11.5 C
Thursday, May 26, 2022
HomeAll Articles9/11 Cover Story Demolished?

9/11 Cover Story Demolished?

By Tariq Majeed : –

The fundamental questions any lay person would ask: (a) Why George Bush and now Obama Administration not ordered a criminal investigation by federal authorities into the murderous attacks on the US soil? (b) why none of the people deployed to defend  the sovereignty of the US questioned, charged, fired for being negligent of their duties that some criminals manage to breach the multi billion $ security? Who bankrupted and made US a financially failed State?

Most People may be unaware that a hotly contested debate was going on in America over the government’s explanation for the 9/11 air attacks. The Bush regime‘s story, fully endorsed by the Obama administration, that on September 11, 2001, 19 raw Arab pilots outsmarted the US intelligence and security systems, hijacked four Boeing 757s and, flying on paths of their own choice with total freedom, knocked down the World Trade Centre Towers in New York and smashed a portion of the Pentagon in Washington, had been challenged right at the beginning.

A “9/11 truth movement” was born. In January 2002, journalist Barrie Zwicker questioned the official story of 9/11 on Canadian national TV in seven commentaries. In autumn the same year, Ian Woods, in Ontario, founded Global Outlook: The Magazine of 9/11 Truth.

Carol Valentine, president of Public Action Inc, posted a challenging critique on the internet in the third week of September, updating it on October 5, 2001. She asked how was it that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Pentagon failed so utterly in obeying the standing orders for dealing with hijacked planes over America. She commented:

“Before Sept 11, the combined forces of US military and domestic intelligence, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Defence Intelligence Agency, were clueless that such a catastrophic event would occur. Yet a day or so later, the FBI had secured the names and mug shots of 19 hijackers! How did the FBI know who the hijackers were? After all, all the witnesses are dead. On Sept 30, I looked at the passenger lists of those four flights. To my surprise, the lists contained none of the hijackers’ names! Yet we are asked to believe that the culprits took four jet airliners, with four sets of crews and four sets of passengers, armed with plastic knives and box cutters. And we must believe that a man who lives in a cave in the middle of nowhere—Osama Bin Laden—was the mastermind!”

She cited proofs that hidden controllers on ground had used remote-control technology, Global Hawk, to wrest the flight controls from the pilots and direct the planes to their targets. Other critics were equally incisive in pinpointing the irreconcilable anomalies in the story. They maintained that these attacks could not have been carried out without the key authorities being complicit in the act.

But these were efforts at a limited scale, ignored by the mainstream media, which, being a part of the military-industrial powerhouse, supported the US Establishment. The American masses, stunned with awe and anger at the monstrous attacks, were too overwhelmed by the media blitz against Osama and Al-Qaida to take notice of the irrationality of the official story.

The Establishment ignored the challengers, but it had to explain the glaring gaps and contradictions in its cover story. The media, too, was obliged to report these gaps. It did so—without disturbing the main story! The official explanations led to more questions because the new explanations differed with the old ones.  In 2002, came Thierry Meyssan’s 9/11—The Big Lie, which, the New York Times noted, “challenges the entire official version of the Sept 11 attacks.”

The French political scientist pointed out wide discrepancies in the various statements of President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman JCS General Richard Myers and other officials. He came out with a startling disclosure that what hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing plane but an “AGM-type missile, armed with a hollow charge and depleted uranium BLU tip, guided by GPS, and transmitting a friendly code to enter the protected airspace!” He explained: “This kind of weapon does look like a small civilian airplane, but it’s not a plane at all. It produces a whistling noise similar to that of a fighter aircraft, can be guided precisely enough to enter a building by a window, can pierce the toughest armour and can cause an instantaneous fire giving off heat in excess of 3,600o Fahrenheit.”

He drew the conclusion from multiple proofs: photographic evidence, testimony of eye witnesses, absence of a Boeing’s debris at the site, the very low height of the impact point, the much smaller hole at the impact point than the diameter of a 757’s nose, and the sudden, gigantic fire started by the explosion. It shook the very roots of the government’s cover story.

A “9/11 truth movement” was born. In January 2002, journalist Barrie Zwicker questioned the official story of 9/11 on Canadian national TV in seven commentaries. In autumn the same year, Ian Woods, in Ontario, founded Global Outlook: The Magazine of 9/11 Truth.

The concrete challenges to the thin cover story could not be ignored. The debate had set in. The Establishment dubbed the challengers as conspiracy theorists, but the tactic was trivial. The challenges had to be met with solid responses. By this time the cover story had been propped up with more machinations, including boastful confessional audio/video statements said to be of Al-Qaida leaders, but, around the world, doubts about it were also growing.

By the end of 2003, the cover story was getting a drubbing, not in the mainstream media from which the debate was absent, but on the internet, in seminars, talks, radio commentaries, articles in local magazines and newspapers in the US and Canada. The story’s credibility was badly shaken by books, such as, The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked September 11, 2001 (2002) by Nafeez M. Ahmed in England, The CIA and The 11 September Terror (2003) by former German minister Andreas von Bulow, The Terror Timeline (2004) by Paul Thompson in America. Dissatisfaction with the official theory on 9/11 had grown. Its challengers were looked upon as alternative theorists.

Concerned people and professionals, engineers, scientists, experts in chemicals and explosives, fire-fighting, metallurgy, etc, formed educative and eye-opener groups like, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Professors Question 9/11. The 9/11 Truth Movement that became an informal umbrella for the other groups received a big boost with Professor David Ray Griffin joining it in early 2004. He had already authored a remarkable work, The New Pearl Harbour —Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, and would go on to produce three other books of outstanding investigation that explain almost all the puzzles and mysteries in the 9/11 attacks.

President Bush’s failure to set up a commission of inquiry even within a year’s time of the 9/11 attacks had increased the doubts about the official story. At last, the commission was set up at the end of November 2002. Its report issued in July 2004 made matters worse for the official story. Throwing all logic and the principles of investigation out, the commission had based its inquiry on the premise that Osama and Al-Qaida were responsible for the Sept 11 attacks! Into this conclusion, the commission tried to fit the evidence and statements, concerning the attacks, given by the functionaries of the various official organizations and the other witnesses cleared by these organizations.

The commission’s explanations were implausible. An example: why didn’t the air force intercept the hijacked planes? The gist of the commission’s circuitous answer was because the military did not know about the hijackings until after the flights had crashed, and this was because the FAA had failed to warn the NORAD in time! In this and in other cases, its findings turned out to be false under close scrutiny. To lay its report bare, Dr Griffin produced a whole book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005). In it, he pointed out over a hundred instances of deception, where truth had been hidden under falseness.

Seeing its story cracking under the weighty and influential arguments produced by the alternative theorists, the Establishment arranged for a series of publications to give its story new strength. The first in the series was “9/11: Debunking the Myths,” which appeared in Popular Mechanics in March 2005; all the other publications appeared in 2006. Vanity Fair (August 2006) published “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes” by Michael Bronner.

Bronner was an associate producer of the movie United 93 which faithfully depicted the commission’s new account that averred that the military could not have shot this flight down. The new account widely differed from the military’s original account published on 18 September 2001 and made it look like a lie. It was obvious relevant tapes had been doctored. Evidence for it was put forward later by Dr Griffin in a study. The movie United 93 was based on a fabricated story.

One of the much-hyped claims of the cover story, which was a star feature in the movie also, that nine or more cell phone calls had been made by passengers of Flight 93 turned out to be false by the testimony of a staff member of FBI at Zacarias Moussaoui’s trial in April 2006. According to the testimony, the passengers made only two cell phone calls. However, even the ‘two cell phone calls’ stood negated, because “the evidence submitted by the prosecution included telephone company records of various calls made by various alleged terrorists, but did not include any phone company records of any of the alleged calls from the airplanes.”

The next piece defending the cover story was Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission. It was authored by Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton, the commission’s chair and vice chair. It was publicized as an authentic record of the September 11 episode. But, with the findings of the commission held in dispute, or rather disrepute, this book was not considered credible even by the ordinary critics.

This was followed by a lengthy essay, “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. It was more of the same thesis, defending the official version of 9/11.

The major elements of the American media, on their side, were also hammering at the challenging theories. Lev Grossman, a leading member of the media moguldom, wrote a scathing essay, “Why the 9/11 Conspiracies Won’t Go Away,” Time (3 Sept 2006).

On similar lines, appeared Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts, edited by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan. This was an expansion of the Popular Mechanics article of March 2005. To give it an aura of authenticity, it was embellished with a foreword by a notable American nationalist, Senator John McCain (who later became the Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election). The book was impressive in its format and style. It purported to boldly confront and answer the allegations against the official explanations. The book’s publicist announced: “This groundbreaking investigation analyzes—and ultimately disproves—the 20 most prominent conspiracy claims.” The debate now moved toward the point of culmination, because this book was addressed directly to the challengers.  The Establishment thought the NIST thesis and this book would be a big blow to the challengers. But it wasn’t.

