GlobalNetNews

The fatal flaw in the 9/11 coverup (COMPLETE)
>From Richard K. Moore richard@cyberjournal.org

Since 9-11 I've posted dozens of articles from various sources (including
some of my own thinking) offering evidence and arguments about the events
of that day. I belive that evidence shows overwhelmingly that the events
could not possibly have happened as the White House says they did. And the
manner in which the White House has handled the PR, issued provable lies,
impounded evidence, and the way investigations have been thwarted - these
have all the obvious signs of a a cover up. One must at least look at the
possibility that the Cheney Rumsfeld bunch had found a way to create their
long-desired "New Pearl Harbor".  And indeed the follow on from 9-11 has
been precisely the agenda drafted by that same bunch some ten years ago,
and republished just before Bush's "election" by the Project for a New
American Century.

Having posted all these things, I find myself wondering what you folks
think is true about 911. I don't recall much debate as I've posted items to
this thread, but I don't assume that implies agreement. That's why I'm
asking the question.... If  there's anybody out there who thinks the
neocons "wouldn't do such a thing", or "didn't do such a thing", then I'm
curious as to know what the thinking is behind that. I'm not asking for a
proof. I'm trying to find out why people believe things. It's really more
about psychology than it is about the issues.

While we're on the topic, however, let me just set down a somewhat concise
summary of the "main evidence" and "most likely scenario" as I currently
see them. Take it as a kind of Prosecutors summary to the jury - the
scenario he is asking the jury to accept "beyond all reasonable doubt". It
includes some new information that Butler Crittendon passed on to me when I
was in San Francisco in Febrary.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury ...

The World Trade Center collapse

Three of the towers collapsed in precisely the manner that characterizes a
professionally installed demolition system.   One of the towers was not
even hit by a plane, and another was impacted over to the side, not near
the steel core structure. The mainstream analysis of how the jet fuel
melted the steel core is rather far-fetched, and is somewhat irrelevant to
that mysterious third tower. Independent reputable experts have pointed out
the flaws in the arguments and have offered other evidence pointing more to
a planned demolition event. Eyewitnesses reported hearing explosions before
the collapse. Firefighters had declared one of the tower fires as "under
control" prior to the collapse. Seismic records show a momentous seismic
event just prior to the collapse, consistent with the kind of blast
required to pulverize the steel core at its base - the obvious first step
in any demolition agenda for such a building. Did you notice on the video
that the first thing to shift downwards is the tower on the roof - the
upper extension of the steel core?

If the collapses had been the result a surprise terrorist attack, then I
imagine the authorities would want to analyze the remains carefully, to
learn what they could about this new and dangerous threat - that would be
in their own obvious self-interest.  Instead the rubble was quarantined
from investigation and carted off as quickly as possible. Hence the
behavior of the authorities has been inconsistent with the terrorist
hypothesis, and consistent with the demolition hypothesis - which would
require that the evidence be disposed of.

Clearly a demolition could only have been arranged and kept secret at the
highest levels of the national security apparatus - the same folks who have
been yearning for years for a New Peal Harbor.

The interceptors that didn't scramble

It has long been standard policy throughout the US for interceptors to
scramble when commercial aircraft go off course and fail to respond to air
traffic controllers. The interceptors fly alongside the off-course plane
and follow a protocol to establish communication with the pilot, and
indicate to him that he must take corrective action. This has been done
routinely hundreds of times with the decision being made locally, between
the FAA and the local National Guard or Air Force base. The reason for this
is quite clear. With hundreds of planes in the sky, carrying many thousands
of passengers, you can't afford to have a rogue plane up there cutting
across the flight paths other planes. Management of traffic is already a
difficult operation, and such a wild card cannot be - and through the years
has not been - tolerated. Interceptors are typically airborne within
minutes of being notified. Our air defense forces are supposed to be combat
ready at all times, and these commercial intercepts make for good drills.

And yet on that fateful day we had four planes known to be hijacked - not
merely off course - at the same time, and not a fighter was scrambled until
long afterwards - except perhaps that F-16 that did or did not shoot down
the plane over Pennylvania. Why no scrambles at this time of high perceived
urgency throughout the FAA?  Well, it turns out that just two weeks before
9-11, President Bush issued a directive saying that in future commercial
intercepts could not be authorized locally, but would henceforth require
Presidential authorization.  Why did he do that?

With four planes known to be hijacked, and the familiar interceptor backup
unavailable, the FAA must have been tripping all over itself trying to
contact the White House and get the necessary authorization. They were able
to order all flights to go their nearest airport without White House
authorization, and this shows the gravity with which they viewed the
situation. Bush was certainly reachable, in the company of his entourage of
Secret Service people with their little radio gizmos. And yet the first
Bush is notified - according the official story - is when an aide whispers
that the first tower had been hit. It doesn't make sense - why didn't they
get to him right away, with that unprecedented number of simultaneous
hijacks? Even after the first tower was hit, the subject of authorization
STILL doesn't come up. The rest of the world is riveted to TV sets, biting
its teeth, everyone knowing deep in their guts that what they are seeing is
a BIG TIME momentous historical event -and the White House staff can't be
bothered?  And then Bush goes in to read stories and still no concern about
scrambles even after both towers had been hit, and even after evacuation of
the Pentagon has been ordered.  What gives here?

