source: Reinvestigate 9/11 March 11, 2010
Speaking at meeting in the House of Commons and later in a packed public meeting called by Reinvestigate 911, on Monday Cynthia McKinney endorsed the call for a genuinely independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks. The issue has become live again since President Obama cited 9/11 as the reason for escalating the war in Afghanistan and extending it into Pakistan, she said.
Tony Blair cited 9/11 as the event that made the subsequent wars possible when he supported calls for military action against Iran at his Chilcot appearance in February.
McKinney was the only person in Congress to ask questions about the many exercises which were being conducted by the Pentagon on the morning of the attacks. One was an anti-hijack exercise, which official sources put down to a bizarre coincidence. The existence of the anti-hijack exercise only came to light after the 9/11 Commission seized and reclaimed tapes which the Pentagon thought had been erased.
Ian Henshall of Reinvestigate 911 told the meetings that with the war escalating the media should no longer ignore the unanswered 9/11 questions. He reminded his audience that according to the then Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill the invasion of Iraq was being planned in detail by a White House cabal of Cheney Rice and CIA boss George Tenet nine months before the 9/11 attacks took place. “They knew they needed what they called a “Pearl Harbour type event” before they could invade Iraq, so why spend valuable resources on planning for an event which had not yet happened, and they said was a surprise when it did? I hope the media in the UK will join their colleagues abroad and start asking some hard questions about this”, he asked.
After the two meetings on Monday, Ian Henshall was invited onto a long discussion programme on Russia Today an English language channel watched across the planet, and with a significant audience in the UK where is it is on Freeview. Later he supported Stephen Jones, a world class physicist during an hour and a half appearance on the Gary Null radio show, which is heard in many areas of the US including Washington DC.
A major article in the Washington Times has focused on the unanswered question: how did buildings, expressly built to survive impacts from passenger jets laden with fuel, collapse so totally and so fast pulverising so much concrete and steel. Architects in the US are calling for a grand jury probe of the allegedly fraudulent WTC reports from NIST, a Washington agency answerable to the White House. NIST refused to share it’s computer models, refused independent access to physical evidence and failed to investigate the traces of military nano-thermites found in the dust at Ground Zero.
A world class academic journal, American Behavioural Scientist has devoted its February 2010 issue to SCADs, State Crimes Against Democracy, with 9/11 cited as the leading example.
The Washington Post joined the debate, issuing an abusive attack with no evidence cited on the Japanese government where ministers have challenged the official 9/11 story.
On air and at the two UK meetings Ian Henshall explained the political strategy of Reinvestigate 911. Here are some of the points he made.
The first step is to recognise that our opponents do not want a debate. They refuse invitations to appear on discussion programmes. Instead of arguments they offer the four classic smear tactics: name calling, guilt by association, straw man arguments, and whispering campaigns. Sadly many readers and viewers do not recognise smear tactics, but professionals do.
We need to explain that there are many issues at stake here, not just whether 9/11 was some sort of an inside job. That is some way down the road. In the meanwhile the paper trail of government reports and scientific findings leads to many questions. A good place to start is the falsehoods told after 9/11 as they rushed to invade Afghanistan and set us on a path to war.
They said they had no warning of attacks within the US. Now we know Bush and senior officials were warned of a possible Al Qaeda hijacking and warned that it could take place within the US. They said the CIA had lost interest in Afghanistan when they had a top secret Osama bin laden unit with 80 officers at work in the months before 9/11. They said there were intelligence failures when the FBI was actively blocked from three separate investigations any one of which, according to the official account, should and could have foiled the 9/11 attacks.
Even if we assume the intelligence failure account is correct we should still be asking the intelligence agencies the questions we are asking politicians and bankers: why should the public pay for your incompetence? Fortunes have been made out of the war by the officials in the CIA who failed on 9/11 and set up businesses as mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If we suspect the intelligence failure story is not correct, if they cannot account for why they pulled the FBI off the case, then the question of criminal negligence arises. The public will insist on an aggressive criminal investigation untainted by the Washington establishment. This is not a left right issue. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians abroad, thousands in the military have lost their lives, we have all lost important freedoms.
As the deaths of soldiers and civilians continue to mount in the 9/11 wars the public remembers that the Iraq invasion was based on a falsehood, the myth of Saddam Hussein’s WMD. This was the worst sort of conspiracy theory, an officially sponsored one. The power of government was amplified by a media which failed to ask the right questions. Many people believe, particularly in the wider global community, that the official story of 9/11 was much the same.