How Controlled Explanations
Are Achieved
How Controlled Explanations
Are Achieved
Paul Craig Roberts
In 2014 Progressive Press
published a book by a French author, Laurent Guyenot, titled JFK-9/11:
50 Years of Deep State. The book contains much interesting reporting that
shows that the official explanations we are given about even major events, such
as the assassination of a President and 9/11, are transparently false. Yet,
these transparently false explanations are hard to challenge despite all
available evidence being against the explanations.
Reviewing such a book is a
challenge that I avoided by securing permission to reprint two chapters from
the book. One chapter, “Ghost planes,” deals with the mystery of the four allegedly
hijacked airliners. No trace of the one that allegedly hit the Pentagon has
ever been found, and the many videos of the event remain under lock and key. No
trace of the one that allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania has ever been found.
Neither has any trace of the two that allegedly hit the two World Trade Center
towers ever been found, although an unburnt passpost was allegedly found in the
ruins of two massive buildings.
Readers might remember that
I raised the question why we did not hear demands for explanations from the
families of the victims of the four destroyed airliners like we did from the
families whose relatives were in the twin towers. Guyenot reports that of the
alleged casualties of AA77 “only five of these have relatives who received the
9-11 Compensation Fund offered by the State. . . . no family of the victims of
Flight UA93 requested compensation.”
How can this be?
The other chapter, “The Art
of the Patsy,” shows that the key to the ability of the authorities to control
the explanation is to have an explanation of the event ready at hand. No one
expected President Kennedy’s assassination or he wouldn’t have been riding in a
convertible. Yet it was instantly known that Oswald was the assassin. The
explanation for 9/11 was also instantaneous. It was CIA-asset Osama bin Laden,
who was dying from renal failure and no longer useful to the CIA.
If you find Guyenot interesting, you might want to read his book. What Guyenot
shows us is that what the CIA has schooled the dumbshit presstitute media to
ridicule as “conspiracy theory” is indeed a conspiracy, a real one usually
involving the CIA.
Sorry. The images didn’t
transfer.
Ghost Planes
The government’s narrative
on 9/11 says that the Boeing 757 of Flight UA93 (from New Jersey to San Francisco)
crashed at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after the passengers fought the hijackers
and prevented them from flying the aircraft into the White House or Camp David.
But in the images of the impact site released on the same day, it is impossible
to distinguish any wreckage of an airliner; even the reporters who had rushed
to the scene were perplexed. The first to arrive there, Jon Meyer of WJAC-TV,
an NBC affiliate in Pennsylvania, declared: “I was able to get right up to the
edge of the crater. […] All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane
parts. Nothing that would even tell you that it was the plane. […] There were
no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body parts.” The Mayor of
Shanksville, Ernie Stull, early on the scene with his sister and a friend,
declared in March 2003: “Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a
plane had crashed. But there was no plane. […] Nothing. Only this hole.”
[Image LG17-1 Shanksville]
Photographer Scott Spangler recalls his surprise when looking at the crash
scene of UA93: “I didn’t think I was in the right place. I was looking for a
wing or a tail. There was nothing, just this pit.”
The Boeing 757 of Flight
AA77 (from Washington to Los Angeles) that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon
also could not be found. French journalist Thierry Meyssan was the first to
draw conclusions in 9/11: The Big Lie, a dissenting investigation published in
March 2002 based on pictures from the Department of Defense and Associated
Press. The lawn before the crash site was immaculate, the two or three pieces
of debris that could be seen were ridiculously small, and could not be
identified as belonging to a Boeing. The reporter Jamie McIntyre of CNN, who
arrived at the Pentagon an hour after the crash, was perplexed: “From my
close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere
near the Pentagon. […] the only pieces left that you can see are small enough
that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections,
fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the
entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.”
[Image LG17-2 Pentagon lawn]
Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski of the U.S. Air Force, who was on the
scene within minutes after the explosion at the Pentagon, reported: “I saw
nothing of significance at the point of impact—no airplane metal or cargo
debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke
billowed from within the Pentagon. […] all of us staring at the Pentagon that
morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was
not evident.”
