NOVANEWS
An irresistible temptation!
For years the 9/11 Truth movement (9TM) has been vainly pleading with mainstream media – and the “alternative” 9/11-Truth-rejecting media, which we’ll include for our purposes as mainstream – to cover any of the endless, obvious problems with any of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (OCT) tales we’ve been told. Now, all of a sudden, the mainstream media, echoing prestigious actors like former US Senator Bob Graham, are in high dudgeon about a “9/11 cover-up,” and are pushing for the release of 28 redacted pages from the 2002 Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee 9/11 Inquiry’s report! So…let’s all of us 9/11 Truthers jump aboard this fast moving train with both feet, right?
Our movement has gradually been gaining a foothold with the public. Polls show that a growing number of people countenance some kind of government role in 9/11 and/or its cover-up. Suspicion has likewise grown about the role played by Bush-administration neocons and the international players with whom they’re associated. After 15 years of staunch media refusal to report the flagrantly obvious holes in the various OCT stories we’ve been fed, why is this particular issue suddenly headline news? Why at this particular juncture? And how does it just happen to be spearheaded byone of the major contributors to the initial coverup?
Let’s examine the question of why Deep State agents might want this story heated up to a fever pitch:
Misdirection
It is now commonly assumed among the public that the 28 pages in some way implicate the Saudi government in the events of 9/11, probably by financing the OCT-alleged hijackers. But consider the not unlikely possibility that the real players in 9/11 were not the Saudis, but rather the Bush neocons and the people behind them. If they were looking for a way to deflect increasing public doubt about the OTC, blaming the Saudis would be an excellent choice.
Professional magicians employ misdirection – irrelevant bodily motions and various props – to distract the audience’s attention from what they’re really up to. Some of us in the 9TM consider the 28 Pages campaign to be just such a classical misdirection, with the Saudis playing the role of a distractingly sexy magician’s assistant. A quick risk/benefit analysis of this approach shows why.
Risks and benefits
Sure, there’s some risk involved. Releasing the 28 pages (if they say what it is widely believed they will say) would, after all, make it obvious to the public that the government has been involved in some kind of cover-up. Hardly a surprise to the 9TM, or to that majority of Americans who have lost confidence in the official narrative. But let’s remember that the government survived the Snowden/NSA disclosures virtually unscathed – Big Brother can now legally get all the info he wants, and polls have indicated that many Americans are absorbing this “new normal” by censoring themselves online. So another such embarrasment might just as easily be spun and exploited to the real perpetrators’ advantage.
On the other hand, the benefits of such a misdirection are huge:
1. Everyone’s focus will now be on the Saudis and not the Neocons and their known allies.
2. The basic OCT myth will not only remain intact, but become solidified in the public mind (i.e., the catastrophic events of 9/11 were entirely the result of 19 hijackers’ actions, whose commandeered airliner crashes were the efficient cause of numerous fire-induced building collapses).
Why does this matter?
On the broadest level of geopolitics, the OCT myth is the basis for Western Islamophobia and the perpetual “Global War on Terror.” Blaming the Saudis only ramifies the assumption of “international Islamic terrorism,” omitting all reference to Western players.
It is patently clear from many angles that the hijacker aspect of 9/11 is logically unsustainable (see below). Whether or not these men ever really existed, whether or not they behaved as devout Muslims, whether or not they were on the planes and whether or not they were financed by the Saudis, Pakistan’s ISI or anyone else, it is red herring. Moving the public perception in the direction of blaming the Saudis for 9/11 because they supported the “hijackers,” which is the effect of 28 Pages campaign-support websites like hr14.org, means abandoning the ever-widening trail of truth so relentlessly blazed by the 9TM (and perhaps more efficaciously than we realize, if the real culprits are beginning to feeling the heat!).
