By Elias Davidsson, June 2005

On 12 September 2001, the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution condemning the mass murder of 9/11 as an act of “international” terrorism.[1] The Council was not presented with any evidence proving that the crime was instigated from outside the United States. On 2 October 2001, the US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism, Frank Taylor, presented to the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s top decision-making body, a secret dossier. On the base of that dossier the Council “determined that the individuals who carried out the attacks belonged to the world-wide terrorist network of Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and protected by the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.”[2] The dossier, which allegedly contains the incriminating evidence, remains to this day secret.[3] Recalling the lies told by U.S. administration officials and by British Premier Tony Blair regarding alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,[4] the former deceivers bear the burden of proving their good faith. They can do so by releasing their alleged incriminating evidence for all to see. 

The present account briefly presents the case that the official account on 9/11 is a fabrication intended to deceive the American population and the world at large into believing that the crime of 9/11 was orchestrated by Osama bin Laden and his al Qa’ida lieutnants and perpetrated by a group of nineteen committed Muslim fanatics. The study does not dwell upon various alternative theories but suggests that the suspects for this crime against humanity must be searched among the highest echelons of U.S. political and military leadership. The implications arising from such a possibility are extremely disturbing but should not deter concerned citizens from seeking the full truth on 9/11.

The official account on 9/11

The official account, nailed down in June 2004 by the Commission of Inquiry on the events of 9/11 established by George W. Bush, was based on the following fundamental determinations:

(a)  Four passenger aircraft were hijacked and flown by Muslim terrorists as “missiles” into various landmarks in the United States: 

Flight AA11, registration number N334AA, a Boeing 767, from Boston Logan airport

Flight UA175, registration number N612UA, a Boeing 767, from Boston Logan airport

Flight AA77, registration number N644AA, a Boeing 757, from Dulles airport, Washington, D.C.

Flight UA93, registration number N591UA, a Boeing 757, from Newark international airport, N.J.

(b)  Nineteen persons, all of them bearing Arab names, were identified by the FBI as the hijackers. Their names were posted on the FBI website and publicized worldwide.

(c)  The alleged hijackers were acting under the orders and/or inspiration of Osama bin Laden and a terrorist organisation designated as al-Qa’ida (or al-Qaeda), headquartered in Afghanistan.

(d)  Flight AA11 hits the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 AM

(e)  Flight UA175 hits the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03 AM

(f)  Flight AA77 hits the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. at 9:37 AM

(g)  Flight UA93 hits the ground in a field near Shankesville, Pennsylvania at 10:03 AM

(h)  Three high-rise buildings in New York, the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center, as well as the building designated as World Trade Center No. 7, collapsed on 9/11 as a result of raging fires.

These fundamental determinations were, in turn, based on a variety of incidental “evidence”, much of it undisclosed. The official story was in turn the base on which the U.S. government would eventually declare that the United States had been subject of an international terrorist attack. The official account represented the main public justification for the United States to invoke self-defense and pursue a bombing campaign against Afghanistan, allegedly to uproot the instigators of 9/11, and the subsequent invasion and occupation of that country by U.S. and other NATO forces.

The U.S. administration refuses to produce incriminating evidence

Yet for all the bombastic allegations made since 9/11 by the U.S. administration, it has consistently refused to produce the evidence that it possesses or is deemed to possess regarding al Qa’id and Osama bin Laden’s responsibility for the mass murder of 9/11. Evidence that 19 Muslims, named as the kamikaze pilots of 9/11, actually boarded the doomed planes would typically include:

• the original passenger lists of the four allegedly hijacked, listing the names of the alleged hijackers;
• coupons of boarding cards, listing the names of the alleged hijackers;
• payment records for flight tickets purchased by the allege hijackers;
• testimonies of ground personnel who saw off the the alleged hijackers actually boarding;
• hijackers’ bodily remains.

