EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lies We Still Tell Ourselves about 9/11
Have we managed to silence ourselves as well as the world with our own fears?
By their books, ye shall know them.
Smoke spews from a tower of the World Trade Center. (GETTY IMAGES)
I'm talking about the volumes, the libraries – nay, the very halls of literature – which the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001 have spawned. Many are spavined with pseudo-patriotism and self-regard, others rotten with the hopeless mythology of CIA/Mossad culprits, a few (from the Muslim world, alas) even referring to the killers as "boys", almost all avoiding the one thing which any cop looks for after a street crime: the motive.
Why so, I ask myself, after 10 years of war, hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, lies and hypocrisy and betrayal and sadistic torture by the Americans – our MI5 chaps just heard, understood, maybe looked, of course no touchy-touchy nonsense – and the Taliban? Have we managed to silence ourselves as well as the world with our own fears? Are we still not able to say those three sentences: The 19 murderers of 9/11 claimed they were Muslims. They came from a place called the Middle East. Is there a problem out there?
American publishers first went to war in 2001 with massive photo-memorial volumes. Their titles spoke for themselves: Above Hallowed Ground, So Others Might Live, Strong of Heart, What We Saw, The Final Frontier, A Fury for God, The Shadow of Swords... Seeing this stuff piled on newsstands across America, who could doubt that the US was going to go to war? And long before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, another pile of tomes arrived to justify the war after the war. Most prominent among them was ex-CIA spook Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm – and didn't we all remember Churchill's The Gathering Storm? – which, needless to say, compared the forthcoming battle against Saddam with the crisis faced by Britain and France in 1938.
There were two themes to this work by Pollack – "one of the world's leading experts on Iraq," the blurb told readers, among whom was Fareed Zakaria ("one of the most important books on American foreign policy in years," he drivelled) – the first of which was a detailed account of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; none of which, as we know, actually existed. The second theme was the opportunity to sever the "linkage" between "the Iraq issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict".
The Palestinians, deprived of the support of powerful Iraq, went the narrative, would be further weakened in their struggle against Israeli occupation. Pollack referred to the Palestinians' "vicious terrorist campaign" – but without any criticism of Israel. He wrote of "weekly terrorist attacks followed by Israeli responses (sic)", the standard Israeli version of events. America's bias towards Israel was no more than an Arab "belief". Well, at least the egregious Pollack had worked out, in however slovenly a fashion, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had something to do with 9/11, even if Saddam had not.
In the years since, of course, we've been deluged with a rich literature of post-9/11 trauma, from the eloquent The Looming Tower of Lawrence Wright to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose supporters have told us that the plane wreckage outside the Pentagon was dropped by a C-130, that the jets that hit the World Trade Centre were remotely guided, that United 93 was shot down by a US missile, etc. Given the secretive, obtuse and sometimes dishonest account presented by the White House – not to mention the initial hoodwinking of the official 9/11 commission staff – I am not surprised that millions of Americans believe some of this, let alone the biggest government lie: that Saddam was behind 9/11. Leon Panetta, the CIA's newly appointed autocrat, repeated this same lie in Baghdad only this year.
There have been movies, too. Flight 93 re-imagined what may (or may not) have happened aboard the plane which fell into a Pennsylvania wood. Another told a highly romanticised story, in which the New York authorities oddly managed to prevent almost all filming on the actual streets of the city. And now we're being deluged with TV specials, all of which have accepted the lie that 9/11 did actually change the world – it was the Bush/Blair repetition of this dangerous notion that allowed their thugs to indulge in murderous invasions and torture – without for a moment asking why the press and television went along with the idea. So far, not one of these programmes has mentioned the word "Israel" – and Brian Lapping's Thursday night ITV offering mentioned "Iraq" once, without explaining the degree to which 11 September 2001 provided the excuse for this 2003 war crime. How many died on 9/11? Almost 3,000. How many died in the Iraq war? Who cares?
Publication of the official 9/11 report – in 2004, but read the new edition of 2011 – is indeed worth study, if only for the realities it does present, although its opening sentences read more like those of a novel than of a government inquiry. "Tuesday ... dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States... For those heading to an airport, weather conditions could not have been better for a safe and pleasant journey. Among the travellers were Mohamed Atta..." Were these guys, I ask myself, interns at Time magazine?
But I'm drawn to Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan whose The Eleventh Day confronts what the West refused to face in the years that followed 9/11. "All the evidence ... indicates that Palestine was the factor that united the conspirators – at every level," they write. One of the organisers of the attack believed it would make Americans concentrate on "the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel". Palestine, the authors state, "was certainly the principal political grievance ... driving the young Arabs (who had lived) in Hamburg".
The motivation for the attacks was "ducked" even by the official 9/11 report, say the authors. The commissioners had disagreed on this "issue" – cliché code word for "problem" – and its two most senior officials, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, were later to explain: "This was sensitive ground ...Commissioners who argued that al-Qa'ida was motivated by a religious ideology – and not by opposition to American policies – rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... In their view, listing US support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qa'ida's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy." And there you have it.
