Re: Events of 9-11 – What do you think?


Richard Moore

Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:58:03 +0800
To: •••@••.•••
From: Betty Daly-King 
Subject: Re: Kaminski: The fatal flaw in the 9/11 coverup

    rkm > If there's anyone out there who doubts that the WTC events were
      orchestrated from the White House, I'd like to hear what that doubt is
      based on.

I love this reversal of onus of proof!  The need to prove that Bush
Admin. didn't engineer it.



Dear Betty,

Since 9-11 I've posted dozens of articles from various sources
(including some of my own thinking) offering evidence and arguments
about the events of that day. I belive that evidence shows
overwhelmingly that the events could not possibly have happened as the
White House says they did. And the manner in which the White House has
handled the PR, issued provable lies, impounded evidence, and the way
investigations have been thwarted - these have all the obvious signs of
a a cover up. One must at least look at the possibility that the Cheney
Rumsfeld bunch had found a way to create their long-desired "New Pearl
Harbor".  And indeed the follow on from 9-11 has been precisely the
agenda drafted by that same bunch some ten years ago, and republished
just before Bush's "election" by the Project for a New American Century.

Having posted all these things, I find myself wondering what you folks
think is true about 911. I don't recall much debate as I've posted items
to this thread, but I don't assume that implies agreement. That's why
I'm asking the question.... If  there's anybody out there who thinks the
neocons "wouldn't do such a thing", or "didn't do such a thing", then
I'm curious as to know what the thinking is behind that. I'm not asking
for a proof. I'm trying to find out why people believe things. It's
really more about psychology than it is about the issues.

While we're on the topic, however, let me just set down a somewhat
concise summary of the "main evidence" and "most likely scenario" as I
currently see them. Take it as a kind of Prosecutors summary to the jury
- the scenario he is asking the jury to accept "beyond all reasonable
doubt". It includes some new information that Butler Crittendon passed
on to me when I was in San Francisco in Febrary.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury ... 
The World Trade Center collapse

Three of the towers collapsed in precisely the manner that characterizes
a professionally installed demolition system.   One of the towers was
not even hit by a plane, and another was impacted over to the side, not
near the steel core structure. The mainstream analysis of how the jet
fuel melted the steel core is rather far-fetched, and is somewhat
irrelevant to that mysterious third tower. Independent reputable experts
have pointed out the flaws in the arguments and have offered other
evidence pointing more to a planned demolition event. Eyewitnesses
reported hearing explosions before the collapse. Firefighters had
declared one of the tower fires as "under control" prior to the
collapse. Seismic records show a momentous seismic event just prior to
the collapse, consistent with the kind of blast required to pulverize
the steel core at its base - the obvious first step in any demolition
agenda for such a building. Did you notice on the video that the first
thing to shift downwards is the tower on the roof - the upper extension
of the steel core?

If the collapses had been the result a surprise terrorist attack, then I
imagine the authorities would want to analyze the remains carefully, to
learn what they could about this new and dangerous threat - that would
be in their own obvious self-interest.  Instead the rubble was
quarantined from investigation and carted off as quickly as possible.
Hence the behavior of the authorities has been inconsistent with the
terrorist hypothesis, and consistent with the demolition hypothesis -
which would require that the evidence be disposed of.

Clearly a demolition could only have been arranged and kept secret at
the highest levels of the national security apparatus - the same folks
who have been yearning for years for a New Peal Harbor.

The interceptors that didn't scramble

It has long been standard policy throughout the US for interceptors to
scramble when commercial aircraft go off course and fail to respond to
air traffic controllers. The interceptors fly alongside the off-course
plane and follow a protocol to establish communication with the pilot,
and indicate to him that he must take corrective action. This has been
done routinely hundreds of times with the decision being made locally,
between the FAA and the local National Guard or Air Force base. The
reason for this is quite clear. With hundreds of planes in the sky,
carrying many thousands of passengers, you can't afford to have a rogue
plane up there cutting across the flight paths other planes. Management
of traffic is already a difficult operation, and such a wild card cannot
be - and through the years has not been - tolerated. Interceptors are
typically airborne within minutes of being notified. Our air defense
forces are supposed to be combat ready at all times, and these
commercial intercepts make for good drills.

And yet on that fateful day we had four planes known to be hijacked -
not merely off course - at the same time, and not a fighter was
scrambled until long afterwards - except perhaps that F-16 that did or
did not shoot down the plane over Pennylvania. Why no scrambles at this
time of high perceived urgency throughout the FAA?  Well, it turns out
that just two weeks before 9-11, President Bush issued a directive
saying that in future commercial intercepts could not be authorized
locally, but would henceforth require Presidential authorization.  Why
did he do that?

With four planes known to be hijacked, and the familiar interceptor
backup unavailable, the FAA must have been tripping all over itself
trying to contact the White House and get the necessary authorization.
They were able to order all flights to go their nearest airport without
White House authorization, and this shows the gravity with which they
viewed the situation. Bush was certainly reachable, in the company of
his entourage of Secret Service people with their little radio gizmos.
And yet the first Bush is notified - according the official story - is
when an aide whispers that the first tower had been hit. It doesn't make
sense - why didn't they get to him right away, with that unprecedented
number of simultaneous hijacks? Even after the first tower was hit, the
subject of authorization STILL doesn't come up. The rest of the world is
riveted to TV sets, biting its teeth, everyone knowing deep in their
guts that what they are seeing is a BIG TIME momentous historical event
-and the White House staff can't be bothered?  And then Bush goes in to
read stories and still no concern about scrambles even after both towers
had been hit, and even after evacuation of the Pentagon has been
ordered.  What gives here?

Mysterious as these events seem within the context of the Official
Story, they are all totally consistent with a pre-planned stand down.
Step 1 is to inhibit local control over intercepts, and step 2 is to
fail to respond to the situation until it had run its course and
accomplished its mission. The demolition provides the Pearl Harbor
disaster, and the "terrorist" planes provide the enemy-race invader and
a cover story for the destruction. Just as FDR told the lookouts on
Kauai to stand down just before the expected attack, so did GW Bush tell
the interceptors to stand down just before the planned events. And in
both cases we then see the outrage and the tears on our noble leader's

Al Qaeda, Pakistani Intelligence, and the CIA

Al Qaeda was the name of the recruiting network used by the CIA to bring
in radical Muslims and train them in the ways of terrorism so that they
could destabilize Afghanistan and indirectly the Soviet Union itself.
Pakistani Intelligence played a key role in helping to manage the
operation and deal with the transshipment of recruits, weapons, and
funds - as the destabilization operation grew to the scale of a full-on
confrontation with the Soviet military. The world Taliban means student
- the Taliban is what they called the graduates of the CIA terrorist
training programs.  The whole Islamic Jihad movement was a creation of
the CIA and was developed and managed by the CIA, with the ongoing
collaboration of Pakistani Intelligence.  At the same time that this
considerable terrorist force was being trained and armed, the media gave
us every once-in-a-while a warning from experts that terrorism was
likely to be the next big problem in the world, after the defeat of
Communism.  The predictions seemed a bit alarmist at the time to many of
us, but then we weren't aware that the predicted terrorist threat was
being systematically manufactured- at our expense - at that very moment.

In some sense, the word Al Qaeda symbolizes the linkage between US
Intelligence (CIA for short) and the various terrorist elements. Al
Qaeda is essentially the name of the network structures which have
enabled the CIA to make use of organized terrorist groups in various
imperialist operations carried out by every Administration since that
time.  The phony KLA freedom fighters were again a total creation of US
& German Intelligence, and  seasoned Al Qaeda terrorist forces were
brought in from Aghanistan and Pakitan to bolster the new-formed KLA for
the destabilization of Kosovo (critical for minerals and a pipeline
route). More recently in Macedonia, the same CIA-Pakistani-Al Qaeda
collaborative link delivered well-armed terrorist groups for yet another
destabilization operation.

Evidence of this ongoing collaboration, with Al Qaeda being in essence
an "asset" of the CIA, continues nearly up to the very day of 9-11. Long
after the Nairobi bombings and after Bin Laden had been identified as a
Bad Guy. It's not clear where the boundaries between CIA, Good Al Qaeda
elements, and Rogue Al Qaeda should be drawn, or if there are any real
boundaries. While no evidence has been produced that link Bin Laden with
9-11, Bin Laden has served very well as a Bad Guy To Hate. Whether
wittingly or unwittingly, he is doing exactly what he should be doing
(mostly issuing video tapes for US consumption) if he wants to solidify
support for the White House agenda. Is he a rogue? An asset? A dupe?
Hard to tell.

It appears that Al Qeada was and remains an operational link between US
Intelligence and terrorist groups. There may or may not be rogue
elements, but there seems never to have been a carte blanche severing of
communication between the CIA and all organized terrorist groups which
have been associated with Al Qaeda. We can only wonder if there have
been ANY significant terrorist events that have occurred against the
wishes of the Cheny Rumsfeld neocon conquerors of the world. The main
consequence of the Spanish train bombing, for example, was a greater
fear of terrorism in the EU population, increased EU support for Bush's
policies, and a new centralized EU anti-terrorism authority. All good
things from the White House perspective. The impact on the local
elections in Spain was a nice surprise for us and perhaps an unpleasant
one for the neocons, but it mattered little compared to the overall
"favorable" effect on the EU.

With 9-11, and the hijacking plotters, we have a crossing of the
Rubicon, a first-time use of Al Qeda groups against the domestic
population of Imperial Rome itself. The hijacking ring and the network
of plotters that supported it directly were very clumsy. They were the
kind of people you'd pick to be fall guys in a set up. If you had your
explosives ready in the Trade Center towers, you wouldn't trust these
guys to fly the planes and get it right. If you needed that, you would
have started with veteran pilots. These were the kind of guys who kept
getting noticed by the FBI and by intelligence agencies all over the
world. Time and again alarming reports were ignored and investigations
were squelched from the White House - "national security".   Indeed!  
Visas were given to people who had no business getting them, given their
known connections to terrorist groups.

If the towers collapsed from demolition, the operation was organized at
the highest levels of the US Intelliegence apparatus, and the
interceptor stand down was planned in advance, then the timing and
execution of the whole operation would be very complex. It could only be
trusted to professionals at every level. Professionals like the
demolition company that got the contract to take away the WTC rubble -
the same company that carted away the Oklahoma City rubble, again
quarantining investigation and carting everything off at maximum speed.
Perhaps they're as good at knocking down as they are at carting away.
And he who knocks down would be the natural choice to cart away. Fewer
people involved.

And for the planes, experienced military pilots. Definitely. Anything
else would be irresponsible in an operation of such great significance.
Kamakazi?  Not likely.  It turns out that commercial aircraft have for
some time been equipped with an override mechanism. It's supposedly an
anti-hijacking measure. From the ground, or from an AWACs plane, those
who know the codes and have the right equipment can take control of any
commercial airliner and override any action the hijacker might attempt
from the cockpit. The technology can be used to bring a hijacked plane
in for a safe landing at some appropriate air field. The technology
serves equally well to carry out a remote hijacking, regardless of who's
in the cockpit, and even if no one is in the cockpit.  Clearly, this
would be the piloting method of choice for the operation.

As I see it, the hijacking ring was essential to the operation only in
their role as fall guys. Whether they actually got on the planes or not
was of no significance, except as a way to get rid of them for the
stories they could tell.

