Taking Advantage of
Fear and the Sept 11
Their big moment
arrived with the collapse of the Twin Towers. The American public and politicians were in a state of shock, completely disoriented,
unable to understand a world that had changed overnight. The neo-cons were the only group with a ready explanation and a solution.
Only nine days after the outrage, William Kristol (the son of the group's founder, Irving
Kristol) published an Open Letter to President Bush, asserting that it was not enough to annihilate the network
of Osama bin Laden, but that it was also imperative to "remove Saddam Hussein from power" and to "retaliate" against Syria
and Iran for supporting Hizbullah.
Following is a short list of the main characters.
Open Letter was published in the Weekly Standard, founded by Kristol with the money of ultra-right press mogul Rupert Murdoch,
who donated $ 10 million to the cause. It was signed by 41 leading neo-cons, including Norman
Podhoretz, a Jewish former leftist who has become an extreme right-wing icon, editor of the prestigious Encounter
magazine, and his wife, Midge Decter, also a writer, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Studies, Robert Kagan,
also of the Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, and,
of course, Richard Perle.
Perle is a central character in this play.
Until recently he was the chairman of the Defense Policy Board of the Defense Department, which also includes Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross. Perle is a director of the Jerusalem Post, now owned by extreme right-wing Zionists.
In the past he was an aide to Senator Henry Jackson, who led the fight against the Soviet Union on behalf of the Jews who
wanted to leave. He is a leading member of the influential right-wing American Enterprise Institute. Lately he was obliged
to resign from his Defense Department position, when it became known that a private corporation had promised to pay him almost
a million dollars for he benefit of his influence in the administration.
That Open Letter was, in effect, the beginning
of the Iraq war. It was eagerly received by the Bush administration, with members of the group already firmly established
in some of its leading positions. Paul Wolfowitz, the father of the war, is
No. 2 in the Defense Department, where another friend of Perle's, Douglas Feith,
heads the Pentagon Planning Board. John Bolton is State Department Undersecretary.
Eliot Abrams, responsible for the Middle East in the National Security Council,
was connected with the Iran-Contra-Israel scandal. The main hero of the scandal, Oliver
North, sits in the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, together with Michael Ledeen, another hero of the scandal.
Headvocates total war not only against Iraq, but also against Israel's other enemies, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian
Authority. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.
Most of these people , together with
Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, are associated with the
"Project for the New American Century", which published a White Paper in 2002, with the aim 'to preserve and enhance
this 'American peace'"--meaning American control of the world.
Meyrav Wurmser (Meyrav
is a chic new Israeli first name) is Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute. She also writes
for the Jerusalem Post and is co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute that is, according to the London Guardian,
connected with Israeli Army Intelligence. MEMRI feeds the media and politicians with highly selective quotations
from extreme Arab publications. Meyrav's husband, Davis Wurmser, is at Perle's American
Enterprise Institute, heading Middle East Studies. Mention should also be made of the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy of our old acquaintance, Dennis Ross, who for years was in charge of the "peace process" in the Middle East.
In all the important papers there are people close to the group, such as William
Safire, a man hypnotized by Sharon, in the New York Times and Charles Krauthammer
in the Washington Post. Another Perle friend, Robert Bartley, is the editor
of the Wall Street Journal.
If the speeches of Bush and Cheney often sound as if they came from the lips
of Sharon, one of the reasons may be that their speechwriters, Joseph Shattan, Mathew Scully and John McConnell, are neo-cons,
as is Cheneys Chief-of-Staff, Lewis Libby.
The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close
alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. The founding
fathers were Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, who once got a jet plane as a present
from Menachem Begin, and Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition and the Christian Broadcasting Network, which help to finance
the Christian Embassy in Jerusalem of J.W. van der Hoeven, an outfit that supports the settlers and their right-wing allies.
...The man who symbolizes
this victory is General Jay Garner, who has just been appointed chief of the civilian administration in Iraq.
He is no anonymous general who has been picked accidentally. Garner is the ideological partner of Paul Wolfowitz
and the neo-cons.
Two years ago he signed, together with 26 other officers, a petition
organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
“The truth is out there,” and no amount
of dissembling, dishonesty or denial can alter that fact.
The most venerable means of transmitting control inputs
from a plane's cockpit to its various aerodynamic control surfaces (rudder, ailerons, etc.) is via a system of cables, i.e.
"aircraft cables." With the introduction of huge planes during and after W.W.II, unassisted human arms could no longer provide
the force needed to actuate proportionately huge control surfaces, and so hydraulic assist devices and fully hydraulic control
systems were developed. The introduction of autopilots and landing guidance systems over the next three decades layered yet
another 'control system' over this one, an electronic layer capable of manipulating the hydraulics
directly and thus flying the plane on its own. In the 757- and 767-series planes boarded by "the hijackers," Boeing expanded
this layer enormously, making it much more sophisticated and integral to the continuous operation of these planes. For one
thing, it continuously monitors such things as attitude, acceleration, turn rates, etc., and if necessary can assert exclusive
control of the hydraulics at any time, modifying or even overriding pilot decisions that would
otherwise result in drastic maneuvers, inappropriate for passenger service. Though meant to provide an added margin of safety
in the event of gross pilot error, this arrangement introduces an ominous new dimension: in a very
real sense, the humans on the flight deck have only tenuous control of flaps, rudder, etc.; the computer, the arbiter between
the two, allows them direct control only on it's own immutable terms. If the computer can override
the pilot some of the time, a potential exists for it to override the pilot ALL of the time. This is a vulnerable arrangement,
as anyone who has dealt with a virus should know. In other words, the advancing dependency on avionic interfaces has brought
with it an advancing potential for the total electronic co-optation of those interfaces. As they have grown exponentially
in complexity, so too has the number of entry points by which such co-optation might be effected. All that was needed was
for technologists to devise a "back door"...
Enter the US government and its defense contractors, who began joint
development of remote flight control and flight circumvention technology at least two decades ago, using the full force of
their virtually infinite R&D resources. The existence of these programs, and of the resulting technology, was verified
soon after 9-11 by a panel of commercial and military pilots participating in an independent inquiry (16).
of such technology IN ANY FORM raises intriguing questions/possibilities about 9-11: 1) could the planes have been hijacked
via this technology alone? 2) Were they? 3) Remote hijacking and on-board hijacking are not mutually exclusive scenarios;
if there were actual human hijackers on those planes, their plot may have been remotely co-opted by another party they knew
nothing about, leaving them as horrified as anyone when the planes took control of themselves and banked straight into buildings.
Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea that the override functionality
of the planes' computers was somehow defeated, allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited maneuvers. For example, there are
multiple photographs and video clips showing AA Flight 175 making an outrageously hard turn into the second tower. According
to official information, the plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot.
To have flown the planes in this manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced large plane skills, and 2) a way
to defeat the planes' avionic systems. Since that flight school they attended in Venice, Fla. probably didn't offer a course
titled "Hot-dog Maneuvers with Airliners 101," they must have possessed these abilities already, so why would they have bothered
with flight lessons at all? Any benefit they realized in terms of understanding new control layouts would have been at the
cost of increased exposure, thus endangering their mission. On the other hand, if they were as inexperienced as the presstitutes
tell us ("I just want to learn how to steer"), they couldn't possibly have flown the planes this way at all, which means someone
else must have.
However distasteful, there is a real possibility that remote circumvention occurred on those planes,
a possibility that any credible investigation would hardly ignore. All the more so because the necessary hardware isn't just
a cockamamie theory: a fully developed, totally programmable remote flight control platform actually exists. Suggestively
named the "Flight Termination System," it is manufactured by Systems Planning Corporation of Rosslyn, Virginia, which maintains
web pages devoted to the FTS and various subsystems:
A system overview:
The transmitter hardware:
The CEO of Systems
Planning's international division, Dov Zakheim, is a long-time DoD and Republican Party insider,
and a founding member of the Neoconservative cult. While Bush was still Governor of Texas, Zakheim
became one of his closest advisers, counseling him on defense technology and strategic aspects of Middle Eastern affairs.
After the 2000 "election," Rummy rewarded Zakheim with a low-profile but strategically important position -- Comptroller,
i.e. head money man, of the Defense Department.
Zakheim also co-authored the Heritage Foundation's
infamous tract, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," in which the Bush Administration's entire design for renewed global conquest
was laid down a full year prior to 9-11. On page 63, the authors note that timely implementation of their ideas would require
"some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
see for yourself:
To identify the expansionist motive behind the "9-11 Wars," one need look no further than this document. Echoing Ziggy
Brzezinski's thoughts in "The Grand Chessboard," the authors identify the Persian Gulf / Central Asian region as the world's
greatest geopolitical prize, and recommend that decisive control of this region be made a top strategic priority.
remote control scenario also neatly punctures the 'yada-yada objection' always employed by conspiracy theory critics: "It
couldn't have happened that way, because too many people would have known, and someone would blab..." In fact, the most sensitive
part of this plot would be that of anticipating or enabling nineteen flesh-and-blood "hijackers," and yet this part of the
scenario is all but universally accepted. Nineteen men backed by a larger organization schemed to get on those planes and
take control of them, and then they did; everyone knows they did because CNN has stated this "fact" about ten thousand times
and counting. As for exactly WHICH organization did the backing, well, there's a saying about 'dead men' ...
the patsies were in position, the rest of this scenario -- the "really unbelievable part" -- could have been carried off in
its entirety by a tiny team wielding extravagant technical skills and multimillion-dollar equipment. No larger conspiracy
is necessary. As for the apparent complicity of the entire government and media, this is mostly just cynical opportunism and
jello-brained obedience rising to the occasion -- a response easily anticipated by the real conspirators, for whom history
provides a never-ending parade of examples on which to base such expectations.
Mind you, this is not to say that remote
circumvention is definitely what happened. On its face, this scenario is wildly improbable. Speaking of improbable, what about
four airliners being taken over simultaneously and used as missiles? Since this actually happened, we have no choice but to
consider fantastic scenarios, and since the official scenario is itself an unsubstantiated "conspiracy theory," competing
scenarios should also receive serious attention. Our reluctance to question official doctrine on this matter is a symptom
of the societal role most of us have been bred and trained for: to be ever-faithful hounds, tails thumping the floor as we
contentedly slorp the hand of class authority. Such credulity also becomes inevitable when the alternative is so unbearable:
if someone in Bush's position is capable of lying to us about something as huge, as gut-wrenchingly horrible as 9-11, then
everything we believe about this country -- about the nature of civilization itself -- might just be childish nonsense...
Most people simply don't have the guts to go there.
Given a desperate enough need to sustain the childish
belief in government-as-benevolent-father, a person will adapt that belief to any circumstance. The behavioral end result
can resemble courage; indeed, we are taught to regard it as the DEFINITION of courage. Actually, it's one of cowardice's darkest
moments. Even a casual examination of Nazi Germany, where this phenomenon was rampant, will drive this point home.
almost funny, the way people readily see the threat of technological circumvention presented by Diebold's electronic voting
machines, yet when the subject switches to the "Flight Termination System," which is every bit as real, and to the exactly
parallel possibilities it represents vis-a-vis 9-11, they suddenly retreat into profound and combative denial. It's as if
a threshold has been crossed into a realm of possibilities too vile to entertain, so they simply don't. Never mind that this
country's operatives have been traveling the world, perpetrating similar horrors, for all of the past century. Rather than
acknowledge the possibility of a unifying pattern, Joe Average would much rather 'shoot the messenger.'
Every so often,
such people establish a new high-water mark for cowardice and facultative stupidity, and the present is definitely one of
those times. After all, the official 9-11 scenario they cling to with such desperate faith comes from only one source: the
Western "intelligence community" -- the most brazen, systematic, resourceful, and interlocked association of habitual liars
this world has ever seen. As should have been made clear by the 'British dossier' scandal of last winter, the credibility
of this bunch goes past zero into the negative: pending airtight proof, anything they say should be reflexively deemed a lie.
You may remember that MI5 also provided the identities of "the 19 hijackers" -- information that soon also became quite suspect.
At least six of the hijackers, possibly as many as nine, are still alive in the Middle East -- a pretty good alibi, considering.
Several of these ex-suspects had their passports or other IDs stolen from them over the years, and it's entirely possible
that all 19 hijackers had stolen identities, meaning they could have come from anywhere, or been absent altogether. The US
media was pretty slack about acknowledging this at the time, and since then has dropped this ball entirely (17).
than allow the "intelligence community" to render every detail of our comprehension on this matter, we would be much wiser
to carefully identify and discard every assumption they hand us.
|Back to Index
Contact Joe Anybody here: