open Democracy News Analysis - What went wrong? , Paul Rogers - Comments

EDT on "What went wrong? "

EDT — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:54:07 +0000

if anyone is still following, here are additional links that challenge various conspiracy theories on 9/11. 9/11 Conspiracy Debunking Sites... A must read! 9-11 and the New Pearl Harbor http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2577/9_11_and_the_ New_Pearl_Harbor_Part_I Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories http://www.jod911.com Debunking 9/11's E-Mail - Please read the FAQ before sending debunk911@hotmail.com 911 Myths - Reading between the lines http://www.911myths.com Screw Loose Change Blog http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ Debunk 9/11 myths http://www.debunk911myths.org/ Internet Detectives Group - Loose Change http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change The 9/11 Debunker Guide http://911debunker.livejournal.com/ Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6596630292015140276&hl=en-CA 9/11, Steven Jones, and Me http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/tag/conspiracy-theories/ Your Friday Dose of Woo: And now for something completely different... http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/ your_friday_dose_of_woo_and_now_for_some.php 911 Cult Watch http://www.911cultwatch.org.uk What I Learned from 9-11 Conspiracy Theories. http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml Counterpunch The Physics of 9/11 http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html The 9/11 Faith Movement http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2702/ Attempting to make sense of senseless acts http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=903b3f4a-2e6c-47b4-b710-632c1439aacc&p=1 Did the U.S. government plan and execute the 9/11 attacks? http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/ 9/11 Conspiracy Fantasies http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/41423/ All Plots Move Deathward http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/09/06/mclemee 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2281052 Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html Popular Mechanics - 9/11: Debunking The Myths http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html Fahrenheit 2777 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000 The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll http://www.nymetro.com/news/features/16464/ Facts about 9/11. Not Fantasy http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/ The September 11 X-Files http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=66 The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic’s View http://www.crisispapers.org/essays6p/skeptic.htm Debunking the 9/11 Movement http://www.infoshop.org/texts/debunking911.html Interview with Prof. Jonathan Barnett, an expert in structural and fire protection engineering who was one of the WTC investigators http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/fall.html Public Eye - Post 9/11 Conspiracism http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/demnowfaq.html Public Eye- 9/11/01 - Repercussions General Conspiracist Views http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/conspiracist.html Perry Logon's "Delusion Central" (A fun site.) http://perrylogan.org/ Viewer Guide to Loose Change (Doc) http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide (A light hearted look) http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html Screw Loose Change Video. (Yes, it's finally here) http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/ Loose Trains http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/ Penn & Teller's Bull Shit - 911 Conspiracy theories http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+teller+911 Salon - The 9/11 deniers http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index.html SciAm blog about conspiracists' reaction to Shermer http://sciam-editor.typepad.com/weblog1/2005/05/a_conspiracy_of.html In These Times: Nightmares of Reason: Sorting fact from fiction in 9/11 conspiracy theories http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/15/feature1.shtml The September 11 X-Files http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=66 Snopes debunks "Hunt the Boeing", a conspiracy site based on Thierry Meysan’s (and David Ray Griffin’s) claim that a missile, not AA77, hit the Pentagon http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm Wikipedia articles on conspiracy theory characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracism It Was Flight 77 - Debunking Alternative Pentagon Crash Theories http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/

EDT on "What went wrong? "

EDT — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:56:58 +0000

For those interested in what physics and demolition experts have said regarding WTC 7’s collapse, as detailed in our book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics offers these notes: also check out www.debunking911.com and for convenient reference i pasted an excerpt from popular mechanics re reasons wtc buildings collapsed one other thought, does anyone ask who on the U.S. side flew the planes into the towers to their death? from popular mechanics 1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris. Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told Popular Mechanics that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report, and the screengrab below of an image of WTC7's damaged south face). The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started. 2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word “melted”: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure. Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse. 3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse. NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.”

