by Home home
this was relatively short-lived.[7]
The number of U.S. citizens who viewed the terrorists as
extremists, neither representative of their nationality nor
religion, has remained relatively constant. So has anti-
Islamic sentiment. This spiked significantly following the
attack but quickly returned to pre 9/11 levels within the
next 18 months.
Less than one month after 9/11, on the 7th October 2001,
the U.S. led coalition (initially incorporating forces from
Canada and the UK) invaded Afghanistan. This was
precipitated, according to the U.S. government, by the
Taliban's refusal to extradite the leader of al Qaeda, Osama
bin Laden (OBL). For their part the Taliban requested
evidence of OBL's involvement in the attacks prior to
extradition. The U.S. Bush administration viewed this as
little more than a stalling tactic and didn't provide any.
And so began the longest War in U.S. military history. As of
2019 more than 8000 troops are still engaged in
Afghanistan. President Trump initially signalled these
numbers would increase.[8] Latterly he's changed his mind
and claimed they would be withdrawn. This decision drew
huge criticisms from the Democrats, and Trump's opponents
elsewhere.[181]
Apparently, they hate him so much, they would rather
perpetuate a war than ever agree with him. However, (at the
time of writing) as with many of Trumps alleged decisions, it
96
A Dangerous Ideology
seems his words have had little or no effect. Backtracking
almost immediately, Trump tweeted (of course) there would
be a “slow & highly coordinated pull out of U.S. troops from
the area,” later adding “I never said we’re doing it that
quickly.”
John Bolton, who terrifyingly is Trump's National Security
Advisor, clarified what Trump is allowed to do when he
stated “the timetable flows from the policy decisions that we
need to implement.” Meaning it hasn't been implemented yet
and the troops aren't going anywhere.
Time will tell, but if Bolton has anything to do with it, it
seems likely that the never ending war will be precisely that.
Bolton has strongly advocated for war against Syria, Iraq,
North Korea, Iran and Russia to name but a few. In regard to
North Korea Bolton favours nuclear Armageddon:
“The threat is imminent, and the case against
pre-emption rests on the misinterpretation of a
standard that derives from pre-nuclear, pre-
ballistic-missile times. . . . . . Given the gaps in
US intelligence about North Korea, we should
not wait until the very last minute. That would
risk striking after the North has deliverable
nuclear weapons, a much more dangerous
situation. It is perfectly legitimate for the
United States to respond to the current
‘necessity’ posed by North Korea’s nuclear
weapons by striking first.”
Something China and Russia wouldn't be too keen on.
Almost certainly insane, that Bolton is in charge of his own
car is bad enough. His current influential position should
send shivers down the spine of anyone who knows anything
about him.[182]
Even former U.S. President George W. Bush thought Bolton
extreme. In his address to the nation on the 20th September,
9 days after the 9/11 attack, Bush launched the 'war on
terror' saying:
“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but
it does not end there. It will not end until
97
A Dangerous Ideology
every terrorist group of global reach has
been found, stopped, and defeated.”
Bush clearly defined a global dichotomy that has shaped the
foreign policy, not only of the United States, but of most
nations in the aftermath of 9/11.
“Every nation, in every region, now has a
decision to make. Either you are with us, or
you are with the terrorists.”
Adding to this, Bush soon suggested that any nation the
U.S. considered to be failing in their implied duty to fight
terrorism would also be considered a legitimate military
target. Speaking at joint news conference with the French
President in November 2001 he said:
'Over time it's going to be important for
nations to know they will be held
accountable for inactivity, you’re either with
us or against us in the fight against terror.'
It is not only conspiracy theorists who have been critical of
these statements. The threat that any nation on Earth can
be attacked if the U.S. administration 'believes' they are not
doing enough to combat international terrorism, has been
widely perceived as dangerous rhetoric.
However, leaders often issue such harsh proclamations in
the wake of shocking domestic events. These words, though
seen as unnecessarily threatening by many, are also
understandable given the administrations need to be seen as
tough (or at least doing something) in the eyes of the
American electorate.
If we are concerned with civilian deaths then we cannot
overlook the casualties of the 'war on terror' either.
Determining a precise figure for war deaths has always
presented difficulty, not least of all for the tendency of
combatants to down play civilian casualties, for which they
may be responsible, while exaggerating those caused by their
enemies.