So what happened? The commissioners, Summers and Swan state, "settled on vague language that circumvented the issue of motive". There's a hint in the official report – but only in a footnote which, of course, few read. In other words, we still haven't told the truth about the crime which – we are supposed to believe – "changed the world for ever". Mind you, after watching Obama on his knees before Netanyahu last May, I'm really not surprised.
When the Israeli Prime Minister gets even the US Congress to grovel to him, the American people are not going to be told the answer to the most important and "sensitive" question of 9/11: why?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
468 Comments so far
Show AllI have been trying to get the facts of the motive or 9/11 out to the public for years. (meanwhile media pundits and politicians have been trying to suppress it)
Here it is, see these videos: Tinyurl.com/911motivation
The biggest lie of all is what actually killed the majority of the people on 9/11.
~2600 people, including 343 firefighters, 60 police officers, and about 10 paramedics/EMTs.
Significant relevant evidence was left out of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reports. Compelling and comprehensive evidence that all points to controlled demolition of the three World Trade Center buildings (the Twin Towers and WTC 7).
Didn't the "collapse" look uncanny to you? Too fast and too symmetrical? Think about it! Asymmetrical damage and symmetrical collapse. Near free-fall speed of descent (indistinguishable from free-fall in the case of WTC 7). Pulverized concrete. Total dismemberment of the steel structures. Molten metal, pooled in the basements and iron-rich microspheres throughout the dust. Sounds of explosions reported by firefighters and other eyewitnesses. Pulverization of the building contents, including the people: 700+ bone fragments were found on the roof of a neighboring building; rescue dogs were overwhelmed by the number of pieces of bodies; bodies of 1100 victims were never recovered!
The investigation into the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers was compromised and fraudulent. Steel was shipped for recycling, destroyed before the investigation was complete - it is illegal to destroy evidence while an investigation is still underway. Evidence of high temperature corrosion and sulfidation of steel was included in the FEMA report but not included in the subsequent NIST reports.
2600+ people were murdered and we still haven't had an adequate investigation! And the media is not telling us the whole story. Have you seen video footage of WTC collapsing? If not, why not? Take a look here: www/ae911truth.org
Professional architects, engineers, materials scientists, physicists other scientists, demolitions experts who have credibility, integrity and courage are challenging the government reports. They need your support.
Do you trust the media to tell you the whole story - if so, why? Do not succumb to the media suppression. Please, look at the evidence for yourself! www.ae911truth.org
Peace808, great post. But unfortunately most of the True Believers here are either paid govt. agents or are immune to empirical evidence. They prefer to believe what their favorite lefty gatekeepers tell them to believe--Chomsky, Cockburn, Fisk, etc. There is a herd-like refusal to examine basic and incontrovertible empirical evidence, and draw the disquieting conclusion to which it points. We went through the same thing after the CIA murdered JFK: much denial on the left, center, and right.
"The promoters of the systemic evil involved in killing President Kennedy counted on our repression and denial of its reality. They knew that no one would want to deal with the elephant in the living room. The Dallas and Bethesda doctors who saw the truth staring up at them from the president's dead body, and who then backed away from it, were not unique. They are symbolic of us all."
James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, 315.
"ae911truth" is a scam and its leader, Richard Gage, who pays himself over 75,000 a year out of the donations, is a con man. All his BS has been debunked. See TinyUrl.com/GageLies
YOU are a scam. Go back to troll school, troll.
A rather long post, however I've studied this issue in great detail, so you may find it worthwhile...
The fact that Fisk censors by omission the most compelling evidence regarding 911 complicity, and chooses rather the most controversial and/or ridiculous theories, is an indication that he is either a very, very poor "investigative journalist" or is operating with dubious intent.
It should be noted that Israelis have gone out of their way to conflate 911 with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, thereby urging Americans to join in their suffering at the hands of "Islamic terrorism".
This even occurred on 911 itself. From NBC News:
Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab.
Shortly thereafter, video footage was beamed across American televisions of Palestinians "celebrating the attacks". Turns out the footage was taken months earlier. But those images was seared into the consciousness of the American public.
Who WAS celebrating? Well, three Mossad agents on the New Jersey Water Front, for one, who were scene "high-fiving" and "flicking bic lighters" as the twin towers "collapsed". They later admitted on Israeli television that they were there to "document the event", and indeed they brought along a video camera to the crime scene for just that purpose.
According to ABC's 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers:
"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."
A few months later, the Palestinian Authority arrested a group of Israelis who were attempting to create "An Al-Qaeda cell" in Palestine.
So yes. There are plenty of linkages between Israel and 911, but not in the manner Fisk claims. I am not one of those who believe that "Israel carried out 911" -- that would have been almost as impossible as the official story -- but they clearly had foreknowledge, and may have played a supplemental role.
To the question of motive, this is actually very difficult to discern if one accepts the official fairy tale. Bin Laden denied involvement and condemned the attacks, so he's out. As for Atta, he spent most of his time snorting cocaine, hanging out at strip clubs and gambling on Jack Abramoff's Casino boat. He was even heard to yell "fuck God!" at one particular gentleman's club. Hardly the picture of a devout Muslim.
It is true that the vast majority of suicide bombers are not motivated by religion, despite the ubiquitous use of the term "Islamic terrorist", but the behavior of the "hijackers" is still entirely inconsistent with a group of men about to engage in a mission of this nature.