EDT on "What went wrong? "

EDT — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 04:42:37 +0000

here are some links that debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories. one should also consider why would conspirators risk exposure to collapse the towers? that planes hit the towers would have provided enough reason for a u.s. response. i do not see added value of tower collapse to justify the added risk and planning to bring the towers down with explosives. http://www.answers.com/topic/9-11-conspiracy-theories from Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...1583414B7F0000 from Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y And http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

paul.carline on "What went wrong? "

paul.carline — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:23:02 +0000

A kerosene fire cannot bring down a building. Kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt or weaken steel, and in any case most of the kerosene was burnt off outside the buildings. Don't take my word for it; check the scientific evidence. Even NIST now admits it has no convincing explanation for the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7. No other steel-framed buildings have ever collapsed in history, from any cause - including raging fire (please compare the pictures of the hotel in Madrid which burned for 24 hours, but whose structure remained undamaged, with the photos of the twin towers, where the black smoke is evidence of cool fires). Please explain how a woman was photographed standing in the impact hole and waving, hoping to be rescued. If there had been structural failure, the towers would have sagged at the impact/fire zone and the upper section would have fallen sideways into the street. That is not what happened. All three buildings fell exactly into their own footprint - and at close to freefall speed. Were the laws of physics mysteriously suspended on 9/11? I wonder if those who still maintain that the attacks came from outside have taken the trouble to look at some of the voluminous material now available which demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that this was indeed an 'inside job'. Somehow I doubt it. Depressingly, it seems that for what one can only assume are ideological and/or psychological reasons, many people refuse to even examine the facts. For those who still have something like an open mind, or a mind which demands evidence, I would ask you to take the small trouble of looking at the evidence presented by Scottish engineer Gordon Ross (www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/070707Ross.htm and www.gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html). Ross shows photographic evidence of the way the massive core columns of the twin towers were cut into sections and blasted sideways to allow the building to collapse. A final question: why did the FBI confiscate the CCTV camera tapes from two sites (a gas station and the Sheraton hotel) close to the Pentagon within 20 minutes or so of that building being hit - and why have those tapes never been released? If the official story is true, those cameras would have captured the final seconds of the alleged approach and impact of Flight 77. What possible reason could the administration have for not showing the evidence - unless the story of Flight 77 is a lie? The few frames subsequently shown alleging to be from a car park camera show no plane, merely a suspiciously bright orange explosion - and the frames bear the wrong date. What kind of person would prefer to believe this stuff?

sidelineobserver on "What went wrong? "

sidelineobserver — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 17:18:59 +0000

Paul Rodgers offers a well written and insightful article into the GWOT to date. 'dohenyjc''s reply is unfair. Paul Rodgers explains what went wrong, mainly that the attacks of September 11th 2001 should have been treated as a international criminal act, that required a co-ordinated international policing action. Instead the US chose to respond using military force. The attacks by AQ attempted to draw American forces in Afghanistan, however, instead America backed the Northern Alliance and made heavy use of special forces and aerial attacks. This ensured that the Taliban were defeated before substantial numbers of American soldiers entered Afghanistan, thus removing most of the Taliban and denying them substantial American targets. However, the Taliban were not totally defeated and regrouped in Northern Pakistan and re-emerged to attack coalition forces. Meanwhile in Iraq, coalition forces successfully removed Saddam Hussein but without any security forces or government to support their counter-insurgency efforts, paired with an under-estimation of the requirements to re-build Iraq infrastructure, has resulted in chaos. A co-ordinated international policing action to bring those responsible to justice wouldn't have been easy but would have received international support and removed any support for AQ. The result of western forces invading two Muslim countries only served to reinforce AQ's image of 'a clash of civilizations' with the 'west attempting to destroy the Muslim way of life.' The military action merely increased AQ's supporters and granted them greater resources and publicity. Terrorism is a illegal act and the use of force by terrorists does not justify using military forces against these criminals. Terrorism is therefore a matter for the police and security services, an international terrorist attack should have received a international policing response. Using the military to capture or defeat terrorists is inappropriate especially if the terrorists are based in a foreign nation. The key in any counter-terrorist or counter-insurgency campaign is the people of the state because by winning their support you deny it to the terrorists. The US failed to see how military intervention would be portrayed by AQ, and didn't identify the support base of AQ as being Muslim and it was their support which was vital to win in order to defeat AQ. The problem I believe lies in the current US mindset that violence should be met by violence and that any other response is weak and insufficient. The damage has already been done and it will take decades to reverse its impact and to defeat AQ.