The issue of fall guys brings us back to the connection with Pakestani
Intelligence (ISI). The head of the ISI (whose name escapes me at the
moment) was named by the FBI as being the man who transferred $100,000
to the account of the hijackers just prior to 9-11. The FBI called him
the "moneybags" of the attack on the WTC.  Where was this head of the
ISI on 9-11?  He was having breakfast in the Senate Lunch Room with the
Repubican and Democratic heads of the Select Committee on Intellgence. 
He also met during his visit with members of the Cabinet. And this was
the moneybags of the hijackers.  He was in town, conveniently, from the
8th to the 13th of September.

I imagine that those who welcomed him to the Senate Lunch Room were not
aware of the events that were about to transpire. But our ISI man knew
and he wanted insurance against himself or ISI becoming a fall guy. He
knew his money transfer left a trail, and who knows what shifts in
alliances might occur after such a world-changing event. What he was
doing "on the day" gave him some protection from being demonized. How
would you explain a Saddam in the Senate Lunch Room? The old
CIA-Pakistani Intelligence-Al Qaeda collaboration was still operating,
and our ISI guy wanted it to stay that way a bit longer.

The names "Al Qaeda" and "Bin Laden" identify "the enemy". They stand as
symbols for what the War on Terrorism is about. Meanwhile, the troop are
deployed wherever some conquest is desired, with no relation to the
purported Al Qaeda threat. And also meanwhile, the CIA-Al Qaeda network
continues to operate. It's both Orwellian and Kafkaesque.

The Aftermath

I believe that the evidence points rather convincingly to a complex,
professionally managed, covert operation, followed by a characteristic
impound-all-the-evidence cover up. That's the interpretation that best
explains all the facts (Occum's razor), and that's the interpretation
that matches the modus operandi of the CIA-Al Qaeda perpetrators:
terrorist acts intended to achieve specific political results. The only
new thing was the fact that it happened inside the walls of Rome. The
magnitude was not a new thing. 3,000 or so people is tiny compared to
the number killed in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and all the other places the
CIA-Al Qaeda network has been operating.

I've discussed these kinds of evidence sometimes in personal
conversation. The impression I often get is that the main barrier to
considering seriously the covert-op scenario is a deeply held belief
that "Our leaders just wouldn't do that kind of thing, not to
Americans!". They have, however, done it before. After all these years
enough evidence has emerged that we can say it happened at the first
Pearl Harbor. And there was the Agent Orange in Vietnam, and the
depleted uranium that is affecting thousands of desert Vets. And the
brutality with which the labor movement has been suppressed over the
years, and it goes on an on. Ordinary Americans have never been immune
from imperialist suppression, we've just on average been more on the
gravy side of the empire than on the death-and-devastation side. And of
course we're encouraged by the media to think of ourselves as "special",
"fair", "freedom loving", and all that.

If we look at the question of "Would they do it?", assuming for the
moment a Machievellian mentality, then the motivational evidence is
overwhelming. The MISSION of these folks is to pursue the New American
Century - they've been developing and promoting the agenda for years,
and have finally politic'd their way among the power brokers and made it
to the White House. They said in writing that they needed a New Pearl
Harbor, they got it, and now they're pursuing their agenda just as they
said they would. Before 9-11 their agenda would have seemed like a pipe
dream, which is how Mein Kampf was viewed by most when it was written.
Zie Korrekt Managements of Dies Eventz - can make dreams come true. And


So again I ask the question.  You in the jury, what do you
believe about 9-11? And why?

all the best,


    "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
      suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
      Reichstag fire."  
      - Srdja Trifkovic

    There is not a problem with the system.
    The system is the problem.

    Faith in humanity, not gods, ideologies, or programs.

cyberjournal home page:

"Zen of Global Transformation" home page:

QuayLargo discussion forum:

cj list archives:

newslog list archives:

'Truthout' excellent news source:

subscribe addresses for cj list: