A Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask

Thanks to Carol for submitting this:


The events of September 11, 2001 evoke painful memories, tinged with a powerful nostalgia for the way of life before it happened. The immediate tragedy caused a disorientation sufficient to distort the critical faculties in the direction of retrospectively predictable responses: bureaucratic adaptation, opportunism, profiteering, kitsch sentiment, and mindless sloganeering.

As 9/11, and the report of the commission charged to investigate it, fade into history like the Warren Commission that preceded it, the questions, gaps, and anomalies raised by the report have created an entire cottage industry of amateur speculation--as did the omissions and distortions of the Warren Report four decades ago. How could it not?
But there is surprisingly little discussion of the basic higher-order political factors surrounding 9/11, factors that do not require knowledge of the melting point of girder steel or the unknowable piloting abilities of the presumed perpetrators. Let us proceed, then, in a spirit of detached scientific inquiry, to ask questions the 9/11 Commission was unprepared to ask.

1. Who is Osama bin Laden, and where did he come from?
The 9/11 Report provides no convincing documented refutation of Osama's links with the CIA, given that the agency was running a major war in which he was a participant. Similarly, the report's authors did not plumb the informal U.S. government connections with the same Saudi government whose links with the bin Laden family could have provided a cut-out for any CIA-Osama relationship.

2. When were Osama's last non-hostile links with the U.S. government?

Consistent with its view of Osama's relationship with the CIA during the anti-Soviet enterprise, the 9/11 Report ignores the possibility that he may have had a continuing relationship with the U.S. government, particularly with its intelligence services.
3. How did the President of United States React to the August 6 2001 Presidential Daily Brief?

What concrete measures did the president take after receiving perhaps the most significant strategic warning that any head of state could have hoped to receive about an impending attack on his country? Did he alert the intelligence agencies, law enforcement, the Border patrol, the Federal Aviation Administration, to comb through their current information and increase their alert rates? Did the threat warning of the PBD (granted that it did not reveal the tail numbers of the aircraft to be hijacked), in combination with the numerous threat warnings from other sources [4] elicit feverish activity to "protect the American people?" Not that we can observe.
4. Who wrote the script for the rhetorical response to 9/11?

The smoke was still rising from the rubble of the World Trade Center complex and the Pentagon when the unanimous and universal cry erupted in government circles, and was relentlessly amplified by the media, that this was "war," not a criminal act of terrorism. How very convenient that this war, declared against a diffuse and stateless entity, would trigger long-sought legal authorities and constitutional loopholes which would not apply in the case of a criminal act.
5. Why did the mysterious anthrax attacks come and go like a wraith?

The anthrax attacks were the most anomalous terrorist attacks in history: clever, successful, unpunished, causing five deaths and a billion dollars' damage. Yet never repeated. This alone makes them remarkable in the annals of criminal activity, but there is more--the intended victims (at least those with an official position) were warned in writing of their peril in sufficient detail that they could take steps to administer an antidote. Is this characteristic of terrorist attacks by "al Qaeda," or by any known Middle Eastern terrorist group?
6. Why did Osama bin Laden escape?
We know the explanation. Somehow, bin Laden escaped in the battle of Tora Bora, because "the back door was open." Only after the invasion of Iraq, more than a year later, was there general acknowledgement that resources intended for Afghanistan had been diverted to the buildup for Iraq. The public was lead to believe that supplemental appropriations for Afghanistan were siphoned into the Iraq project beginning about mid-2002.



Cheney testified to the 9/11 Commission that he spoke with President Bush before giving an order to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner that appeared headed toward Washington. (The plane was United Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field after a brave revolt by the passengers.) But a source close to the commission, who declined to be identified revealing sensitive information, says that none of the staffers who worked on this aspect of the investigation believed Cheney's version of events.

A draft of the report conveyed their skepticism. But when top White House officials, including chief of staff Andy Card and the then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, reviewed the draft, they became extremely agitated. After a prolonged battle, the report was toned down. The factual narrative, closely read, offers no evidence that Cheney sought initial authorization from the president. The point is not a small one. Legally, Cheney was required to get permission from his commander in chief, who was traveling (but reachable) at the time. If the public ever found out that Cheney gave the order on his own, it would have strongly fed the view that he was the real power behind the throne.

Cheney spent much of his time after 9/11 in his "undisclosed location."

Thanks sitting bull... the

Thanks sitting bull... the rest of it is bullshit, but that's a nice piece of information. A confirmation as it were. The staffers have said before that they didn't believe what was going on.

for a review and comments on

for a review and comments on this article see:

Counterpunch Tries to Sideswipe 9/11 Researchers, Again

Et tu, Counterpunch? To get

Et tu, Counterpunch?

To get insights into why the "alternative media" has these selective blind spots, see leftgatekeepers.com.

The other notable blind spots involve: other black ops that kill Americans, such as Oklahoma City, the leftgatekeeper phenomena itself, (AFAIK) the massive swindle through legal and semi-legal slush funds of Americans' assets, as revealed by the "Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports" and (to a great degree) the rigged voting machines used in the US, which falsely awarded the last Presidential election to Bush.

The body of this

The body of this Counterpunch.org article is quite good, and its appearance may portend a subtle but significant shift at a web site with very good leftish commentary but one that's been largely unreceptive to consideration of foreknowledge/complicity arguments.

I simply read past Werther’s mild jab at the “cottage industry of amateur speculation” on 9/11. He seems to be referring specifically to ‘physical evidence’ arguments, and it has to be admitted than many of them are amateurish. His attitude seems sympathetic, if superior.

The superiority does rankle a bit, though. Here’s a fellow with what may be charitably called an ‘inflated view of himself’. It takes a large amount of self-regard to arrive so late to a party and talk like you’re the guest of honor.

The leading lights of the 9/11 truth movement have made most of these arguments (and more probing ones) many times before. Contrary to Werther’s claim, it’s not that “we now know” enough to say the 9/11 Commission report was a cover-up. Please. It’s been ‘now’ for a long time now. (Anyone who read the staff statements along the way could see which way the wind was blowing)

Here’s hoping that we see some more articles at Counterpunch.org on the “basic higher-order political factors surrounding 9/11”, as well as the basic higher-order sociopolitical factors in the failure of the corporate press to both 1) identify the Commission Report as a cover-up, and 2) do its own independent investigation of 9/11.

Bryan Sacks

AFAIC, as long as we're

AFAIC, as long as we're still associating Osama with 9/11, the psy-op worked on us.