(english)
Chi nasconde cosa sull'11 Settembre ? (2)
1. An abstract from:
"Why aren't they asking the Balkans questions at the 9-11 hearings?"
by T.V. Weber
2. Counterpunch: A Review of
"The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
about the Bush Administration and 9/11"
=== 1 ===
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/weber/012.shtml
Why aren't they asking the Balkans questions at the 9-11 hearings?
By T.V. Weber
Recently, retired Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie declared that "we
bombed the wrong side" in the 1999 Kosovo War. MacKenzie's disclosure
followed as a logical conclusion to another recent remark by the
current NATO Commander for Southern Europe, Admiral Gergory Johnson,
who accused the Albanian Muslims of committing "ethnic cleansing"
against the Serbs.
Columnist George Jonas, in his March 22, 2004 National Post (Canadian)
article, even managed to connect the dots from Osama bin Laden's
"financial and logistic" stronghold in Albania and Kosovo to the
U.S./NATO bombing and occupation on behalf of the KLA-a
narcoterrorist/Islamic-extremist organization sponsored by Osama bin
Laden's al-Qaeda.and, from there, to the heinous kamikaze raids against
the Twin Towers.
It has taken five years, but people are finally beginning to notice what
Alida and I have been writing about since March, 1999.
9-11 Hearing Committee
Unfortunately, none of the people who are ready to face facts about the
ongoing catastrophe in the Balkans are on the 9-11 hearing commission.
(...) Let's see what I would be asking Clinton if I were on 9-11 hearing
committee:
Q. Mr. Clinton, isn't true that you were given the opportunity to have
bin
Laden extradited to US custody, but you declined the offer?
After he does his usual song and dance about not being sure whether he
could hold bin Laden, I would ask:
Q. Isn't it true that your administration had already issued two
indictments
against bin Laden?
Q. Isn't it true that, until 1998, the Kosovo Liberation Army, or KLA,
was
on the U.S. State Department's list as a terrorist organization closely
affiliated with bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization?
Q. Isn't it true that you supported the KLA war effort in Kosovo, while
knowing full well that bin Laden was also supporting the KLA?
Q. Isn't it true that, during your entire adminstration, you made it a
point
to support only those persons and organizations who act as though there
is no difference between right and wrong?
Assuming that question survived the predictable objection of Mr.
Clinton's counsel, I would follow up by asking:
Q. Can you give us an example of anyone among your associates-other
than Monica Lewinski-who seemed to know right from wrong?
After drawing everyone's attention to the connection between his amoral
personal life and his equally amoral conduct of public affairs, I would
ask:
Q. So why did you take Osama bin Laden's side in Kosovo?
No doubt, at this point, Clinton would give his song and dance about
"ethnic cleansing." So, my next question would be:
Q. Exactly what do you mean by "ethnic cleansing," and how did you
know it was occurring?
This would leave the former president in a box. He could either back-
pedal by trying to define "ethnic cleansing" broadly enough to include
something benign, and thus implicate himself as starting a senseless
war.
Alternatively, he could try to explain that another Holocaust was
already
in progress, dramatizing it further with his tales of "mass graves."
Likely he would choose the latter, in which case I would ask:
Q. Where are these "mass graves"?
(...) Yet, no investigative committee is asking the right people any
serious
questions about why we supported radical Islam in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Certainly those who decided to commit the power and might of the U.S.
government and military-and its NATO allies-to act on behalf of radical
Islamic terrorism in the Balkans, are far more culpable than those in
the
new administration who may or may not have done all they could to
prevent the 9-11 kamikaze attacks.
=== 2 ===
May 25, 2004
September Song
A Review of "The New Pearl Harbor"
By MARC ESTRIN
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
about the Bush Administration and 9/11
David Ray Griffin
Olive Branch Press, 2004
Paper, 214 pp, $15.00
The official story goes something like this:
With no actionable warning from intelligence
agencies, four planes were hijacked by
terrorists on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Two crashed into the Word Trade Center, which
then collapsed, and shortly thereafter, the
third into the Pentagon. The last plane went
down in Pennsylvania after a struggle between
passengers and hijackers. Air defense arrived
too late to stop the catastrophes. Responding to
this attack on the homeland, the president
declared a global war on terror which may last
for generations until evil is finally
eradicated, the security of America firmly
established, and the world made safe for freedom
and democracy.
In The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin
compiles the evidence that every single
assertion in the official story is implausible
or impossible, and that something other must
explain the inconsistencies and contra-factual
assertions.
The implications of the accumulated evidence is
that the Bush administration was complicit in
the events of September 11th, and not merely a
victim of structural problems or incompetence onthe part of the
intelligence establishment. In a
nuanced discussion of "complicity", Griffin
distinguishes eight possible levels, from the
lying about events to maximize political ends,
through intentionally allowing expected attacks,
to actual involvement in the planning of them.
Griffin does not make specific accusations, nor
does he hypothesize a "true" version of what
happened. But he does demand unflinching
investigations of all the contradictions, clear
reporting of the results, and most difficult, a
courageous drawing of conclusions, no matter how
"unthinkable" or outrageous they may appear.
In the months since the book was published, we
have been swamped with news from the 9/11
Commission concerning both domestic and foreign
intelligence which indicated a large and
imminent attack on the United States. But the
Commission, its members appointed by President
Bush, is focussing on the future. According to
Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton, "We're not interested
in trying to assess blame..." Their goal is to
understand what happened so as to restructure
intelligence so that such "a breakdown" may not
happen again. Given this limited mandate, almost
none of the contradictions Griffin raises is
likely to be discussed, or its ramifications
analyzed before the case is closed.
The first part of The New Pearl Harbor looks in
detail at the timeline and events of 9/11
itself. How is it, Griffin asks, that even the
first airplane was not intercepted -- given
standard procedures, operating normally many
times a year, for off-course or otherwise
anomalous aircraft? The FAA, NORAD, and the NMCC
(National Military Command Center at the
Pentagon) have a clear and working set of
standard operating procedures which on September
11th, and on that day only, failed to operate.
Griffin lays them out, along with the strange,
and changing official excuses for their "failure".
The story becomes even more bizarre for the
second plane to hit the WTC. By that time, it
was known that three planes had been hijacked,
and were heading back eastward (the fourth plane
was 41 minutes late in taking off, so at this
point was not part of the story). Still there
was no normal scrambling of protective aircraft.
By the time of the Pentagon incident, the
details become grotesque. It was clear to
the entire nation, fixed to the TV, that America
was under a coordinated attack, and that a third
plane was headed towards Washington. Yet though
Cheney and Rice were evacuated to the White
House bunker, still, no protection aircraft
scrambled, and when it finally did, was sent
from a base far from DC, travelling at
half-maximum speed or less, arriving too late to
prevent the attack.
With official statements compared to a detailed
timeline of events, the most likely conclusion
is that on that day, the air defense system was
ordered to stand down from its normal protective
procedures -- even after it was clear to all
what was happening. Who could have ordered such
a stand down?
Much of the material Griffin cites has been long
circulated on the internet. What is less
commonly understood are the strange details of
the WTC collapse, implausibly explained as
"jet-fuel fire melting structural steel." The
pattern of destruction and fall is more
consistent with the air attacks plus controlled
demolitions. Griffin parses the material, with
many notes from firefighting and architectural
sources. Times, temperatures, visual and seismic
evidence simply do not support the melting of
steel as the sole cause of the observed
failures. Further, what but explosions can
account for reports of same from survivors, and
for powdered concrete and building parts being
ejected horizontally three times the width of
the buildings? Steel in both towers was broken
at the joints, and molten steel found at
sub-basement levels -- inconsistent with melting
from top floor fires whose debris crushed the
floors below. The WTC wreckage was spirited away
as quickly as possible and no forensics permitted.
Even more curious was the collapse of WTC
Building 7 -- 355 feet away from the north
tower, and further still from the south -- which
was never hit by a plane or any significant
amount of debris ,and sustained only small
fires. It went down at 5:20PM, collapsing from
the bottom (as in a typical controlled
demolition), with none of the "official"
explanations in play. The steel was removed
quickly from this site as well, although having
been evacuated, there were no survivors to be
searched for. Relegated to a footnote is the
fact that Marvin P. Bush, the president's
younger brother, was a director for a security
company involved in three of the four attacks.
Securacom covered the WTC, United Airlines, --
whose flights hit the WTC and crashed in
Pennsylvania -- and Dulles Airport -- from which
the Pentagon flight took off. What are we to
make of testimony from WTC personnel that five
days before 9/11, heightened security requiring
12-hour days and bomb-sniffing dogs was abruptly
called off? What committee will chase that down?
Griffin turns next to the strange story of the
flight that struck the Pentagon. The physical
evidence is simply inconsistent with the claim
that the building was struck by a Boeing 757
travelling at 300+ mph. The hole in the facade
is far too small to accommodate the wings and
tail -- which were supposed to have disappeared
within the hole. The penetration is far too
shallow for the mass and momentum involved. Yet
there is no scorching of the grass on the lawn
outside. There is not the slightest sign of a
burnt-out wreck in any photograph, nor were
there any fuselage fragments recovered within
the building. In the initial story, other then a
beacon and the two black boxes -- these
"discovered" at four the next morning -- every
part of the plane, including the stainless steel
engines, were melted, and vaporized.
Nevertheless, in one version of the original
tale, authorities were able to identify victims
from their fingerprints. But six months later
the story had changed and enough of the plane
had been recovered to make possible "an almost
complete reconstitution." The parts are
supposedly stocked in a warehouse.
According to experienced pilots, the complex
final maneuver of the huge aircraft could not
have been accomplished by an amateur. The choice
of a difficult low flying attack on a side wall,
rather than crashing more easily into the roof
-- for maximum damage -- was most curious. The
plane's being "lost" from all radar contact for
29 minutes, while flying toward Washington is
most improbable, given the network of radar and
other resources covering the area. These
contradictions, along with the failure to
scramble in the most protected area of the
world, make the official story of the Pentagon
attack profoundly suspicious. And though Cheney
and Rice were safely stowed in the White House
bunker, and a plane was known to be heading in
its direction, the Pentagon was never evacuated.
The last of the airplanes to go down was UA
Flight 93, scene of the now famous passenger
revolt: "Let's roll!" Here, the question is no
longer "Why were the planes not shot down?" but
rather "Why might it be the case that this one
was?" CBS reported two F16s tailing the flight.
Phone calls made from the plane during its last
minutes reported possible success in overcoming
the hijackers. One call reported, "I think
they're going to do it. They're forcing their
way into the cockpit...They're doing it! They're
doing it! They're doing it!" Next, screaming in
the background, followed by a "whooshing sound,
a sound like wind." Then contact lost. The
scenario is consistent with a plane being shot
down. A half-ton piece of engine was found over
a mile from the fuselage -- a likely target for
a heat-seeking missile. Burning debris and human
body parts were reported eight miles away, and
confetti-like debris rained down minutes
afterwards. One theory that would explain these
departures from the official story is that
Flight 93, unexpectedly late for departure, and
unexpectedly rescued by its passengers, was
destroyed by a competent military, in this case
ordered to complete a bungled task. The risk of
people left alive to be questioned may have been
too great.
Griffin goes on to examine material that has
been more generally covered -- at least in the
left press and on many websites: the President's
odd behavior on 9/11 given the timeline, and the
evolving stories from the White House Press
Office. He looks at the larger context of the
event: the probable knowledge of possible
attacks; the obstruction of investigations
before and afterwards; the "anti-hunt" for bin
Laden and al-Queda; the connections between Bush
and the Saudi royal family; the flying of bin
Ladens out of the country when no other aircraft
was allowed to fly. We are familiar with much of
this, though the details and citations are
helpful. By now we are familiar, too, with the
neo-con plans, pre-9/11, for projecting US power
across the middle east and throughout central
Asia. Asking the normal forensic question "Who
benefits?", we can see that the Project For A
New American Century" (2000) was well served by
the "new Pearl Harbor" it called for.
