Jump to content

9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin Baas (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 5 September 2005 (rv. blanking of content by Raul654). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:TitleDisputed 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories assert that either President George W. Bush, members of his cabinet, or United States intelligence agencies had detailed advance knowledge about the September 11, 2001 attacks, and allowed it to happen or even caused it, providing an excuse to launch the United States' War on Terrorism (see Project for the New American Century). Allegations of domestic complicity should not be confused with the possibility that parts of the U.S. government may have had some prior warning of the attacks but did not act because of error, incompetence or incomplete information.

Many of the conspiracy theories and allegations were investigated by a team of nine researchers and reporters assembled by Popular Mechanics magazine, who consulted 70 professionals in fields including aviation, engineering and the military. [1] The magazine stated that the team was able to "debunk" each of theories "with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense". It also concluded that "a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate." Some believers of the alternate theories have stated that Popular Mechanics' close business ties with the RNC assumes for a suspicious bias to hide the truth, and the article may have been along the lines of propaganda purposes rather than scientific and objective reasoning.

Theories and claims

Foreknowledge

Some advocates of this theory claim that the United States government knew the attacks were going to take place.

In the months preceding September 11, the governments of at least four countries—Germany, Egypt, Russia and Israel— are said to have given specific "urgent" warnings to the United States of an impending terrorist attack, indicating that hijacked commercial aircraft might well be used to attack targets in the USA. [2], full list of July-August 2001 intelligence warnings here. The Egyptian and French warnings to the USA are claimed to have originated from Mossad and German intelligence. [3].

On the day of the terrorist attacks, key government officials were warned not to fly on aircraft heading through New York and Washington airspace, and some important government officials were warned not to go on any planes about a day or two before the attack began. Attorney General John Ashcroft was earlier in 2001 warned off commercial flight "for the rest of his term" by the FBI [4]; Willie Brown, then mayor of San Francisco, was warned the day before against flying [5]; and several "top Pentagon officials" canceled 9/11 travel plans the day before.

In interviews, Fortress Nation author Matthew Breszinski, discusses evidence of foreknowledge of the method of attack used by the September 11 terrorists. Breszinski relates the story of Filipino police officers in Manila noticing smoke emanating from an apartment building. They investigate, and are informed by the residents that the smoke is the result of fireworks accidentally set off indoors. The men who resided in the apartment were said to be Pakistani nationals. Upon reporting their findings to the chief of police, the officers were instructed to investigate further. They found that the Pakistanis had fled, leaving behind laptop computers and documentation of a plan to use airplanes as a fuel-laden missiles against tall office buildings. The chief of the Manila city police force, reportedly passed the above information to the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement. Bresinski relates the despair and astonishment experienced by the Manila police official when she learns of the attacks upon the World Trade center towers.

Stand-down order and War Games

Some critics say that the Bush administration did not follow its own protocols for dealing with hijacked planes (see links below). North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) were the ones responsible for America's air defense on 9/11. NORAD has also been the target of many conspiracy theories involving 9/11. Many of them say that NORAD was issued a stand-down order to send fighter planes to intercept the hijacked airliners from Vice President Dick Cheney himself. This has never been substantiated.

An interesting twist is that from two years to two months before 9/11 NORAD was doing exercises to prevent similar types of attacks that happened on September 11. One of the NORAD exercises involved a mock situation where hijackers took control of a passenger commercial airliner and used it as a missile to crash into the World Trade Center. During the September 11, 2001 attacks the US was holding multiple annual war games. At least one, in which a small corporate jet would experience mechanical failure and crash into one of the four towers at the NRO headquarters building, bore some resemblance to the actual attacks [6] . Some sources think this added to the confusion of that day.

George W. Bush was asked at a press conference if he knew terrorists like Al Qaeda would be thinking of using planes; his response was "We knew they hated us, but there was uh [pause] nobody in our government at least, and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."

The plane that crashed into the Pentagon hit a less populated section of the building that had been cleared for renovation well in advance of the September 11, 2001. The Pentagon renovation project had been planned for over a decade prior to the attacks. As a result, the vast majority of the offices in the section of the Pentagon damaged by the plane crash were empty on the day of the attack and had been empty for some time before the attack. Nevertheless, the attack caused 200 casualties in the Pentagon and on the ground (124 killed and 76 injured), not including those that died in the plane.[7]


Justification for a Resource War

An increasing number of commentators (In particular Michael Ruppert of From the Wilderness Publications) have been speculating on the connections between the 'catalyzing' events of September 11th relating to the war on terrorism, and the incoming reduction in global production of oil, a theory termed Peak Oil.

An excuse to invade Iraq

Some, including Richard Clarke, counter terrorism chief for the White House at the time of the 9/11 attacks, say that immediately after the September 11 attacks, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was already seeking evidence to put the blame on Saddam Hussein. Retired General Wesley Clark has said there was pressure on himself to participate in this effort, but his failure to provide evidence has drawn criticism. Richard Clarke also says that Donald Rumsfeld, immediately following 9/11, said "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, but there are a lot of good targets in Iraq". Critics of Clarke say he had a personal vendetta against the White House and was only looking to garner fame for his upcoming book, which was an expose' of the Bush administration's plan to shift blame away from Osama bin Laden and onto Saddam Hussein.

In addition, Bob Woodward writes in his book Plan of Attack of Rumsfeld on Sept. 11: "The notes show that Rumsfeld had mused about whether to 'hit S.H. @ same time -- not only UBL'..." (page 25). Also, a January, 2003 Washington Post article stated the following:

"On Sept. 17, 2001 ... President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.
Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said."

Some theories say that the Bush administration knew where the eventual 19 hijackers were the whole nine months before 9/11. Prior to 9/11, the administration had a plan to take out Islamic terrorist network al-Qaida, but felt it needed an enormous just cause to justify taking action. The theories say that an attack on America would provide such a justification. In these theories, the administration would not only allow such an attack to occur on U.S. soil, but would actually help it along, giving the hijackers plenty of support in their training in flight simulators across the country. Then, when the attack had occurred, the excuse would be there for the administration to pursue its desired policies in Afghanistan in order to oust Osama bin Laden. With the "success" of 9/11, the administration would also be able to fake the WMDs excuse in order to go to war with Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein, who Bush would want dead for his assassination attempt on his father (a former president) in 1991.

The war also allowed Halliburton Energy Services, which had Vice President Dick Cheney as its former CEO, who retains 433,000 share-equivalent unexercised stock options at Halliburton, to gain an 18 billion dollar no bid contract called Restore Iraqi Oil. The "Halliburton" theory was raised during the 2004 Presidential election, most prominently by groups such as Moveon.org. Others would contest such theories by noting that U.S. government regulations cover the extensive analysis and procedures required to issue a no bid contract and such contracts are always subject to protest and litigation. Hundreds of thousands of civilian non-political Defense Department employees work in the acquisition field managing and coordinating acquisitions and contractors.

Evidence that the U.S. and U.K. government were always intent on going to war, even when George W. Bush said that all options are open, can be seen in the Downing Street Memos (reffering to all information leaked dating between march and July 2002), where plans for invading Iraq were discussed prior to the deadline for Iraq to surrender, and intelligence was built primarily upon gaining cause to go into Iraq.

The Yellowcake forgery was a set of falsified documents which claimed that Iraq had attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. The International Atomic Energy Agency had ruled the documents a forgery after they were used as evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq. Whether or not any U.K. and U.S. officials knew that the documents were not authentic is still being debated.

Critics of these theories point out, however, that most believe that such theories are political speculation with no evidence or credible sources that any person in authority had knowledge of the attacks, would desire to kill thousands of Americans to make a political point, or could or would conspire with Islamic terrorists.

An excuse to invade Afghanistan

In the summer of 2001, Japan Times reported that, at a closed meeting in Berlin, Germany, of the Central Asia Group, planners from various oil-interested governments and corporations approved a tentative plan to invade Afghanistan, to be carried out in early October 2001. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, who attended the meeting told the BBC he was told by senior US officials that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. [8] These plans were confirmed on May 16, 2002 when NBC reported that president Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before the 9/11 attacks. [9]

Delmart Vreeland

Delmart Vreeland's note detailing several possible targets. This note was already in an evidence locker on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, who claimed to be a specialist in Russian intelligence for the Office of Naval Intelligence was arrested in Canada on December 6 2000 for credit card fraud, a charge later dismissed after it came to light that it was his own credit-card involved. While in jail, he claims that on several occasions he attempted to warn the Canadian government, through his jailers, of an impending attack on the United States, including specifics about the World Trade Center and Osama Bin-Laden. He also claims that after several months he had two pens smuggled in which used different ink than allowed in jail, and he wrote out the note on the right on either August 11th, or 12th. The Canadian government has since admitted that the pens used in the creation of this note, as well as the paper it was written on were confiscated well before the attacks. Among the targets detailed in the letter were the Sears Tower, World Trade Center the White House and The Pentagon followed by the mysterious phrase "Let one happen. Stop the rest!!!" The government claims that Vreeland was a criminal and had been discharged from the Navy in 1986 after a few months of substandard performance, but when forced to submit his performance records in Vreeland's subsequent extradition hearings, they provided a 1,200 page document, heavily altered and redacted, with dates of his Navy physical testing as recent as 1998. During the trial, Vreeland also called the Pentagon switchboard from the stand which confirmed his rank of Lieutenant, confirmed his office number, and put him in contact with his own voice-mail, despite his lack of employ in the United States Defense Forces.

Vreeland was later accused of being a con artist and was arrested in the U.S. in 2004. According to an article by Mike Martindale in the November 4, 2004 Detroit News, "Police have been chasing him for years. Vreeland, now 38, has been arrested 29 times since 1984 and was on the Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard's Most Wanted list for more than four years....Vreeland, who has often conned police into releasing him in the past, tried to pass himself off as an international U.S. spy who has smuggled documents out of Moscow for the Navy and CIA."

