September 11th And The Bush Administration
Compelling Evidence for Complicity
Walter E. Davis, PhD
08/31/03 (Information Clearing House)
Introduction
Clearly, one of the most critical questions of the twenty-first century
concerns why the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were not
prevented. As I outline below, there are numerous aspects regarding the
official stories about September 11th which do not fit with known facts,
which contradict each other, which defy common sense, and which indicate
a pattern of misinformation and coverup. The reports coming out of
Washington do very little to alleviate these concerns.
For example, the Congressional report released on July 25, 2003 by a
joint panel of House and Senate intelligence committees concluded that
9/11 resulted in C.I.A. and F.B.I. "lapses." While incompetence is
frightening enough given a $40 billion budget, it is simply not
consistent with known facts. It is consistent with the reports from
other government scandals such has the Iran Contra Affair which produced
damage control and cover up but not answers to the more probing
questions. But perhaps a comparison to Watergate is more apropos since
we now have twenty-eight pages of this report, which the Bush
Administration refuses to release. The report from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) is believable unless you are seriously
interested in the truth. Under more careful scientific scrutiny, it does
not answer some very important questions.
Newspapers across the country call for an investigation into Bush’s lies
about the reasons for war on Iraq. Many people may accept the fact of
Bush’s false pretext for a war on Arab people in a distant place,
especially after the fact. However, few people will be as accepting if
it is shown that this Administration was complicit in acts of atrocities
against its own people.
The magnitude of the crisis is readily apparent by noting that 9/11
serves as a pretext for a never-ending war against the world, including
preemptive strikes against defenseless, but resource rich countries. It
also serves as a pretext for draconian measures of repression at home,
including the cabinet level Department of Homeland Security and Patriot
Act I, and its sequel. September 11th has become the cause for numerous
other acts from massive increases in military spending and to a Fast
Track Trade Agreement for the President.
To date, investigations stop far too short, the public is left in the
dark on too many questions easily answered, and no one in the Bush
Administration has been held accountable for any actions surrounding the
attacks of September 11, 2001. The National Commission on Terrorists
Attacks Upon the United States, which was formed at the insistence of
the family of some of the victims, is continuing to hold hearings and a
final report is expected by May, 2004. It remains to be seen if, after a
two-year lapse, they can come closer to the truth about September 11th.
I believe that this would only happen if public pressure were brought to
bear and accountability demanded from the Bush Administration.
Accountability for any atrocity should attract the attention of serious
investigative reporters, media critics and even news commentators. That
is their chosen responsibility. Who is to raise the question of why
journalists and others in the mass media are failing the people of the
U.S. and the world?
In this article, I outline twenty-two items of evidence and questions,
each one sufficient reason to demand an investigation into why September
11th was not prevented. Together, these items suggest that the most
plausible explanation of events is that the Bush Administration was
complicit in the terrorist attacks. This should be a national and
international scandal. What is being discovered will shock many people,
which is one of the reasons for deliberate corporate media coverup. But
a significant number of people within the U.S. see (or will see) the
consistencies in the events surrounding 9/11 as described below, and
what they know about U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless, the degree to
which this Administration is pursuing a course of world domination at
any cost is unprecedented. One of the best ways of putting a halt to
this destructive course is to expose the Bush Administration and insist
on their accountability to the American people. Thus, the intent of this
article is to help fill the void in the media on the issue of the Bush
Administration’s complicity in 9/11.
Here is the official story On the morning of September 11, 2001 four
Boeing passenger jets were hijacked within an hour by nineteen Arab
terrorists armed with boxcutters. Pilots among these terrorists took
control of the commercial planes and changed course toward targets in
New York City and Washington D.C. Two of the planes were deliberately
crashed into the Twin Towers, causing fires within the towers, which
melted the steel support structures, thereby causing the buildings to
collapse completely. A third plane was deliberately crashed into the
Pentagon. Passengers on the fourth plane overpowered the hijackers and
caused the plane to crash in Pennsylvania. This was an attack on America
planned and directed by Osama bin Laden as the leader of Al-Qaeda, a
previously obscure anti-U.S. international terrorist organization
composed mainly of Arabs. This story cries out for further explanations,
but nothing official is forthcoming. People are simply expected to
believe the official version without question.
Evidence of Complicity by the Bush Administration in 9/11 Terrorist
Attacks
The following twenty-two separate and related points, citing evidence
requiring further investigation, and include questions that demand
answers, were formulated on the basis of the information from the
several sources cited at the end, which should be consulted for
verification and documentation. These sources contain extensive detailed
information and analysis beyond what is provided in this summary. I hope
that this information will incite public outrage leading to full
accountability.
1) The entire United States intelligence community knew of the 9/11
attacks before hand, including the fact that commercial jets were to be
used as bombs; they also knew the approximate dates and possible targets
but were called off their investigations. Western intelligence had been
aware of plans for such terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as early as 1995.
The plan was known as "Project Bojinka." It was known to both the CIA
and FBI and was described in court documents in the trial in New York of
Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad for their participation in the 1993 bombing
of the World Trade Center (WTC).
Seven to eight weeks prior to September 11th, all internal U.S. security
agencies were warned of the impending Al-Qaeda attacks. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) was warned of the attack but did nothing
to beef up security. At least two weeks prior to September 11th the FBI
agents again confirmed that an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent.
However, the FBI agents were commanded to cut short their investigations
into the attacks and those involved. Agents were threatened with
prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized
information pertaining to their investigations. Some field agents
predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th.
As early as 1997, Russia, France, Israel, the Philippines and Egypt all
warned the U.S. of the possibility of the attack. Warning also came from
came from several others sources as well. Recently (May 25, 2002), CBS
revealed that President Bush had been warned in an intelligence briefing
on August 6, 2001that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial
planes for a domestic attack in the U.S.
2) There is incontrovertible evidence that the US Air Force all across
the country was comprehensively "stood down" on the morning of September
11th. Routine security measures, normally in place, which may well have
been able to prevent the attacks, or reduce their impact, were suspended
for one hour while the attacks were in progress, and re-instated once
they were over. Sequence of events
846 a.m. American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston smashed into the
north tower of the WTC. The tower collapses at 1028 a.m.
903 a.m. United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston smashed into the south
tower. It completely collapses at 959am.
938 a.m. AA Flight 77 from Dulles hits the Pentagon.
1010 a.m. United Flight 93 from Newark crashed in Shanksville,
Pennsylvania.
Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation about 10 miles
from the Pentagon. On September 11th there were two entire squadrons of
combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. They failed to do their job of
protecting the skies over Washington D.C. Despite over one hour’s
advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews
fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the military have
cooperative procedures enabling fighter jets to automatically intercept
commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. They do not need
instructions from the White House to carry out these procedures, yet
they were not followed.
American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 745
a.m. Between 813 and 820 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground
control and radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its
assigned path of flight. Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately
called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons,
and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point an
emergency was undeniably clear. Yet, according to NORAD's official
timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 840 a.m.
Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 852 a.m., a full 32
minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11.
Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same pattern of delays in
notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are
difficult to imagine considering a plane had, by this time, already hit
the WTC. The plane striking the pentagon is particularly spectacular.
After it was known that the plane had a problem, it was nevertheless
able to change course and fly towards Washington, for about 45 minutes,
fly past the White House, and crash into the Pentagon, without any
attempt at interception. All the while two squadrons of fighter aircraft
were stationed just 10 miles from the eventual target. Unless one is
prepared to allege collusion, such a scenario is not possible by any
stretch of the imagination.
3) Neither the Joint Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense nor the
President of the United States acted according to well established
emergency protocols. Acting Joint Chief of Staff General Richard B.
Myers stated that he saw a TV report about a plane hitting the WTC but
thought it was a small plane. So he went ahead with his meeting. By the
time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit. Whose
responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of
Staff?
The Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was at his desk when AA77
crashed into the Pentagon. How is it possible that the National Military
Command Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact with law
enforcement and air traffic controllers from 846 a.m., did not
communicate to the Secretary of Defense, also at the Pentagon, about the
other hijacked planes especially the one headed to Washington? After he
was notified, why did he go to the war room?
The actions of the President, while the attacks were occurring, indicate
that he deliberately avoided doing anything reasonably expected of a
President wanting to protect American citizens and property. Why didn't
the Secret Service inform him of this national emergency? When is a
President supposed to be notified of everything the agencies know? Why
was the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the
Sarasota elementary school? At 9.05, nineteen minutes after the first
attack and two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew Card,
the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in President Bush’s
ear. The president did not react as if he was interested in trying to do
something about the situation. He did not leave the school, convene an
emergency meeting, consult with anybody, or intervene in any way, to
ensure that the Air Force completed it’s job. He did not even mention
the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply continued
with the reading class. His own explanations of his actions that day
contradict known facts.
In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision could cost
thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that the
government has a whole network of adjuncts and
advisors to insure that these top officials are among the first to be
informed, not the last. Where were these individuals who did not
properly inform the top officials?
In short, the CIA, the DCI, the State Department, the President, and key
figures around him in the White House, were ultimately responsible for
doing nothing in the face of the mounting evidence of an impending
threat to U.S. national security. Incompetence is a highly improbable
explanation.
4) Prior to 9/11, the US intelligence agencies should have stopped the
nineteen terrorists from entering this country for intelligence reasons,
alone. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers' visas should have been
unquestionably denied because their applications were incomplete and
incorrect. Most of the 19 hijackers were young, unmarried, and
un-employed males. They were, in short, the "classic over-stay
candidates". A seasoned former Consular officer stated in the National
Review magazine, "Single, idle young adults with no specific destination
in the United States rarely get visas absent compelling circumstances."
There are several cases damaging to the credibility of the official
accounts of 9/11. But the U.S. response to Mohamed Atta, the alleged
lead hijacker, is most extraordinary. The FBI had been monitoring Atta’s
movements for several months in 2000. According to PBS’ Frontlines, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to stop Atta from entering
the U.S. three times on a tourist visa in 2001, even though officials
knew the visa had expired in 2000, and that Atta had violated its terms
by taking flight lessons. Furthermore, Atta had already been implicated
in a terrorist bombing in Israel, with the information passed on to the
United States before he was first issued his tourist visa.
5) How did many of the hijackers receive clearance for training at
secure U.S. military and intelligence facilities, and for what purposes?
Many of the terrorist pilots received their initial training in Venice,
Florida at one of two flight schools of highly questionable credibility
and with approval of US intelligence. Mohamed Atta had attended
International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery,
Alabama; Abdulaziz Alomari had attended Aerospace Medical School at
Brooks Air Force base in Texas; Saeed Alghamdi had been to the Defense
Language Institute in Monterey, California. These are all names of
identified hijackers, so why has the U.S. government attempted to deny
the match? As early as three days after the 9/11 attacks, FBI Director
Robert S. Mueller III claimed that these findings were new and had not
been known by the FBI previously. This claim is a lie.
Zacarias Moussaouri was arrested after his flight trainers at the
Minnesota flight school, Pan Am International Flight Academy, reported
highly suspicious behavior. He was greatly unqualified; he wanted to
learn to fly a 747 but wasn’t interested in takeoffs or landings; he was
traveling on a French passport, said he was from France, but could not
speak French. When
contacted, the French said he was a suspected terrorist connected to
Al-Qaeda. However, a special counter terrorism panel of the FBI and CIA
reviewed the case and dismissed it.