One would have expected that the U.S. administration would as soon as possible rush to prove its allegations by producing direct incriminating evidence, such as those items listed above. Contrary to expectations, the U.S. administration has adamantly refused to release any of the above evidence, with no justification given. American and United Airlines who were the main source for this information were apparently forbidden by law-enforcement authorities, on the base of undisclosed rules, to release it to the public. The effect of this refusal means that even the families of the passengers who died on 9/11 have not been provided with hard evidence proving that their beloved ones actually boarded the hijacked planes. They are expected to simply believe the official account on the base of blind faith in official truth.

One would also have expected that the Pentagon would rush to show to the public photographic and video evidence documenting the crash of flight AA77 on the Pentagon. Yet, no photographic evidence of aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon from 9/11 could be located anywhere in the public domain (a Boeing 757 which weighs about 60 tons would certainly leave upon crash a sizeable wreck, as shown by photographic evidence of aircraft crashes).The Pentagon has also refused to release the numerous video recordings it possesses, which would show the incoming aircraft and its impact on the Pentagon. The justification for refusing to release this evidence has been that it ?would reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings?[5]. Enforcement proceedings against whom? Those who have studied the photographs documenting the damage inflicted on the Pentagon building have presented compelling arguments as to the physical impossibility of the official account. Such arguments relate particularly to the size and nature of the damage on the Pentagon. If flight AA77 did not crash on the Pentagon, the U.S. authorities would have to explain what happened to the passengers of that flight, i.e. who killed them and where.

Donald Rumsfeld contends, however, that “in the age of weapons of mass destruction”, standards of evidence requiring to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt?[6] are not appropriate:

“We still do not know with certainty who was behind the 1996 bombing the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia – an attack that killed 19 American service members. We still do not know who is responsible for last year’s anthrax attacks. The nature of terrorist attacks is that it is often very difficult to identify who is ultimately responsible. Indeed, our consistent failure over the past two decades to trace terrorist attacks to their ultimate source gives terrorist states the lesson that using terrorist networks as proxies is an effective way of attacking the U.S. with impunity.”[7]

Should one read Rumsfeld’s statement as an apology for thwarting a criminal investigation of the greatest mass murder in U.S. contemporary history or as an unguarded revelation about his awareness of “false flag? operations?

Questions about the identities of the alleged hijackers

Shortly after 9/11, British media reported that at least five of the 19 individuals listed by the FBI as the “hijackers? (Abdulaziz Alomari, Wail al-Shehri, Salem al-Hamzi, Saeed al-Ghamdi and Ahmed al-Nami) were still living,[8] Some of these individuals were reported puzzled and furious to have their photographs and names distributed worldwide as the alleged terrorists of 9/11. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller admitted twice on CNN (20 and 27 September 2001) that there is “no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers”.[9] Commentators hinted that the hijackers may have used “stolen? identities. If this were the case, the FBI would bear the burden to identify the real “terrorists” rather than blame the crime on ghosts. Yet, the FBI maintains till this day on its website the names and photographs of the above “living? suicide hijackers, failing to address this absurdity.[10] The question arises whether other names of alleged hijackers are equally phoney or stolen. The ?9/11 Commission? established by President Bush, claiming to have provided a “comprehensive? account of the 9/11 events, glossed entirely over this question as if the question of the alleged hijackers? identities had never arisen and were of no consequence. 

The U.S. administration opposes investigations into 9/11

The U.S. and its allies have been unwilling to prove Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’id responsibility for 9/11. They claim that revealing such proof would undermine the effectiveness of their “war on terrorism”. But is this claim compatible with the reluctance of the U.S. authorities to investigate the deadliest mass murder in contemporary American history?

