Posted on 12/12/2001 6:22:03 AM PST by m1911
The September 11th Attack: Pearl Harbor or Reichstag Fire?
By Mark Ortiz The version of the events of September 11th that most people in the United States have accepted is a lie. This twisted version of recent history has utterly distorted millions of people's view of the current situation. It has paved the way for a war of conquest in central Asia and the acceptance of police state measures in the US. To deal appropriately with the current situation, we must get beyond the official mythology and face the true implications of the evidence.
Our rulers would have us believe that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an unprovoked act of war, perpetrated by maverick Islamist reactionaries out of hatred for democracy, secularism, and progress, with the support of Afghanistan. We are told that this event is a historical parallel to the Pearl Harbor attack of 1941, and that it justifies not only a war against the largely unrecognized government of Afghanistan, but an open-ended campaign against the ill-defined foe of "terrorism". In the course of this campaign, we are told, we must be prepared to abandon divisive politics, give up civil liberties, and rally unquestioningly behind our leaders. People who question any of this are being branded as traitors, fired from their jobs, denied access to air travel, and forced to wonder what greater repression the future will bring.
Sadly, most voices raised in opposition have focused on the relatively peripheral and moralistic points of whether the attack may have been provoked by our country's imperialist foreign policy, whether it is ever appropriate to answer violence with violence, and how much curtailment of our freedoms is acceptable in such a serious emergency. Both the supporters of the "war on terrorism" and most of its detractors are ignoring the strong evidence of flagrant mass deception in this situation.
In fact, a much closer parallel than Pearl Harbor would be the Reichstag Fire in Germany in 1933. Some readers may be unfamiliar with this event, so I'll recap briefly. Less than a month after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, somebody set fire to Germany's legislative hall. The event served as Hitler's pretext for dissolving the legislature, declaring himself dictator, and initiating a crackdown on his political opposition. The Nazis blamed the fire on the Communists, and immediately began rounding up progressives of all stripes. Most historians now agree that the Nazis probably set the fire themselves as an engineered provocation, or at the very least put the perpetrators up to it. This has never been conclusively proven, but the circumstantial evidence is strong enough so that most people now accept the belief that the Nazis set the fire.
The reasoning that historians use in that case is based on an examination of the act itself, of who had the means and opportunity to do the deed, and who predictably benefitted.
Similar analysis of the events of September 11th, 2001 indicates that: The attacks could only have occurred as they did if normal procedures used to safeguard US airspace were suspended at the highest levels of command. The alleged mastermind of the attack worked for the apparent victims in the past, and very likely still does. The national powers allegedly behind the attack had nothing to gain by it, and much to lose. The targets chosen are consistent with a provocation, and inconsistent with the opening attack in a war. The absence of followup attacks traceable to the alleged aggressors, and the presence of the anthrax incidents and hoaxes, are also consistent with a campaign to frighten the American people, and inconsistent with a war. The Bush administration and its corporate backers have politically benefited from the events of Sept. 11 in numerous ways.
The grim but unavoidable implication is that our rulers very probably engineered this event themselves to divert the course of history in a way that magnifies their own power and wealth. This makes those who perpetrated this provocation the real traitors, not those who have opposed the subsequent war and curtailment of freedom.
The "no air defense" lie
We are expected to believe that somebody could hijack four airliners, and use three of them as missiles against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, in a country where no airliner had been hijacked for 12 years, over a time span of nearly two hours, with no response from the US Air Force. That's ridiculous, and no thinking person should believe it.
The truth is that all major powers monitor and defend their air space at all times, especially the air space around their major cities and national capitals. This is necessary not only for military security, but for aviation safety.
We are told that there was no response because no procedures were in place to deal with such a situation.
The truth is that the Air Force routinely intercepts civilian aircraft that diverge from their flight plan or become unresponsive to radio communication. This ordinarily doesn't mean the Air Force shoots these planes down -- only that they get them in sight and in range, see who is flying them, and in many cases escort them to an airport. No presidential order or other special clearance is needed for this, and FAA rules spell out standard procedures for such actions, including signals to pilots who don't respond to radio. There are even guidelines for when to shoot a plane down, although normally presidential authorization would be required for that in the case of an airliner with hundreds of passengers.
We are told there was no response because there were no air bases with planes ready within range of the targets.
