Is The “Official 9/11 Story” Coming Apart At The Seams?
By Eresh Omar Jamal
10 June, 2016
Anyone who is even barely informed knows by now that the “official 9/11 story” is a complete fantasy. The event did, however, provide the US government with a “catastrophic and catalysing event like a new pearl harbour,” which the Project for the New American Century — co-written by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz along with seven other individuals, who went onto serve for the Bush administration — said was needed, 9 months before 9/11 happened, to bring about “revolutionary changes” and “secure energy supplies” for the US.
From having the only skyscrapers in history anywhere in the world to ever even fall down from a fire, let alone vertically on its own footprint, which thousands of engineers and experts from other fields say is impossible, to having “3 skyscrapers fall vertically down on its own footprint after being hit by 2 planes”, the official 9/11 story is one of the most imaginative, yet, hard to believe fairy-tales of our time. That is right. Remember building 7? It also collapsed vertically down on its own footprint after NOT being hit by a plane in the same fashion as the twin towers did, in the same way that buildings come down during controlled demolitions as confirmed by engineers and other experts.
Pointing out the many holes in the official 9/11 story, however, is not the point of this article. All I want to point out to the reader before proceeding any further is that whatever happened, the “official story is a lie” and that the “US government was surely involved” in it somehow, as the world’s most sophisticated aerospace defence system — the North American Aerospace Defence Command — which protects North America from any such attacks completely, had stood down on September 11, 2001, and many whistleblowers have even said that the orders to stand down came from the highest levels of government. Despite all of this and more, there is no way, as of yet, to confirm what really happened — all we can do is speculate. That may, however, well be changing.
First, let me speculate based on my research of the event and from testimonies of various whistleblowers as to what really happened. What I believe happened was that the US government had funded various elements within Saudi Arabia (among others) to carry out many aspects of the 9/11 attack (for example, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were allegedly from Saudi Arabia), so that it can invade other countries to serve the interest of the Anglo-American elite, based on false allegations against those innocent countries. 9/11 was a false flag attack, just like hundreds of others carried out by various governments around the world, throughout history.
It is already well known that the US government and the CIA have had close ties with various groups in Saudi Arabia, including the Saudi royal family, for years. Various sources within the US establishment has even suggested that the attackers of 9/11 were funded by members close to, or even belonging to, the Saudi royal family. But that aside, I believe that the US government had primarily ran the whole show, hoping that they would be able to bury the evidence implicating the various elements within Saudi Arabia to the events of 9/11 so as to eradicate the trail, which would eventually lead to them. That is precisely why the establishment had tried so hard, and continues to, to keep 28-pages of the 9/11 Commission Report classified, as according to some within the US government who has looked at those pages, “it clearly implicates the Saudi regime”. And it is the push to declassify those 28-pages that is blowing the lid anew, on the “official 9/11 story”.
Turning on each other
Given the talks of declassifying those 28-pages along with the US government allowing the 9/11 victims’ families to sue the Saudi government for damages through the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, the Saudi press recently claimed what is, perhaps, already well known, that the 9/11 attacks were a false flag operation run by the US government. On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat published an article written by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, arguing that “The US itself had planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, placing the blame on a shifting series of others — first Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and now Saudi Arabia (“Article In Saudi Daily: US Planned, Carried Out 9/11 Attacks — But Blames Others For Them”, Middle East Media Research Institute, May 19, 2016).”
Al-Shammari’s article states that:
“Those who follow American policy see that it is built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities. This is because it occasionally presents a certain topic to a country that it does not wish [to bring up] at that time but [that it is] reserving in its archives as an ace to play [at a later date] in order to pressure that country. Anyone revisiting... [statements by] George HW Bush regarding Operation Desert Storm might find that he acknowledged that the US Army could have invaded Iraq in the 1990s, but that [the Americans] had preferred to keep Saddam Hussein around as a bargaining chip for [use against] other Gulf states. However, once the Shi’ite wave began to advance, the Americans wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, since they no longer saw him as an ace up their sleeve.
September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyse the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the US. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings... Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation — they were not the reason for the collapse.”
It further says that the events of 9/11 gave the US government the ability to do certain things. For one, “The US [government] created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy — terrorism — which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country.” Second, that it allowed the US government to launch “a new age of global armament”. And third, it made the American people “choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country’s budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars.” Concluding that, “the nature of the US is [such that] it cannot exist without an enemy”.
Only a few days later, on May 21, 2016, The New York Times ran an article titled, “How Kosovo Was Turned Into Fertile Ground for ISIS”, which said:
“Saudi money and influence have transformed this once-tolerant Muslim society at the hem of Europe into a front of Islamic extremism and a pipeline for jihadists. Kosovo now finds itself, like the rest of Europe, fending off the threat of radical Islam… Kosovo now has over 800 mosques, 240 of them built since the war and blamed for helping indoctrinate a new generation in Wahhabism. They are part of what moderate imams and officials here describe as a deliberate, long-term strategy by Saudi Arabia to reshape Islam in its image, not only in Kosovo but around the world… Saudi diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks in 2015 reveal a system of funding for mosques, Islamic centres and Saudi-trained clerics that spans Asia, Africa and Europe.”
The article then goes onto grave details about Saudi involvement with extremists and the spread of extremism. Now, the question is, given that the US government has tried so hard to protect its close allies from being implicated with the 9/11 attacks before — both Saudi Arabia and Israel — especially through its propaganda machine, why did The New York Times run such an article? Dr Paul Craig Roberts, who was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Ronald Reagan, writes:
“One possible answer is that the public’s confidence in the 9/11 story is eroding as a result of growing expert opinion that challenges the official line. In order to redirect the public’s scepticism, a red herring is being pulled across the trail. The Saudi angle satisfies the belief that some sort of government coverup is involved but ‘redirects’ [emphasis mine] the suspicion from Washington to the Saudis... We are probably experiencing a deep state disinformation play designed to protect the false 9/11 story. The public’s scepticism is now directed at Saudi Arabia, and the public’s outrage is directed at the US government for covering up for the Saudis.”
Interestingly enough, the NYT in an editorial on May 27, 2016, wrote that “Saudi Arabia has frustrated American policy makers for years”. This was because the Saudis have sponsored “extremist clerics” who are “fostering violent jihad”, creating a “fertile ground for recruitment to radical ideology”. What is interesting is that, even if all of that is true, it was the US that had turned Kosovo into a failed state to begin with, prompting for its secession from Serbia in 2008. So if Washington is now willing to scapegoat Saudi Arabia for the disaster (or part of it) that it brought to Kosovo, there is no reason to believe that it will not do the same when it comes to the events of 9/11. As Finian Cunningham pointed out in a piece for RT, “Dishing the dirt on the Saudis over Kosovo is but one aspect of a larger emerging narrative in Washington. One which seeks to offload responsibility for international terrorism, instability and conflict on to America’s Arab allies... Washington is setting the Saudi rulers up to take the rap for a myriad of evils that arguably it has much more responsibility for. The question is: how much can the strategic alliance between the US and its Saudi partner bear — before a straw breaks the camel’s back? (“US stabs Saudi ‘ally’ in the back — again — with terror scapegoating”, RT, June 2).”
Breaking the camel’s back
It seems that Washington is clearly setting the Saudis up to take the fall should the 9/11 cover-up start to unravel even further, as evident from the New York Times’ “new narrative” (which had already been popularised by the alternate media). The Saudis, it seems, can already see the guns being pointed at its direction. That is why the Saudi press had published that piece in the first place. All of this has the potential to finally bring an end to the strategic alliance between Washington and Saudi Arabia which has brought so much death and destruction to the world and, with it, bring the official 9/11 story come crashing down on its head. So, is the “official 9/11 story” coming apart at the seams? Given the amount of suffering that has been brought to so many innocent people around the world based on that false story by its authors, one can only hope so. For those of you who feel the same way, please spread the word, and share this article, and help the “official 9/11 story” come apart at the seams, as it should have, a long time ago.
Eresh Omar Jamal is an editorial assistant at New Age, a leading English daily newspaper in Bangladesh. He has done a Specialised Honours in Financial and Business Economics from York University, Canada. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.