September 11th and the Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for Complicity
Walter E. Davis, PhD
Kent State University
To appear in Bernd Hamm (Ed) (2003). "Bushgang America," London: Zed Books.
Address correspondence to:
Walter E. Davis
263 MACC Annex
Kent State University
Kent, OH 44242
wdavis@kent.edu
October 21, 2003
Introduction
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon,
September 11, 2001, has served as a pretext for draconian measures of
repression at home, including a cabinet level Department of Homeland
Security, the Patriot Act I, and its sequel. September 11th (9/11) also
became the cause for numerous other acts in the U.S. from massive increases
in military spending to a Fast Track Trade Agreement for President Bush.
More importantly, 9/11 serves as a pretext for a never-ending war against
the world, including preemptive strikes against defenseless, but resource
rich countries; all in the name of sustaining U.S. global domination.
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 cover-up. The official 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 annual budget, it is simply not consistent with known facts. It is
consistent with the reports from other government scandals such has the
Warren Commission's report and 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 the Bush
Administration refuses to release twenty-eight pages of the congressional
report. The report from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
believable unless you are seriously interested in the truth. Under more
careful scientific scrutiny, some answers seem impossible, others highly
controversial, and still other important answers completely omitted.
Even after more than two years, 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, formed at the insistence of the
families 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 nearly
three-year delay, they will come close to the truth about September 11th.
I believe that this will occur only if tremendous public pressure is
brought to bear from numerous sources to demand accountability 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. It is well known that
the U.S. corporate media ask few probing questions, aiding in government
cover-up. But why there has been so little coverage in the alternative
press, with obvious exceptions, is a mystery. Too many of these outlets
(e.g., Z Magazine and Mother Jones) have ignored the issue of
accountability for 9/11. The failure of accountability should be a national
and international scandal. Questions of why journalists and others in the
mass media are failing the people of the U.S. and the world need to be
answered.
What is being revealed in this chapter will shock many people, which
is one of the reasons for deliberate corporate media cover-up. But a
significant number of people, even within the U.S. see (or will see) the
consistencies in the events surrounding 9/11, as described below, with what
they know about the long history of U.S. imperialism and atrocities both at
home and abroad[1] . 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 its accountability to the victims'
families, the American people and people of the world.
Therefore, why 9/11 was not prevented is perhaps the most critical question
in current times because answers may well reveal to more people than ever
before, the true nature of the U.S. corporate government--the premier
global empire. Newspapers across the U.S. called for an investigation into
Bush's lies about the reason for war on Iraq because it is relatively easy
for the American people to accept deception for the killing of the Arab
people in distant lands. 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 purpose of this chapter is to present several pieces of factual
evidence and pose several questions which have been left unanswered, each
of which demand an investigation into why September 11th was not prevented
and who the real conspirators are. When taken together, the evidence
suggests that the most plausible explanation of events is that the Bush
Administration was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has
orchestrated its cover-up. The sources cited contain extensive detailed
information, additional sources, and analysis beyond what is possible to
provide in this summary. I hope that this information will incite public
outrage leading to full accountability.
Evidence of Complicity by the Bush Administration in 9/11 Terrorist Attacks.
Here is the U.S. official story as reported in the U.S. corporate
media: 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.
The Bush Administration Knew of the 9/11 Attack Before-Hand
There are several major sources of evidence to conclude beyond
reasonable doubt that numerous people, in the U.S. and around the world
were aware of the possibility of a terrorist attack on the U.S., and
contrary to their claims, the Bush Administration was not caught by
surprise. First, 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[2]. 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).
As early as 1996, the FBI was following the activities of Arab
students at U.S. flight schools. Several persons later identified by the
FBI as the hijackers, including Khalid Almihdar and Nawaf Alhazmi along
with the man alleged to be the principal organizer, Mohammed Atta, were
under active surveillance by U.S. agents prior to 9/11. Several 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 possible 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. Some field agents predicted,
almost precisely, what happened on September 11th [3].
There are numerous other reasons to dismiss as a lie the claim that
the 9/11 plane hijackings and attacks caught the U.S. Government agencies
by surprised. For example, an expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon in
1993 discussed how an airplane could be used as a bomb. Notably, U.S.
security officials had considered and prepared for possible attacks by
suicide planes during the Atlanta Summer Olympics in 1996. There were three
incidences which took place in 1994, including the stolen single-engine
Cessna, which crashed into a tree on the White House grounds just short of
the president's bedroom and a plan to crash a plane into the Eiffel Tower.
As early as 1997, Russia, France, Israel, the Philippines and Egypt all
warned the U.S. of the possibility of the attack. Warning 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,
2001, that Bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial planes for a
domestic attack in the U.S.
Second, selected persons were told not to fly that day. Newsweek
(September 24, 2001) reported that on September 10th, "a group of top
Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning,
apparently because of security concerns" (p. 26). Why was this same
information, not made available to the 266 people who died aboard the four
hijacked commercial aircraft? A significant number of other selected people
were also warned about flying or reporting for work at the WTC. These
people include San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who 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 U.K. 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. These revelations are more indisputable evidence that
people knew about the impending attacks.