There are numerous glaring anomalies, illegalities and scandals
connected with Wally Hilliard and Rudi Dekker’s Huffman Aviation School
at Venice, Florida where other hijackers trained. Dekkers had no
aviation experience and was under indictment in his native country, The
Netherlands, on financial charges. He purchased his aviation school at
just about the time the terrorist pilots moved into town and began their
lessons. He has yet to be investigated even though he initially trained
most of the hijackers.
Britannia Aviation was awarded a five-year contract to run a large
regional maintenance facility at Lynchburg at a time when the company
virtually had no assets, employees, or corporate history and did not
posses the necessary FAA license needed to perform the maintenance.
Britannia was a company with known CIA connections. It was operating
illegally out of Huffman Aviation, the flight school which trained
Al-Qaeda hijackers and was given a "green light" from the Justice
Department’s Drugs Enforcement Administration, and the local Venice
Police Department was warned to "leave them alone." Why?
6) How were the hijackers able to get specifically contraband items such
as box-cutters, pepper spray and, according to one FAA executive
summary, a gun on those planes? On the morning of September 11th, when
the 19 hijackers went to purchase their tickets and to receive their
boarding passes, nine were singled out and questioned through a
screening process. But they passed the screening process and were
allowed to continue on with their mission.
7) At a time when the U.S. intelligence community was on alert for an
imminent Al-Qaeda attack, the Bush Administration made it easier for
Saudi visitors to come to the U.S. under a program called U.S. Visa
Express, introduced four months before September 11th. Michael
Springmann, former head of the Visa Bureau at the U.S. Consulate in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia said that he was repeatedly ordered by high-level
State Departtment officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants.
His complaints to higher authorities at several agencies went
unanswered. In a CBC interview, he indicated that the CIA was indeed
complicit in the attacks.
8) Most of the hijackers were Saudis, as is Osama bin Laden, and the
Saudi Arabian government is known to give financial support to terrorist
organizations. Why is Iraq and not Saudi Arabia a target if the US
government is concerned about terrorism? Saudi Arabia’s government
cooperates with US oil and arms industries; Iraq did not. Iraq is forced
to now, of course. At least fifteen of the far-flung network of
terrorist pilots received their money from the same source. There is
specific evidence that Osama bin Laden continues to receive extensive
support, not only from members of his own family, but also from members
of the Saudi establishment. A New Statesman report stated that "Bin
Laden and his gang are just the tentacles; the head lies safely in Saudi
Arabia, protected by U.S. forces." The hijackers responsible for 9/11
were not illiterate, bearded fanatics from Afghanistan. They were all
educated, highly skilled, middle-class professionals. Of the 19 men
involved, 13 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.
9) Why were the FBI called off its investigation of Osama bin Laden and
the Saudi Royal Family prior to 9/11? Moreover, why were the FBI Agents
ordered to curtail their investigation of these attacks on October 10,
2001? The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and
restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden
and Al Qeada. One law enforcement official was quoted as saying, "The
investigative staff has to be made to understand that we’re not trying
to solve a crime now." FBI Agents are said to be in the process of
filing a law suit agents the Agency for the right to go public.
10) Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the attacks within a
time frame that could not possibly have allowed any intelligence to have
been gathered which supported the accusation. That is, it would be
impossible if they did not already have that information. How could they
have had no warning of an operation, which must have been very difficult
to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a
day? And if they had some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not
specific, then it raises even more questions about government agencies’
complicity.
It is not logical that Bin Laden was involved, and actually impossible,
unless he was involved in the capacity of collusion with US authorities,
or at best, in the context of the US knowing all along what he was up
to, and deliberately allowing him to do it. The point has already been
made that if he was involved, then it cannot have been a surprise, which
in turn, points to the President and others in his administration.
>From day one, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence
against Bin Laden. Up until mid December, there was nothing but the
continued repetition of his name. The official documents detailing
allegations against Bin Laden provide no convincing evidence. Of the 69
points of "evidence" cited, ten relate to background information about
the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban. Fifteen relate to
background information regarding the general philosophies of Al Qeada,
and it's relationship to Bin Laden. None give any facts concerning the
events of 9/11. Most do not even attempt to directly relate anything
mentioned to the events of that day. Twenty-six list allegations related
to previous terrorist attacks. Even if they were convictions of previous
terrorist attacks, everybody knows that this isn't worth the paper it's
written on, in terms of evidence for involvement of September 11th.
