dossier
Michel Chossudovsky, July 24, 2011
Forget so-called conspiracy theories. Instead look at reality. Dare ask yourself who actually seems to have benefited from the 9-11 calamity. In light of the debt ceiling debates and the continuous corrupt politics as usual of Washington D.C., it is time for the American people, and individual states of this federation, to look at a troubling set of facts. It seems there were “several” beneficiaries of 9-11 that don’t exactly fit the story line we were constantly fed by the propaganda machine and mainstream media as to how to connect the dots (which we were rhetorically asked to do).
Here is a list of peoples that benefited. Most of this list is factual. Some are more opinion but with strong support in reality-based argument:
1) The New York Port Authority was having difficulty renting out space in the Twin Towers. More importantly there was a huge asbestos liability. Surprisingly these Towers were sold to a new owner Larry Silverstein just three months prior—who managed to get an insurance contract for a big payout if any of the Tower buildings got hit by an airplane. This is a fact.
2) Our first international move was to bomb Afghanistan under the assumption that people there were involved. So the heroin industry of Afghanistan came back to life in a big way—that is international and local drug cartels rediscovered a gold mine of money supply. Bin Laden and the Taliban, because of their religious fanaticism, pretty much closed down the trade to a trickle. But after the bombing shake-up, people connected with the heroin trade in Central Asia reaped billion dollars rewards—including money-laundering groups of financiers—such as banksters, etc. (And this is pretty much all the U.S. military/ intelligence has really accomplished—despite all the rhetoric and high-sounding goals about exporting democracy.) This is fact and not fiction.
3) Investors of profitable corporations connected to the military industrial complex made a killing (pun intended). Obviously war has been profitable for some industries for eons as we are told by most war historians profits are an inevitable consequence of war for merchants of death yet they say profit is “not” the driving force behind war. Think again. For our American culture, since at least the Vietnam War, it seems to have become the driving force. (What else does America still manufacture?) Prior to 9/11 there was little in the way of war material inventories being depleted. But soon after 9/11 this all changed. In fact some corporate stocks immediately went up in value—as did some military contracts. Note as well that after the cold war both the Pentagon and the Intelligence apparatus should have cut their budgets in half. (But then no one would have been promoted and the Pentagon would have lost some of its clout.) That did not happen. Rather the budgets doubled in size. How is that for financial austerity? This is fact and not fiction.
4) Some powerful industry leaders and think tank politicos believed it was necessary for certain “companies” to “control” various strategic resources such as oil and gas. And not surprisingly the very countries in which we declared a war against terrorists are surprisingly the same countries that contain such resources—especially in the Middle East.
Gas and oil reserves are coveted by every industrial civilization and every military as a necessity. For example, there was a plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to ship out from the Indian ocean—requiring stable societies that don’t sabotage pipelines. Nevertheless despite things not going as planned oil companies for whatever reason reaped huge profits. Fact and not fiction.
5) Advocates, such as Paul Bremer, for extreme laissez faire economic policies, attempted to rewrite an Iraqi constitution to promote a free market system of neo-liberal economic principles to make it especially easy for foreign nations to own Iraq’s resources. And if you do your research you will come to learn that the U.S. did not have any gripes with Saddam Hussein until he kicked oil companies out of Iraq because they wanted to take the lion’s share of the profits. He nationalized oil. This is fact and not fiction.
6) Israel benefited by having one of their neighboring enemies, namely Saddam Hussein and his standing army, weakened and preoccupied. It is not a coincidence that advocates and newspaper pundits most defensive about our invasion happen to be strong advocates of Israel’s right-wing will. Evidence clearly shows that some Israeli supporters were part of the culture of deception to take us to war with Iraq—as they are now working to take us to war with Iran with a similar pattern of phony intelligence. Equally it is a fact that whatever Middle East group harbors hostility toward Israel is now considered terrorist in nature to Americans. It is a fact that the Israeli lobby pushed hard for war with Iraq.
7) Right-wing politicos, especially Christian and Judaic, who like to promote prejudice against anything Muslim and Arab benefited. Since 9-11 there has been a constant propaganda war against Muslims throughout Western countries. (This is not to argue that Americans should not be wary of foreign motives.) But the fact is that those who do not wish Muslims to have influence in this culture have clearly wages a major propaganda campaign for Westerners to fear and distrust a huge segment of the world’s population—as a “cultural clash” or clash of civilizations like the medieval era of The Crusades. This is to say that Israel’s enemies have become our enemies as “neocon” propaganda campaign harps on “Islamo-fascism,” “Islamo-extremism,” and “Islamo-fanaticism”. Meanwhile this event is used to further persuade Americans Israel is America’s “natural” ally and partner against the forces of evil. (Yet rightwing Israelis too are not willing to separate Church and State and so they discriminate against those not Jewish. Therefore they too do not share our democratic values of equality for “all” people—like many of the theocratic countries in the Middle East.) This is opinion but it still reflects reality.
