Out of respect for those who lost their lives ten years ago and for those who have sacrificed their lives for their convictions and faith in the democratic ideals of the United States and for those innocents who have fallen victim to war, I decided to wait until the passing of the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to publish this.
As most of us know, there is a perception among some that the United States government was somehow directly involved in the horrific events which occurred on a beautiful late summer day in 2001.
To others, people who accept the theory that 9/11 was perpetuated by unscrupulous individuals who reside within a type of "fifth column " of the United States government are nothing short of lunatics.
This article is NOT intended to support the theory that the United States, or elements within, government could have participated, even initiated the attacks, but rather, an attempt to illustrate why such a theory could even be plausible to some of the world's population.
In order to understand the distrust many Americans have for their own government we must take a trip back into history and retrace our steps to the present day...
Prior to World War II the United States of America, though dabbling in worldwide imperialism (i.e. the Spanish-American war and other acts of military "adventurism"), the United States had nowhere near the military power of her friends in Europe.
Even after World War I, the United States had joined the conflict quite late in the game to allow a full mobilization of American industry, the military machine was far too small for the United States to be considered a "super" power...but it was well on its way.
American industrialization during the late 19th and early 20th century was growing at an astounding rate, the nation was producing goods which were being consumed on a massive scale. But, with the arrival of the Great Depression and the total economic collapse of a young global economy, nations were quickly thrown into a political turmoil which had been brewing for many years even before the stock market crash of 1929; socially at least, some could speculate that this turmoil began with the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia.
The great depression brought on such strife and desperation among the industrialized nations, we quickly saw that some countries, more than others, were highly susceptible to latch onto anything which promised a change to their current economic and social woes.
One such nation, Germany, had already been weakened by the Treaty of Versailles, especially Article 231, where the sole blame for World War I was laid at Germany's feet and which demanded that 226 billion Reichsmarks, later reduced to 132 billion, in war reparations be paid to the victorious allies. This put an enormous strain on an already delicate post-war economy; the Great Depression itself was one, if not the main, reason which opened the doors for the National Socialist party and the madman Adolf Hitler to take control.
A population within a desperate society that is in a precarious economic situation can be easily swayed to believe anything a political machine would want them to believe, especially if the political entity wishing to gain power understands how to use fear to its advantage.
Knowing full well that war was imminent, the United States half-heartedly remained on the sidelines preparing itself. The bombing of Pearl Harbor (yet another theory stating Roosevelt and the War Department were quite aware of the impeding attacks is very similar to the 9/11 theory), drove home the realization to proponents of isolationism that war had arrived and with it, America's industry truly comes into its own supporting an insatiable Military Machine which was supported by the "Horn Of Plenty" Governmental coffers.
Almost every sector of society in one form or another, directly or indirectly, supported the War Effort. And though, the United States had always had a long history of using espionage during wartime, it wasn't until WWII did we see the rise of the CIA's predecessor the OSS or Office of Strategic Services by Presidential military order on June 13, 1942.
Rather than get into the history of the OSS and figures who played a fundamental role in its development, such as William "Wild Bill" Donovan, it's suffice to say that this organization quickly learned its trade and was as affective as any of the preeminent intelligence services in the world. It wasn't until the National Security Act of 1947 did the CIA officially come to be.
Eight years after WWII, Dwight D. Eisenhower, an ex-general and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII, as well as a Republican, became president of the United States. Richard M. Nixon, a man who made a name for himself by being staunchly "anti-communist" became his Vice-President by suggestion of others within the Republican Party. It is widely speculated that Eisenhower disliked Nixon, but there is no definitive proof of this. What we can say however, is that just prior to Eisenhower's presidency, Senator Joseph McCarthy gave his infamous Lincoln Day speech at the Republican Woman's Club in Wheeling, West Virginia on February 9th 1950, where he held up a piece of paper stating it had a list of known Communists in the State Department, and set the stage for Eisenhower to serve his presidency during one of the most hateful witch hunts and blatant scare mongering in the nation's history.
During this period, the CIA, acting on behalf of national security, was becoming increasingly powerful, a power which was fed by a paranoid excess of anti-Soviet sentiment within the United States.
When Eisenhower left the Oval Office, he left us with a haunting warning, a warning which still echoes to this day. What exactly happened during Eisenhower's Presidency which made him, an ex-military man, to caution the American people of the "military industrial complex"?