Within less than four hours of the attacks taking place, the media were
fed comments, which assumed Bin Laden's guilt, comments made on the
basis of events, which could not possibly have occurred. The Pentagon
and the Department of Defense used dialogue attributed to Bin Laden, in
an effort to incriminate him, while refusing to release all of the
dialogue, and refusing to issue a verbatim, literal translation. Why was
it considered necessary to lie, in order to create a case against Bin
Laden? The truth could well implicate the Bush administration.
11) Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency (ISI) was indirectly involved in
September 11th. The links between Al Qaeda, Pakistan’s ISI and the CIA;
and, between the ISI, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban Axis are a matter
of public record. Pakistan has also long been a supporter of Al Qeada.
The Pakistani ISI (secret service) has been a mechanism by which the CIA
indirectly channeled support to Al Qeada and has been used by successive
US administrations as a "go-between." Pakistan's military-intelligence
apparatus constitutes the core institutional support to both Osama's Al
Qaeda and the Taliban. Without this institutional support, there would
be no Taliban government in Kabul. In turn, without the unbending
support of the US government, there would be no powerful
military-intelligence apparatus in Pakistan.
It was reported that ISI’s Director-General, General Mahmoud Ahmad, had
funneled $100,000 to the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, shortly before
September 11th. The U.S. government protected him, and itself, by asking
him to resign quietly after the discovery, thus blocking a further
inquiry and a potential scandal. In the wake of 9/11, the Bush
Administration consciously sought the "cooperation" of the ISI, which
had been supporting and abetting Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. In
other words, the Bush Administration's relations with Pakistan's ISI,
including its "consultations" with General Mahmoud Ahmad in the week
prior to September 11th, raise the issue of "cover-up" as well as
"complicity". While Ahmad was talking to U.S. officials at the CIA and
the Pentagon, the ISI allegedly had contacts with the 9/11 terrorists.
12) The USA and Bin Laden are not the enemies they pretend to be. It is
established beyond doubt that senior members of the Bush administration
have close links to the Bin Laden Family and this relationship is still
going on behind the scenes. In fact, there is plenty of circumstantial
evidence to indicate that Bin Laden, may have had something to do with
9/11, but the problem is that it also implicates the Bush
Administration, the CIA, George Bush Senior, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and
The United Arab Emirates.
It is well known that Bin Laden’s close working relationship with the
CIA began in the 1980’s. The claim is that they have since fallen out,
but this story is a lie. According to the mainstream media spin, this is
OK, because the rest of the family has disowned Osama for his terrorist
activities and anti-US views. This spin is also a lie.
The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply confirms that
the CIA never severed its ties to the "Islamic Militant Network". Since
the end of the Cold War these covert intelligence links have not only
been maintained, they have become increasingly sophisticated.
13) How was it possible for the World Trade Center’s two towers to have
completely collapsed as a result of two jet planes? The towers in fact
stood for forty-five and ninety minutes after the crashes. The official
story is that the burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting
them to melt. However, there is simply no credibly scientific evidence
to support this story. The WTC towers were designed to take the impact
of a Boeing 707. It is highly unlikely that fire from the jet fuel could
have melted the steel girders. This is especially true of the South
tower since the plane did not hit it directly. Therefore most of the
fuel did not fall inside the building. The South Tower was hit second
and fell first. Both towers collapsed evenly and smoothly in a manner
consistent with that caused by a planned demolition. Based upon
scientific evidences, photos and videos of the event, and reports of
scientists, the WTC architect and engineers, it is highly unlikely that
the Towers collapsed because of burning jet fuel rather than demolition.