In fact, merely 24 hours after 9/11, at a meeting in the White House’s Cabinet Room, Attorney General John Ashcroft stated that the FBI should not waste its time to investigate and identify those responsible for the mass murder committed in the previous day.[11] The chief mission of the FBI, he said, was to stop another attack and apprehend any accomplices or terrorists before they hit again. Yet, the U.S. administration did not expect any further attacks. In the same morning as this meeting took place, Mr. Ari Fleischer, the White House’s spokesman, announced in a press conference ? citing undisclosed intelligence sources – that “the perpetrators have executed their plan and, therefore, the risks are significantly reduced?[12]. It appears now that Ari Fleischer’s slip of the tongue was too embarrassing for the White House: The transcript of this particular press conference was swiftly removed from the White House’s website.[13] Only one major media (USA Today) and the website of the Department of State still maintain a reference to this puzzling statement.[14] No journalist addressed the implication of this incriminating statement. For how could the White House know already 24 hours after the events that the risks were “significantly reduced? unless it had foreknowledge of the “terrorists”? plan?

And if the previous statement by John Ashcroft did not suffice, it was repeated exactly four weeks after 9/11. At that time Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller “ordered agents to drop their investigation of the attacks or any other assignment any time they learn of a threat or lead that might suggest a future attack.”[15] One year after the events there was still no official investigation into 9/11.[16] While investigations into past disasters and attacks such as Pearl Harbor, the Titanic, the assassination of President Kennedy and the Shuttle Challenger explosion “were established in less than 10 days”,[17] President Bush resisted for 411 days before grudgingly accepting to form a National Commission to investigate the events of 9/11. He did so only after having secured himself the power to nominate the Chairman and the Executive Director of the Commission and to restrict the Commission’s mandate, subpoena powers and funding. The reluctance to investigate 9/11 can be gauged by the fact that the Commission of Inquiry on the events of 9/11 was allocated only half the funds spent to investigate President Clinton’s sexual entreaties with Monica Lewinsky. The Commission based its conclusions, published in its Final Report, on assumptions it did not care to check, such as the true identities of the “hijackers” and on summaries of confessions by alleged al-Qa’ida prisoners, compiled by unnamed officials whom the Commission did not meet. Much of the findings of the Commission are based on these unverified “confessions”. The Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry has been charitably designated as an Omission Report, because its main characteristic is the omission of countless facts and items of evidence that challenge the official account on 9/11.[18] It would be more appropriate to designate the Commission’s report as a masterpiece of deception.

Fearing that evidence could emerge which would undermine the official account on 9/11, some forensic evidence was also destroyed. Steel from the collapsed World Trade towers was speedily removed from the scene of the crime and sold as scrap metal to China and Korea before experts could examine it and determine how the buildings collapsed.[19] It should be noted that until that day no high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire. Other deliberately destroyed evidence includes recordings made by air controllers who discussed about their impressions, shortly after the plane crashes. [20] No person was reprimanded, let alone charged, for deliberately destroying these items of evidence, nor was it clarified who ordered such destruction and for what purpose.

The U.S. administration gags witnesses and victims? families

It appears almost impossible to locate individuals who have witnessed various episodes in the events of 9/11. This includes individuals who have been interviewed by mass media on 9/11 and shortly thereafter. Whose few who could be located appear loath to talk freely for fear of retribution.[21] It is thus very difficult to independently verify testimonies given to the FBI or to the media shortly after the events.[22] When the U.S. authorities finally yielded to repeated demands by 9/11 victims? relatives to listen to the recording of the UA93 flight recorder (which was said to contain details on the passenger’s struggle for control over the aircraft), they were warned not to reveal the contents of what they would hear. Before entering the hall where the recordings were played to them, they had to sign a non-disclosure agreement.[23] Similarly, a confidentiality agreement was demanded from fire officials and relatives in New York before they were allowed to listen to a tape of emergency radio transmissions between the fire-fighters in the World Trade towers and ground personnel.[24] In none of these cases were journalists allowed to listen. The only apparent explanation for this secrecy is that these recordings contained statements that would contradict the official version of events.