Statistical approaches aren't consistent either. For example,
should figures refer only to those killed by munitions or
98
A Dangerous Ideology
should they also account for those who have died as a result
of other consequences of war, such as disease, famine and
lack of medical resources?
The Iraq Body Count (IBC)[10], in 2015, estimated civilian
deaths, as a direct consequence of conflict, in Iraq to be
around 290,000. They based their figures on the collation of
media reports into fatalities. Critics stated that these
estimates were not reliable.
Writing in the 'Middle East Eye' respected investigative
journalists Nafeez Ahmed highlighted the statistical
anomalies found in the IBC methodology:
“ For instance, although 40,000 corpses had
been buried in Najaf since the launch of the
war, IBC [Iraq Body Count] recorded only
1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period.
That example shows how wide the gap is
between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual
death toll – in this case, by a factor of over
30.
Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s
database. In another instance, IBC recorded
just three air strikes in a period in 2005,
when the number of air attacks had in fact
increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again,
the gap here is by a factor of 40.”
Responding to concerns regarding the lack of reliable data,
the 'Physicians For Social Responsibility' (PSR) attempted a
more scientific approach stating: [11]
“An extensive review has been made of the
major studies and data published on the
numbers of victims in these countries. This
paper draws on additional information such
as reports and statistics on military
offensives and examines their completeness
and plausibility.”
Releasing their findings in 2017, the PSR's minimum
suggested figure was 1.3 million with an upper estimate of
99
A Dangerous Ideology
approximately 2 million people killed.
It is the use of 9/11 to justify the launch of numerous
military conflicts, which lies at the heart of conspiracists
criticisms. In addition to the senseless murder of thousands
of U.S based citizens the subsequent death toll is equally
unjustified.
Most of us consider a military response to horrendous events
like 9/11 to be warranted. We expect our governments to
discharge their primary duty to keep us safe. If there are
countries who harbour and protect terrorists intent on
killing us, isn't it essential that we take steps to stop them?
Seen in this light, the military response to the 9/11 seems
entirely appropriate.
This does not mean, despite some 'truthers' accusations,
that those who accept this are incapable of critical thought.
Nor does it infer they blindly accept any military action
'carried out in our names.' People on both sides of the 9/11
debate have been equally scathing about some aspects of the
subsequent war on terror.
A primary objection to the conspiracy theorists allegation,
that 9/11 was a contrived event, is that it would be
impossible to keep such a massive plot, presumably
involving thousands, secret. Surely, at some point, some
would speak out?
In fact, many have. Bill Jennings was the Deputy Director of
Emergency Services for the New York City Housing
Department based in World Trade Centre 7. On 9/11 he
stated that he had experienced explosions and seen bodies.
This completely contradicted the official account.
Colleen Rowley was a former FBI agent who raised concerns
about the FBI's apparent unwillingness to act on
intelligence; J. Michael. Springmann was head of the U.S
visa section in Jeddah who reported suspected collusion
between the U.S intelligence agencies and Islamist
extremists prior to 9/11; Bill Bergmann, an economist
working at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, highlighted
possible foreknowledge of the attack seen in financial market
data; several members of the 9/11 Commission claimed a
100
A Dangerous Ideology
cover up, as did Senators and intelligence officers.[182]
Hundreds of witnesses, including first responders, building
employees, police officers and members of the public, stated
they saw, heard or experienced explosions in the Twin
Towers. Hundreds more, that the aircraft didn't look like
commercial flights. Many law enforcement officers and crash
scene investigators contradicted the official account. As have
air traffic controllers, state officials and many others.
Indeed, so numerous are the people who have spoken out,
the idea that the 9/11 cover up is a secret at all seems
utterly ludicrous to many. The problem most people have in
understanding this reality is that the witness testimonies,
official accounts, reports and public statements have been
almost completely ignored by the mainstream media.
Sadly, if you rely upon MSM journalists for your window on
the world the chances of you ever knowing any of this are
pretty slim. When acknowledgement has been unavoidable,
for example during the 9/11 Commission hearings, the
testimonies are simply determined to be 'incorrect'; when
whistleblowers step forward they are either sacked, arrested,
ridiculed or die in unusual circumstances. However most
witnesses, who challenge the official narrative, are simply
labelled 'conspiracy theorists' who can therefore be
discounted because they 'must' be mad.