There are also serious questions regarding the collapse of the building
known as WTC7. It is also noteworthy that ownership of the WTC changed
hands several months earlier because if the towers collapsed because of
inside demolition, such accomplishment would require cooperation from
the extensive WTC security forces.
14) Why was Bin Laden not captured before 9/11, and why has he not been
captured since? There have been several opportunities to capture Osama
bin Laden, but no effort to do so was made. Two US allies, Saudi Arabia,
and The United Arab Emirates, have colluded in deliberately allowing Bin
Laden to stay free. Bin Laden was meeting with the CIA as late as July
2001. An examination of U.S. attempts to capture Osama bin Laden show
they have in fact consistently blocked attempts to investigate and
capture him. Eleven bin Laden family members were flown safely out of
the same Boston airport where the highjacking took place a few days
earlier. Why were they not detained for questioning?
15) The September 11th disaster has resulted in power and profit at home
and abroad by both the Bin Laden and the Bush families. There are
significant business ties between Bin Laden and senior members of the
Bush administration. Reports have emerged that Carlyle Group, the giant
U.S. defence contractor that employs former President George W. Bush
Sr., has had long-standing financial ties to the bin Laden family. So
while there is compelling evidence that Osama bin Laden has not broken
away from his family, it is also a matter of record that the Bush
administration is in turn very significantly tied to the same family.
The Carlyle Group has profited immensely from the wars on Afghanistan
and Iraq and from the militarization of U.S. foreign policy.
16) Revelations of profits made by insider trading relating to the 9/11
attacks, point to the top levels of US business and the CIA. The
intelligence community regularly analyzes financial transactions for any
suspicious activity. Only three trading days before September 11th,
shares of American and United Airlines -- the companies whose planes
were hijacked in the attacks on New York and Washington -- were
massively "sold short" by investors. Executive CIA Director AB "Buzzy"
Krongard was one of those who profited from the deal. The names of the
other investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million in profit taking
remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account. No similar trading in
other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the day immediately
preceding Black Tuesday. There were also unusual trades on several
companies occupying the World Trade Center, including Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter & Co., and Merrill Lynch & Co. These multiple, massive and
unprecedented financial transactions point unequivocally to the fact
that the investors behind these trades were speculating in anticipation
of a mid-September 2001 catastrophe that would involve both United and
American Airlines and offices in the Twin Towers. To date, both the
Securities & Exchange Commission and the FBI have been tight-lipped
about their investigations of trades. A probe could isolate the
investors. Why has nothing been made public?
17) Selected persons were told not to fly that day. Newsweek reported
that on September 10th, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly
canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of
security concerns." Why was that same information not made available to
the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft? A
significant number of selected people were warned about flying or
reporting for work at the WTC. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received
a phone call eight hours before the hijacking warning him not to travel
by air. Salman Rushdie is under a 24-hour protection of UK Scotland
yard; he was also prevented from flying that day. Ariel Sharon canceled
his address to Israeli support groups in New York City just the day
before his scheduled September 11th address. John Ashcroft stopped
flying on public airplanes in July of 2001.
Other evidence exists indicating that government officials knew of the
attacks beforehand. For example, Tom Kenny who was with a rescue squad
from FEMA told Dan Rather of CBS News that, "We arrived on Monday night
(September 10th) and went into action of Tuesday." How is it possible
for high government officials to have been caught by surprise as some
claimed?
18) There are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the U.S. attack on
Afghanistan was already planned before September 11th. A pretext for war
is always needed. From investigative journalist Patrick Martin, "[t]his
examination has found that a specific war on Afghanistan . . . launched
in October 2001 had been planned for at least a year, and in general
terms related to regional strategic and economic interests, had actually
been rooted in at least four years of strategic planning. This planning,
in turn, is the culmination of a decade of regional strategizing. All
that was required was a trigger for these war plans, which was amply
provided by the tragic events of 11th September."
