www.globalresearch.ca Centre for Research on Globalisation Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KAM407A.html
I remember the day when the Berlin Wall fell and everybody immediately started talking about a Peace Dividend, money that would be diverted from making weapons and invested in social improvements. And I remember that bright and hopeful turn of the millennium into the two thousands, when eager optimists predicted that a new kind of humane society would sweep the earth to make wars obsolete and living sweet. Neither, of course, has come to pass. Or will anytime soon.
Instead, the new millennium has brought with it a return to unapologetic barbarism, in which the human aspirations of compassion and understanding have been crushed in the maw of raw power. Instead of leaping ahead into a new 21st century of enlightenment, the human species has apparently decided to lurch backwards into the 19th century, where the only things that really matter are the size of your guns and your bank account.
Where the outstretched hand of those in need is greeted with a bullet to the face, accompanied by some smug justification about survival of the Chosen few. No, this is not what I call evolution.
The events of September 11, 2001 changed the tone of civilized society, perhaps forever. As people around the globe poured out admiring sympathy for the victims of the atrocity in New York, the leaders of the U.S. embarked on a fateful course: to start shooting at the rest of the world until everybody everywhere fell into line in submissive gestures of terrified subservience.
Small matter now that a small number of people immediately smelled a rat, reasoning that rifle-carrying religious zealots in faraway Asian caves could have mastered the complex necessities of paralyzing military defenses and skirting well-established airport strictures to pull off such a bold caper all by themselves. Even as the anomalies of that day multiplied into full-blown suspicions, the American public relations goliath silenced all skepticism, and preserved the scripted accounts as patriotic gospel to justify the new plan to start killing innocents in the name of revenge. It was the American modus operandi of cowboys killing Indians at its bloody best.
Intelligent people immediately marvelled at the clumsiness of the official lies, and wondered how it came to be that the American people, whom the media apparatus continually reminded us were the most intelligent in the world, could be duped by such a flawed fable.
Some of those people immediately protested that the government's account of 9/11 was surely a fake. Four hijacked planes flying free for an hour? Why did we spend all that money on the defense budget? How could this have happened? But these questions were immediately shouted down by flag- waving mourners. Show some respect for the dead, they snarled, muttering murmurs of treason and applauding those who suspended their Constitutional rights in a frenzied hunt for more so-called terrorists.
These bereaved and outraged flag-wavers didn't really give it a second thought when the rubble of the World Trade Center - the best evidence we had to ferret out the real truth about the attacks, and perhaps identify the method and maybe even the perpetrators of the attacks - was summarily carted off and made to disappear. Most people didn't notice when our indignant leaders claimed they had no idea such a preposterously bold attack could ever happen - even when those same leaders provided the names of the alleged culprits less than two days after the atrocity happened.
Few pondered the inconsistency. Top government officials said they didn't know it could happen. But they knew the names of those who did it.
Those who did notice this flaw began digging deeper. But the vast majority applauded when we started bombing other countries in a quest to annihilate the purported perps. Those digging deeper also noticed that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had been planned long before 9/11 happened, and tried to tell people, but were mostly shouted down amid cries of "treason!" That didn't stop those digging deeper from digging even deeper, because they were on the trail of real treason. And they certainly noticed when Pakistan offered to turn over Osama bin Laden for trial in a neutral country that America declined the offer.
Yet even as it became clear that the reasons for American mass murder from high in the sky were shameless lies, the American people clung to their grief, their outrage, and their bloodthirsty craving for retribution, so they really didn't give it a second thought that they were sending their sons and daughters to die in a senseless effort to get satisfaction by killing thousands of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime that had enraged them in the first place.
And damned few made the logical connection that if our leaders lied about the reasons for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, it was highly unlikely that they were telling the truth about 9/11.
But the war machine marched on to the media's hydrophobic applause, people kept waving their flags, and innocents are still dying, every day, because of it.
The early resistance to the 9/11 coverup was led in America by Mike Ruppert, who quickly pointed out that timely bets that certain airlines stock would plummet revealed a foreknowledge of the tragedy that could reveal who the true perpetators of this colossal crime actually were. And the work of Jared Israel revealed the bungling of America's defenses in such meticulous detail that many people began to realize the attacks could have prevented by even a modicum of military competence on that fateful day.
Still, most flag-waving Americans refused to notice that the people in charge during the nation's greatest failure of its military defenses were promoted instead of being censured or fired, never mind being put on trial.
As time passed and sorrow began to heal into sadness, other researchers came forth with penetrating questions casting doubt on the government's version of events. German researcher Eric Hufschmid focused on why the government prevented a forensic examination of WTC rubble - an unbelievable and inexcusable dereliction of public responsibility, especially considering that in the case of aircraft disasters the government puts even the tiniest detail under the microscope to find out what actually happened.
Then former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow and British politician Michael Meacher made startling public declarations that they believed the American government had to be involved in order for such a complex operation to have been carried out.
The French researcher Thierry Meyssan first pointed out that the hole in the Pentagon could have in no way been caused by a giant jet airliner, and this argument was taken to much deeper levels by dogged researchers such as Dick Eastman to prove to anyone with a brain than no giant passenger jet had caused that explosion in Washington.
Consider this: the government says that an extremely intense fire that burned only eight minutes completely vaporized an entire passenger airliner, yet did not burn hot enough to prevent Pentagon officials from proclaiming that they had identified the DNA of every single passenger on the plane. Pardon me, but do you want to buy a bridge?
Furthermore, the FBI confiscated security camera video from a nearby gas station that could easily clear up the mystery, but they have refused to release it - along with voice recordings from the doomed airliners - in the name of national security. What does your sniffer tell you? Do you remember the TV detective story maxim: those who work to cover up the crime are the ones who most likely committed it?
Upon hearing the endless stories of distraught cellphone calls from passengers to relatives, retired Canadian professor A.K. Dewdney rented a plane and did some experimenting about making cellphone calls from the air. He concluded that many of the calls purported by the government to have been made could not be replicated under similar conditions.
Websites created by Jim Hoffman, Jeff King, and Rosalee Grable focused on the photographs of the 9/11 tragedy in New York and concluded that from the distance the rubble was propelled directly outwards that explosions had to have taken place. Evidence that the planes weakened the skyscrapers and caused their collapse was quickly debunked by Bill Manning and Jerry Russell.
Archives of all manner of critical analyses of the official story were quickly set up by Ken Vardon of the American Patriot Friends Network and Peter Meyer of the Serendipity website, with many brilliant commentaries about how the government had to have lied, and these were followed by hundreds of other sites which emulated their efforts.
Numerous timelines, the earliest being those by Paul Thompson and Mark Elsis, revealed every tiny detail of what had happened, and those with the tenacity to examine them discovered more flaws in the government's stories.
Carol Valentine, known for her intense research into the debacle at Waco, unleashed an anonymous interview that asserted the killer planes were remote controlled. But another major researcher, experienced pilot Ralph Omholt, weighed in with the opinion that some of the maneuvers before the crashes could not have been accomplished without an expert pilot. And researcher Jon Carlson has always insisted the planes were controlled by a helicopter that hovered nearby.
A little later on, researchers Gerard Holmgren and Woody Box noticed the records of flight numbers on the ill-fated aircraft revealed more inconsistencies in the official story, to the point where Holmgren could later declare that two of the supposedly doomed flights never even got off the ground that day.
Two and a half years later, researchers scheduled a two-part conference that was supposed to delve into the delicate details of 9/11, but it was hijacked into other issues and suffered from low attendance and a lack of publicity. Perhaps the high point that came out of the Toronto end of it was Michel Chossudovsky's essay that the dreaded al-Qaeda were no more than an evil fantasy creation of U.S. intelligence services, and for my money, that remains the central issue in the debate about the future of America.
Everyone knows by now that President Bush reluctantly appointed an investigative commission that was not charged with identifying the perpetrators - those were named at the outset without a shred of public evidence - and the panel accomplished nothing except a few hollow headlines. Despite incisive reports by Nico Haupt and Michael Kane and the constant complaining of the 9/11 victims' families, the big questions were never answered and disinformation specialists like Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clark spun their tales of self-justification. At the end, a kind of ignorant incompetence had replaced intent as the reason for the tragedy, and the bad guys got away.
Of the many relevant issues that the Kean Commission simply ignored, perhaps the most glaring was what our military defenses were actually doing on 9/11. Barbara Honegger's timely story about the counterterrorist wargame exercises planned for that very day raises all sorts of question about how they impeded the response of our nation's air defenses, yet the commission never once admitted that the subject even existed.
Neither did it address numerous reports - particularly one from a worker in the building, Scott Forbes - that WTC security was profoundly compromised the weekend before the tragedy.
So, as time passed and the alternative theorists delved into their material more deeply, distortions developed, followed by charges of disinformation, increasing suspicions, and eventually the scrambling of the entire 9/11 truth movement.
From intense analyses of slow-motion video of the event, Grable, a.k.a. The Webfairy, developed a theory that the use of holograms was involved in the 9/11 deception. This assertion ignited a firestorm of complaints from other researchers who protested that Grable's assertions were fantasies of an overactive imagination, at best. Yet researchers such as Holmgren, Scott Loughrey and Michael Elliott refuse to totally discount her findings because her analyses, interpretations aside, had been accomplished in a credible way.
Radio rapper Alex Jones produced one of the earliest videos questioning the official story about 9/11, but made two signal contributions later with his startling interview of the German politician von Buelow, who insists the American government was surely involved in the crime, and his chat with the maverick retired arms dealer, Col Donn de Grand Pre, who said that there were no hijackers on the planes (an opinion shared by many 9/11 researchers), that the bodies of the passengers are somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, and that he personally knows the names of the Air National Guard pilots who shot down Flight 93.
Matching de Grand Pre for astonishing assertions in recent days has been the website of Phil Jayhan, which has come out with three stunning observations based on photographic analyses of the original footage: that the plane that hit the South Tower had a pod on its bottom (if that were true, and it appears to be true from the photographs, then the government's story is gone for good) and that the plane fired a missile just before it hit the building; that that particular plane had no windows (ditto last parenthetical comment); and then he proceeded to name the pilot de Grand Pre had referred to, the one who shot down Flight 93 (ditto again).
Now. Let us divert ever so briefly into the meaning of that oft-used but frequently misunderstood word - "disinformation." It differs ever so slightly from the word "lie" in that it is a lie generally grouped with a series of facts that may be true, thereby ruining the credibility of the truths within the grouped series of facts.
It is used frequently on the web when one person disagrees with another person's assertions. I've often had the intuition that the people who most frequently use the term - are you listening, Dick Eastman? - are very likely the ones who are spinning it to begin with. On the other hand, Eastman has been right a good deal of the time, particularly in regard to John Judge and Kyle Hence, two questionable figures who have shadowed the bogus Kean Commission hearings and pretended to be influencing the proceedings.
The classic example of disinformation specialist these days is probably Michael Moore, whose celebrated film has created a stir in plastic society. He has convinced the world that the Saudis' relationship with the Bush family is the great secret behind 9/11, even though more developed minds clearly see that since the Saudis didn't really benefit from 9/11 (though they may have had some supporting role in it), it had to have been Israel that was the silent partner in the greatest crime in American history, through Silverstein (and Marvin Bush) rigging the towers with explosives, providing the faux hijackers (Atta's most fluent language was Hebrew, according to his girlfriend, as reported by Daniel Hopsicker), and even providing the two single suicide pilots (according to Dewdney's Operation Pearl theory).
Regarding Israel there is the little matter that only three Israelis died that day in the biggest Jewish city in the world - and two were on the planes. Not to mention Jewish ownership of virtually every major news outlet in the United States. And not to mention the Jewish men who have crafted American foreign policy under the last four (at least) American presidents.
But there is disinformation out there, theories and reports that touch on legitimate evidence but include deliberately preposterous assertions so that the whole group of evidence is disregarded and ridiculed. Some say the new 9/11 video by Riley and von Kleist, which features the work of Jayhan, falls into this category, though I'll reserve final judgment until I see it.
I am always reluctant to make the charge of disinformation, first, because, I don't want to hurt anyone who is really trying to tell the truth, and second, because most of the time, I am simply not intelligent enough to make a certain judgment on the issue at hand, so it's more prudent to keep my doubts to myself.
This frame of thought has come up repeatedly with the Webfairy's hologram assertions, but having talked with her, and knowing researchers I respect also respect her, I can't call her efforts disinformation just because I don't agree with what she's saying, because I know I don't have the technical expertise to understand all the details.
Perhaps the oddest of all the internecine 9/11 arguments involves two websites both called "9/11 review." Michael Elliott's 911review.org arrived on the scene a little late and began to bill itself as a coordinating site to other links as well as possessing a certain degree of engineering expertise. Elliott remains quick to criticize other sites such as Dewdney's physics911.org and Russell's 9-11strike.com for "bad science."
But computer whiz Jim Hoffman, who had already distinguished himself with his extraordinarily clear Power Point-type presentations on wtc7.net and in other places, quickly created 911review.com to blast Elliott for his superficiality, dead links, promotion of suspect theories, and unwillingness to ask the hard questions. Elliott's response has been to label Hoffman a government agent. The two remain archenemies to this day, though both have substantial followings, as well as intriguing websites.
In the minds of some, Jayhan's recent revelations fall into the same suspicious category. I'd love for his observations to be accurate and his assertions true, but I simply sense that I don't have the expertise to make the call, so I don't. I can't. I leave it up to you in the links below. Sorry if you think that's copping out. That's just the way it is.
What I do know for certain is that the hologram issue and other recent spectacular aspects of 9/11 information have actually hurt the effort to convince the public that 9/11 was an inside job, which in my mind it most certainly was.
But the evidence for this charge is not simple, like for instance the government's disinformation campaign to defame Muslims.
"Arab hijackers did it, we have the evidence but we can't give it to you because of national security, so let's bomb the hell out of them."
Simple. The dumbed-down public could get it, and fixate their hatred on the intended target, which of course is Islam.
None of these splitting hairs like you can't make cellphone calls from above a certain altitude, or the Twin Towers were demolished because the pattern of ejecta indicates explosions, or the hole in the Pentagon isn't big enough, or they deliberately took away the evidence so we couldn't see what really happened.
No. Arabs did it. Let's kill 'em.
That sounds very much like what the Israelis say about the Palestinians, doesn't it?
So the truth has lost again. And the lies have prevailed. There are thousands of people in this country, most in very powerful positions, who know exactly what happened on 9/11. Because they profited from it. But we can't find out who they are, because protecting the rich, no matter what they do, has always had a much higher priority in the country - and for that matter the world - than mere justice for the common folk. The FBI says there was nothing suspicious about the "put" options. And for want of a whistleblower, that's the end of it.
The real murderers of 3,000 people in New York have gotten away with it.
The most damning evidence is the behavior of the Bush administration and its motley cast of sociopathic characters (including John Kerry) that produced that totally staged, utterly facile, pseudoinvestigation which never attempted to identify the perpetrators. The hijacker fantasy held up. The people of the Muslim world were made legitimate targets, which was exactly the purpose of the 9/11 caper to begin with.
Now, at the exact moment in time that the American public and the people of the world are most willing to entertain the notion that something is wrong with the government's story, the 9/11 truth movement has faltered, badly. Unable to come with the goods.
Totally stonewalled by the robotic phalanx of plastic presidential candidates too terrified to utter a single peep about the 9/11 coverup, Zionist control of America, the lies that created our so-called preemptive wars, or the continuing shakedown of the world by the Federal Reserve.
Totally blacked out by puppet media who claim our dead children are fighting for freedom but won't photograph their coffins or their illnesses.
So forget about it. Go home, watch TV, pick your nose. Hey, vote in the next election, if you delude yourself into believing that will make a difference. Wait docilely for the next hammer to fall.
I am reminded of that Russian proverb, "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
You are now the nail.
The truth of 9/11 lies buried beneath an avalanche of lies, just like the souls of those unsuspecting passengers on routine domestic airline flights and those ordinary folks who trudged off to work that day to the Twin Towers lie buried forever in that smoldering heap of uninvestigated rubble. And just like the futures of you and me lie buried an endless heap of fake terror alerts, anthrax scares, police state laws, and self- righteous fabrications of dark-skinned terrorists lurking demonically on every streetcorner in America.
John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a collection of his Internet essays published on hundreds of websites around the world. More recently he has published "The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001," a 48-page booklet written for those who still believe the government's version of events. For more information about both, check out http://www.johnkaminski.com/
John Kaminski [email protected]
Relevant links (in order of appearance):
Relevant links (in order of appearance):
* Mike Ruppert: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
* Jared Israel: http://www.tenc.net/
* Eric Hufschmid: http://www.erichufschmid.net/
* Andreas von Buelow: http://www.prisonplanet.com/jones_report.html
* Michael Meacher: http://truthout.org/docs_03/090703A.shtml
* Thierry Meyssan: http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/05/23/29196.html
* Dick Eastman: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
* A.K. Dewdney: http://physics911.org/
* Jim Hoffman: http://911research.wtc7.net/
* Jeff King: http://911review.org/Wiki/King,Jeff.shtml
* Rosalee Grable: http://thewebfairy.com/911/
* Bill Manning: http://www.rense.com/general18/firefighter.htm
* Jerry Russell: http://www.911-strike.com/
* Ken Vardon: http://www.apfn.org/
* Peter Meyer: http://www.serendipity.li/
* Paul Thompson: http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/
* Mark Elsis: http://www.911timeline.net/
* Carol Valentine: http://www.public-action.com/
* Ralph Omholt: http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm
* Jon Carlson: http://www.rense.com/general54/flight93crashwitnesses.htm
* Gerard Holmgren's "The Truth About Sept. 11": http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren/holmgren2.htm
* Woody Box: http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php? storyid=323
* Michel Chossudovsky: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
* Nico Haupt: http://ny911truth.org/articles/stop_coverup.htm
* Michael Kane: http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php? storyid=387
* Barbara Honegger: http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/ channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=641
* Scott Forbes: http://22.214.171.124/thornarticles/powerdown.html
* Scott Loughrey: http://www.rense.com/general50/amy.htm
* Alex Jones: http://www.prisonplanet.com/
* Col. Donn de Grand Pre: http://www.warfolly.vzz.net/nohijackers.htm
* Phil Jayhan: http://www.letsroll911.org/ * John Judge: http://www.septembereleventh.org/forum/showthreaded.php? Cat=&Number=742&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1
* Kyle Hence: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/fake_opposition.htm
* Michael Moore: http://www.counterpunch.org/lodge09172003.html
* Daniel Hopsicker: http://www.madcowprod.com/
* A.K. Dewdney: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm
* Riley/von Kleist: http://www.thepowermall.com/
* Michael Elliott: http://911review.org/ * Jim Hoffman: http://911review.com/
Email this article to a friend
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca . For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] .
For media inquiries: [email protected]
© Copyright belongs to the author, 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.