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:
8:46 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston smashed
into the north tower of the WTC. The tower collapses at 10:28 a.m.
9:03 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston smashed
into the south tower. It completely collapses at 9:59am.
9:38 a.m.: AA Flight 77 from Dulles hits the Pentagon.
10:10 a.m.: United Flight 93 from Newark crashed in Shanksville,
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 7:45 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 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 8:40 a.m. Tragically the
fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 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 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? After he was notified, why did he go to the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
See several short articles by Jared Israel, John Flaherty, Illarion Bykov,
Francisco Gil-White and George Szamuely.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.