The truth is that there is an air base, Andrews Air Force Base, just outside Washington, DC, with two combat-ready fighter squadrons operated by the Air National Guard and the Marines. Andrews is also home base to Air Force One, the presidential plane. It is unthinkable that the US Government would leave this installation, and its own headquarters, completely undefended. The suggestion that the government couldn't put fighters over DC from Andrews is ludicrous.
Furthermore, the Air Force, the Air National Guard, the Marines, and the Navy have fighters not only ready but airborne all the time. These planes are conducting routine training and patrol flights. It is standard procedure to divert planes from these missions when an interception is required. This makes perfect sense; since when does a nation need to scramble a squadron of fighters to deal with a lone, unarmed civilian aircraft?
Readers may recall, for example, the October 1999 case of Payne Stewart's private jet that lost cockpit pressure shortly after takeoff in Florida, and flew on autopilot with all occupants dead until it ran out of fuel and crashed in North Dakota. The plane was escorted all the way from Florida by a succession of diverted military aircraft, based in Florida, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. This is normal procedure, even for a small private plane.
For this procedure not to be followed with an airliner, especially one known to be hijacked -- and especially when two hijacked airliners had already been used as weapons the same morning, as with AAL Flight 77, the plane that hit the Pentagon -- would have required active intervention at a high level of command. And if anybody below the level of the White House had suspended the normal procedures, we would be reading about that person's court martial.
These clear facts mean that we have more evidence against George W. Bush in this case than we have against the Nazis in the Reichstag Fire. If Hitler had ordered the Berlin fire department not to put out any fires the night of February 27, 1933, or if the fire department had mysteriously failed to respond, the evidence would be comparable.
The "Osama doesn't work here anymore" lie
Our government never has shown us the evidence it says it has that Osama bin Laden and his network al Qaeda were behind the September 11th hijackings. But if they were, that is entirely consistent with an orchestrated provocation.
It is public knowledge that our CIA supported and trained Osama bin Laden, the Mujahedin, and the Taliban. We are asked to believe that in 1996, Osama bin Laden turned on his handlers, quit the CIA, took to hiding in caves, and began a campaign of guerrilla warfare against the US. We are told that the CIA often knows where he was an hour ago, but never where he is now.
A little reflection will show this story to be almost as implausible as the official account of undefended US skies.
It may be that a lower-echelon operative like Philip Agee can quit the CIA and write exposes, and live -- if he or she is willing to put up with threats, harrassment, visa problems, and various other headaches. But a man in a position of command and control in highly sensitive covert operations, overseeing and coordinating thousands of people and millions of dollars, cannot be allowed to turn with impunity. He knows too much. He can't even be allowed to calmly walk away, much less declare a private war on the United States.
Most of us don't need our boss's permission to quit a job. Would Osama bin Laden need the CIA's permission to quit? Yes, he would. A man like Osama bin Laden is not a one-man show. He operates with countless contacts and subordinates. For him to thumb his nose at his taskmasters and go hide someplace, all these other people must turn with him, at the same time. Otherwise, one or more of them can surely be persuaded, bribed or coerced to turn him in or take him out. The odds are minuscule that anybody thus entangled with hundreds or thousands of others, many of these undoubtedly answerable to the CIA through multiple channels, can simply disappear.
On October 31st, 2001, the French daily Le Figaro reported that in July, 2001, Osama bin Laden was treated for a kidney infection at the American Hospital in Dubai. According to the report, bin Laden was there for ten days, and was visited by family members (so much for his being a black sheep) and the local Chief of Station for the CIA. The report was pulled from Le Figaro's online archives and retracted the next day, but various online investigative sites saved copies of the article while it was up, and hardcopies of the paper remain. Why was the article pulled? Maybe it was false information. Or maybe it was true, and highly embarrassing to Le Figaro's parent corporation, Carlyle. Carlyle is the 11th largest defense contractor in the United States. It employs former President George H. W. Bush as an advisor, in which capacity he traveled to Saudi Arabia in 1998 and 2000. The bin Laden family owned a hefty interest in Carlyle until September 11th. The family hastily sold all that stock as soon as the exchanges opened following the attack.
Whether the Le Figaro report was factual or not, the official story of Osama bin Laden turning on his handlers is unbelievable on its face. The insider trading Speaking of stock deals, somebody knew about the attack in advance, in enough detail to know which airlines would be used, and what buildings would be targeted. This is evidenced by the huge volume of put options (stock trading contracts amounting to a bet that a stock will go down) placed on American Airlines, United Airlines, and companies with lots of office space in the WTC, including Merrill Lynch, in the three business days immediately preceding September 11th. A large share of the put options on UAL were purchased through Deutschebank/AB Brown. CEO of AB Brown until its 1998 absorption by Deutschebank was A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, presently Executive Director of the CIA. While this does not necessarily prove CIA foreknowledge of the attack, it does suggest that; it is probable that there remain friendships and personal contacts through which inside information could have traveled, if there was such foreknowledge.
This insider trading was reported in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The only secret is who bought those put options. Clearly, this is a trail that could lead to the perpetrators of the crime. Yet our government -- supposedly so bent on bringing the culprits to justice that it will kill any number of Afghan civilians to do it -- so far refuses to investigate this insider trading, despite an organized letter-writing campaign to Congress urging such an investigation.
What was in it for Afghanistan or the Taliban?
The only thing Afghanistan and the Taliban regime have gotten from the attack and its aftermath is their own destruction, and more mayhem in their country. This was perfectly foreseeable. So if the Taliban had a role in the attack, what was their motive? Were they really so daft as to believe they could defeat the United States in a war? Or were they paid and ordered to participate in a provocation?
In May, 2001, Colin Powell delivered $43 million to the Taliban, purportedly to finance that predecessor of the "war on terrorism", the "war on drugs". Was that the whole story, or was this their payoff to take a fall? The oil angle Some of the largest known reserves of oil and natural gas lie around and under the Caspian Sea. That landlocked body of water is situated northwest of Afghanistan and north of Iran. It is bounded by Russia, Iran, and the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan. Further huge reserves lie beneath the plains of Kazakhstan, directly north of Afghanistan. The known reserves in each of these areas, separately, exceed those of Saudi Arabia.
The oil is mostly near the surface and cheap to extract. The problem is how to get it to American, European, or Asian markets. On February 12th, 1998, John J. Maresca of Unocal Corporation (now known as TOSCO) addressed the House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. He argued strongly that the international oil industry needs not only one pipeline but multiple ones from central Asia to ports on the Black Sea and the Indian Ocean. He described a plan by a consortium of oil companies to build a pipeline to the Black Sea, and another plan by his own company to build one to the Indian Ocean.
Routes to the Indian Ocean must pass through either Afghanistan or Iran -- and Iran is currently closed to this because of US sanctions legislation. Even if sanctions against Iran were lifted, multiple routes would be desirable because of the political instability of the whole region.
Speaking of the situation in Afghanistan, Maresca emphasized, "...construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company. In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline."
A damn strange way to launch a war
Suppose for a moment that you were a small nation, or handful of small nations, halfway around the world, with no navy and next to no air force, and you had chosen the goal of destroying the USA by warfare. (Please don't laugh -- we are actually being asked to believe that's what we face.)
Suppose you wanted to gain an initial advantage in this war by launching a surprise attack. First of all, your objective would logically be to cause maximum loss of life, and maximum destruction of your adversary's ability to wage war. Symbolic importance would be a secondary concern at best when selecting your targets.
I don't mean to deny the significance of 5,000 or more human lives, but wouldn't it have made more sense to take out two or three nuclear power plants with those planes? That would have killed millions, and rendered major population centers uninhabitable. It would not have taken a genius to think of this. (It still wouldn't -- a good argument against nuclear power.)
Second, you would presumably try to avoid killing citizens of countries other than your target. Launching a war against a major power is ambitious enough. You wouldn't want the whole world mad at you at once. Yet the occupants of the World Trade Center came from a huge variety of nations. The only building in the United States with more cosmopolitan occupancy would be the United Nations.
The Pentagon is an actual military target, and clearly a US asset. But would any one actually expect to disable the US military just by damaging part of this one huge facility, with no followup attacks on other installations? Again, a symbolic blow, but by itself not much of a war.
Now suppose you were an anti-imperialist, or anti-secularist, or anti-progressive guerrilla organization that had found sanctuary in a poor, backward country but was not really an instrument of its foreign policy. Suppose that you decided to strike at targets symbolizing what you oppose, in the hope of inspiring like-minded people throughout the world to take up your struggle.
Then you might choose targets for symbolic value.
But wouldn't you also explain your acts to the world? Wouldn't you seek to blunt the inevitable efforts to denounce your group as murderers? Wouldn't you seek to advance some kind of identifiable political program or agenda, behind which you could rally support? Without these communicative ingredients, how could you create a snowballing world uprising -- without which the whole thing would be an exercise in futility?