EDT on "What went wrong? "

EDT — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:25:06 +0000

raghuvanshiramesh, i do not wish to defend every u.s. action of the last 60 years, however: between perl harbor and hiroshima and nagasaki were years of hard fought wars which included japanese kamakazi suicide attacks. there was reason to fear that a land invasion of japan would lead to the loss of countless lives on both sides. books are written on the debate as to the justification of dropping the atom bomb. president truman and advisors weighed their decision, while i question it, your comment trivializes a complex history. i disagree with much of u.s. policy in vietnam, and the geopolitical logic of the domino theory. that said, the landscape of asia was far different in the 60s with strong communist movements in many countries. many bad decisions were made in the fight against communism but having spent time in communist countries and read the history of stalin, mao, pol pot, etc. i believe that the defeat of communism was an important triumph for humankind. contrary to your statement, there is significant evidence that the taliban led afghan govenment harbored al qaeda. in any case, the taliban terrorized the afghan people. i do believe overthrow of the taliban was justified. the u.s. however, should have helped afghanistan much more after the russians were expelled, which might have prevented the rise of the taliban and al qaeda, and should have devoted more resources to afghanistan after the taliban was toppled. i disagreed with the invasion of iraq, though it did have some justification. hussein was a terror to his own people and a threat to regional and global stability. speaking about "suicidal mentality," please consider the # or innocent civillians who have been killed by the sucicidal mentality of suicide bombers.

raghuvanshiramesh on "What went wrong? "

raghuvanshiramesh — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:31:51 +0000

Agenocidal mentality is indubitably at the very heart of American psyche.This psyche is there from very beginning.When Japan attacted on perl harber, U.S. through atombomb on Japan. Viatnam did not obey order of U.S. same thing repeated, There was no evidence Afgan behind on11/ 9 attact ,U.S. started war against Afaganishan , same drama play against Iraq. This is all sucidical mentalitry of U.S. American never read history so they never learn from history.

EDT on "What went wrong? "

EDT — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 05:34:44 +0000

paul, thank you for sharing your background and credentials. i have no expertise in the area of structural design, but when i hear about the amount of jet fuel that was in those planes and the steel melting temperatures that likely existed in the towers, it does not seem impossible that a catastrophic collapse occurred that was not predicted and cannot be fully understood since some details are speculation. As for wt7, i felt the ground shake when each tower collapsed which surely could have the weakened wt7 structure, and do they really know what might have fallen onto wt7 as towers collapsed? watching the plane hit the south tower and explode in flames, it does not surprise me that there would be little evidence of bodies, but the body and plane parts that my friend saw on his office building just south of the former bankers trust now deutsche building would seem to be evidence that there were passengers on the plane. i suspect if you took a manifest from the flights and then looked for funerals of the names, you would find most of them. the most compelling reason for being a conspiracy sceptic is that the official explanation seems perfectly credible. that a group of educated, mostly, Saudis, fell under the spell of extremism and planned and committed the wtc attacks. books and books and books were written about the kennedy assassination and little was concluded or proven. i simply don't believe that a conspiracy of this complexity could be executed without any direct revelations. this is not tv. and as much as i do not like this administration, and particularly the influence of VP Cheney, i do not believe they are capable of these allegations.

eeh100 on "What went wrong? "

eeh100 — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:46:36 +0000

Elie Elhadj - London The causes of Jihadism (fighting in defense of Islam) are many and inter-connected: Islamist extremism; tyrannical Arab rulers; U.S. support of Arab rulers, Israel’s humiliation of the Arab peoples, and now the occupation of Iraq. Political frustrations have been translated into Jihadism. By focusing on “freedom deficit,” the diagnosis and cure to terrorism become like voodoo medicine. To pretend that the causes are unconnected is to breed more terrorism. To end terrorism: 1. Arab rulers should secularize and democratize; at least become benevolent dictators. 2. Washington should help de-politicize the Bible and the Quran in the Arab-Israeli conflict. 3. The U.S. should end the occupation of Iraq. Are these remedies attainable? 1. To secularize, an Arab Muslim Martin Luther is needed to manumit the Muslim mind from the debilitating grip of the Ulama (Muslim clerics). However, the Arab masses, Ulama, and rulers would resist. The masses are inseparable from Islam. Islam is an Arabic religion. The Prophet, His Companions, the Quran, and the holy sanctuaries in Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem are all Arabic. In the Quran’s, the Arab peoples are: “The best of peoples evolved for mankind” (Verse 3:110). To the Ulama, maintaining Sharia (Islamic law) rigidity maintains their jobs. As for the rulers, Islam prolongs their tyranny. Pandering Ulama preach constantly: “Obey God and obey God’s messenger and obey those of authority among you” (Quran 4:59). They also quote the Prophet: “Hear and obey the emir, even if your back is whipped and your property is taken; hear and obey.” 2. Arab democracy is a mirage. The Arab masses: poor, illiterate, superstitious, and under the spell of the Ulama are politically quietist. The minority of Islamists are theocratic dictators. The minority of intellectuals has little popular support. Arab rulers fear that true democratic reforms would end their rule. The generals substitute one dictator for another. Also, Washington’s traditional fear of Islamist regimes kept Arab democracy at bay for decades. The American devastation of Iraq in the name of democracy has repelled the masses from this lofty ideal. Instead of chasing a mirage, Washington would do better to support benevolent dictatorships and fight Islamist extremism, starting with Wahhabism. 3. De-politicizing the Bible and the Quran is a fantasy. Politicizing Genesis 15:18 politicized the Quran. That: “The Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates” radicalized despairing Arabs, fuelling a Jihad that could last for a thousand years. A purely Jewish state is impossible to attain unless the Palestinians vanish. Western democratic and secular ideals ought to inspire a single, democratic, and secular state for Palestinians and Jews instead of the two-state solution. A single-state eliminates the obstacles that have bedeviled the two-state solution since the 1993 Oslo Agreement: Jerusalem, borders, security, water, settlements, and the refugees’ right-of-return. However, confident in a superior military might and unlimited U.S. support, Zionist politics will not give up the Bible. 4. Closing Pandora’s box in Iraq has become impossible. Iraq will be remembered as Washington’s gift to Shii Iran: a watershed since Saladin ended the rule of the Shii Fatimids in Cairo in 1171, a triumph for Shiism. Iran’s goal to control Southern Iraq is age-old. Southern Iraq houses the holiest of holy Shii shrines, plus ninety billion barrels of crude oil. Shii minorities in Arab countries seek Iran’s help to end Sunni subjugation. Sectarian conflicts would go on breeding hoards of Jihadists; until the Sunni majorities, either accept the march of Shiism or stop it. It may be predicted that unless occupation, injustice, and humiliation are ended the War on Terrorism would be un-winnable. The confrontation today involves fundamentalist politicians brandishing the Quran and the Bible. The confrontation threatens to engulf the masses, East and West, a “clash of civilizations.” Elie Elhadj; author: The Islamic Shield http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1599424118 Also: http://journals.aol.com/eeh100/daring-opinion/

paul.carline on "What went wrong? "

paul.carline — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:34:37 +0000

Just for the record, let me quote the personal statement of one of the qualified architects who is a member of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. He is David Johnson, FAICP, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning, the University of Texas and author of a number of books and articles on planning American cities, including New York. Dear Mr. Gage [Richard Gage is a practising architect and founder of AE911Truth], Thank you for taking on the architectural and engineering review of the collapses on 9/11 of the buildings at the World Trade Center site. I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit ... so I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns surrounding the elevators and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design. When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not have come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers ... could also not have occurred simply with a structral collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur. Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out. What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. [ I believe David Johnson to be mistaken on this point. The extremely complex attacks, which included the disablement of the Pentagon defence systems and CCTV cameras, the apparent stand-down order on military jets, the organisation of multiple war-games which included placing fake blips on the radar screens of air traffic controllers, could not have been carried out without some complicity within certain levels of the government and military; many researchers point to Vice-President Cheney as a key figure]. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea. But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water.

