9/11 INCONSISTENCIES - urgent questions

excerpt: "...I urge you to forward this to friends and colleagues rapidly. There must be public and open dialogue as to whether or not there is a true conspiracy, or ..."

found at:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0110/S00021.htm
[formatting and links added for indymedia: not by author]
 
Wednesday, 3 October 2001, 12:23 pm
Opinion: Michael Rowbotham * : "Written In Belief "

• Evil bin Laden but deeper reality?
• incompetence of the US intelligence services prior to the attacks
• Sudden efficiency after attacks, hijackers' ludicrous incompetence revealed
• Warnings of dangers ignored
• No alerts issued re 9/11 flight pattern changes
• The cell phone calls - questions
• The choice of targets questionable; = a terminal response
• Complexity of plan, 4 aircraft
• Relatively empty planes
• What does the evidence mean?
• How could this be?
• Some unverified claims
• Some questions if this is truth
• Historical precedents for big lies before wars
• Media distortions
• Lyndon Larouche
• Nature of CIA /bin Laden links:1   2 
• Who benefits?
• What is at stake: World War III / extinction of life
• Pride in America
• Third World Debt / Banking
• Summary
• Have we got the guts for good? Demand answers
• "all part of a day's work"
• Good and evil
• CRITICAL MOMENT
• Michel Chossudovsky's 9/12 article

Written In Belief
for Arrietti
By Michael Rowbotham
In this short book, I argue that there is strong evidence that the events of 11th September represent a terrorism of a kind not currently being discussed, and include the involvement of agents and agencies not publicly imagined as being associated with such acts. I believe that this suspicion, voiced by many others, must be taken seriously and its public disproof demanded by all concerned citizens and NGOs.

We simply could not comprehend what was actually happening in front of our eyes as those planes flew out of the beautiful morning sky and destroyed so many thousands of lives. We do not fully understand now and maybe never will. The total deaths will almost certainly never be known. The spreading grief amongst families who lost loved ones can be neither counted nor measured nor reconciled. For them, the loss was so complete and sudden, their grief so unspeakable, the horrific visual imagery branded in their mind and sight so indelibly that the angels will have been burned from their sky forever. Only those who have suffered so calamitous a loss can know its appalling effects on the soul and the mind, and the very meaning and worth of life itself.

Beyond the sickening personal grief, all is confusion. There is much contradiction and duality. The first duality is that between the justified outrage felt by Americans and the motive offered behind the terrorist attacks. The attacks are being presented as part of the "jihad" declared against the United States by certain Moslem fundamentalists; a sacred war in retaliation for sustained American military policies that have killed many tens of thousands in the Middle East. Those who died so appallingly in America are therefore seen as mere casualties of war and no more to be grieved over than the many who die daily from US military and economic sanctions against Iraq, or in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. No-one who watched John Pilger"s excellent BBC documentary on Iraq could forget the interview with a shepherd who lost his children as a US plane bombed his herd of sheep. His loss was as palpable and horrifying as that of any bereaved relative of the World Trade Centre atrocity.

Now, an angry and confused public is able to claim that the terrorist attacks in America show exactly why maintaining these sanctions was justified. But the attacks do not prove anything of the sort. This is defensive thinking, if it is thinking at all. The attack on the US was driven by hatred of such cruel policies, which clearly constitute a grave political injustice. As WH Auden wrote, "those to whom evil is done do evil in return".

There is further duality. The World Trade Centre towers were two beautiful monuments to human ingenuity and endeavour, but were also two of the great symbolic powerhouses of modern economic imperialism. From Wall Street emanates the ideology and the economic policy that has become know as "the Washington Consensus".

So what were those two towers? An example of some of the most majestic and inspiring architecture man has created, or the hub of unjustly won US corporate trade dominance? They were, of course, both. And here lies the difficulty in understanding and responding politically and militarily to the events of 11th September. We don't really know what to do for the best. Do we retaliate with military strength? Do we ignore the genuine grievance of Muslim world, since there can never be any justification for such an attack? Do we risk inflaming the very grievance that drove the suicide terrorist to see their act as a mission of just retribution, and thereby invoke further outrages? Should the US humbly change Middle East policy without seeking the perpetrators of this act?

A range of positions has been reached, from an all-out war on terrorism in order to "make the world a safer place", to linking "smart" terrorist attacks with wiser and more just Middle East policy. I want to suggest that none of these policies is relevant at this instant. There is need of more information, which can only come from greater understanding of the agents and forces behind the atrocity. To help with this, the events of 11th September have to be searchingly examined, and placed in the broadest possible context, historical, economic and political.

One fact is beyond dispute. The world changed on that day. An almost incomprehensible determination and hatred was unleashed upon innocent people in a manner and with a sudden horror that can never be forgotten. In response, and with equal determination, America and her allies have embarked upon a process of military and political reprisal to seek justice and bring about changes that will prevent this, or a worse atrocity, ever recurring. The political effects of the terrorist attacks will only be measurable in 50 or 100 years time. But it is clear that a whole new world order is in prospect. Major new international political alliances and dialogue are already developing. Within weeks, new laws, institutions, standards and agreements covering intelligence, finance and military action were in place. A new politico-economic geography, some elements of it already in process, is also being hastened. This ranges from rapid reforms of the legal justice system of the European Union to inclusion of China in the WTO and salvation for the ailing Japanese economy.

