There is something disturbing in the nature of post 9/11 public discourse. Incessantly, on a daily basis, Al Qaeda is referred to by the Western media, government officials, members of the US Congress, Wall Street analysts, etc. as an underlying cause of numerous World events. Occurrences of a significant political, social or strategic nature –including the US presidential elections campaign– are routinely categorized by referring to Al Qaeda, the alleged architect of the September 11 2001 attacks.
The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper’s website for the past three days was the “Inside the Beltway” report, “Explosive News,” about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press conference seriously.
How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate into fine dust? How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires? “A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7,” reports the Washington Times.
In 1994, several months before the first commercial web-browser software launched the popular explosion of the world-wide web, R. J. Rummel’s book, Death by Government, was published. Bigeye.com gave it a separate webpage. A quick review of this book’s chapter headings underscores the fact that a murder of 3,000 or so people resulting from governmental activity (if that is the case of 9/11) would be an exceedingly small “drop in the bucket” in the over-all scheme of things.
Persons who are curious about what may or may not have happened on Sept. 11, 2001 must separate evidence from narrative. Because the 9/11 narrative has been strongly established, an unbiased researcher must not begin with any “official” narrative (one that tells you what happened). Start from scratch by putting aside all aspects of the narrative you have seen and heard on TV or read in mainline news sources. This is what THESE PEOPLE have done.
I know your initial response: “What about (phone calls, ‘hijacker’ tape, 19 flight-school Muslim terrorists …”). Many of us have been asking questions, perhaps the same ones you have, and seeking answers for several years. I’d like to recommend to you a recent book, The Hidden History of 9/11, edited by Paul Zarembka. Unless your mind is closed (“I know [the official story] must be true ’cause the government tells me so”), before you read the book spend time with bigeye.com’s 911 links. If you know little of the real 911, you can easily educate yourself by watching videos on THIS PAGE.
When you grasp the WHY of 9/11 you will have less emotional resistance to discovering who murdered over 3,000 of our citizens. The late Aaron Russo’s documentary videos offer a broad theory of the WHY. They need to be seen, although it seems unrealistic that a controlling oligarchy would risk employing technical expertise to execute 911. A more plausible theory, starting from CUI BONO, (Who Benefits? – the Latin starting argument in determining guilt) was propounded at the end of 2003 by Professor Paul J. Balles. Motive and benefit may be shared by both the guilty and the innocent. To accomplish a sophisticated event like 911 requires means and opportunity, as well as motive (benefit).
A back-scattered electron (BSE) image featured in the newly published paper.
Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen
The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.
What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?
Counter-terrorism experts have some insight into terrorist attacks, right?
In fact, numerous high-level counter-terrorism experts question the government’s investigation of – and explanation for – 9/11.
For example:
Terrell (Terry) E. Arnold was the number 2 counter-terrorism official at the U.S. State Department, and is one of the world’s leading experts on terror. Arnold served as the Deputy Director, Office of Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Planning, at the U.S. State Department. He is also the former Chairman of the Department of International Studies at the National War College. Arnold is skeptical of the government’s explanation for 9/11
“The best I could say about it is they really botched the job by not really going into the real failures. … At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous.”
Nobel Peace Prize winner, Harold Pinter died on Christmas Eve 2008. A playwright of English-speaking theater classics, his political works also made a considerable impact on millions of people.
While American journalists continue to operate letters without a license, and as a result many Americans have no idea what is actually happening in the world or what has already been done “in our name”, the second half of Pinter’s 2005 Nobel Prize lecture is one of the most searing indictments of US foreign policy ever made:
“The majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.
“As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.
“The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it….”
In the personal and private writings of Harry S. Truman, he says, “I don’t think there’s ever been a president who really did damage because he wanted damage to be done. I don’t think any of them willfully and maliciously tried to get the country in trouble…”
Looking back over the last eight years we can see what Harry could not have believed. Starting with Enron, the theft by manipulation of billions from California’s utility payers, this administration has willfully and maliciously done just that and more.
After the utter fiasco of 9/11, when the finest air defense system in the world stood down just long enough for the Vice-President to have to confirm the order to stand down in an emergency of unprecedented proportions, the “Patriot Act”, a one-foot thick stack of legal documents that abolished most of the Bill of Rights appeared overnight. No one assembles a foot-high stack of documents without preparation and, dare I say it, premeditation.
-
Designed by