Are We Boiling Frogs?
Page 13
44 passengers, was bound for San Francisco. Ziad Jarrah
(Lebanese), Ahmed al Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al
Nami (Saudi Arabian) and Saeed al Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian)
were on the flight.
AA flight 11, UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 77 were hijacked
whilst in flight with each cockpit secured by the terrorists.
The attempt to hijack UA flight 93 did not go to plan as
passengers and crew resisted. The hijackers initially secured
the cockpit but a struggle ensued that resulted in the plane
crashing in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, before reaching its
intended target.
At 08.46, 47 minutes after take-off, AA Flight 11 crashed
into the North tower (WTC 1) of the World Trade Center. At
09.03 UA Flight 175 struck the South tower (WTC 2), 52
minutes after its departure.
President Bush was notified of both strikes on the WTC by
Whitehouse Chief of Staff Andrew Card at 09.05 during an
elementary school visit in Sarasota, Florida. At 09.31 Bush
made a statement that the event is 'a national tragedy' and
'an apparent terrorist attack on our country.'
6 minutes later, at 09.37, AA flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
56 minutes after the plane strike on WTC 2, at 09.59 the
South Tower completely collapsed. Its total destruction took
approximately 10 seconds from the point of initial, visible
structural failure.
At 10.03 UA flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. 25 minutes
later at 10.28, having been hit by AA Flight 11 approximately
102 minutes earlier, WTC 1 (the North Tower) was also
completely destroyed in the same manner as the South
Tower.
Having sustained fire damage, ignited by burning debris
from the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 7 (The Saloman
Brothers Building) also fell at 17.20, some 7hrs after the fire
104
A Dangerous Ideology
started.
The event timings are just about the only aspect of the
official record the conspiracy theorists partly accept. They
question nearly every other element of the narrative. Many
don't accept that all the terrorists named were even on the
planes. Whether offering LIHOP or MIHOP as explanation,
their argument can be broken down into three main
objections. They claim they have evidence to back all of them
up.
Firstly they suggest the hijacked flights could not have
occurred the way we are told. They point to perceived
weaknesses in the official evidence, a questionable lack of
normal security procedures and an apparent hobbling of the
military response.
Their second concern is that the buildings' destruction was
not consistent with the official 'collapse' explanation. They
reject the theory of “progressive collapse” offered by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in
their final 2005 report.[9] Once again they claim to offer
evidence for us to consider.
Finally, they question the way in which the narrative of 'who'
was responsible emerged. They doubt the subsequent
investigation, its reporting by the 'mainstream' media (MSM,)
and claim it promoted a 'pretext' for war without scrutiny of
the evidence.
It is impossible within these pages to analyse every aspect of
the evidence the conspiracy community has offered in the
years since 9/11. Numerous books have been written on the
subject and further reading is necessary if you want to
understand the 9/11 debate in its entirety.
The seemingly endless arguments can generally be
characterised as an extensive warren of 'rabbit holes.' The
conspiracists find the entrance and race down them until
'debunkers' block them with counter evidence. What usually
follows is an inconclusive to and fro as both sides throw
evidence, and frequently abuse, at each other while they
battle over the minutiae.
105
A Dangerous Ideology
For example conspiratorial protestations were thrown into
apoplectic overdrive by the many reports that some named
terrorists were still alive. These emerged in the first few
weeks after the attack. The BBC[12] reported on an electrical
engineer with the same name, date of birth and physical
appearance as Abdulaziz al-Omari (AA Flight 11) who told
the London based 'Asharq Al-Awsat' newspaper:
'The name [listed by the FBI] is my name
and the birth date is the same as mine, but I
am not the one who bombed the World
Trade Center in New York.'
His plea prompted protests from the Saudi embassy in
Washington who said he had reported his passport stolen to
Denver police in 1996.
A Saudi airline pilot called Saeed al Ghamdi (UA Flight 93),
speaking to reporters for the British Newspaper the
Telegraph[13], expressed his dismay as he had the same
name, address, date of birth and occupation as his
namesake who the FBI identified as one of the terrorists.
'You cannot imagine what it is like to be described as a
terrorist - and a dead man - when you are innocent and alive,'
he said.
Similarly, Salem al Hazmi (AA Flight 77) stated “I have never
been to the United States and have not been out of Saudi
Arabia in the past two years.” Ahmed al Nami (UA Flight 93)
was equally shocked and angrily said “I'm still alive, as you
can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the
American Justice Department. I had never even heard of
Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have
hijacked [was].”