Nor did they evince any skill whatsoever in the art of flying planes. Hani Hanjour, who is purported to have performed that circus maneuver into the reinforced rennovation wing of the Pentagon (where the financial records were kept -- nudge nudge, wink wink), couldn't even fly a Cessna. Numerous HIGHLY trained pilots of jumbo jets have attempted both the Pentagon maneuver and the WTC hits, and failed.
The "evidence" to substantiate that these "hijackers" were guilty seems to consist of a "confession" by the "self-proclaimed mastermind" of 911, KSM, after he was waterboarded 100 plus times, as well as a bag which miraculously failed to make it onto Atta's plane. In said bag was a flight manual, a will (why bring a will on a suicide mission?) and a pre-fab list of his other suicide attackers, ready for prime time.
Quite honestly, this sort of stuff doesn't rise to the level of a B-movie frame-up. Matlock or Perry Mason could clear the suspects in no time. Certainly much more effort and elegance was put into the "legend" or back-story of Lee Harvey Oswald than 911 "hijackers".
Continued...
First of all, Fisk is correct. Pundits and politicians have gone out of their way to deny or mislead the public about the fact that the main motive for the 9/11 attacks was anger at US support of Israel. Second, it is a disgrace that Israelis were celebrating BUT there is ZERO proof of any involvement in the attacks. See Tinyurl.com/911motivation
"the fact that the main motive for the 9/11 attacks was anger at US support of Israel."
Proof? I'm not saying that WOULDN'T be a plausible motive, however I don't take seriously "confessions" obtained through torture. Even assuming there WERE "Islamic terrorist hijacker" patsies on those planes, they could not possibly have coordinated the war games or wired B7; hence, the ultimate motivation was probably the exact opposite of what you propose -- they were not designed to target or mitigate the American/Israeli power structures/propaganda machines but enhance them. And indeed they succeeded, triumphantly, despite the overall sloppiness of the operation ie the 1000 anomalies pointing to the actual architects.
These guys have been talking about why they target the US for years. Israel supporters (not all but those who don't respect the American people's right to know why their lives are being lost and put at continuing risk) must be pleased at all this "9/11 truth" BS.
Pundits and politicians have OMITTED the motive of anger at US support of Israel many times from the public declarations made by the terrorists. In fact, you can see my video
GOOGLE "The Path to 9/11" FABRICATED a Fatwa Quote!" and see how that the ABC movie resorted to fraud in order to hide the real motive. See real motive: Tinyurl.com/911motivation
Building 7 was NOT "wired" First of all, it is extremely illogical to even think that anyone would target WTC7. Second, it did not collapse the way "truthers" claim, it damaged surrounding buildings UNLIKE a "controlled demolition" You can see pictures if you look at TinyUrl.com/GageLies
A really nasty game has been played on the public, reporters were unwilling to read the full Rueters newswire from that day whch said the main motive. On the day of 9/11, you can see many reporters reading this BUT omitting ISRAEL:
Expert: Bin Laden Warned of 'Unprecedented' Attack
(Reuters) Sep 11, 11:19 AM ET
Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday.
Please help get the facts to people, pass it on: TinyUrl.com/911motivation
RepresentativePress states --
"Building 7 was NOT "wired"
I will not be able to convince you otherwise, and doubtless you will say the same of me, so I'll leave it at that.
A few facets to the B7 story for other readers, however.
- It was reported as having "collapsed" by the BBC 30 minutes before it actually did. Apparently the press release was sent out too soon.
- 911 whistle blower Barry Jennings reported explosives in the building. He later retracted his story in an interview with the BBC, causing "Loose Change" filmmaker Dylan Avery to release his full interview with Jennings, affirming the original testimony. Jennings asked Avery not to release the footage because, he claimed, his job at been threatened.
Just like Steven Jones. Just like Kevin Ryan.
Jennings died two days before the release of NIST's "final report" on B7. Cause of death has not been established. Avery hired a Private Dick to investigate; after a few inquiries, the PD responded+ -- "never contact me again"
- The 911 Comission report, headed by "myth-maker" Philip Zelikow, did not even mention B7. Keep in mind this was a building the length of a football field.
- Amongst the occupants B7 were the IRS, Secret Service, SEC and C.I.A. It was also the "command bunker" for cases of emergency in NY.
- Amongst the documents destroyed in B7 were SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom
- Larry Silverstein, who owned the lease for B7, is a close personal friend of Binny Netanyahu and, according to Haaretz, speaks to him "on a weekly basis".
- The corrupt NIST investigation concluded that "no freefall" occurred w/respect B7. They were forced to admit otherwise, however, after a HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHER named David Chandler proved them wrong.
- Only one in three New Yorkers are even aware of Building 7, so extensive has been the censorship of the dramatic footage.
- Watch the footage and judge for yourself.
RepresentativePress goes on to quote Reuters, an impeccably reliable news source --
"Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday."
If that were the case, ol' Binny must have had something different in mind, seeing as he condemned the 911 attacks and blamed them on the United States and Israel. In any case, the alleged statements of the ever-morphing and now dead Emmanuel Goldstein known as Osama Bin Laden are largely irrelevant at this point. Several of his alleged tapes and videos have been proven frauds by respectable AI institutes and acknowledged as such even by supporters of the official fairy tale.