After all the suspicious incongruities
collected, we are left with two huge problems.
Griffin leads us through them in a chapter
entitled "Is Complicity by US Officials the Best
Explanation for 9/11?":
1.Beyond showing that official explanations are
implausible or impossible, how shall we
construct a meaningful, alternative narrative
which will contain and explain the known facts?
For example, if it was not a Boeing 757 which
crashed into the Pentagon, but a smaller
military missile, where did the 757 go, and what
happened to its passengers?
2. Most difficult of all, perhaps, is the
question of how the administration -- if indeed
it was complicit in 9/11 at some or several
levels -- could be so incompetent at scripting a
plausible story. Why not punish a few scapegoats
in the intelligence community, instead of
promoting those responsible for "lapses"? Why
the needless, obvious lies, and continuingly
changing statements? Why such massiveness to the
conspiracy, requiring silence from many
individuals in the White House, Justice
Department, FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon, as
well as in civilian security operations? Why
risk demolition of buildings beyond the flight
attacks? Why bring down WTC 7? Why order
interceptor planes to stand down, and deny SOP
readiness? Why have the president play unconcern
for half an hour? So as not to upset
second-graders? Why claim that human flesh could
withstand temperatures which would vaporize
stainless steel? There are better minds than
Bush's who have been concocting covert
operations for many years. Where were they? Or
was it just this confounding of critics that was
intended?
My one quibble with Griffin's most valuable
compendium of unanswered questions is that the
author nowhere examines and brings his judgement
to bear on the many stories concerning Israeli
and Mossad participation in the 9/11 events. But
the book is a work-in-progress, necessarily incomplete.
Griffin can't put the pieces together. In this,
he is honest, and calls on us to be the same.
All he can do is call for more authentic
investigations -- not the cover-ups currently
underway -- to confront these crucial issues.
And this, too, we must do.
Marc Estrin can be reached at:
mestrin1@earthlink .net
Weekend Edition Features for May 22 / 23, 2004
Chi nasconde cosa sull'11 Settembre ? (2)
1. An abstract from:
"Why aren't they asking the Balkans questions at the 9-11 hearings?"
by T.V. Weber
2. Counterpunch: A Review of
"The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
about the Bush Administration and 9/11"
=== 1 ===
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/weber/012.shtml
Why aren't they asking the Balkans questions at the 9-11 hearings?
By T.V. Weber
Recently, retired Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie declared that "we
bombed the wrong side" in the 1999 Kosovo War. MacKenzie's disclosure
followed as a logical conclusion to another recent remark by the
current NATO Commander for Southern Europe, Admiral Gergory Johnson,
who accused the Albanian Muslims of committing "ethnic cleansing"
against the Serbs.
Columnist George Jonas, in his March 22, 2004 National Post (Canadian)
article, even managed to connect the dots from Osama bin Laden's
"financial and logistic" stronghold in Albania and Kosovo to the
U.S./NATO bombing and occupation on behalf of the KLA-a
narcoterrorist/Islamic-extremist organization sponsored by Osama bin
Laden's al-Qaeda.and, from there, to the heinous kamikaze raids against
the Twin Towers.
It has taken five years, but people are finally beginning to notice what
Alida and I have been writing about since March, 1999.
9-11 Hearing Committee
Unfortunately, none of the people who are ready to face facts about the
ongoing catastrophe in the Balkans are on the 9-11 hearing commission.
(...) Let's see what I would be asking Clinton if I were on 9-11 hearing
committee:
Q. Mr. Clinton, isn't true that you were given the opportunity to have
bin
Laden extradited to US custody, but you declined the offer?
After he does his usual song and dance about not being sure whether he
could hold bin Laden, I would ask:
Q. Isn't it true that your administration had already issued two
indictments
against bin Laden?
Q. Isn't it true that, until 1998, the Kosovo Liberation Army, or KLA,
was
on the U.S. State Department's list as a terrorist organization closely
affiliated with bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization?
Q. Isn't it true that you supported the KLA war effort in Kosovo, while
knowing full well that bin Laden was also supporting the KLA?
Q. Isn't it true that, during your entire adminstration, you made it a
point
to support only those persons and organizations who act as though there
is no difference between right and wrong?
Assuming that question survived the predictable objection of Mr.
Clinton's counsel, I would follow up by asking:
Q. Can you give us an example of anyone among your associates-other
than Monica Lewinski-who seemed to know right from wrong?
After drawing everyone's attention to the connection between his amoral
personal life and his equally amoral conduct of public affairs, I would
ask:
Q. So why did you take Osama bin Laden's side in Kosovo?
No doubt, at this point, Clinton would give his song and dance about
"ethnic cleansing." So, my next question would be:
Q. Exactly what do you mean by "ethnic cleansing," and how did you
know it was occurring?
This would leave the former president in a box. He could either back-
pedal by trying to define "ethnic cleansing" broadly enough to include
something benign, and thus implicate himself as starting a senseless
war.
Alternatively, he could try to explain that another Holocaust was
already
in progress, dramatizing it further with his tales of "mass graves."
Likely he would choose the latter, in which case I would ask:
Q. Where are these "mass graves"?
(...) Yet, no investigative committee is asking the right people any
serious
questions about why we supported radical Islam in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Certainly those who decided to commit the power and might of the U.S.
government and military-and its NATO allies-to act on behalf of radical
Islamic terrorism in the Balkans, are far more culpable than those in
the
new administration who may or may not have done all they could to
prevent the 9-11 kamikaze attacks.
=== 2 ===
May 25, 2004
September Song
A Review of "The New Pearl Harbor"
By MARC ESTRIN
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
about the Bush Administration and 9/11
David Ray Griffin
Olive Branch Press, 2004
Paper, 214 pp, $15.00
The official story goes something like this:
With no actionable warning from intelligence
agencies, four planes were hijacked by
terrorists on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Two crashed into the Word Trade Center, which
then collapsed, and shortly thereafter, the
third into the Pentagon. The last plane went
down in Pennsylvania after a struggle between
passengers and hijackers. Air defense arrived
too late to stop the catastrophes. Responding to
this attack on the homeland, the president
declared a global war on terror which may last
for generations until evil is finally
eradicated, the security of America firmly
established, and the world made safe for freedom
and democracy.
In The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin
compiles the evidence that every single
assertion in the official story is implausible
or impossible, and that something other must
explain the inconsistencies and contra-factual
assertions.
The implications of the accumulated evidence is
that the Bush administration was complicit in
the events of September 11th, and not merely a
victim of structural problems or incompetence onthe part of the
intelligence establishment. In a
nuanced discussion of "complicity", Griffin
distinguishes eight possible levels, from the
lying about events to maximize political ends,
through intentionally allowing expected attacks,
to actual involvement in the planning of them.
Griffin does not make specific accusations, nor
does he hypothesize a "true" version of what
happened. But he does demand unflinching
investigations of all the contradictions, clear
reporting of the results, and most difficult, a
courageous drawing of conclusions, no matter how
"unthinkable" or outrageous they may appear.
In the months since the book was published, we
have been swamped with news from the 9/11
Commission concerning both domestic and foreign
intelligence which indicated a large and
imminent attack on the United States. But the
Commission, its members appointed by President
Bush, is focussing on the future. According to
Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton, "We're not interested
in trying to assess blame..." Their goal is to
understand what happened so as to restructure
intelligence so that such "a breakdown" may not
happen again. Given this limited mandate, almost
none of the contradictions Griffin raises is
likely to be discussed, or its ramifications
analyzed before the case is closed.
The first part of The New Pearl Harbor looks in
detail at the timeline and events of 9/11
itself. How is it, Griffin asks, that even the
first airplane was not intercepted -- given
standard procedures, operating normally many
times a year, for off-course or otherwise
anomalous aircraft? The FAA, NORAD, and the NMCC
(National Military Command Center at the
Pentagon) have a clear and working set of
standard operating procedures which on September
11th, and on that day only, failed to operate.