paul.carline on "What went wrong? "

paul.carline — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:11:38 +0000

I deal in facts, not theories. It is, for example, a simple fact - not a conspiracy theory, or even a "conspiracy to create a conspiracy" - that the official story is itself a conspiracy theory - the conspiracy said to have been masterminded by Osama bin Laden (for which the FBI says it has no evidence). There are alternative theories, also conspiracy theories, with different sets of conspirators. The choice between them should rest solely on the known and observed facts - not on vague psychological theorising by EDT or anyone else. That was the dishonest approach of the BBC in its "Conspiracy Files" series, and of 'Popular Mechanics' in the US. When I stated that there was no wreckage, seats, bodies etc., I was referring specifically - as can be clearly seen - to the two planes alleged to have crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville. The local coroner at Shanksville reported that he had stopped being a coroner after five minutes because there was not a trace of blood or body parts. EDT fails to comment on the sheer impossibility of finding any DNA at all under the alleged circumstances. There were indeed body parts - extremely small ones - found at or near the World Trade Center. Some bone fragments were discovered much later on top of one of the nearby buildings - I think it was the Deutsche Bank. I am not aware, however, that they have been positively identified as belonging to any of the passengers or crew supposed to have been on either of the two allegedly 'hijacked' aircraft. People working in the towers were blown to smithereens when the towers were demolished by high explosives. The force of the detonations hurled large pieces of steel hundreds of feet upwards and sideways, some of them becoming lodged like spears in nearby buildings. More than 1,000 of the victims were never identified, so comprehensively had their bodies been disintegrated. No 'pancake' collapse due to structural failure could produce these effects. But not one of the four jet engines from the two WTC planes was found. Part of one engine was indeed discovered in a nearby street - but it did not match the type of engine on the jets alleged to have hit the towers. Again, it is a simple error of logic to assume that because people disappeared, they must have been on one of the planes which hit the towers. That is an inference which cannot be shown to be true. In any case, the fact that people disappeared does not argue in favour of the official story; disappearing people fit the 'alternative' conspiracy theory just as well (actually, better, simply because the official story lacks any confirming facts). EDT's position on WTC 7 is equally illogical. The undeniable fact is that the building collapsed in a manner which can only have occurred as a result of a pre-planned controlled demolition - an explanation confirmed by the leaseholder Larry Silverstein. Does EDT have some other explanation which fits the facts? A controlled demolition could not have been carried out by any group of external terrorists. The building was a high-security building because it housed, among other things, the emergency control room of Mayor Guiliani and offices of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). Interestingly, those SEC offices held thousands of files relating to commercial fraud of the Enron type. In whose interest might it have been to destroy them? Not the supposed 'terrorists'. But their destruction - and the destruction of the entire WTC site - was certainly in the interests of the 'inside job' conspirators. The WTC was a commercial liability. It made perfect commercial sense to clear the site entirely - quite apart from the "shock and awe" televised effect of the events. It must be remembered that ALL the buildings on the site were destroyed, not just the three steel-framed towers - a 'cheap' method of site clearance - except for the unfortunate fact that more people will die from inhaling toxic dust than died on the day: the EPA said that the air was "fit to breathe" after only 48 hours (so as to allow Wall Street to be reopened). It was in fact lethal, but rescue workers were allowed to work without face masks. EDT's attempt to debunk the 9/11 Truth Movement by suggestive but superficial and flawed psychologising does not wash. The facts will not go away and he has so far presented no facts to corroborate the official story. His alleged 'conspiracy to create conspiracies' (a figment of his imagination) now numbers very many substantial 'conspirators'. They include the 71 Full Members and 156 Associate Members of the US-based Scholars for 911 Truth (www.911scholars.org), the 52 core members of Pilots for 911 Truth (www.pilotsfor911truth.org), the 545 members of Veterans for 911 Truth, the 229 professional members and 595 supporters of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (www.ae911.org) and the hundreds of members of Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice (www.stj911.org), which produces a peer-reviewed journal (www.journalof 911studies.com). They include such distinguished people as former German minister Andreas von Buelow; Captain Russ Wittenberg, former USAF, PanAm and UA pilot with 30,000+ hours of flying time - including experience with Boeing's 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 aircraft; Col. Robert Bowman, who directed all the 'Star Wars' programmes under Presidents Ford and Carter and is a leading expert on National Security; Col. George Nelson, licensed commercial pilot and air accident investigator; Col. Michael Harley, command pilot and 34 years as a USAF accident investigator; Prof. Steven Jones, physics professor; Dr. Judy Wood, expert in civil engineering, mechanical engineering and materials engineering science; Kenyon Gibson, ex-US Naval Intelligence; Wayne Madsen, ex-communications security analyst with the NSA and former intelligence officer in the USMC; Prof. A.K. Dewdney, mathematician and computer scientist (who proved that the cellphone calls allegedly made from Flight 93 must have been faked). Are we really expected to believe EDT (rather than the experts mentioned above) when he asserts (without evidence) that all these people (and the many thousands more who are active in the 911 Truth Movement) are deluded? That all their painstaking investigative work - which shows that the only valid theory which fits the facts is that of an 'inside job' - is in error? If he is aware of any evidence which specifically confirms the US government's account let him have the courage to state it. Vague innuendo about the motives of those who are seeking the truth about 9/11 will not do.

