As the 18th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks approaches, new mainstream voices are raising questions about what really happened that day. Marianne Williamson is only the most outspoken of the Democratic presidential candidates who are interested in the work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. For details, read “Iowa Activist Takes 9/11 Truth to 17 Presidential Candidates, Several of Them Highly Receptive” by Craig McGee, online.
Meanwhile, on July 24, 2019, in New York, fire commissioners of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District unanimously passed a resolution demanding a real investigation of 9/11 in light of the “overwhelming evidence” that “pre-planted explosives… caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings.” Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia said, “We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won’t be the last… You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force.” Family members of 9/11 victims were present to cheer the passage of the resolution.
Mainstream media find nothing newsworthy in the 9/11 skepticism of presidential candidates, New York firefighters, and 9/11 survivors. And maybe they’re right; maybe 9/11 skepticism is no longer newsworthy — because it is ubiquitous. As far back as 2006, a Scripps poll found that 36% of Americans think it “likely” that 9/11 was a war-trigger false flag. Another poll found that 84% agree that the US government is not telling the truth about 9/11, while only 16% believe the official story fully (such polls almost surely underestimate 9/11 skepticism since people generally tell pollsters what they think the Establishment wants to hear).
Yet on each 9/11 anniversary, mainstream media try to drown out the widespread skepticism by trumpeting hollow hoopla designed to play on patriotic sentiments and obscure the fact that hardly anyone, least of all the so-called journalists paid to promote such rubbish, is free from doubts.
So does anyone still believe the official version of 9/11? To answer that question, we need to know what the official version is. Most people only have a vague idea. The US authorities and media have promulgated a mélange of contradictory stories, with only minimal clarification.
The glaring irrationality and impossibility of the many official versions of 9/11 are exposed in David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press. Dr. Griffin shows that the government and mainstream media have put out many mutually-incompatible official stories about what happened to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; how hijacked passenger airplanes were allegedly allowed to fly all over the most protected airspace in the world for hours without interference from air defenses; who the alleged hijackers were and what motivated them; what various government officials knew ahead of time and what they did during the event; and when and how the 9/11 Commission Report (the closest thing to a one-volume official version) was drafted. The obvious conclusion, inescapable for anyone who studies these contradictions, is that 9/11 was a false-flag operation by insiders who, perhaps for reasons of operational secrecy and need-to-know compartmentalization, have been unable to keep their stories straight.
The 9/11 Commission Report itself is riddled with omissions, inconsistencies, and absurdities. One infamous example: the Report states that the question of who paid for the 9/11 attacks “is of little practical significance” (p. 172). Normally, someone who hires thugs to carry out a murder is considered the primary author of the murder. Yet when it comes to the worst mass murder ever perpetrated on American soil, the official US government Report on the crime states that the top perpetrators, the people who paid for the crime, remain unknown and at large — and that’s fine, because it doesn’t matter who those criminals are!
Another grossly incoherent aspect of the 9/11 Commission Report is the gap between the breathless Tom Clancy novel style narration and the supposed evidence on which it is based. Anyone who bothers to consult the footnotes discovers that the Commission’s “evidence” for its version of events consists almost entirely of anonymous hearsay accounts of supposed confessions allegedly tortured out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). The Commission never spoke to KSM. It never heard any confessions. It never saw notes of any interrogations, much less video or audio tape. All of that was destroyed by the CIA. Instead, the Commission claims it relied on anonymous hearsay accounts of KSM’s tortured confessions, but provides no details. Medieval inquisitors provided much better documentation of the crimes of tortured witches than the Commission provided to support its fable of Bin Laden and his 19 merry hijackers.
Another stunning series of contradictions in the official 9/11 narrative involves the US military’s three radically different explanations of why it didn’t scramble fighter jets and intercept the supposedly hijacked planes. Normally off-course passenger planes are quickly intercepted by fighter jets. It takes about 10 minutes and happens more than 100 times per year in the US. But on September 11, 2001, the system seemingly broke down. Before 8:15 am on 9/11/2001 the US military had established a secure phone bridge with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning apparent hijackings. Yet no fighter jets were scrambled during almost two hours of aerial mayhem, culminating in the crash (or shoot-down) of Flight 93 at 10:03 am. The military quickly put out a ridiculous, easily falsified story. Then several months later it changed that story to an even less plausible one. In summer 2004, it trotted out its third and most obviously ridiculous story for the 9/11 Commission. That final US military lie, enshrined in the 9/11 Commission Report, was so absurd and self-incriminating that the Commission’s co-chairs considered indicting top military leaders for perjury. Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) nearly broke down crying on the Senate floor as he condemned the military’s lies. Shortly thereafter Sen. Dayton was forced to evacuate himself and his entire staff from Washington, DC, fly home to Minnesota, and announce his retirement from national politics due to “terrorist threats” (the threats Sen. Dayton received presumably echoed then Vice President Dick Cheney’s dire threats to another Minnesota Senator, Paul Wellstone, in October 2002, one week before Wellstone, his wife, daughter, and staffers were murdered in an EMF-weapon-induced plane crash).
Perhaps the most incriminating contradictions in what passes for the official story of 9/11 concern what happened to the World Trade Center, especially the three skyscrapers. The many official non-explanations of how modest office fires could make steel frame high-rises explode into sub-100-micron dust and disappear, at near free fall acceleration, with near-perfect symmetry, through the path of most resistance, in just a few seconds, will boggle the minds of future historians.
The bottom line of the official story, in all its many incoherent and contradictory versions, is that 9/11 was perpetrated by “radical (that is, anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, ultra-pious) Muslims.” The 9/11 Commission states that Muhammad ‘Ata, the alleged ringleader, committed the crime after becoming “fanatically” religious. The press has echoed that accusation. Yet the same mainstream press that blames 9/11 on “Islamic extremism” also published a great many reports documenting that the alleged 9/11 hijackers (or whoever had stolen their identities) were not only irreligious, but downright fanatical in their devotion to alcohol, cocaine, prostitutes, pork, gambling, blasphemy, and other un-Islamic pastimes. One group of alleged hijackers got drunk and left an alcohol-soaked Qur’an on the bar on the night of September 10, 2001 — hardly the behavior of Muslims preparing for martyrdom. These individuals, likely intelligence assets who had stolen the identities of the Arab Muslims framed for 9/11, were about the furthest thing from “Muslim extremists” that could possibly be imagined. Yet the same mainstream media that has exposed the radically un-Islamic character of the alleged hijackers continues to blame “radical Islam” for 9/11.
Though polls have shown that the vast majority of Muslims rejects the incoherent official 9/11 mishmash served up by US authorities, few are actively supporting the 9/11 truth movement. By failing to effectively refute the official lies about 9/11, Muslims have passively submitted to a genocidal propaganda campaign that has led to the deaths of 27 million people in Muslim countries, according to Australian avoidable mortality expert Dr. Gideon Polya. And these are just the casualties, direct and indirect, of the USA’s 9/11 wars. If we take into account the lingering worldwide effects of the 9/11 anti-Islam public relations operation, and recognize that the anti-Islam genocides in Myanmar, Kashmir, India, and China (not to mention Colonized Palestine), as well as rising Islamophobic genocidal sentiment in Europe, are also heavily driven by the lingering after-effects of the 9/11 psy-op, we must conclude that Muslims ought to make supporting the 9/11 truth movement their highest political priority.