9
911review.org
Guest
http://911review.org/Wget/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html
In the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade
Center, the finger of guilt was directed toward the only plausible
author for such a sophisticated and ruthless act of terror - Osama bin
Laden.
Throughout the late '90's, we were informed that bin Laden had
declared war on America by reason of the American military presence on
Saudi soil in the wake of the Persian Gulf war. We were told how bin
Laden, ensconced in Afghanistan, headed up a world-wide terror
franchise whose sophistication and global reach dwarfed that of the
Iranian-financed Hizballah or Islamic Jihad (previously, the most
widely known of the terror organizations among the masses in the
Middle East). Bin Laden's organization, al-Qaida, was presented to us
as something entirely new in the annals of terrorism - a far-flung,
sophisticated empire of terror, possessing - possibly - weapons of
mass destruction, while having no clear or viable state sponsor behind
it (as the Afghani Taliban were merely its resident protectors). In
short, by September 11, the United States now had a bona fide enemy -
and, as they say in criminal justice parlance, a suspect with motive,
means, and opportunity.
And while I was a bit taken at how quickly - and confidently - the
fingers were pointing only hours after the 9/11 bombings, I was
positively shaken by the first red flag that popped up. His name was
John O'Neill - or more precisely, he is the seam that shows. Dated
September 12, in a Washington Post article by Vernon Loeb, it was
revealed that O'Neill, who died in his capacity as head of security
for the World Trade Center, was also formerly the New York FBI
Counterterror chief responsible for the investigation into Osama bin
Laden. That could perhaps be written off as one of those freak
synchronicities. There were the other items - reported quite blandly,
in that "there's nothing to see here, folks" tone - that gave me that
sinking feeling. Apparently, O'Neill had a falling-out with the
Ambassador to Yemen over his investigative style and was banned from
returning there. But then there was that other nugget that I had
trouble digesting - that O'Neill had resigned from a thirty-year
career in the FBI "under a cloud" over an incident in Tampa - and then
left to take up the security position at the WTC (only two weeks
before!).
The seam that shows...
For the bulk of his career, like most of his FBI colleagues, John
O'Neill was largely unknown to the public at large - respected in his
circle, to be sure, yet scarcely meriting much mention in the media -
beyond being referenced now and then as an expert on counterterrorism.
Yet in the few months leading up to September 11, O'Neill was now
suddenly the subject of a series of seemingly unrelated controversies
- the first, in July, involving his dispute with the State Department
over the conduct of the bin Laden investigation in Yemen; and the
second, in August, in which he was reported to be under an FBI probe
for misplacing a briefcase of classified documents during an FBI
convention in Tampa.
In the light of the aftermath of this second controversy - the
documents were found, "untouched", a few hours later - one wonders why
this seemingly minor news would merit such lengthy coverage in the
Washington Post and New York Times. Keeping in mind the fact that
these latter articles on O'Neill appeared a mere three weeks before he
was to die in the rubble of the Twin Towers, one wonders if this
wasn't a well-orchestrated smear campaign against O'Neill, with a bit
of unintended "blowback" - as this now-discredited counterterror chief
in charge of all bin Laden bombings would finally make the news as a
fatal casualty of bin Laden's final bombing. Coincidence? Or was there
something more here that would bear investigating?
My gut told me that, in the months preceding September 11, somebody
was out to either discredit John O'Neill or, alternatively, to plant
disinformation that could later be used to divert any investigator
from a fruitful reconstruction of the forces behind 9/11. Or, quite
possibly, was a mistake made - one pointing the way toward a plan
whose scope goes well beyond the designs of Osama bin Laden? In other
words, could we spot the telltale fingerprints of a propaganda
campaign preceding 9/11?
Well, as they say, a hypothesis is only as good as its usefulness in
ferreting out reality. My hypothesis: that the events of September 11
were planned by those who not only had the motive, means, and
opportunity to carry out the plan, but also were best placed to manage
the consequences stemming from it, as well as managing the flow of
information. If this were an "inside job", the first thing to do was
to look at who conveyed specific information on bin Laden before - and
I stress, before - 9/11, for they were most likely involved wittingly
or not with those who masterminded it.
Virtually the first "smoking gun" was presented the day after 9/11,
when Vernon Loeb and Dan Eggen reported in the Post that Abdel Bari
Atwan, editor of the Al-Quds al Arabi newspaper in London, "received
information that he [bin Laden] planned very, very big attacks against
American interests" only three weeks before 9/11. Moreover, the
article reported that Atwan "was convinced that Islamic
fundamentalists aligned with bin Laden were 'almost certainly' behind
the attacks." Incidentally, Atwan had personally interviewed bin Laden
in Afghanistan in 1996 - among the very few to do so. As reported by
Michael Evans in the August 24, 1998 issue of The Times, Atwan "is
trusted by bin Laden."
Curious, perhaps, that Atwan seemed to be one of the major "point men"
used in elaborating the Osama bin Laden "legend", as they say in
intelligence parlance. In a U.S. News article dated August 31, 1998,
Atwan informs us that bin Laden "is a humble man who lives simply,
eating fried eggs, tasteless low-fat cheese, and bread gritty with
sand. He hates America." No flash in the pan, this interviewer.
Apparently, bin Laden kept Atwan's business card tucked away in his
toga pocket. "Bin Laden phoned this newspaper, phoned me last Friday,"
Atwan revealed in an ABC News LateLine Transcript dated August 25,
1998. We'll come back to ABC News shortly.
While solidly implicating bin Laden the day after 9/11, Atwan was also
the media's "go-to" guy back in 1998 when he informed us, after
President Clinton bombed tool sheds in Afghanistan, that bin Laden
issued this threat against the United States: "The battle has not
started yet. The response will be with action and not words." In the
same article (which I took from Nando Times), ABC News is the source
for an additional threat called in by Ayman al-Zawahiri, a senior bin
Laden aide: "The war has just started. The Americans should wait for
the answer." Only a few months before that, ABC had conducted its
televised interview of bin Laden. By the summer of 1998, primed by
Atwan, ABC NEWS, and a surprisingly small clique of well-worn sources,
we had come to know bin Laden as America's latest "Saddam", "Qaddafi",
"Noriega" - take your pick and set your bomb sites.
By October 2000, when the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in Yemen, in case
there was any doubt, Atwan offered Reuters his helpful analysis with
regards to the source of blame: "I do not rule out that this was
undertaken by Osama bin Laden. Yemeni groups don't have the experience
to carry out this kind of operation." Atwan informed Reuters that bin
Laden "was unlikely to claim direct responsibility for Thursday's
attack for fear of U.S. reprisals." One can imagine, then, that Atwan
gave his trusting phone mate cause for many a sleepless night. With
friends like these...
Leading up to 9/11, by the Spring of 2001, an incriminating wedding
videotape, apparently implicating bin Laden in the Yemen bombing, was
circulating around the Middle East after being broadcast on the
ubiquitous al-Jazeera television station (reconstituted from the BBC
TV Arabic Service - more on them later). In the video, bin Laden,
according to the Saudi-owned al-Hayat newspaper (more on them later,
too), recited a poem celebrating the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole
(shades of deja vu here?) This from the ABCNEWS.com site dated March
1: "Al-Hayat, which carried a photo of bin Laden and his son at the
wedding, said its correspondent was the only journalist at the
ceremony, also attended by bin Laden's mother, two brothers and sister
who flew to Kandahar from Saudi Arabia."
And yes, here, too, Atwan offers his thoughtful review of the bin
Laden video, courtesy of PTI, datelined London June 22, 2001: "[Atwan]
said the video was proof that the fugitive Saudi millionaire [the
Bruce Wayne of terrorists] was fit, well equipped and confident enough
to send out a call to arms." Why this sudden need for proof? According
to Atwan in the same article: "There have been rumours that [bin
Laden] is ill and that he is being contained by the Taliban in
Afghanistan. It is quite clear from the film that he is in good health
to the point where he can fire a rifle, and is free to operate as he
chooses." In other words, limber enough for his starring role in the
months ahead.
So who is Abdel Bari Atwan and why is he anxious to tell us so much?
According to the Winter 1999 issue of INEAS (Institute of Near Eastern
and African Studies), Abdel Bari Atwan, a Palestinian, was born in a
refugee camp in the Gaza Strip in 1950. Educated at the American
University of Cairo, Atwan moved to Saudi Arabia and worked as a
writer for the al-Madina newspaper. In 1978, he moved to London, where
he became a correspondent for the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat
newspaper. In 1988, after shuffling around between Saudi-owned papers,
Atwan was offered a position as editor of al-Quds al-Arabi. By his
account, he was offered a position as the executive editor of the
Saudi-owned al-Hayat (of the bin Laden wedding video coup), yet turned
it down to produce a more independent newspaper as a challenge to the
"empires" of the Saudi-dominated dailies.
