Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Five years out from the attacks, why do we still know so little about what really happened that day?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Gaping Holes in the 9/11 Narrative

By Robert Scheer, AlterNet. Posted September 11, 2006.


Five years out from the attacks, why do we still know so little about what really happened that day?
Advertisement

What we still don't know about 9/11 could kill us. By "we" I mean the public that has been kept in the dark for five years by a president who may know the truth but has chosen to ignore it. Instead of grappling with the thorny origins of that disaster, George Bush willfully turned the nation's attention and resources to a totally unrelated and disastrous imperial adventure in Iraq.

Just how unrelated was definitively established last Friday with the belated release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's second report, which concluded that there not only was zero connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but that Iraq was the one country in the region where Osama bin Laden could not operate.

Unfortunately, that was not true of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the two countries that had recognized and otherwise supported the Taliban government that hosted bin Laden during the run-up to 9/11. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and yet there has been no serious investigation of the extended Royal family's roll in the recruitment of bin Laden's "soldiers" and the ease with which they secured legal visas to enter the United States.

While funds for Al Qaeda emanated from the Saudi kingdom, the essential logistical support for Al Qaeda came from Pakistan. Now, five years later, bin Laden and the remnants of his organization are assumed by the United States to have found refuge in Pakistan's unruly tribal region, where the Pakistan government recently has reduced its forces, conceding that it could not defeat local tribesmen sympathetic to the Taliban.

Nor has there been any credible accounting of the role of Pakistan's intelligence community, then and now, in support of Islamic terrorists on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border. Or in the passage of Pakistan's nuclear secrets to what Bush refers to as "rogue nations."

Recall that the predominant excuse for invading Iraq was the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and would be willing to pass them on to rogue regimes and terrorists. Not only were such weapons not found, but the evidence from the accounts of former Administration insiders and the Senate Intelligence Committee makes clear that the Administration was consciously cherry picking the evidence to shore up its fraudulent case.

There were weapons of mass destruction being shipped to "rogue nations," but they were coming from Pakistan in an extensive program headed by Abdul Qadeer (A.Q.) Khan, the father of the "Islamic bomb." The Pakistan government has admitted that Khan passed on to North Korea, Libya and Iran technical know-how and vital materials for the creation of nuclear weapons. But Khan was pardoned of any crimes by Pakistan's dictator general, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Khan is restricted only by a loose form of house arrest and has never been made available to U.S. investigators. Yet the Bush Administration dropped the sanctions originally imposed on Pakistan in reprisal for its development of nuclear weapons in return for Pakistan's support in the "war on terror."


Digg!

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
why are they still employed?
Posted by: edith on Sep 11, 2006 2:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rice and Mueller(FBI)? Tenet(CIA) lasted months after 9/11.

Where are the air defense generals who had responsibility over E.Coast airspace?

They knew the attack was coming.

I used to think critics of the conventional 9/11 story were too
hyped, too dazed by the destruction.

I think now they have uncovered just a tiny tiny bit of something very very dark.

Will Bush and Cheney ever leave? Who will make them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough with the 19 hijackers already!
Posted by: Erik N on Sep 11, 2006 2:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This part of the 9/11 Commission Report is somehow very rarely criticised even though it has been revealed to be a falsification by several large media outlets, for example the BBC and The Telegraph The suggested 19 hijackers didn't do it! At least not all of them.

Several of the supposed hijackers have been found alive and been interviewed by western media. Even when their names, photos and sometimes back stories match the FBIs description of the terrorists they refuse to accept that they died while committing a suicide attack against WTC and thus stubbornly live on - just as the FBI refuses to accept that they are alive and not sucidal terrorists that attacked the WTC. Perhaps they're in limbo.

It's time to stop repeating the exposed lie about the 19 hijackers, there are innocent people on that FBI list of 9/11 terrorists and I bet they're sick of being accused.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Debunked Posted by: brunowe
» Only partially Posted by: Erik N
Hmm... Rober Scheer up to his old tricks?
Posted by: TooDamnCool on Sep 11, 2006 3:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More analysis from the author of "Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban" and dozens of other pieces of horse manure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

kaleema
Posted by: kbiteye on Sep 12, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have one question: if there is the argument that you can't rely on first day, early reports of what happen during 911, why are we so still convinced that Bin Lauden did this? His name was put out there right away, the same day, or soon thereafter. Since then we have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (Welcome Back Heroin, Welcome Back)capture several of Bin Lauden's colleagues, yet not him, the "master mind" of the whole thing. What is going on? Who is really responsible for 9-11? Who are the key players inside and outside of government, in and outside of the united states? Why was 9-11 allowed to happen? -- because it was allowed. Even if there were war games, how did the "master-mind" of 9-11 know to pick that date and time? Just a lucky coincidence or what? And if there was a breech of security, how did it happen, where is that investigation? As an American, I would be more willing to believe a breech of security, than a deliberate bombing of the world trade center, killing thousands of people, including undocumented workers --"read my lips". . . It almost appears that we are to understand that the american security system is so laxed from the CIA, FBI, NSC, etc. to NORAD, etc., to the very people who watch the radar screens of US air space, all of these ordinary, American workers are so lax, incompetent, or corrupt, that 9-11 could happen. Last question, what has changed so that 9-11 doesn't happen again? I think Clinton did a great job, he prevented the 2000 terrorist attack (Y2K) even though we average Americans had no idea of the danger our nation was really under. Great Job Clinton, love yah! On the other hand, Bush, well, 9-11 happened on his "watch", but then again, maybe it was Clinton's fault because the truth is Gore really won and just let Bush and crew sit in the White House, and really Clinton is running the show and that's why it's Clinton's fault, because even if Bush wanted to stop 9-11 he could not have because, Clinton wouldn't let him. I saw the movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Put Options
Posted by: itchyvet on Sep 12, 2006 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I'd like to know, is how come nothing's ever been done regards the stock market put options that were laid before Sept 11.
There are a hell of a lot of people who made a packet of money with this, surely there's a paper trail as to who placed these options, so why can't this be followed up and the people who played the market questioned as to where they got their info from ?
It's very strange, how this very large issue seems to have simply dropped from the American concousness, and not ONE person is questioning it.
Now that's really weird.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Put Options Posted by: babs
Meals of Crow Coming For Our Government
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Sep 12, 2006 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that 9/11 has passed, we still don't exactly know what went down on that day, even though there have been plenty of talking heads who offered theories but for our government to withhold information for us and to invade two nations will come back to haunt us. It's a shame.
Nothing has gone right for the United States in the "War" on "Terror".
The bird meat won't taste too good in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]