9-11, six years later
By Paul Craig Roberts
Online Journal Guest Writer
Sep 13, 2007, 01:35
On Sept. 7, National Public Radio reported that Muslims in
the Middle East were beginning to believe that the 9-11 attacks on the WTC and
Pentagon were false flag operations committed by some part of the U.S. and/or
It was beyond the imagination of the NPR reporter and
producer that there could be any substance to these beliefs, which were
attributed to the influence of books by U.S. and European authors sold in
bookstores in Egypt.
NPR's concern was that books by Western authors questioning
the origin of the 9-11 attack have the undesirable result of removing guilt
from Muslims' shoulders.
The NPR reporter, Ursula Lindsey, said that "here in
the U.S., most people have little doubt about what happened during the 2001
NPR's assumption that the official 9-11 story is the final
word is uninformed. Polls show that 36 percent of Americans and more than 50
percent of New Yorkers lack confidence in the 9-11 commission report. Many 9-11
families who lost relatives in the attacks are unsatisfied with the official
Why are the U.S. media untroubled that there has been no
independent investigation of 9-11?
Why are the media unconcerned that the rules governing
preservation of forensic evidence were not followed by federal authorities?
Why do the media brand skeptics of the official line
"conspiracy theorists" and "kooks"?
What is wrong with debate and listening to both sides of the
defining issue of our time? If the official line is so correct and defensible,
what does it have to fear from skeptics?
Obviously, a great deal considering the iron curtain that
has been erected to protect the official line from independent examination.
Some may think that the 9-11 commission report was an
independent investigation, and others will protest that we have the National
Institute of Standards and Technology analysis, which explains the collapse of
the Twin Towers as a result of airliner impact and fire.
The 9-11 commission was a political commission run by Bush
administration insider Philip Zelikow. The National Institute of Standards and
Technology is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the head of which
is a member of President Bush's Cabinet.
Zelikow was a member of President Bush's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board, a neoconservative
stronghold. In February 2005, Zelikow was appointed counselor of the U.S.
Department of State. Obviously, there was zero possibility that the 9-11
commission would hold any part of the Bush administration accountable for the
numerous failures of U.S. government agencies on Sept. 11, much less would the
commission investigate for any complicity.
If one looks at the credentials of skeptics compared to the
credentials of defenders of the official line, it is impossible to dismiss
skeptics as kooks. There are many people with strong imaginations on the
Internet, but serious skeptics stick to known facts, known violations of
standard procedures and the laws of physics. The vast majority of the people
who call skeptics "kooks" are themselves ignorant of physics and have
little comprehension of the improbability that such an attack could succeed
without either the complicity or complete failure of government agencies.
Over the past six years, the ranks of distinguished skeptics
of the 9-11 storyline have grown enormously. The ranks include distinguished
scientists, engineers and architects, intelligence officers, air traffic
controllers, military officers and generals, including the former commanding
general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, former presidential
appointees and members of the White House staff in Republican administrations,
Top Gun fighter pilots and career airline pilots who say that the flying
attributed to the 9-11 hijackers is beyond the skills of America's best pilots,
and foreign dignitaries.
Dr. Andreas von Buelow, former West German minister of
research and technology and former state secretary of the federal ministry of
"The planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master
achievement. To hijack four airliners within a few minutes and within one hour
to drive them into their targets with complicated flight maneuvers! This is
unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state
Gen. Leonid Ivashov, chief of staff of the Russian armed
"Only secret services and their current chiefs -- or those retired but
still having influence inside the state organizations -- have the ability to
plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. . . . Osama bin
Laden and al-Qaida cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the Sept. 11
attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or
Americans might concede that it is unusual that U.S. airport
security would fail four times within a few minutes, that U.S. air defenses
would fail across the board to intercept the hijacked airliners and that
hijackers lacking in flight skills could conduct the exotic flight maneuvers
that top gun fighter pilots say are beyond their own skills. Still, there is some
possibility, however remote, that Allah could have blessed the hijackers with
But when we come to the explanation of the collapse of the
Twin Towers, the official story lacks even a remote possibility of being true.
Architects, engineers and physicists know that powerfully constructed steel
buildings do not suddenly collapse at free-fall or near-free-fall speed simply
because they were impacted by airliners and experienced short-lived, low
intensity and limited fires.
Physicists also know that there was not enough gravitational
energy to pulverize massive concrete into fine dust, to cut massive steel beams
into appropriate lengths to be loaded and removed on trucks, and to eject dust
and steel beams hundreds of yards horizontally. Physicists know that if intense
fire were present throughout the towers sufficient to cause steel to weaken and
suddenly collapse, such fires would not have left unburned and unscorched
hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper, which floated all over lower Manhattan.
Physicists have raised unanswered questions about the
official explanation's neglect of the known laws of physics. Recently, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, a
Caltech trained applied physicist at the University of Iowa, observed:
"Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of
momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored
these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of
the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting
clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a
large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from
that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for
each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in
NIST's numerous volumes of study."
Some of NIST's own scientists are questioning its reports.
Dr. James Quintiere, former chief of the fire science division of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, recently said that "the official
conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable" and called for an
independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the WTC
Quintiere has called attention to many problems with NIST's
investigation and reports: the absence of a timeline, failure to explain the
collapse of WTC 7, the spoliation of the evidence of a fire scene, reliance on
questionable computer models, the absence of any evidence for the existence of
temperatures NIST predicts as necessary for failure of the steel and a Commerce
Department legal structure that instead of trying to find the facts "did
the opposite and blocked everything."
On Aug. 27, 2007, a prominent member of the National Academy
of Sciences and recipient of the National Medal of Science, Dr. Lynn Margulis,
dismissed the official account of 9-11 as a "fraud"
and called for a new, thorough and impartial investigation.
On Sept. 5, 2007, U.S. Navy Top Gun fighter pilot and
veteran airline pilot Ralph Kolstad said that the flight maneuvers attributed
to the 9-11 hijackers are beyond his flight skills. "Something stinks
to high heaven," declared Kolstad.
When faced with disturbing events, the Romans asked a
question, "Cui bono?" Who benefits? This question was conspicuously
absent from the official investigation.
Who are the beneficiaries of 9-11? The answer is: the
military-security complex, which has accumulated tens of billions of dollars in
profits; U.S. oil companies, which hope to get their hands on Iraqi and perhaps
Iranian oil; the Republican Party, which saved a vulnerable newly elected
president, George W. Bush, viewed by many as illegitimately elected by one vote
of the Supreme Court, by wrapping him in the flag as "war president";
the Republican Federalist Society, which used 9-11 to achieve its goal of
concentrating power in the executive; Vice President Dick Cheney and the
neoconservatives, who used the "new Pearl Harbor" to implement their
"Project for a New American Century" and extend American hegemony
over the Middle East; and right-wing Israeli Zionists, who have successfully
used American blood and treasure to eliminate obstacles to Israeli territorial
In addition to American troops and Iraqi and Afghan civilian
casualties, a casualty of the neoconservative "war on terror" is the
civil liberties that protect Americans from tyranny. President Bush and his
corrupt Department of Justice [sic] have declared our constitutional
protections to be null and void at the whim of the executive.
The greatest benefactors of 9-11 are the authoritarian
personalities that John Dean says have taken over the Republican Party.
Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side
Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation
and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown:
Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the
co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The
Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the
Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter
Brimelow�s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor