US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Holes in the Official Story - 911 in Context
18 May 2002
Modified: 19 May 2002
this was published as part of a 911 feature on Portland IMC a few months ago. now that the mainstream is starting to ask "who knew what when", it's time to look at the context of this "terrorist" event. what the hell is going on here???
Holes in the Official Story - 9/11 in Context

What's missing from the official story of 9/11 is historical context. The spin doctors want us to "remember September 11th" over and over again, so we don't notice what happened before or what has happened since. The administration not only refuses to talk about historical context, but systematically "discourages" people from doing so - as in, for example, teachers who dare to discuss the big picture surrounding "terrorism" risk being branded anti-American and getting fired. These attacks are not the result of over-zealous "patriotism", but a necessary component of enforcing the propaganda. The spinners understand that historical context is a crucial piece of the puzzle. Because once we understand who the players are in this game of Infinite War, and examine their actions prior to and since 9/11, the official story - used to justify violence against "terrorists" around the world – falls apart.

Who is George W. Bush?

The full catalog of crimes, suspicious activities and associations, and general sliminess of George W. Bush and his family reaches far beyond the scope of this article. So let's just focus on a few highlights, starting with a recent (though nevertheless forgotten and/or deemed irrelevant) bit of history: the November 2000 presidential election. Bush lost the popular vote by over 500,000 votes. He now occupies the White House because he stole Florida's electoral votes – by eliminating thousands of voters from the registration lists, obstructing and intimidating voters at the polls, and tampering in the post-election recount process. Rather than throwing him into jail for these outrageous (not to mention unconstitutional) crimes, the Supreme Court actually appointed him our president.

Factor in whose votes were eliminated from the electoral process - mostly African-Americans, and that the Governor of Florida (a state suddenly rife with all kinds of suspicious activities) is Jeb Bush, the [p]Resident's brother. And that all the major US media NYT, CNN, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal) collectively decided (?) not to broadcast this story (even though it seems like a fairly significant piece of news). The international press was not so silent about the election results:

"The most detailed analysis yet of the contested Florida votes from last year's presidential election ... is being withheld by the news organizations that commissioned it.... The consortium is deliberately hiding the results of its recount because Gore was the indisputable winner.'" (Sydney Morning Herald)

Did anyone in a position of power - for instance, Congress -- challenge Bush on his illegal appointment to the White House? This is one of those instances where, in a democracy, you would expect to see public outrage, led by the "opposition" party (and supported by an inquisitive and truth-seeking media, haha). Yeah, it's possible that all of our elected officials are corrupt and/or spineless. But I would guess that some degree of bribery and/or coercion would be necessary to ensure such complete silence. (A few well-placed Anthrax letters, perhaps?)

What the hell is going on here?

Somehow, W's White House takeover has been accepted as a matter of course - especially since 9/11. Now even questioning Bush's legitimacy earns you the label "unpatriotic" (but I guess it's patriotic to tamper
with the electoral process) and ensures you an FBI file (don't want to get him all distracted from his war now, do we?). But, if you look at the facts as if you were reading about another country's election (say, one of those "third world" dictatorships), the "election" looks more like some banana republic corporate/CIA-engineered coup. Or at least, you gotta admit, it doesn't look anything like a democracy. And if it's not a democracy, what is it? And if Bush is not the legally elected President of the US, then what is he? And what kind of person would steal an election, i.e., forcibly take control of a country?

It helps to understand a little about where Shrub is coming from - and again, the exhaustive version of the Bush family's criminal history would fill several volumes, so I'm just offering a small sampling. W's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was the managing director of the investment bank that helped finance Hitler's rise to power starting in 1923, "including direct funding for the SS and SA channeled through a variety of German firms" (Ruppert, FTW). This is not a far-out allegation by a conspiracy theorist, this is public record: "The business relationships established by Bush in 1923 continued even after the war started
until they became so offensive and overt as to warrant seizure by the U.S. government under the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1942" (FTW). Much of the Bush family fortune comes from supplying needed raw materials and credit to Hitler's Third Reich.

Prescott's son, George Herbert Walker Bush, proves himself to be a chip off the old block, continuing the "trading with the enemy" business with the next generation's Hitler, Saddam Hussein. As president, Bush authorized a series of programs that not only armed Iraqi dictator Hussein but also provided him with technology that assisted in his development of chemical and biological weapons. This was not some mistake, or a poor judgment call: "Bush directives and policies... were directly and deliberately responsible for creating the army the U.S. fought in 1991" (FTW). Bush Sr. also made a name for himself as CIA director (need I say more?); a buddy of Panamanian dictator Noriega; a prime orchestrator of the despicable Iran-Contra scam; and as a player in several shady financial deals (S&L, BCCI, etc.).

Bush Sr. hasn't exactly crept off into retirement - the father of our tough-on-terrorism [p]Resident "works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm" (Wall Street Journal, 9/28/01). The Carlyle Group is the 11th largest defense contractor and its directors include a roster of Bush/Reagan cronies. As a representative of Carlyle, Bush Sr. met with the bin Laden family in 1998 and 2000. According to a Carlyle executive, the WSJ reports, the bin Laden family invested $2 million in 1995, and so far has received $1.3 million back in completed investments. "But a foreign financier with ties to the bin Laden family says the family's overall investment with Carlyle is considerably larger."

That is to say, as a result of the 9/11 attacks, with the resulting massive increase in US defense spending, the bin Laden family just got a hell of a lot richer. And so did the Bush clan.

The current [p]Resident Bush has also had - at the least - indirect dealings with Carlyle and the bin Ladens. Michael Ruppert, who has meticulously traced the financial dealings of the Bush family, reports that in 1976 W's firm Arbusto Energy "was funded with $50,000 from Texas investment banker James R. Bath who was also the US investment counselor for the bin Laden family" (Bath also has connections to the CIA, the S&L scandal, and covert financing in Iran-Contra). And, in 1990, at a time when the bin Ladens were invested in Carlyle, W was corporate director of a company owned by the Carlyle Group.

Considering the family tradition of war-profiteering through arming and creating "enemies" of the US, Bush's ties to bin Laden seem more than a little fishy. Especially once we look more closely at this so-called Enemy.

Osama and the Islamic Fanatics

Osama bin Laden, aka Public Enemy #1, was accused of "masterminding" the 9/11 attacks long before the smoke from the fallen WTC towers had stopped billowing. The cartoon version that we've been presented with is "a zealot of great, dark passion" (Tom Brokaw), an anti-American Islamic fanatic who wants nothing less than an all-out war against Western democracy and freedom.

First we need to set the record straight about this radical-fundamentalist-Islamic-anti-American-anti-Christian movement that is allegedly taking over the planet and beating their fanatical way right to our borders (and even within!). There are several excellent sources that expose the CIA's fostering and creation of Islamic fundamentalism, starting with plans under Brzezinski during the Carter administration, right through March 2001 when the CIA gave $43 million to the Taliban. Many progressive/alternative journalists and intellectuals have done significant work in exposing the US government's complicity in creating this Islamic "movement" and in establishing the numerous reasons for anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. However, the conclusion reached, that the 9/11 attacks were a kind of "blowback" response to US foreign policy, plays into Bush's propaganda. What's missing from most leftist analysis is the next logical step of questioning the validity of this "terrorist threat" that's assumed to be out there.

Again, it's useful to look at history - remember when it was the "communists" who were practically crawling out our drainpipes? Remember how none of those terribly evil "communists" ever actually attacked the US? The US invaded their countries, trained and armed death squads to murder, torture and rape civilians, to destroy farms and villages, and all with the purpose of - protecting the American people from the imminent threat of communism? Not too convincing, is it? How about: to make those countries safe for American capital?

A little "third world" perspective is also useful here:

"The International Coalition Against Terror is largely a cabal of the richest countries in the world. They manufacture and sell almost all of the world's weapons, they possess the largest stockpile of weapons
of mass destruction - chemical, biological and nuclear. They have fought the most wars, account for most of the genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in modern history, and have sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers of dictators and despots." (Arundhati Roy, 10/23/01)

The people we're supposed to be terrified of are the ones living in the poorest countries of the world, people who, one would imagine, are far more concerned with daily survival than with plotting the overthrow of distant super-powers. And, as anyone with even a superficial understanding of the Islamic world realizes, Islam is not a unified force. The religion is full of deep theological and sectarian divisions that, along with equally divisive racial, tribal, national, regional, political, cultural, linguistic, and historic factors, render highly unlikely any unified terrorist coalition. So, the "radical Islamic threat" starts to look like an invention to convince Americans that their security is threatened, in order to justify waging war against people living in resource-rich countries. (Remember, this war on terror is brought to you by the same solid citizens who brought you Iran-Contra.)