It is public knowledge that Unocal and others in the oil industry were
negotiating with Afghan officials for a pipeline across their country as
part of the "Silk Road" strategy. It was also reported that the talks
had broken down. A specific threat made at a meeting the Taliban can
choose between a "carpets of bombs" - an invasion - or a "carpets of
gold" the oil and gas pipelines. Experts agree that Central Asia and
the Caspian Basin are central to energy in the 21st century and that
energy is central to political, economic and military power. James
Dorian noted in the Oil & Gas Journal "Those who control the oil routes
out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of
flow and the distribution of revenues from new production" (cited in
Ahmed, 2002, p. 69).
The plans for global domination developed by those of Project for the
New American Century, a neoconservative think tank formed in the Spring
of 1997, are also a matter of public record. These plans included
specifics for taking military control of Central Asia, including regime
change in Iraq. The primary architects of these plans include Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, all part
of the first Bush Administration ousted by Bill Clinton and now back in
power with George W. Bush.
19) The 9/11 attacks came at an extremely fortuitous time for the Bush
administration, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, the weapons industry,
and the oil industry, all of which have benefited immensely from this
tragedy. It is worth noting the acute observations of Canadian social
philosopher John McMurtry "To begin with, the forensic principle of
‘who most benefits from the crime?’ clearly points in the direction of
the Bush administration. . . . The more you review the connections and
the sweeping lapse of security across so many coordinates, the more the
lines point backwards [to the White House]."
20) Both the U.S. and the USSR are responsible for the rise of religious
extremism, terrorism and civil war within Afghanistan since the 1980s.
The U.S., however, is directly responsible for the cultivation of a
distorted ‘jihadi’ ideology that fueled, along with U.S. arms and
training, the ongoing war and acts of terrorism within the country after
the withdrawal of Soviet forces.
21) The Bush Administration is clearly capable of creating or allowing
such atrocities to occur. Hitler was able to play the anti-communist
card to win over skeptical German industrialists. Certainly the Bush
family are not newcomers to melding political and business interests,
they got their start as key Hitler supporters. Prescott Bush, father of
George Bush Sr., was Hitler’s banker and propaganda manager in New York,
until FDR confiscated his holdings. George Bush Sr. used Manuel Noriega
as a scapegoat, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians in the process
of re-establishing U.S. control over Panama. It is also widely believed
that the current Bush Administration knowingly misled the people about
the war in Iraq.
22) There are precedents for these kinds of acts of complicity and
fabrications. Rejecting claim that the evidence for collusion is
over-ruled by a belief that no country would do this to its own
citizens, simply requires pointing out that the contemplation of
terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens by the CIA is a matter of public
record. The previously classified "Operation Northwoods" document
reveals that in 1962, the CIA seriously considered the possibility of
carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens, in order to blame it
on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but were given approval
signatures by all the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan included several
options, including killing Cuban defectors or U.S. soldiers, sinking
ships, and staging simulations of planes being shot down. All this was
done to blame on Castro as a pretext for launching a war against Cuba.
Far from being an unprecedented shocker, suspected government complicity
in 9/11 builds on an august and cynical tradition. "It’s the oldest
trick in the book, dating back to Roman times." Examples of democracy
being hoaxed include the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor bombardment,
which President Roosevelt is believed to have known about beforehand,
and the hoax of the Gulf of Tonkin provocation.
Conclusions
The evidence seems clear that if the many agencies of the U.S.
government had done their jobs, the September 11th attack would likely
have been prevented. If there had been an immediate investigation into
the September 11th attacks, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq could not
have been justified simply on the basis of terrorism. Surely questions
must be asked about why there is yet no accountability of the Bush
administration and why the journalists and others in mass media are not
held responsible for the coverup, deception and lack of investigative
reporting. From the evidence presented it would seem that much public
whistle-blowing ought to be taking place. Why is it not yet evident?
