Like Iraq, the "Facts" Regarding 9/11 Were "Fixed Around the Policy" → Washingtons Blog
Like Iraq, the "Facts" Regarding 9/11 Were "Fixed Around the Policy" - Washingtons Blog

Monday, May 18, 2009

Like Iraq, the "Facts" Regarding 9/11 Were "Fixed Around the Policy"

3 facts show that the government "fixed the facts" regarding 9/11 around a policy decision to exonerate the government from any blame whatsoever.

1. 9/11 Commission's Chief Counsel says Official Story "Almost Entirely Untrue . . . There Was an Agreement Not to Tell the Truth about What Happened"

As Daily Kos notes in a recent recommended story, the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission - John Farmer - states in a new book that the official story of 9/11 "almost entirely untrue".

As I noted last month, he also says:

At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.


I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true.

If you think that Farmer has gone nuts, you should see what his colleagues on the 9/11 Commission say.

2. The Government Used Communist-Style "Minders" to Intimidate Witnesses

The government used "minders" to intimidate witnesses to the 9/11 Commission. In fact, according to an internal memo:

  • Minders “answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses;”

  • Minders acted as “monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.” The staff thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution;” and

  • Minders “positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions.”

3. The Main Sources of Information Were Not Even Remotely Credible

The fact that people were tortured in order to justify the Iraq war by making a false linkage between Iraq and 9/11 is gaining attention.

Many people are starting to understand that top Bush administration officials not only knowingly lied about a non-existent connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, but they pushed and insisted that interrogators use special torture methods aimed at extracting false confessions to attempt to create such a false linkage.

Indeed, the Senate Armed Services Committee found that the U.S. used torture techniques specifically aimed at extracting false confessions (and see this).

And as Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

But many people still assume that the basics of the 9/11 Commission Report must be accurate, and based on reliable evidence. However, that is incorrect.

For example, according to NBC news:

  • Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
  • At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being "tortured."
  • One of the Commission's main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
  • The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves
In fact, the self-confessed "mastermind" of 9/11 also confessed to crimes which he could not have committed. He later said that he gave the interrogators a lot of false information - telling them what he thought they wanted to hear - in an attempt to stop the torture. We also know that he was heavily tortured specifically for the purpose of trying to obtain false information about 9/11 - specifically, that Iraq had something to do with it.

(By the way, the supposed corroborating witness who "independently" fingered the "mastermind" was clinically crazy, so his testimony would be thrown out in any real trial).

Remember, as discussed above, the torture techniques used by the Bush administration to try to link Iraq and 9/11 were specifically geared towards creating false confessions (they were techniques created by the communists to be used in show trials).

So why do people believe the torture confessions regarding 9/11 itself?

The above-linked NBC news report quotes a couple of legal experts to this effect:

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says he is "shocked" that the Commission never asked about extreme interrogation measures.

"If you’re sitting at the 9/11 Commission, with all the high-powered lawyers on the Commission and on the staff, first you ask what happened rather than guess," said Ratner, whose center represents detainees at Guantanamo. "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, therefore their conclusions are suspect."...

Karen Greenberg, director of the Center for Law and Security at New York University’s School of Law, put it this way: "[I]t should have relied on sources not tainted. It calls into question how we were willing to use these interrogations to construct the narrative."
The interrogations were "used" to "construct the narrative" which the 9/11 Commission decided to use.

Remember (as explored in the book The Commission by respected journalist Philip Shenon), that the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission was an administration insider whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true. He wrote an outline of what he wanted the report to say very early in the process, controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article).


  1. You idiot! All this wasted space trying to prove the obvious only to backtrack on the most important point at the end. 9/11 WAS an inside job! Here: Science paper published in peer-reviewed science journal PROVES 9/11 WTC collapse was an inside job! The result of the use of an explosive substance only available to the military.

  2. I agree with ghamal. What's the point of maintaining this taboo? We're exposing the sordid underbelly of American society in so many other areas, why not go all the way? It was a Mossad job that our spooks were aware of, blessed by a bunch of big fat Texas oil men.

  3. I am afraid that your "four possibilities" are far from being exhaustive. There is now a very large body of literature showing that 9/11 could not possibly have been carried out by the 19 designated patsies. For example, the FBI's evidence to the Moussaui trial discredited the whole cell phone narrative. Barbara Olsen's alleged calls to her husband the Solicitor General was the sole source of the "Muslim hijacker" meme. The FBI said there were no such calls.
    The article published in the Open Physics Chemical Journal (2009) by Harrit et al
    is the final nail in the coffin of the official story regarding the "collapse" of WTC 1, 2 and 7. They wre brought down with nano-thermite which is not something you buy on e-bay. As to where you might get it and who knew about it see Kevin Ryan's article in the Journal of 9/11 Studies (2008).
    9/11 wasn't just to justify the war in Iraq. It is the basis of the whole range of repressive laws and policies pursued ever since. Just don't expect Obama to reverse the trend, as his latest backtracking amply confirms.

  4. Excellent essay. What some critics of it might not understand is the idea of "scope". This essay set out to provide a very cogent, very well-document argument for why the official story is fatally flawed. As such it is closer look at one pillar of the 9/11-as-government-conspiracy thesis; and this in turn makes it a very worthwhile tool in the larger argument.

    Thank you for your work.

  5. Certain contributors to 9/11 blogger are increasingly suspect as gatekeepers who ultimately work to protect Israel from implication in participating in the 9/11 false flag.

    Study the History of the attack on the USS Liberty to see this connection and the complicity of the US Government in all of it.

  6. If this *WAS* an inside job (and it has always looked likely) google (look up for yourselves) 9/11 van israel


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.