For these reasons, guerrilla movements generally issue communiques explaining their actions. Even the demonstrably bogus "Symbionese Liberation Army" of the 1970's had to do this, if only to be a halfway convincing hoax. A campaign of terrorism or guerrilla attacks with a total absence of any communication is highly unusual.
Also, a guerrilla movement, which must by nature play for popular support, ordinarily makes an effort, or at least the appearance of an effort, to minimize the loss of innocent life. It makes no sense to do otherwise in an attack or campaign that is first and foremost an "armed propaganda" operation.
Finally, imagine yourself as a pro-corporate leader of a great world power with a major oil addiction, a corporate elite bent on global economic domination, and at the same time a revolutionary libertarian tradition, a constitution forbidding police state measures, an inescapable need for the approval of world opinion, and within your own borders a strong, growing movement against imperial intervention and global corporatism.
Suppose that your family's fortune was made in the oil industry; that the world's largest reserves of oil lay landlocked halfway around the world; and that the only practical way to get that oil out was to build a militarily vulnerable pipeline through a part of the world that could only be politically stabilized through intervention by the major powers.
Suppose, further, that you were in office thanks to a rigged election, and that this was public knowledge; that the economy was sinking into a long-overdue slump; and that your approval rating was around 50% and falling.
You would have an urgent need for an excuse for military intervention where that pipeline had to go; for a pretext to crack down on "troublemakers" in your own back yard; and for some big event that would make you look heroic and rally the public behind you.
Suppose that you decided to create an attack that would accomplish the above objectives. What would you look for when choosing your targets? The destruction would have to be horrific enough to severely shock people, to turn the tide of public opinion massively in your favor, and to form a bulwark against possible accusations that you planned it yourself. The destruction would have to involve enough loss of life to be convincing, but there would be no need to kill people by the millions. Symbolic value of the targets would be important, since emotional impact on the public would be crucial. It would be highly desirable to have people of many nations die. This would allow you to rally not only domestic opinion but global opinion against whoever you pinned the deed on, and provide international support for the subsequent military intervention where the oil pipeline needed to be. To make the event serve as a pretext for a crackdown on the global justice movement, you would want a symbol of global corporatism to be among the targets. You would also want to make sure that the US military was hit -- not hard enough to seriously diminish its ability to wage war, but convincingly enough so you could claim that an act of war had occurred, not merely a crime. This would be important so that you could justify the use of the military in a "response", and also because there is precedent in the US for suspension of civil liberties in times of war, but not in response to a crime.
Clearly the targets chosen for September 11th fit these requirements to a tee.
As for the communications side of the operation, you would want to make sure the corporate media whipped the public into a jingoistic frenzy, while you yourself postured as a calm voice for restraint. There could be a contrived statement from the alleged perpetrators -- but if everything else went well enough, this would be unnecessary, and leaving the exact motives and identity of the purported culprits a question mark could be highly advantageous. It would mean you could declare a "war" against an amorphous foe, and then flesh out the bogeyman profile to fit your political adversaries as needed, for years. War? Where?
If you set out to subdue the neighborhood bully, would you walk up and punch him in the nose, and then just quit fighting and stand there? If you launched a war with a surprise attack, would you conduct that attack, and then stop? Surely you would have further plans. Surely you would immediately press on with the war. At this writing, it has been almost a quarter of a year since the attack, and we have (knock on wood) seen no followup attack at all. This is inconsistent with a war, or even a guerrilla campaign.
Actually, there have been lots of attacks since September 11th -- in Afghanistan, by the US and its allies of the moment. The size and scope of the operations there strongly suggest that they were in the works for a long time. Where is al Qaeda's war effort?
What about the anthrax? It is interesting, in a number of ways. However, even our government isn't attributing it to foreign-based terrorists. It appears to be a relatively crude, home-grown effort. That said, its timing is worth noting. So is the targeting, and so is the communication side of it.
As far as we know, all actual anthrax cases have occurred since September 11th. Yet there were numerous anthrax threats in this country for years before that, chiefly against abortion clinics. I heard a public health official from Indianapolis on the radio saying there had been over 30 such incidents in Indianapolis in 2000 alone. Also, even since September 11th, bogus anthrax threats have outnumbered actual cases more than a hundred to one.