Griffin lays them out, along with the strange,
and changing official excuses for their "failure".
The story becomes even more bizarre for the
second plane to hit the WTC. By that time, it
was known that three planes had been hijacked,
and were heading back eastward (the fourth plane
was 41 minutes late in taking off, so at this
point was not part of the story). Still there
was no normal scrambling of protective aircraft.
By the time of the Pentagon incident, the
details become grotesque. It was clear to
the entire nation, fixed to the TV, that America
was under a coordinated attack, and that a third
plane was headed towards Washington. Yet though
Cheney and Rice were evacuated to the White
House bunker, still, no protection aircraft
scrambled, and when it finally did, was sent
from a base far from DC, travelling at
half-maximum speed or less, arriving too late to
prevent the attack.
With official statements compared to a detailed
timeline of events, the most likely conclusion
is that on that day, the air defense system was
ordered to stand down from its normal protective
procedures -- even after it was clear to all
what was happening. Who could have ordered such
a stand down?
Much of the material Griffin cites has been long
circulated on the internet. What is less
commonly understood are the strange details of
the WTC collapse, implausibly explained as
"jet-fuel fire melting structural steel." The
pattern of destruction and fall is more
consistent with the air attacks plus controlled
demolitions. Griffin parses the material, with
many notes from firefighting and architectural
sources. Times, temperatures, visual and seismic
evidence simply do not support the melting of
steel as the sole cause of the observed
failures. Further, what but explosions can
account for reports of same from survivors, and
for powdered concrete and building parts being
ejected horizontally three times the width of
the buildings? Steel in both towers was broken
at the joints, and molten steel found at
sub-basement levels -- inconsistent with melting
from top floor fires whose debris crushed the
floors below. The WTC wreckage was spirited away
as quickly as possible and no forensics permitted.
Even more curious was the collapse of WTC
Building 7 -- 355 feet away from the north
tower, and further still from the south -- which
was never hit by a plane or any significant
amount of debris ,and sustained only small
fires. It went down at 5:20PM, collapsing from
the bottom (as in a typical controlled
demolition), with none of the "official"
explanations in play. The steel was removed
quickly from this site as well, although having
been evacuated, there were no survivors to be
searched for. Relegated to a footnote is the
fact that Marvin P. Bush, the president's
younger brother, was a director for a security
company involved in three of the four attacks.
Securacom covered the WTC, United Airlines, --
whose flights hit the WTC and crashed in
Pennsylvania -- and Dulles Airport -- from which
the Pentagon flight took off. What are we to
make of testimony from WTC personnel that five
days before 9/11, heightened security requiring
12-hour days and bomb-sniffing dogs was abruptly
called off? What committee will chase that down?
Griffin turns next to the strange story of the
flight that struck the Pentagon. The physical
evidence is simply inconsistent with the claim
that the building was struck by a Boeing 757
travelling at 300+ mph. The hole in the facade
is far too small to accommodate the wings and
tail -- which were supposed to have disappeared
within the hole. The penetration is far too
shallow for the mass and momentum involved. Yet
there is no scorching of the grass on the lawn
outside. There is not the slightest sign of a
burnt-out wreck in any photograph, nor were
there any fuselage fragments recovered within
the building. In the initial story, other then a
beacon and the two black boxes -- these
"discovered" at four the next morning -- every
part of the plane, including the stainless steel
engines, were melted, and vaporized.
Nevertheless, in one version of the original
tale, authorities were able to identify victims
from their fingerprints. But six months later
the story had changed and enough of the plane
had been recovered to make possible "an almost
complete reconstitution." The parts are
supposedly stocked in a warehouse.
According to experienced pilots, the complex
final maneuver of the huge aircraft could not
have been accomplished by an amateur. The choice
of a difficult low flying attack on a side wall,
rather than crashing more easily into the roof
-- for maximum damage -- was most curious. The
plane's being "lost" from all radar contact for
29 minutes, while flying toward Washington is
most improbable, given the network of radar and
other resources covering the area. These
contradictions, along with the failure to
scramble in the most protected area of the
world, make the official story of the Pentagon
attack profoundly suspicious. And though Cheney
and Rice were safely stowed in the White House
bunker, and a plane was known to be heading in
its direction, the Pentagon was never evacuated.
