Will America Face The Truth About 9/11?
Many Americans who look into 9/11 questions may be terrified at the thought that a criminal conspiracy has taken over control of America, that the US military has been part of the conspiracy and cover up, and that it controls the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal - enough weapons to kill all life on earth many times over. It is not surprising that many will choose to disbelieve the story, regardless of proofs, or place it in the 'too hard' basket. In fact even Congress has shown it can do nothing to prevent further crimes - such as the coming war on Iran . People will shudder at the size and complexity of the conspiracy and the number of people that must be directly and indirectly involved. Most will lapse into a state of apathy and denial. It's so big no media would dare touch it and many have become involved in covering up and/or not reporting the facts.
However Americans should also reflect that as long as the criminals remain in control of power in the US , they are likely to go on to commit worse crimes.
Given the new military and nuclear doctrines and plans for endless war, they will confront China and Russia , if not over the planned war on Iran , then during the expanded conflicts that will result. Then it's probable escalation to world war III and the end to the history of the human race. I don't think the Bush regime worries about this probability, or even cares. The mass media has certainly done it's best to minimize the very great risks and does not even mention this possibility. Desperate men usually don't care about risks. The Bush regime is willing to take extreme risks to cover their tracks, in the desperate gamble that their evil plans will come true.
Mark Gaffnev has also included an excellent commentary on US preparations for space wars and US preparations for a nuclear first strike.
He asks: "Will America Face The Truth About 9/11?" It's a big ask, and so far it looks as if not enough Americans have faced the truth enough to stop Bush from continuing on a dead end road to Armageddon.
Will America Face the Truth About 9/11?
By Mark H. Gaffney, ICH, February 7, 2007
In June 1, 2001 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a new order regarding cases of aircraft piracy, i.e., hijackings. The new order (CJCSI 3610.01A), signed by Vice Admiral S. A. Fry, Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, canceled the existing order (CJCSI 3610.01) that had been in effect since July 1997. When I learned about this, recently, I became intrigued. The date of the new order, just three months prior to 9/11, seemed too near that fateful day to be mere coincidence. I should mention that I have always been skeptical of the official 9/11 narrative. The June 2001 order was like a red flag drawing attention to an insistent question: Why did the US military alter its hijack policy a few months before 9/11? Why, indeed?
When I first examined the document, which, by the way, is still posted on the internet, my excitement increased. The order states that when hijackings occur the military's operational commanders at the pentagon and at the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) must contact the secretary of defense for approval and further instruction. At that time, of course, this was Donald Rumsfeld. Was the new order, therefore, evidence of a policy change made for the purpose of engineering a stand-down on 9/11? This was plausible, assuming that a group of evildoers within the Bush administration wanted a terrorist plot to succeed for their own twisted reasons. And what might those reasons be? Well, obviously, to create the pretext for a much more aggressive US foreign policy that the American people would not otherwise support. We know, for instance, that the plans to invade Afghanistan were already sitting on President Bush's desk on 9/11, awaiting his signature.
Did the US military achieve a stand-down on 9/11 by means of an ordinary administrative memo? Several prominent 9/11 investigators had already drawn this conclusion, including Jim Marrs, who is a very capable journalist. Marrs discussed the June 1, 2001 pentagon order in his fine book, The Terror Conspiracy. Filmmaker Dylan Avery is another. He mentioned the order in a similar context in his popular video, Loose Change (Second Edition) . A third investigator, Webster Griffin Tarpley, did likewise in his book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, one of the deepest examinations of 9/11 in print. Although initially I agreed with their conclusion, after studying the document more closely I found reason to change my mind. Fortunately, the previous July 1997 order is still available for download via the internet.
Close inspection of the two documents, side by side, shows that the previous order also required notification of the secretary of defense in cases of hijackings. In fact, there was almost no change in the language on this point. Obviously, the basic policy remained in effect, and can be summarized as follows: Although operational commanders have the authority to make decisions of the moment in cases of hijackings, they are also required to notify the secretary of defense, who must be kept in the loop, and who may chose to intervene at any time.
Side by side, the two documents are almost identical. But there is one difference. The new order includes an extra passage in the policy section that mentions two new kinds of airborne vehicles, “unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)” and “remotely operated vehicles (ROVs).” The order states that these are to be regarded as “a potential threat to public safety.” But why did two new categories of aerial vehicles require the drafting of a new order, especially since the basic policy did not change? I puzzled over this for some time, until I stumbled upon a news story about the Global Hawk, prompting further investigations. These have convinced me that the June 1, 2001 pentagon order could be one of the keys to what happened on 9/11.
Home Disclaimer/Fair Use