Yet 9TM veterans who should know better are falling all over each other to jump on the campaign bandwagon, indeed, to be seen as leading the parade, of “HR14,” the Congressional resolution demanding that the administration declassify those 28 pages! As 9TM activists, they are well aware that the whole OCT story is a fabrication, and that the Saudis had little, if anything, to do with masterminding 9/11. Here’s their rationalization in a nutshell: Because the mainstream media are suddenly embracing the topic, any wide public revelation of a “cover-up” will eventually lead to an unraveling of the real cover-up, and therefore represents 9TM’s first – and perhaps last – real opportunity to break into the wider realm of acceptable public opinion. But meanwhile, to “protect” the politicians (and the uninformed public?) whose support is needed for the passage of this bill, these websites, whilst making a pretense of advancing the cause of 9/11 Truth, implicitly embrace the long-debunked OCT (now twisted ever so slightly to inculpate the Saudis).
But consider the past fifteen years of consistent derogatory treatment by the corporate (and even many “alternative”) media of those who seriously question the basic OCT myth. Consider the media consolidation this represents – the control of the media by corporate directors and the Deep State agents who write their playbook. These people are not fools. They would not launch a propaganda ploy without Plans B, C, etc. in place for potential damage control. Based on the mainstream media’s track record of the past fifteen years, the chances of their running away with this story in a way that genuinely promotes 9/11 Truth seem vanishingly small. And the Achilles’ heel of such an overly optimistic hope is this: The solid research and evidence gathered by the 9TM fall outside (and contradict) the Saudi-financed hijackers-dunnit scenario, so the media is unlikely to seriously reference any of it in its treatment of any forthcoming 28-pages “revelation.”
Looking ahead, where will this leave the 9TM? How is it going respond if the 28 pages say exactly what people are expecting them to say, and 9TM leaders are credited for their release? Can these same activists then credibly turn around and say “Wait, this information is misleading because ‘the real 9/11’ was something far beyond the abilities of the Saudis to manage!”? And will the media do an about-face with them, and obligingly lavish coverage on what it has complicitly covered up since 9/11?
About those “Hijackers”
Our position on the irrelevance of Saudi “financing” admittedly hinges on the question of the alleged “hijackers.” If these alleged 19 hijacked and flew the jetliners in question, Saudi involvement might be argued to have significance (albeit still not the key to 9/11 perpetration). But there are a host of reasons for rejecting the entire OCT hijack scenario:
* The “hijackers’” publicly documented behavior was not that of devout Muslims.
* There is no credible time-stamped video record of them boarding planes, or even arriving at the departing airports.
* The stories told about Muhammed Atta and whomever it was who allegedly accompanied him to Portland, Maine changed constantly.
* There is no original flight manifest showing Mideast-named passengers.
* The FBI came up with a list of hijackers within just a few hours of the first 9/11 event, quite of few of whom they replaced with substitutes shortly afterwards.
* The cockpit comments of “hijackers” heard by the control towers could have been generated anywhere.
* The simple button-press sequence (“squawk”) signaling a hijacking was not executed on any of the four planes.
* Those who knew the pilots on the scheduled flights are unanimous in maintaining that they would never have surrendered control of their aircraft peacefully, and in most cases were more than a match for their attackers.
* The initially-alleged cellphone calls that reported hijackings in progress were proven in most cases to have been technically impossible; most were later changed to on-board phone calls (some from planes that didn’t have on-board phones), and some calls (per the FBI) were never completed or didn’t exist – particularly the only one referencing “box cutters.”
* The conditions in the planes’ passenger cabins that would have existed under the alleged flight behavior of the planes at the time of the calls were completely inconsistent with the background sounds on the calls and the behavior of the alleged callers.
* With one exception, the alleged “pilots” had never flown a jet-liner; one had flown a simulator of a different plane with a completely different cockpit layout; the one who allegedly made the almost-impossible maneuver over the Pentagon had been declared by his instructors to be unable to even fly a single-engine plane.
* The claims of finding a “hijacker” passport unscathed on the ground in NYC, and undamaged red bandanas (indicative of the wrong Muslim sect, in any case) in Pennsylvania, given the alleged physical reality of those crashes, are absurd on their face.
* It is apparent that a number of the listed “hijackers” (the ones that weren’t already dead beforehand) were alive afterwards (although there is some controversy over this point).
* With respect to the question of how 9/11 could have happened without human hijackers, it is vital to note that as of 2001, the technology for complete remote takeover, isolation and control (takeoff, flying, landing) of commercial jetliners was well advanced and had been fully tested in the types of aircraft involved in 9/11, and the air traffic auto-pilot navigation lanes in the sky were precise to within a few feet.
The list goes on. . . As one considers each piece of evidence, the chance that “hijackers” were actually involved approaches zero. The real role of the alleged hijackers is not yet known – those with documented flying lessons may very well have been unwitting patsies. But in any case, the question of who might have been financing their stay in this country, Saudi or otherwise, is at best tangential to the larger picture of what really happened on 9/11. Any attempt to steer people in that direction as a final solution to the question of responsibility for 9/11 – as a price that must be paid for “transparency” – can only be construed as dangerous misdirection. The real price paid by the 9TM is the subversion of unwitting activists who become involved with its promotion into betraying their own hard-won, fact-based alternative 9/11 perspective.
The 28 Pages campaign: 9/11 Truth bonanza or limited hangout?
Our own concern about the 28 Pages campaign was triggered by the emergence of several websites supporting it, which hold out the promise that the 28 pages will answer the question of who was really behind 9/11 (and that this will turn out to be Saudi Arabia). Examples are 28pages.org and most especially hr14.org. As the latter is controlled by a veteran 9/11 truther, we sought to appeal to him as fellow activists. An ad hoc group formed and sent him a letter critiquing the website from the standpoint of 9/11 Truth, requesting specific revisions of its message. Because his reply did not adequately address the issues we raised, we have now published it as an open letter.
[Recognizing that the redacted 28 pages may well contain information useful to serious 9/11 Truth researchers, we support their release as much as we call for the declassification of all 9/11-related information unfairly withheld from public access. However, those who pander to the official lies about 9/11 in order to garner support for their release do serious damage to the 9TM effort.]
We are hardly the first to find serious problems with the direction of the 28 Pages campaign. Perhaps thefirst notable critique came from the blog of Kevin Ryan; whilst this early criticism was on the milder side, its excoriation of the leadership of the 28 Pages campaign – Bob Graham and his “CIA protege” Porter Goss – is not to be missed! Years earlier, in fact, Ryan had opined in Washington’s Blog: “Those redacted pages, and much of the 9/11 Commission report that followed, have always seemed to be a kind of ‘Get into Saudi Arabia free’ card for the powers that be.” Given the recent sea change in Saudi foreign policy – its nearer alignment with Russia and the BRICS bloc – such a prospect cannot be overlooked. What better way to incite public animosity towards the Saudis than by playing the tried and true 9/11 blame game?
Expanding on Ryan’s disquieting report, Professor Michel Chossudovsky, of Globalresearch.ca, wrote:
Calling for the official release and publication of the 28 page classified section of the joint inquiry report pertaining to Saudi Arabia is an obvious red-herring. The objective is to confuse matters, create divisions within the 9/11 Truth movement and ultimately dispel the fact that the 9/11 attacks were a carefully organized False Flag event which was used to declare war on Afghanistan as well as usher in sweeping anti-terrorist legislation.
Both the Congressional inquiry as well the 9/11 Commission report are flawed, their objective was to sustain the official narrative that America was under attack on September 11, 2001. And Graham’s role in liaison with the CIA, is “damage control” with a view to protecting those who were behind the demolition of the WTC towers as well [as] sustaining the Al Qaeda legend, which constitutes the cornerstone of US military doctrine under the so-called “Global War on Terrorism”.
As the 28 Pages campaign unfolds, such scathing criticism has proven remarkably prescient. We urge our fellow 9/11 Truth activists to take it to heart, and to approach the 28 Pages campaign juggernaut, if at all, with extreme caution, so long as it is clings so faithfully to the OTC . Caveat emptor!!