Al-Quds began production in April 1989. A little more than a year
later, Saddam invaded Kuwait and al-Quds stood alone as the only Arab
newspaper opposed to the Persian Gulf War - at least by Atwan's
account. According to Atwan: "Without the Gulf War, we wouldn't have
taken such political lines, which made us well recognized and well
respected." In November 1996, Bari-Atwan braved a twelve-hour car ride
through muddy roads, attired in shabby Afghani rags in below-zero
weather, and gave us the early scoop on bin Laden, conducting a one-on-
one interview in bin Laden's [bat]cave. From then on, the mainstream
media - CNN, ABC, BBC, Sky News - looked to Bari-Atwan and al-Quds as
the "independent" voice of the Arab street.
Incidentally, in a discussion concerning the matter of Saudi
domination of the Arabic media, taken from the Carryon.oneworld.org
site, Atwan, as editor of his struggling independent, was facing off
against Jihad Khazen, the editor of the Saudi-owned al-Hayat. As Atwan
proudly related in support of his independence: "One day I was called
by the BBC-TV Arabic service [whose staff later reconstituted itself
as al-Jazeera television]: 'There's a story on your front page today,
saying such and such. Is it true?' I asked why he should doubt it and
he replied: 'It's not published in al-Hayat [his job offer] or al-
Sharq al-Awsat [his alma mater].' " Atwan boasts: "At least I can say
we are 95 to 96 per cent independent" - leaving out the 4 to 5 per
cent spent on bin Laden, I presume. Whether or not al-Quds truly is
independent, this is the cover story the mainstream media buys into
when they come trolling for their "independent" evidence.
So, to elaborate further on this (so far) fruitful hypothesis, it is
my contention that al-Qaida and bin Laden are elaborate "legends" set
up to promote a plausibly sophisticated and ferocious enemy to stand
against American interests. I am not, however, implying that bin Laden
himself is a total fabrication. Rather, it is my contention that
confederates, believing themselves to act on behalf of bin Laden, are
being set up in a "false flag operation" to perform operations as
their controllers see fit. And who are these controllers? If they're
anything resembling the folks who brought you Hizbullah and Hamas, you
wouldn't be sweating the suitcase nukes (made in America), the Ames
strain anthrax (made in America), the MI5-like "sleeper agents" and
coded "go" messages. Instead, you would be dodging primitive nail
bombs and road mines - and not needing Abdel Bari Atwan to feed you
the lowdown on the blame.
In view of the fact that bin Laden is of Saudi origin, that much of
the "evidence" on the Arab side initially originated from Saudi-owned
or Gulf Anglo-client state sources, and that Saudi Arabia is the major
financial sponsor of the Taliban brand of fundamentalism in
Afghanistan (as a counter-point to Iran), I believe it is fair to say
that Saudi Arabia might possibly be implicated. " Most likely, the
Saudis performed their roles as subservient proxies. We'll get to the
ultimate controllers soon enough (if you haven't already guessed where
this is going). And now, to fill out the picture further, it is
necessary to name an equally essential partner as proxy - Pakistan,
or, more specifically, Pakistan's version of the CIA - the ISI
(Interservices Intelligence Directorate).
And this is where we begin to "close the circle" of our close-knit
pre-9/11 propaganda clique. Returning again to the above-mentioned Dan
Eggen and Vernon Loeb Post article of September 12, we're offered - in
a powerful little side-bar - more critical evidence implicating bin
Laden for the attacks the day before. This time, the bombshell is
offered by Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail, Abu Dhabi Television's
bureau chief in Islamabad. According to Ismail, a bin Laden aide
called him "early Wednesday on a satellite telephone from a hide-out
in Afghanistan," praising the attack yet denying any responsibility
for it. As it turns out, Ismail was also among the select few to
conduct his very own bin Laden interview, published by Newsweek in its
April 1, 1999 issue. Here is how Newsweek described Ismail's good
fortune: "Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail's mobile phone rang just
before prayers on December 18. 'Peace be upon you, ' said the voice on
the line. 'You may not recognize me, but I know you.' " And thus was
Jamal Ismail invited on his own mud-soaked incursion to the bin Laden
[bat]cave.
Searching deeper, I found an interesting obscure article penned by
respected Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufszai in The News Jang,
and dated May 3, 2000. It details the detention of two men of Kurdish
origin, accused by the Taliban of spying for American and Israeli
intelligence. As Yusufszai relates it, he spoke to the only
journalists allowed by the Taliban to interview the detained men -
Jamal Ismail and his cameraman. Apparently, Ismail had a special
relationship with the Taliban, allowing him this rare privilege above
other journalists. And, as we shall shortly see, so does Yusufszai.
One wonders who debriefs them at the end of a workday. But more
interestingly, by May 5, as reported by Kathy Gannon for the
Associated Press, the story acquires - as they say - "new legs." Not
only are the basic elements of the Yusufszai story mentioned, but the
article leads off with the bombshell that one of the detained men
revealed that he was recruited by the United States to find Osama bin
Laden. It finishes with a little coda implicating bin Laden in the
1998 embassy bombings. Thus, in the space of two days, Yusufszai's
Pakistani "spy" article sprouts a bin Laden addition when fertilized
by the American Associated Press - and nicely provides a plausible
explanation as to why a Kurd would be prowling around Afghanistan on
behalf of the United States.
Yusufszai, incidentally, moonlighted as an ABC News producer, charged
with guiding ABC News correspondent John Miller through the Afghani
marshes to the bin Laden [bat]cave - one of the very few American
journalists to be accorded such an honour (and also, as it happens, a
good friend of bin Laden arch-foe John O'Neill. But not chummy enough
to direct O'Neill on to bin Laden's hideaway). Moreover, Ismail and
Yusufszai are mentioned together in a CNN article posted January 4,
1999 - the former for his Newsweek interview, the latter for his own
bin Laden dialogue for TIME Magazine the day later.
Rahimullah Yusufszai, regarded by New York Times reporters John Burns
and Steve LeVine as "one man who has seen more of the Taliban than any
other outsider," is also named by The Nation, in its article of
January 27, 1997, as "one of the favourite journalists of [Pakistan's]
ISI...one of the organizations funding and arming the Taliban. "
It's a small world after all. In the September 29, 2001 article of
PressPlus, Yusufszai's ABC colleague, John Miller, mused about running
into his buddy John O'Neill in Yemen while reporting on the U.S.S.
Cole bombing the year before. "He said, 'So this is the Elaine's of
Yemen.' "
"There is a terrible irony to all this," Miller said. I'll say:
Miller, one of the very few Americans who can give a first-hand
account of bin Laden, bumps into his friend, bin Laden's chief
investigator, while both are investigating a bombing in Yemen that
will later be tagged onto bin Laden - and only a year before O'Neill
dies at the hands of... allegedly ...bin Laden.
Now, following the logic of my hypothesis, if the bin Laden threat
was, pre-9/11, a close-knit propaganda campaign, one would expect to
find the same names showing up repeatedly in combination with one
another. This, too, applies to the American commentators. Let us
return to the August 1998 American bombings of bin Laden's tool sheds
as an example. The night of the bombing, Rahimullah Yusufszai received
a call from bin Laden aide Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a report from the
Associated Press. Later, Yusufszai obtained for ABC News exclusive
photos of the damage to bin Laden's camp. Further commentary
describing the layout of the bin Laden camp was furnished to the
Washington Post by former CIA analyst and terrorism expert Kenneth
Katzman, as well as Harvey Kushner of Long Island University. Only
little more than a week before that, Katzman and Kushner were offering
their assessment of bin Laden's culpability for the embassy bombings
in Africa in a Washington Post article penned by Vernon Loeb and
Walter Pincus. They were joined in this effort by Vincent Cannistraro,
the ABC news analyst who also escorted John Miller to his bin Laden
interview, as well as provided running commentary in the days
immediately following 9/11. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism
chief, provided covert aid to the Afghani mujaheddin in the late
'80's, as well as supervised CIA operations with the contras. He was
also one of the point men in the notoriously circumspect investigation
at Lockerbie. In the above-noted Loeb and Pincus article - in which
bin Laden is quoted from the ABC News Miller and Yusufszai interview -
Cannistraro weighs in with his assessment of the embassy bombings: "I
believe Osama bin Laden is the sponsor of this operation, and I think
all of the indications are pointing that way."
Soon after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, a Vernon Loeb Post
article, dated October 13, 2000, proceeded to implicate bin Laden
through the detailed information provided by Kushner, Katzman, and
Cannistraro. Earlier, in a Vernon Loeb Post article dated July 3,
2000, Yusufszai, Kushner, and Cannistraro unveiled bin Laden aides
Ayman al-Zawahiri and Muhammed Atef as the men to watch as bin Laden's
likely successors, with a helpful tidbit on the Zawahiri biography
thrown in by the Saudi-owned al-Sharq al-Awsat.
