Review (first draft/long version) by kena of
“Part 1, September 11: Unanswered Questions” by MalcontentX
 http://www.angelfire.com/retro/malcontentx
 http://www.angelfire.com/retro/malcontentx/questions.html#index.html

An anonymous online author,  http://www.angelfire.com/retro/malcontentx, with great care and evident dedication (but with some forthright hesitation around releasing this work in an atmosphere in which the a disinformation machine is now claiming the right to disinform) has recently published the first part in an investigation of the official story of 9-11. The 131 page installment is an impressive study of the master narrative, focusing on how it was the biggest military and intelligence power in the world was attacked by not one, but four hijacked commercial airliners between 8:46 when the first plane struck the WTC, and 10:10 when Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania -- first reported likely to have been shot down.

In this extensive analysis of corporate media documents, particularly sources like Newsday and CNN, and official timelines and documents (complemented by online journalism in the work of  http://www.emperorsclothes.com and others), MalcontentX clearly establishes some of the holes in the official story, beginning with an examination of what did or did not happen that morning. Even given the trauma following the attacks why where so many levels of security slow to respond? Certainly NY Firemen, Police and Emergency workers were not slow to respond that day. Why was confusion allowed to rule the day particularly at levels of high command? Who if anyone was negligent? Why did Pentagon staff continue to work as a plane dived into it even as Central Command sat and watched inside the building? Just because they thought it was going to the Whitehouse? Was the Whitehouse evacuated? You’ll find answers to these in MalcontentX’s inquiry, but also many more questions arising from the fraying of the spin of the day.

That tragic morning, I was running late. On the westcoast we woke to the middle of the story. My mother, visiting my sister, made some remark about how it was like Kennedy’s assassination -- I was in a rush and didn’t snap back which one -- but rushed into traffic grid, turned on CBC radio and waited for 50 minutes as military advisors and reporters speculated on what had happened and was happening -- but it was not until I arrived at work, and television confirmed it, that I finally learned what had been hit and what the actual damage was.

And what was George W. Bush doing that fateful day? Obviously not running late like me, as he made his first appointment in the day. Well he knew about the first one when he left his hotel (he would later “joke” about thinking the pilot was bad on public record -- now think even if this is a national disaster and not a terrorist attack, wouldn’t you expect your Chief in Command to be ready to make some form of public statement on such an attack, even if the first of four?

But no, at 8:55, knowing of the 8:46 attack he puts off comment and heads for a Florida classroom to promote phonics. Twice he is interrupted for a whispered update, prior to and after the 9:02 attack on the WTC. Finally at 9:30 the President leaves the class to make a statement on CNN and confirm what had been known already by 8:38 and had since transpired. Later he was taken away by Air Force One for the remainder of the day -- with some statements about concerns of an internal threat later denied. It is not surprising at the time of such an attack that the President might act mysteriously, but was there nothing else to do but read about pet goats? And then why did the media suddenly pick up on the false notion that the President was required to order an interception of the aircraft? Further why the sensationalism over the President’s stamp of approval to shoot down an aircraft, when nothing seems to have been done by the time of the CNN address to even effectively intercept the two remaining aircraft now reported to NORAD to have likely been hijacked -- other than scrambling at Langley Air Force Base (and Andrews AFB -- later denied).

The review notes that the question of what the pilots were to do after intercepting the hijacked commercial planes became the favourite way to avoiding the question of the planes were not intercepted in the first place. Again some like

Now I need to stress that I have not followed through to check all of MalcontentX’s sources, but nothing I have read makes me suspicious that this is disinformation -- or at least any more so than anything CBC is currently offering. I trust a reader will inform themselves and remain critical. Really given my firsthand knowledge, Mr. Bush may well have been with Elvis at the slots in Reno during this morning -- the corporate media tends not to support such a story, so..... so the official story is that well not much was done because of what MalcontentX call the “shooty” logic, pointing for example to the statement “’I understand it would have required sanction from the President to shoot down a civilian airliner and he was touring a school in Florida.”  http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20010913/Story06.htm

It is not surprising questions about the lags in time in responses (Boston ATC for example was four times slower that day than any other in reporting to NORAD that the first flight was off course) were replaced in the media by mass mourning, Ground Zero (note how the Pentagon vanished as a crash site), Afghanistan, Bin Laden and the Taliban. What is surprising is that the corporate media so conveniently forgot not only to follow-up on the failure of the evidence it once used to secure terrorist identities, but its own unanswered questions about how three of four hijacked planes reached their targets.

