Random stuff, stuff I like, blog improvement stuff. The usual...

Sunday, July 30, 2006

The importance of getting 9/11 right

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq - even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11
With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." - meaning Saddam Hussein - "at same time. Not only UBL" - the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." CBS News, 9/4/2002

“I want you all to understand that we are at war and we will stay at war until this is done. Nothing else matters. Everything is available for the pursuit of this war. Any barriers in your way, they’re gone. Any money you need, you have it. This is our only agenda.” When Rumsfeld points out that international law only allows force to prevent future attacks and not for retribution, Bush yells, “No. I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 23-24] source- Complete 9/11 Timeline - 9:00 PM, 9/11/2001

(11:30 p.m.): Bush Sees New Pearl Harbor Before going to sleep, President Bush writes in his diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today. ... We think it’s Osama bin Laden.” [Washington Post, 1/27/2002] source- Complete 911 Timeline
(broken WaPo link- see screenshot below for an alternate URL for the article)

But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. source- White House Press Conference, March 2002

During Wednesday's hearing, Leahy questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Tuesday assertion that the prison camp was an essential part of the U.S.-led War on Terror. "All of us know this war will not end in our lifetime," Leahy said.
source- Congress Probes Gitmo Questions (Fox News)

At least one skeptic of the official explanation for the events of 9/11, Mike Ruppert, feels that looking at 9/11 any further will be like looking at "elephant that just ran us over" instead of at "the herd of elephants charging at us". Since I'm about to write several posts about 9/11 (posted in reverse chronological order for easier flow in reading), it's pretty clear to me that I don't totally agree with this assessment. There are at least three reasons for this- one being that while members of Mike Ruppert's audience may be willing to concede that an elephant has indeed just run them over, not everyone agrees that there was an elephant (or if there was on what the elephant looked like). Another is that the events preceeding, culminating in and following 9/11 (and all that has been written on that subject) seem to me to provide a stellar example for study in terms of conspiracy theory, misinformation and disinformation among other things. The third is what the events of 9/11 have been (and will continue to be) used to justify both domestically and worldwide- wars, torture, domestic spying, etc. and the cost, both financially and in terms of freedom of those things which are being justified by the events of 9/11 (and not just in or by the United States, which is partly why at the end of my essay I will make a plea for worldwide assistance in looking more closely at the events surrounding 9/11). Although the events of 9/11 took place predominantly within the borders of the US, many events around the world led toward that day. Also, the ripple efects from that event have worldwide consequences.

I will often bring up information previously mentioned on other sites which deal with 9/11, but will try to present evidence from primary sources (government websites and pages, official documents, newspaper, magazine and television stories, etc. which quote named sources who have relevant credentials and information) as much as possible. I owe a great debt to all of the researchers who have written on this topic, but I have nonetheless found it necessary to check, recheck, verify and/or refute any and all sources of information presented to the degree that it has been possible for me to do that online in a limited time period. These posts will only scratch the bare surface of a topic on which many books have been and will be written. You may also find some of my diary entries at dailykos useful for background information should you decide to take the plunge into all of this, particularly Keeping track of some of the major neocon players and their connections - who's on first?.

I will be using a primary tool for investigative purposes- the Internet Archive.

My main focus will be to document information (pictures, articles, websites, etc. which may provide relevant information to 9/11) which is no longer easily accessible, has been changed, or in some cases seems no longer to be available on the internet at all (as far as I can determine).

I will be attempting to document the evidence which I come across online by using screenshots.

I believe that my documentation of evidence will fall under the Fair Use guidelines which I have quoted from the 9/11 reading room

There seem to be two basic ways in which one can disprove or debunk theories, arguments, accounts of events, etc. The first one is to point out enough logical flaws (improbabilities, inconsistencies and/or impossibilities, etc.) in the account to call into question its validity as an explanation. The second is to offer an alternative explanation which better fits the known data. To give a simple example of the first method, one does not need to be able to prove conclusively that 1+1=2 in most cases in order to show evidence that 1+1=3 has a high probability of being incorrect. In this essay, I will not attempt to make many claims about what the data I present may mean. Instead, I offer it as potentially interesting data which may suggest that the official account of 9/11 may not be complete, accurate and/or truthful.
Given the possibility of disinformation about the events of 9/11, I won't attempt to present my evidence as more than that or to speculate on alternative explanations which may better account for the verifiable data. Nonetheless, I think that alternate explanations are a valuable avenue of pursuit, they are simpy beyond the scope of this essay. There are certainly enough sites around which delve into various possible scenarios without my attempting to add anything to them. So without further ado, here's what several weeks of research, documenting and writing on my part have produced:


Post a Comment

<< Home