Mysterious as these events seem within the context of the Official Story,
they are all totally consistent with a pre-planned stand down. Step 1 is to
inhibit local control over intercepts, and step 2 is to fail to respond to
the situation until it had run its course and accomplished its mission. The
demolition provides the Pearl Harbor disaster, and the "terrorist" planes
provide the enemy-race invader and a cover story for the destruction. Just
as FDR told the lookouts on Kauai to stand down just before the expected
attack, so did GW Bush tell the interceptors to stand down just before the
planned events. And in both cases we then see the outrage and the tears on
our noble leader's face.

Al Qaeda, Pakistani Intelligence, and the CIA

Al Qaeda was the name of the recruiting network used by the CIA to bring in
radical Muslims and train them in the ways of terrorism so that they  could
destabilize Afghanistan and indirectly the Soviet Union itself. Pakistani
Intelligence played a key role in helping to manage the operation and deal
with the transshipment of recruits, weapons, and funds - as the
destabilization operation grew to the scale of a full-on confrontation with
the Soviet military. The world Taliban means student - the Taliban is what
they called the graduates of the CIA terrorist training programs.  The
whole Islamic Jihad movement was a creation of the CIA and was developed
and managed by the CIA, with the ongoing collaboration of Pakistani
Intelligence.  At the same time that this  considerable terrorist force was
being trained and armed, the media gave us every once-in-a-while a warning
from experts that terrorism was likely to be the next big problem in the
world, after the defeat of Communism.  The predictions seemed a bit
alarmist at the time to many of us, but then we weren't aware that the
predicted terrorist threat was being systematically manufactured- at our
expense - at that very moment.

In some sense, the word Al Qaeda symbolizes the linkage between US
Intelligence (CIA for short) and the various terrorist elements. Al Qaeda
is essentially the name of the network structures which have enabled the
CIA to make use of organized terrorist groups in various imperialist
operations carried out by every Administration since that time.  The phony
KLA freedom fighters were again a total creation of US & German
Intelligence, and  seasoned Al Qaeda terrorist forces were brought in from
Aghanistan and Pakitan to bolster the new-formed KLA for the
destabilization of Kosovo (critical for minerals and a pipeline route).
More recently in Macedonia, the same CIA-Pakistani-Al Qaeda collaborative
link delivered well-armed terrorist groups for yet another destabilization
operation.

Evidence of this ongoing collaboration, with Al Qaeda being in essence an
"asset" of the CIA, continues nearly up to the very day of 9-11. Long after
the Nairobi bombings and after Bin Laden had been identified as a Bad Guy.
It's not clear where the boundaries between CIA, Good Al Qaeda elements,
and Rogue Al Qaeda should be drawn, or if there are any real boundaries.
While no evidence has been produced that link Bin Laden with 9-11, Bin
Laden has served very well as a Bad Guy To Hate. Whether wittingly or
unwittingly, he is doing exactly what he should be doing (mostly issuing
video tapes for US consumption) if he wants to solidify support for the
White House agenda. Is he a rogue? An asset? A dupe? Hard to tell.

It appears that Al Qeada was and remains an operational link between US
Intelligence and terrorist groups. There may or may not be rogue elements,
but there seems never to have been a carte blanche severing of
communication between the CIA and all organized terrorist groups which have
been associated with Al Qaeda. We can only wonder if there have been ANY
significant terrorist events that have occurred against the wishes of the
Cheny Rumsfeld neocon conquerors of the world. The main consequence of the
Spanish train bombing, for example, was a greater fear of terrorism in the
EU population, increased EU support for Bush's policies, and a new
centralized EU anti-terrorism authority. All good things from the White
House perspective. The impact on the local elections in Spain was a nice
surprise for us and perhaps an unpleasant one for the neocons, but it
mattered little compared to the overall "favorable" effect on the EU.

With 9-11, and the hijacking plotters, we have a crossing of the Rubicon, a
first-time use of Al Qeda groups against the domestic population of
Imperial Rome itself. The hijacking ring and the network of plotters that
supported it directly were very clumsy. They were the kind of people you'd
pick to be fall guys in a set up. If you had your explosives ready in the
Trade Center towers, you wouldn't trust these guys to fly the planes and
get it right. If you needed that, you would have started with veteran
pilots. These were the kind of guys who kept getting noticed by the FBI and
by intelligence agencies all over the world. Time and again alarming
reports were ignored and investigations were squelched from the White House
- "national security".   Indeed!   Visas were given to people who had no
business getting them, given their known connections to terrorist groups.