None of the above, of course, is offered as the "smoking gun" pointing
the way to a propaganda conspiracy, nor are my chosen examples meant
to be exhaustive in evidencing this point. According to Felicity
Barringer, in a New York Times article dated September 24, 2001: "A
good deal of the public information on bin Laden comes from the
journalists who went to Afghanistan to interview him, including
[Peter] Bergen, ... Peter Arnett, John Miller, Rahimullah Yusufzai,
and Jamal Ismail." The article further makes reference to Vernon
Loeb, Al Quds al-Arabi (Atwan), Judith Miller, Al Jazeera, and Brian
Jenkins (formerly of Kroll Associates - the security firm that
obtained the WTC position for John O'Neill by way of Jerry Hauer).
Clearly, I have also not heretofore made mention of the other experts
who have worked assiduously toward building our knowledge base on bin
Laden - Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Yossef Bodansky, and various
British and EU elites. However, the above examples do show how the
information flow on bin Laden could be plausibly managed by the
skilfully placed revelations of a relatively insular clique of
"experts" called upon repeatedly by the mainstream media.
Here is how it would work: A relatively few well-connected
correspondents provide the "scoops" that get the coverage in the
relatively few mainstream news sources - the four TV networks, TIME,
Newsweek, CNN - where the parameters of debate are set and the
"official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news
chain. In other countries, this is what is known as propaganda - or,
put less politely, psychological warfare.
But before I leave this topic, I would like to provide an example of
"news management" that is revealing for what is omitted - that is, the
"smoking gun" of Pakistani ISI involvement in the events of 9/11. On
October 9, 2001, the Times of India dropped this little bombshell:
"Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that [ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad]
lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his
links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade
Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the
fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from
Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmud."
What makes this particular piece so devastating is that only days
before, much of the mainstream American media was touting the news of
a "key link" in the chain of evidence linking bin Laden to the events
of September 11 - namely, a $100,000 wire transfer to the hijackers
from a shadowy operative linked to bin Laden. Yet once this operative
was "outed" as being linked instead to the Pakistani ISI Chief, any
propaganda gains initially made through this evidence would now
crumble. One possible reason might stem from this Karachi News item,
released only two days before September 11:
"[Pakistani] ISI Chief Lt-Gen Mahmood's week-long presence in
Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his
mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council.
Officially, State Department sources say he is on a routine visit in
return to [sic] CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to
Islamabad...What added interest to his visit is the history of such
visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmood's predecessor, was here
during Nawaz Sharif's government the domestic politics turned topsy-
turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by Mahmood in the
last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys..."
In other words, this was a propaganda piece that went disastrously
wrong. After October 9, bin Laden's alleged paymaster could now be
linked to a U.S. "ally" who spent the days before 9/11 in deep
consultation at the Pentagon. The US authorities immediately went
into damage control mode by insisting on the quiet retirement of the
"outed" ISI chief. Thus removed from the public eye, the ISI Chief's
role in all this could be effectively ignored, and an American media
black-out could be safely assumed.
Such a scenario certainly fits in snugly with my hypothesis, which I
will now proceed to elaborate completely. The events of September 11
were masterminded by those who were in the best position to manage the
consequences - namely, those most able to manage the flow of
information, those most able to coordinate all the elements necessary
for the perpetration of a successful operation (subverting airport
security, guiding the planes to their specific targets), and most
significantly, those who stood to reasonably benefit in the aftermath.
Conspiracies, by their very nature, are not crimes of passion. They
may involve rational, albeit cold-blooded, attempts to achieve a
desired end by employing the most effective means available. It is for
this reason that "mainstream" terror groups like Hamas and Hizbullah
largely avoid attacking American interests where such attacks would
serve no practical interest. For all their talk of Jihad, these terror
groups tend to plan their specific attacks with an eye to the
consequences that could reasonably be expected to follow. Thus,
knowing the moral and political constraints of Israeli deterrent
strategies, they calibrate their attacks to elicit consequences that
are most tolerable for them - and hence, manageable. Yet surely, in
the light of the cult of suicidal martyrdom, such considerations no
longer hold sway. Perhaps. But then, in the case of such a far-flung
anti-Zionist movement as al-Qaida, one would expect at least a little
more exertion against Israeli interests than has heretofore prevailed
- unless, of course, the "point" of al-Qaida was to provide a
plausible dire threat to American interests where none had then
existed. In any case, as nobody has noticed this particular anomaly,
there was no need for any needless exertion of resources in order to
bolster a credibility that needed no bolstering in this one particular
sector.
Motive, means, and opportunity. While I presented the Saudis and
Pakistani intelligence as clear-cut proxies, the only motive these
elements would have to benefit from a crime of this nature is an
assurance that no punishment would be forthcoming but rather, they
would be on the right side of power and wealth among those in a
position to determine the booty.
Another anomaly: on the very day that the ISI Chief was in deep
consultation at the Pentagon, Ahmed Shah Massoud, the head of the
Afghani Northern Alliance - a cultishly popular figure within that
group, and a mortal foe of Pakistan's ISI - was assassinated by two
terrorists posing as cameramen. Keeping in mind the fact that,
throughout the '90's, American leaders such as Clinton, and American
companies such as Unocal, were largely throwing their support over to
the Taliban in opposition to the Northern Alliance (or United Front),
it seems rather convenient that, in the aftermath of 9/11, the way was
now cleared for the Northern Alliance to be co-opted as an instrument
for setting up a more pliant Afghani government (now headed,
incidentally, by a former consultant to Unocal).
So who are the ultimate controllers? To begin with, the circumstantial
evidence seems to point to an operative clique primarily based out of
New York City and the State of Florida. I stress the word "operative",
as this clique appears to consist of subservient agents involved in
laying the preparations. Once again, John O'Neill serves as an
effective Rosetta Stone in interpreting the raw outlines of this
operative clique (which is by no means a "rogue" clique). The FBI and
CIA elements involved in counterterrorism have a checkered past. For
one, Oliver North in the 1980's served as Counterterrorism Chief while
he used his office as a cover to deal with such narco-terrorists as
Monzar al-Kassar (who figures in the crash at Lockerbie - also
investigated by Cannistraro). In the late '90's, O'Neill was
transferred from the federal office of Counterrorism to the New York
Counterrorism Office of the FBI - and it was the New York branch which
was then designated as the primary investigator of all overseas
investigations involving bin Laden. Moreover, this branch was also
involved in the somewhat suspect investigation of TWA 800 -
investigated by O'Neill and reported upon by ABC's John Miller, who
was formerly the Deputy Police Commissioner of Public Relations for
the NYPD before he joined up with ABC.
As regards New York, there is another element involved in germ
warfare operations. Actually, a multi-million dollar bunker - serving
as a command and control center in the event of a biological attack -
was set up at 7 World Trade Center at the direction of Rudolph
Giuliani, who also oversaw the mass spraying of malathion over the
boroughs of New York City when the West Nile Virus hit town a few
summers previously. The man Giuliani placed in charge of that
operation, Jerry Hauer, also happened to be the man who found John
O'Neill the position at the World Trade Center, as well as being the
one who - by his own admission - identified O'Neill's body.
Moreover, there has been a widespread campaign on to link the threat
of al-Qaida with that of a mass biological attack. At least the day
after September 11, the link - as the Anthrax mailings had yet to
arise - was not so apparent. Yet on PBS' Frontline, the New York
Times' Judith Miller (no apparent relation to John Miller, as far as
I'm aware), accompanied by the New York Times' James Risen, was
interviewed as an expert on al-Qaida. Several weeks later, Judith
Miller would once more make the headlines as the apparent recipient of
an anthrax mailing which turned out to be a false alarm - yet was all
the same conveniently timed with the well-publicized launching of her
book on...germ warfare. As was later discovered, the anthrax mailings
petered out once the news leaked that a DNA test revealed the material
to be of the Ames strain of anthrax, an agent synthesized out of a CIA
laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Nevertheless, this was
sufficient to fast-track Bioport's exclusive license for the anthrax
vaccine toward FDA approval. Formerly, Bioport's experimental anthrax
vaccine was being forcibly administered - under threat of court-
martial - to hundreds of thousands of American servicemen (in
conformity with Bioport's exclusive and lucrative contract with the
Department of Defense).
Incidentally, Judith Miller, along with Jerry Hauer, was among 17
"key" participants in a biowarfare exercise known as "Dark Winter" - a
think tank-funded scenario that aimed to study the nationwide effects
of a hypothetical smallpox outbreak. One of the sponsors of that
exercise was the Anser Institute of Homeland Security, an organization
established before September 11, 2001. Interestingly enough, the
curious phrase "homeland security" was starting to creep up with
increasing frequency in the vocabularies of certain political cliques
(Dick Cheney, the Hart-Rudman Commission, et al.) in the year or two
leading up to 9/11.
The point of the above-noted information is to draw attention to an
apparent propaganda campaign to prepare the public for a catastrophic
biological attack. As with the Twin Towers, the blame for any coming
attack may be duly and plausibly assigned by those who carefully laid
the groundwork in preparing us for this eventuality.