It was certainly convenient for the suicide missions that nobody seemed to be talking to each other or responding very fast -- what the first plane hits and everyone sits around the tube to watch? Now that snipe is me, not MalcontentX, but this study does have its own sense of humour and challenges. Yet fundamentally it is a public call for an inquiry into 9-11 and the resulting war on terrorism. And while CNN is not likely to be broadcasting a dummies’ guide to “Unanswered Questions,” it raises questions about much that has transpired by simply focusing in on what the media, military and Bush administration have claimed is/are the official story(ies)

As MalcontentX suggests in the media summary which begins the investigation of the military-media alliance in the War on Terrorism (no mention in this draft incidentally of GE’s role as the corporation whose tentacles directly control both media and munitions), by page 86 of 131, I still agree with the author that

“In our review of the Sept 11 events, we have recalled and/or uncovered some incredible facts [my ital]

hijacked planes that are in the air for almost an hour without any fighter-planes scrambled to intercept them

a President who is allowed to sit amongst a classroom of children for thirty minutes during a confirmed national emergency

a supposed ‘insider’ threat to Air Force One which keeps the President away from Washington for 9 & 1/2 hours, later cast aside as ‘irrelevant’ by the same officials who initially made the threat public,

top officials in the Pentagon, (including the Secretary of Defense) claim they were ‘unaware’ of the plane that was coming towards them, (and of another plane which crashed in Pennsylvania, an hour after radar defense was “officially” notified).

an FBI investigation of dissappearing black-boxes and indestructible terrorist passports, Islamic ‘confessions’ in biblical tongue, “pilots” who can’t fly, hang out in strip-clubs, whose real identities seem irrelevant.”

Before launching into the state of the media, MalcontentX continues (and generally these “facts” seem consistent which what I know): “Such glaring contradictions to the concept of competent leadership -- in the wake of a tragedy which cost the lives of thousands of civilians -- demand that pointed and sustained questions be asked by the media; yet, as we have seen, the mainstream has consistently avoided this; rather, the emphasis has been to try and patch up the tattered image of the government/military authority, by accepting ‘official’ pronouncements as fact.”  http://www.angelfire.com/retro/malcontentx/questions.html#index.html

Senate Confirmation Hearing of General Richard Myers on September 13th -- two days earlier he had been acting as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in General Shelton’s absence, as he was Vice-Chairman. In the document MalcontentX reports that he also refers to himself as the commander-in-chief of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). As a Canadian Myers hence interests me, as so-to-speak he would seem to command the defense of Canadian airspace as well (is there such a thing?).

Given 9-11 has been used to drastically curtail immigration and civil liberties in Canada; given that Canadians have been under increasing pressure to harmonize policies with the USA under NAFTA; given Canada does play a role and NORAD, and the only answers that seem to becoming around 9-11 are calls for larger military budgets and alignment with US policy using the buzz words of “harmonization” and defense of the Northern Perimeter; given that at least one Canadian I know of has ended stranded in a US prison among those rounded up using racial profiling; given all this, I think even a Canadian must be concerned by the deliberate distraction and confusion MalcontentX tracks in the record of General Myers on what went down( the day it apparently took 50 minutes for him to be notified following the first attack). Some place in this story of NORAD negligence, whether systemic or intentional, is something Canada’ own House of Commons should be concerned with -- of course the Liberals can’t even decide what they do or don’t know even if it is published in the dailies, so obviously Canada may have its own problems.

But back to our malcontented anonymous news readers.
science of spin -- neither deny nor confirm, engage and deflect
spin not so much denied but managed in “democracies” -- general principle is to suspend a clear understanding of a particular issue long enough to become irrelevant -- neither deny nor confirm -- a case in point might be exactly what it is Hussein has done which has turned him into America’s Most Wanted, now that Bin Laden has vanished.

MalcontentX identifies Myers and Cheny (was that “shoot-down” or “intercept”)
The main spin is usually rather subtle to the uninformed eye; glaring, once grasped.

by page 110 MalcontentX has made the outline for a case of criminal negligence and raised a call to the reader (“the American people, world-citizens, community groups, to take this information...and raise a call for a process of national inquiry, in the most public way possible.”) to act. The author stresses this is not consipiracy -- no singular blame is laid -- but rather a conclusion that there is a case for negligence based on the public record (which I will leave you to research, as I will myself). It is also at this point that the author raises the final issue, left for further investigation, of who benefits from the devastation of 9/11? The author lays out the usual suspects in indentifying whose stocks have climbed since the trauma of the attacks, such as the entirely predictable boost it provided the Bush administration and the military (and multinationals via the “Stimulus Package” of tax cuts). Notably one of the few non-9/11 headlines in the aftermath was that China had been welcomed into the WTO. Personally I suspect the WTO must be happy about the curtailment of civil liberties around the world under the new guise of a war on terrorism, but of course this is pure speculation by one who sees their rights disintegrating, not their power growing.

MalcontentX notes NATO has also found itself an expanded role with an ongoing “war on terrorism,” and then of course defense contractors and multinationals will both benefit from the expanding war and military budgets. Clearly Afghanistan has not benefited and we of course need to question whether they were ever intended, particularly given the current civil war which bombing has ignited. MalcontentX reports from the BBC, Sept. 18, that at least one Pakistan official was informed by July of 2001 that the US would invade Afghanistan by October -- and I clearly remember as far ago as last summer listening to CBC and thinking that the US was ready to attack the Taliban. I also recall that the Aspera press was by this time calling community and anti-globalization protestors terrorists, so it was no surprise that anti-globalization protests have been muted by new anti-terrorist McCarthyism and security “issues”.

So what of bin Laden and the CIA? MalcontentX has some observations on the number one suspect as well, beyond his historical and familial links (all well documented on the net) to defense contracting, the Carlyle group, and the largest covert operation in history, in which the US invested, according to MalcontentX, some $6 billion in covert weapons support of the Afghan rebels.

Within an hour of the attacks, blaming and demonizing Osama bin Laden (and hence by implication I might add, Islam) had begun on corporate media. Within in a week Bush had declared war on bin Laden and friends. But as you likely know the evidence to pin bin Laden as the mastermind has never convinced everyone or held up to scrutiny. There is of course the “unusual activity” on the market as millions were made buying and selling stocks of corporations impacted by the attack. Who profited at this stage remains an unanswered question. Certainly those with investments in the Carlyle group profited (legally) after 9/11.

MalcontentX ends by drawing our attention to the place of Afghanistan in current western foreign policy, and one would expect that in future installments the Unocal pipeline and the now booming opium trade should raise questions for the author. This first part nonetheless leaves much to consider and research.

Finally the author leaves us with a challenge, despite this Feb. 2002 draft being only part of a longer investigation. We our offered a summation which includes two key issues I am left to ponder. First is the claim that the delay of the civil-air defense contradicted routine procedure, and hence is evidence of a sytem-wide collapse and negligence (and not one caused by not enough money or technology). Second is the question as to why the Pentagon, which includes Central Command and the then acting head of NORAD, did not know they were being attacked. I will leave you to discover the other points raised in the first section, but from my pov these are questions which at least provide me with materials for a letter to an MP or editor.

MalcontentX has no conclusions, just more questions to ask and research to do, and challenge to make use of the work to confront the fact we have not been told the truth (forget worrying about future CIA disinformation!) and given evidence of negligence, a full public inquiry must be callled. And finally for those of us on the left, there is a challenge, a challenge to move beyond the defensive and take the lead in buidling and activating a public case and discourse.

So I missed the Olympics, but I must thank MalcontentX for a disturbing, entertaining and activating read. CIA disinformation? leftist conspiracy theory? I don’t know, and now I need to get back to the 9-5, so I leave it to you to consider at  http://www.angelfire.com/retro/malcontentx


kena
HAUTEVILLE HOUSE, COAST SALISH TERRITORY, 24 Feb 02

“You tell a lie often enough, and the people will eventually believe it.”-- Joseph Goebels
“The central command, of the most powerful military force in the world claiming a cranial vapour-lock of ‘we weren’t informed’ during a national emergency must instincitively raise the eyebrows of any thinking human being.” -- MalcontentX
“I hooked on phonics.” -- Dubya