Did he come to realize that the U.S. economy had become dependent on conflict? Or that there were those within the government who had been so corrupted by industry looking to sell its wares to the U.S. government that they are willing to do anything to keep those industries alive?
Matter of fact, he hadn't been the only former U.S. General to warn us of the importance of war to industry; years earlier, retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington "The Fighting Quaker" Butler, who by the way was most decorated Marine in U.S. history by the time of his passing in 1940, had toured the U.S. in the 1930's giving a speech titled: "War Is A Racket" (also published at the time as booklet, you can find it even today ).
Following Eisenhower's presidency we find his V.P. running against John F. Kennedy, to say Nixon lost those elections is not needed here.
John F Kennedy's Presidency was marked by extreme political upheaval, but it was also marked by hope. The Cuban Missile Crisis proved that, even on the brink of total annihilation, cooler heads could prevail.
He was viewed by the world as a President who could return sanity back to international diplomacy and even perhaps end the cold war. This President, the one who followed the man who warned us of the "military industrial complex" was assassinated at half past noon on November 22, 1963.
His Vice-President, Lyndon B Johnson , a notoriously corrupt politician from Texas, took power.
LBJ served out the rest of Kennedy's term and one other, during this period we see the war in Vietnam escalate and our intelligence services become far more involved in international and national affairs than ever before. Though he tried desperately to implement change through his "Great Society" plan, it was the ghost of his predecessor and the war in South East Asia which defined his term in office.
He did not seek re-election, though he could have. Was he tired? Did he realize he meant little in the greater scheme of things? Did he feel haunted by not only what happened in Dallas, but also all the thousands of young servicemen dead in the jungles of Vietnam? There are those who say that he simply retired back to his ranch in Texas and smoked himself to death; dying of stress related heart disease on January 22, 1973.
So, from the moment we see Eisenhower leave power we see one President's life cut short and another not seek yet another term in office...essentially two unfulfilled presidencies back to back.
Also, during the election year of 1968, JFK's brother , New York Senator Robert Kennedy, began running for president. The same man who addressed the University of Cape Town's student body with the following words: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope...." during a time when South Africa was very much still under the shackles of apartheid, was gunned down on June 5th at The Ambassador Hotel's ballroom in L.A. by a Palestinian born Jordanian (Jordan? hmmm we find ourselves already in the middle east some conspiracy theorist may say) named Sirhan Bishara Sirhan.
The next day Sirhan Sirhan claimed he felt betrayed for Kennedy's support of Isreal during the Six Day War. In all fairness, it wasn't until later, in 2003 to be exact, did Sirhan's lawyer claim he had been hypnotized in order gain a new trial.
The following President is, Richard M. Nixon ('69-'74), the man who was Eisenhower's V.P. and had run against J.F.K.. Here, even a sane man wonders, "Were presidential terms cut short and candidates cut down to insure this man's rise to power?". Conjecture? Yes. Unfounded? maybe. Without reason? No.
We see Nixon's fall from grace with his use of ex-CIA agents within his own administration. He had used the FBI, CIA and even the IRS to do what was later called "dirty tricks" against political rivals.
It wasn't until when five men had been apprehended breaking into the Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate complex in D.C. did his presidency begin to unravel. Matter of fact, Nixon himself attempted to use the CIA to impede the FBI's investigation of the whole affair.
It was during this time when the CIA's dirty laundry was publically uncovered, most notably by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, which Included assassination of foreign politicians and surveillance of over 7 thousand U.S. citizens who were involved in the anti-war movement, the latter being known as Operation CHAOS.
Following Hersh's front page article in the New York times in 1974, Congress finally acted by investigating the CIA in the "Church Committee" named so since it was Senator Frank Church, a democrat from Idaho who chaired the Committee. It was also because of this congressional body we see such horrific clandestine operations such as the CIA's illegal human experimentation program, dubbed MKULTRA, come to light.
Also, it was in the mid-70's, 1976 to be exact, when the United States House Of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established to look into the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King Jr and the attempted assassination of Governor George Wallace. The findings of this committee established that there was a "high" probability that there was more than one gunman involved in the killing of JFK, based upon acoustic evidence.
Oddly enough, following Nixon, was his own VP, Gerald Ford, a man who had sat on the Warren Commission (the group charged with the investigation of JFK's assassination named after its chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren) . A Representative at the time of President Kennedy's murder, he had been assigned to prepare a biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, the so-called "lone gunman".
In his book: "A Presidential Legacy and The Warren Commission", President Ford admits the CIA had destroyed or kept vital information of the '63 assassination away from investigators, due to the fact that the commission's investigation placed "certain classified and potentially damaging operations in danger of being exposed." Adding that the CIA's reaction "was to hide or destroy some information, which can easily be misinterpreted as collusion in JFK's assassination"
Here one can logically asked themselves, without the worry of being ridiculed, whether or not the word "misinterpreted" was an accurate description of how investigators would view such facts.
During the height of the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the Church Committee's activities and published Reports on U.S. intelligence services ('75 and '76) we see a new director being named to head the CIA by President Ford, his name: George H. W. Bush.
After Ford left the Oval Office and a democrat, James Earl Carter, takes office, not because he was perhaps the best candidate, but more likely for the fact the Republican party was damaged goods due to the Nixon administration's illegal activity, we see George Sr. leave his post to become chairmen of the First International Bank of Houston. He was also director of the think tank which specialized in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs known as the Council on Foreign Relations.
In a brief period, George H.W. Bush has roles within the highest echelons of the intelligence community, Finance (at both IBH and professor at Rice University's Jones School of Business) and within a group which is solely dedicated to understanding and resolving international issues concerning the United States of America.
President Carter's term is marked with international crisis, most of which, stems from the Middle East, with OPEC controlling oil production causing long lines and surging prices at the gas pump to the overthrowing of the Shah of Iran during Iran's Islamic Revolution which resulted in the storming of the U.S. embassy in Iran and diplomats, Marines and State Department employees being taken hostage. Resources and Economy are now intertwined and leveraged as a political tool which is as potent as any military.
In the next election Carter is opposed by a former actor, who had spent his career prior to his time in politics, as a spokesman for many companies who had government contracts. Oddly enough he had not always been a Republican, at one time he had been considered a liberal democrat and not only that, but had supported Helen Gahagan Douglas' unsuccessful bid for Senate against none other than Richard M Nixon.
Could that one, brief action early in his life absolve him and the Republican party of being the party which produced "Tricky Dick"? Was that taken into consideration as being a POSITIVE thing later on in his political career?
Reagan became Governor of the State of California ('67-'75), the same state which Nixon had been elected Senator, and from there he ends up running for the Presidency in both 1976 and 1980. In the 1980 elections Reagan had actually competed with George H.W. Bush for the Republican party nomination. Later George Bush joins with Reagan by accepting to be his VP.
Reagan wins the election, Carter Leaves, and not long after he gives his 2,452 word inaugural address, matter of fact, almost immediately afterword, the American hostages held in Iran were on a flight home. Even though Reagan, as President-Elect, had stated the U.S. wouldn't pay "ransom for people who have been kidnapped by barbarians." talks had continued between Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Mohammed Benyahia and then Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher . Officially the U.S. paid 50 tons of gold to win the hostages freedom.
Later with the Iran-Contra affair we realize that the U.S. military and intelligence services were willing to do anything in order to achieve it's cause.
Think about it, what had started out to be a plan for weapons to be sold to Iran, a country upon which there was an arms embargo, via Israel, to win the release of U.S. hostages held by Hezbollah, soon developed into a plan which funneled money to the "anti-Sandinista" or Contra Rebel forces in Nicaragua, even though Boland Amendment (law prohibiting funding of the Contras) had been passed.
Sometimes, while looking back at the Reagan presidency, it's difficult to not feel that George H.W. Bush was no mere VP, but perhaps had a larger role in that administration, for me at least, I feel that Reagan's two terms in office were actually Bush's first two terms; a kind of loop-hole for the Oval Office, being that the Twenty-second Amendment to the constitution placing limitations to two terms for the office of President had been adopted shortly after Franklin D Roosevelt's four term presidency.
But those are my own personal feelings.
Also during Reagan's time in office, beginning with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on Christmas eve 1979 and ending less than a month after H.W. Bush takes power, on February 15th 1989 with the Soviet military's departure; the United States Military and Intelligence apparatus becomes heavy involved with the Afghan resistance movement, the Mujahideen, along with other nations such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China and Great Britain.
Intelligence contacts with Pakistan and Guerrillas fighting the Soviet aggressor are undoubtedly created and nurtured here.
Reagan serves his two terms and the next President is George H. W. Bush, his term is defined by two things, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Persian Gulf War. Within the timeframe of 42 years we see the creation of the CIA and one of its directors take the Oath of Office.
Not long after February 28th, 1991, when hostility ended in the Persian Gulf, I remember having a discussion with a friend of mine who was at loss to explain why Bush hadn't gone in to "finish" the job.
Even then the answer seemed obvious, I replied: "We need an excuse". The excuse I was referring to was maintaining a presence on the ground in an area so vital to our national interest, with a bogey man at large, we could have troops not far from Mecca, and I added, that I believed the true nation of interest was not Iraq, but rather, Iran. The U.S. government knew full well that Saddam had been emasculated; yes he could terrorize his own populace, but it is was Iran which posed the most threat to the flow of oil. Again, that was my opinion then, and it still is my opinion now.
A funny thing happens next, Arkansas state governor William Jefferson Clinton decides to make a go for the White House, he most likely would not have been elected had it not been for another conservative candidate, by the name of Ross Perot, running as well and thus, dividing the conservative vote. Perot also ran in 1996, with the same, albeit less dramatic, effect.
The odd thing about Perot, is that he was a Texan, a very wealthy industrialist, who must have known George senior on a personal level. What were really his motivations for running one has to ask? Oh yes, there is the rhetoric, but was there something more to it?
A conspiracy theorist might say that the assassination of JFK represented the will of a few powerful individuals who understood that foreign policy had one weakness; democracy and that there was perhaps a "gentleman's " agreement among certain key industrialists and politicians to do anything possible so as to maintain a certain foreign policy in place as the cold war rage across the planet. Perhaps, they perceived the Soviets had the "luxury" of not being hamstrung by the will of the Russian people and in order to combat such a government, something similar had to also exist in the west.
Let's take the speculation even further, could it be Ross Perot, a conservative, understood this? His early political career with education, his involvement in POW/MIA causes, his rescuing of his own employees in Iran after the revolution, doesn't paint him as exactly a nutcase nor someone who wasn't familiar with strategic planning.
When referring to the U.S., he has even been quoted as saying about the United States: "..had grown arrogant and complacent after the War (WWII)" , that it no longer looked ahead, but rather, was "daydreaming of its past while the rest of the world was building its future."
Is it possible, Ross Perot understood that the fall of communism meant that democracy needed to be returned to the people? Did he simply dislike Bush? Or was he really just out there, as some have tried to paint him during his Presidential campaign, as a sanctimonious loon who wanted to add the White House to his own collection of personal achievements? To tell you the truth, I have no friggen idea, but it does make one wonder, why he chose to run against Bush at such a critical time in U.S. history, wouldn't it have been better to run against a liberal incumbent? All I can say is that his running insured that the presidency returned to the democrats and Bush would never return to the White House...or so it seemed. Plus, why has so much of the political history over the past sixty odd years pointed to Texas, even now with yet, another Texas governor running for the Republican nomination...it's things like that which provoke people to connect the dots, whether imaginary or real.
Bill Clinton's presidency was marked by incredible economic growth in the U.S. (the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969) and the birth of a new "information based" economy. Also during this time Clinton makes dramatic military and intelligence cutbacks. One could say it's because of this the U.S. was left open for attack, others could speculate something far more nefarious.
Also of note during the Clinton administration, is how the Republicans successfully impeached him for perjury and obstruction of justice in regards to his having an extra-marital affair and get millions upon millions dumped into an investigation of the Clinton's real estate deals.
During his time in office we begin to see a rise in efforts to commit acts of terrorism on U.S. soil. The car bombing of the WTC on the 26th of February 1993, the failures of the Justice Department which began with the Waco siege fiasco not two days later, the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 and the U.S. Embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya in 1998.
We also hear of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for the first time, as President Clinton orders Operation Infinite Reach, which was a series of cruise missile attacks targeting areas of the Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the Embassy bombings.
Then comes the election of 2000, wide spread voter fraud takes place, the election hangs precariously like the chads of a Florida ballot...the state of Florida is declared for George W. Bush (son of the former president) by Fox News (owned by Ruppart Murdoch's Newscorp) whose decision desk was led at the time by George W Bush's first cousin, John Ellis .