8) Politically motivated people with the desire to use “fear,” namely terrorism, as an excuse to curtail and destroy civil liberties and freedoms normally honored in democratic countries. We have become more a fascist state with Homeland Security surveillance. This curtailment is similar to those who continue to try to censor free speech—and make it more difficult to have the right to “associate” via technologies such as the Internet. Such mentality has allowed spying on citizens by “privatized” corporations not accountable to the tax paying public who pay organizations to secretly spy and keep records on its own citizenry. Obama and his team have done nothing to make real, substantive changes, and in fact have reinforced this tyranny. The curtailment of our freedoms is fact and not fiction.
9) Some international political operatives willing to take American bribe money in exchange to playing and saying our tune have benefited, such as some political factions in the Middle East who equally play they game with our tax dollars—including journalists who will write and say whatever Uncle Sam wants as long as there is a brick of one hundred dollar bills as “disappeared” just like military contracts that did not get performed—but were still played. This could also include those creating phony websites to spew messages or take credit for events done by others.
10) People with a desire to destroy the political strength and good will of the American people and government. Our country is no longer looked upon as a “positive” force for democracy. Further our economy has been severely damaged by corrupt forces willing to sacrifice real national security to greedy and self-interested ends. We are seen as the rogue state by too many. It doesn’t seem to bother some profiting that America goes broke invading foreign countries—irrespective of what the rest of the world thinks—and what could be a long term disaster—if not a World War 3. (It almost seems like a deliberate foil to destroy military preparedness and to weaken our security.) Furthermore, those who believe in a two class system benefited because the wealth investor class, including most of the Congress and Senate, are “not” sending their kids to die—rather they rely on a volunteer military of lower and middle class kids that can’t find jobs or have few prospects to go to school.
11) Along with this financial bust is a drive to destroy liberal notions of any kind of welfare for the less fortunate—save welfare for corrupt corporations. While it is true that there is no free lunch (unless you live in the beltway) there is also way too much scorn for people who are not super-rich as deserving some kind of humanity.
Perhaps Obama should let the country default. Perhaps individual states “should” give serious consideration to secede from the Union. It has become one massive failure anyway. This litany is as contentious as the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence written over two hundred years ago. And there is good reason to modify our current banking system and the Federal Reserve.
The U.S. Congress, like most pseudo-liberal chicken lefties, who have not had the guts to look seriously at what likely happened on 9/11, or why, have succumbed to the cowardliness of voting to not close the U.S. gulag. They are more afraid of their own lost of stature than they are of honoring the rights of law and justice. Meanwhile the legal system—id est lawyers—have been far too compliant.
This is to say that the U.S. is being strangulated by corporate America and its finance sector. This is a form of slavery to be manipulated into doing things under false assumptions. Why the ultra rich became even more so, they “own” Congress with their bribery of lobby money and especially the Republican party—despite all the Tea Party advocates.
You may not like these realities. Few do. So go ahead and continue to shun all “theories” about 9-11 as mere skewed imagination. Because while it is true that 99.99% of the Government is innocent that doesn’t mean a relatively small, but high-ranking cabal, could not have been involved—especially given all the security transgressed and air force stand down that ensued.
Still it is easy to point fingers at identifiable groups of people as over-generalizations. Nevertheless many people looked the other way to not notice the dots the machine was drawing was itself tainted—which had its own wisdom of reticence. But where are we to go as a culture if we continue to play blind?
You can believe in fantasy as most people choose—because in the short term it feels easier. But it may turn out to be worse in the longer term with both parties being irremediably corrupt. More importantly to the sell out of our human rights to corporations with laws like Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission.
Good Luck to all people who think they know something because they have been conditioned to believe what they currently do. Yet ask yourself how many Muslims actually benefited? Then ask that irrespective of who did it, does it not seem that our culture has some issues to contend with and some bureaucracy to address besides the liberal agenda? If lawyers don’t start making more noise we could have some serious problems.
*******
Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, September 11, 2011
Author's note
The following article, published five years ago on the 9th of September 2006. In 2002 a CBS report confirmed that on September 10, 2001, bin Laden had been admitted to a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi, courtesy of America's ally, Pakistan.
Assuming that the CBS report by Dan Rather is accurate, Osama's whereabouts on the morning of September 11, 2001 would have been known to US officials.
He could have been arrested at short notice which would have "saved us a lot of trouble", but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has provided the pretext and the justification to wage America's "Global War on Terrorism".
Included in annex is the transcript of the CBS Report.
Where was Osama on September 11, 2001?
by Michel Chossudovsky,
Global Research, September 9, 2006
"Going after bin Laden" has served, over the last five years, to sustain the legend of the "world's most wanted terrorist", who "haunts Americans and millions of others around the world."
Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly claimed that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden remain unknown: "It is like looking for a needle in a stack of hay".
In November 2001, US B-52 bombers carpet bombed a network of caves in the Tora Bora mountains of eastern Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden and his followers were allegedly hiding. These caves were described as "Osama's last stronghold".
CIA "intelligence analysts" subsequently concluded that Osama had escaped from his Tora Bora cave in the first week of December 2001. And in January 2002, the Pentagon launched a Worldwide search for Osama and his top lieutenants, beyond the borders of Afghanistan. This operation, referred to by Secretary of State Colin Powell as a "hot pursuit", was carried out with the support of the "international community" and America's European allies. US intelligence authorities confirmed, in this regard, that
"while al Qaeda has been significantly shattered, ... the most wanted man - bin Laden himself remains one step ahead of the United States, with the core of his worldwide terror network still in place. (Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, InfoProd, January 20, 2002)
For the last five years, the US military and intelligence apparatus (at considerable expense to US taxpayers) has been "searching for Osama".
A CIA unit with a multimillion dollar budget was set up, with a mandate to find Osama. This unit was apparently disbanded in 2005. "Intelligence experts agree", he is hiding in a remote area of Pakistan, but "we cannot find him":
"Most intelligence analysts are convinced that Osama bin Laden is somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Lately, it has been said that he's probably in the vicinity of the a 7700m Hindu Kush peak Tirich Mir in the tribal Chitral area of northwest Pakistan." Hobart Mercury (Australia), September 9, 2006)
President Bush has repeatedly promised to "smoke him out" of his cave, capture him dead or alive, if necessary through ground assaults or missile strikes. According to a recent statement by president Bush, Osama is hiding in a remote area of Pakistan which "is extremely mountainous and very inaccessible, ... with high mountains between 9,000 to 15,000 feet high....". We cannot get him, because, according to the president, there is no communications infrastructure, which would enable us to effectively go after him. (quoted in Balochistan Times, 23 April 2006)
The pursuit of Osama has become a highly ritualized process which feeds the news chain on a daily basis. It is not only part of the media disinformation campaign, it also provides a justification for the arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of numerous "suspects", "enemy combatants" and "accomplices", who allegedly might be aware of Osama's whereabouts. And that information is of course vital to "the security of Americans".
The search for Osama serves both military and political objectives. The Democrats and Republicans compete in their resolve to weed out "islamic terrorism".
The Path to 9/11, a five-hour ABC series on "the search for Osama" --which makes its debut on the 10th and 11th of September to marks the fifth anniversary of the attacks-- casually accuses Bill Clinton of having been "too busy with the Monica Lewinsky scandal to fight terrorism." The message of the movie is that the Democrats neglected the "war on terrorism".
The fact of the matter is that every single administration, since Jimmy Carter have supported and financed the "Islamic terror" network, created during the Carter administration at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, 12 September 2001). al Qaeda is a instrument of US intelligence: a US sponsored intelligence asset.
Where was Osama on Septembers 11?
There is evidence that the whereabouts of Osama are known to the Bush Administration.
On September 10. 2001, "Enemy Number One" was in a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi, courtesy of America's indefectible ally Pakistan, as confirmed by a report of Dan Rather, CBS News. (See our October 2003 article on this issue)
He could have been arrested at short notice which would have "saved us a lot of trouble", but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as George W's speeches in the course of the last five years.
According to Dan Rather, CBS, Bin Laden was hospitalized in Rawalpindi. one day before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, 2001.
"Pakistan. Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) told CBS that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, at Pak Army's headquarters.
Dan Rather, CBS Anchor: As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.
This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.
Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.
"The military had him surrounded," says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, "and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time," he says, "I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after." Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11.
PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.
(voice-over): But it was Pakistan's President Musharraf who said in public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don`t know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden`s health, I just am -- don`t have any knowledge.
PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan`s military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the United States may not know if those same people might help him again perhaps to freedom.
Barry Petersen, CBS News, Islamabad.
(END VIDEOTAPE) END
(CBS News, 28 January 2002 emphasis added, the complete transcript of CBS report sis contained in annex to this article)
It should be noted, that the hospital is directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America's best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another "better purpose". Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge regarding Osama's health. (CBS News, 28 January 2002)
The CBS report is a crucial piece of information in our understanding of 9/11.
It refutes the administration's claim that the whereabouts of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistan connection, it suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.
Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their January 2002 report. They suggest that the US had been deliberately misled by Pakistani intelligence officials. They fail to ask the question:
Why does the US administration state that they cannot find Osama?
