Without a doubt, there are some nutty theories that have found fertile ground in cyberspace, and even the mainstream press to a certain degree, regarding what happened on September 11, 2001. But this does not relieve us of our responsibility to call a spade a spade with regards to how our government handled a matter of such great significance. We are invited, even encouraged, to alleviate this responsibility by the so-called "official story," along with the sheer lunacy of some of the so-called "conspiracy theories." Conspiracy theories are not the answer. But neither is groupthink, realpolitik, and tuning a blind eye. Wouldn't it make more sense to ask yourself what you really believe and, perhaps more importantly, why you believe it?
The truth is that the investigation that produced the so-called "official story" was an absolute train wreck. We should have gotten an independent, cross disciplinary, international body for an investigation of this magnitude, and we didn't get it. What we got was George W. Bush, the self-proclaimed "decider," appointing the members of the 911 Commission. And at Bush's own insistance, he was allowed to testify exclusively in the presence of VP Dick Cheney, and neither one of them under oath. And this meeting was permitted to be dubbed a "private meeting." As the entire world looked on, here is how the great beacon of freedom would comport itself, as it was busy "making the world safe for democracy" overseas.
Tolerating the gross negligence and malfeasance of the 911 Commission only encourages speculation and conspiracy theories. The victims and their families deserve a decent explanation. The casualties of the so-called "theater of wars" with "no end in sight", for which the 911 attacks were the pretext, also deserve a decent explanation, as do their family members. And last, the American citizenry deserve a decent explanation. Scandals and government cover-ups have already occurred many times in the past. Many are well documented, which means many people are aware of them. It is therefore rather important that we get a serious investigation which instills confidence in the people, instead of a blatant sense of carelessness.
Where should a new, real investigation begin? It has to begin with reconciling our utter failure to prevent the attacks. Let's face it, it seems important that we be able to reconcile how the so-called "mastermind" of these attacks could outsmart the largest and most sophisticated military/intelligence apparatus in the world, at least for anyone not given to Disney style movie plots.
There was every reason to be prepared for these attacks. There was an ongoing discussion in the intelligence community about an "extraordinarily high terrorist attack threat level," a well known fact. There was testimony that very summer (2001) from Richard Clark about the "possibility of an attack against the United States homeland." There was the infamous "PDB" memo which Condoleeza Rice would later go on the record about. (1) And then there was the Able Danger, the data mining task force that identified the Atta terrorist cell one year prior to 911. When the task force tried to relay their intelligence to the Pentagon, they were stonewalled by pentagon lawyers, according to US Congressman Curt Weldon, Navy Captain Scott Phillpott, and Lt. Col. Anthony Schafer. (2) And to top it off, Able Danger didn't even come up in the 911 Commission Report. US Senator Mark Dayton (D-Minn) asserted that both NORAD and the FAA covered up "catastrophic failures." (3). This is all well documented in the mainstream media. The behemoth US military/intelligence apparatus succeded in stopping not even one of the "mastermind's" four planes.
Other well documented facts were the "no sign of a plane" reports, both at the Pentagon and the crash site of flight 93 in Pennsylvania. (4) Many people find this odd, understandably so. Furthermore, the Fire Chief of Safety reported there were "bombs in the buildings" of the twin towers, and the NYPD also reported finding "explosive devices." (5). Many other first responders and eye witnesses thought there were bombs in the buildings. Many eyewitnesses testified that there were explosions in the basement, mezzanine and lobby areas, including explosions that occurred before the first plane hit. One eyewitness reported part of the street below had caved in while he was still inside the building. Another eyewitness, William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor who testified before the 911 Commission regarding explosions in the buildings, was very surprised and disappointed that his testimony did not appear in the final report. These initial reports (6) which flooded the media for several days following the attacks (before they were dropped like hot potatoes) are of vital importance for obvious reasons. This is bound cause concern for much of citizenry, as well is should. It creates even greater concern when the "official" investigation chooses to ignore it.
Can "office fires" really bring down WTC 7, a steel frame skyscraper several hundred yards away from the towers where the planes crashed, at free fall speed, straight down into its own footprint? I don't know, I'm not a physicist or an engineer. And for all I know, the presence of red hot, molten metal at ground zero several weeks after the event (and fires continuing for several months after ...) may be perfectly normal. But given the fact that there are so many highly qualified scientists saying these things are very unusual, it seems odd that anyone would choose to ignore them. Why would this many high level professionals risk their credibility, thier jobs, everything?
The "official story," to this day, contends that none of the black boxes were found at ground zero. Again, a half way decent attempt at reconciliation would be good here, considering:
1 - how unusual it is for black boxes to be lost or destroyed;
2 - that a hijacker's passport was found at ground zero;
3 - that New York fire fighter and a NYFD volunteer ( Nicholas DeMasi and Mike Bellone) reported that 3 of the 4 black boxes were found while they were working with FEMA. (7)
Perhaps the 911 Commission should have addressed this, just to clear the air? Interview them, perhaps? Interogate them? Put them under oath? But no. Again, the 911 Commission did what they do best: They ignored it.
When things are this well documented in the media, even in the mainstream media in many cases, it becomes very important for a good investigation to take place. If the relevant government authorities do not arrange for a thorough investigation, then we learn something about them. The fact is, we ought to find it offensive that such a feeble attempt was made to explain the atrocities of September 11, 2001. We ought to find it offensive that George W. Bush, the self-proclaimed "decider" appointed the members of the 911 Commission and then insisted that he be allowed to testify in the presence of VP Dick Cheney, and neither one of them under oath. And we should find it offensive that their session was not officially transcribed, as it was dubbed a "private meeting." Are we not obligated to chime in when our government's actions are this far off the mark, as the entire world looked on, in what would go down as the deadliest terrorist attacks in recorded history?
Many citizens do find all this very offensive, probably just as many as do not. But the problem is that many also remain on the fence. Some are too busy to pick sides. Others don't like to make waves. But for whatever reason, they remain silent. So those speaking out appear the minority. No wonder that positive social change is so hard to come by. This is very reminiscent of the JFK assasignation, where again, the "official story" didn't jive at all with the evidence, which clearly showed a bullet to have knocked JFK's head backward. Is it any wonder that the House of Representatives came to the official conclusion that there was (at least) a second shooter? But no, that wouldn't matter. A more functional "officical story" was contrived and held high for all to see. The subtext was: there's something that is more important than the truth. Magical thinking beacame the mindset. Just believe. Keep the faith. The Warren Commission's "lone gunman" theory became dogma and many people slowly succumbed to it, sensing the hopelessness of questioning orthodoxy, growing weary of being socially stigmatized thanks to the media shills who faithfully lambast anyone who dares point out how bad it smells. Realpolitik became the order of the day then, as now. No doubt Hermann Goering was right:
"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
1 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj97s1x0_Ag
2 - http://youtu.be/KbMWnuQlLjU
3 - Put "Senator Dayton NORAD" into youtube ...
4 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=A621RsFkzQE
5 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmuIXnIehXk
6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em_xI4A351k
7 - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20041028&articleId=555 ............... http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=nicholas_demasi