As well as the international effects there is the personal, human impact. We all grew older that day. We all suddenly realised that the unthinkable was possible. After this, anything, from nuclear warheads placed by a maniac in a Paris subway to anthrax in the London water system became a danger to be feared and countered. Once weapons of mass destruction are invented, be they aeroplanes, bombs or poisons, the potential exists. And once they have been used, a precedent is set. The world became a more uncertain place that day. We are all part of that uncertainty and contribute to it. How will our leaders act in the weeks and years ahead? How will we respond with our support or criticism? In our daily lives, what will replace the lost confidence in the world, in other people and in future events?

In this short book, I argue that the events of 11th September involve a terrorism of a kind not currently being discussed, and include agents and agencies not publicly imagined as being associated with such acts. The book is written with the single purpose of arguing the possibility of a conspiracy evil enough to cast even a shadow over the atrocities in New York and Washington. I believe this suspicion, voiced by many other commentators, and half suspected by many members of the general public, must be taken seriously. To do this, not only are the attack itself and the popular explanation both analysed, but the many previous suggestions of conspiracy are considered in an effort better to define what such a conspiracy, if it exists, might represent. This will involve an evaluation of the possible motives and gain that might be brought about by the events in America. It will also broaden to include a historical study of military events, trade and international development.

Any terrorist attack of this type involves a conspiracy, in the sense of agents with a shared hope (con-spire) organising for a given outcome. But critically, we do not know who the agents were and are, nor do we know in depth how the attacks were planned. We may know some of the agents and agencies, but there is strong evidence that we do not know them all. We must try to discover who was ultimately behind the Trade Centre attack. Although we may never know the whole story, what we discover in the quest may give us vital guidance in how we should respond.

The first point to note is that no group has either claimed or accepted responsibility for the attack. Osama bin Laden has himself specifically denied responsibility on three occasions, once insisting that as a Moslem he would not lie. One might simply argue, "well he would say that, wouldn't he?" However, both the Taliban and Pakistani authorities have claimed that Bin Laden has neither the capacity nor resources for such an attack. The general response to this has been that bin Laden, even if not immediately and personally responsible, represents the driving force behind the attacks. Bin Laden is being held to account even though the attacks may have been actually carried out by affiliated, partially autonomous terrorist groups sponsored, indoctrinated and trained by him. There is clearly some justice in this, even if it is rather crude. As regards bin Laden, there is no wish here to exonerate a man who, by his own declared joy at the atrocity, fully deserves the title "evil". It may well be that he is indeed in large measure responsible. However, there is good reason to believe that a deeper responsibility lies elsewhere.

No-one can fail to have been surprised at the many contradictions connected with the attacks. Here was an act of terrorism that was instantly recognised as requiring the most elaborate and detailed organisation over an extended period. Yet intelligence services in America, Britain and worldwide failed to detect the plan as it developed and seemingly had no penetration of the organisations" network. Contrast might be made with the Italian government, not noted for their intelligence apparatus, who uncovered and foiled a similar plot to use a small, light aircraft packed with explosives to attack the G8 summit in Genoa a few months earlier.

The incompetence of the US intelligence services prior to the attacks contrasts markedly with the astonishing speed and detail with which Islamic terrorist networks have since been identified, traced and run to ground. Over 50 people suspected of association with the "bin Laden terrorist network" have since been arrested in many countries. The suicide hijackers themselves have been identified, their movements established, their associates and financial dealings traced. Eleven of them have been back-tracked to Britain, their middle-Eastern backgrounds detailed. A number of links with bin Laden terrorist groups have been uncovered involving finance, training, religious indoctrination etc.

Now, it is generally agreed that the essence of such terrorist cell-networks is independence and complete secrecy. In the light of this we are presented with a number of odd facts. A car parked at one of the airports was found to contain a copy of the Koran, a flying instruction manual in Arabic and an address that led immediately to a number of arrests. These arrests and addresses in turn had information indiscreet and incriminating enough to lead on to arrests across many countries. Suddenly, the CIA were doing their work with remarkable efficiency, whilst the hijackers and their associates were shown to have displayed gross incompetence. It is even claimed that a car with four of the hijackers entered into an argument with a member of the public in the car-park prior to boarding the flight. For religious fundamentalists and terrorists bound on such a mission, it is odd they would act in any way as to draw any attention to themselves whatsoever, for fear of prior detection.

Such odd considerations abound. Most conveniently for the intelligence services, the baggage of the terrorist now assumed to be the leader, Mohammed Atta, was not placed on board the plane with him. This has presented the authorities with a range of evidence, including a written statement by Atta, in which he defines his religious beliefs and intentions.

Warnings had been given two years previously of the possibility of a domestic US airline hijack, to the extent that increased safety precautions on US domestic flights were advocated. The scenario of such an attack was completely rejected, it is claimed, as being too unlikely to warrant either investigation or increased safety precautions. Yet America is the home of war games and military scenario investigations. The security forces investigated, instead, the possibility of biochemical terrorism in the US, ignoring the more established and easier use of aircraft hijackings, bombs, and the customary targeting of important buildings.