In order to prevent the truth from being revealed in court proceedings (courts possess generally subpoena power), the U.S. administration induced relatives of 9/11 victims to forfeit their rights to sue the airlines and other entities. They did so by enticing these families with lavish compensations (on the average $1.8 million for each victim). In spite of these large payments, a number of relatives declined to accept this “silence money”. They are currently struggling, against great odds, to have the truth on the events of 9/11 revealed through the courts.[25] 

The U.S. administration shows no interest in detaining Osama bin Laden

According to the CIA, its “officers worked with foreign intelligence services to detain more than 2,900 al-Qa’ida operatives and associates in over 90 countries? in the aftermath of 9/11.[26] In the light of such large contingents of presumed terrorists held in U.S. custody, one would assume that some of these detainees had advance knowledge of the preparations or 9/11 or actually participated in these preparations. Yet, as of May 2005 not a single “al-Qa’ida operative”, or anyone else under U.S. custody or anywhere else, for that matter, has been charged, let alone convicted for a 9/11-related offense.[27] Two alleged top leaders of al-Qa’ida allegedly in U.S. custody, Khalid Mohammed Sheikh and Ramzi Binalshibh ? designated by the U.S. government as the planners of the 9/11 crime – have not been charged for any crime. They are kept at undisclosed locations and are not allowed to be produced in court. No one appears to have seen these individuals.[28] The alleged spiritual leader of al-Qa’ida, Osama bin Laden, designated by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell as the person who “committed these [9/11] acts of murder”,[29] has not even been charged by the U.S. authorities for his alleged part in the crime.[30] President George W. Bush bragged on 15 September 2001 regarding Osama bin Laden: “If he thinks he can hide from the United States and our allies he will be sorely mistaken.”[31] On 28 December 2001, Bush’s tone had already changed: “Our objective is more than bin Laden.”[32] In Bush’s State of the Union speech on January 2002, he did not even mention Osama bin Laden.[33] In March 2002 President Bush, asked in a press conference why nothing is heard about Osama bin Laden, answered that he’s “not that concerned about him…He’s just a person who’s now been marginalized”.[34] The U.S. administration finally admitted officially that it was not interested in arresting Osama bin Laden: On 6 April 2002, the Joint Chief of Staff Richard Myers stated: “The goal has never been to get bin Laden”.[35] On 20 June 2005, CIA Director Porter Goss, revived the Osama bin Laden legend by saying he has an “excellent” idea where Osama is hiding, but referred to “weak links in counterterrorism efforts? to explain why Osama would not be soon brought to justice. It appears that the U.S. administration is not interested in detaining him.[36]

The implications of possible U.S. malfeasance

A well-established approach in criminal investigations, particularly when doubt exists about the identity of perpetrators and instigators, is to determine who among contending suspects possesses sufficient motive, means and opportunities. In the case at hand, the U.S. and the State of Israel are the most obvious candidates, far ahead of a ragtag collection of Muslims who were incapable to handle even small aircraft, spent their time in bars and brothels, lacked infrastructure and choose a foreign country, whose language they do not master and where they could easily be noticed, to prepare for their ultimate crime. Experts in intelligence operations, such as former German Minister of Defense Andreas Von Bülow, expressed their conviction that 9/11 bore all hallmarks of a highly sophisticated intelligence operation that only a handful of intelligence services could execute. He found allegations that this crime was committed by 19 Muslim fanatics (or playboys) absurd. The numerous anomalies, omissions, contradictions in the official account and the reluctance of the U.S. authorities to investigate the crime, strongly suggest inside participation.

Should it be demonstrated that the U.S. administration, or agencies thereof, were involved in facilitating or orchestrating 9/11, such conclusion would have the most severe repercussions. At the most basic level, such findings would seriously aggrieve the families of the victims, who would discover that they had been gravely deceived by their own government, the Congress and the media. Some of them might join the political opposition to oligarchy rule. At a national level, such a finding may seriously undermine the faith of the U.S. population in its major institutions, including the legislature, courts and media. This might have salutary effects for the democratization of political and economic life in the U.S. and the dismantlement of the military-industrial complex. Internationally, the realization that the members of the U.S. leadership had conspired in committing this monstruous crime against their own people might cause a widespread disaffection of U.S. allies and possibly a permanent shift away from the dollar as the world’s dominant currency. The international capitalist class will certainly not accept to be ruled by a gang of thugs. An empire cannot rule by blatant mass murder. The discovery that governments are apt to conspire and orchestrate crimes of the extent of 9/11 may prompt a revival of democratic struggle and demands to reaffirm and ensure the rule of law. The struggle for the truth on 9/11 can thus have salutary effects on domestic and global governance, lead to greater government accountability and the consolidation of the rule of law.

