Are we being told the truth about the Trade Center attacks?
Copley Square Boston
USA 25 Sep 2001
E-mail forwarded by a friend to me on Oct.15th:
First of all, I'd like you to understand that I don't have any secret information, or leaked documents, about the horrific events of 11 September in New York City.
I'm writing this article while on the road, without my usual reference books, and I'm working from U.S. television reports and from articles that people have sent me over the Internet.
What we're going to do in this article is to look at the events in the same way we'd investigate a murder mystery: what are the possible scenarios? What are the relevant clues? Which scenario best fits the facts?
I'm not claiming this analysis is true, I'm only asking you to consider the possibility.
As we review the historical background, I'll be giving you my best understanding of events - but I am not claiming that every statement is an established fact. This article represents my _opinion as to 'most likely scenarios'. Due to the scope of the material, much of the presentation is highly abbreviated.
A recommended reading list is provided at the bottom for those who wish to investigate the ideas in greater depth.
For all I know, the scenario presented by the U.S. corporate-government-media-elite Establishment might be correct.
Perhaps the attacks came as a shocking surprise, and the U.S. response has been hastily determined in subsequent emergency meetings. But this default scenario opens many questions...
(1) Within hours of the attacks we were already being told that the FBI knows who the hijackers were, and that they are linked to Bin Laden. If this is true, then why were they allowed to buy tickets in their own names and travel together on commercial flights?
One of the suspects who bought a ticket in his own name, a TV report said, was on the FBI's most-wanted list! And only a week before, we are told, Bin Laden had threatened that a major U.S. target was going to be attacked. Could security really be that lax?
(2) In the first day of media coverage there seemed to be a huge gap in the reports we were receiving.
Why were we being told nothing about air-traffic controllers, and their attempts to contact the planes? Wouldn't that have made for dramatic television?... "Flight 11, please come in. Flight 11, do you read me?"
Why were we told nothing about scrambling fighter planes, and of attempts to intercept the hijacked airliners?
On September 15 the New York times published an 'explanation' of the events by Matthew Wald, and reported that some fighters did scramble. But why was this completely omitted from the early reports? The initial coverage seemed to be designed to give us the impression that no one knew what was going on until the first plane actually struck the World Trade Center.
(3) And the NY Times explanation doesn't make sense. The following excerpts are from an analysis of that article by Jared Israel, which can be found on the web at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/ jared/treason.htm
"In an analysis of the 9-11 nightmare, which we have been preparing, one of the things we asked is: how could the so-called third plane stay in the air, hijacked, for almost an hour after two other hijacked planes had struck the WTC Towers, and not be seen and intercepted by U.S. air defense forces?
How could it fly to the Midwest, turn around and fly back to Washington, to the Pentagon, undisturbed?
"Apparently it occurred to someone On High that ordinary folks might harbor such thoughts, hence the following article has been published by the 'N.Y. Times,' with the apparent intention of defusing such doubts:
"But the cure is worse than the doubts. It is one thing to say the plane was not spotted. But to say, as this article does, that the plane was spotted, that it was tracked from the time it turned back from the Midwest until it struck the Pentagon, and yet nothing was done because they "didn't know what to do" - this is simply unbelievable.
"If they knew the plane was coming, why didn't they force it down and failing that, shoot it down?
Before you say 'They wouldn't do a thing like that,' note that whoever edited the 'N.Y. Times' article left in the following damning sentences, regarding the fourth plane, the one that, we are told, crashed in Pennsylvania:
"'Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, said today that the Pentagon had been tracking that plane and could have shot it down if necessary; it crashed about 35 minutes after the Pentagon crash.' (From article posted below)
"So if they "could have shot" down the fourth plane, why didn't they shoot down the third? Why didn't they shoot down the first three, or at least planes # two and three? Once they "knew" these were suicide hijackings what were they waiting for them to do, hit the WTC Towers and the Pentagon? Or a nuclear power plant?"
(4) If the attacks really came as a complete surprise, one would expect initial confusion at the highest government levels. One would have expected days to go by while information was gathered and options were considered. Instead, we began seeing a coherent and final response within hours. Within a day or two the perpetrators were known, $40 billion had been allocated by Congress, a protracted war was being announced, we were being told to expect major cutbacks in civil liberties, and the U.S. Senate had approved the "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001". And within a few days after that, a multi-billion dollar airline bailout was being announced.
There are other objections that can be raised to the official scenario, but I am not trying here to prove that scenario to be wrong. I wish only to express doubt, suggesting that other scenarios deserve consideration.
blog comments powered by Disqus