Jim Fetzer/ OpEd News – 2008-09-13 22:43:34
MADISON, WI (September 9, 2008) — Perhaps nothing underscores his absence of intellect in matters of consequence than does John McCain’s authorship of the “Foreword” to Debunking 9/11 Myths (2006), which is devoted to defending the official account of 9/11 from its critics.
McCain still believes that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial aircraft and performed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan and that Saddam Hussein was involved, that Iraq was in cahoots with al Qaeda, and that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind.
These are among the “big lies” the administration used to sell these illegal and immoral wars to the American people. It would have been impossible to outfox the most advanced air defense system in the world had it not been stood down. Even Bush has acknowledged that Saddam had “nothing” to do with 9/11.
Multiple investigations, some by the Senate, have confirmed that Iraq was not working with al Qaeda and that Saddam Hussein was actually tracking down its leaders to incarcerate or even kill them. Even the FBI—our own FBI!—has admitted that it has “no hard evidence” Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11! Even the “confession tape” was a fake.
The big lies that were used to manipulate us into war were accompanied by dozens of smaller lies about the events of 9/11. The buildings were designed to even withstand multiple impacts from aircraft. The fires in the Twin Towers burned neither hot enough nor long enough to cause steel to weaken, much less melt.
The towers were turned into enormous clouds of very fine dust. Each floor waited its turn to be pulverized. When it was done—in 10 seconds apiece—there were no “pancakes”. They were gone. Watch “9/11: Towers of Dust”, on YouTube, if you doubt it.
In the case of Building 7, which was not demolished until 5:20 PM that afternoon, the 47-story structure was brought down in a complete, abrupt, and symmetrical collapse, a classic case of controlled demolition, in about 6.5 seconds. All of the floors fell at the same time and more than five stories of “pancakes” remained. It was a completely different mode of demolition than was used to pulverize the Twin Towers. Watch “This is an Orange”, on YouTube, for comparison. The collapse of buildings brought down by fire instead tends to be gradual, asymmetrical, and slow.
It is rather astonishing that the NIST would claim that this was the first time in history a steel-structure reinforced building collapsed from fire alone. The design of WTC-7, which was put up over two enormous generators providing electricity to lower Manhattan, was even more robust than that of the Twin Towers. Although it is not widely known, NIST studied 236 samples of steel from the Twin Towers and discovered 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F.
That may be the typical temperature of an office fire, but it is not enough to cause a building to collapse. Steel only melts at 2,800*F and Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel used in the towers to 2,000*F for three to four hours without displaying any adverse effects. The fires in the South Tower lasted less than one hour and in the North an hour-and-a-half. 500*F fires could burn forever and not cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. The NIST is pulling a fast one.
WTC-7 was not hit by any plane and did not have any jet-fuel based fires. Jet fuel is made out of kerosene and, as Gov. Jesse Ventura has observed, his propane camp stove burns hotter. If the official account were true, his camping stove should melt each time he uses it. But that doesn’t happen.
In fact, if ordinary office fires could cause 110 story buildings to fall, there would be no need for demolition companies, such as Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was hired to clean up after 9/11, to remain in business. We could set fires, let them burn, and watch buildings collapse!
Col. George Nelson, an Air Force accident investigator and expert on airplane parts, has been dismayed that none of the thousands of uniquely identifiable parts of any of the planes has ever been produced from any of the four crash sites. John Lear, the son of the designer of the Lear jet and one of our nation’s most outstanding pilots, has observed that, before a commercial carrier can pull away from a terminal, the pilot must submit an envelope of documents about the plane and its passengers, yet none of the envelopes for those four flights are in evidence.
Elias Davidsson, the Icelandic scholar, has determined that the government has not even shown the 19 alleged “hijackers” were aboard the aircraft. In his words, “No authenticated, original, passenger lists, bearing their names, have been released; no one is known to have seen them board the aircraft; no video recordings documented their boarding; no boarding pass stub is known to exist; and there is no proof that the alleged hijackers actually died at the known crash sites, because their bodily remains were never positively identified and the chain of custody of these remains was broken.” The official story appears to be a hoax and a sham
As founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I would invite those who want to learn more to visit 911scholars.org. Anyone who still believes that “9/11 truth” is a misnomer should google “Patriotsquestion911.com” and read the bio sketches and statements by more than 1,100 experts from academic, government, intelligence, military and other fields, including more than 120 pilots and aviation professionals, 300 professors, 530 architects and engineers, and more. The breadth and depth of serious concern about the lies we have been told continues to grow.
