Drawing the Lessons of 9-11 (book review, Sid Shniad)
The Hidden History of 9-11-2001
Research in Political Economy
2006 Volume 23.
Ed. by Paul Zarembka
Governments have long found it useful to manufacture rationale for pursuing war and repression. The sinking of the Battleship Maine at the outset of the Spanish-American-Cuba War is the classic example. When President Harry Truman wanted to offer assistance to anti-Communist forces in Greece and Turkey in 1947, Republican senator Arthur Vandenburg promised his support if Truman would “scare the hell out of the American people.” In 1962, the Pentagon mounted Operation Northwoods, a plan involving false-flag actions, state-sponsored terrorism and the hijacking of planes on U.S. and Cuban soil designed to generate American public support for an invasion of Cuba. Then there was the case of the distraught young Iraqi woman testifying before U.S. Congressional hearings in the run-up to Gulf War I about babies being tossed out of incubators by Saddam Hussein’s soldiers.
The essays included in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 lead to the conclusion that the attack on the World Trade Center may have been the biggest false-flag operation of them all. This 2006 issue of Research in Political Economy examines different aspects of 9-11, which, taken together, provide a serious challenge to those who dismiss the possibility that a government-based conspiracy was behind the events of 9-11.
The first section of the journal debunks the information provided by the U.S. government about the number and identity of the hijackers. Following that, other authors provide evidence indicating that it was impossible for the burning jet fuel from the planes to have caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers; that a series of military war games taking place on 9-11 caused confusion in military circles and prevented normal emergency response operations to kick in; and that the insider trading in the shares of the airlines that were hijacked that day lays open the possibility that huge sums were made by people who were aware in advance of what was coming. Taken together, these articles provide more than enough reason to reject the Official Story of 9-11.
A personal aside. In the highly charged exchanges that characterize discussion of 9-11, some observers take an additional step, insisting that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, a false-flag effort orchestrated by terrorists within the U.S. government. There are even those who argue that 9-11 skeptics should renounce any sense of uncertainty and unite behind the view that the government made it happen. They insist that refusal to embrace this conclusion helps rationalize arguments used by Bush and his cabal to wage the war on terror.
Those who insist that we all embrace the conclusion that 9-11 was an Inside Job are doing so on the grounds that it suits their politics. For me, it is not essential to agree on whether Bush and Cheney were involved in the conspiracy. Regardless of the conclusion we draw on that issue, surely progressives can agree on the need to condemn the manner in which the U.S. government and its allies have exploited 9-11 to launch their open-ended war on terror and to organize against it. Diana Ralph’s superb chapter, “Islamophobia and the ‘War on Terror’: The Continuing Pretext for U.S. Imperial Conquest,” makes this point eloquently by tying the strategies pursued by Bush and Cheney since 9-11 to longstanding neocon and Likud designs.
A final comment. Even though I have read a considerable amount on the subject in other sources, I would have benefited from the inclusion of a section tying together the voluminous evidence in a manner that would enable readers to draw solid conclusions about specifically what is and is not known about the conspiracy.
Comment by John Brown, writing from Canada on November 23rd, 2006 at 1:20 pm:
Thank you for the review.
I would recommend Mike Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon: The American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, New Society Press 2004.
Ruppert shows convincingly that Dick Cheney ran Operation 9-11 using the Secret Service from beneath the White House. He establishes motive (peak oil), means (the Secret Service command and control overrides NORAD, the FAA, FEMA, etc.) and opportunity (14 different military exercises on the east coast that morning, including simulated hijackings) to make a case that could be proven in a court room. Unfortunately, Elliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York, is also an insider (as is Rudy Giuliani) and will not prosecute, despite sufficient evidence to do so. Spitzer wants to be the next Governor, and he will be if he remains silent.
Comment by Dwight, writing from United States on November 24th, 2006 at 5:45 pm:
Your review contradicts itself. It starts out talking about false-flag operations, then finishes by saying that we should all agree to disagree on this, because we can all agree that the opportunistic way in which 9/11 has been used is all that is important. Of course progressives agree on this.
I recommend 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. The article by Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, is one of the best of many excellent contributions to this book.
Comment by Noel Sundby, writing from Canada on December 7th, 2006 at 1:34 pm:
Quite the immagination! May I suggest easing up on the weed a little? What else can I say. You guys just make it too easy.
Comment by Paul Flagler, writing from Canada on January 2nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm:
Who’s smoking the weed Noel? Keep your head firmly planted in the ground, and don’t pay any attention to the facts, that will surely serve you well in your narrow minded approach to Democracy and how it works…by the way, IMMAGINATION is spelled with one M, amazing how you miss even the smallest FACTS.
Comment by Noel Sundby, writing from Canada on January 7th, 2007 at 9:36 pm:
Who indeed. Not sure whats gripping your short hairs. Could it be, Paul, that a dose of reality is a little to much for your paranoid, dope smoking mind to handle? Or does it bother you that I take advantage of this democatic country to comment politicaly or otherwise on subjects that are so endearing to you. Damn!, when will I learn to swallow all the garbage written on web sites like this. By the way, you must be pretty shook up about my spelling of imagination as you must spend a good deal of time using yours to distort real facts. Your review is done well , it’s the subject matter that gives me gas. My analogy would be that “The Da’Vinci Code” is a true story, entertaining, thought provoking, perhaps even plausable, but Gospel…c’m on…
Comment by Mike Casner, writing from on January 30th, 2007 at 11:41 pm:
The best evidence in book form I think is Webster Tarpleys “9/11 Synthetic Terror, made in USA”. The best dvd I have seen to date is “911 Mysteries, Part 1 Demolitions”, which can be seen online at http://www.911mysteries.com
No need for any name calling here people, just take material from all angles, look at it and decide for yourself. I feel that wtc7 was the hub of the entire operation. That’s why it had to be destroyed in the manner it was (controlled implosion at 5:30pm Sept 11 2001)
Comment by Dr. Richard Welser, writing from United States on January 31st, 2007 at 8:31 am:
It is always easy to use ad hominem arguments. Indeed, that type of argument is but one of the well-recognized tactics of disinfo. Folks who use these tactics are never willing and rarely able to discuss the data.
9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott as noted above is a seminal work and relies upon empirical data and logical analysis. Until Noel is willing to argue the facts rather than resorting to diatribe, I recommend he stays somewhere by himself where he can enjoy his “gas”.
Comment by bobloblaw, writing from United States on March 31st, 2007 at 11:15 am:
Good idea Dr. Welser, let’s talk facts. What facts do you have to to support your theory the govt was behind the 9/11 attacks?