The challengers had been engaged in monumental inquiry and research effort. Their counter attack on the cover story’s new defences was quick and lethal. In June 2006, Barrie Zwicker put his outstanding book, Towers of Deception—The Media Cover-up of 9/11 in the arena. He selected 26 exhibits or dubious points along with photographs, “out of hundreds of pieces of evidence,” to let the readers decide what was flagrantly wrong with the cover story on each of these points.

But the challengers’ masterstroke, out in early 2007, was Prof Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking—An Answer to the Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. A distinguished reviewer wrote: “In this astonishing and fearsome book Dr Griffin rigorously and brilliantly first dissects and then demolishes the recent published accounts that purport to debunk the critics of the Bush Administration’s official explanations of the events of 9/11.” A former senior CIA official, Bill Christison, observed: “[It] is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official US Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.”

This book is a point by point masterful, cutting critique of the components of the official theory as expounded in the defenders’ main publications. The NIST claimed the WTC Towers had collapsed mainly due to very big fires burning at 1830oF for 56 minutes. Griffin’s book quotes facts to disprove this statement. “The temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1800oF and Underwriters Laboratories certified the steel in the WTC Towers to 2000oF for six hours.” Computer models, calculations by engineers, and examination of the pieces of steel from the debris showed that the temperature of the fires did not go beyond 1200oF.

As for the fact that the Towers collapsed vertically at virtually free fall speed, the cover story’s defenders had to accept it. They tried to craft theories to explain it but in vain. WTC 1 had come down in 11 seconds and WTC 2 in 9 seconds—“speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum.” Only explosives could do it. Griffin cites additional evidence in this regard: explosions heard and puffs of smoke seen by witnesses, pulverization into powder of the non-metallic constituents of the Towers, sulfidation of steel samples found in the debris  (sulphur being a constituent of explosives), and exceptionally quick clearing of the site. “Virtually all of the steel—99.7 per cent of it, meaning about 90,000 tons—was removed and sold to scrap dealers who put most of it on ships to Asia, before it could be properly examined.”

The scientific, technical, physical and circumstantial proofs that the Towers were brought down by the controlled demolition process using explosives placed before hand at selected spots in the whole structure were so conclusive as to end the debate on the causes of their collapse. So, where did Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaida stand? They had no role in the 9/11 attacks. According to the pre-planned overall design they were to be used as the ‘public face of the terrible enemy of America and the West’ and as the pretext for launching the so-called ‘war against terrorism’—allowing the US to invade and occupy Muslim countries and to stifle the freedom and rights of the American people.

Osama and Al-Qaida were absent from the debate. These names even did not appear in the book by Dunbar and Reagan! The defenders could not bring them in the debate. They could not say Al-Qaida had prevented the military from intercepting the hijacked planes, or caused communications breakdown between FAA and NORAD, or jammed all the satellite-based and ground warning radars of the responsible military and civil organizations! For the challengers, Osama and Al-Qaida were irrelevant to any discussion of 9/11, because it was an inside job by the Bush Administration.

A sure lie detector for the cover story was the collapse of WTC Building 7. This 47-storey building, 355 feet away from the North Tower and still farther from the South Tower, was not struck by an airplane nor hit by any significant amount of falling debris, but it collapsed at 5:20 pm on the fateful day. What made it fall? The explanation that the raging fire started by the debris of the Towers had brought WTC 7 down could not stand up to examination. More debris had fallen on Buildings 4, 5 and 6 and the fires there had been bigger than that of WTC 7, but they did not collapse.

Seeing that a fake answer could not explain the puzzle, the crafters of the cover story tried to hide the WTC 7 collapse from the public as much as possible. It was pathetic that the 9/11 Commission made no mention of WTC 7 in its 571-page report! The Building’s almost perfectly symmetrical collapse, with the whole structure coming straight down at free-fall speed (about 6.6 seconds), clearly indicated that it was a planned implosion using explosives.

In Griffin’s words, “The collapse of WTC 7 is widely thought to provide the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.” In fact, it is equally true for practically every aspect of the weird attacks. Subject the facts and the available evidence to critical analysis, and you reach the same conclusion. Thierry Meyssan has done the exercise, and declares: “The attacks were thus not ordered by a fanatic who believed he was delivering divine punishment, but by a group present within the American State apparatus.”

The US government has withdrawn from the debate. It has exhausted its stock of spurious theories to support, in the words of an American TV commentator, “the lies and cover-up, called the official story of 9/11/01, which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public.” Its victims, much more than the Americans, are the Muslims of the whole world, especially of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. To expose the 9/11 Lie and the terror networks that promote this Lie should be of utmost and immediate concern for the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the rulers, the intelligentsia and the media of the Muslim countries.

The writer is an analyst of the game of global control.

- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments

    WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com