Thus, there are some common threads running through the September 11th attack and the anthrax situation: The timing -- one right after the other; The absence of anybody taking responsibility or explaining purpose -- which, as previously noted, is highly unusual; The evident emphasis on creating panic rather than accomplishing any actual military objective.
I make no claims to biological weapons expertise, but from a common-sense standpoint, if I were contemplating using biological weaponry as part of a war effort, I would do the following: Be stealthy, not provocative. Use a disease that occurs naturally in humans all the time. Try to make the campaign look like a naturally occurring epidemic. Make no threats, certainly not false ones. Target military personnel, and perhaps public safety personnel. Target people who have a significant role in the military and in civil defense, but are not in the limelight. Avoid targeting media people and public figures. Choose an agent that causes lingering illness, not quick death. Fill up the enemy's hospitals and drain their resources. Soften the target country up with this covert campaign before any overt attack. Follow the disease up with other measures, not vice versa. Taken together, the September 11th attack and the anthrax situation do have the appearance of an integrated effort -- but it's an integrated effort to panic the American people into accepting war and political repression, not an effort to militarily defeat the USA.
Moreover, the whole operation - not just the anthrax part -- appears to be, at its roots, the work of home-grown perpetrators. At least as regards the September 11th events, these would necessarily have to include the man in the Oval Office and his advisors. Who benefits?
We have already noted that the Taliban regime and al Qaeda have gained nothing and lost much from the events of the last few months. What has been the effect for George W. Bush and his corporate backers? Unless we count the property destruction and loss of life as blows to them (not logical really, since they weren't killed or injured, and they may not even have lost any investments), the effects have been a long list of solid gains.
Bush's formerly flagging popularity has soared. Issues of the day have been forgotten or pushed to the back burner. Many groups that were actively opposing the administration's policies have dropped their campaigns. The US has gained a military foothold in Central Asia, with virtually none of the political fallout that usually would accompany such an intervention. A climate of jingoist hysteria has been created that threatens all voices of sanity and social progress. A scapegoat, or at least a partial excuse, for the economic slump already in progress has been created. A pretext for extensive corporate welfare measures has been created. The left has been profoundly divided over its response to the situation. A pretext has been created to treat as "potential or suspected terrorists" all people opposing the global corporatism that the World Trade Center symbolized. A pretext has been created for an ongoing campaign against the Bill of Rights.
The erosion of constitutional rights since September 11th has been rapid and drastic, and is still in progress as this is written. So far, we have seen detention of thousands of people without charges, and without even disclosure of their names or the number of detainees. At least one activist against the war has been denied the right to fly, on the basis of computer files that the government denies it has. The "USA/Patriot Act" openly attacks attorney-client privacy. Less openly, attorneys are already being denied the right to contact clients in US penal institutions. Political prisoners, including Philip Berrigan, have been held incommunicado in solitary confinement for weeks on end, with no explanation. The new legislation also legalizes surreptitious entry and search, and expands electronic eavesdropping. These things clearly violate the first, fourth, and fifth amendments to the United States Constitution. But they're happening. And contrary to official propaganda, victims of these measures definitely include US citizens.
Conclusion
The impossibility of the official version of recent events, and the use that our rulers have made of them, should make it clear what is going on: mass deception, and the fascization of our country. In this situation, progressives and people of good will have nothing to gain by timidity. Despite the outrageousness of the truth, despite the fact that it will anger people, we must speak it, loud and clear.
Read more
The following sites have great articles on the events of Sept. 11th And related subjects:
<http://tenc.net> -- The Emperor's New Clothes. Good details on our airspace security system.
<http://globalresearch.ca> -- Good articles, including one on insider trading by Michael Ruppert
<http://www.copvcia.com> -- some articles free, some available to paid members only John Maresca's congressional testimony about piping oil through Afghanistan can be read on the website of the House of Representatives, or at <http://www.sumeria.net>
A good widely-circulated article on inconsistencies in the official story is Stan Goff's "Summary of Thoughts on the Infinite War". I will forward this upon request to mailto:markortiz@vnet.net
Copyright 2001 by Mark Ortiz Reprint and retransmit freely for non-commercial purposes. For commercial publication rights, mailto:markortiz@vnet.net
Well, yes. If highjackings happened everyday, airline security would be all over it, because it would cost them money. Why wouldn't you choose an area considered "safe", which would mean very poor security?
If one is trying to construct a scientific theory, Occam's razor is a useful principle to apply.
Here, however, one is attempting to choose between two conflicting accounts of an unique historical event where (to quote MarkWar) it is a "simple (and frustrating) reality that there's just NO WAY for us "average" citizens to know one way or the other" In such a case, Occam's razor is useless. You can say that Occam's razor would come down on the side of the most probable of the two scenarios. But "most probable" means nothing in the case of a single event.
And if anyone anywhere had suspended normal procedures, some heartsick airman would be talking about it. First he claims that the air should have been thick with fighters, that we had ample assets, then says that all those assets were ordered down AND NOT ONE OF THEM HAS COME FORWARD! Have there been a rash of "accidents" on air bases recently? Anything remotely approaching "circumstantial" evidence for this ridiculous assertion?
I would say it was the best reason to suspect it wasn't the government. :)
I would accept a dictatorship if I could be the dictator; but with anyone else.
Given what the government presented in court as supposed "proof" that McVeigh was the primary perpetrator, and the mass of contrary evidence that they successfully kept out, a whole range of alternative scenarios seems possible to me. From his having been a major participant, his having been a relatively minor participant, to his having been totally uninvolved.
I haven't saved links for this stuff and this isn't high on my personal list of tin foil stuff, so I can't even point to specific articles. But I think the stuff that has appeared often here on FR is well known. I'll try to recount the stuff off the top of my head.
1) After the first WTC bombing, people arrested in Indonesia had documents describing multiple hijacks. So the Feds knew that bin Laden's group had such stuff on the drawing boards.
2) There have been many posts here about the US working behind the scenes to topple the Taliban. A few months before 911, Bush specifically promoted a White House aide who had written on the need to remove the Taliban. Freeper Black Jade has posted tons of stuff on this business. So the Feds knew bin Laden would be getting desperate.
Those people talked to each other somehow.
4) In Minnesota, officials _caught_ some clown at a flight school who wanted to know how to fly & turn a plane, but "didn't need to know" take offs and landings. If the behavior caught the MN officials' eyes, why NOT the Feds?
5) The President of Egypt warned the Feds that something was up. Do warnings come from HEADS of STATE every day?
6) Israel warned the Feds that something was up. Do warning come from the Mossad every day?
7) We knew the WTC was a target because it had been targeted once. We know these people have a long memory. They're still angry about stuff that happened 700 years ago!
8) September has been a month _singled out_ in the past for Arab-related terrorism. Black September, etc.
9) The Gov Bush of FLA issued an EO activating elements of the National Guard just before the 911 attack (and though I've informally reviewed past EOs, I couldn't find anything similar at that time of year)
10) So many military/political/media moves occurred RIGHT AFTER the 911 attack, that it _appears_ contingencies had been put in place and just activated by the event.
None of this, of course, proves that the Feds had direct knowledge of the 911 WTC attacks.
However, looking at this kind of list (and I'm sure a really good conspiracy type could make a much more persuasive one), it doesn't seem unreasonable for someone to suggest that prior knowledge may have existed.
I want to repeat the point I'm making. Nothing here proves the Feds knew about this beforehand!
But even on this short list, there are some telling specifics. We KNEW bin Laden's group was interested in multiple plane attacks. We KNEW bin Laden's group would be interested in a September statement. We KNEW bin Laden's group would be getting desperate. Those THREE things alone make a person wonder why undercover people weren't flying on all planes throughout September.
Beyond those simple points, however, given all the political power the Feds have leveraged out of the event, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to look at this list and say the items are elements that point in the direction of the Feds knowing about the 911 attack and stepping aside to let it happen.
Mark W.
Hey, all I said was, it isn't claimed that there is oil in Afghanistan.
3) We know that Echelon gathers tons of electronic intercepts. It has been doing so for years. And the 911 WTC attacks were planned for years. Those people had to talk to each other somehow.
Sorry for the screwup.
Mark W.
In regard to each of these incidents, there have subsequently arisen serious grounds for questioning whether they were indeed what they seemed at the time.
Regarding what is the "real truth" regarding such incidents, how are we to know?
"But isn't the simple (and frustrating) reality that there's just NO WAY for us "average" citizens to know one way or the other?" (From MarkWar's Post# 6 above.)
Or to quote Jacques Ellul. "We live in a psychologically subversive universe." By which he meant, we are confronted constantly with conflicting propaganda from every direction of the political landscape and are powerless to know how to sort out what is true and what is false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.