From counterknowldege.com
(1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the
most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the
Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing
as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan,
and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May
2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections,
p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy,
who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together,
and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the
Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If
Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah
Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New
York and Washington?(2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government
had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures,
much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If
9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined
plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US
government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?(3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman
al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in
Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why
did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and
go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by
the USA?(4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush
administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade
Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for
such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom
the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan
of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin
Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If
9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention
by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the
Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe
that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the
case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government
was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in
the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists
given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an
Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being
asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they
would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies.
Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why
were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu
Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to
Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe
that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies
Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up
a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to
implicate the latter?(6) Following on from this point, if the
identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why
did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that
citizens from their own countries were involved? What
incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people
had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate
in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli
interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of
one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the
destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country
(truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is
logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to
9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see
Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim).
The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their
former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would
not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on
their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s
invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans
considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to
use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring
Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General
Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the
military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in
mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any
attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside
job, how could the US government realistically presume that the
Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime
change against the Taliban?(8) Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil?
Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its
alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as
a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political
consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly
pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in
a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when
you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility
is ever disclosed?(9) Following on from this, assuming that
the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what
kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise
themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the
five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US
government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two
months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?(10) If the WTC towers in New York City
were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government
agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up
these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why
concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then
crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving
remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the
towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical
errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?(11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where
were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade
Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in
October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was
to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then
why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were
overthrown?(12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists
to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September
2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the
Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it
has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian
Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF
personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in
their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and
the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?(13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September
attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed
their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why
are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin
Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly
from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?(14) If the hijacking and crashing of four
passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93
crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it
into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further
inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the
supposed perpetrators?(15) Finally, if the US government is
institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands
of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it
too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers”
(David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose
Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one
of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own
people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a
position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print
and online?