Back to Osama. That he was trained by the CIA, that he was an American asset in the war against the Soviets on Afghan soil, is no secret to anyone who is paying attention (even if only to the mainstream news). Lesser known is that Osama collaborated with the US in Chechnya and Bosnia, supplying training and fighters to the Chechens and Bosnian Muslims, and that he offered the same services to the Kosovo Liberation Army during the NATO attack on Serbia. His latest collaboration with the US has been to provide mercenaries in Macedonia to destabilize the government there, similar to US policy in Kosovo and Albania. There's that saying: "once a CIA agent, always a CIA agent." Considering: Osama's activities in Afghanistan prior to 1990; his activities on the "US side" in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia; Clinton's refusal to allow Sudan to extradite him in 1996; his meeting with CIA officials in Dubai in July 2001; the long-term business connections between the Bush and bin Laden empires; the fact that the Bush administration suppressed investigations into connections between members of the bin Laden family and possible terrorist groups (Palast, BBC); the fact that on September 13, 2001, eleven members of bin Laden's family were flown out of the US back to Saudi Arabia (while all other air traffic was grounded), and with no comment from the White House (Palast) - doesn't all this point to a continued working relationship between US covert forces and The #1 Terrorist Threat? "Response" to Terror?

The official story coming from the liberal left is that the Bush gang might be over-reacting a wee bit because they were so totally caught off-guard and freaked out by the events of 9/11. They have to prove that they really are on top of things by starting a war - maybe to keep the American public distracted so they don't notice the government/ military's incompetence or negligence in not being able to prevent the acts of terrorism, and of course to justify their massive defense spending increases (more than a billion dollars a day - feel safe yet?).

There are a few fundamental problems with this explanation - the first being that the attack on Afghanistan is hardly a "response" to 9/11. Ruppert, among many others, presents overwhelming evidence that the US had been planning to go to "war" against Afghanistan for years. He quotes International Law Professor Francis Boyle (Univ. of Illinois), who wrote on 10/12/01:

"We know for a fact that [the war against Afghanistan] had been war-gamed by the Pentagon going back to 1997. Right around 9/11, two US Aircraft carrier task forces conveniently arrived in the Persian Gulf right at the same time on "rotation." ... Just before 9/11, the UK had put together what was billed as the "largest armada since the Falklands War" and had it steaming towards Oman, where now 23,000 UK troops are on maneuvers. ... Also, the US "Bright Star" operation is currently going on in Egypt. 23,000 US troops plus an additional 17,000 from NATO and its associates. ... Finally, NATO just landed 12,000 troops into Turkey." (FTW 10/15/01)

Boyle's assertion that this kind of military mobilization "must have been in the works for at least the past four years" is seconded by Stan Goff, a former Army Special Forces Master Sergeant who taught military science at West Point: "I can't help but conclude that the actions we are seeing put into motion now are part of a pre-September 11th agenda. I'm absolutely sure of that, in fact. The planning alone for operations of this scale... would take many months. And we are seeing them take shape in mere weeks." The US pre-9/11 plans for attacking Afghanistan were no secret internationally. In June 2001 India Reacts reported that "India and Iran will ‘facilitate' the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban" (6/26/01). And, as early as March, 2001, an article from Jane's Intelligence Review reports that "India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime" (3/15/01).

We also have to debunk the myth of the 9/11 "surprise attack" (again, history is useful here - see Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin...). Yes, 9/11 was a huge intelligence failure - but not because our intelligence agencies didn't KNOW anything, but because they didn't DO anything with their knowledge (like, stop the attacks). Rather than being completely caught off-guard by such an out-of-the-blue terrorist attack, US agencies had received specific warnings from the governments of at least four countries - Germany, Egypt, Russia and Israel. The combined story from these alerts predicts the scale of the attack and its main target, as well as naming hijacked commercial aircraft as the weapon of choice (WSWS). Despite this information, no US intelligence agency issued any warning of a possible attack on the US in the months leading up to September 11.

Post-9/11 - Filling in the Holes

So what the hell IS going on here? If the official story of 9/11 is phony, if we were not, in fact, attacked by Osama and his fellow fanatics, then who did it and why? The Bush administration certainly isn't working to find those answers. On the contrary, both Bush and Cheney called on the FBI to stop the investigation into 9/11. The US has made no effort to investigate Mike Vreeland, who while in Toronto jail, wrote a letter in August, outlining what was going to happen on Sept 11th, and which was in the guard’s custody, and only opened afterwards. You would think they would be interested to talk to a man who irrefutably had foreknowledge. And the WTC rubble, which would obviously provide clues to unexplained events of that day (of which there are several), has been shipped off to India and China. Bill Manning, writing in Fire Engineering Magazine (which is demanding an investigation into the events of 911) asserts that: "I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall" (Selling Out the Investigation). Then there is the odd story of a woman, one Katherine Smith, charge with aiding a number of men, supposedly tied to the Sept 11th WTC attacks, in obtaining fake drivers licenses. The day before she was supposed to testify, she died under 'very suspicious' circumstances. Who killed her? and why did it receive almost no coverage?

