An open letter to Project Censored
An open letter to Project Censored,
I am astounded by the resignation of Project Censored judges Jensen and Solomon in protest of PC's inclusion of the 9/11 research of Steven Jones on its most censored stories list. I fail to understand how Jensen and Solomon could admit that there are significant unanswered 9/11 questions, while stridently opposing research aimed at exploring those questions.
If there were even a five percent chance that the official 9/11 story is untrue, the historic importance of that possibility would dictate that any rational American devote all available time and energy to resolving those doubts, and encouraging any and all potentially relevant research.
In fact, the official story is demonstrably untrue. The FBI has stated and reiterated that Osama Bin Laden, wanted for the African embassy bombings, is "not wanted for 9/11" because there is "no hard evidence" connecting him to 9/11. (See: http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html)
The FBI's position should not come as a surprise. All four major pieces of evidence in support of the official story have been shown by mainstream sources to have been fabricated.
1) Atta's suitcase containing the names of the alleged 19 hijackers, along with a "will" that can easily be proven to be a forgery, was admitted by a top US intelligence official to have been planted as fabricated evidence. In an interview with Seymour Hersh, that official, speaking primarily of the suitcase and its flight manual, said "whatever evidence was left was left deliberately for the FBI to chase." Note that this suitcase, conveniently discovered on 9/11, was and remains the only source of the 19 names blamed for 9/11. Apart from this suitcase, the FBI admits that it has found absolutely nothing implicating any of the alleged hijackers--and that the actual identities of the hypothetical hijackers remain in doubt. (1)
2) The only important source on the alleged hijackers' activities in Germany is another "magic suitcase" -- this one delivered into the hands of the German police by a self-proclaimed good samaritan burglar. According to Der Spiegel, which has generally defended the official 9/11 story, the German police know that this "burglar" was obviously an intelligence agent. (2)
3) The so-called Osama Bin Laden confession video of December 2001, in which OBL seems to demonstrate foreknowledge and approval of the 9/11 attacks, is "bogus" according to leading OBL expert Bruce Lawrence, head of Religious Studies at Duke University. Lawrence adds that all of his many contacts in the CIA's OBL unit know that it is bogus. The "confession video" contradicts numerous earlier authentic interviews in which OBL denied any involvement in 9/11, deplored the attacks as un-Islamic, and blamed American Zionists for them. Surely the US media's neglect of these earlier interviews, and its hyping of the bogus confession, qualify as censorship of an extreme kind! (3)
4) Aside from the three above items, the only major support for the official story consists of alleged statements under interrogation by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) which are cited, without any specificity of either content or context, as footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report. Yet there is absolutely no verifiable record of KSM ever being arrested or interrogated. In fact, KSM's alleged arrest in Pakistan seems to have been a staged, fictitious event. When the US/Pakistani authorities showed what they claimed was actual video footage of KSM's arrest to journalists, the journalists derided it as an inept attempt to pass off an obviously staged, fictitious event as an actual police raid and arrest. (4)
Since we now know that the official story rests on these and other less significant pieces of fabricated evidence, planted by intelligence agents to falsely implicate OBL and 19 alleged hijackers, the most reasonable hypothesis is that 9/11 was a psychological operation designed to grease the skids for war in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Research appearing to confirm this hypothesis, like that of Steven Jones, should not be dismissed a priori, least of all by Project Censored. In fact, I suspect that when the dust has settled, future historians will wonder why post-9/11 Project Censored has examined anything other than 9/11 stories, compared to which almost all of its other censored stories are trivial.
Dr. Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET: http://mujca.com
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
Please look at
1) "Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, `Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.'" "WHAT WENT WRONG: The C.I.A. and the failure of American intelligence," by SEYMOUR M. HERSH. Issue of 2001-10-08 http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011008fa_FACT archived at http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/suspects/911-hijackers-trail-left-delib...
See also: "Investigation: FBI chief raises questions on how much is known about the suspects. Some names used also belong to Saudi citizens who are alive." Los Angeles Times September 21, 2001. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/latimes092101.html
And also Insight magazine 6/11/2003," FBI Denies Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists": "In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is `no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.' After that admission a strange thing happened - nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open." Archived at http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_denies_mix_up_of_911_terrorists.htm
2) "It makes for a great story. A petty thief pilfers files containing critical information about the largest terrorist attack in history and dutifully turns them over to the police. BKA agents do not buy this story for a minute; they suspect that some other secret service was trying to find a way of getting evidence into BKA hands. The question is, whose secret service?" Der Spiegel journalists and editors, Inside 9/11: What Really Happened (NY: St. Martins, 2002).
3) Bruce Lawrence, interview with Kevin Barrett: “Dynamic Duo,” gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007, first hour. See: http://www.911blogger.com/node/6317. The "confession" seems to have been fabricated in part through a CIA sting operation that had complete access to OBL in late September, 2001. See: http://www.counterpunch.org/osseiran08212006.html, http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id406.html
4) Published on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 by Reuters
"Pakistan Accused of Staging Bin Laden Aide Arrest"
by Simon Denyer
ISLAMABAD - A grainy video purporting to show the arrest of two al Qaeda leaders has done little to deflect accusations that Pakistan may have staged this month's raid to give it leeway to abstain in a U.N. vote on an Iraq war.
On Monday, the powerful military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) held an unprecedented news conference to show foreign journalists what it said were images of a March 1 raid in Rawalpindi that netted al Qaeda kingpin Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
But few of journalists present were convinced the video -- which did not show Mohammed's face nor any sign of a struggle -- was genuine. Many said it looked like a crude reconstruction."
See also the related mainstream stories archived at: http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATKSMarrest.htm
On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:27 PM, Ron Rattner wrote:
Dear C.D. Stelzer,
Thanks very much for your subject article.
I am surprised that you are apparently the only journalist to report this story, which raises important issues. Perhaps you should be a candidate for Project Censored recognition?
I am a retired litigation attorney, initially admitted to the bar in Springfield after graduating from the U of Chicago law school almost fifty years ago. After spending much time evaluating evidence concerning destruction of three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/01, I have found the controlled demolition hypothesis advanced by Dr. Steven E. Jones to be extremely important and credible, and worthy of official investigation.
So, I am puzzled and troubled by apparent condemnations of Dr. Jones' work by distinguished progressive journalists, like Robert Jensen and Norman Solomon, who nonetheless concede "that there are unanswered [9/11] questions." It is difficult for me to believe that they have carefully evaluated the important evidence supporting Dr. Jones, and impeaching official explanations. And I hope that they might reconsider their positions.
Apart from your article, do you know of any further explanations offered by Jensen or Solomon to justify their denunciations of Dr. Jones and others seeking new official 9/11 investigations of "unanswered questions" about possible use of pre-planted explosives?
Ron Rattner, San Francisco
PS. I am sending copies of this inquiry to other involved persons, and would welcome their comments.