Questions have been raised over the flight patterns of the aircraft and the response of the authorities. No alert was issued despite the departure from their flight path of four aircraft and the switching off of their transponders, which enable radar tracking. Despite reported struggles by staff, including supposedly the pilots, no aircraft contacted airports to communicate a disturbance during the period they were taken over. The ease with which four terrorists, who would admittedly have been determined, managed to subdue entire aircrafts full of passengers and crew has also been widely remarked upon.

The piloting of the aircraft also deserves comment. It has been variously said that the Boeing planes of the type used are fairly straightforward to fly, but also, that the piloting expertise actually necessary to strike the Trade Centre towers with the accuracy, and in particular the altitude, required was a task involving the greatest experience and skill. We are told that some of the hijackers had gained experience in flying civil aviation passenger aircraft. Others, it seems, merely obtained practice on light aircraft at a Florida flying school.

The instruction to contact relatives by cell phone has also to be wondered at. This was a direct instruction by the hijackers to the passengers. What purpose could such contacts serve? Once in control of the plane, the hijackers could only fear interception and any such contact that confirmed a suicide mission was in progress would dramatically increase this risk.

The one piece of information that was given by the passengers was that penknives were used, and not guns. This information has come to characterise the hijacking as essentially amateur. It has been said that further similar attacks were planned. But how foolish of the hijackers to allow passengers to relay information on the precise nature and simplicity of the weapons involved, thereby certainly disadvantaging any other similar hijacking attempts.

The cell phone calls raise one further grave inconsistency. The wife of a US Senator on board one of the doomed airliners is on record as having asked by phone, in the final moments, "what shall we ask the pilot to do?" This is an astonishing comment indeed. It clearly means that the pilot was seen to be in a position to do something and strongly implies that the pilot, not one of the hijackers, was in control of the aircraft at that point. It has since been suggested that the hijackers then wrested control of the aircraft in the final moments and then completed the attack. This is not an impossible scenario to imagine. But it would require, first, a dedicated pilot agreeing to adjust altitude and direction to bring the plane close to a mass civilian population. Secondly, the flying skills required have already been noted; any struggle would make the task yet more difficult. For the hijackers, the success or failure of their mission would have been left to the last seconds.

So what did happen? In the first few hours after the attack, when comment was relatively free, it was assumed and discussed that the pilots themselves were part of the attack. Astonishment was expressed by several experienced commentators at the level of organisation required to train pilots for suicide missions, find them employment, then so accurately timetable and synchronise their suicide missions. This scenario has since been completely ignored. But if the pilots themselves, or some of them, were part of the attack, this would suggest a highly sophisticated level of organisation that conflicts completely with the pen-knife mythology.

The choice of targets has also to be commented upon. Whilst it is true that the World Trade Centre has been attacked before, this attack was out of all proportion and could be guaranteed to cause massive damage and inflict appalling loss of civilian life. One of the primary matters a terrorist organisation considers is the selection of a suitable target. The IRA does not attempt to bomb the Queen or Buckingham Palace, neither have militant Islamists (yet) attempted to introduce poison into the water supplies. Part of the reason must surely be the certainty of massive reprisal. An intelligent terrorist organisation would select a target to inflict significant damage, score approval from its sympathisers whilst not invoking a terminal response.

In any such judgement, the hijackers certainly failed. The loss of sympathy for the terrorists, their network and their cause has been extensive. The World Trade Centre attacks have been condemned by Syria, Pakistan, Palestinians, Israel - even by Saddam Hussein and Colonel Ghadaffi. Even supposing the towers had not fallen, the death toll and loss of innocent life would have been so great as to cause a US backlash just as severe as we now see.

It is also remarkable that the organisation attempted, as their first venture into such an act, the use of no less than four aircraft. As one military analyst stated, the use of just two aircraft does not double the complexity of the operation, it increases the risk and co-ordination demands by perhaps 100 fold. The decision to mount an attack using four craft meant the risks of prior detection, and thus complete failure of the project, were simply vast. This was not only an odd decision, but highlights yet again the competence of the hijackers, incompetence of the intelligence services and all the contrary considerations above. Or it suggests the additional consideration that the missions were, in some way, assured.

The comparative emptiness of all four of the aircraft has also been noted. Less than 25 - 30% of the seats were occupied, which, it has been suggested, is considerably below the average for such flights. This fact has been taken by some commentators to imply that the passenger numbers were somehow kept down in order to ensure the hijackers were able to gain control of the aircraft. Again, extensive prior organisation is implied.

One can view all such considerations as suspicions that are bound to gather around any such event. As evidence is accumulated and the hijackers planning becomes understood, these suspicions may well be allayed. But it is more likely that some will never be allayed because the questions they raise are neither being considered nor investigated. This is the possibility that the attacks were either organised by, or with, some degree of prior knowledge and assent from, notionally American and international interests who have nothing whatsoever to do with the religion of Islam. This possibility exists even if and as knowledge about the attacks and their method becomes ever more complete. It is not whether these attacks can or cannot be explained as the work of Islamic fundamentalists. It is a question of whether they can be more fully explained as the work of Islamic fundamentalism plus other agencies, and whether evidence for this exists.