Those who pursue this suggestion, however, will not include John McCain. There are around 237,000,000 Internet users in North America, but he is not one of them. He recently said that he was gearing up to send an email and to use “the google”, but I don’t think it’s happened yet. He will leave that to others. How many of us could survive without the Internet? This is just one more indication of how much McCain is out of touch with reality, intellectually lazy and lacking in curiosity. He has no comprehension—not even the slightest!—of the most important technology of the 20th and 21st Centuries.
Most Americans have only recently begun to appreciate that we went to war for oil, Israel, and ideology. Saddam kicked out the international oil companies and nationalized their fields when he came to power some 40 years ago. Israel had a problem with the most advanced and sophisticated Arab state, in part because Saddam was supporting suicide bombers in their desperate efforts to improve the plight of the Palestinian people. And it wants its own access to oil.
The neo-con fanatics wanted to occupy the Middle East to create a center for projecting US military power outward from that geopolitically strategic area. The invasion and occupation of Iraq and of Afghanistan in violation of international law, the UN Charter, and even the US Constitution has not gone well, even though McCain, in characteristic detachment from reality, says otherwise. It is astounding that a candidate for president in September of 2008 wants to continue the war (in his memorable phrase, so we can “win in Iraq by winning”) and revive the draft.
The latest Rand study reports that we have been fighting the war the wrong way and making matters worse and worse. Worst of all, McCain appears to support the Bush/Cheney plan to bomb Iran. If we or Israel hit its nuclear energy sites, which would be the principal objective, estimates run at 1,000,000 Iranians killed immediately and some 35,000,000 more in Indian, Pakistan, and Afghanistan will die a slower death due to contamination from the fallout. If this occurs, it would make the United States guilty of the greatest act of mass murder in history. Yet McCain sings about bombing Iran!
McCain is not alone in failing to grasp what happened on 9/11. The evidence we have amassed suggests that it was “an inside job”, like the anthrax attacks targeted against Senators Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschel to insure the passage of the PATRIOT Act.
In case you haven’t noticed, the fact that the anthrax attack turns out to have been an inside job—by one of our own officials on the US—seems to have escaped the national press. While there are reasons to believe that the alleged assailant, Bruce Ivins, is not actually guilty, the FBI’s account makes it an inside job.
In fact, this administration plays games with the American public all the time. On 30 July 2008, the media announced the killing of Abu Khabab al-Masri, an alleged “key al Qaeda operative”, which sounds impressive if you don’t know he was previously reported killed in January of 2006 (“Al Qaeda expert re-killed by CIA”, www.legitgov.org).
On 31 July 2008, we learned Seymour Hersh had uncovered a Cheney plan to build some boats that look like Iranian PT boats, put Navy Seals dressed as Iranians aboard and create an incident (“To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal to Dress Up Navy Seals as Iranians and Shoot at Them”, thinkprogress.org).
Moreover, in The Way of the World (2008), Ron Suskind has explained how the White House had ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated and hand-written letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein to create a false link between Saddam and al Qaeda as justification for the Iraq war (Book Says White House Ordered Forgery””, news.yahoo.com, August 5, 2008). So it turns out that fabricating incidents to justify wars is a routine activity in the Bush/Cheney administration. And they don’t take pains to cover it up.
They need torture to support their case for a fraudulent “war on terror”. They know that torture produces false confessions to pacify those conducting torture and are not valuable for obtaining “actionable intelligence”. But torture can be useful if, for example, you need fake confessions to support a phony war.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“Tainted by Torture,” slate.com, May 14, 2008), the alleged mastermind of 9/11 as Osama’s director of operations, not only confessed to planning 9/11 but to 30 other attacks, some of which occurred while he was still a child and others after he was incarcerated. Maybe he was trying to tell us something.
McCain’s campaign situation has been so desperate that Bush/Cheney may be planning another domestic 9/11 about the time of the election. A recent S&P stock trading report from H. L. Camp and Company (August 7, 2008) predicts that an upcoming “crash of 2008” will follow an even more massive attack on US soil.
Attributed to Juval Aviv, an Israeli “terrorist consultant” who is said to have accurately predicted the details of the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, the next attack will come in a few months and involve suicide bombers in places that large numbers of people congregate, such as Disneyland, Las Vegas, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.
It will be in shopping malls, subways at rush hour, train stations, football stadiums, and casinos. There will be simultaneous attacks at five to eight locations. Since this report originated on FOX NEWS (“U.S. Terror Attack – ‘Ninety Days at Most’,” July 13, 2008), there are reasons to question its reliability. But we can take it as a sign of the times that even a rumor as extraordinary as this one has to be taken seriously in the era of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. According to the report, the FBI and CIA are well aware of these plans, but the government is not saying anything to avoid frightening the public.
The US response will be to attack Syria and Iran before Bush leaves office. By telling us the CIA and FBI knows about these plans, Aviv appears to be hinting that this, like 9/11, will be another inside job. Some Americans might find this less incredible if they knew that Republican officials have been promoting the idea that another 9/11 would be good for Bush and good for the party for several years. Check out Capitol Hill Blue (November 12, 2006) or google “GOP welcomes new 9/11” (July 16, 2007). Consider:
* On June 3, 2007, Dennis Milligan, Chair of the Arkansas Republican Party, said, “I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [9/11]” to make the American people appreciate President Bush and thereby benefit the GOP (rawstory.com);
* On July 7, 2007, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum asserted that a series of “unfortunate events” (meaning “terrorist attacks”) will occur within the next year and radically alter American citizens’ view of the war (prisonplanet.com);
* On July 8, 2007, Lt.. Col. Doug Delaney, Chair of the War Studies Program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, suggested the West needs more terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11 and 7/7 to save a failing foreign policy.
* On July 10, 2007, an anonymous U.S. intelligence analyst told the AP that “al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,” according to two AP reporters.
* On July 10, 2007, Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff made a major effort to convey to the public he has a “gut feeling” that a new 9/11 is on the way, a report that even drew the attention of The New York Times (“Chertoff Warns of Higher Risk Of Terrorism,” July 11, 2007, page A16).
This kind of saturation campaign involves disseminating the same or similar information through multiple sources in order to “soften the target” for the main event. This is a widespread technique of disinformation that insures that most of those in the target population will hear the story and will hear it from more than one source, which is reinforcing. In fact, the whole “terrorism” scenario is so amorphous that any act taken by anyone can be alleged to be the work of “terrorists,” which is perfect for our agents. In this case, they overplayed their hand and made it too obvious.
Indeed, on July 13, 2007, another alarming report appeared as an ABC News Exclusive, “Terror Commander: New Attack Will Dwarf Failed Bomb Plot.” This sequence appears to have been skillfully timed to create the impression that Michael Chertoff knew what he was talking about when he announced that he had a “gut feeling” that we are going to have a hot summer and to have created expectations of an imminent attack. For whatever reasons, it did not materialize. But this new warning attributed to Juval Aviv appears to set the stage for another attack soon.
Others share the suspicion that Americans are being set up for another terrorist attack. On 10 July 2007, Paul Joseph Watson wrote, in response to the report from Lt. Col. Doug Delaney (that the West needs more terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11), “By this logic, if terrorist attacks only boost the geopolitical agents of Western governments, then how is it in their interest to prevent them, and of what benefit are they to the actual terrorists—unless the terrorists occupy positions of power?” More attacks work to their advantage.
As recently as June 23, 2008, McCain’s political advisor, Charles Black, remarked that another terrorist attack on US soil would be good for his candidate. Referring to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as an “unfortunate event,” Black said, “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” Indeed, when The Huffington Post inquired, Black observed “with startling candor” of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him.”
Chertoff appears to be making no effort to get to the bottom of any of this. Bush can’t claim to be “the security president” if he won’t keep us secure. I find it nauseating that a major political party would so grossly betray the American people. But think about it. Would a party that cared about the citizens of this nation nominate a candidate who is out of touch with reality, impulsive and reckless in his judgment, and intellectually lazy and lacking in curiosity? They appear to have a fallback in case “The Palin Mystique” does not endure.
Jim Fetzer is McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, Duluth, Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Editor at Assassination Research. www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer