On this, the seventh anniversay of the largest mass murder in US history, the official version of the events continues to weave it's way into our history books, into the collective consciousness and into popular American mythology.
And as in all things 911, the ongoing infection of cover up, obfuscation and classified evidence continues to fester among those that are paying attention. One reputable poll after another reveals a steadily growing awareness and doubt among the American public - a doubt of the "official version/story/excuse" - a realization that they have been duped in the largest hoax in US history.
As has become a staple upon it's anniversay, on television and in magazine's "special editions" that claim to address the salient facts that surround the 911 attacks dutifully promote the official version - while making light of or even ridiculing the "conspiracy kooks". The "official script" of the crime is ardently followed, each time. (A further demonstration of the larger, obsequious mechanisms at work to engrain the official version.) Key, incompatible elements of the crime are omitted - most notably, the cloak of secrecy that surrounds the why, the how, the who. Always the information that was quickly formulated and volunteered immediately following the attacks - myriad inconvenient facts that contradict the official rendition are glaringly sidestepped and ignored.
So, the government attacked America, right? No, the government didn't plan and carry out the 911 attacks. This would imply that several million persons that make up the US government secretly conspired to attack it's own citizens. Quite a sizeable cabal, indeed - and equally absurd in it's premise. But key officials with enormous government power to manipulate public opinion have pursued hidden agendas throughout history. Through the use of sophisticated, carefully contrived propaganda campaigns in order to manufacture public consent for adventures and foreign expeditions. This is a fundamental, and all to frequent element and abuse of governance. To create conditions that certain events can occur, without which, previously unimagined agendas may be fulfilled. This underhandedness, this deception and manipulation, this aspect of human psychology is only appreciated with a meaningful study of history's powerful figures and their relation to history's big events. Without a clear understanding of this critical reality, the attacks of 911 can be explained, dismissed as a complete surprise against the American people - with an unsuspecting US government.
This is effectively and compellingly contradicted by an extensive body of known, readily documented facts.
According to the official story, on September 11, 2001, four commercial airliners were hijacked by groups Muslim extremists and three of them were flown into landmark US buildings. A fourth crashed into a Pennsylvania field. Very straightforward - what would be worth hiding?
Much, it seems.
Upon closer examination, many critical, yet lesser known aspects of the crime are poison to key officials and key agencies. The events leading to the attacks, the failures to intervene militarily during the attacks and especially, the stunning secrecy surrounding each aspect of the crime in the aftermath - when agencies and officials are called to account is where the demons reside - in the details.
Why were the repeated, urgent and specific warnings of an unprecedented terrorist attack ignored by the Bush inner circle? With the CIA director George Tenet later proclaiming that the US intelligence system was "blinking red", why was antiterrorism expert Richard Clarke removed from Bush's inner circle by Condoleezza Rice in the months before the attacks?
In the first eight months of the Bush administration, with unprecedented warnings coming from at least eleven foreign intelligence agencies in addition to over 40 Daily Presidential Briefs with urgent warnings, the bombing of the USS Cole and the bombings of two US embassies abroad yet to be addressed, why did the Bush administration reduce antiterror funding - right up until the attacks of 911?
Why did the Bush administration ardently oppose ANY investigation from the start? Why did both Bush - and later Cheney - contact the democratic Congressional leadership to warn that "the democrats would pay a high price" for an investigation into 911 of too much depth'?
Why was a team of legal specialists assembled by Bush insiders to select the members that would make up the 911 Commission? Why was the 911 Commission staffed with well-engrained, political insiders - all steeped in conflicts of interest in their official duty, supposedly "to offer the fullest possible account of the 911 attacks"?
With subpeona power, why did the 911 Commission receive, (and not object), when they received less than 3,000 of the 12,000 documents that it requested from the White House?
Why did the arrangement that compelled National Security Advisor Rice to testify before the Commission include provisions excluding sworn testimony from Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, or any other White House officials?
Why were decades long Bush family ties with the bin Laden family and the Saudi Royal family completely suppressed throughout the congressional investigation and deliberately omitted by the 911 Commission?
(A twenty-eight page, highly detailed report of these critical connections was reviewed and suppressed by both "investigative committees", as per White House demands.)