A particular hurdle in the quest for the truth is that large constituencies have already internalized the official account on 9/11 and consider this account as an act of faith.  No one relishes to admit to have been gravely duped. When confronted with the need to preserve their faith in the institutional order, people tend to deny even the most glaring facts. Many Jews, who were urged to flee because they might be rounded up and deported to extermination camps during World War II, did not run away because they were unable to imagine that a government might engage in such monstrosities. It is indeed extremely difficult for most people to contemplate the thought that their established institutions and elected leaders could conspire in killing their own citizens. Yet, such hypotheses must be faced on the base of facts rather than emotions.

On the base of its account on 9/11, real or fabricated, the U.S. administration succeeded to induce the American people into accepting mass surveillance and broadened police powers under the Patriot Act and increased executive privileges, staggering increases in military spending[37] and the shedding of American and Muslim blood in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition to long-term strategic advantages that the United States has long sought, such as the establishment of military bases in Iraq and Central Asia, the crime of 9/11 has greatly benefited American oil and construction companies, the military-industrial complex and the intelligence community. The “New Pearl Harbor” of 9/11 provided the necessary impetus to speed up the revolutionary process that the “secret government” of the neo-fascist cabal, was hoping for (as documented in the works of the Project for a New American Century). The events of 9/11 were undoubtedly of great immediate benefit to the U.S. ruling circles while threatening to change the U.S. into a police state.

Conclusions

It should be noted that practically all UN member states endorsed the U.S.-instigated “war on terrorism”. This support is reflected in UN Security Council resolutions and in resolutions by the UN General Assembly and other UN fora. Each major power sees in this “war on terrorism? an opportunity to justify its own repressive efforts against its own “terrorists”. A major challenge facing common people in general, and the democratic movement in particular, is how to deal with a situation in which most governments appear to collude in a contrived “war on terrorism”, as a pretext to stifle dissent and to establish mass surveillance systems. The benefit that governments can draw from the U.S.-led “war on terrorism”, in terms of domestic repression, may exceed that which they could gain by demanding the truth on the events of 9/11. Democratic forces should not rely, therefore, on efforts of world governments in this moral quest.

Attempts to uncover the truth on the events of 9/11 through judicial means have not been successful. American courts regularly defer to government claims that it cannot disclose evidence because of security considerations or in order not to interfere with ongoing investigations! The U.S. administration has demonstrated that it is neither willing to fully investigate the events of 9/11 nor to bring to justice those responsible for the crime.   

No international forum has jurisdiction over the crime of 9/11 because the United States, on the soil of which this crime against humanity was committed, is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Even if an international ad hoc tribunal could be established, it is unlikely that the current U.S. regime would cooperate with such a tribunal. 

A political regime willing to murder its own citizens and possessing weapons of mass destruction is indeed a grave threat to international peace and security. Should it be proved that the U.S. regime orchestrated the crimes of 9/11, it would become necessary for the international community to find ways and means to defend itself against U.S. military and economic blackmail and help the American people to liberate itself from its criminal rulers.

In order to give the U.S. authorities a final chance to prove their innocence with regard to the events of 9/11, it is recommended that an Independent International Truth Commission on the events of 9/11 be established, endowed with subpoena powers and acting with the cooperation of all UN member states. World peace and security as well as the rights and honor of the families of the victims could only benefit from documenting the full truth on the events of 9/11.  If the U.S. is innocent of any wrongdoing in the 9/11 events, it would welcome such an investigation and do all it can to demonstrate its good faith.
 

* * 

The author, Elias Davidsson, can be reached through his website: aldeilis.net

Notes