I believe that it is important not to approach 9/11 as the possibility
of some grand conspiracy, but a possible conspiracy of some sort
nevertheless. One important insight is how hierarchical authoritarian
social systems function. Top down directives and commands, especially if
they carry the weight of threats of censorship and punishment serve to
keep any dissent in check. There is a great deal of self-censorship
operating in all institutions in the United States. It is also important
to recognize the role of a shared ideology among the decision makers, or
perhaps more specifically the role of what social psychologists, in
studies of organizational behavior, call "groupthink." Groupthink is
decision making characterized by uncritical acceptance of and conformity
with the prevailing view. Thus, the will of a few key persons can be
spread within and across government agencies.
Thus the possibility of complicity on the part of the Bush
Administration is very real. At the very least, further and more honest
investigations must take place and some accountability exacted from
those responsible.
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy
Research & Development, Brighton, England, suggests,
The executive branch of the federal government has apparently
enabled a lethal surprise attack with mass murder against two of the
founding thirteen colonies, New York and Virginia. By such an act, the
federal government would grossly violate and void its contract with the
states, and abrogate its own constitutional rights and privileges. Even
if you do not accept the complicity argument, it has failed to protect
its largest city from the consequences of its overweening foreign
policies.
Like a loose handgun, our Federal government has backfired on
its owners, the States. The executive has gone to war in defiance of the
Constitution, and Congress has abdicated its war-making authority on at
least 200 occasions since 1945, according to the Federation of American
Scientists. The federal government has proven utterly incapable and
unwilling to remedy its chronic and world-threatening sickness (p.
376-377).
It seems apropos to conclude "if you are part of the problem, then you
are not part of the solution." The solution then lies with the people
themselves and not with any US government agency, least of all the
Executive Branch.
Sources
Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq (2002). The war on freedom How and why America
was attacked September 11, 2001. Joshua Tree, CA Tree of Life
Publications. AThe War on Freedom rips apart the veil of silence
surrounding 9/11, and lets readers look at the facts for themselves.
This riveting and thoroughly documented study [718 citations] is a
"must" resource for everyone seeking to understand the attack on the
World Trade Center of New York on September 11, 2001 and "America’s New
War."
Bamford, James (2001). Body of secrets anatomy of the ultra-secret
National Security Agency from the Cold War through the dawn of a new
century. New York Doubleday, 2001. See for detailed information on
Operation Northwood and other "secrets."
Burbach, Roger, & Clarke, Ben (Eds.) (2002). September 11 and the U.S.
war Beyond the curtain of smoke. San Francisco City Light Books. This
is an anthology of 41 short pieces by more than 30 authors who dissent
from the bellicose actions of the U.S. government since 9-11-01. These
essays provide the essential background and analysis needed to
understand the origins and consequences of the attack of September 11th
and the U.S. government’s response.
Chossudovsky, Michel (2002). War and globalisation The truth behind
September 11. London Zed Books. "In this timely study, Michel
Chossudovsky blows away the smokescreen, put up by the mainstream media,
that 9-11 was an ‘intelligence failure’. Through meticulous research,
the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11
attacks, and the coverup and complicity of key members of the Bush
Administration."
Grey, Steve (2002). September 11 Attacks Evidence of U.S. collusion.
stevegreyau@yahoo.co.uk.
Hopsicker, Daniel http//www.madcowprod.com/archive.htm.
Jones, Alex http//.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http//www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/. See especially the testimony of
Mindy Kleinberg, Stephen Push and others on the First Public Hearings
Archives, p. 163.
Thompson, Paul http//cooperativeresearch.org. See "US preparing for a
war with Afghanistan before 9/11, increasing control of Asia before &
since" and several other articles.
http//emperors-clothes.com. See several short articles by Jared Israel,
John Flaherty, Illarion Bykov, Francisco Gil-White and George Szamuely.
http//globaloutlook.ca. This site has numerous links to documented
articles and other valuable resources.
. This web site has extensive information and detailed analysis. It
raises many serious questions about the official stories and reports. It
has undergone recent revisions based upon new evidence.
|