9/11 – The Un­of­fi­cial Story

Mizzima Business Weekly - - INSIGHT -

Jour­nal­ists, aca­demics, en­gi­neers and se­cu­rity an­a­lysts have raised se­ri­ous ques­tions about the of­fi­cial com­mis­sion re­port of 9/11, claim­ing it was de­signed to give the pub­lic a false, dis­torted view of the most se­ri­ous at­tack on the US since Pearl Har­bor. They claim it used mis­in­for­ma­tion, omis­sion and lies, in an at­tempt to pa­per over malfea­sance and com­plic­ity in the plan­ning and ex­e­cu­tion of the ter­ror­ist at­tacks.

In a va­ri­ety of in­ves­ti­ga­tions into the events, their com­bined find­ings lead to a pic­ture in which “un­known par­ties” were be­hind a plan to clamp down on the free­doms of the Amer­i­can pub­lic, to set the stage for a resur­gence of the mil­i­tary-in­dus­trial com­plex, lead­ing to a New Amer­i­can Cen­tury, sim­i­lar to the pe­riod fol­low­ing Pearl Har­bor.

To many who were di­rectly af­fected by the 9/11 events, their com­bined find­ings so far – in an on­go­ing process of in­ves­ti­ga­tion – pro­vide alarm­ing read­ing. While many of their find­ings have been writ­ten off as “con­spir­acy the­o­ries” - the im­pli­ca­tion be­ing that they should not be taken se­ri­ously - the in­ves­ti­ga­tions and claims de­serve se­ri­ous study.

So far there has been no in­depth in­de­pen­dent in­ves­ti­ga­tion into the most dra­matic at­tack on the United States since the 1941 Pearl Har­bor at­tacks.

Mizzima Weekly has car­ried out a sur­vey of two web­sites which were most ac­tive fol­low­ing the release of the re­port.

The first, www.9/11truth.org, has an ar­ti­cle, “The top 40 rea­sons to doubt the of­fi­cial story,” which is an amal­ga­ma­tion of faults that it says un­der­mine the com­mis­sion’s con­clu­sions. The sum­mary of the faults cited are linked to more de­tailed in­for­ma­tion. The al­le­ga­tions in­clude, in no par­tic­u­lar or­der of im­por­tance:

1. The re­port was de­signed to weaken the Con­sti­tu­tion: “The USA PA­TRIOT Act was writ­ten be­fore 9/11,” it said, and plans for a “Shadow Gov­ern­ment” were de­vel­oped be­fore 9/11. Plans for round­ing up dis­si­dents “as a means for sup­press­ing civil dis­tur­bance have been in the works for decades.”

2. 9/11 was used as the pre­text to cre­ate a new, ex­tra-Con­sti­tu­tional ex­ec­u­tive author­ity to de­clare any­one an “enemy com­bat­ant” (in­clud­ing Amer­i­can cit­i­zens), to de­tain per­sons in­def­i­nitely with­out habeas cor­pus, and to “ren­der” such per­sons to se­cret pris­ons where tor­ture is prac­ticed.

3. Was the hi­jacked pas­sen­ger jet be­lieved to be headed to the White House or Congress shot down? Did the crash oc­cur at 10:06 (ac­cord­ing to a seis­mic re­port) or 10:03 (ac­cord­ing to the 9/11 Com­mis­sion)? Does the Com­mis­sion wish to hide what hap­pened in the last three min­utes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as in­di­cated by the scat­ter­ing of de­bris over a trail of sev­eral miles?

4. What caused the col­lapse of a third sky­scraper, known as WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Tow­ers and WTC 7 brought down by ex­plo­sives? (See “The Case for De­mo­li­tions” on two web­sites: wtc7.net and 911re­search. wtc7.net, and an ar­ti­cle by physi­cist Steven Jones.

5. Dis­pos­ing of the Crime Scene: The rapid and il­le­gal scrap­ping of the struc­tural steel in WTC ru­ins at Ground Zero dis­posed of to per­cent any in­ves­ti­ga­tion of the me­chan­ics and physics of the build­ings’ col­lapse?

6. About 25 per­cent of an­other re­port, called the U.S. Con­gres­sional Joint In­quiry, was redacted, in­clud­ing long pas­sages re­gard­ing how the at­tack (or the net­work al­legedly be­hind it) was fi­nanced. Was the redacted por­tion re­moved to cover-up the in­volve­ment of Saudi Ara­bia? US Se­na­tor Lind­sey Gra­ham later said for­eign al­lies were in­volved in fi­nanc­ing the al­leged terror net­work, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

7. The mem­ber­ship and staff of the 9/11 Com­mis­sion dis­played nu­mer­ous con­flicts of in­ter­est. The fam­i­lies of vic­tims called for the res­ig­na­tion of Ex­ec­u­tive Di­rec­tor Philip Ze­likow, a for­mer Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion mem­ber. Com­mis­sion mem­ber Max Cle­land re­signed, con­demn­ing the en­tire ex­er­cise as a “scam” and “white­wash.”

8. The 9/11 in­ves­ti­ga­tion made lit­tle men­tion that mem­bers of Bin Ladin’s clan, dur­ing the no-fly pe­riod in the days fol­low­ing the at­tack, were al­lowed to fly out of the coun­try, and it ig­nored the long-stand­ing Bush fam­ily busi­ness ties to the Bin Ladin fam­ily for­tune. (A com­pany in which both fam­i­lies held in­ter­ests, the Car­lyle Group, was hold­ing its an­nual meet­ing on Septem­ber 11, with Ge­orge Bush Sr., James Baker, and two broth­ers of Osama Bin Ladin in at­ten­dance.)

9. The Need for a “New Pearl Har­bor:” Prin­ci­pals in the area of US for­eign pol­icy un­der the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion (in­clud­ing Cheney, Rums­feld, Wol­fowitz, Perle and oth­ers) were in­stru­men­tal in call­ing for plans to de­velop a world­wide mil­i­tary hege­mony, in­clud­ing an in­va­sion of the Mid­dle East, dat­ing back to the Ford, Rea­gan and Bush Sr. ad­min­is­tra­tions. They re­it­er­ated th­ese plans in the late 1990s as mem­bers of the “Project for a New Amer­i­can Cen­tury” re­port, and stated a clear in­tent to in­vade Iraq for the pur­pose of “regime change.” Af­ter 9/11, they lost no time in their at­tempt to tie Iraq to the at­tacks.

10. Per­pet­ual “War on Terror”: 9/11 fallout was de­signed to pro­vide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and per­pet­ual “War on Terror” against any enemy, for­eign or do­mes­tic, that the ex­ec­u­tive branch chooses to des­ig­nate,

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Myanmar

© PressReader. All rights reserved.