Aaron Brown himself twice said "has collapsed" ... ""or is about to collapse" "we know have a report perhaps of another building that has collapsed" So these guys are taking the predictions from the firemen and simply getting it wrong.
What kind of lunatic thinks secret agents would contact the BBC? What the hell for?
http://www.youtube.com/RepresentativePress
"What kind of lunatic thinks secret agents would contact the BBC?"
Well, the BBC, for one. In case you haven't noticed, most major news organizations continually cite unnamed "intelligence sources" for their scoops. Happens every day, in fact.
John Pilger -- an actual journalist -- has written numerous articles on the extensive collaboration between the BBC and the British intelligence services. Indeed during Operation Ajax in Iran, the BBC actually played an instrumental role in the overthrow of Mossadegh. Ditto the British intervention in Greece following WWII.
I am not trying to claim that the pseudo-journalists at the BBC were involved in 911; only that they received the press release a smidge early.
Re- Firefighters -- see firefighters for 911 truth. If, as you claim, there were firemen who believed B7 was about to collapse into its footprint at free-fall leaving traces of nano-thermite and pools of molten metal due to minor fires and minor structural damage, they must have been wizards indeed. Perhaps Bin Laden destroyed those structural columns via Islamofascist mind rays.
Re- Jennings. I already addressed that video.
You have poor reasoning skills. we are not talking about a "scoop" we are talking your fantasy that a crime was committed by "secret agents" involved in a "controlled demolition." I tried to explain to you that firemen had predicted that WTC7 was going to collapse. That evaluation was misreported by some in the media, by Aaron Brown twice although he can hear him try to clarify it within the next sentence. Obviously someone heard "had collapsed" and mistakenly passed the info on. (you don't know that many people, included media, were waiting for WTC7 to collapse??)
There is no reason at all for supposed "secret agents involved in a controlled demolition" to think it necessary to give a "press release" saying WTC7 "had collapsed" when any media outlet would simply report a collapse when they see it. It really is depressing that this has to be explained.
"The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." - Fire Chief Daniel Nigro
It did NOT "collapse into its footprint at free-fall" I gave you a link to videos showed how WTC7 damaged surrounding buildings, is there a reason you didn't want to look at it? Tinyurl.com/GageLies
And it is stupid to think that anyone would even want to target WTC7 at all. It was hit by debris, fires started and undermined the structural integrity of the steel as it expanded with the heat from the fires.
Dylan Avery asked Jennings "to you recollection, did the explosion on the 6th floor happen before the first tower collapsed, or the second one, or before both of them?" How about none of that? How about what Jennings heard and felt was when the second tower collapsed? Are we to believe that Jennings heard and felt nothing when WTC1 collapsed and impacted WTC7?!? This truther shit is such stupidity. And since when is a controlled demolition done by setting of explosives hours before the building is to come down? Again, this conspiracy stuff is so stupid. See the Jennings video because I don't think you watched it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9MmoVaO5U
You go on believing what you believe, kiddo. I obviously can't convince you otherwise. No matter the volume of evidence, no matter the contradictions with the official fairy tale, you cling to it like a dying butterfly on a flower.
That is your prerogative.
It is not a question of believing what I want to believe, facts are facts. I notice you evade them. AS I try to explain in this video, reality is reality so please stop calling it "official." If you took the time you would see I have been pointing out that Bush and others LIED about the very reason we were attacked. The "truth movement" is a horrible, illogical and damaging distraction. I gave you a few specific facts, you didn't address them. Do you think FIre Chief Daniel Nigro is lying when he says "A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."?
As far as Jennings, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9MmoVaO5U
The 9/11 Commission report didn't mention WTC7 because it was not a target. Other buildings hit by debris are not mentioned either like St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.
Osama did NOT "condemn" the attack. At the very time the US was demanding that the Taliban hand over bin LAden and at the time the he was in the reach of the Taliban, bin Laden denied involvement because he didn't want to get handed over. Remember when the US demanded that the Taliban hand him over and the Taliban said "show us proof"? Well if bin Laden had admitted involvement right then, the US would have said "he jsut admitted it, hand him over!" Do you understand?
youtube.com/RepresentativePress
"Osama did NOT "condemn" the attack."
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam."
"Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."
"Then there are intelligence agencies in the U.S., which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Osama and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the U.S. secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget."
Now Osama DOES say that --
"All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel."
However, he clearly did not support the attacks but condemned them. I am NOT trying to portray Osama Bin laden as some sort of "good guy" here, just trying to set the record straight.
You may claim that the interview in Ummat is fraudulent, and that's fine, but by the same token, you should at least acknowledge that many, if not most of the "Bin Laden tapes" are extremely dubious, some approaching the level of farce.
Either way, the collective of men known as Osama Bin laden are not reliable witnesses. Bin Laden's own son claimed that "they made a copy of my father". Doubles or "dopplegangers" are not unusual in black operations, or even amongst tinpot dictators like Saddam. In some cases, the intell bureaucracy didn't even bother trying to create a believable representation of Osama. "Just for Men" Osama with his jet black beard was my particular favorite.