The last of the airplanes to go down was UA
Flight 93, scene of the now famous passenger
revolt: "Let's roll!" Here, the question is no
longer "Why were the planes not shot down?" but
rather "Why might it be the case that this one
was?" CBS reported two F16s tailing the flight.
Phone calls made from the plane during its last
minutes reported possible success in overcoming
the hijackers. One call reported, "I think
they're going to do it. They're forcing their
way into the cockpit...They're doing it! They're
doing it! They're doing it!" Next, screaming in
the background, followed by a "whooshing sound,
a sound like wind." Then contact lost. The
scenario is consistent with a plane being shot
down. A half-ton piece of engine was found over
a mile from the fuselage -- a likely target for
a heat-seeking missile. Burning debris and human
body parts were reported eight miles away, and
confetti-like debris rained down minutes
afterwards. One theory that would explain these
departures from the official story is that
Flight 93, unexpectedly late for departure, and
unexpectedly rescued by its passengers, was
destroyed by a competent military, in this case
ordered to complete a bungled task. The risk of
people left alive to be questioned may have been
too great.
Griffin goes on to examine material that has
been more generally covered -- at least in the
left press and on many websites: the President's
odd behavior on 9/11 given the timeline, and the
evolving stories from the White House Press
Office. He looks at the larger context of the
event: the probable knowledge of possible
attacks; the obstruction of investigations
before and afterwards; the "anti-hunt" for bin
Laden and al-Queda; the connections between Bush
and the Saudi royal family; the flying of bin
Ladens out of the country when no other aircraft
was allowed to fly. We are familiar with much of
this, though the details and citations are
helpful. By now we are familiar, too, with the
neo-con plans, pre-9/11, for projecting US power
across the middle east and throughout central
Asia. Asking the normal forensic question "Who
benefits?", we can see that the Project For A
New American Century" (2000) was well served by
the "new Pearl Harbor" it called for.
After all the suspicious incongruities
collected, we are left with two huge problems.
Griffin leads us through them in a chapter
entitled "Is Complicity by US Officials the Best
Explanation for 9/11?":
1.Beyond showing that official explanations are
implausible or impossible, how shall we
construct a meaningful, alternative narrative
which will contain and explain the known facts?
For example, if it was not a Boeing 757 which
crashed into the Pentagon, but a smaller
military missile, where did the 757 go, and what
happened to its passengers?
2. Most difficult of all, perhaps, is the
question of how the administration -- if indeed
it was complicit in 9/11 at some or several
levels -- could be so incompetent at scripting a
plausible story. Why not punish a few scapegoats
in the intelligence community, instead of
promoting those responsible for "lapses"? Why
the needless, obvious lies, and continuingly
changing statements? Why such massiveness to the
conspiracy, requiring silence from many
individuals in the White House, Justice
Department, FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon, as
well as in civilian security operations? Why
risk demolition of buildings beyond the flight
attacks? Why bring down WTC 7? Why order
interceptor planes to stand down, and deny SOP
readiness? Why have the president play unconcern
for half an hour? So as not to upset
second-graders? Why claim that human flesh could
withstand temperatures which would vaporize
stainless steel? There are better minds than
Bush's who have been concocting covert
operations for many years. Where were they? Or
was it just this confounding of critics that was
intended?
My one quibble with Griffin's most valuable
compendium of unanswered questions is that the
author nowhere examines and brings his judgement
to bear on the many stories concerning Israeli
and Mossad participation in the 9/11 events. But
the book is a work-in-progress, necessarily incomplete.
Griffin can't put the pieces together. In this,
he is honest, and calls on us to be the same.
All he can do is call for more authentic
investigations -- not the cover-ups currently
underway -- to confront these crucial issues.
And this, too, we must do.
Marc Estrin can be reached at:
mestrin1@earthlink .net
Weekend Edition Features for May 22 / 23, 2004