 |
| Reuters via 911Review |
From the first impact into the North Tower at 0846 on 11 September 2001, there have been questions, allegations, and accusations. Truth has been seasoned with controversy, national security, and various conspiracy theories about the who, the what and the how of the attack, leaving the casualties in the ashes of the event. As stories about the event multiplied so too did the theories that would create various urban legends; was it a complete and total inside job by the US government or was it a Saudi run operation for the US government, was Mossad involved or was it just complete incompetence and self-serving arrogance of various US intelligence agencies unwilling to play ball?
There's a saying that the stories that last do so cause there is at least a kernel of truth in their origins; yet, variations of all these stories have survived, partly because of the epic and world changing proportions of the tragedy, thus muddying the waters of the whole and complete truth of what honestly happened that fateful day leaving us to wonder how accountable each accused is.
 |
| GITMO via freedomoutpost.com |
While the United States government stated and made the public effort to show honest and truthful reactions to the terrorist attacks, behind the scenes the US had 'boots on the ground' within 48 hours. This was the reality when officially military operations were not announced, by then President Bush, until 7 October. President Bush, in the aftermath of the attacks, stated that justice would be brought to the perpetrators of the crime. With that intent, during the military operations an unknown number of 'suspects' and 'enemy combatants' were captured and detained.
In the ensuing years upwards to 1000 persons may have passed through the gates of GITMO or worse the secret detention locations in various countries around the world. The total true numbers are unknown due to the stonewalling of the Pentagon and other government agencies. Ironically, one of their stated excuses for not releasing a complete and accurate list has been respecting the privacy of the prisoners; yet, it seems that no other respectful consideration has been given in the treatment of the prisoners or their identities. I wonder if anyone has polled the prisoners to see if they want such respect for their privacy over no respect during interrogations and day-to-day treatment regarding things such as forced feedings. I also wonder if it occurred to anyone at the Pentagon that by releasing a whole and complete and accurate list of prisoners maybe things like wrong identities might be sorted out before improperly and immorally detaining innocent persons for years!
 |
| via en.wikipedia.org |
In addition to military operations, a Commission was formed over a year later, 27 November 2002,
"to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks". This report was published almost 2 years later on 22 July 2004; however, as of today there are still 28 pages of the report that are not public. Recently several members of the Commission, most notably, John H. Lehman, have stated the need to make public those 28 pages, which supposedly implicate several Saudi government officials with supporting the perpetrators of the attacks and or Al Qaeda as a whole. It should be noted that both the Saudi Royal Family and more than a few terrorist groups follow the same fundamentalist faction of Sunni Islam, Wahhadism
. It should also be remembered that Bin Laden was the son of Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, a billionaire construction magnate with close ties to the Saudi royal family. And that the bin Laden family has enjoyed very close ties with the Saudi Royal Family for decades, you can read more about that relationship in a PBS article about Bin Laden.
It has come to light that the Obama Administration might release the 28 pages in question. However, it has also been reported by various sources, that upon his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, he was encouraged by the Saudi Royal Family to keep those pages secret. Logic would imply that you would only want kept secret those things that you think or know would hurt your own self, or those that are close to you, or your current and or future interests. It would be interesting to know if that encouragement in fact did occur and by what means was the encouragement linked to American agendas. Was the price and or production output of oil used? What about the 'discrete' means of support and contact between the US and 'moderate' Syrian rebels via Saudi Arabia? (Of course we are using the term 'moderate' and 'Syrian rebels' very loosely here) Or were other means of encouragement used? President Obama will no longer be employed in his current position after January and former Prime Minister Tony Blair has done very well financially in the Middle East since leaving office.
Considering that Iran, as a US designated terrorist state, whom has never had anything to do with al Qaeda (they are Islamic enemies) was just found guilty in an American civil court for being responsible for 911, I am sure that they would gladly welcome the public release of those 28 pages of the Commission Report. Unfortunately, neither Iran nor any of their allies have such influence with the American government to reach that goal. It seems that the US government is tired of having to just let all that seized Iranian money sit without being accessed for the US economy. What better way to gain access to it than by unjustly finding Iran guilty of 911 and using the seized moneys to pay the victims thus getting their hands on money that is not theirs and diverting the guilt from truth to political agenda ends. Furthermore, the sole basis for the guilty finding in the trial is the fact that Iran did not show up and defend themselves....this in a country that claims that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff not the defendant! So much for innocent until proven guilty!
There are those that claim that 911 was a 'false flag' inside operation to create a pretense for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq for oil. There are a few unanswered questions if that is the case. First, Afghanistan was not a member of OPEC, nor was it a non-OPEC oil provider. So what oil was wanted in Afghanistan? Another unanswered question is that it was for cheaper oil, yet, "
on Aug. 24, 2001, the average weighted price for a gallon of gas was about $1.51" and it has not dropped back to or below that price since. So where is the cheap oil for America? However, a plausible retort could be that OPEC and the Oil Industry have never passed along those savings to consumers. It could be the same market control as is found in the diamond industry, where supply is strictly controlled so that selling prices can be maintained (though the market would say it was controlling value not cost).
In addressing the 'false flag' part of the pretense claim, I find the proof very lacking. The amount of coordination and planning and support that would be required to pull off an event of the magnitude of 911 would involve too many people. There is also the fact that keeping such an immoral criminal act secret would be virtually impossible. The closest that a 'false flag' theory could get to truth, with the available information being studied logically and reasonably, would have to be adapted to more a rogue act by some small group of over zealous and or disgruntled members of some government agency, probably no higher than middle management level.
The most common theory for the military operations after the attack would be for control and regime change. It is common knowledge that Saudi Arabia was not happy with the Hussein regime in Iraq, especially after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. It is a fact that Hussein, along with his sons, were the worst bullies on the block in the region; however, it needs to be remembered that it was the US, along with regional allies, that put Saddam in power in Iraq to begin with, just as it was US support, money and involvement via bin Laden and al Qaeda that put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan.
 |
| via USNews.com |
These 2 facts make the US government in this respect at least partially responsible for 911. How, you might ask. Simple, bin Laden was a nothing thug playing at war in Africa when he was chosen as the 'hero of Afghanistan'. It would be very interesting to find out just how the US decided that some nothing thug from Saudi Arabia playing war in Africa could be so useful in Afghanistan.
Who dropped bin Laden's name to US officials? Whom in the US government thought that he was 'the man for the job'? What made bin Laden willing to work with the US? Who provided the introductions?
We do not have those answers, but, we do know that with US funding and training and support, which would have included being able to freely move internationally, so as to relocate from Africa to Afghanistan, the US created al Qaeda. Thus, since al Qaeda is considered the perpetrators of 911, that means that the US created the means by which we were attacked. It also means that 911 was completely preventable. The above information also means that since at least the early 80's and maybe even 70s the US was not opposed to using "outside freedom fighters" to incite regime change, especially in the name of defeating the enemy, whoever, that might be. Unfortunately, 911 did nothing to teach the US government that that method was not a long game positive for the safety and security of the land, citizens or interests of the United States; whereas this has been and still is the primary method of regime change used by the US at least since Afghanistan and is in full use today from Libya to Syria to Ukraine, leaving an enduring path of destruction and desolation in its wake for decades to come. Is there a single country that can say it is better off since US regime change was brought to bear?
To address the Mossad theories, it is a known fact that Israel has never had much issue with conducting military operations or covert acts within the borders of ally or enemy states alike, if it furthers their agenda. That being said, their apathy with regard to how their actions are seen lessen their desire to focus on discretion in such matters. It seems, that while they are known to be very comfortable using violent means to achieve their ends and their lack of concern about public opinion, thus it would not bother them to risk any American public backlash for such action, they had no true or real reason to commit the act. On such a scale as 911 Israel is not quite so discrete; nor would they, based on past actions, conduct such a large-scale operation that did not directly benefit them. And no, 911 did not
directly benefit them!
What about the role of US Intelligence Agencies? It is common knowledge that each government agency has too much hubris and not enough team focus. It is also common knowledge that all that hubris has a very negative effect on inter-agency communications. It became known afterwards that numerous agencies had pieces of intelligence that had they been shared and combined would have given a complete enough picture of the intent of the 911 hijackers to have at least limited the destruction if not actually preventing it. Thus, the question becomes, how much did each agency know? Did any agency know enough? Was 911 intentionally ignored? Were there those whom thought that America 'needed a wake up call'? Was it just 'dropping the ball'? We may never know the full extent of which persons in each agency knew what and when they knew and what they did with what they knew.
One thing that is certain is that the whole of the government took advantage of and benefited from the tragic events of 911. The government has grabbed unconstitutional authority in the name of security. They have expanded their reach in the name of national interests. They have lined their pockets with the expansion of and implementations of security measures in the name of fighting terror. The disgrace is that the American public is not only not safer from terrorism, they are also not safe from their own government. They have lost freedoms and Constitutional protections and live with a government that has secret courts and immense surveillance tools turned to its own shores. There has been no positive to come out of 911 for the American public or her individual citizens.