Anyway, I'm afraid I'll have to leave it at that. Perhaps we can argue about this again in future, though something tells me I will not change your mind.
what specific sentence is the "condemnation"? If you think "I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people." is a "condemnation" then I guess we have to disagree because it looks weak, he may not consider it "an appreciable act" and he may say "Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people" but I don't take it as a "condemnation"
Anyway, I explained why right at the time he was within the grasp of the Taliban, he couldn't take credit because then the US could have said "well hand him over" to the Taliban when the Taliban was saying that the US must show proof: At the very time the US was demanding that the Taliban hand over bin LAden and at the time the he was in the reach of the Taliban, bin Laden denied involvement because he didn't want to get handed over. Remember when the US demanded that the Taliban hand him over and the Taliban said "show us proof"? Well if bin Laden had admitted involvement right then, the US would have said "he jsut admitted it, hand him over!" Do you understand?
And since then, bin LAden had repeatedly expressed involvement in the attacks, for example:
"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003
Look, this isn't a game, what you are doing is helping the very same agend as those who didn't what the American people to know they are being targeted mainly because the US support Israeli crimes.
Durrutix, Sep 3 2011 - 11:28pm -- You say, "[O]l' Binny must have had something different in mind, seeing as he condemned the 911 attacks and blamed them on the United States and Israel." What is the evidence that bin Laden condemned the attacks and blamed them on the U.S. and Israel? I know he was never indicted or conclusively proved to be directly responsible, but I've never seen evidence that he attributed responsibility to Israel and the U.S.
In stark contrast to the "evidence" put forth to support the official fairy tale, 911 truth activists have unearthed a mountain of data clearly pointing to complicity.
It would take several volumes to outline said data, but a few of the more striking issues are -- numerous war games before and AT THE EXACT SAME TIME of 911 "simulating" hijacked airliners crashing into buildings -- these included "live fly" aircraft and artificial blips on radar screens -- as well as exercises of bombs going off in NY; put-options leading back to the CIA; Cheney's stand-down order; changes in hijack protocol shortly before 911; failure to intercept; completely illogical points of departure; Rumsfeld's announcement of 2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon budget one day before 911; the destruction or confiscation of virtually all relevant evidence; the 911 background of the 911 commissioners; the PNAC documents; Cheney's energy task force; the "off-the-shelf" Patriot Act; the precedent of the '93 bombing, for which the explosives were provided by the FBI; and of course, the obvious demolition of all three towers, most notably Building 7.
About all "debunkers" can muster in response to these facts is a series of a prior arguments such as "But the government would never kill its own people!" or "Bush was incompetent -- just look at Katrina"! or "You're an antisemite!" or "They couldn't have kept it secret!" (they haven't) or my personal favorite -- "Too many people would have been involved". Only the latter argument makes a modicum of sense, but it betrays ignorance about the way black operations are carried out.
I do not blame Joe Schmo for thinking that "the entire government" would have had to be privy to such a plot, but that's not the way these things work in the real world. Considering their importance, surprisingly little has been written on the topic of black operations; most of what we know comes from a handful of declassified documents, whistelblowers like Agee, Stockton and Elseburg; and scholars such as Peter Dale Scott, Mike Ruppert, Christopher Simpson and Nafeez Ahmed.
The long and short of it is that intelligence agencies use techniques like "chain of command", "plausible deniability", "need-to-know", "contract work" and so forth in order to shield themselves from accountability and keep their operations "black".
It is impossible to know how successful they have been in this regard over time; many of these operations have been exposed, many have undoubtedly remained secret. In any case, this is not really relevant to 911 as its true nature is more like an "open secret". It is so transparent, in fact, that a few scholars have suggested that it was a "transparent conspiracy"; in other words, it was MEANT to be revealed for what it was to a certain percentage of the population, namely those capable of critical thinking.
Speaking of intelligence agencies, it strikes me as rather absurd that journalists like Alex Cockburn and Fisk find themselves talking about "those crazy truthers" when the likes of Leonid Ivashov (Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed forces on 911), Bill Christison (25 year CIA veteran), Robert Steele (former CIA covert ops in Vietnam), Bob Bowman (former head of "Star Wars") and countless other intelligence officers have stated outright that 911 was an inside job. It's one thing if it's just some nut on a street-corner, but these people were or are in positions to know what they're talking about.
There are a few reasons why otherwise intelligent, even brilliant people refuse to accept the obvious. One is that if they remove their heads from the sand they will have to do something about it.
Another -- and this is especially prevalent amongst prominent "leftist" figures, I suspect -- is that they are worried about their reputations. The term "conspiracy theorist" has become an extremely effective propaganda device; it works just as well on Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk as WMD's worked on Joe sixpack. People like Chomsky have spent their entire lives being attacked by the right wing and "mainstream" for their allegedly "marginal" and "radical" positions; naturally they desire to retain respectability.
I therefore don't begrudge most of the so-called "left gatekeepers" their 911-denialism; I do however object to "journalists" like Cockburn and Taibbi who go out of their way to attack truth seekers as "fruitcakes".