On a side note, George W Bush gave the National Geographic Channel an exclusive interview concerning the events of 2011 on the tenth anniversary of the 911 attacks...Newscorp owns the largest stake in that channel.
The United States soon found itself being led by a man who had no real political experience, was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and whose company, Arbusto Energy, had received $50,000 from the Binladin Group of Saudi Arabia (Founded by the father of Osama Bin Ladin). His father had been director of the CIA and President of the United States, his grandfather had been a United States Senator who represented Connecticut from 1953 until January 1963. Like the Kennedys the Bush family is another political dynasty as well, but perhaps far more entrenched into the inner workings than the Kennedys had ever been.
For his VP, George W Bush chooses Richard "Dick" Cheney who had served as Donald Rumsfeld's assistant when Rumsfeld was director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (69-70), White House Staff Assistant in '71 while Nixon was there, as well as many other positions, including Deputy Assistant to the president under Gerald Ford. When Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, a position he held again under Bush Jr. , Cheney became White House Chief of Staff and campaign manager for Ford in that President's '76 bid.
The names surrounding Bush all lead back to the beginning of the Nixon administration and thus back to Eisenhower; was this another attempt to bypass term limitations? One could even wonder who was really the brains of the administration itself?
Then came Sept 11 2001.
What resulted was horrific, thousands dead on the streets of New York, thousands of American service men killed, maimed and or psychologically scarred for life (including their families). HUNDREDS of thousands civilians dead, the bill of rights trampled upon, fear being used as a cattle prod...economic devastation.
When the U.S. invaded Iraq using WMDs as a rallying cry, I was the only one I knew who suspected why...it wasn't for oil, well in a way it was, most certainly the idea was to secure one of the world's most vital resources, it was, again my own opinion here, to position the military to open a two front offensive against Iran. Hence Iran's concerted effort to bog troops down in Iraq, and the former administration's increasingly aggressive rhetoric towards Iran in the final year of the Bush Presidency.
After two terms, the economy on the brink, the republican party tarnished, as with Carter, another President is thrown into the mix as certain folks regroup. A conspiracy theorist could easily deduce that Obama was "allowed" the presidency so he could take the hit for the economic meltdown to come, and perhaps repair relations with civilians in the Middle East.
Speaking of the economy, let us not forget the Bush's involvement in other economic collapses, such as the Silverado Savings And Loan debacle of 1988. Neil Bush was the Board of Directors of that institution. That alone cost taxpayers $1.3 billion.
There, a basic timeline, a couple opinions thrown in there, but it explains why some may feel that our government is capable of such a crime, because we have only its prior actions to use as an example.
You have to ask yourself, why is it some people latch onto the fact that no Iraqis or Afghanis were involved in the hijackings of 911?
Why do people question the U.S.' s intentions in Iraq when the fact remains the tyrant Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with those terror attacks?
Why is it the Bush administration committed possible criminal and even treasonous acts and yet Congress did nothing while Clinton gets the third degree for receiving oral sex?
Why do some people doubt the patriotism of fellow Americans who dare say that our enemy isn't really a group of people or nation but rather an Ideology?
There are so many questions which can lead to supposition, just as there is with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Could 911 be a "The end justifies the means" scenario concocted by a few, extremely wealthy and well connected people?
Was Osama Bin Laden the person who we were told he was? Did he die when we were told he was taken out or was he already dead?
Is America still a nation Of the people, by the people, for the people or had that dream died with the beginning of the cold war? Or has it become where economic and social interests are blatantly manipulated to achieve the goals of the elite of elites?
There are really only three answers concernin 911;
ONE: A cabal of evil bastards within the U.S.'s true power structure were in cahoots to undertake such a horrendous act of mass murder.
TWO: Certain elements within the government knew it was coming but acted with duplicity so as get the justification they needed to have their war.
or THREE: The intelligence community, even after there were attacks within the U.S. by Islamic fundamentalists, dropped the ball and ignored the warnings.
So you see, when you hear someone say "911 was an inside job", you may not agree, but you may understand why they say such a thing, because in reality, their doubts are based upon what little we do know of how the government, or at least, elements within have acted since the fall of Berlin.
And you also come to realize that all of the three answers given above as to what really happened ten years ago are as equally horrifying as the next.
The following vid is great, but the title is a bit ridiculous.