It has been suggested that key personnel within the CIA and other US organisations may have known about these attacks and simply permitted them to proceed. Other non-Islamic focuses have been suggested as being either aware of, involved or the true inspiration behind the attacks. Without wishing to support or counter these allegations, it is important to repeat the key issue. It is not a question of whether Islamic fundamentalism was involved in the "front line" of the attacks. The connections between the hijackers and Islamic terrorist groups becomes daily more evident. The real question is to what degree Islamic fundamentalism is responsible and whether Islamic fundamentalism is being harnessed by a greater power, and finally, what that greater power might be.

Whilst considering these possibilities during the first week after the attacks, my access to the internet was down. Upon restoring it, I was not surprised to find a vast communication between those who share a similar concern that the whole event was not only being blatantly misrepresented, but was highly suspicious in its origin and background. Asking allowance for both dis-information and the exaggeration to which the internet can be prone, this book contains a number of commentaries involving a discussion that simply asks - "what on earth was actually going on?" Many correspondents have expressed similar observations to those above and offered further pertinent information and penetrating commentary.

What is being discussed here is so inflammatory and staggering, and contradicts the popular consensus so completely that it is worth pausing at the outset. One asks for open-mindeness when any new hypothesis, in stark conflict with an accepted version, is being ventured; a willing suspension of disbelief. But this is easier to request than it is to give. Prejudice is a natural state of the human mind. How could US officialdom possibly condone such an act, if that is the suggestion? My reply is twofold. First, I am not sure whether that is the entire suggestion, though it may be part of the suggestion. Secondly, let us take an historical precedent as example.

The attack on the World Trade Center was compared, almost at the outset, with the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese, which catapulted the United States into the Second World War. Or so the story goes. Another version is now becoming established as historically more complete. The following is a quote from an article by Richard Moore, written for the magazine New Dawn, entitled, "Are we being told the truth about the Trade Center attacks?"

In the media coverage of the recent WTC attack, the comparison with Pearl Harbor has been frequently raised. Thousands of American troops were killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor, and thousands of American civilians were killed in the attack on the WTC. In both cases the American people responded (quite understandably) with deep shock and outrage. In both cases, overwhelming public sentiment was for retaliation, and for giving the President total support for whatever course he chose. In 1941, as now, any suggestion that the U.S. government knew in advance of the attacks, and could have prevented them, would have been met by angry disbelief by almost any American. Nonetheless, the evidence now seems to favor the view that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did know about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, and that he could have mounted an effective defense.

We now know that elite U.S. planners, during the period 1939-1941, had come to the conclusion that the Japanese conquest of Asia had to be stopped. The planners determined that Southeast Asia, in particular, was critical to U.S. economic interests. But U.S. public opinion was overwhelmingly against entering the war. It now seems that FDR figured out a way to get the U.S. into the war, and that Pearl Harbor was the key to his plan.

When the Japanese began to threaten Southeast Asia, FDR froze Japanese assets in U.S. banks, resulting in a cutoff of Japanese oil supplies. This was considered an act of war by Japan, and Japanese retaliation was expected by American planners. As the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, intelligence services in Britain and the U.S. evidently knew of that approach. Prime Minister Churchill notified his Pacific commanders that the Japanese were heading for Pearl Harbor. FDR, on the other hand, did not notify his commanders. Instead, he sent the most strategic ships (the aircraft carriers) out to sea where they would be safe, and instructed key observation outposts on the island of Kauai to stand down.

It seems that FDR intentionally set the stage for a 'surprise' attack - shocking the nation and instantly shifting public opinion from non-interventionism to war frenzy. I am suggesting that this same scenario must be considered in the case of the recent WTC and Pentagon attacks. Unbelievable as this may seem, this is a scenario that matches the modus operandi of U.S. ruling elites. These elites show callous disregard for civilian lives in Iraq, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and dozens of other places around the world. Is it so surprising that they would sacrifice a few thousand American civilians if they considered that necessary in order to pursue their geopolitical objectives?

This statement is offered because, whether it is accepted or not, it makes us realise that the unthinkable is often well-documented and must be considered. I am not, however, entirely happy with the deeper implications in the above commentary as I discuss at the end of the book, though this is not intended as any criticism of Moore"s article and analysis, which is outstanding and which I quote from later.

Having given an historical example of the type of undisclosed knowledge/involvement and unknown ulterior motives that can be involved in such an event, caution should clearly be exercised in passing judgements either way on the statements and information contained in this book. Some material, especially that relating to the events of 11th September has been drawn from the internet. Anyone who has surfed the web and bumped into conspiracy theory data will know that the exaggeration, assumption, elaboration and downright story-telling simply defies belief.

So, into which category do we place the following startling claim?

A senior Diplomat in Madrid who insists on remaining anonymous has told intelligence sources that during his recent visit to Europe, President George W. Bush told Prime Minister Asnar that the United States government was in possession of information that a massive terrorist attack, comparable to a declaration of war, would be launched against targets in the United States. He asked Spain and several other NATO allies if they would support the United States in a war against terrorism and host countries if that were to happen. The diplomat states that Spain and a number of other EU nations reluctantly agreed to take part in any military action if such an attack occurred, and it could be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it had been planned and originated outside the U.S.

