by Monsieur le Prof
Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 07:33:01 AM EST
At the heart of the arguments for the establishment of "security first" priorities and police-state societies, including video-surveillance, domestic wiretapping, increased paramilitary and police forces, and so on, are the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The referencing of the horrible events of that day have become so ubiquitously mentioned as to be essentially a self-perpetuating justification among politicians and public officials, both in North America and Europe. The terrorist attacks that arguably "changed everything," and most certainly established the bellicose war-footing of the Bush administration, obliged European governments to express solidarity with the American "anti-terrorism" cause, while at the same time opening the door to participation in the dubious expansion of empire, which we can observe with secret CIA prisons in Europe, or military and financial contributions to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The goal of this diary series is to explore the narrative of the attacks of September 11, 2001. It is undisputed that these attacks created the conditions which allowed for the expansion of American military dominance in Asia, as well as the establishment of CIA prisons, suspension of habeus corpus within the United States, reduced rights for aliens deemed "enemy combatants," introduction of torture into interrogation methods, the USA Patriot Act, unconstitutional domestic and foreign surveillance by the NSA, and a host of other measures that superseded international treaties as well as the American Constitution. Therefore, the onus of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that these attacks were indeed the work of a group of Muslim fundamentalists, hell-bent on destroying American freedoms, under the direction of Osama Bin Laden, falls on the United States government. Unfortunately, this hypothesis is untenable by any honest measure of academic scrutiny.
The subject itself is often simply judged taboo; indeed, to doubt the official account of 9-11 would destroy the entire foundation of the American justifications for war, and require a shifting of paradigms and priorities that would not benefit the political or military establishments. Television and print media sources, increasingly controlled by large corporations such as Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, are reluctant or downright hostile in reporting news that would serve to bolster claims of a cover-up of 9-11 crimes. This does not, however, indicate the absence of such claims or evidence to support them. Moreover, there is such overwhelming evidence that the American government has actively hindered investigation into 9-11 crimes, has employed red herrings to take the spotlight off certain suspicious details, or has simply lied to cover up glaring contradictions in their account, that the school of thought concerning the attacks generally revolves around LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose) or MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose) for those who have doubts about the official story (which by any measure is at least fifty percent of the American population, and as high as eighty five percent).
For those interested in the topic, there is a host of information available on line. Of course it is not all credible in nature, and wild conspiracy theories are easily found; however, through investigation and analysis it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt that the official US government story about 9-11 cannot be true. Making up one's own mind about such important events is an act of responsible citizenship. The 9-11 Commission, which investigated (certain aspects of) the attacks and published its final report in summer 2004, has been found to have deliberately suppressed information. Commission members Philip Zelikow, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton have admitted that Pentagon officials actively obstructed their investigations, and charges of obstruction and perjury were considered but not brought forth. Commission member Max Cleland resigned in protest over what he called a White House cover-up. Therefore we can conclude with a large degree of certainty that the 9-11 Commission, which was limited in its investigative powers, has not provided a complete or accurate investigation of the attacks.
The extraordinary secrecy of the Bush administration leads to speculation about its involvement in such despicable deeds as false flag terrorism. This idea is supported by the reluctancy to investigate the attacks, and the manipulation of the investigative bodies once enquiries did begin. If indeed it can be proved in a court of law, either in the United States or in an international forum, that the Bush administration actively participated in or helped to bring about terrorism on American soil, it would not only completely undermine the justification for the ongoing wars in Asia but also require a war crimes tribunal not seen since Nuremburg. Therefore, thorough historical examination and analysis of the 9-11 attacks is necessary to ensure continuity of democratic principles in Western society, and should be a priority for anyone interested in current geo-political events.
I will include many links and references below to support the claims that 1) that the 9-11 Commission was largely incomplete in its investigation and 2) that the official narrative cannot be true. In future diaries, I intend to examine individual aspects of the attacks with the most up-to-date information available. The goal of these diaries is NOT to delve into conspiracy theories, to encourage ad hominem attacks, or to inflame tempers.
Moreover, I would expect that these details will be judged on their merits, and not dismissed simply by attacking the messenger over perceived biases, background, religious or sexual orientation, or any other unrelated characteristic. I will also publish a diary, in the eventuality that it interests Euro Tribune readers, about my background, interest and personal experience in the subject. Finally, I would remind those who are reluctant to question the "official" story that there is a large amount of information available, and that researching and analysing this information is simply a part of intellectual and academic responsibility. There is no preset "agenda," and no desired "outcome," other than the quest for the truth. We are fortunate to live in a time where ideas and information can be so freely exchanged; such a time is unprecedented in human history. Let us use it to better the world for our children, by using our collective intelligence to solve crimes that have benefited few and served to endanger the freedoms of all. The truth is simply now that we do not yet know the truth about 9-11, but that can and must be changed.
LINKS AND REFERENCES
1) The official investigation lacks crediblity:
a) Commission members
b) "Is a fix in at the 9/11 Commission?"
c) Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet
"We discussed the theories," said Philip D. Zelikow, the commission's executive director. "When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole. You're never going to whack them all. They satisfy a deep need in the people who create them. What we tried to do instead was to affirmatively tell what was true and tell it adding a lot of critical details that we knew would help dispel concerns."
This will be analyzed further in upcoming diaries.
d) National Security Experts Speak Out: 9/11 Commission Falls Short
e) 9/11 Commission Could Subpoena Oval Office Files
"Anything that has to do with 9/11, we have to see it -- anything. There are a lot of theories about
9/11, and as long as there is any document out there that bears on any of those theories, we're going to leave questions unanswered. And we cannot leave questions unanswered."
Unfortunately there were numerous omissions in the final report, and many questions left unanswered. The Oval Office documents were not made public, testimony was left out of the final report, and both Bush and Cheney only agreed to testify together, without being sworn, and with no record of the testimony kept.
2) Why the official narrative cannot be true
a) Bin Laden NOT wanted for 9-11 attacks
The FBI has no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9-11.
b) Mistaken identity: Some of the 9-11 hijackers are still alive
This question has not been entirely resolved.
c) Norman Mineta testimony in front of the 9-11 Commission indicates a NORAD stand-down order confirmed by a whistleblower
d) BBC reports collapse of WTC 7 24 minutes too early
This will be an entire diary entry on its own. CNN also reported this too early.
e) CIA will not release full report on attacks
f) Official explanation of WTC collapse is not mathematically or physically tenable