EDT on "What went wrong? "

EDT — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:04:05 +0000

Paul carline is part of a conspiracy, perhaps unknowingly. but nevertheless he is an unwitting accomplice. He claims that on 9/11 planes left “no wreckage - no engines, no seats, no luggage, no bodies..." What of my close friend whose office was in a low rise building near the towers, what of the body parts he found strewn on the roof along with wreakage? I myself, standing just southwest of the towers, saw the second plane hit, first hearing the roar of jet engines as I watched the plane bank into the tower. my wife witnessed the 1st plane strike the north. Another friend in Boston, from where one plane departed, knew people who were killed in these crashes. These incidents were real. As for the mystery of the collapse of world trade 7? first, if there was a conspiracy, what reason would the conspirators want to collapse WT7? This would risk exposure with no real benefit? It makes no sense. In the world of the conspiracy to create conspiracies, hundreds if not thousands of individuals are all bound together in secrecy to engineer some secret plot. I’m not a psychologist, but perhaps the desire to be “in the know” while others are fools or conspiracy participants elevates the self-worth of the conspiracy fanatics? It must take some time to remember all the details of these conspiracies, but there’s the excitement an thrill of putting all the pieces together. I don’t deny there are conspiracies out there, but most of the people who waste their lives conjecturing conspiracies based on their own world views and prejudices, are not likely to figure them out.

paul.carline on "What went wrong? "

paul.carline — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:20:26 +0000

Who was behind 9/11 should not be "open to debate" (except for the specific identities of the perpetrators) - at least if it is implied by that expression that there is any genuine doubt that the official story is a lie. There is none. Nothing in the official account matches the facts. NIST conceded some time ago that it had no explanation for the collapse of WTC7. More recently it has admitted that it cannot satisfactorily explain the disintegration of WTC1 & 2. It is really only the extremely gullible, or those ideologically committed to the superficially plausible but wholly unsupported 'blowback' thesis, who are still prepared to believe the official story that on 9/11 two 100-ton airliners 'vapourised', leaving no wreckage - no engines, no seats, no luggage, no bodies - but that the identity of the passengers and crew was determined by DNA analysis. This is an 'Emperor's New Clothes' fairy tale of astounding proportions. 'What went wrong' must be traced back several decades. It lies in American dreams of empire which go back several decades and in the preparedness of successive governments - both Republican and Democrat - to murder (or, in the case of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbour, knowingly allow to be murdered) their own citizens for political and military ends in 'false-flag' events which can plausibly be blamed on the ennemi du jour. It happened in the first WTC bombing in 1993, again in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, and most spectacularly to date on 9/11. It would be foolish and dangerous to assume that the strategy has been abandoned. There is every reason to expect something even more 'spectacular' and horrible; the trailing of an "inevitable" and possibly imminent 'dirty bomb' attack in the UK by the Deputy Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police recently may well indicate that plans for such an event are already underway - possibly designed to provide the pretext for an attack on Iran. Until the dirty secret of state-sponsored false-flag terrorism (a part of the original plan to destabilise Iraq which has involved British special forces engaging in murderous 'black-ops') is exposed there can be no peace and no democracy anywhere. One might expect an organisation like OpenDemocracy to be at the forefront of efforts to tell the truth about government-sponsored terrorism and the subversion of democracy. That it is not - and that it makes regular use of such purveyors of disinformation as Paul Rogers - suggests that it may be part of the cover-up designed to perpetuate the myths governments use to keep the population asleep and malleable.

whealthinc on "What went wrong? "

whealthinc — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:06:07 +0000

Who was behind 9/11 may well be open to debate. The significant point for me in this article was that the U.S made the wrong response. Instead of instigating a 'war on terror', that act and others should've been treated as transnational crimes.