I have come to the conclusion that the "Anti-Truth movement" is also profoundly anti-democratic. Take Fisk for example. He claims to care a great deal about what Muslims think. Yet he doesn't appear to care what they think about 911 -- even though that day has affected their lives more than any other in recent memory. Polls in Muslim nations show that they are by far the most skeptical group when it comes to the official fairy tale. In Pakistan, one poll showed that over 90% did not believe "Al-Qaeda" to have been responsible.
For Fisk or Cockburn etc. to dismiss these opinions as "kooky" is an example of Orientalism at its worst. Perhaps the reason Muslims are so skeptical is because they have a certain common sense lacking in much of the Western intelligentsia. They have also been repeatedly subjected to these false flag attacks, with disastrous results. Operation Ajax and the Lavon Affair leap to mind.
The anti-democratic nature of the anti-truth movement extends to this very website. Take any article on 911 and about 80% of the comments express skepticism of the official story. Yet the editors will not tolerate articles which reflect this viewpoint. Maintaining some sort of pseudo-credibility according to the dictates of elite opinion is apparently more important than the site's actual readership.
Excellent comments, Durrutix. Touche.
Yes, a rather long post but for me a very well presentation of the events and, as Inspector Morse once said [ when are you going to look for the undertones], it covers more of those undertones such as motivation and tactics.
Since it is so rather long and not in part 1 into part 2 sequence, I'll have to read it again. And yes you have from appearances studied this pretty close as those 'undertones' you mention match up with several I have.
Lots of great posts on this thread... here's one of the best. Thank You.
You're welcome, to those who replied.
And it's nice to see a fan of Inspector Morse! Terrific program, arguably the best of the modern detective series. Puts CSI, Law and Order and other American sensationalist garbage to shame; I can't tolerate more than 5 minutes of that stuff.
Indeed, more than one 911 skeptic has compared the 911 events to a "Hollywood blockbuster" geared at hormonally charged teenagers. Can't say I disagree -- minus the ACTUAL death and destruction. Ironically, following 911, the Pentagon requested that "screenwriters" come forth to pitch terrorist scripts in order to "prevent" them (I kid you not -- Google it).
In light of the "Lone Gunman" episode of the X-files spinoff -- which aired months before 911 and which featured a plot where a remote controlled plane is flown into the WTC complex in order to spark a broader war in the Middle East -- screenwriters would do well to turn down such offers.
If there's one thing the militarists lack, besides basic human decency, it's imagination. That's why they keep repeating the "Northwoods" and "El Salvador option" scripts over and over and over again.
""If there's one thing the militarists lack, besides basic human decency, it's imagination. That's why they keep repeating the "Northwoods" and "El Salvador option" scripts over and over and over again.""
************************************************************
I have recently delved into the dark world of sociopaths and psychopaths and have picked up enough to put some light on the behaviors of certain people that I have been forced to question their motives. But to keep it short, the key to these people are their absolute lack of conscience, decency, love or compassion. The do act on those moral emotions when the see that they can benefit but they are really totally bankrupt of any conscience or feelings and that is considered a part of insanity. At least that is what this author says and I can't but help but to agree. I sure goes a long way to explaining a lot of people's behaviors as they certainly are out just for themselves and the sport of domination, power and riches.
Since this brief study so far it really opens my eyes to those in government, military, financial and other positions that allow control or domination over other and huge benefits for the perpetrator even if it is tricking some woman into bed one night.
One thing stated, also, is that the %age of these sociopaths and psychopaths is only about 4% and most of those are concentrated in those positions of power, but I suspect, because of the attraction of money, that over all %age is a bit higher. But whatever the %age, when one doesn't have a conscience, any decency, respect or love, it isn't hard for them to get what they want.
Durrutix: Thank you for your perspicacious and sagacious post. Great statement! " The anti-democratic nature of the anti-truth movement extends to this very website. Take any article on 911 and about 80% of the comments express skepticism of the official story. Yet the editors will not tolerate articles that reflect this view point. Maintaining some sort of pseudo-credibility according to the dictates of elite opinion is apparently more important than the site's actual readership". I have e-mailed Malory and the rest of the editors at CD for years with exactly the same point and the only answer I have ever gotten back is: " WE DO NOT POST ARTICLES ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES ".
By far, one of the best analyses I have read. Thanks for taking the time to write this up.
One of the really creepy phenomena, plenty evidenced in comments here today and also on other 9-11-related articles - hell, they don't restrict themselves to 9-11 anymore - is the increasing willingness of certain commenters to compile and publish attempted shaming-lists, reminiscent of the HUAC and its proclivity towards casting wide dragnets and "calling people to account". The motivation is silencing of ideological opponents, salted with a hefty dose of out-of-control paranoia.
The same familiar names post here, repeatedly, constantly accusing and attacking those who dare disagree with them, forming a kind of exclusionary club, the boundaries heavily patrolled. I keep wondering personally where they find hours in the day to do all this writing. (If I muse out loud that there could be multiple people posting under the same name, perhaps tag-team troofer families, that would put me down on their level, though, wouldn't it).
EVERYONE who doesn't agree with them is some kind of imagined plant or double-dealer. The constant recitations of these shaming lists serve to replace rational conversation while further entrenching their worldviews. One wonders what it now takes NOT to be accused of being a plant (other than agreeing with their 9-11 conspiracies, or whatever other take on an issue that they're demanding everyone accept).
Siouxrose in particular: get a fucking grip.
This is all illustrative of of the state of American critical culture, and would be very funny if it weren't so damaging to the left. Come on CD, you can do better than this.
I have no idea what your views are on anything else, but with this, at least, we agree. We will now be accused of being the same person, I'm sure. Such is the absolute lunacy at work here.
During the Bush administration, I first read about the tactic (possibly from something by Mark Crispin Miller, but I can't recall right now) of accusing your opponent of doing exactly what you're doing. If Republicans wanted to destroy Social Security, they'd say that the Democrats wanted to destroy it. That occured to me while reading the comments here. That and the fact that a couple of people here seem to have a tenuous grip on reality at best. Unsubtatiated charges and avoidance of the topic seem to be all that's allowed here, and marching in goose-step with the inmates who have taken over the asylum, of course.
Okay, Mr. Don't avoid the topic,
Please expound on the strange collapse of WTC7, where for a few seconds, ALL supports just disappeared simultaneously and symmetrically, such that for a distance the building was actually in FREE FALL. Tell us how that happened. It makes no sense, that scattered fires could possibly cause this.
How do bodies get turned into tiny bone fragments, and end up on the tops of adjacent buildings? How does all of that concrete get turned into dust? Where are the collapsed floors at the bottom of WTC1 and 2? Huh? What about the molten metal that was discovered in the basement levels? Explain that please. Why did it burn for months? Huh?
How does a simple gravity collapse (assuming such would have been possible) of WTC1, and WTC2, result in huge sections of the building being catapulted UP and OUT in long arcs?
Lunacy to question these things?
Pathetic.
You have admirable good sense. Thank you!
Thank you for your blatancy, spoofer.
I don't read this site often enough to know most of the posters, so I can't comment on this alleged "club" which exists regarding 911 truth. I can however offer you an explanation about why some people might come to certain conclusions. When otherwise articulate and intelligent people insist that there is "nothing to see here" or that 911 truth is "absurd" etc. it is only natural that people scratch their heads and ask "why"? How can people be so invincibly ignorant? Even when they claim to have studied the issue?
The term "troofer" is especially obnoxious, considering the 911 truth movement was founded by 911 family members; they have yet to receive answers to any of the significant questions they posed to the commission, and a great many continue to be at the forefront of the movement.
Personally I think the number of actual "shills" ie paid disruptor is much, much smaller than many believe. The behavioral neuroscientist Laurie Manwell has written a number of excellent studies on why so many people remain in denial about 911 truth.
I agree with you on the shills, Durrutix. And I think the frequency with which many in the 911 truth movement label people who buy the OCT disinfo agents or shills is unfortunate and does not serve the cause of truth. Some of the worst abuses have occurred regarding what happened at the Pentagon, where there is a legitimate difference of opinion within the movement, yet one side of the debate has attempted to deride anyone who believes other than them as "disinfo agents." One prominent 911 truth blog even banned posters who did not follow their orthodoxy of belief. I rarely visit that site anymore as a result, because I can't abide that kind of blatant censorship.
On the other hand, what happened to Scholars for 9/11 Truth was very different, and instructive to many in the movement. It was apparently infiltrated by disinfo agents like Judy Wood, who peddled a bizarre and scientifically unfounded theory about how the Twin Towers were destroyed. It prompted the more empirically minded folks like Steven Jones to leave the organization and found Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Jones handled it right: he simply left the organization. It is a waste of time falling into internecine squabbles--that is exactly what the government's COINTELPRO program is designed to cause.
If you don't act like a jerk, she won't treat you like one. I know this from many months of observation and interaction. There are certain 'individuals' who post here who are trying to poison the discussion, and the well; she's not one of them. And I'm 'wary' of anyone coming onto an intelligent board and slinging 9-11 official story nonsense. You may not be a plant (I don't care), but if you show up with a new name, and get in arguments with long-standing and well-respected board members, you'll have to do what I do, seek to earn their respect, and it aint easy (if you're not new here you know this).
A very sensible and well expressed comment. Thank you!
Ironically Ron Paul himself does not believe in the 911 conspiracy?
Is he a government shill too?
Not admitting TO and not believing IN the official fairy tale are two different things. However, in answer to your question, yes, Paul is a government shill. He's less shillish than many others, but he still works for Uncle Sam and believes in the glory of the Republic.
So he really does believe it was an inside job but just isn't admitting it yet? OK.
I'm not saying he does, no, I'm just saying it is by no means certain that someone who refuses to support the claim of complicity or even dismisses the notion out of hand is actually expressing his or her actual beliefs. This especially applies to politicians. The number of politicians who have expressed doubts about 911 can be counted on one hand, and most are on America's shitlist -- eg Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad.
Cynthia McKinney is a local example, and her political fortunes skyrocketed as a result;)
Of course the tiny number of politicians who have expressed doubts about 911 only goes to show that there is a conspiracy of silence, or so I guess you think.. Chavez, Castro and Ahmedinejad are in no position to have any knowledge of a 911 conspiracy. Neither has McKinney. Your aspersion on Ron Paul is unfair. You as much as called him a liar. He is a fool, but he is an honest one. Shame on you.
I admire Chavez and Castro in many ways, but I am well aware that they enjoy pulling Uncle Sam#s beard. I respect McKinney, but simple expressions of doubt are not of any real help in clarifying matters.
I call upon you and your fellow truthers to put forward a falsifiable, coherent theory of what you believe took place on 911, and your understanding of how it came to pass.
If you don#t do that, you are simply indulging in paranoid fantasies which apparently fulfill some deep need in you, but which are worse than useless to everyone else.
Even if, as you must hope, the day comes when evidence finally comes out that completely verifies your theory, what do you expect will come of it. Dick Cheney tried for treason, maybe. George Bush put in jail. The guy who set the demolition charges in WTC7 convicted of treason. And then what. I#ll tell you what -- not much. Nixon got kicked out of the White House. Did the world change much. Nope.Things didnt go back to the way they had been before Nixon took office. The world moved along, the nine day wonder got left behind, and 5 presidents attended Nixons funeral.
What do you believe in, Durrutix?
BTW, I know who Durruti was. He would never stoop to your kind of abusive, cranky nonsense.
"Durriti would never stoop etc."
Well, maybe he would maybe he wouldn't. I don' really care.
The important thing is that you oppose the 911 families. Are you a shill, or a dupe?
Ron Paul is not a government shill. He is a shill for cranky economic and political theories put about by Ayn Rand, after whom he named his son.
To put him forward as anything other than a sincere crank is to honour him too much.
It's nuts to suppose that the motive had to do with Palestine and massive US support of Israeli prison camps in the UN and attacking them with the very best weaponry?
I suppose "they hate our freedoms" being something people will kill, and die, for, makes perfect sense? Hating intangibles makes as much sense as waging war on them (war on terror???!).
The point of the article is simple, and the truth of it has always been clear to those with minds of their own. The only reason to deny it is to support rabid Zionism at the US's expense.
Of course he ignores the colonial/imperialist relationship that underscores much fear and hate as well as the Palestinian genocide itself. I see much of the motive as very similar to the hate religious fundamentalists and the environmentally aware here at home feel as a result of losing control of all our cultures, even our air and water, to the profit imperative of mega-corps.
The only freedom they actually seek to resist is the State Department's freedom to push it's weight around the world exercising hegemony in the name of the holy profit motive of corporations large enough to receive billions of dollars in tax rebates annually.
I have questions to add to all the inconsistencies surrounding 9/11:
1) why did WTC 7 need to come down? Why bring it down if you only plan to have two planes hitting two towers? Why a third building -when for controlled demolition this had to be incredibly well planned?
2) Given the level of planning, why have white vans full of explosives and Israelis driving around, cameras to record it all and a vocal jubilant cheering audience. Why give the game away with such moronic boorish stupidity?
3) Where was the National Guard, the US air forces etc.? What was ATC doing all this time when planes on set routes, altitudes, time schedules and expected reporting points were disappearing from assigned altitudes and radar screens?
Answers anyone?
You are right, it makes no sense at all to think that anyone would even want to target WTC7. The conspiracy nuts rationalize it because the building collapsed and they can't bring themselves to accept what fireman have know for years, fires CAN weaken steel. See: tinyurl.com/911WhatYouDontKnow
Those celebrating Israelis should be ashamed of themselves BUT there were no explosives in the van as cops said: "The five men, who were in a van stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford around 4:30 p.m., were being questioned by police but had not been charged with any crime late Tuesday. The Bergen County Police bomb squad X-rayed packages found inside the van but did not find any explosives, authorities said." The author Nafeez Ahmed did a really ppor job with his book The War On Freedom, he omitted the part of the news report that said no explosives were found, "bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives, ALTHOUGH officers were unable to find anything."
These were commercial flights within the US, there simply wasn't enough time to stop them. and there really was no way to stop the first 2 since people didn't even know what the plan was. Check out my videos for more about 9/11 at YouTube.com/RepresentativePress
Another load of horse shit.
The fact that fires can weaken steel, doesn't mean that thousands of bolted steel connections will all break simultaneously at that same instant. Such magic would be necessary to have happened, in the collapse of WTC7.
So take your conspiracy "nut" insult and shove it. Most here, are more dignified, when they encounter jerks like you. I take the low road. Someone has to do it.
Listen, FIre Chief Daniel Nigro (named chief of the department after it was confirmed that Chief of Department Peter Ganci had been killed at the World Trade Center) said, "A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt." Is he lying? He doesn't think there is something mysterious about WTC7 collapsing the way it did.
NO MAGIC, first of all, Richard Gage is a con man and his claim that "thousands of bolted steel connections had to all break simultaneously at that same instant" is false. For goodness sakes, we can see the penthouse collapse first. People with knowledge understand these things: "The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed."
I'm sure you're correct, and I agree with you. My question to you is, why do you try to convince abusive "truthers" of their mistakes? They are not open to rational argument.
I also wonder why it is that so many people are still churning over the events of 9/11, as if they were the most important thing that ever happened. The US was attacked. Many other countries have been attacked too. Do you see them indulging in this kind of scab picking ten years after the event? You do not.
. Let it go already.