If Bush & Co. were serious about tracking down the terrorists responsible for 9/11, there are several obvious "leads" they could have followed. There's the highly unusual financial trading that took place just before 9/11. Ruppert has meticulously researched this subject and the full story can be read on his site The short version is that someone with considerable financial resources, and foreknowledge of the terrorist event, put stock options "against" the airlines that were to explode that week of 911. The US media reported these insider trading profits from 9/11 - when they thought it was Arab terrorists. But then the story mysteriously disappeared. The Independent (UK) revealed that the money trail leads to a firm chaired by the 3rd highest man in the CIA, Buzzy Krongard. And the investigation stops there?

And then there's the strange case of Anthrax. At first we were told that it was "weapons grade" and coming from those darn crazy Arab terrorists again. Conveniently, and inexplicably, the "terrorists" were working in synch with W's agenda, targeting exactly the people who might have lagged a bit in getting on message with the war on terror (Democratic congresspeople, media outlets). Then it turns out that the Anthrax is home-grown - and that the FBI actually okayed destruction of Anthrax samples at Iowa State University that could have provided significant clues (i.e., more destruction of evidence). And then – once again - the story disappeared from the news, end of investigation.

The question of who benefits is always essential to figuring out the real story behind the official story - and this case is no exception. That Bush & Co. benefited so much from the 9/11 attacks is not a divine stroke of luck. The oil companies will get their pipeline through Afghanistan. Corporations and their ruling elites have been granted riches beyond their wildest hopes through ludicrous tax cuts. Defense contractors can't produce their weapons of mass destruction fast enough, new orders for bigger better and deadlier ones coming in all the time...

And the USA PATRIOT Act, a 170-page document that was rammed through Congress virtually un-read (and obviously created pre-9/11), has meanwhile nullified many of the basic democratic rights granted by the Constitution. Hmm. Although presented as a necessary measure against further terrorist acts, the bill actually provides few new powers that would significantly strengthen protections against terrorism. What it does, oddly enough, is provide a long list of powers over the US domestic population desired by the CIA and FBI for decades: "essentially a new COINTELPRO has been authorized, undoubtedly with the primary target, as previously, being the Left" (9/11: A Desperate Provocation by US Capitalism).

One writer has convincingly linked the events of 9/11 to the anti-globalization movement. The threat of "terrorism" and the subsequent phony war on terror has enabled the establishment of machinery to control the inevitable rise of a resistance movement when the shit hits the fan - i.e., when the oil starts to run out for real: "The capitalist imperative of continual expansion of production and growing global consumption will place severe stress on the global capitalist system, stress which the US planners intend to manage for their own benefit. The War on Terrorism is a fraud. Its purpose is to maintain carte blanche for the ever more desperate agenda of American capital: the domination of the continent of Eurasia, and the crushing of the Left worldwide, especially its anti-capitalist core."

9/11 could have been the final necessary event in the coup that "went public" in the 2000 election, but whose roots in history are much deeper.
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


The Power of Money
18 May 2002
Yes, the roots of 9-11 are very deep. And when fully exposed, the World Bank Group's bribed & blackmailed Republicrats will finally fall.

The fiasco can be traced back to Election Fraud 2000, the S&L Swindle, Iran-Contra, the 1980 October Surprise, the assassination of JFK, the National Security Act of 1947, the First & Second World Wars, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the invention of Zionism, the assassination of Lincoln, Skull & Bones, and even as far back as the era when banksters such as Alexander Hamilton where struggling to hijack the American Revolution.

It will make for a very interest book, won't it? And naturally the corporate media and their so-called "newspapers" will dismiss history as a mere "conspiracy theory".

The bottom line is THE POWER OF MONEY - an artificial psychological concoction designed to fool most of the people most of the time....
See also:
19 May 2002

Things have been quiet up til now because trusting Americans have not questioned authority.
Now, thanks to some blabbermouths who have used an opportunity to get the Bush Brigade and his Party, we will all have to suffer in order for them to prooooove that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bin Laden caper of last September