Was the plane buried deep
into the building? No photo taken inside the crash site shows even the
slightest credible scrap of a plane, and witnesses say that they did not see
anything that would suggest an airplane. April Gallop was in her office with
her son of two months, 10 or 15 meters from the impact zone. She felt an
explosion, and then the ceiling fell in on her; in making her way towards the
exit with her child, she saw nothing that made her think that a plane had
crashed, “no wreckage, no airplane fragments, no engines, no seats, no luggage,
no fuselage sections with rows of windows, and especially, no blazing
quantities of burning jet fuel.”
[Image LG17-3 Does not fit]
“I look at the hole in the Pentagon, and I look at the size of an airplane that
was supposed to have hit the Pentagon, and I say: the plane does not fit in
that hole. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going
on?” (General Albert Stubblebine, head of the U.S. Army Intelligence and
Security Command from 1981 to 1984).
Did Flight 77 just vanish?
Did the fire, hardly noticeable in the photos, melt its hundred tons of metal,
as was suggested by the government? If that were in fact the case, how did they
manage to identify all the passengers through their fingerprints and DNA
analysis, as has been claimed? (None of the allegedly dead bodies, by the way,
has been identified by a relative: they were all transferred to a military
base, where they were incinerated.)
[Image LG17-4 Pentagon hole]
We are asked to believe that the plastic nose of a Boeing 757 made this hole
after going through five other reinforced concrete walls, as Rumsfeld himself
announced on Good Morning America (ABC), September 13. It resembles rather the
damage done by a shell with a hollow charge, designed to perforate such walls.
The recordings of 85 video
cameras, either placed at the Pentagon or in the general vicinity, were seized
by government agents, but no recognizable image of the aircraft was made
public. Only one sequence was released by court order in May 2006, and it
includes four images that show an object exploding as it hits the Pentagon, but
they do little to suggest that it is an airplane that caused the blast.
Curiously, the film is dated September 12, not 11. According to some experts,
the yellow light emitted by the explosion in the images could not have been
caused by jet fuel, and neither can the odor of cordite (an explosive made from
nitroglycerine, nitrocellulose and nitroguanidine) that some Pentagon employees
have reported.
Professional pilots united
around Rob Balsamo as part of Pilots for 9/11 Truth have analyzed the
trajectory of Flight AA77 provided by the National Transportation and Safety
Board (NTSB) and demonstrated that it was physically impossible for a Boeing
airliner. The aircraft descended in an extremely perilous spiral maneuver,
finally hitting the second floor of the west façade horizontally, without
hitting the turf in front of the building. It is impossible, since at such low
altitude and high speed, such a plane loses all of its lift. And even if it
were possible, the feat would have been beyond the capacity of Hani Hanjour,
the alleged pilot of the aircraft. A few months before September 11th, Hanjour
was written up for incompetence by his Arizona flight school JetTech, who then
called for the withdrawal of his license. An instructor at JetTech is quoted in
the New York Times, April 5, 2002 saying: “I’m still to this day amazed that he
could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.” The other
supposed hijackers in the plane were no better: Nawaq al-Hazmi and Khaid
al-Mihdhar’s instructor in San Diego declared to the Washington
Post (September 24, 2001): “Their English was horrible, and their
mechanical skills were even worse. […] It was like they had hardly even ever
driven a car.”
[Image LG17-5 Mubarak]
In a CNN interview on September 15, 2001, then again on BBC on September 19th,
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak questioned the official U.S. explanation
regarding 9/11. As a fighter pilot, he said in a later article, “I find it hard
to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year
and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of
the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, the size
of a pencil.” Mubarak would soon pay the price.
Air defense is the
responsibility of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), and in particular
its NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector) department. NORAD had successfully
intercepted 67 planes throughout the twelve months preceding September 11,
2001, each time in less than twenty minutes. Intercept tactics are triggered at
the slightest alarm, as part of precautionary measures. Even if we assume that
NORAD could not have intercepted Flights AA11 and UA175 before they crashed
into the Twin Towers, it is incomprehensible that it could not intercept Flight
AA77, which supposedly crashed 50 minutes later into the Pentagon, the most
secure building in the world. Something or somebody must have deliberately
prevented normal procedure, as Robert Bowman, Director of Advanced Space
Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force, has assumed: “If our government
had done nothing that day and let normal procedure be followed, those planes,
wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be
standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.”
Contradicting Condoleezza
Rice and President Bush, who declared in 2002 that no one could have predicted
this kind of attack, USA Today revealed on April 18, 2004 that NORAD was
conducting, four times a year since 1999, military drills—or war games—that
involved aircraft hijacked by terrorists and directed against the Pentagon and
the World Trade Center. With these new facts, the rather shallow excuses for
American air defense ineffectiveness on September 11 were turned on their head:
it was then explained that on that very day, NORAD was occupied with five
military exercises, three of which, under the names of Vigilant Guardian,
Global Guardian, and Vigilant Warrior, were simulated hijackings, both with
real and virtual flights. Consequently, according to Colonel Robert Marr, head of
NEADS, as many as twenty-nine “hijacked planes” were on the radar screens at
NORAD on that day. According to Lieutenant Colonel Dwane Deskins, head of
Vigilant Guardian quoted in an article in the Syracuse Post-Standard on January
20, 2002, everyone concerned at NEADS initially thought that the announcement
of the hijacking of Flight AA11 was part of the ongoing military exercises.
This aspect of the case is
crucial to understanding the unfolding of the attacks on September 11th. As
explains Captain Eric May, a former intelligence officer in the U.S. Army, “the
easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military
exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out.” Once the
exercise is fully developed, it will require nothing more but to change a
single parameter to turn the operation from simulated to real. Those who plan
and oversee the drill are not necessarily those who hijack it to turn it into
real. Most participants in the 9/11 synthetic terror act, accustomed to obey military
orders and the established “rules of the (war) game,” perform their appointed
mission without knowing that the attack will turn out to be “real”. When they
realize what they have been involved in, they simultaneously grasp the danger
of raising objections; they themselves have been framed. As in the Kennedy
assassination, military discipline is the key to ensuring the necessary silence
of all unwilling, or unknowing participants.
[Image LG17-6 Peter Power]
Hours after the London bombings of July 6, 2005 (claimed by an improbable
“Secret Al-Qaeda in Europe”), Peter Power, a former Scotland Yard official
turned manager of a private security company, revealed on BBC Radio 5, then
again on ITV News, that he was conducting on that very morning, for a private
company of the City, a simulation employing one thousand persons, “based on
simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it
happened this morning.” “So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from
‘fictional’ to ‘real’.” The website of his company Visor Consultants emphasizes
that the crisis drills they design aspire to be “Making the scenario come alive
and be as realistic as possible.” It would be foolish to think that Power has
made a blunder by his revelation; he probably saved his life.
All things considered, it is
highly doubtful whether any of the airline flights reportedly hijacked on 9/11
were involved in the attacks. The Bureau of Transportation, which holds precise
records of all flights, has no trace of Flight AA77 on September 11th; it was
not planned at Dulles Airport that day, and its takeoff was not recorded. As
for Flight UA93, it doesn’t normally circulate Tuesdays, but as an exception,
it had taken passengers initially planned for Flight UA91, which had been canceled
due to a “crack in the windshield.” This flight was recorded at takeoff, but
then it is also recorded as having landed in San Francisco at noon, 45 minutes
late. Finally, the mayor of Cleveland, Michael White, was quoted at 11:50 am on
ABC News saying that a Boeing 767 flying out of Boston was forced to make an
emergency landing in Cleveland due to a bomb threat, and had been taken to a
secure area of the airport to be evacuated. The plane was identified
as Flight UA93—although a Boeing 767 out of Boston corresponded
rather to the Flight UA175.
The problem of the
“transponders” is also perplexing. This device transmits the position of
aircraft to control towers, and also allows the pilot to send alert and
emergency messages. Incredibly, none of the eight pilots or their professional
copilots entered the four-digit code on the transponder which signals an
assault on the cockpit—a maneuver that takes only three seconds. In fact, each
aircraft actually cut their respective transponders, and then completely
disappeared from secondary radars for nearly an hour while going through radar
gaps. For example, AA77 left Washington for Los Angeles, disappeared from
radars near Ohio and was spotted again an hour later near Washington DC.
According to official reports,
many passengers of Flights UA93, UA175 and AA77 had made calls to relatives or
friends from their portable phones. Details of these calls (by passengers named
Jeremy Glick, Peter Hanson, Brian Sweeney, Mark Bingham, Elizabeth Wainio,
Marion Britton, Sandra Bradshaw, Tom Burnett, Edward Felt, CeeCee Lyles) were
reported as early as September 13th on mainstream TV channels and newspapers
(like The Washington Post). But they are highly problematic, because the
technology required to make high-altitude phone calls was not developed until
2004. Moreover, some calls include oddities completely incongruent with the
context, exemplified by Mark Bingham’s call to his mother a few seconds before
his death: “Hi, Mom. This is Mark Bingham.”
Two calls were allegedly
made from AA77 by Barbara Olson to her husband Ted Olson. The Olsons are both
public figures: Barbara was a well-known CNN reporter, and Ted has been
Solicitor General during the first Bush term (after defending Bush in the disputed
2000 election, and then Dick Cheney when he refused to submit to Congress
Enron-related documents during their investigation). Barbara Olson’s calls,
reported on CNN in the afternoon of September 11th, contributed to
crystallizing some details of the official story, such as the “box cutters”
used by the hijackers. Repeatedly invited on television shows, Ted Olson
frequently contradicted himself when questioned regarding the calls from his
wife. Sometimes he said she “called him twice on a cell phone ” adding
that the second call was cut because “the signals from cell phones coming from
airplanes don’t work that well.” Sometimes he said that his wife called collect
from the “air phone” because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit
cards.” This second version is as impossible as the first, because a credit
card is required to activate the phones in the seats, even for a collect call,
though really the entire argument is moot, given that the seats on AA77 were
not equipped with telephones (as confirmed by American Airlines). The most
troubling contradiction appeared in 2006, during the trial of supposed
terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui: in their report on Flight AA77, the FBI
attributed only one call from Barbara Olson, and it was an unconnected call
lasting 0 seconds.
Given the many
impossibilities woven throughout the official story, the alternative hypothesis
that seems most likely is that none of the four airplanes were in fact the
Boeing 767 or 757s the world was told about. Flights AA77 and UA93 probably
never existed. As for Flights AA11 and UA175, which reportedly hit the Twin
Towers, several hypotheses are in competition among 9/11 truthers. Many surmise
that they had been replaced by drones—planes equipped with automatic remote
control technology, and without passengers. But numerous witnesses have
declared having seen no planes, while others saw missiles. No consensus has
been reached on these matters. Simon Shack, in a groundbreaking documentary
(September Clues, 2007), has analyzed the images of the second crash (South
Tower) broadcast on September 11th and later, and argued that they are fakes,
fabricated with various video editing software. This also applies to the only
image of the first crash (North Tower), miraculously captured by the mysterious
brothers Jules and Gédéon Naudet. The TV forgeries have been further explored
by Ace Baker in his 2012 documentary 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera, where
he gives credence to professor Morgan Reynolds who has long claimed that the
aluminum planes shown to penetrate the steel towers without resistance, defy
physical laws and therefore must be video artifacts. Richard D. Hall of
richplanet.net, however, after having attempted to show that the virtual planes
added to the images were masking a missile-type object, has pointed out
shortcomings in the video-compositing theory, and proposed an alternative
theory based on holographic projections. Although there is yet no consensus on
the method employed to create illusion, it is today clearly established that the
planes penetrating the towers like butter, without being shattered or even
decelerated at the impact, as seen on multiple TV footages, can in no way be
real. The initial explosions seen at that precise moment must have another
explanation.
[Image LG17-7 CNN ghost
plane]
On this pic from the CNN footage of the second crash, the aluminum plane has
half disappeared into the steel tower: a physical impossibility.
If no planes hit the Twin
Towers any more than the Pentagon or the field outside Shanksville—all 9/11
Flights having been probably created virtual in the context of a drill—, then
all speculations on the military identity of those planes can be counted as
diversions. So can discussions on the failures of U.S. air defenses. Of course,
if the planes did not fly on that day, neither did the passengers. False
identities were created, and it would seem that the Intel agencies involved
suffered severe shortages in this regard. For Flight AA77, for example, only 53
passengers are listed, while the plane’s capacity is 239. Among the 53
passengers plus 9 crew members, only 14 persons are listed in the Social
Security Death Index. And only 5 of these have relatives who received the 9-11
Compensation Fund offered by the State. Moreover, the passenger list comprises
an abnormal percentage of Navy officers and aeronautic engineers (13 out of
53). The other three “flights” show similar percentages of capacity and
recorded deaths (no family of the victims of Flight UA93 requested
compensation, for example).
The Art of the
Patsy
Peter Dale Scott was one of
the first scholars to point out some parallels between the Kennedy
assassination and the September 11th attacks. Each of these events was
specifically designed to justify the illegitimate invasion of a foreign country
and the overthrow of its hostile regime: Cuba in the first case, Afghanistan in
the second, with the difference that the invasion of Cuba was eventually called
off. Each of the two false flag crimes also preceded a second lie that
justified war, conducted unilaterally by the United States against a far away
country: the mock incident in the Gulf of Tonkin justified the aggression
against North Vietnam, just as the lies surrounding Saddam Hussein’s “weapons
of mass destruction” justified the war against Iraq. Unlike the first two
crimes, the two secondary lies are today publicly recognized as such by
politicians and historians alike. In both cases, the plot originated in the
upper echelons of the National Security State, and directly served the
interests of the military-industrial complex and all its parasites. In both
cases, the goal was to traumatize the American nation with a crime so heinous
as to transform the public’s fear into hatred and build a national consensus
for war against some stereotypical enemy who poses a mortal threat: Communism
in the former case, Islamism in the second.
It is also interesting to
look at the preparation and eventual execution of the two “deep events”; doing
so reveals a characteristic pattern and thereby allows for the development of a
“theory of false flag operations,” and an increased ability to expose them. In
both cases, for example, we note that the pseudo-culprit is identified almost
instantaneously, along with the murder weapon. Oswald was arrested and accused
in the hour that followed his alleged crime. Bin Laden was not arrested, but
his name was plastered across TV screens everywhere by a slew of so-called
terrorism experts in the hours following the collapse of the towers. The aim is
to quickly and efficiently cut off any alternative theory and inspire
confidence in the veracity of the official narrative, marginalizing in advance
all the skeptics. Official information, in this kind of event, circumvents
public discussion and debate, preventing the people from collectively building
hypothesis, interpretations, and meaning. Less than a week after September
11th, the Pakistani General Hameed Gul, a former ISI Director, who knew ben
Laden and didn’t believe him to be able to orchestrate such operation, said to
Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI’s inter- national editor at large: “Within 10 minutes
of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center, CNN said Osama
bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real
perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a
trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.”
Studies show that information received from an authority during a period of
emotional shock—and thus rational vulnerability—is embedded into the memory of
the trauma, in such a way that the distinction between facts and interpretation
becomes impossible.
[Image LG18-1 Ideal witness]
Mark Walsh was interviewed by Fox News (for which he works as a freelancer) in
the hour following the disintegration of the towers, providing the ideal
eyewitness testimony. “I saw this plane come out of nowhere and just ream right
into the side of the Twin Tower exploding through to the other side, and then I
witnessed both towers collapse, the first, and then the second, mostly due to
structural failure because the fire was just too intense.” Conflating the
observation and the technical explanation, in the very terms destined to become
official, serves to cover the explanation which naturally comes to the mind of
a neutral witness, such as journalist Don Dahler commenting on ABC News: “The
entire building has just collapsed, as if a demolition team set off…”
Once the authorities
assuredly designate a patsy, it becomes almost unnecessary to provide evidence
of his guilt. It is remarkable that the FBI never formally charged bin Laden
for the attacks of September 11th; he appears on the list of the ten most
wanted criminals on their official website, but only as a suspect in the
attacks against the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. When questioned by
journalist Ed Hass of the Muckraker Report in June 2006, FBI spokesman Rex Tomb
said: “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s ‘Most Wanted’
page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
Even the identification of the hijackers was presented to the public without
any evidence; instead, conflicting information abounds, casting serious doubt
about those identified: the flight manifests first provided by United Airlines
and American Airlines did not include the name of any of the 19 hijackers, and
there are no video images showing them boarding. The little evidence of their
identity that has been made public is so convenient it’s rendered hardly
credible, for example two passports and one identity card of the hijackers
recovered miraculously from the crash sites of Flights AA11, AA77 and UA93, or
a Qur’an and flight manual in Arabic left by Mohamed Atta in a rental car.
[Image LG18-2 Passport]
The “magic passport” of Satam Al Suqami, supposed to have escaped Flight AA11
at the moment of the impact, to be then picked up in a street of Manhattan by
an anonymous passerby and handed to the FBI. Likewise, the passport of Ziad
Jarrah, pilot of Flight UA93, was found at Shanksville near the crash site, and
the ID of Majed Moqed, one of the hijackers of Flight AA77, came out unburnt in
front of the Pentagon, while the plane had vaporized.
A further parallel between
the immediate identifications of the pseudo-culprits Oswald and bin Laden
deserves to be mentioned: in both cases, they were charged with a second crime
which strengthened the suspicion of their guilt in the public mind. An hour
after Oswald was pinpointed, he was reported to have shot a police officer, J.
D. Tippit, who had recognized him and approached him in the street. Similarly,
the responsibility of the Taliban in the attacks of September 11th was made
easier to believe by the report, one day before, of Commandant Massoud’s
assassination, readily attributed to the same Al-Qaeda-Taliban alliance.
A good patsy is a dead
patsy; that is another fundamental rule of false flag operations that we can
see applied in both Kennedy’s assassination and September 11th. Once
designated, the falsely accused culprit must be eliminated as soon as possible,
because he will have nothing to lose in speaking out, and he knows enough to
realize that he is the subject of something malicious. Lee Harvey Oswald was
shot by Jack Ruby two days after his alleged crime. That was already a bit late;
the plan was probably to shoot him dead while trying to arrest him in the Texas
Theater, where Jack Ruby was present according to manager George Applin. The
news of Tippit’s murder would have been used to present Oswald as armed and
dangerous and justify the shooting that led to his killing. It is unfortunate
for the conspirators that Oswald had time to realize what was happening and say
to the press: “I’m just a patsy.” This might be one of the mistakes that
prompted them to abandon their Communist conspiracy theory, which would have
incurred too many inconsistencies—including FBI agents interrogating him and
thereafter not recognizing his voice on the Mexico tapes produced by the CIA.
In any case, a patsy’s
claims to innocence are barely a speed bump when up against the steamroller of
an aligned media; bin Laden’s denial meant nothing. As for the suicide
hijackers, they were dead by definition. Again, however, problems arose: a few
days after the FBI identified the culprits (September 14th), seven of the nineteen
hijackers came forward through various channels, proving that they were
alive—in Morocco, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere—and consequently innocent. The
father of the supposed ringleader Mohamed Atta, a respected lawyer from Cairo,
told the German magazine Bild am Sonntag in late 2002 that “[his] son called
[him] the day after the attacks, September 12,” and that he was hiding out of
fear for his life.
As for bin Laden, it’s not
until April 30, 2011, in the operation known as “Neptune’s Spear,” that he is
supposed to have been eliminated by a SEAL commando, shot fatally in the head
in his home in Abbottabad, Pakistan. His body, we were told, was dumped in the
sea after identification. The only picture presented to the public was a vulgar
photomontage, as the media quickly acknowledged. The farce would be funny if
not for the tragic epilogue: Friday, August 5th, 2011 around 11 pm, a Chinook
helicopter of the U.S. Army crashed in a province in central Afghanistan after
being hit by two rocket-propelled grenades (RPG-7s) shot, we are told, by the
Afghan resistance. The attack killed 38, including 30 members of Navy SEAL Team
6, the elite unit who had led Neptune’s Spear. And thus there will be less
chance of contradiction to the official story of bin Laden’s death. Family
members of the dead SEALs are now raising questions, however.
[Image LG18-3 Fake corpse]
The cheap Photoshop fake of bin Laden’s corpse, sold to the public before being
denounced as a fraud days later.
It’s likely that bin Laden
actually died in late 2001, as was announced by the Pakistani President
Musharraf (CNN, January 18, 2002), the Afghan President Hamid Karzai (CNN,
October 7, 2002), and the leader of the anti-terrorism division of the FBI,
Dale Watson (BBC, July 18, 2002). On January 28, 2002, CBS reported that on the
eve of September 11th bin Laden had been treated in a military hospital in
Pakistan for kidney dialysis, and was escorted by the Pakistani army. How could
he have survived until 2011, holed up in the caves of Afghanistan, when he had
to undergo dialysis every three days? More troubling still: two months earlier,
bin Laden stayed at the American Hospital in Dubai, where he was visited by the
local CIA station chief Larry Mitchell. This information comes from credible
sources (administrative management of the hospital, members of the Saudi royal
family, and French Intelligence) and was covered by French newspaper Le Figaro
in October 2001.
There were two advantages in
holding back the announcement of bin Laden’s death until 2011. First, it
allowed the continued invasion of Afghanistan under the auspices of a manhunt.