As for Florida, the connection with this state is obvious, for not
only was the first anthrax mailing directed to the Florida offices of
the National Enquirer, but many of the accused hijackers were also
reported to receive their pilot training from flight schools in Venice
and Tampa. Notably, it was a Florida bank account to which hijacker
Mohamed Atta allegedly deposited his 9/11 pay cheque. Moreover,
Florida, by way of the MacDill Air Force Base, is also Central Command
for the war in Afghanistan. In addition to its function as Central
Command for the war on terrorism, MacDill is -outside of Langley -
also a major base of the CIA. Thus, in the CIA's own backyard, we find
the infrastructure and financial support that went into the planning
for the events of 9/11. And, as we so often find with events
surrounding 9/11, another synchronicity - for coincidentally enough,
the woman who reportedly happened to find an apartment for one of the
alleged hijackers was the wife of the senior editor of the National
Enquirer. Moreover, her husband, Michael Irish, also happened to make
use of an airfield that reportedly served as flight training for some
of the hijackers. I emphasize the word "reportedly," as the
possibility always exists that this "reported fact" may be nothing
more than disinformation, strategically placed to divert attention
from a possibly more subtle truth. In intelligence operations,
foreign assets are often placed with resident "controllers" whose job
it is to supervise the asset as well as provide accommodations as the
need arises. Who are Michael and Gloria Irish? Or, perhaps more
revealingly, what kind of social circles do they run with? This is
certainly an avenue worth exploring - by reason of its many
synchrocities if for nothing else. Again, the seam that shows.
As a little side-note, Tampa experienced its own mass spraying of
malathion, a mutagenic pesticide, when it encountered a med fly
outbreak the year before New York's West Nile outbreak. In the end,
the flies were contained through a sterile med fly program
administered out of MacDill Air Force base.
So, to sum up, it appears that the events of September 11 were planned
years in advance, with the groundwork being carefully laid by a
propaganda campaign orchestrated to convince the public that the
United States has a plausibly sophisticated nemesis with the motive,
means, and opportunity to perpetrate a devastating act of terror
against Americans. Toward that end, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have
been used as the primary proxy agents to run a "false flag" operation,
setting up and financing the infrastructure of al-Qaida in
Afghanistan. Through madrassas based in Pakistan, Saudi and Yemenite
militants were instructed in the Saudi brand of Wahabbi Islam, and
subsequently "graduated" to the camps that were set up in Afghanistan
- again, under Saudi and Pakistani sponsorship. Stateside, the
operative agents were mostly based out of New York City and Florida.
In the aftermath of 9/11, elements in the American government are now
widely disseminating information in vast quantities, overwhelming the
populace and lending credibility to the government's version of
events. Thus, post-9/11, the actions of this formerly insular
propaganda clique are no longer perceptible. Information is now being
doled out in generous portions to credulous reporters who are outside
the loop, yet perform their unwitting service as "bottom feeders" in
the downward flow of information.
In all cases, the actions of these proxy agents and operative planners
are sufficiently distanced and compartmentalized from the true
masterminds to create a condition of "plausible deniability". In
short, the proxies have also been set up as possible patsies with
evidence that has been carefully laid to incriminate them should
cracks in the "official story" become too discernible. Moreover, the
groundwork has already been carefully laid to cast aspersions on
another convenient patsy - the Jews, by way of the State of Israel and
its supporters. Already, for those prone to perceive Jewish
conspiracies, the reliable vein of anti-Semitism - combined with anti-
Zionism - has been mined to distract the masses and to create a modern
version of the ritual blood libel, thereby further "muddying the
waters" should the true masterminds be threatened with exposure. In
other words, the present difficulties in the Middle East work
perfectly to set up the State of Israel as a plausible alternative
suspect with motive, means, and opportunity. Toward that end, a low-
level "buzz" has been circulating over the Internet (and especially in
Europe) of an Israeli spy ring that was rounded up in the days after
September 11. Whether or not these reports are credible is not the
point. Most likely, there was a spy ring operating, and various
Israelis were unwittingly set up as patsies, to be exposed should the
need arise. Thus, while evidence may be marshaled to taint the Saudis,
Pakistanis, or Israelis, the real guilt must inevitably lie with those
in the best position to manage the flow of information as well as
reliably benefit from the new order created, primarily, the political
and corporate elites of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the
European Union - also, as it happens, the very parties orchestrating
the global war on terrorism. In this respect, the Saudis, Pakistanis,
or Israelis have far less to gain (other than the benefits of going
along with the designs of the rich and mighty).
I could go on and further highlight the obvious geostrategic gains of
those who are clearly managing the flow of information - the
proverbial pipelines, oil, wealth, and so forth. But I think those
purported benefits are a bit of a "red herring" - more of a side
benefit than the main motivating factor. Americans and their allies
would have easily supported a thrust into Afghanistan for a
provocation far less costly and bloody than this (such as Kuwait in
the early '90's). It is no small act to intentionally take down such
an overarching symbol of financial stability as the Twin Towers, and
chance killing thousands in the process. Such a conspiracy, if in fact
perpetrated from within, would by its nature necessitate a huge
structural, cultural, and demographic change. The very brazenness of
the act, the naked aggression, would necessitate a tenacious
determination to achieve the ends for which these actions were
perpetrated. There is no going back now. An infrastructure is being
laid out - one that will, finally, provide a dissident-proof
totalitarian oligarchy composed of like-minded elites served by an
under-class kept under constant surveillance. The edifice of this
regime is being constructed, brick by brick, with the mortar of the
Office of Homeland Security (to centralize and coordinate an effective
police state), the Freedom Corps (to indoctrinate the most idealist -
and therefore activist - elements of the populace toward service to
the state), and the Patriot Act (to provide the legal basis for
subverting long-held rights under the screen of national security). If
all of this sounds strangely familiar, if it is redolent of Huxley and
Orwell, that is perhaps because Huxley and Orwell were both intimately
involved with the elites of their time - in fact, were fully subsumed
among them - in ways that made their future projections abundantly
prescient, and, in their minds, inevitable. With further refinements
in mind control technologies - yes, they do exist - as well as the
monopolization of the food supply by way of sterile seed "terminator
technology" - the approval for which was granted in the months
following 9/11 - the masses may be perpetually culled and exploited by
those who hold the keys to this fully managed society.
If this notion of reality strikes you as somewhat dissonant, at odds
with your own personal experience, it may be perhaps that we have not
quite arrived there yet, and that you have personally not felt the
corrosive lash of political corruption and governmental malfeasance.
In all likelihood, you have not read the mountain of evidence
detailing political and elite deviant behaviour in this country. You
may even be dismissive of "conspiracy theories", yet wholly unaware of
the well-documented attempts by the CIA and FBI to subvert, surveil,
and propagandize the populace through programs such as Project
Mockingbird (media infiltration) and MK-Ultra (mind control through
chemical, hypnotic, or electro-magnetic means). These programs are
effected primarily through "think tanks" that are set up across the
United States for the purpose of disseminating information and
propaganda under the rubric of "expertise". Moreover, various
foundations, such as the Rockefeller or Ford Foundations, are often
used as funnels to finance and feed the arteries of these propaganda
networks. In the 1970's, a good deal of this structural corruption was
officially exposed - in a "limited hang-out" - by way of the Church
Commission, as well as the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Thereafter, much of the most damaging revelations were played down or
ignored by the mainstream media, and the waters were then muddied by a
stream of outlandish conspiracy theories - aliens, Elvis, etc. - that
merely served to discredit the information that was most credible.
"Muddying the waters", incidentally, is a tried and true staple of the
intelligence craft.
It is really just a matter of familiarizing yourself with all the
documented anomalies that do not accord with the received, mainstream
reality put forth to you by the mainstream media. As a practical guide
to begin, you might want to confine your search to strictly
"mainstream" sources, as I have sought to do in attempting to
construct my case on 9/11. My evidence is by no means exhaustive. In
fact, it is merely the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Yet proceeding
in this direction, under my hypothesis, has been most fruitful in
analyzing the various anomalies that pop up now and then.
Any simple keyword search of the following terms may be helpful in
pointing toward a more substantive understanding of the elites who
ultimately guide your fortunes: "Iran-Contra" , "Mena", "BCCI",
"Project Paperclip", "Michael Aquino", "Paul Bonacci", "Operation
Northwoods", "MK-Ultra". Much of the information on these topics is
credible and well-documented. More disturbingly, it highlights
behavior committed by the very same elites who are now interpreting
the events of 9/11 for you. Read for yourself, and decide, at the end
of the day, how much credibility you will continue to accord to those
who claim to be the proper trustees of your fate and well-being.
URL...
http://911review.org/Wget/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html
RELATED...
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/ONeill,John.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Hauer,Jerome.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Mawn,Barry.shtml
http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesFlashback.shtml
http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesPatsies.shtml
http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesBackdrop.shtml
http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesPearl.shtml
http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesPlot.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Fbi.shtml
September 11 Wiki
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/FrontPage.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/TitleIndex.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/WordIndex.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/SiteNavigation.shtml
In the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade
Center, the finger of guilt was directed toward the only plausible
author for such a sophisticated and ruthless act of terror - Osama bin
Laden.
Throughout the late '90's, we were informed that bin Laden had
declared war on America by reason of the American military presence on
Saudi soil in the wake of the Persian Gulf war. We were told how bin
Laden, ensconced in Afghanistan, headed up a world-wide terror
franchise whose sophistication and global reach dwarfed that of the
Iranian-financed Hizballah or Islamic Jihad (previously, the most
widely known of the terror organizations among the masses in the
Middle East). Bin Laden's organization, al-Qaida, was presented to us
as something entirely new in the annals of terrorism - a far-flung,
sophisticated empire of terror, possessing - possibly - weapons of
mass destruction, while having no clear or viable state sponsor behind
it (as the Afghani Taliban were merely its resident protectors). In
short, by September 11, the United States now had a bona fide enemy -
and, as they say in criminal justice parlance, a suspect with motive,
means, and opportunity.
And while I was a bit taken at how quickly - and confidently - the
fingers were pointing only hours after the 9/11 bombings, I was
positively shaken by the first red flag that popped up. His name was
John O'Neill - or more precisely, he is the seam that shows. Dated
September 12, in a Washington Post article by Vernon Loeb, it was
revealed that O'Neill, who died in his capacity as head of security
for the World Trade Center, was also formerly the New York FBI
Counterterror chief responsible for the investigation into Osama bin
Laden. That could perhaps be written off as one of those freak
synchronicities. There were the other items - reported quite blandly,
in that "there's nothing to see here, folks" tone - that gave me that
sinking feeling. Apparently, O'Neill had a falling-out with the
Ambassador to Yemen over his investigative style and was banned from
returning there. But then there was that other nugget that I had
trouble digesting - that O'Neill had resigned from a thirty-year
career in the FBI "under a cloud" over an incident in Tampa - and then
left to take up the security position at the WTC (only two weeks
before!).
The seam that shows...
For the bulk of his career, like most of his FBI colleagues, John
O'Neill was largely unknown to the public at large - respected in his
circle, to be sure, yet scarcely meriting much mention in the media -
beyond being referenced now and then as an expert on counterterrorism.
Yet in the few months leading up to September 11, O'Neill was now
suddenly the subject of a series of seemingly unrelated controversies
- the first, in July, involving his dispute with the State Department
over the conduct of the bin Laden investigation in Yemen; and the
second, in August, in which he was reported to be under an FBI probe
for misplacing a briefcase of classified documents during an FBI
convention in Tampa.
In the light of the aftermath of this second controversy - the
documents were found, "untouched", a few hours later - one wonders why
this seemingly minor news would merit such lengthy coverage in the
Washington Post and New York Times. Keeping in mind the fact that
these latter articles on O'Neill appeared a mere three weeks before he
was to die in the rubble of the Twin Towers, one wonders if this
wasn't a well-orchestrated smear campaign against O'Neill, with a bit
of unintended "blowback" - as this now-discredited counterterror chief
in charge of all bin Laden bombings would finally make the news as a
fatal casualty of bin Laden's final bombing. Coincidence? Or was there
something more here that would bear investigating?
My gut told me that, in the months preceding September 11, somebody
was out to either discredit John O'Neill or, alternatively, to plant
disinformation that could later be used to divert any investigator
from a fruitful reconstruction of the forces behind 9/11. Or, quite
possibly, was a mistake made - one pointing the way toward a plan
whose scope goes well beyond the designs of Osama bin Laden? In other
words, could we spot the telltale fingerprints of a propaganda
campaign preceding 9/11?
Well, as they say, a hypothesis is only as good as its usefulness in
ferreting out reality. My hypothesis: that the events of September 11
were planned by those who not only had the motive, means, and
opportunity to carry out the plan, but also were best placed to manage
the consequences stemming from it, as well as managing the flow of
information. If this were an "inside job", the first thing to do was
to look at who conveyed specific information on bin Laden before - and
I stress, before - 9/11, for they were most likely involved wittingly
or not with those who masterminded it.
Virtually the first "smoking gun" was presented the day after 9/11,
when Vernon Loeb and Dan Eggen reported in the Post that Abdel Bari
Atwan, editor of the Al-Quds al Arabi newspaper in London, "received
information that he [bin Laden] planned very, very big attacks against
American interests" only three weeks before 9/11. Moreover, the
article reported that Atwan "was convinced that Islamic
fundamentalists aligned with bin Laden were 'almost certainly' behind
the attacks." Incidentally, Atwan had personally interviewed bin Laden
in Afghanistan in 1996 - among the very few to do so. As reported by
Michael Evans in the August 24, 1998 issue of The Times, Atwan "is
trusted by bin Laden."
Curious, perhaps, that Atwan seemed to be one of the major "point men"
used in elaborating the Osama bin Laden "legend", as they say in
intelligence parlance. In a U.S. News article dated August 31, 1998,
Atwan informs us that bin Laden "is a humble man who lives simply,
eating fried eggs, tasteless low-fat cheese, and bread gritty with
sand. He hates America." No flash in the pan, this interviewer.
Apparently, bin Laden kept Atwan's business card tucked away in his
toga pocket. "Bin Laden phoned this newspaper, phoned me last Friday,"
Atwan revealed in an ABC News LateLine Transcript dated August 25,
1998. We'll come back to ABC News shortly.
While solidly implicating bin Laden the day after 9/11, Atwan was also
the media's "go-to" guy back in 1998 when he informed us, after
President Clinton bombed tool sheds in Afghanistan, that bin Laden
issued this threat against the United States: "The battle has not
started yet. The response will be with action and not words." In the
same article (which I took from Nando Times), ABC News is the source
for an additional threat called in by Ayman al-Zawahiri, a senior bin
Laden aide: "The war has just started. The Americans should wait for
the answer." Only a few months before that, ABC had conducted its
televised interview of bin Laden. By the summer of 1998, primed by
Atwan, ABC NEWS, and a surprisingly small clique of well-worn sources,
we had come to know bin Laden as America's latest "Saddam", "Qaddafi",
"Noriega" - take your pick and set your bomb sites.
By October 2000, when the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in Yemen, in case
there was any doubt, Atwan offered Reuters his helpful analysis with
regards to the source of blame: "I do not rule out that this was
undertaken by Osama bin Laden. Yemeni groups don't have the experience
to carry out this kind of operation." Atwan informed Reuters that bin
Laden "was unlikely to claim direct responsibility for Thursday's
attack for fear of U.S. reprisals." One can imagine, then, that Atwan
gave his trusting phone mate cause for many a sleepless night. With
friends like these...
Leading up to 9/11, by the Spring of 2001, an incriminating wedding
videotape, apparently implicating bin Laden in the Yemen bombing, was
circulating around the Middle East after being broadcast on the
ubiquitous al-Jazeera television station (reconstituted from the BBC
TV Arabic Service - more on them later). In the video, bin Laden,
according to the Saudi-owned al-Hayat newspaper (more on them later,
too), recited a poem celebrating the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole
(shades of deja vu here?) This from the ABCNEWS.com site dated March
1: "Al-Hayat, which carried a photo of bin Laden and his son at the
wedding, said its correspondent was the only journalist at the
ceremony, also attended by bin Laden's mother, two brothers and sister
who flew to Kandahar from Saudi Arabia."
And yes, here, too, Atwan offers his thoughtful review of the bin
Laden video, courtesy of PTI, datelined London June 22, 2001: "[Atwan]
said the video was proof that the fugitive Saudi millionaire [the
Bruce Wayne of terrorists] was fit, well equipped and confident enough
to send out a call to arms." Why this sudden need for proof? According
to Atwan in the same article: "There have been rumours that [bin
Laden] is ill and that he is being contained by the Taliban in
Afghanistan. It is quite clear from the film that he is in good health
to the point where he can fire a rifle, and is free to operate as he
chooses." In other words, limber enough for his starring role in the
months ahead.
So who is Abdel Bari Atwan and why is he anxious to tell us so much?
According to the Winter 1999 issue of INEAS (Institute of Near Eastern
and African Studies), Abdel Bari Atwan, a Palestinian, was born in a
refugee camp in the Gaza Strip in 1950. Educated at the American
University of Cairo, Atwan moved to Saudi Arabia and worked as a
writer for the al-Madina newspaper. In 1978, he moved to London, where
he became a correspondent for the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat
newspaper. In 1988, after shuffling around between Saudi-owned papers,
Atwan was offered a position as editor of al-Quds al-Arabi. By his
account, he was offered a position as the executive editor of the
Saudi-owned al-Hayat (of the bin Laden wedding video coup), yet turned
it down to produce a more independent newspaper as a challenge to the
"empires" of the Saudi-dominated dailies.
Al-Quds began production in April 1989. A little more than a year
later, Saddam invaded Kuwait and al-Quds stood alone as the only Arab
newspaper opposed to the Persian Gulf War - at least by Atwan's
account. According to Atwan: "Without the Gulf War, we wouldn't have
taken such political lines, which made us well recognized and well
respected." In November 1996, Bari-Atwan braved a twelve-hour car ride
through muddy roads, attired in shabby Afghani rags in below-zero
weather, and gave us the early scoop on bin Laden, conducting a one-on-
one interview in bin Laden's [bat]cave. From then on, the mainstream
media - CNN, ABC, BBC, Sky News - looked to Bari-Atwan and al-Quds as
the "independent" voice of the Arab street.
Incidentally, in a discussion concerning the matter of Saudi
domination of the Arabic media, taken from the Carryon.oneworld.org
site, Atwan, as editor of his struggling independent, was facing off
against Jihad Khazen, the editor of the Saudi-owned al-Hayat. As Atwan
proudly related in support of his independence: "One day I was called
by the BBC-TV Arabic service [whose staff later reconstituted itself
as al-Jazeera television]: 'There's a story on your front page today,
saying such and such. Is it true?' I asked why he should doubt it and
he replied: 'It's not published in al-Hayat [his job offer] or al-
Sharq al-Awsat [his alma mater].' " Atwan boasts: "At least I can say
we are 95 to 96 per cent independent" - leaving out the 4 to 5 per
cent spent on bin Laden, I presume. Whether or not al-Quds truly is
independent, this is the cover story the mainstream media buys into
when they come trolling for their "independent" evidence.
So, to elaborate further on this (so far) fruitful hypothesis, it is
my contention that al-Qaida and bin Laden are elaborate "legends" set
up to promote a plausibly sophisticated and ferocious enemy to stand
against American interests. I am not, however, implying that bin Laden
himself is a total fabrication. Rather, it is my contention that
confederates, believing themselves to act on behalf of bin Laden, are
being set up in a "false flag operation" to perform operations as
their controllers see fit. And who are these controllers? If they're
anything resembling the folks who brought you Hizbullah and Hamas, you
wouldn't be sweating the suitcase nukes (made in America), the Ames
strain anthrax (made in America), the MI5-like "sleeper agents" and
coded "go" messages. Instead, you would be dodging primitive nail
bombs and road mines - and not needing Abdel Bari Atwan to feed you
the lowdown on the blame.
In view of the fact that bin Laden is of Saudi origin, that much of
the "evidence" on the Arab side initially originated from Saudi-owned
or Gulf Anglo-client state sources, and that Saudi Arabia is the major
financial sponsor of the Taliban brand of fundamentalism in
Afghanistan (as a counter-point to Iran), I believe it is fair to say
that Saudi Arabia might possibly be implicated. " Most likely, the
Saudis performed their roles as subservient proxies. We'll get to the
ultimate controllers soon enough (if you haven't already guessed where
this is going). And now, to fill out the picture further, it is
necessary to name an equally essential partner as proxy - Pakistan,
or, more specifically, Pakistan's version of the CIA - the ISI
(Interservices Intelligence Directorate).
And this is where we begin to "close the circle" of our close-knit
pre-9/11 propaganda clique. Returning again to the above-mentioned Dan
Eggen and Vernon Loeb Post article of September 12, we're offered - in
a powerful little side-bar - more critical evidence implicating bin
Laden for the attacks the day before. This time, the bombshell is
offered by Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail, Abu Dhabi Television's
bureau chief in Islamabad. According to Ismail, a bin Laden aide
called him "early Wednesday on a satellite telephone from a hide-out
in Afghanistan," praising the attack yet denying any responsibility
for it. As it turns out, Ismail was also among the select few to
conduct his very own bin Laden interview, published by Newsweek in its
April 1, 1999 issue. Here is how Newsweek described Ismail's good
fortune: "Palestinian journalist Jamal Ismail's mobile phone rang just
before prayers on December 18. 'Peace be upon you, ' said the voice on
the line. 'You may not recognize me, but I know you.' " And thus was
Jamal Ismail invited on his own mud-soaked incursion to the bin Laden
[bat]cave.
Searching deeper, I found an interesting obscure article penned by
respected Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufszai in The News Jang,
and dated May 3, 2000. It details the detention of two men of Kurdish
origin, accused by the Taliban of spying for American and Israeli
intelligence. As Yusufszai relates it, he spoke to the only
journalists allowed by the Taliban to interview the detained men -
Jamal Ismail and his cameraman. Apparently, Ismail had a special
relationship with the Taliban, allowing him this rare privilege above
other journalists. And, as we shall shortly see, so does Yusufszai.
One wonders who debriefs them at the end of a workday. But more
interestingly, by May 5, as reported by Kathy Gannon for the
Associated Press, the story acquires - as they say - "new legs." Not
only are the basic elements of the Yusufszai story mentioned, but the
article leads off with the bombshell that one of the detained men
revealed that he was recruited by the United States to find Osama bin
Laden. It finishes with a little coda implicating bin Laden in the
1998 embassy bombings. Thus, in the space of two days, Yusufszai's
Pakistani "spy" article sprouts a bin Laden addition when fertilized
by the American Associated Press - and nicely provides a plausible
explanation as to why a Kurd would be prowling around Afghanistan on
behalf of the United States.
Yusufszai, incidentally, moonlighted as an ABC News producer, charged
with guiding ABC News correspondent John Miller through the Afghani
marshes to the bin Laden [bat]cave - one of the very few American
journalists to be accorded such an honour (and also, as it happens, a
good friend of bin Laden arch-foe John O'Neill. But not chummy enough
to direct O'Neill on to bin Laden's hideaway). Moreover, Ismail and
Yusufszai are mentioned together in a CNN article posted January 4,
1999 - the former for his Newsweek interview, the latter for his own
bin Laden dialogue for TIME Magazine the day later.
Rahimullah Yusufszai, regarded by New York Times reporters John Burns
and Steve LeVine as "one man who has seen more of the Taliban than any
other outsider," is also named by The Nation, in its article of
January 27, 1997, as "one of the favourite journalists of [Pakistan's]
ISI...one of the organizations funding and arming the Taliban. "
It's a small world after all. In the September 29, 2001 article of
PressPlus, Yusufszai's ABC colleague, John Miller, mused about running
into his buddy John O'Neill in Yemen while reporting on the U.S.S.
Cole bombing the year before. "He said, 'So this is the Elaine's of
Yemen.' "
"There is a terrible irony to all this," Miller said. I'll say:
Miller, one of the very few Americans who can give a first-hand
account of bin Laden, bumps into his friend, bin Laden's chief
investigator, while both are investigating a bombing in Yemen that
will later be tagged onto bin Laden - and only a year before O'Neill
dies at the hands of... allegedly ...bin Laden.
Now, following the logic of my hypothesis, if the bin Laden threat
was, pre-9/11, a close-knit propaganda campaign, one would expect to
find the same names showing up repeatedly in combination with one
another. This, too, applies to the American commentators. Let us
return to the August 1998 American bombings of bin Laden's tool sheds
as an example. The night of the bombing, Rahimullah Yusufszai received
a call from bin Laden aide Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a report from the
Associated Press. Later, Yusufszai obtained for ABC News exclusive
photos of the damage to bin Laden's camp. Further commentary
describing the layout of the bin Laden camp was furnished to the
Washington Post by former CIA analyst and terrorism expert Kenneth
Katzman, as well as Harvey Kushner of Long Island University. Only
little more than a week before that, Katzman and Kushner were offering
their assessment of bin Laden's culpability for the embassy bombings
in Africa in a Washington Post article penned by Vernon Loeb and
Walter Pincus. They were joined in this effort by Vincent Cannistraro,
the ABC news analyst who also escorted John Miller to his bin Laden
interview, as well as provided running commentary in the days
immediately following 9/11. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism
chief, provided covert aid to the Afghani mujaheddin in the late
'80's, as well as supervised CIA operations with the contras. He was
also one of the point men in the notoriously circumspect investigation
at Lockerbie. In the above-noted Loeb and Pincus article - in which
bin Laden is quoted from the ABC News Miller and Yusufszai interview -
Cannistraro weighs in with his assessment of the embassy bombings: "I
believe Osama bin Laden is the sponsor of this operation, and I think
all of the indications are pointing that way."
Soon after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, a Vernon Loeb Post
article, dated October 13, 2000, proceeded to implicate bin Laden
through the detailed information provided by Kushner, Katzman, and
Cannistraro. Earlier, in a Vernon Loeb Post article dated July 3,
2000, Yusufszai, Kushner, and Cannistraro unveiled bin Laden aides
Ayman al-Zawahiri and Muhammed Atef as the men to watch as bin Laden's
likely successors, with a helpful tidbit on the Zawahiri biography
thrown in by the Saudi-owned al-Sharq al-Awsat.
None of the above, of course, is offered as the "smoking gun" pointing
the way to a propaganda conspiracy, nor are my chosen examples meant
to be exhaustive in evidencing this point. According to Felicity
Barringer, in a New York Times article dated September 24, 2001: "A
good deal of the public information on bin Laden comes from the
journalists who went to Afghanistan to interview him, including
[Peter] Bergen, ... Peter Arnett, John Miller, Rahimullah Yusufzai,
and Jamal Ismail." The article further makes reference to Vernon
Loeb, Al Quds al-Arabi (Atwan), Judith Miller, Al Jazeera, and Brian
Jenkins (formerly of Kroll Associates - the security firm that
obtained the WTC position for John O'Neill by way of Jerry Hauer).
Clearly, I have also not heretofore made mention of the other experts
who have worked assiduously toward building our knowledge base on bin
Laden - Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Yossef Bodansky, and various
British and EU elites. However, the above examples do show how the
information flow on bin Laden could be plausibly managed by the
skilfully placed revelations of a relatively insular clique of
"experts" called upon repeatedly by the mainstream media.
Here is how it would work: A relatively few well-connected
correspondents provide the "scoops" that get the coverage in the
relatively few mainstream news sources - the four TV networks, TIME,
Newsweek, CNN - where the parameters of debate are set and the
"official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news
chain. In other countries, this is what is known as propaganda - or,
put less politely, psychological warfare.
But before I leave this topic, I would like to provide an example of
"news management" that is revealing for what is omitted - that is, the
"smoking gun" of Pakistani ISI involvement in the events of 9/11. On
October 9, 2001, the Times of India dropped this little bombshell:
"Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that [ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad]
lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his
links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade
Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the
fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from
Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmud."
What makes this particular piece so devastating is that only days
before, much of the mainstream American media was touting the news of
a "key link" in the chain of evidence linking bin Laden to the events
of September 11 - namely, a $100,000 wire transfer to the hijackers
from a shadowy operative linked to bin Laden. Yet once this operative
was "outed" as being linked instead to the Pakistani ISI Chief, any
propaganda gains initially made through this evidence would now
crumble. One possible reason might stem from this Karachi News item,
released only two days before September 11:
"[Pakistani] ISI Chief Lt-Gen Mahmood's week-long presence in
Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his
mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council.
Officially, State Department sources say he is on a routine visit in
return to [sic] CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to
Islamabad...What added interest to his visit is the history of such
visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmood's predecessor, was here
during Nawaz Sharif's government the domestic politics turned topsy-
turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by Mahmood in the
last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys..."
In other words, this was a propaganda piece that went disastrously
wrong. After October 9, bin Laden's alleged paymaster could now be
linked to a U.S. "ally" who spent the days before 9/11 in deep
consultation at the Pentagon. The US authorities immediately went
into damage control mode by insisting on the quiet retirement of the
"outed" ISI chief. Thus removed from the public eye, the ISI Chief's
role in all this could be effectively ignored, and an American media
black-out could be safely assumed.
Such a scenario certainly fits in snugly with my hypothesis, which I
will now proceed to elaborate completely. The events of September 11
were masterminded by those who were in the best position to manage the
consequences - namely, those most able to manage the flow of
information, those most able to coordinate all the elements necessary
for the perpetration of a successful operation (subverting airport
security, guiding the planes to their specific targets), and most
significantly, those who stood to reasonably benefit in the aftermath.
Conspiracies, by their very nature, are not crimes of passion. They
may involve rational, albeit cold-blooded, attempts to achieve a
desired end by employing the most effective means available. It is for
this reason that "mainstream" terror groups like Hamas and Hizbullah
largely avoid attacking American interests where such attacks would
serve no practical interest. For all their talk of Jihad, these terror
groups tend to plan their specific attacks with an eye to the
consequences that could reasonably be expected to follow. Thus,
knowing the moral and political constraints of Israeli deterrent
strategies, they calibrate their attacks to elicit consequences that
are most tolerable for them - and hence, manageable. Yet surely, in
the light of the cult of suicidal martyrdom, such considerations no
longer hold sway. Perhaps. But then, in the case of such a far-flung
anti-Zionist movement as al-Qaida, one would expect at least a little
more exertion against Israeli interests than has heretofore prevailed
- unless, of course, the "point" of al-Qaida was to provide a
plausible dire threat to American interests where none had then
existed. In any case, as nobody has noticed this particular anomaly,
there was no need for any needless exertion of resources in order to
bolster a credibility that needed no bolstering in this one particular
sector.
Motive, means, and opportunity. While I presented the Saudis and
Pakistani intelligence as clear-cut proxies, the only motive these
elements would have to benefit from a crime of this nature is an
assurance that no punishment would be forthcoming but rather, they
would be on the right side of power and wealth among those in a
position to determine the booty.
Another anomaly: on the very day that the ISI Chief was in deep
consultation at the Pentagon, Ahmed Shah Massoud, the head of the
Afghani Northern Alliance - a cultishly popular figure within that
group, and a mortal foe of Pakistan's ISI - was assassinated by two
terrorists posing as cameramen. Keeping in mind the fact that,
throughout the '90's, American leaders such as Clinton, and American
companies such as Unocal, were largely throwing their support over to
the Taliban in opposition to the Northern Alliance (or United Front),
it seems rather convenient that, in the aftermath of 9/11, the way was
now cleared for the Northern Alliance to be co-opted as an instrument
for setting up a more pliant Afghani government (now headed,
incidentally, by a former consultant to Unocal).
So who are the ultimate controllers? To begin with, the circumstantial
evidence seems to point to an operative clique primarily based out of
New York City and the State of Florida. I stress the word "operative",
as this clique appears to consist of subservient agents involved in
laying the preparations. Once again, John O'Neill serves as an
effective Rosetta Stone in interpreting the raw outlines of this
operative clique (which is by no means a "rogue" clique). The FBI and
CIA elements involved in counterterrorism have a checkered past. For
one, Oliver North in the 1980's served as Counterterrorism Chief while
he used his office as a cover to deal with such narco-terrorists as
Monzar al-Kassar (who figures in the crash at Lockerbie - also
investigated by Cannistraro). In the late '90's, O'Neill was
transferred from the federal office of Counterrorism to the New York
Counterrorism Office of the FBI - and it was the New York branch which
was then designated as the primary investigator of all overseas
investigations involving bin Laden. Moreover, this branch was also
involved in the somewhat suspect investigation of TWA 800 -
investigated by O'Neill and reported upon by ABC's John Miller, who
was formerly the Deputy Police Commissioner of Public Relations for
the NYPD before he joined up with ABC.
As regards New York, there is another element involved in germ
warfare operations. Actually, a multi-million dollar bunker - serving
as a command and control center in the event of a biological attack -
was set up at 7 World Trade Center at the direction of Rudolph
Giuliani, who also oversaw the mass spraying of malathion over the
boroughs of New York City when the West Nile Virus hit town a few
summers previously. The man Giuliani placed in charge of that
operation, Jerry Hauer, also happened to be the man who found John
O'Neill the position at the World Trade Center, as well as being the
one who - by his own admission - identified O'Neill's body.
Moreover, there has been a widespread campaign on to link the threat
of al-Qaida with that of a mass biological attack. At least the day
after September 11, the link - as the Anthrax mailings had yet to
arise - was not so apparent. Yet on PBS' Frontline, the New York
Times' Judith Miller (no apparent relation to John Miller, as far as
I'm aware), accompanied by the New York Times' James Risen, was
interviewed as an expert on al-Qaida. Several weeks later, Judith
Miller would once more make the headlines as the apparent recipient of
an anthrax mailing which turned out to be a false alarm - yet was all
the same conveniently timed with the well-publicized launching of her
book on...germ warfare. As was later discovered, the anthrax mailings
petered out once the news leaked that a DNA test revealed the material
to be of the Ames strain of anthrax, an agent synthesized out of a CIA
laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Nevertheless, this was
sufficient to fast-track Bioport's exclusive license for the anthrax
vaccine toward FDA approval. Formerly, Bioport's experimental anthrax
vaccine was being forcibly administered - under threat of court-
martial - to hundreds of thousands of American servicemen (in
conformity with Bioport's exclusive and lucrative contract with the
Department of Defense).
Incidentally, Judith Miller, along with Jerry Hauer, was among 17
"key" participants in a biowarfare exercise known as "Dark Winter" - a
think tank-funded scenario that aimed to study the nationwide effects
of a hypothetical smallpox outbreak. One of the sponsors of that
exercise was the Anser Institute of Homeland Security, an organization
established before September 11, 2001. Interestingly enough, the
curious phrase "homeland security" was starting to creep up with
increasing frequency in the vocabularies of certain political cliques
(Dick Cheney, the Hart-Rudman Commission, et al.) in the year or two
leading up to 9/11.
The point of the above-noted information is to draw attention to an
apparent propaganda campaign to prepare the public for a catastrophic
biological attack. As with the Twin Towers, the blame for any coming
attack may be duly and plausibly assigned by those who carefully laid
the groundwork in preparing us for this eventuality.
As for Florida, the connection with this state is obvious, for not
only was the first anthrax mailing directed to the Florida offices of
the National Enquirer, but many of the accused hijackers were also
reported to receive their pilot training from flight schools in Venice
and Tampa. Notably, it was a Florida bank account to which hijacker
Mohamed Atta allegedly deposited his 9/11 pay cheque. Moreover,
Florida, by way of the MacDill Air Force Base, is also Central Command
for the war in Afghanistan. In addition to its function as Central
Command for the war on terrorism, MacDill is -outside of Langley -
also a major base of the CIA. Thus, in the CIA's own backyard, we find
the infrastructure and financial support that went into the planning
for the events of 9/11. And, as we so often find with events
surrounding 9/11, another synchronicity - for coincidentally enough,
the woman who reportedly happened to find an apartment for one of the
alleged hijackers was the wife of the senior editor of the National
Enquirer. Moreover, her husband, Michael Irish, also happened to make
use of an airfield that reportedly served as flight training for some
of the hijackers. I emphasize the word "reportedly," as the
possibility always exists that this "reported fact" may be nothing
more than disinformation, strategically placed to divert attention
from a possibly more subtle truth. In intelligence operations,
foreign assets are often placed with resident "controllers" whose job
it is to supervise the asset as well as provide accommodations as the
need arises. Who are Michael and Gloria Irish? Or, perhaps more
revealingly, what kind of social circles do they run with? This is
certainly an avenue worth exploring - by reason of its many
synchrocities if for nothing else. Again, the seam that shows.
As a little side-note, Tampa experienced its own mass spraying of
malathion, a mutagenic pesticide, when it encountered a med fly
outbreak the year before New York's West Nile outbreak. In the end,
the flies were contained through a sterile med fly program
administered out of MacDill Air Force base.
So, to sum up, it appears that the events of September 11 were planned
years in advance, with the groundwork being carefully laid by a
propaganda campaign orchestrated to convince the public that the
United States has a plausibly sophisticated nemesis with the motive,
means, and opportunity to perpetrate a devastating act of terror
against Americans. Toward that end, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have
been used as the primary proxy agents to run a "false flag" operation,
setting up and financing the infrastructure of al-Qaida in
Afghanistan. Through madrassas based in Pakistan, Saudi and Yemenite
militants were instructed in the Saudi brand of Wahabbi Islam, and
subsequently "graduated" to the camps that were set up in Afghanistan
- again, under Saudi and Pakistani sponsorship. Stateside, the
operative agents were mostly based out of New York City and Florida.
In the aftermath of 9/11, elements in the American government are now
widely disseminating information in vast quantities, overwhelming the
populace and lending credibility to the government's version of
events. Thus, post-9/11, the actions of this formerly insular
propaganda clique are no longer perceptible. Information is now being
doled out in generous portions to credulous reporters who are outside
the loop, yet perform their unwitting service as "bottom feeders" in
the downward flow of information.
In all cases, the actions of these proxy agents and operative planners
are sufficiently distanced and compartmentalized from the true
masterminds to create a condition of "plausible deniability". In
short, the proxies have also been set up as possible patsies with
evidence that has been carefully laid to incriminate them should
cracks in the "official story" become too discernible. Moreover, the
groundwork has already been carefully laid to cast aspersions on
another convenient patsy - the Jews, by way of the State of Israel and
its supporters. Already, for those prone to perceive Jewish
conspiracies, the reliable vein of anti-Semitism - combined with anti-
Zionism - has been mined to distract the masses and to create a modern
version of the ritual blood libel, thereby further "muddying the
waters" should the true masterminds be threatened with exposure. In
other words, the present difficulties in the Middle East work
perfectly to set up the State of Israel as a plausible alternative
suspect with motive, means, and opportunity. Toward that end, a low-
level "buzz" has been circulating over the Internet (and especially in
Europe) of an Israeli spy ring that was rounded up in the days after
September 11. Whether or not these reports are credible is not the
point. Most likely, there was a spy ring operating, and various
Israelis were unwittingly set up as patsies, to be exposed should the
need arise. Thus, while evidence may be marshaled to taint the Saudis,
Pakistanis, or Israelis, the real guilt must inevitably lie with those
in the best position to manage the flow of information as well as
reliably benefit from the new order created, primarily, the political
and corporate elites of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the
European Union - also, as it happens, the very parties orchestrating
the global war on terrorism. In this respect, the Saudis, Pakistanis,
or Israelis have far less to gain (other than the benefits of going
along with the designs of the rich and mighty).
I could go on and further highlight the obvious geostrategic gains of
those who are clearly managing the flow of information - the
proverbial pipelines, oil, wealth, and so forth. But I think those
purported benefits are a bit of a "red herring" - more of a side
benefit than the main motivating factor. Americans and their allies
would have easily supported a thrust into Afghanistan for a
provocation far less costly and bloody than this (such as Kuwait in
the early '90's). It is no small act to intentionally take down such
an overarching symbol of financial stability as the Twin Towers, and
chance killing thousands in the process. Such a conspiracy, if in fact
perpetrated from within, would by its nature necessitate a huge
structural, cultural, and demographic change. The very brazenness of
the act, the naked aggression, would necessitate a tenacious
determination to achieve the ends for which these actions were
perpetrated. There is no going back now. An infrastructure is being
laid out - one that will, finally, provide a dissident-proof
totalitarian oligarchy composed of like-minded elites served by an
under-class kept under constant surveillance. The edifice of this
regime is being constructed, brick by brick, with the mortar of the
Office of Homeland Security (to centralize and coordinate an effective
police state), the Freedom Corps (to indoctrinate the most idealist -
and therefore activist - elements of the populace toward service to
the state), and the Patriot Act (to provide the legal basis for
subverting long-held rights under the screen of national security). If
all of this sounds strangely familiar, if it is redolent of Huxley and
Orwell, that is perhaps because Huxley and Orwell were both intimately
involved with the elites of their time - in fact, were fully subsumed
among them - in ways that made their future projections abundantly
prescient, and, in their minds, inevitable. With further refinements
in mind control technologies - yes, they do exist - as well as the
monopolization of the food supply by way of sterile seed "terminator
technology" - the approval for which was granted in the months
following 9/11 - the masses may be perpetually culled and exploited by
those who hold the keys to this fully managed society.
If this notion of reality strikes you as somewhat dissonant, at odds
with your own personal experience, it may be perhaps that we have not
quite arrived there yet, and that you have personally not felt the
corrosive lash of political corruption and governmental malfeasance.
In all likelihood, you have not read the mountain of evidence
detailing political and elite deviant behaviour in this country. You
may even be dismissive of "conspiracy theories", yet wholly unaware of
the well-documented attempts by the CIA and FBI to subvert, surveil,
and propagandize the populace through programs such as Project
Mockingbird (media infiltration) and MK-Ultra (mind control through
chemical, hypnotic, or electro-magnetic means). These programs are
effected primarily through "think tanks" that are set up across the
United States for the purpose of disseminating information and
propaganda under the rubric of "expertise". Moreover, various
foundations, such as the Rockefeller or Ford Foundations, are often
used as funnels to finance and feed the arteries of these propaganda
networks. In the 1970's, a good deal of this structural corruption was
officially exposed - in a "limited hang-out" - by way of the Church
Commission, as well as the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Thereafter, much of the most damaging revelations were played down or
ignored by the mainstream media, and the waters were then muddied by a
stream of outlandish conspiracy theories - aliens, Elvis, etc. - that
merely served to discredit the information that was most credible.
"Muddying the waters", incidentally, is a tried and true staple of the
intelligence craft.
It is really just a matter of familiarizing yourself with all the
documented anomalies that do not accord with the received, mainstream
reality put forth to you by the mainstream media. As a practical guide
to begin, you might want to confine your search to strictly
"mainstream" sources, as I have sought to do in attempting to
construct my case on 9/11. My evidence is by no means exhaustive. In
fact, it is merely the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Yet proceeding
in this direction, under my hypothesis, has been most fruitful in
analyzing the various anomalies that pop up now and then.
Any simple keyword search of the following terms may be helpful in
pointing toward a more substantive understanding of the elites who
ultimately guide your fortunes: "Iran-Contra" , "Mena", "BCCI",
"Project Paperclip", "Michael Aquino", "Paul Bonacci", "Operation
Northwoods", "MK-Ultra". Much of the information on these topics is
credible and well-documented. More disturbingly, it highlights
behavior committed by the very same elites who are now interpreting
the events of 9/11 for you. Read for yourself, and decide, at the end
of the day, how much credibility you will continue to accord to those
who claim to be the proper trustees of your fate and well-being.
URL...
http://911review.org/Wget/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html
RELATED...
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/ONeill,John.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Hauer,Jerome.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Mawn,Barry.shtml
http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesFlashback.shtml
http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesPatsies.shtml
http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesBackdrop.shtml
http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesPearl.shtml
http://911review.org/Wiki/TruthLiesPlot.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Fbi.shtml
September 11 Wiki
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/FrontPage.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/TitleIndex.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/WordIndex.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/SiteNavigation.shtml