It should also be noted that there are numerous examples of
huge plots which were successfully kept entirely secret. One
example being the 1939 Manhattan Project that produced
the first nuclear weapon. An estimated 130,000 people were
involved yet, when President Truman took office in 1945,
even he didn't know about it.
Truman had accidentally asked a searching question about
suspicious activity in a Minneapolis factory during a 1943
senatorial investigations into war-production. Neither he, nor
his fellow panel members, had any idea it was secretly
connected with the Manhattan Project. He later received a
phone call from President Roosevelt's secretary of war, Harry
Stimson, warning him not to inquire further. Taking office
two years later, he was still none the wiser.
101
A Dangerous Ideology
Another example, among many others, is the 'secret'
financial collapse during the 1980s. To this day few
Americans (or anyone else for that matter) are aware of the
staggering cover up of bank insolvency that occurred.
Delivering a speech to the Center for Strategic &
International Studies in 2008, Richard C. Too, former
economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and
doctoral fellow with the Feds Board of Governors, stated that
7 out of 8 of the money centre banks were insolvent during
the 80s. The Federal Reserve knew nearly every American
bank was insolvent yet managed to keep this fact hidden
from everyone for decades. Thousands of financial sector
workers, economists and journalists would also have known,
yet secrecy was maintained absolutely.
The conspiracy theorists also point to the effective use of the
well-established security protocol of 'compartmentalisation.'
Wikipedia defines this as:
“In matters concerning information security,
whether public or private sector,
compartmentalization is the limiting of
access to information to person's or other
entities who need to know it in order to
perform certain tasks. ”
It is the process of ensuring, while hundreds of thousands of
people may be involved in a project, they only possess
sufficient information to enable them to complete their
specific task. It is only the select few, with oversight of the
entire project, who have a clear understanding of its ultimate
objective.
The development of the Greek Fire, a nautical incendiary
weapon employed with devastating effect by the Eastern
Roman Byzantine Empire c.672, is another example of a
large scale project successfully kept secret by using strict
compartmentalisation. Few of those involved in its
development or manufacture knew what it was.
Compartmentalisation is one rebuttal the conspiracy
theorists offer. However, as we've just mentioned, the main
poin
t raised in objection to the 9/11 'impossible cover up'
102
A Dangerous Ideology
criticism is that it isn't one. Or, if it is, it's crap.
Much of the evidence we will discuss here is already in the
public domain. It isn't hidden. Far from being protected
behind layers of secrecy, the plot has already been exposed.
The suggested 'cover up' is actually the misdirection of
public attention away from evidence that freely and openly
exists. Conspiracy theorists blame the mainstream media
(MSM) for this, and pretty much everything else for that
matter.
We have already discussed the false flag principles of LIHOP
(let it happen on purpose) and MIHOP (make it happen on
purpose.) The suggestion is that elements within the Bush
administration either deliberately allowed the attack to go
ahead (LIHOP) or actively facilitated the attack (MIHOP.)
Whatever the truth may be, rejecting a theory because we
don't 'want' to believe it is not consistent with objective
inquiry. If we maintain conspiracy theories are absurd, we
must base this upon evidence. Simply waving a dismissive
hand is childish.
So what do most of us accept happened that day?[19]
The first of the hijacked plane took off at 07.59. American
Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767, flew out of Boston's Logan
International Airport for Los Angles with 92 people on board.
Among the passengers were the 5 hijackers Mohamed Atta
(Egyptian), Abdulaziz al Omari (Saudi Arabian), Waleed al
Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al Shehri (Saudi Arabian) and
Satam al Suqami (Saudi Arabian).
At 08:14 am. United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767 with
65 passengers on board, took off from Logan for Los Angeles.
The hijackers were Fayez Banihammad (United Arab
Emirates), Marwan al Shehhi (United Arab Emirates),
Mohand al Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al Ghamdi (Saudi
Arabian) and Ahmed al Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).
American Airlines Flight 77 left Washington Dulles
International Airport at 08:20 am. The Boeing 757 headed
for Los Angeles with 64 people on board. Hani Hanjour
(Saudi Arabian), Khalid al Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed
103
A Dangerous Ideology
Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al Hazmi (Saudi Arabian) and
Salem al Hazmi (Saudi Arabian) were among them.
Finally, at 08:42 am, United Airlines Flight 93 departed from
Newark International Airport. The Boeing 757, which carried