Criticism on 9/11 Investigation and openness

Critics also claim that Bush has not allowed a proper investigation of the attacks (the bipartisan commission was barred from certain "key intelligence" documents classified as the government's most sensitive intelligence documents by the Bush Administration.[10] [11].) When Bush allowed the 9/11 Commission to interview him, he made three principal requests: that the interview not be recorded;, that Vice President Cheney accompany him to the interview; and that the interview be conducted in the White House. Many supporters of 9/11 complicity conspiracy theories see these requests as secretive and evidence that Bush has something to hide about 9/11.

Counter-claims

Although there certainly exist many disconcerting facts and odd events related to 9/11/2001 and its aftermath, most people dismiss them as coincidences. Coincidences are events that seem to be non-random, meaning not likely to happen more than 5% or less of the time. Many dis-believe that "coincidences" occur at all, preferring to rely on what are called "facts" which are temporary findings and theories that are most often disproved later.

For example, it is true that Pentagon officials canceled trips on September 10th, but this is in fact not unusual: Pentagon officials travel a lot and are very likely to have unexpected emergencies. It would be helpful if these emergencies were clearly identified and made known instead of just merely supposing that such events were relevant to the cancellations made at that specific and important time.

If one looks at all possible events that would have happened if there were a conspiracy, statistically some of them are bound to actually happen as the result of random chance. It is difficult to determine what is "random" and what is part of a pattern unless one is seeking to look for patterns and finding connections that others simply refer to as "irrelevant" instead. Similarly, if one looks up all public notes from the White House, and only keeps those that might indicate knowledge of terrorist activities, a pattern is likely to appear in hindsight. Hindsight is always a little late to correct dangerous actions, of individuals or nations.

A number of arguments regarding domestic complicity conspiracies have been put forward, and many of them directly contradict other conspiracy theories. "Conspiracy theories" have been used as ways to discredit questions, suppositions, theories and any patterns that are seen as undesireable, and thus wanting these to be discredited. In particular, some people point out that Osama bin Laden was never captured, and that no WMDs were found in Iraq. If we think that the government was responsible for 9/11/2001, or at least that it knew about it in enough specific detail to have prevented it, then it is hard to imagine why they would not have gone all the way and actually capture bin Laden, or at least fake his capture, and plant WMDs in Iraq. Both these actions would have given the U.S. government a lot of political capital. However, faking the capture of bin Laden or planting WMDs in Iraq would involve huge risks of being detected and exposed by the international community. And there are many other ways that any government in power can imply, threaten, mislead and intimidate it's citizens besides making a a blatant 'faking' of an arrest of a notable or finding faked WMD remains. Two options of 'do' or 'don't' is always too limited a way to think, especially when it comes to war and killing. There are many other options and devious ways to operate and create propaganda and media-news.

Historical precedent

Proponents of the domestic complicity conspiracy theory often point to historical precedents, in which governments have allegedly planned to use tragedy in order to gain support for unpopular policies. However prior bad acts are not evidence that supports claims of any domestic complicity conspiracy theory, but are indications that investigations into such claims are justified by historic precedent.

Alex Jones and others draw parallels between these precedents and the use of 9/11 to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  • The Great fire of Rome, in 64 AD, which some historians believe to have been set by then emperor Nero, so as to clear a large area of land on which Nero would order the construction of the opulent Domus Aurea palace.
  • An explosion on the USS Maine was used to justify the Spanish-American War. Later, the United States Navy published an investigation that concluded that the tragedy was self-inflicted, probably the result of a coal bunker fire. Some historians have disputed these findings, maintaining that failure to detect spontaneous combustion in the coal bunker was highly unlikely. Other people maintain that Maine was the victim of sabotage or sacrificed to rally public opinion against Spain.
  • The Reichstag fire of 1933 is widely believed to have been started by the Nazis in order to garner popular support. Definitive proof of direct responsibility by the Nazis has yet to be discovered, but many feel that they are the most likely the guilty party, based on motive, circumstancial evidence, other murderous deception carried out by the Nazis, and the lack of credible evidence against anyone else.
  • The Operation Northwoods documents, drafted by members of the US government in the 1960's (and shortly after rejected), include recommendations to destroy an unmanned drone and claim that it was a commercial plane "full of college students off on a holiday," in order to align public opinion against Cuba.
  • I.F. Stone's A Hidden History of the Korean War claims that US and South Korean claims of border transgressions by the North Koreans did not in fact happen, and that the Korean War was started by South Korea's incursions into North Korea rather than the other way around.
  • On September 18, 1931, there was an explosion on the Japanese-controlled South Manchurian Railroad track, later referred to as the Mukden Incident. Blaming Chinese nationalists, the Japanese moved troops into South Manchuria to occupy it fully. Strong evidence suggests that Japan's ultranationalist Kwantung Army was directly responsible for the blast, and that the blast was a ruse intended as an excuse for invasion.

Sources

9/11: Debunking The Myths: PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11, Popular Mechanics, March 2005

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories&oldid=22649731"