While in Morocco, again according to the BBC, Saudi Pilot
Waleed al Shehri (AA Flight 11) was so annoyed that he
complained to both the Saudi and U.S. authorities.[14]
This kind of stuff prompts conspiracy lovers to practically
pee themselves with excitement. The fact the investigating
authorities have largely maintained the suspect list in the
intervening years, without fully accounting for these
apparent anomalies, is 'proof,' some say, of a cover up.
106
A Dangerous Ideology
It isn't.
First of all these supposed survivor stories are based
predominantly upon MSM news reports, something which
conspiracy theorists have no problem disregarding at other
times. All they suggest is the possibility that investigators,
the media or both may have got some things wrong. It
possibly indicates the hijackers were using false or stolen
identities. Equally, the people quoted could simply have
shared some personal details with the hijackers. These
stories prove nothing.
In the carnage of the aftermath, amid public demands for
news and results, such potential errors are hardly
surprising. Though it should be noted this is difficult to
reconcile with the FBI's own official statement, “Within a
matter of days, the FBI identified the 19 hijackers using flight,
credit card, banking, and other records.” [18]
Nonetheless, then director of th
e FBI Robert Mueller alluded
to this apparent difficulty. On September 21st 2001, he said
the FBI had a 'a fairly high level of confidence' about the
identities of some alleged hijackers adding “.....The
investigation is ongoing, and I am not certain as to several of
the others.' [15]
Some conspiracy theorists leap upon any ambiguity to assert
statements of fact which, in reality, remain highly
questionable. Their ‘debunker’opponents are just as quick to
seize the opportunity to point this out, though they often
stray into the realms of the ridiculous themselves. These
combative exchanges leave the casual observer nonplussed.
You need to be a true die hard to unravel the full
complexities of this discourse. Most of us simply don't have
the time and can't be bothered.
If you are interested I recommend you undertake your own
research, objectively assess both sides of the argument and
make up your own mind. Throughout I have suggested
further reading and viewing. I suggest you make of it what
you will. Our intention here is to understand the
conspiracist’s evidence which, they claim, proves the official
9/11 story is a lie. However, we might question why they
want to do this.
107
A Dangerous Ideology
One of the leading conspiracy theory websites
911Truth.org[16] offers a mission statement that gives us an
insight into the truthers intentions.
To expose the official lies and cover-up
surrounding the events of September 11th,
2001 in a way that inspires the people to
overcome denial and understand the truth;
namely, that elements within the US
government and covert policy apparatus
must have orchestrated or participated in
the execution of the attacks for these to have
happened in the way that they did.
It is important to avoid getting hung up on semantics. Many
are infuriated by the 'truthers' insistence that it is they who
offer 'the truth.' By implication, if you don't accept their
truth, what you believe is a 'lie.' It is only a small bunny hop
to perceiving the intellectual superiority complex identified
by some.
Yet this is based purely upon differing interpretations of the
meaning of a single word. Seen in one light, the use of 'truth'
is pertinent and reasonable, seen in another it is accusatory
and hints at self-aggrandisement. Both readings are
subjective to some degree. A matter of perspective. A
perspective often informed by what we are told.
If we wish to be objective ourselves, we should not allow
these suggested labels to colour our own pursuit of the
evidence. Rather, we should perhaps accept we all hold
certain beliefs. We think these are 'true,' otherwise we
wouldn't give them credit. If we ascribe persecutory intent to
'words,' simply because they are used by those we disagree
with, we will never move beyond inane confrontation.
************************
108
A Dangerous Ideology
Chapter 6
Where Did The Al The Money Go?
The initial investigation into 'what happened' on
9/11 was seen by many as surprisingly brief, given the scale
and complexity of the crime.
On October 9th the FBI were reportedly urged by then
Attorney General John Ashcroft to switch their attention
away from investigating the events themselves in favour of
an increased determination to prevent future attacks.[17]
The Justice Departments communication director Mindy
Tucker objected to this notion stating the investigation had
“not been curtailed, it is ongoing.”
Yet Ashcroft's press statements, made on the 8th, appears to
confirm, regardless of the continuing investigation, the
administration had already decided what happened and who
was responsible.[18] The emphasis had clearly shifted from
investigating 9/11 to prosecuting the 'war on terror.'
Ashcroft's stated:
109
A Dangerous Ideology
“Yesterday, the president ordered the United
States military to begin strikes against Al
Qaeda terrorist training camps and military
installations of the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan. Consistent with this
development, I have instructed federal law
enforcement to be on the highest level of
alert to strengthen America's protections.”
Furthermore, the FBI investigation codenamed PENTTBOM
(short for Pentagon, Twin Towers Bombing) was not deemed
to be a priority by the FBI as early as 3rd October 2001.
Speaking to the House Intelligence Subcommittee on
Terrorism The FBI deputy assistant director of Counter-
terrorism, J.T.Caruso, said:[19]
“Director Mueller has forcefully and
repeatedly articulated our number one
priority: to do everything in our power to
prevent the occurrence of any additional
terrorist acts.”
It is certainly evident that by January 29th 2002, less than 5
months after the 9/11, the Bush administration wanted to
limit the scope of the investigation. Senate majority leader
Tom Daschle stated that he had received a call from Vice
President Dick Cheney urging this restriction and this had
been agreed:
'The vice president expressed the concern that
a review of what happened on September 11
would take resources and personnel away
from the effort in the war on terrorism...........I
acknowledged that concern, and it is for that
reason that the Intelligence Committee is
going to begin this effort, trying to limit the
scope and the overall review of what
happened.”
However, Daschle was also open about his personal feelings
on the matter, adding:
“But clearly, I think the American people are
entitled to know what happened and why.”
110
A Dangerous Ideology
Whilst many feel a focus upon prevention is understandable,
as it adheres to the primary duty of law enforcement to
protect the public, is it reasonable to ask why the
administration were apparently so eager to move away from
the investigation itself?
For the conspiracy theorists the answer is obvious. Had the
investigation been given a free hand it would have exposed
the deception.
Mary Galligan, who headed the PENTTBOM investigation
until early 2004, emphasized how much was still unknown
about the plot. In 2004, she said, “There is still information
coming in, and we still have so many unanswered questions.”
Changing emphasis in 2001 certainly seems to have been
premature.
In order to hold to the official 9/11 narrative, you do need to
accept a startling number of unbelievable coincidences.
Consequently the 'conspiracy theorists,' often refer to those
who accept the official account as 'coincidence theorists.'
For example, the
day before 9/11, the U.S. Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the Pentagon could
not account for $2.3Trillion of expenditure (yes, you did read
that correctly).[21] This was a known problem that had
plagued him following the Department of Defense Inspector
General report for Fiscal Year 1999 which identified the
missing money.[22]
Rumsfeld was eager to push ahead with a military
modernisation plan that would require congress to agree an
additional annual defence expenditure of $50 billion. Making
his plea for the cash to the Defense Secretary Nomination
Hearing, in January 2001, Rumsfeld was acutely aware of
this problem. Senator Robert Byrd asked him:
“How can we seriously consider a $50
billion increase in the Defense Department
budget when DoD’s own auditors — when
DoD’s own auditors say the department
cannot account for $2.3 trillion in
transactions in one year alone.”
111
A Dangerous Ideology
Eight months later Rumsfeld was no nearer to providing an
account for this money. In a break from the well-used
political practice of announcing bad news late on Friday, at
the end of the weekly news cycle, Rumsfeld unusually chose
to concede the 'accountancy error' and declare 'war' on
Pentagon financial procedures on Monday 10th September.
By publicly dropping this bombshell on a Monday he would
normally be setting himself at the centre of disastrous news
agenda for the next week, at least.[23] Less than 24 hours
later this admission had been completely forgotten by the
world's media. Indeed, apart from the conspiracy theorists, it
has remained a moot point for the wider public. Following
9/11 Rumsfeld's request for an annual budget hike of $50
billion seems like small change.
As of 2017, according to an academic study by Brown
University’s Watson Institute for International Studies, the
estimated cost of the war on terror to the U.S. taxpayer was
likely to exceed $4 trillion.[24] Furthermore, since the
process of auditing the Pentagon accounts began in 1996, as
of 2013, the total amount that was unaccounted for stood at
an eye watering $8.5 trillion.[25]
If you can barely believe that figure I suggest you hold on to
your hat. Dr Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University,
and former Investment Banker Catherine Austin Fitts,
investigated the accounts of the US Department of Defense
and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.