If the towers collapsed from demolition, the operation was organized at the
highest levels of the US Intelliegence apparatus, and the interceptor stand
down was planned in advance, then the timing and execution of the whole
operation would be very complex. It could only be trusted to professionals
at every level. Professionals like the demolition company that got the
contract to take away the WTC rubble - the same company that carted away
the Oklahoma City rubble, again quarantining investigation and carting
everything off at maximum speed. Perhaps they're as good at knocking down
as they are at carting away. And he who knocks down would be the natural
choice to cart away. Fewer people involved.

And for the planes, experienced military pilots. Definitely. Anything else
would be irresponsible in an operation of such great significance.
Kamakazi?  Not likely.  It turns out that commercial aircraft have for some
time been equipped with an override mechanism. It's supposedly an
anti-hijacking measure. From the ground, or from an AWACs plane, those who
know the codes and have the right equipment can take control of any
commercial airliner and override any action the hijacker might attempt from
the cockpit. The technology can be used to bring a hijacked plane in for a
safe landing at some appropriate air field. The technology serves equally
well to carry out a remote hijacking, regardless of who's in the cockpit,
and even if no one is in the cockpit.  Clearly, this would be the piloting
method of choice for the operation.

As I see it, the hijacking ring was essential to the operation only in
their role as fall guys. Whether they actually got on the planes or not was
of no significance, except as a way to get rid of them for the stories they
could tell.

The issue of fall guys brings us back to the connection with Pakestani
Intelligence (ISI). The head of the ISI (whose name escapes me at the
moment) was named by the FBI as being the man who transferred $100,000 to
the account of the hijackers just prior to 9-11. The FBI called him the
"moneybags" of the attack on the WTC.  Where was this head of the ISI on
9-11?  He was having breakfast in the Senate Lunch Room with the Repubican
and Democratic heads of the Select Committee on Intellgence.  He also met
during his visit with members of the Cabinet. And this was the moneybags of
the hijackers.  He was in town, conveniently, from the 8th to the 13th of
September.

I imagine that those who welcomed him to the Senate Lunch Room were not
aware of the events that were about to transpire. But our ISI man knew and
he wanted insurance against himself or ISI becoming a fall guy. He knew his
money transfer left a trail, and who knows what shifts in alliances might
occur after such a world-changing event. What he was doing "on the day"
gave him some protection from being demonized. How would you explain a
Saddam in the Senate Lunch Room? The old CIA-Pakistani Intelligence-Al
Qaeda collaboration was still operating, and our ISI guy wanted it to stay
that way a bit longer.

The names "Al Qaeda" and "Bin Laden" identify "the enemy". They stand as
symbols for what the War on Terrorism is about. Meanwhile, the troop are
deployed wherever some conquest is desired, with no relation to the
purported Al Qaeda threat. And also meanwhile, the CIA-Al Qaeda network
continues to operate. It's both Orwellian and Kafkaesque.

The Aftermath

I believe that the evidence points rather convincingly to a complex,
professionally managed, covert operation, followed by a characteristic
impound-all-the-evidence cover up. That's the interpretation that best
explains all the facts (Occum's razor), and that's the interpretation that
matches the modus operandi of the CIA-Al Qaeda perpetrators: terrorist acts
intended to achieve specific political results. The only new thing was the
fact that it happened inside the walls of Rome. The magnitude was not a new
thing. 3,000 or so people is tiny compared to the number killed in
Afghanistan, Kosovo, and all the other places the CIA-Al Qaeda network has
been operating.

I've discussed these kinds of evidence sometimes in personal conversation.
The impression I often get is that the main barrier to considering
seriously the covert-op scenario is a deeply held belief that "Our leaders
just wouldn't do that kind of thing, not to Americans!". They have,
however, done it before. After all these years enough evidence has emerged
that we can say it happened at the first Pearl Harbor. And there was the
Agent Orange in Vietnam, and the depleted uranium that is affecting
thousands of desert Vets. And the brutality with which the labor movement
has been suppressed over the years, and it goes on an on. Ordinary
Americans have never been immune from imperialist suppression, we've just
on average been more on the gravy side of the empire than on the
death-and-devastation side. And of course we're encouraged by the media to
think of ourselves as "special", "fair", "freedom loving", and all that.

If we look at the question of "Would they do it?", assuming for the moment
a Machievellian mentality, then the motivational evidence is overwhelming.
The MISSION of these folks is to pursue the New American Century - they've
been developing and promoting the agenda for years, and have finally
politic'd their way among the power brokers and made it to the White House.
They said in writing that they needed a New Pearl Harbor, they got it, and
now they're pursuing their agenda just as they said they would. Before 9-11
their agenda would have seemed like a pipe dream, which is how Mein Kampf
was viewed by most when it was written. Zie Korrekt Managements of Dies
Eventz - can make dreams come true. And nightmares.

So again I ask the question.  You in the jury, what do you believe about
9-11? And why?
all the best, rkm