I am ambivalent towards this statement. Whilst it undeniably carries a ring of literary authenticity, there is, so far as I am aware, no corroborating evidence. And the suggestion that George Bush, in person, courted European leaders and sought their support for unspecified American action prior to unspecified attacks seems unlikely, unnecessary and frankly, rather comic. It also conflicts markedly with the repeated conspiracy-theory suggestion that our politicians are mere patsies whilst the "true leaders" who direct them lurk in the background. But Bush has done some odd things in his time! I would suggest that such "information" clearly needs to be either disregarded or treated with the greatest caution.

Into the same category must fall the following variety of unverified claims;

Both the French and Israeli intelligence services (Mossad) informed the CIA a week before the attack that a major terrorist strike on the United States was immanent.

Mossad, in liason with the CIA, actually masterminded the attacks.

Guns were placed on board the aircraft by ground staff prior to take-off, ensuring the hijack was a success.

The fourth plane was actually shot down by an American fighter after passengers succeeded in overpowering the hijackers. This, it is suggested, was at the direct instruction of the US military because, had the plane landed, passengers would have been able to give a precise account of the methods used. The hijackers themselves would also have been available for interrogation.

The World Trade Centre towers were actually brought down because bombs had earlier been placed there; the impact of the planes and the fire not being considered enough to cause their collapse.

The FBI was warned in March of the attacks, which involved an unlikely liaison between bin Laden, the Hizbollah and the CIA.

These claims range from the plausible through the speculative to the near ludicrous. But once it is accepted that there could well be "more than meets the eye", or reaches the press, than the now standardised account, the suggestions show, if nothing else, the sheer extent of the room for speculation. Of such suggestions, each one is worth maybe a degree of investigation but little faith can be placed in them at this stage. Far more valid, and far more valuable from the purpose of establishing "what is actually going on" are those well-resourced commentaries in which facts are given, patterns are shown, motives are offered and tie-ins with other known facts or unanswered questions emerge. The Richard Moore quote on Pearl Harbour, given above, falls into this category and further extracts from his article are given later. Below is the opening section of the article, noteworthy for the reticence and caution with which he approaches the whole matter.

First of all, I'd like you to understand that I don't have any secret information, or leaked documents, about the horrific events of 11 September in New York City. I'm writing this article while on the road, without my usual reference books, and I'm working from U.S. television reports and from articles that people have sent me over the Internet. What we're going to do in this article is to look at the events in the same way we'd investigate a murder mystery: what are the possible scenarios? What are the relevant clues? Which scenario best fits the facts?

I'm not claiming this analysis is true, I'm only asking you to consider the possibility. As we review the historical background, I'll be giving you my best understanding of events - but I am not claiming that every statement is an established fact. This article represents my opinion as to 'most likely scenarios'. Due to the scope of the material, much of the presentation is highly abbreviated. A recommended reading list is provided at the bottom for those who wish to investigate the ideas in greater depth.

For all I know, the scenario presented by the U.S. corporate- government- media- elite Establishment might be correct. Perhaps the attacks came as a shocking surprise, and the U.S. response has been hastily determined in subsequent emergency meetings. But this default scenario opens many questions...

(1) Within hours of the attacks we were already being told that the FBI knows who the hijackers were, and that they are linked to Bin Laden. If this is true, then why were they allowed to buy tickets in their own names and travel together on commercial flights? One of the suspects who bought a ticket in his own name, a TV report said, was on the FBI's most-wanted list! And only a week before, we are told, Bin Laden had threatened that a major U.S. target was going to be attacked. Could security really be that lax?

(2) In the first day of media coverage there seemed to be a huge gap in the reports we were receiving. Why were we being told nothing about air-traffic controllers, and their attempts to contact the planes? Wouldn't that have made for dramatic television?... "Flight 11, please come in. Flight 11, do you read me?" Why were we told nothing about scrambling fighter planes, and of attempts to intercept the hijacked airliners? On September 15 the New York times published an 'explanation' of the events by Matthew Wald, and reported that some fighters did scramble. But why was this completely omitted from the early reports? The initial coverage seemed to be designed to give us the impression that no one knew what was going on until the first plane actually struck the World Trade Center.

(4) If the attacks really came as a complete surprise, one would expect initial confusion at the highest government levels. One would have expected days to go by while information was gathered and options were considered. Instead, we began seeing a coherent and final response within hours. Within a day or two the perpetrators were known, $40 billion had been allocated by Congress, a protracted war was being announced, we were being told to expect major cutbacks in civil liberties, and the U.S. Senate had approved the "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001". And within a few days after that, a multi-billion dollar airline bailout was being announced.

There are other objections that can be raised to the official scenario, but I am not trying here to prove that scenario to be wrong. I wish only to express doubt, suggesting that other scenarios deserve consideration. When seeking to identify the perpetrator of a crime, as we all know from countless mystery dramas, one looks for motive, opportunity, and modus operandi - as well as at circumstantial and physical evidence. For the scenario I'd like you to consider, let us begin with modus operandi, or "standard behavior of the suspect".

At this point, Moore explores the Pearl Harbour incident and other similar events, which are discussed later in this book.

Having raised, if by no means exhausted, the unanswered questions associated with the actual attack, the discussion now moves on background issues and the political and historical context. The first matter to be discussed is that of public opinion, particularly in the United States. Whilst 90% of Americans are said to support the "war on terrorism" involving military action, including action against countries from which terrorists operate, a broader viewpoint is well represented in the US.

Susan Sontag, writing in the New Yorker, states with admirable courage and eloquence;

The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards. Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not afraid. Our spirit is unbroken, although this was a day that will live in infamy and America is now at war. But everything is not O.K. And this was not Pearl Harbor. We have a robotic President who assures us that America still stands tall. A wide spectrum of public figures, in and out of office, who are strongly opposed to the policies being pursued abroad by this Administration apparently feel free to say nothing more than that they stand united behind President Bush. A lot of thinking needs to be done, and perhaps is being done in Washington and elsewhere, about the ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options available to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense. But the public is not being asked to bear much of the burden of reality. The unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet Party Congress seemed contemptible. The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy. Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the politics of a democracy-which entails disagreement, which promotes candor-has been replaced by psychotherapy. Let's by all means grieve together. But let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen. "Our country is strong," we are told again and again. I for one don't find this entirely consoling. Who doubts that America is strong? But that's not all America has to be.

This article is relevant to the discussion, perhaps, for the political awareness and strength of feeling being shown by some Americans, and for the fact that the mature considerations she allows are completely absent from the rhetoric of US politicians. In the following comments, David Weston underlines how vital this lack of information is.

I have just listened to an interview on TV with a Texan family, on the question as to 'why would someone want to do that to us?'. The family's bafflement became clear as the father said: "We are the most generous nation on earth. I guess a lot of people out there in the Third World just don't realise what we've done for them". When you are constantly told by the media that the US has been and is, the most generous nation on earth (e.g. the Marshall Plan - which ensured that American businesses got a solid foothold in post WW2 Europe; or the rehabilitation of the Japanese economy, in which the US permitted only American firms to set up there), then having little or no contradicting information, one accepts it as true. When you've been constantly told that 'We are a peaceful people' (George W. Bush on TV a few days ago); when you are constantly assured by officialdom that any conflicts/wars your military are involved in, are just and moral, even when there is a well-documented list of 'interventions, coups, assassinations of elected officials, and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states' - clearly, if your school curriculum, or your newspaper, or TV or radio don't include that information, then you are going to assume that only 'others' are terrorists.

This situation of uncritical public content is not helped when practices such as that adopted by CNN and the BBC are employed. There were early reports of Muslims waving and cheering delightedly in the streets on hearing the news of the Trade Centre attacks. In fact, this was an initial response before the severity of the catastrophe was understood. After this, the response was, according to eyewitnesses, more muted and often sympathetic. Yet in America, and in Britain for many days, a clip of celebrating, jubilant Muslims was shown. But as the statement below shows, this footage, highly offensive in the political context, was actually filmed in 1991 during the invasion of Kuwait! The repeated use of such false imagery is totally unacceptable, as Russell Grossman, Head of Internal Communication at the BBC in London makes clear.

At the BBC here, we have these footages on videotapes recorded in 1991, with the very same images. But now, think for a moment about the impact of such images. Your people are hurt, emotionally fragile, and this kind of broadcast has very high possiblity of causing waves of anger and rage against the Palestinians. It's simply irresponsible to show images such as those.

In Particular, one set of images caught my attention: the Palestinians celebrating the bombing, out on the streets, eating celebration sweets and making funny faces for the camera. Those are images of Palestinians celebrating the invasion of Kuwait! It's simply unacceptable that a super-power of communications as CNN uses images which do not correspond to the reality in talking about so serious of an issue.

Weston's comment, preceding that by Russell Grossman, bring us to what is without question the next key issue to discuss. This is the historical record of American military intervention in international affairs. This is one of the factors responsible for such extraordinary degree of hatred being directed at the country. The most directly relevant issues involve US policy in the Middle East.

The first major grievance is, of course, the United States" unstinting support for Israel. The state of Israel was born on the basis of the massive dispossession of the Palestinian people from their country and their lands. It is hard to contradict Arab claims that it was essentially support from the United States that created the state of Israel; that it has been extensive US military aid and backing that has maintained it in the last half century; and also that it is deep confidence in perpetual US military and political support that enables Israel to oppose in practice the emergence of a viable Palestinian state. This statement is not intended in any way to "side" with the Palestinian movement, who have shown themselves equally capable of committing atrocities. But there can be no doubt that US policy has been heavily one-sided. For a global superpower to adopt such an uneven-handed stance is to invite the hatred of the Palestinians. It could well be further argued that US support for Israel makes that nation less willing to compromise, preventing what might be a settlement achieved between two parties with much to lose by the continuing dispute and both prepared to make equal concessions. With the constant backing of the US, Israel need make few concessions.

The second obvious grievance involves sanctions and military action against Iraq. Mention has already been made of the John Pilger documentary on Iraq which assembled the mass of evidence that the continuation of sanctions by the US was wholly unjustified. UNICEF reports that 5,000 children die every month in Iraq due to the U.S.-led sanctions. They are dying from diarrhea and dysentery due to lack of clean drinking water, medicine and food. The sanctions do not allow Iraq to rebuild its water systems that were destroyed during the bombing ten years ago. Over 1.5 million Iraqi's have died in the last ten years due to the sanctions and the continued bombings, which are still happening every week in Iraq. So broadly has this US policy been condemned that UN representatives have actually resigned in public protest at their continuance.

Neither of these policies in themselves obviously betoken any form of revelation involving conspiracy. However, as David Western points out, there is a long record of involvement by the US in the Middle East. "Öthe US overthrew the nationalist government of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, cultivated the repressive Shah of Iran as the gendarme of the Persian Gulf, supported anti-democratic feudal regimes in the Arabian peninsula, and introduced a massive permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, which contains some of Islam's most sacred shrines and cities." He also points out that a prime motive for US involvement in the war between Iraq and Kuwait was not the defence of an invaded country, but the desire to secure the oil supplies upon which America depends.

It is, however, the well-documented military policies of the US around the world, on many occasions, that demonstrate that country"s clear willingness to manipulate political outcomes for strategic advantage and political influence. The following items are just a few of the more established and notable examples of covert or unjustified military or intelligence activity, many of which earned the United States the condemnation of United Nations.

In Cuba, since 1963 the US has maintained blockades for 39 years. Its continued actions have been condemned by Human Rights Groups and the United Nations General Assembly.

In Chile in 1973, a CIA backed coup ousted the elected president, installed military General Pinochet. Decades of human rights abuses follow.

In El Salvador, between 1980 and 1992, the US aided a government condemned for gross human rights violations.

In Nicaragua, between 1981 and 1992, the US directed and illegally supported the contra war, mined the harbor and allowed an open flow of narcotics into the US. The US actions were condemned by the United Nations World Court.

In 1983-84, the US military invaded the tiny island of Grenada. 400 Grenadians were killed and this "Gross violation" of international law was condemned by the United Nations.

In Iraq the US supported and armed Saddam Hussein's Iraq in its war against Iran during 1988.

In Panama in 1989, the US invaded with 27,000 soldiers. 3000+ Panamanians were killed, the US military kidnaped it's own installed drug-dealing leader and CIA "asset". These Illegal US actions were condemned by nearly unanimous United Nations and Organization of American States.

There has also been suspicious CIA/US involvement in Australia 1973-5, Portugal 1974, Bulgaria 1991, Somalia 1992-94, Peru 1992, Colombia 1992, Haiti 1994, Libya and Afghanistan.

The use of the word "conspiracy" to describe such actions is actually quite downbeat. American policy makers have repeatedly employed their intelligence services and military in the blatant interference in the sovereign affairs of foreign governments. Pro-US governments have been installed and those administrations with an unfavourable disposition towards the United States have been deliberately toppled. The first comment to make is that these are not the acts of a "peaceful nation". The second point to note is the generally covert nature of these operations, often involving the CIA. The third point is that the US clearly displays a long term interest in Central and South American politics (for obvious reasons of geography) and also in the Middle East.

Having established, or reminded ourselves of the US intelligence agencies" capacity for foreign intrigue, it is worth returning to Richard Moore"s article in which he discusses the employment of a tactic of self-inflicted injuries to promote a war-response. Moore notes that in addition to the Pearl Harbor incident,

"the U.S. Government lied to the American People about the following events, each of which led the United States into War.

1898..THEY LIED about the sinking of the battleship Maine. (Spanish American War)
1915..THEY LIED about the sinking of the ocean liner Lusitania (World War I)
1941..THEY LIED about the attack on Pearl Harbor. (World War 2)
1964..THEY LIED about the Gulf of Tonkin affair. (Vietnam War)"

The Battleship Maine was not in fact attacked, but was blown up from an internal explosion we have since learned. The thirst for revenge was translated into the capture of the Philippines. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident gave President Lyndon Johnson an excuse to begin major escalation of the Vietnam War. Supposedly, in that incident, a North Vietnamese boat launched torpedoes in an attempt to sink an American warship. It is now generally accepted by historians that the attack did not in fact occur, and that Johnson had been preparing to escalate all along."

Moore concludes;

As we look back at history, we find that every time the U.S. has entered into a major military adventure, this has been enabled by a dramatic incident which aroused public sentiment overwhelmingly in favor of military action. These incidents have always been accepted at face value when they occurred, but in every case we have learned later that the incidents were highly suspicious. And in every case, the ensuing military action served some elite geopolitical design.

Moore"s clear implication, drawing on both the doubts surrounding the event and historical parallels, is that there could have been some form of US involvement in the recent terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The implied purpose was to permit the United States to launch the country into a war; the motive he perceives to be "geopolitical". How radically different this is from the popular perception of the attacks, and the justification and support given to the US administration in its determination to "retaliate" for a terrorist outrage.

The suggested involvement of the CIA in the attack on the World Trade Center is not, therefore, a suggestion without historical precedent, both in terms of a tactic, modus operandi and purpose. For the United States now declares itself to be at war.

The maverick U.S. politician Lyndon LaRouche echoed this opinion when he said on a local radio programme in the U.S. that the responsibility for the attacks "lies with a very capable machine inside the United States itself. There might be other factors, but that's the thing we have to worry about."

How then was this managed? What would be required for such a conspiracy would be some form of a link between the American intelligence service(s) and Islamic fundamentalism. Larouche had commentary on this too.

"Now, of course, obviously, our military, top military, had nothing to do with this. But there are people who are "off the reservation", as we saw reflected in the Oklahoma City bombing, and there are people off the reservations who are used, who are deniable...."

Larouche and many others believe there is compelling evidence that the FBI and the Department of Justice adopted a "lone assassin" theory of the Oklahoma City bombing early in the investigation, suppressing vital evidence and ignoring vital leads, that would have pointed towards the broader network of conspirators behind the bombing. It seems that LaRouche warned four months ago that the execution of Timothy McVeigh would "jeopardize vital American national security interests". By executing McVeigh, the United States was eliminating one of the few sources of information about the broader terrorist network involved in the bombing, which is still at large.

"These people are still out there and are still functioning," LaRouche claimed at the time (26 May) "and this poses a real threat to the national security of the United States".

What of the named personnel involved? Well, clear links between the US intelligence agency, the CIA, and Osama bin Laden are established. The following information is extracted from an article by Professor Michel Chossudovsky of Montreal University. Chossudovsky is an internationally respected academic. His article, which contains valuable information not included in the extract below, is included in full at the end of the book. As always, it is thoroughly referenced.

In 1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Saudi born Ousmane bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war under the auspices of the CIA, to fight the Soviets. With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992.

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade. In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166 which authorized an increase in covert military aid to the mujahideen. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a
steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.

The CIA covert support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen and the Pakistani ISI was used as a "go-between". CIA's Milton Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Ousmane bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government".

Backed by Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In last few months there is evidence that Mujahideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia.

In his concluding remarks, Chossudovsky states;

Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported Ousmane bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI's "most wanted list" as the World's foremost terrorist. The FBI, operating as a US based Police Force, is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA which has --since the Soviet-Afghan war-- supported international terrorism through its covert operations.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Adminstration together with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Here we have a clear, detailed and powerful historical link between bin Laden and the CIA, plus the involvement of another powerful intelligence apparatus, the Pakistani ISI. The question now becomes, what is the current nature of those relationships, if any? It is worth drawing attention to the fact that even in the past, bin Laden"s contact with the CIA became indirect, working through the Pakistan ISI. Richard Sanders describes Ousmane bin Laden as a "Blowback".

A Blowback is a CIA term that applies "when some operative, a terrorist or a situation that they've created gets out of their control and comes back to haunt them. It's a situation where the scientist (Frankenstein) creates a monster and it "blows back" on its creator.

Noriega, Hussein, Timothy McVeigh and bin Laden are all pretty good examples of blowback. They were all nurtured for many years by the CIA, US military or military intelligence. They all eventually "blew back"."

So where does this line of enquiry leave us? We have a massive terrorist event, which has been variously portrayed as an amateur, string and candlewax affair, and alternatively as a highly sophisticated elaborate organisation requiring perhaps years to plan and execute. We have a history of sinister involvement internationally and domestically by the CIA. The United States has a track record of entering major conflicts after it has either invented an attack, or ignored warnings of an attack. There are clear links between Osama bin Laden and the CIA, with the CIA clearly in the driving seat and bin Laden a highly trained functionary, kept at arms length, with the suggestion that he has turned upon his former masters. There is an extensive involvement by the CIA in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the homes of Islamic fundamentalism, and widespread expressions of doubt that bin Laden was capable of such an act as the horrendous attack on America on 11th September; an act which he has specifically denied in terms of his faith.

It has to be concluded that the possibility of involvement beyond Osama bin Laden is considerable. Rather than speculate at this stage, it seems more appropriate to quote from the UK Guardian of the 13th September; "No black box will ever tell us who the real perpetrators of this terrible vengeance are, as every terrorist has his minder, and every minder his minder, often with conflicting, if not warring, agendas.

Richard Moore rightly asks perhaps the next key question in any such enquiry, as have many commentators. "Who benefits?" Who stood to gain from the atrocity committed at the World Trade Centre and Pentagon? We have already argued that with such an enormous outrage, the normal reward that terrorists might expect to enjoy will not be forthcoming for the ardent followers of Islamic fundamentalism. They stand to be hunted down and buried in "history's unmarked graves of discarded lives" (President Bush's words).

The same is true for all other terrorist organisations, for this is now a "war on terrorism everywhere." The other principle candidate for responsibility, or co-responsibility, is the United States or some agency(s) located within the United States or internationally. How could the United States possibly benefit from projecting itself into a war of the type being envisaged? Perhaps the best way into this discussion is to reflect, first, precisely what type of war is being envisaged? Here it is best to draw on the many statements emanating "from the horses mouth", including comments by Bush, Colin Powell and Dick C