Third, revelations of profits made by insider trading relating to the
9/11 attacks, point to the top levels of U.S. business and the CIA[4]. The
intelligence community regularly analyzes financial transactions for any
suspicious activity. Only three trading days before September 11th, an
inordinate number of "put options" -- bets that a stock will go down --
were placed on the stocks of American and United Airlines, the companies
whose planes were hijacked in the attacks of 9/11. No such speculation was
made on any other airlines. Moreover, similar speculation occurred on
other companies housed in the World Trade Towers, including Merrill Lynch
and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. It is worthy to note that some of the
put options were purchased through Deutsche Bank/Alex Brown, a firm managed
until 1998 by the current executive director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy"
Krongard. The New York Times reported that Mayo Shattuck III resigned as
head of the Alex Brown (A.B.) unit of Deutschebank on September 15, 2001.
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. The names of the
investors remain undisclosed and $5 million in profit taking remains
unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account. A probe could isolate the
investors. Why then has this case recently been closed without any report
being made public, or anyone being held accountable? Moreover, this
incident further establishes the fact that important people knew before
hand of the possible attacks, did nothing about them and are now covering
them up.
Emergency Procedures Capable of Preventing Such Attack Exist But Were Not
Followed
There is incontrovertible evidence that the U.S. 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
prevented the attacks, or reduce their impact, were suspended while the
attacks were in progress, and re-instated once they were over[5] . Sequence
of events for each hijacked plane is as follows:
7:59 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 leaves from Boston's Logan
Airport bound for Los Angeles; 8:20 a.m.: it goes off course and is
hijacked; 8:46 a.m.: it smashes into the north tower of the WTC. The tower
completely collapses at 10:28 a.m.
8:01a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 sits on the ground for 41 minutes
before leaving from Newark bound for San Francisco; 9:16 a.m. to 9:20a.m.:
The FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 93 has been hijacked; 9:35 a.m.:
the plane goes off course near Cleveland, Ohio where it makes a 135 degree
turn, and is now headed to the southeast; 10:10 a.m.: it crashes in
Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
8:14a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 leaves from Boston bound for Los
Angeles; 8:49 a.m.: it deviates from its assigned flight path; 9:03 a.m.:
it smashes into the south tower. The tower completely collapses at 9:59am.
8:20a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 leaves from Dulles
International, 30 miles west of Washington, D.C. bound for Los Angeles;
8:56 a.m.: transponder signal stops. It goes off course and starts making a
180 degree turn over southern Ohio / northeastern Kentucky; 9:38 a.m.: it
allegedly hits the Pentagon (there are very serious questions as to whether
this plane actually hit the Pentagon; see below).
Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation about ten
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 intercept commercial aircraft under
emergency conditions. They do not need instructions from the White House to
intercept commercial aircraft, yet these procedures were not followed.
Within thirty-five minutes after American Airline Flight 11 departed
from Boston's Logan Airport it became quit responding to ground control,
and radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned
flight-path. Two airline attendants on Flight 11 had separately called
American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the
infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point there was an
undeniable emergency. Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD
was not contacted until twenty minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the
fighter jets may not have been deployed until a full thirty-two minutes
after the loss of contact with flight 11.
Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same pattern of delays in
notification and in scrambling fighter jets -- delays that are difficult to
imagine considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC. The
official account of the plane striking the pentagon is particularly
incomprehensible. After it was known that the Flight 77 had a problem, it
was nevertheless able to change course and fly towards Washington, for
about forty-five 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 ten miles from the eventual target.
Since the plane left Dulles Airport, which is close to the Pentagon, why
would hijackers fly for forty minutes away from the intended target and
then forty minutes back unless they knew there was no chance of being
intercepted?
The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world (6.5
million square feet of floor space) housing more than 20,000 people. At the
time of the attacks, its occupation was normal except for the one section
being renovated. The story people are expected to believe is that a large
commercial plane was piloted by a hijacker inexperienced in flying, but who
nevertheless circled the Pentagon making a 280 degree turn, traveling
approximately 555 km/hour (345 mph) or a minimum of 235 mph, and flew very
low to the ground (the Pentagon is 80 feet high) in order to crash
orthogonally into the one section being renovated. An aerial view shows
that the only sensible way to crash into the Pentagon as a kamikaze is to
fly straight on aiming at the center. Also damaging to the official story
is the fact that on September 14th the Department of Defense announced that
emergency workers had found the two black boxes, but, except for the
existence of small pieces, no plane, luggage or passenger debris was
recovered. The military first denied that there were any videos of the
crash and then produced five images after French investigator Thierry
Meyssanâs (2002) book showed the improbability of the official account.
Unless one is prepared to allege complicity, the official scenario of
the Pentagon crash is not possible by any stretch of the imagination. The
account of Flight 77 is one more example of the length to which the Bush
Administration is willing to go to cover up the truth of 9/11.
Moreover, well established emergency protocols were not followed by
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense or the
President of the United States. Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 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 with Senator Max Cleland. By the time he came out of the
meeting the Pentagon had been hit. Why did General Myers not know about
the emergency until too late? 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 (NMCC), located in the Pentagon and in
contact with law enforcement and air traffic controllers from 8:46 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[6]? After he was notified, why did he go to the war room?
The actions of the President, while the attacks were occurring, were
particularly suspicious because he did not do anything reasonably expected
of a president wanting to protect U.S. citizens and property. Why did the
Secret Service not 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 9:05am, 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 its job. The President's approval is not
required for an intercept, but it is required for commercial planes to be
shot down. Yet, he did not even attend to 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. Nafeez Ahmed,
states, that these acts are "indicative of a scale of negligence amounting
to effective complicity" (2002, p. 167).
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 ensure 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.
Indeed, the failures of the Emergency procedures could not have occurred
without coordination at the top. If a routine procedure was aborted,
whether accidentally or deliberately, it would be detected by those in the
higher positions of the hierarchy, which is the way all emergency systems
are organized.
Who Are the Alleged Terrorists and Why Were They in U.S. Flight Schools?
There are numerous questions regarding the alleged terrorists
including, who they are, how they were able to aboard the plane, and
whether in fact they were even on the planes[7]. Why were the names of the
alleged terrorists not on the passenger lists released by the airlines?
Photos of the alleged hijackers appeared on the FBI website not long after
9/11, but have since been removed. Both the British and U.S. media
reported that several of the individuals, identified as hijackers by the
FBI, have been found alive. Thierry Meyssan, noted that, Prince Saud
Al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, declared to the press that, "It has
been proven that five of the persons named in the FBI's list had no
connection with what happened" (2002, p. 54-55, italics in the original).
Indeed, how was it possible for the FBI to be caught by surprise and then
produce the names of the alleged hijackers within twenty-four hours
following the attacks? One outrageous claim is that Mohamed Atta's
passport was found at ground zero. There are two possibilities: the FBI
made up the names or assisted the hijackers in boarding the planes. Either
way, complicity is implied. Questions about who was and was not on the
planes are prime examples of the kind of information which is easily
verified or refuted but neither has been done officially. This failure to
respond to these questions is, in itself, incriminating.
If the nineteen alleged terrorists did board the planes, the U.S.
security agencies should have stopped them from entering this country for
intelligence reasons, prior to 9/11, according to the testimony of Mindy
Kleinberg during the hearings of The National Commission on Terrorists
Attacks. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers' visas should have been
unquestionably denied because their applications were incomplete and
incorrect. Most of the alleged hijackers were young, unmarried, and
unemployed 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[8]."
There are several cases damaging to the credibility of the official
accounts of 9/11. But the U.S. response to Mohammed Atta, the alleged lead
hijacker, is most extraordinary[9]. The FBI had been monitoring Atta's
movements for several months in 2000. According to PBS Frontline, 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.
Another important question is how did many of the alleged hijackers
receive clearance for training at secure U.S. military and intelligence
facilities, and for what purposes? As Daniel Hopsicker and Thierry Messyan
have documented, 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 U.S. intelligence. Mohammed
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? 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 Moussaoui 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 was not 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 but did not pursue it.
There are numerous glaring anomalies, illegalities and scandals
connected with Wally Hilliard and Rudi Dekkers' 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 some 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 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 Departmentâs Drugs Enforcement
Administration, and the local Venice Police Department was warned to "leave
them alone." Why?
One answer to the question of how the terrorist entered the U.S. so
easily is that 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. This was at a time when the U.S.
intelligence community was on alert for an imminent al-Qaeda attack.
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 Department 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[10].
As is well known, most of the accused hijackers were Saudis, as is
Osama bin Laden, and the Saudi Arabian government is known to give
financial support to terrorist organizations. Why then, is Iraq and not
Saudi Arabia a target if the U.S. government is concerned about terrorism?
The obvious answer seems to be because the Saudi Arabian Monarchy has a
long standing cooperative business relationship with U.S. oil and arms
industries, possibly including a provision to curtail surveillance on their
activities[11]. Iraq, at that time of 9/11 had no such cooperative
arrangement. Iraq is now forced to cooperate with the U.S., of course.
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 the FBI identified
as being responsible for 9/11 were not illiterate, bearded fanatics from
Afghanistan. They were all educated, highly skilled, middle-class
professionals and not the typical kamikaze pilots they are alleged to be.
Of the alleged men involved, thirteen were Saudi nationals.
Was Osama bin Laden the Mastermind, an Accomplice, or a Stoolie?
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 the
Bush Administration have had no warning of an operation, which must have
been very difficult to keep secret, 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
agenciesâ complicity.
It is nearly impossible that Bin Laden was involved except in the
capacity of complicity with U.S. authorities, or at best, in the context of
the current Administration knowing all along his plans and deliberately
allowing him to carry them out. 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. Steve Grey,
reports that an official document from the U.K. government detailing
allegations against Bin Laden provide no convincing evidence. Of the
sixty-nine 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-Qaeda,
and its 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 relating
to previous terrorist attacks. Even if they were convicted of previous
terrorist attacks, it is well known that this fact would not stand up in a
court of law as evidence for involvement of September 11th.