Typeface on "What went wrong? "

Typeface — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:40:20 +0000

It is a shame that the quality of the article is not matched by the comments !

What went wrong? , Paul Rogers

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:48:09 +0000

The world is in the seventh year of a war with no end in sight. A short six years ago, in late December 2001, it all looked very different. A United States-led campaign had terminated the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the talk in Washington was already about moving on to deal with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. After the visceral shock of the 9/11 atrocities, the George W Bush administration was on a roll - indeed the sheer force of what was just beginning to be called the "war on terror" was already beginning to recapture the vision of a "new American century".

Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001In January 2002, the president's state-of-the-union address celebrated victory in Afghanistan and extended the war against al-Qaida to an "axis of evil" of rogue states (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea). The message was toughened in his speech at a graduation ceremony at West Point in June 2002, when he reaffirmed America's right to pre-empt future threats.

It was becoming clear that the Taliban regime was just the first to be eliminated, and that Washington's ambitions extended to "regime change" in a number of countries. In its international relationships, moreover, the mantra became "you are with us or against us" - even more so as preparations to confront Iraq intensified in 2002-03.

The demolition of the Saddam Hussein regime in the war of March-April 2003 was acclaimed in a further grandstanding speech on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in May, against the backdrop of a giant banner reading "mission accomplished". At that, perhaps the high point of American hubris - with Afghanistan and Iraq counted as successes, and before the insurgency in Iraq had reached a critical point - the way seemed clear for Washington's larger, audacious political and military project: the wholesale transformation of the middle east and its own peripheries.

Afghanistan itself was planned to evolve into a pro-American state with permanent military bases at Bagram and Kandahar; the country would also provide easy access for new oil pipelines to the Indian Ocean. In the neighbourhood, the bases established in Uzbekistan (and perhaps other central Asian states) would both ensure greatly increased US influence in the oil-rich regions around the Caspian basin and perform the critical geopolitical task of countering the influence of Russia and China.

The dream project

This alone was an extraordinary vision, but Iraq would be an even greater prize. There, Saddam Hussein's dominion had now been replaced by the comprehensive control of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) under its viceroy, Paul Bremer. The convenient rewriting of the CPA's history suggests that it represented and oversaw little more than unplanned chaos. This is incorrect: the reality was of a precise neo-conservative plan to create a client regime based on an extraordinarily sweeping free-market economy. The intention was to undertake comprehensive privatisation of all state assets (in which foreign investors would included Israeli companies), heavy foreign involvement in the oil industry, a flat-rate tax system, all underpinned by a virtual absence of financial regulation. The imagined result would be a sort of "dream economy", one impossible to create in the United States itself, given the annoying presence of trade unions, citizen movements, business regulations and other hindrances.

In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group; for details, click here

Paul Rogers's most recent book is Why We're Losing the War on Terror (Polity, 2007) - an analysis of the strategic misjudgments of the post-9/11 and why a new security paradigm is needed

The United States would support this economic fantasy by entrenching in power a client Iraqi state, protecting (and overseeing) it via a network of major military bases across the country. The fact that a tenth of the world's oil reserves were under Iraqi soil and waters (four times that of the whole of the US, including Alaska) meant that a US-controlled Iraq would greatly improve oil security in the homeland. Perhaps best of all, the success of this strategy would constrain the real enemy, Iran - to the extent that it might not even prove necessary to terminate the Tehran regime. After all, with two of Iran's neighbours (Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the west) firmly in American hands, and with the US navy controlling the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, the ruling elite in Tehran - whatever its political colour - would hesitatebefore risking its now vulnerable national security.

The great chasm

This, in May 2003, was the plan and the expectation. How do they look in the cold light of reality?

In Afghanistan, Taliban and other militias have made a remarkable comeback and are now tying down over 50,000 foreign troops. Across the border in western Pakistan, large areas are out of government control and available to al-Qaida, Taliban and their affiliates as safe territory from which to prepare, launch and recover from operations (see Antonio Giustozzi, "The rise of the neo-Taliban", 13 December 2007).

In Iraq, over 100,000 civilians have been killed directly by violence; as many as 4 million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes (nearly half of them forced to seek refuge in other countries). Tens of thousands of Iraqis have succumbed to disease and malnutrition, including diseases of poverty such as cholera. More than 100,000 Iraqis have been detained without trial. The human cost includes the death of 3,895 United States troops (as of 19 December 2007) and injuries to tens of thousands more.

In 2007, a determined surge in United States troop numbers has had some effect in curbing the violence in Iraq; though the strategy is unsustainable and has been pursued with short-term tactics that may have stored problems that will become apparent later. The rhetoric of the Bush administration about a "drawdown" in Iraq notwithstanding, the commitment to remain in Iraq is evident in the negotiation of long-term deals with the Nouri al-Maliki government and the construction of the world's largest embassy in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, the pressures on the US army in Afghanistan (as well as other Nato contingents) mean that there are calls to divert troops there. Most Nato states, however, are resolute in their determination not to commit themselves even further; it is now questionable whether the sizeable Dutch and Canadian forces will even be maintained at current levels.

Against this background, the al-Qaida movement continues to evolve. Its "brand" is capable of attracting recruits, maintaining networks, inserting itself into local conflicts, and (as in Algeria on 11 December 2007) mounting deadly operations. The use of "hard power" by the United States has proved a gift for its enemies.

The wrong response

This reality cast a sobering light on the decisions made and the thinking done in the immediate period after 11 September 2001.

From the start, the response to the atrocities in New York and Washington was wrong. The al-Qaida movement was seen as a near-satanic bunch of extremists bent solely on death and destruction instead of a complex transnational revolutionary movement centred on a perverse ideology with religious foundations. With such foundations, its leaders and ideologues did not, as those of most revolutionary movements did, expect success in their lifetimes. Even such short-term aims as the eviction of "crusader" forces from Muslim lands and the destruction of the elite regimes of the "near enemy" in the middle east could take decades; while longer-term objectives such as the establishment of an Islamist caliphate might take a century (see "Al-Qaida: time on its side", 4 June 2007)

For such an organisation, the response to its assaults by the George W Bush administration - one predicated almost entirely on the use of force - was exactly what it wanted. The successive campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq could be skilfully presented (via a sophisticated propaganda machine using new technology and appealing to existing popular sentiments) as assaults by "crusader" (and "Zionist") forces against the heartland of the Islamic world (see "After Saddam, no respite", 19 December 2003). In addition, there was the hugely valuable benefit for al-Qaida and its allies in both countries of providing combat-training zones for new generations of young paramilitaries.

A response to the 9/11 attacks based on reasoned understanding and foresight would have had a far greater chance of ensuring a just and humane global outcome. This would have treated the murderous incidents as horrendous examples of transnational criminality, and enabled the United States and many willing partners to build a formidable coalition across the world to bring the perpetrators to justice. It might have taken years and proved to be a complex and difficult process, but the benefits are clear: undercutting the limited support for the al-Qaida movement that then existed in 2001, and avoiding the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq with their huge human costs.

Instead, the Bush administration fell straight into a trap. Since then, tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed (in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in other theatres of the "war on terror"); even greater numbers have detained, and many of those tortured and abused. Washington's post-9/11 response has laid the ground for a decades-long conflict (see "A thirty-year war", 3 April 2003).

The next paradigm

The deeply embedded nature of the "control paradigm" in United States military thinking means that a significant change of policy is hard to envisage and will be extremely difficult to undertake - even if the Democrats take the White House in November 2008. At some stage, though, reality must and will bite: the deeply counterproductive impact of the conduct of war on terror will come to be recognised and more sensible policies implemented.

Indeed, perhaps it is in the deeply counterproductive character of the policies of the last six years that there are some slight grounds of hope. The very failure of these policies offers space for a rethinking of western attitudes to security which could extend to much greater issues of global security (see "Global security: a vision for change", 11 April 2007).

The real drivers of conflict between 2008 and 2030 are likely to be issues of deep global inequality, economic desperation, people movement, and environmental limits - all reinforced by climate change. In such circumstances, it will be all too easy to see the key western security requirement as maintaining control in a fractured world. In the seventh year of a war with no end in sight, the failures of intelligence that marked its beginning may after all be the springboard for a new approach to human and planetary security in the decades to come.

Average rating

(11 votes)