by members of the 9-11 Commission (quoted in the Washington Post, 2 August
2006) have far reaching implications.
They confirm that
the Pentagon was involved in criminal wrongdoing by deliberately distorting
and/or withholding information concerning the September 2001 attacks:
members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's
initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been
part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather
than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources
involved in the debate."
(WP, 2 August 2006)
uphold what has been documented regarding 9-11 in several carefully researched
studies, which the mainstream media continues to identify as
It would appear
that the 9-11 "Conspiracy Theorists" have at last been
vindicated. The information now released and yet to come is that the
Pentagon was involved in acts of cover-up at the highest levels of the
of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at
the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the
Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission
sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other
evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation
officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the
commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these
sources said." (Ibid)
If this were known
to the 9-11 Commission, why was it withheld?
More generally, why
was the contradictory evidence presented by the Pentagon, the White House and
the CIA taken at face value. Why did the 9-11 Commission uphold the
lies and falsehoods in its "authoritative" report?
The Commission was
not misled. The Commission deliberately and consciously distorted the facts
regarding 9-11. A large part of the 9-11 narrative as presented in its report
The Pentagon's top
brass (including senior NORAD officials) were involved in acts of perjury
with a view to misleading public opinion. If the Commission doubted the
veracity of the information presented, why did it replicate the lies and
falsehoods in its report?
revelations have all the appearances of "damage control": they
consist in admitting that the Pentagon withheld information, without
questioning the broader findings of the 9-11 Commission Report:
shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described,"
John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry
into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a
radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two
years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." (Ibid).
could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he
did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified
earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.
John F. Lehman,
a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent
interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not
believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.
"My view of
that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I
don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things,
going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make
sense to me." (Ibid).
The integrity of
the 9-11 commission members remains unscathed. The broader issue of sheer
fabrication, presenting al Qaeda as the architect of the WTC attacks is
not mentioned. Neither is the issue of Operation Able Danger, the Pentagon's
secret operation, which consisted essentially in fabricating terrorist
cells ahead of 9-11:
according to the Kean report, was the �tactical leader of the 9/11 plot.� He
was the pilot who on that dreadful morning flew the first plane, American
Airlines 11, into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York. It was
Atta�s face, on television and in newspapers across the world, that became the
symbol of Islamic terrorism. And it was Atta�s name -- not the names of any of
the 18 other hijackers allegedly lead by Atta on that day -- that was cited by
international security researchers. Atta was, as the Kean report stresses, �the
tactical commander of the operation in the United States.� According to both
the Bush administration and the official 9/11 Commission report, he was working
on the orders of Osama Bin Laden who, from remote Afghanistan, controlled the entire
exactly four years after 9/11, the facts appear to have been turned upside
down. We now learn that Atta was also connected to a top secret operation of
the Pentagon�s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the US. According to Army
reserve Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a top secret Pentagon project
code-named Able Danger had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as
members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.
Able Danger was
an 18-month highly classified operation tasked, according to Shaffer, with
�developing targeting information for al-Qaida on a global scale,� and used
data-mining techniques to look for �patterns, associations, and linkages.� He
said he himself had first encountered the names of the four hijackers in
mid-2000." (See Daniele Ganser's study on Operation Able Danger
� Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2006
Chossudovsky's most recent book, which reviews in detail the events of 9-11 is
"War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005. To order
Chossudovsky's book America's
"War on Terrorism", click here.
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=2887