Within less than four hours of the attacks, the media were fed
comments which assumed Bin Laden's guilt and were 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. On December 13, 2001
the Bush Administration offered an alleged "confession" tape as the only
evidence, and this has simply been accepted by many in the media and in the
general population as sufficient to declare guilt. But a fake tape is
easily produced with today's technology. Thus, against the backdrop of the
many reported denials by Osama bin Laden that he was involved in the
attacks, there are few reasons to accept this "evidence" as convincing.
Rather, one must ask why was it considered necessary to lie, in order
to create a case against Bin Laden? The truth could well implicate the Bush
administration. What is known for certain is that Osama bin Laden's
picture became the focus of most people in the United States, establishing
an image of an evil enemy, thereby creating the important psychological
mind-set to accept revenge. This constant barrage of news coverage of Bin
Laden and al-Qaeda also drew attention away from questions about why the
attacks were not prevented. Creating diversions away from embarrassing or
incriminating issues is a very common practice for government officials
operating in the context of an uncritical media. Added to this is the fact
that today, with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq declared over, Bin Laden,
"public enemy number one," is all but forgotten by the U.S. media.
If Bin Laden was really the mastermind of the attacks, why were the
FBI agents ordered to curtail their investigation of these attacks on
October 10, 2001[12]? Moreover, why was the FBI called off its
investigation of him and of the Saudi Royal Family prior to 9/11? Soon
after entering the White House, the Bush Administration strengthened an
existing order to the FBI to "back off" their investigations of Saudi-based
terrorist organizations, including the World Assembly of Muslim Youth,
headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, and run by a relative of Osama bin
Laden. John O'Neill, the FBI agent who for years led U.S. investigations
into Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, complained bitterly that the State
Department blocked attempts to prove Bin Laden's guilt in the bombing of
the USS Cole. He resigned in protest and became head of security for the
World Trade Center where he was killed on September 11. 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." The FBI
agents were commanded to cut short their investigations into the attacks
and those involved. FBI agents were threatened with prosecution under the
National Security Act if they publicized information from their
investigations. David P. Schippers, noted Chicago lawyer and the House
Judiciary Committee's chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial
is now representing some of the FBI agents in a suit against the U.S.
government in an attempt to enable them to legally tell what they know.
The Official Story of 9/11 is Simply not Believable
An important "who done it" question concerns the actual attack on the
WTC and the Pentagon. How was it possible for the World Trade Center's
twin towers to have completely collapsed as a result of two jet planes?
Moreover, the tower known as WTC-7 was not hit by anything but debris and
yet it also collapsed in the same manner as the twin towers only seven
hours later[13]. One version of the official story is that the burning jet
fuel caused the steel girders supporting the twin towers to melt. However,
there is simply no credible scientific evidence to support this version.
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. Steel buildings are not known to collapse because of
fire and concrete does not turn into powder when it crashes to the ground.
Rather, based upon scientific evidences, photos and videos of the event,
and reports of scientists, the WTC architect and engineers, it is nearly
conclusive that the towers collapsed because of demolition rather than
burning jet fuel.
Even more outrageous is the collapse of WTC-7 since it was not hit by
anything other than debris, and did not fall until 5:20 pm, yet it
collapsed in the same manner as the twin towers. There is record only of
small fires seen on a few floors prior to its collapse. No explanation as
to why WTC-7 collapsed was given by FEMA or any other investigating team.
It is also noteworthy that ownership of the WTC changed hands several
months earlier because if inside demolition was accomplished, cooperation
of the WTC security forces might have been required.
Mystery also surrounds the plane crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
The most obvious question concerns the remains of the plane and its
passengers, which seem to have vanished in thin air. Who were the
passengers aboard Flight 93? The official reports of cell phone contact
with passengers of Flight 93 are highly unlikely given recent research and
expert testimony[14]. No recording of these calls has been made public.
Also, what was the explosion reported by some of the local people who
witnessed the crash? Another eyewitness reported seeing a white plane
resembling a fighter jet circling the site just after the crash. Why has
no one been allowed near the site? Amidst government secrecy and cover-up
speculation abounds.
Moreover, the USA and Bin Laden are not the enemies they pretend to
be. Michel Chossudovsky and others have 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 also well known that Bin Ladenâs close working relationship
with the CIA began in the 1980s. The claim is that they have since fallen
out, but this story is a lie. Indeed, on October 31, the French daily Le
Figaro reported that while in a Dubai hospital receiving treatment for a
chronic kidney infection in July, 2001, Osama bin Laden met with a top CIA
official. The Bin Laden and Bush families have maintained close business
ties through Carlyle. Some of the members of the Bin Laden family and the
Saudi Royal Family were in the U.S. during the attack and were flown safely
out shortly after. George Bush Sr. is said to have met with one of the Bin
Laden brothers on September 10th. According to the mainstream media spin,
this is okay, 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.
If Bin Laden is an enemy of the U.S., why was he not captured before
9/11 and why has he not been captured since? There have been several
opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden after naming him wanted for the
1993 bombing of the WTC, but no effort to do so was made[15]. Prior to
9/11, the FBI attributed the attacks on the embassies in Nairobi and
Dar-es-Salaam to Osama bin Laden and offered a five million dollar ransom.