Second, it allowed bin Laden to “speak” when needed, and thus clear the doubts
raised by his denials; better than a dead patsy, the architects of the
September 11 deception created for themselves a virtual patsy. The guilt of bin
Laden is based mainly upon three video confessions “accredited by the CIA.” The
first was mysteriously found in December 2001 in Jellalabad, translated and
released two months later. Despite the poor image quality, it is easy to see
that the character presented as bin Laden is hardly a credible semblance.
[Image LG18-4 Fake Ben
Laden]
On the left, the bin Laden of the December 2001 video. On the right, the real
bin Laden.
The second video appeared in
October 2004, a week before the elections that reappointed George W. Bush. An
independent analysis by the Swiss institute IDIAP specialized in perceptual
intelligence, basing their study on comparisons with twenty previous recordings
of bin Laden, concluded with 95% probability that the voice on the October tape
is not that of bin Laden. A third video reached the public on September 8,
2007, in which bin Laden announced an intensification of Al-Qaeda activities in
Iraq; this just before the debate in Congress regarding the need for new troops
in Iraq. The image is frozen for most the message, and even when it is not, the
quality is so bad that it is impossible to verify whether the movement of the
lips corresponds to the soundtrack. Additionally, the videos of 2004 and 2007
were filmed in the same studio with the same frame and the same posture, but
bin Laden looks younger on the second (he had dyed his beard black, it was
explained).
[Image LG18-5 Ben Laden
2004-2007]
On the left, the bin Laden of the 2004 video. On the right, the same, three
years later.
The 2007 video was provided
to the government by the Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute
(SITE), founded by Israeli-American Rita Katz, daughter of an Iraqi Jew
executed by Saddam Hussein on the charge of spying for Israel.
After September 11th just
like after Kennedy’s assassination, it was necessary to appease doubts with a
Presidential Commission of inquiry. The 9/11 Commission was created in November
2002, and was led by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, but its executive director
was Philip Zelikow, who also happened to be the senior editor of the NSS 2002
document defining Bush’s preemptive war doctrine. In 2006, Kean and Hamilton
revealed in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11
Commission, that the Commission “was set up to fail” from the beginning,
Zelikow having already written a synopsis and a conclusion for the final report
before the first meeting. He controlled all the working groups, prevented them
from communicating with each other, and gave them the singular mission to prove
the official story; Team 1A, for example, was tasked to “tell the story of
Al-Qaeda’s most successful operation—the 9/11 attacks.” All information, and
any request for information, had to pass through him. On top of that, most of
the information obtained by the commissioners from the CIA and NORAD was “far
from the truth,” according to Kean and Hamilton. The Commission had no access
to any direct evidence or even the recordings of the interrogations of the
suspected Al-Qaeda members, which came to them third hand “in the form of
reports, not even transcripts.” Commission members had to be content, for
example, with CIA affirmations that the confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
(described as the operational manager of the attacks), obtained between 183
waterboarding sessions, were certifiable evidence that bin Laden had authorized
and supported the operation. Before the Commission published its final report
in July 2004, several members expressed their frustration and resigned. One of
them, Max Cleland, called the Commission a “national scandal”: “One of these
days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important
to America. But the White House wants to cover it up.” John Farmer, the Senior
Counsel, said for his part in The Washington Post: “what government and
military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public
about who knew what when—was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue.”
The Commission also threw a
veil over one of the most disturbing facts around 9/11, which happened on the
stock exchange: between the 6th and the 10th of September 2001, there were
massive purchases of “put options,” twenty-five times higher than average, on
American Airlines and United Airlines, whose shares fell 40% after the attacks,
but also on companies housed in the WTC such as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
& Co. and Merrill Lynch & Company. The International Organization of
Securities Commissions (IOSCO) concluded on October 15th that the gains had
been in the hundreds of millions of dollars and could be the “largest insider
trade ever committed.” The Commission rejected the hypothesis in a few lines:
“further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with
9/11. A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to
Al-Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a
trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American [Airline]
on September 10.” In other words: postulating that the culprit was Al-Qaeda,
and noting that the investors in question did not have the Al-Qaeda profile,
enabled the Commission to conclude implicitly that these suspicious
transactions were just an unfortunate coincidence. The “institutional investor”
in question was Alex Brown Inc., a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank whose former CEO
and Chairman A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard (until 1998) had just become Executive
Director of the CIA in March 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.