If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is obvious. The administration is lying. Osama bin Laden's whereabouts were known.
If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of America's ally, he was either still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred or had been released from the hospital within the last hours before the attacks.
In other words, Osama's whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden. These negotiations, led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's military intelligence, on behalf of the government of President Pervez Musharraf, took place on the 12th and 13th of September in Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's office.
He could have been arrested at short notice on September 10th, 2001. But then we would not have been privileged to five years of Osama related media stories. The Bush administration desperately needs the fiction of an "outside enemy of America".
Known and documented Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda is a construct of the US intelligence apparatus. His essential function is to give a face to the "war on terrorism". The image must be vivid.
According to the White house, "The greatest threat to us is this ideology of violent extremism, and its greatest public proponent is Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden remains the number one target, in terms of our efforts, but he's not the only target." Recent Statement of White House Assistant for Homeland Security Frances Townsend, 5 September 2006).
The national security doctrine rests on the fiction of Islamic terrorists, led by Osama who are portrayed as a "threat to the civilized World". In the words of President Bush, "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? We are on the offensive. We will not rest. We will not retreat. And we will not withdraw from the fight until this threat to civilization has been removed." (quoted by CNN, September 5, 2006)
The "hot pursuit" of Osama in the rugged mountainous areas of Pakistan must continue, because without Osama, referred to ad nauseam in news reports and official statements, the fragile legitimacy of the Bush administration collapses like a deck of cards.
Moreover, the search for Osama protects the real architects of the 911 attacks. While there is no evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the 911 attacks, as revealed by nuerous studies and documents, there is mounting evidence of complicity and coverup at the highest levels of the State, Military and intelligence apparatus.
The continued arrest of alleged 911 accomplices and suspects has nothing to do with "national security". It creates the illusion that Arabs and Muslims are behind the terror plots, while shunting the conduct of a real criminal investigation into the 911 attacks. And what were dealing with is the criminalization of the upper echelons of State.
*******
9/11 panel to get access to withheld data
November 13, 2003
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reached an agreement with the White House yesterday to gain restricted access to years of classified presidential briefings, which had been the focus of subpoena threats from the panel's chairman.
The compromise will allow the 10-member commission to create a four-person subcommittee that will have varying degrees of access to the documents known as Presidential Daily Briefs from the Bush and Clinton administrations, according to a commission statement and sources familiar with the agreement.
But the accord includes numerous restrictions limiting what parts of briefings can be seen and what parts can later be shared with the rest of the bipartisan panel and includes White House review of much of that
information, according to sources familiar with the agreement. Those with direct access will take notes, and those notes are subject to review by the White House before being shared with others, sources said.
The limitations prompted angry condemnations yesterday from two Democratic commissioners -- former Georgia senator Max Cleland and former Indiana representative Timothy Roemer -- who have argued that the commission should be more aggressive in seeking sensitive materials from the Bush administration.
Cleland called the agreement "unconscionable" and said it "was deliberately compromised by the president of the United States" in order to limit the panel's work.
"If this decision stands, I as a member of the commission cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access," he said. "This investigation is now compromised . . . This is `The Gong Show'; this isn't protection of national security."
Said Roemer: "To paraphrase Churchill, never have so few commissioners reviewed such important
documents with so many restrictions. The 10 commissioners should either have access to this or not at all."
But Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor and another Democrat on the panel, said the deal was a "compromise that respects the integrity and independence of the commission.
"It is not perfect, but this will provide the commission with sufficient access," he said.
The commission, which refuses to release vote counts and has conducted many of its deliberations behind closed doors, declined yesterday to publicly provide details about the agreement.
White House spokeswoman Ashley Snee said the administration "has been working closely with the commission to ensure they have the information they need to be successful."
The bipartisan Sept. 11 commission has issued subpoenas to the Defense Department and the Federal Aviation Administration for materials related to air defenses on the day of the attacks.
But the commission balked at a proposal by Roemer last week to subpoena the presidential documents, which include an Aug. 6, 2001, briefing outlining a variety of possible attacks by the Al Qaeda network. Thomas Kean, the commission chairman, a Republican, and former New Jersey governor, had warned two weeks earlier that the panel was considering subpoenas targeting the White House.
Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband was killed at the World Trade Center, assailed the commission yesterday for refusing to provide details of its deal.
*******

*******
Also See:
911 Conspiracy Theories
21 February 2007
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2007/02/911-conspiracy-theories.html
and
9/11 - Will We Ever Know What Happened?
16 August 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2009/08/911-will-we-ever-know-what-happened.html
and
What's with the Ground Zero Mosque?
15 August 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2010/08/whats-with-ground-zero-mosque.html
*******