There have been opportunities to capture him before 9/11 and yet he remains
free. For example, Bin Laden was meeting with the CIA as late as July,
2001. An examination of U.S. efforts to capture Osama bin Laden show they
have in fact, consistently blocked attempts to investigate and capture him
with the help of two allies, Saudi Arabia, and The United Arab Emirates.
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 the
family members of the most wanted man in America not detained for
questioning?
There are Close Ties Between the Alleged Terrorists and the CIA
It is clear that the 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. The CIA also has close
cooperative links with Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) which also may have
played an important role in 9/11[16]. Pakistan has long been a supporter
of al-Qaeda. The ISI has been a mechanism by which the CIA indirectly
channeled support to al-Qaeda and has been used by successive U.S.
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 support of the
U.S. 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 alleged lead hijacker, Mohammed 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 and 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.
Israel is an occupying power in the Middle East surrounded by Arab
States viewed as its enemies. It is a dominating military power in the area
with nuclear capabilities, owing largely to the United States' $3 billion
annual aid package ($100 million for the Palestine Authority). U.S. aid,
for the most part, is not charity, there is an expected return. Israel is
an instrument in U.S. Mid-East regional policy but it is a mutual exchange
rather than a colonial relationship. It is not clear the exact role Israel
played in 9/11 as all details are not fully known publicly.
It was reported that a few hours after the attacks, five Israelis
were arrested for puzzling behavior described as cries of joy and mockery
as they watched and filmed the WTC attacks. One man was found with $4,700
in cash hidden in his sock, another had two passports on him, and a box
cutter was found in the van they were driving when arrested. ABC News
later reported that the FBI determined that the men were on a Mossad
surveillance mission. The FBI is said to have held them on immigration
violations and interrogated them for weeks, but then released them on
November 20, 2001 as part of a deal with the Israeli government. In
addition, months before September 11, a firm owned fifty percent by the
Israeli government breaks the lease on its offices in the WTC and moves
out.
There is no Question Who Benefited the Most from 9/11
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,
as has Israel. 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]." It can be added that if you "follow the
money," it leads straight into the White House.
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 through the Carlyle Group, the giant private and secretive
investment firm managing some $14 billion in assets, including many
defense-related companies. Carlyle employs former President George W. Bush
Sr., and 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. Reports have emerged
that the Carlyle Group, Haliburton and many other firms with ties to the
Bush Administration have profited immensely from the wars on Afghanistan
and Iraq and from the militarization of U.S. foreign policy.
Israel is the regional watchdog for the West, but is also dependent
on them for its security. Clearly it benefits from the U.S. occupation of
one of its most dreaded enemies. It may also now share in some of the
benefits from the world's second largest oil reserve.
The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq Were Planned, Prior to 9/11
Two important documents suggested that in order for the U.S. to
remain the preeminent power (i.e., the imperial hegemon), a military take
over of Eurasia was required, which in turn required a Pearl Harbor type
event to appease the American people[17]. This strategy was called for by
the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) formed in 1997, in their
published document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (September, 200) and in
"The Grand Chess Board" authored by Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997), National
Security Advisor during the Carter Administration. George W. Bush confirmed
in his diary that 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor they wanted and the follow-up
strategy is currently being witnessed. The primary architects of the PNAC
plans include Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Richard Cheney and Donald
Rumsfeld, all now part of the current Bush Administration. These plans
included specifics for taking military control of Central Asia, including
regime change in Iraq, and beyond.
It is public knowledge that Unocal and others in the oil industry
were negotiating with the 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 was made at a meeting in Berlin,
Germany, in July 2001: the Taliban can choose between a "carpet of bombs"
-- an invasion -- or a "carpet 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[18]."
As early as 1991, following the defeat of Iraq in the Persian Gulf
War, Newsweek magazine reported that the US military was preparing an
operation in Kazakhstan and U.S. companies began acquiring natural gas and
oil rights in the Caspian region. U.S. Special Forces began joint
operations with Kazakhstan in 1997 and with Uzbekistan a year later,
training for intervention especially in the mountainous southern region
that includes Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan. In early
September, prior to 9/11, the U.S., and NATO mobilized troops in and around
Pakistan, Egypt and the Arabian Sea in preparation for a possible attack on
al-Qaeda.
There Are Precedents for These Kinds of Acts of Complicity and Fabrications
Claims that the evidence for complicity is over-ruled because no
country would do this to its own citizens is rejected because such past
events are documented. The previously classified "Operation Northwoods"
document reveals that in 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff seriously
considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US
citizens, and blaming it on Cuba in order to justify a war to overthrow
Fidel Castro. The plans were never implemented, but were given approval
signatures by all the Joint Chiefs of Staff and its chairman, General Lyman
L. Lemnitzer. The plan included several options, such as killing Cuban
defectors or U.S. soldiers, sinking ships, and staging simulations of
planes being shot down[19].
Far from being an unprecedented shocker, suspected government
complicity in 9/11 builds on an august and cynical tradition. It is the
oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times. In 1933, after
Hitler came to power, the Nazis burned down the Reichstag (Parliament)
building and blamed it on the Communists to justify abolition of civil
liberties and the imposition of Nazi rule. Other examples of democracy
being hoaxed include the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor bombardment
(which President Roosevelt not only knew about beforehand but helped
provoke), the hoax of the Gulf of Tonkin attack, and the staging of the
Kuwaiti incubator-babies incident
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 is
not a newcomer to melding political and business interests; they got their
start as key Hitler supporters. Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W.
Bush, was Hitler's banker in New York, until Franklin D. Roosevelt
confiscated his holdings during World War II using the Trading with the
Enemy Act. 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 now clearly demonstrated that the current
Bush Administration knowingly misled the people about the war in Iraq.
While the focus of this chapter is on 9/11 and the Bush
Administration, it is incumbant to reiterate that this atrocity has to be
viewed in the contexts of a long history of U.S. imperial expansion. The
Bush gang may be more bellicose and aggressive than previous
administrations in recent history. However, contrary to the complaints of
many of Bush's critics, preemptive strikes are not unprecedented. Imperial
expansion did not stop on the west coast of North America but continued to
the Philippines and beyond.
Lies, Secrecy and Cover-up
The lies of the Bush Administration are numerous and currently many
of them are well publicized including President Bush's claim that he saw on
TV one of the planes crashing into the tower before any video was ever
shown. This was just one of Bush's seven different "recalls" of the events
on September 11th. The statements of the FAA, NORAD, the Air Force Pilots
and Traffic Controllers conflict, contradict known facts and defy reason.
In spite of this deliberate deception, the mass media has made very little
of the fact that from the beginning, the Bush Administration has vigorously
attempted to thwart any investigation into the circumstances of an attack
which killed more U.S. civilians on a single day than any other act of
violence perpetrated on the U.S. soil.
Airline crashes are routinely investigated with great thoroughness,
and the results released to the public. For example, "when an explosion
destroyed TWA Flight 800 after takeoff from New York in 1996, bits and
pieces of the aircraft were painstakingly assembled in a huge hangar on
Long Island, and pored over by forensic scientists and Boeing engineers
until the cause of the explosion--the ignition of vapors in the center fuel
tank, rather than a terrorist bomb--was determined[20]." By contrast, the
Bush administration has barred virtually any release of information about
9/11. For nearly six months, it blocked congressional hearings and rejected
calls for a special commission of inquiry. The White House finally worked
out a deal with the Democratic and Republican congressional leaders to
consign the investigation to hearings held jointly by the House and Senate
intelligence committees but continued its intimidations.
The joint congressional hearings were held behind closed doors, and
their more-than-800-page secret report detailing the intelligence and
law-enforcement failures that preceded the attacks (including provocative,
if unheeded warnings, given President Bush and his top advisers during the
summer of 2001) was completed last December. Yet only a bare-bones list of
"findings" with virtually no details has been made public. But nearly six
months later, a "working group" of Bush administration intelligence
officials assigned to review the document has taken a hard line against
further public disclosure. By refusing to declassify many of its most
significant conclusions, the administration has essentially thwarted
congressional plans to release the report. The intelligence officials'
attempt to reclassify some of the report seems ludicrous. As noted at the
beginning of this chapter, only because the families of some of the victims
of 9/11 were persistent, was an independent commission formed. After
stonewalling, the White House, quite incredibly, appointed Henry Kissinger
as its head. He resigned shortly after. With New Jersey Governor Thomas
Kean finally appointed to lead the commission, questions of conflict of
interest still remain. Even so, the White House wrestled with the Kean
Commission, refusing to release necessary documents.
It is also worthy of note that officials in the Bush Administration
illegally removed pages from the Iraq U.N. report, pages which are believe
to identify those who supplied Hussein's regime with weapons of mass
destruction and training on how to use them. These acts are not isolated
unfortunate mistakes, but demonstrate a consistent pattern. While
President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft call for more
and more intrusive surveillance capabilities on citizens of the U.S., they
themselves operate in unprecedented secrecy.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's failure to investigate and
its cover-up are truly beyond belief. Only a team of volunteer
investigators was assembled, then given no funding, and not allowed at
ground zero. People were threatened with arrest if they took pictures at
the two sites of the attack and the site of the plane crash in
Pennsylvania. Instead of being made available to the investigating team,
the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers has been removed from the site
without forensic examination and sold to scrap merchants overseas with
pledges of secrecy about the contents. Controlled Demolition Inc. of
Phoenix, Maryland was one of the site's main cleanup management contractors
and their plan for recycling the steel was accepted.
The Securities and Exchange Commission refused to report on its
insider trading investigation into people who made millions from the 9/11
tragedy. As part of the cover-up there have been constant distractions
away from the real issues of 9/11 with such media headlines as orange
alerts, anthrax attacks, and CIA agent exposures. Moreover, the reasonable
calls for an investigation into the events surrounding 9/11, made by
Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Cynthia McKinney, inspired the kind of
outrage that is generally motivated by a desire to suppress rather than
reveal the truth.
Conclusions
If government agencies knew of impending attacks, were capable of
preventing them, but did nothing and then went to great lengths to prevent
any investigation, what should be concluded? The evidence presented above
seems clear that if the many agencies of the U.S. government had done their
jobs, the September 11th attack most likely would have been prevented. If
there had been an immediate investigation into 9/11, the wars on
Afghanistan and Iraq could not have been justified simply on the basis of
terrorism. Surely questions must be asked as to why no one in any of the
government agencies has been held accountable, and why journalists and
others in the mass media are not held responsible for the cover-up,
deception and lack of investigative reporting. From the evidence presented
it seems that much public whistle-blowing will be forthcoming, the only
question is when. It remains to be seen what will happen with the pending
class-action laws suits being brought against persons in the Administration
for letting 9/11 happen.
The reluctance of the alternative media to weigh in on the issue of
accountability may be due to the lack of courage or to "conspiracy
phobia[21]." However, the "attack on America" by definition and its very
nature was a conspiracy. These coordinated acts required very extensive
and careful planning, which by necessity was done in secret because the
intent was to harm innocent people for political gain. The only question is
who are the conspirators? This does not suggest there should be a lack of
skepticism, caution and an awareness of a conspiracy culture. Rather it
emphasizes that a rigorous science does not dismiss conspiracy theories out
of hand, but only after a thorough investigation.
One important insight into conspiracy theories concerns 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. Shared
ideology, or perhaps more specifically what social psychologists in studies
of organizational behavior, call "groupthink" also plays a major role among
the decision makers. 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. Past history, as well as the currently
established facts, is on the side of those raising this possibility. At
the very least, further and more honest investigations must take place and
some accountability exacted from those responsible.
It seems apropos to conclude: "if you are part of the problem, then
you are not part of the solution." Thus the solution then lies with the
people themselves and not with any U.S. government agency, least of all the
Executive Branch. It is critical to appeal to the several important
alternative media outlets who have bought into the official story of
"blowback," to reconsider their position. It took twenty-five years for
Robert B. Stinnett[22] to bring to conclusion the evidence showing
Roosevelt's involvement in Pearl Harbor. Will it take twenty-five years
before the truth of 9/11 is brought to light? Are the efforts of Stinnett
and others to be for nought?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources
[1] There is a large body of literature on U.S. imperialism, see
especially, John Bellamy Foster (2001). Imperialism and Empire.
Monthly Review, 53, 1-9; Garth Stedman Jones (1972). The history of US
imperialism. In Robin Blackburn (Ed.), Ideology and social science.
London: Fontana; and Michael Parenti (1995). Against empire: An expose of
the brutal realities of U.S. global domination. San Fransisco: City Lights
Books. For a list and description of CIA atrocities abroad see: William
Blum (2000). Rogue State: A guide to the worldâs only superpower. Monroe,
MI: Common Courage Press; and for a list of CIA atrocities at home: Health
News Network: http://tinyurl.com/4dubx5
[2] There are numerous sources for this. Consult: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
(2002). The war on freedom: How and why America was attacked September 11,
2001. Joshua Tree, CA: Tree of Life Publications, chapter 4; John W. Dean
(2003). The 9/11 Report Raises More Serious Questions About The White House
Statements On Intelligence:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030729.html; Alex Jones at: and
www.rense.com; Thierry Meyssan (2002). 9/11 the big lie. London: Carnot
Publishing; Ed Rippy (2002). 9-11 and U.S. global hegemony,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIP207A.html; Michael Ruppert (2002)
[3] Ahmed, 2002, op cit. provides a careful documentation of this evidence
as reported in numerous media outlets. See also, Judicial Watch Sept 11,
2002: http://tinyurl.com/49t6sj It is well known that the
U.S. government not only tracks suspected terrorists, but also trains and
finances them.
[4] Ruppert, 2002, op cit. and Daniel Hopsicker (2001). Barry and the
Boys: The CIA, the mob and Americaâs secret history . Eugene, OR: Mad Cow
Press; Rippy, op cit., document the close connection of the CIA to Wall
Street, the major international financial institutions, including the
infamous BCCI, the arms and drug trade, and organized crime.
[5] Ahmed, 2002, op cit.; Mark R. Elsis (2002). Stand down: Exposing
NORADâs wag the 911 window dressing tale: http://StandDown.net; Jared
Israel (2001) http://emperors-clothes.com. See also several articles by
Jared Israel, John Flaherty, Illarion Bykov, Francisco Gil-White and George
Szamuely; Steve Grey (2002). September 11 Attacks: Evidence of U.S.
collusion: http://tinyurl.com/48nfyc
Paul Thompson (2003). The failure to defend the skies on 9/11:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html
[6] Note: Instructions issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
on June 1, 2001. In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified
by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will . . . forward
requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval
[7] Mark R. Elsis (2003). 36 or 37 missing and 70 percent empty.
http://911Timeline.net/36Or37MissingAnd70PercentEmpty.htm; Meyssan, 2002,
op cit.
[8] Cited by Mindy Kleinberg: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/;
http://tinyurl.com/4b6h4l See especially the testimony of Mindy
Kleinberg, Stephen Push and others on the First Public Hearings Archives,
p. 163.
[9] Daniel Hopsicker (2002). 9/11: The American connection.
http://www.madcowprod.com
[10] A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) Interview with Michael
Springman exposes CIA Links to Osama bin Laden (January 19, 2001):
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBC201A.html
[11] This relationship goes back at least sixty years. See especially,
Ahmed, 2002, op cit.; Michel Chossudovsky (2002). War and globalisation:
The truth behind September 11. London: Zed Books; Rippy, op. cit.
[12] This information is reported in numerous international and some
domestic news outlets; see also Alex Jones, op. cit.; Patrick Martin
(2002). One year after the terror attacks: Still no official
investigation into 9/11: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR209A.html;
Rippy, 2002, op cit.
[13] See especially: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers; Martin
DoutrZ (2001): http://tinyurl.com/3sl5fn ;
Gerard Holmgren (2002). Physical and mathematical analysis of the Pentagon
crash: http://tinyurl.com/4lcwbf ;
Eric Hufsmidt (2002). Painful questions: An analysis of the September
11th attack. Goleta, CA: Eric Hufschmid; Scott Loughrey (2003). WTC-7:
The improbable collapse:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html; Thierry Meyssan (2002).
Pentagate. London: Carnot.
[14] A.K. Dewdney (2003) 'Project Achilles' Final Report and Summary of
Findings
http://tinyurl.com/4laxza
[15] Ahmed, 2002, op cit.; Chossudovsky, 2002, op cit.; Eric Lichtblau
(2003). White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide
Says, New York Times, September 4, 2003; Meyssan, 2002, op cit.
[16] Ahmed, 2002, op cit
[17] William Kristol: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Zbigniew
Brzezinski (1997). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its
Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books. For analysis see:
Rippy, 2002, op cit.; Paul Thompson:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/index.html. See US preparing
for a war with Afghanistan before 9/11, increasing control of Asia before &
since and many other articles;
Bette Stockbauer (2003) 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' and the Project for
the New American Century: http://tinyurl.com/4lrb8o
[18] Cited in Ahmed, 2002, p. 69.
[19] James Bamford (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.
[20] Martin, 2002, op cit.; see also: http://tinyurl.com/4v38f2
[21] Compare Mark Fenster (1999). Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and power
in American culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; and
Michael Parenti (1996). Dirty truths: Reflections on politics, media,
ideology, conspiracy, ethnic life and class power. San Francisco: City
Light Books.
[22] Robert B. Stinnett (2000). Day of deceit: the truth about FDR and
Pearl Harbor. New York: Touchstone.
SEE: APFN 9/11 INFO AND LINKS:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm
EXCLUSIVE -Hijacker's
Plans Were Called 'Project Bojinka' - Were ...
Rense.com EXCLUSIVE Project Bojinka -. More
Indications Of. Prior US Knowledge Of.
Hijacker Attack Plans. RENSE.com EXCLUSIVE. ©. 2001 All Rights Reserved.
9-23-1. ...
www.rense.com/general14/known.htm - 11k -
Cached -
Similar pages
Project Bojinka and Other Hijack High
Project Bojinka and Other Hijack High-jinks.
Send this page to a friend.
Debt Elimination Eliminate Credit Card Debt Mortgage Elimination ...
www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/ Bojinka.html - 26k -
Cached -
Similar pages
CIA,
FBI Knew Since 1995 About Possible Hijack Scheme
... PROJECT BOJINKA. The airline terror
plan, code named "Project Bojinka"
was first discovered in January 1995 during a police search ...
http://tinyurl.com/4jvq69
- 14k -
Cached -
Similar pages
Did Bush
Know? :: Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures ...
... Al-Qaeda’s Plans: Project Bojinka.
Western intelligence had been aware
of plans for such terrorist attacks on US soil as early as 1995. ...
Description: Edited version of an in-depth study of
the warnings received by the US intelligence community prior...
Category:
Society > Issues > ... > Analysis and Opinion > Alleg ed Coverups
www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html - 101k -
Cached -
Similar pages
CNN - Terrorism
trial begins in New York - May 13, 1996
... Fingerprints on a bomb recipe notebook found in
the burned apartment convinced the
FBI that the brains behind "Project Bojinka" was Yousef, a
young engineer ...
Description: [CNN.com]
Category:
News > Online Archives > CNN.com > 1996 > May > US
www.cnn.com/US/9605/12/terror.plot/ - 7k -
Cached -
Similar pages
Project Bojinka - US KNOWLEDGE OF ATTACK PLANS
APFN Project Bojinka - US KNOWLEDGE OF ATTACK
PLANS Tue Aug 27 20:54:30 2002 68.98.68.169
EXCLUSIVE Project Bojinka - More Indications Of Prior US
Knowledge Of ...
www.apfn.net/messageboard/8-27-02/ discussion.cgi.9.shtml - 20k -
Cached -
Similar pages
Project Bojinka - More Indications Of Prior US Knowledge Of
...
... Project Bojinka - More Indications
Of Prior US Knowledge Of Hijacker
Attack Plan. From: Miroslav Antic; Subject: Project Bojinka -
More ...
www.mail-archive.com/hydro@topica.com/msg00742.html - 13k -
Cached -
Similar pages
The Memory
Hole > Defense Intelligence Agency Refuses to ...
Defense Intelligence Agency Refuses to Declassify Info on
Project Bojinka.
>>> I sent the National Security Agency a Freedom of Information ...
www.thememoryhole.org/911/dia-bojinka.htm - 5k -
Cached -
Similar pages
Attack on America
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm
