Context 1: Attribution of Muslim culpability for 9/11
Within 40 seconds of a fiery hole opening high up in the South Tower (from whatever cause) Fox News had discerned Bin Laden’s fingerprints all over it.

Mainstream media editors immediately tasked Middle-East photo-journalist contacts to ‘go out into the street and take pictures of Arabs rejoicing’. No such pictures being forthcoming, some US papers deceptively recycled old pictures of Palestinians celebrating a local victory in their Intifada as proof of how much ‘these people hate us and our way of life, that they should celebrate such a terrible tragedy’ (initial 9/11 death toll then being placed around 10,000).

Immediately after 9/11 it was announced that a suitcase had conveniently turned up containing a Boeing Flight Manual and a ‘Koran’, as well as Mohammad Atta’s ‘devout Muslim will’ and a list of his 18 Arab collaborators.

Subsequently Friday, 28 September the Karachi-based Urdu-language newspaper, Ummat, carried an important interview with Bin Laden in which he categorically denied responsibility:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.”

Bin Laden went on to canvass various possible suspects, including Israel and the intelligence services, who were in dire need of an evil enemy to replace the Soviet Union. (of course Bin Laden had had many dealings with the CIA himself!, but in this interview he burns his bridges, since he realises the US are out to kill him in ernest now)

“Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed. …. Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.” ( http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html)

This denial received no publicity in the West, where fake ‘Bin Laden’ videos were given ready credence, e.g. ‘co-incidental’ autumn 2001 find in an abandoned ‘Al-Qaida office’ in Jalalabad of a homemovie featuring a broad-nosed ‘fatty Bin Laden’ boasting of his prescience that the hijacked planes would surely bring the Towers down entirely.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs&NR=1.

This ‘smoking gun confession’ was solemnly relayed at face value by Western media, but met with huge derision in the Middle East, one reason why the spooks switched from an actor to computerized Forest Gump meets JFK style videofakery from 2002 onwards.

Context 2: Islamophobia in the UK post 9/11 and 7/7
I have just watched Peter Oborne’s C4 Dispatches programme on July 7th 2008, in which the following poll results were announced:

61 percent of British Muslims believe hostility to them has worsened since the London bombings.
36 percent report that they or a family member has suffered abuse in that period.
51 percent of British public blame Islam for the London bombings
26 percent see the presence of Muslim in Britain as a threat to national security.
70 percent agree that hostility to Muslims has increased since 7-7.

69 percent of media stories show Muslims as a source of problems (Cardiff University study).

For all Peter Oborne’s commendable concern, he never once stopped to consider whether the story of the London bombings was fundamentally true or false, or possibly some yet to be determined mixture of truth and falsehood – this despite a Channel Four poll of June/July 2007 which revealed that almost three in five British Muslims believe the government hasn't told the whole truth about the July the 7th bombings. Nearly a quarter don't believe the four men identified as the London bombers were responsible for the attacks - and more than half say the intelligence services have made up evidence to convict terrorist suspects.  http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/s ... +77/545847

Many non-Muslims are of like mind, though in smaller, but still significant percentages. (On the July 7 murders see the devastating critique of the official narrative on the impeccably factual website  http://www.julyseventh.co.uk and its associated discussion forum, which carries extremely well-informed and sharp analysis of e.g. terror scares and trials.) Similar skepticism is widespread concerning September 11, and even more so in the US, where one CBS/New York Times poll of November 2006 showed only 16 percent still satisfied with the official story.

At a time when the lucrative Terrorism Industry are warning that ‘it is not a matter of if but when there will be another large scale terrorist attack in the UK’, many young Muslims are afraid to speak out or go on the internet to search out alternative perspectives, for fear of being branded disloyal. Relatively few Muslim community leaders have joined Dr Naseem, Chair of Birmingham Central Mosque, in calling the official accounts of both 9/11 and 7/7 into serious question. The result is that many young Muslims lack role models and confidence to express their faith publicly and politically –

“ When asked: 'What kind of jihad is better?'’ Muhammad replied, 'A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler!' " Sunan Al-Nasa'i, Hadith 4209.

This understandable reaction - for lack of confidence that they will experience solidarity from supposed allies - this holding back by Muslim community leaders from voicing genuine views which are very widely held in many Muslim communities may carry serious public mental health implications, and is surely a contributory driver for alienating young people, with the twin risks that they might either incorporate negative ‘war on Terror’/’Clash of Civilisation’ stereotypes into their own sense of identity, or become vulnerable to those who might seek to recruit them for terrorist ends (who may be ‘genuine’ religious extremists and/or quite possibly linked in with devious and sinister games of the security services).

It is therefore vital that Muslims find community leaders and reliable non-Muslim allies to take the lead in the fight back, not just against the war(s) but also against the lies which led to the wars. But at present sections of the State’s Terror industry see the internet as a breeding ground of extremism, and not also a vital resource for understanding our society, especially when a) the mainstream media carry lies about Muslims and b) even non-Muslims who seek to expose wrong-doing by the powerful are routinely ridiculed as ‘conspiracy theorists’.

The struggle (jihad) for truth is a spiritual discipline for the sake of society as a whole and our own sanity, and if we are Muslims, our own self-respect. If Muslims who oppose 9/11 propaganda can be free to organize politically as Muslims opposed to all forms of terrorism (properly so-called) – in their own communities, in society at large and in interfaith contexts, without this being seen as an inherently subversive activity, this will be the exact opposite of any kind of ‘precursor activity’ to terrorism.

Understanding 9/11 and 7/7 could be the real keys to ‘tackling terrorism’ and reducing non-Muslims’ fear of Muslims, which is being whipped up by the usual suspects for geo-political advantage. If the 9/11 story is founded on a racist lie, it is vital that Muslims and their allies stop accepting it and instead challenge the leaders of ‘progressive opinion’ to say why, in the absence of credible court-worthy evidence concerning the perpetration of the September 11 Act of Mass Destruction, they give continued credence to very much the same fasiqs who brought us tales of Saddam’s WMD.

“Ye who are conscious of God – if a fasiq [untrustworthy violent person] comes to you with alarming news, make sure you verify their word, lest you afflict people out of your ignorance, and regret your actions.” Holy Qu’ran, 49:6

Context 3: What's the logic of this charge?
In an e-mail thread about the Future of the 911 Truth Campaign, a colleague, call him S, wrote:


"I can agree far more easily with Elias [Davidson] asking we use the term "alleged hijackers" than Keith's insistence we advance the theory that there were definitely no hijackers.
There being a lack of concrete evidence for something does not equal proof against it.
The truth is there is not enough evidence to state one way or the other whether there were hijackers/patsies/anyone at all on the planes [sic – italics added, KM] - so why bother speculating?
One thing that is grinding me though is the insistence that it is "racist" to say there were hijackers.
What exactly is the logic?"


Before attempting to spell out this logic directly, it will be helpful to clarify various things which I am not saying and to set out various factors which may make my reasoning and choice of words more palatable.

What are the implications of acknowledging racism?
S is one of many good people who feel personally offended by my insistent plea that we should break with the hijacker story which we have unwittingly swallowed, and should now consider to be both false and racist.

A principal benefit of this choice of words is that by alleging racism we potentially make it harder and harder for the controllers of ‘politically correct’ progressive opinion to ignore our evidence about 9/11 being an inside job and frame-up, and our arguments about 9/11’s centrality to effectively resisting War, Islamophobia and creeping dictatorship.

However as we raise the ante, we inevitably walk a tight-rope. Precisely because of the emotional punch associated with the ‘R’ word, we run the risk of generating more heat than light, entrenching opinions behind renewed self-righteous defensiveness. So how can we increase the light-factor without also increasing the heat-factor, which detracts from enlightenment, unless any almost inevitable accompanying upset can be sympathetically handled and worked through?

Part of the hill we have to climb reflects the hyper judgmental way so many of us have fallen into thinking about racism, and even more about racists!

We don't think with compassionate wisdom of racism as a prevalent vulnerability to mistaken attitudes which all who grow up in Imperialist countries are perhaps especially liable to share to some extent and which easily cause harm because they impact negatively on certain people defined ethnically/'racially'.

Rather we have come to think of racism as a defining mark of Badness, something which resides in those evil Racists out there - who probably need to be chased down the street as the Anti-Nazi League did in the late seventies.

This idea that racism resides mainly in those others allows us to polish our egos quite cheaply, with self-assurance that we are on the side of the angels because

• we buy Fair Trade goods (at a labour-remuneration ratio of ten minutes work here for 100 there),
• oppose 'heavy-handed' immigration controls (but not ‘sensible legislation’),
• go along to Stop the War demos - which don’t, alas (but we don’t delve deeper into the reasons why we haven’t found a way, a voice and a unity to stop the Wars - though we should give ourselves one cheer for having limited Western militarism to a degree).

Us 'racist'? - Never!, a real affront to the narcissistic tendencies we all harbour to some extent or other.

Instead of being compassionate to ourselves, our harsh judgments of others are internalised as defensiveness which gets in the way of the needed revision of our views and perspective, both at the time someone is drawing our attention to the racism we too are perhaps practicing or complicit in, and as an on-going awareness-expanding process, whereby we hopefully shed more and more aspects of our imperial/racist conditioning - and hence become freer less-afraid human beings and better allies to the most oppressed people in the world and in the UK.

So I am not saying we good liberal progressive lefty green peace people are only racist. I am saying that people hold a spectrum of beliefs many of which are indeed anti-racist/pro-human, but we should all consider that it is likely that we also hold other assumptions/identifications which may be unconsciously derogatory of 'others', and cherish other views which we may confidently assume to be universally valid, but merely reflect our relatively privileged position in the imperial hierarchy of class and global caste.

Some other things I am not saying
This is not a matter of 'white' self-hatred, nor an attempt to guilt-trip anyone.

I do admit that many British-Asians and Muslims do themselves believe in the official story of Osama Bin Laden and the terrible 19 hijackers – and even a tiny minority laud ‘the magnificent 19’, which in some cases is done to wind the kaffaurs up – the same people at other times agreeing with the slogan: 9/11 Inside Job!

Nor am I saying that there cannot be many other racisms, e.g. between some Indians and some Pakistanis, or some Chinese and some Japanese, or some poor black South Africans attacking poor black immigrants, etc, etc.

Nor am I saying that there have never been Arab or fanatical Muslim terrorists, even suicide murderers. (*** see note below) Without getting into arguments about individual instances – which are genuine examples of ‘Islamic extremist terrorism’ and which are examples of false-flag terrorism run by the CIA or MI6 or Mossad? - such kaffaur-hating and/or desperate and/or confused people do exist and have sometimes done the things they are frequently accused of doing! We should have no problem acknowledging this category, in principle, just as we should also acknowledge that history provides many examples of terrorism, including false-flag terrorism, conducted under the auspices of other religions and ideologies.

(*** Suicide murderers: this term is used to denote terrorism properly so-called, i.e. when harmless people, civilians and non-combatants, are harmed and menaced. Not all suicide bombers are terrorists in this sense. For example some irregular resistance fighters or jihadis who oppose illegal Crusader or Zionist occupations may feel so passionately that they die in the act of blowing up a military installation or barracks, with no civilian casualties. Both in the West and in the Soviet Union, the annals of military and resistance heroism during WW2 are full of examples of those who undertook suicidal missions to defend their Motherland.)


Racism works by rumours which trigger guilt by association:
I have no doubt that S has Muslim friends and colleagues. Like many good people he wouldn’t want to oppress ‘ordinary Muslims’ even if proof came to light that the 2,800 plus who died on Sept 11 (and the hundreds who have contracted fatal cancers since) did so at the hands of a fanatical subset of extremist Muslims. However Peter Oborne’s Dispatches programme reported that 50 percent of British people do not have any Muslim friends and for them it must be harder to not lump all Muslims together when they read lurid headlines about terrorism assigned to ‘Islamic suicide bombers’ and the like, or hear a rumour that ‘the Pakis’ have attacked a white woman down the local park, etc.

So even though S may fairly consider himself well able to make non-racist judgments about people as individual people, this doesn’t exclude the possibility – certainty, in my opinion - that at least some of those who first put the Arab/Muslim ‘Attack on America’ angle onto the unfolding and still unsolved Manhattan murder tragedy may have done so out of cold racist calculation, knowing that many people could be manipulated for political ends because they would be vulnerable to believe anything negative they were being Authoritatively told about ‘the Other’ and also vulnerable to attribute ‘guilt by association’.

Thus just as British airmen wrote – ‘This is for Coventry’ on bombs they dropped over working class ‘Red Hamburg’ in August 1943, so US military personnel write ‘This is for 9/11’ on ‘Depleted’ Uranium missiles and bombs they dropped in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, poisoning tens of thousands of men, women, children and future generations in those and surrounding countries in the process. In all such cases there is no real connection between those who get attacked or poisoned ‘in revenge’ or ‘retaliation’ or ‘reprisal’ (= more fresh murder) and those who are either did order or are supposed to have ordered the original murders or attacks.

All war is institutional racism, in which guilt by mis-association is built in. Phony staged events and/or false reports are standard operating procedure for starting wars and accusing the other side of starting them – naturally we are the good guys and are just ‘hitting’ ‘back’. (1848, 1898, 1914, 1933, 1936, 1939 ‘Polish attack’, Suez, Gulf of Tonkin, babies ripped from hospital incubators psyop for Gulf War, etc.)



These rumours are unverified - Deconstructing phoney chains of alleged culpability

The rulers of Afghanistan always consented to try Bin Laden themselves or extradite him if furnished with the normal standard of prima facie evidence – something which the US refused to provide. Nor was the evidence ever delivered, though promised, to NATO and the UN. To this day the FBI website does not list 9/11 as one of the crimes for which Bin Laden is ‘Wanted’ for lack of ‘hard evidence’  http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/read ... Num=144830 . As for the supposed grounds (pretext) for the invasion of Iraq, polls have repeatedly shown a high percentage of the American public believing that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11 – and an even higher percentage among US soldiers in Iraq.

What is the real connection between Muslim and Arab and other victims in Afghanistan and Iraq and those who perpetrated the Manhattan murders? None whatsoever! Let’s start with those who died in Manhattan that terrible day and follow the chain of culpability alleged in the Official Conspiracy Theory.

A) What really killed the great majority of the victims of September 11? Was it not the sudden destruction of the massive steel-framed skyscrapers in which they worked?

The government’s own official report admits that the South Tower was destroyed in 9 seconds. No argument exists concerning the height of this building (1362 feet). Although a wave of destruction can clearly be seen passing swiftly down the tower, it defies the known laws of Physics

- expressed in the formula t = square root of [twice h/g], where t = time in seconds, h = height (in feet), and g = effect of gravity = 32.2 feet per second –

for the 110th floor of WTC2 to have fallen in 9 seconds, since this is virtually the speed at which it would have fallen in a vacuum (with not even air-resistance!) rather than in the minimum theoretical time (97 seconds) at which it could actually have fallen when taking the path of maximum resistance evenly through 109 other steel and concrete floors: see A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory at  http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/ ... Balls.html .

To believe the official story that Towers fell = People died due to aircraft impact and fires, one has to regress to a medieval version of Physics Lysenkoism, whereby in order to accommodate whatever narrative the demands of Power demand, Muslims have to be such devilishly cunning folk that they can suspend the very laws of Physics.

The rest of us may prefer to retain our vaunted Enlightenment rationality to escape this challenging conundrum of hugely strong Buildings which ‘fall’ at a speed faster than falling! We can only do so if we humbly apprentice ourselves to the visual evidence which shows the towers dissolving into fine dust in mid air (google Towers of Dust, also Hunt the Rubble!) In fact rather than say that the people died because the Towers fell down on them, one can better say that the Towers went away, or one can say the Towers went upwards! – or that they did come down eventually, but slowly as fine dust all over Manhattan and out to sea. (see the remarkable photo-studies and analyses of applied physicist, engineer and materials scientist Judy Wood at  http://www.drjudywood.com ).

So the first link in the chain is obviously broken. For which Arab/Muslim organizations had the means to bring about the observable fact that the buildings turned to dust? Only elements in the military-industrial complex of the USA had black budget High-Tech Directed Energy Weapons capable of zapping the twin towers to fine powder in mid air – and those within them.

B) Even if planes had anything at all to do with the destruction of the twin towers and with the holes in one wing of the Pentagon, there is no reliable evidence of hijackings that morning – except for virtual hijackings which were the subject of some of the multi-layered multi-agency air defense ‘exercises’ that Cheney was in real or nominal charge of that morning. Assuming real Flights took off some 911 truth analysts believe electronic capture of their onboard Flight Management Systems could have kicked in, compelling the jets to fly into the Towers. Others surmise that drone Boeings engineered to perfection by Raytheon that summer, or drone military planes, were substituted for the passenger Flights, and the passengers eliminated (assuming they existed).

(On the multiple war games and exercises with hijacked planes see 9/11 Synthetic Terror – Made in USA by Webster Tarpley. On the question of planes: google September Clues and Video Fakery; also see Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter:  http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?pa ... have_holes .)

My point here is that any fair court of law would want proof of the claimed linkages from dead victims to alleged perpetrators. However at every stage in the proposed chain of causation the official story is either impossible or at best very heavily contested.

C) And even if real planes were involved and had been hijacked there is not a shred of reliable evidence of responsibility by ‘suicide’ murderers motivated by perverted, fanatical and extremist versions of Islamic fundamentalism. (see more below)

Preliminary conclusion:
There is strong prima facie evidence that 9/11 was designed as a high-tech inside job and psyop from its inception, whose function would be to provide both a series of war-pretexts against Oil rich countries who resisted Pax Americana and a racist, Islamophobic rallying cry in an epochal ‘Clash of Civilisations’. Under the auspices of this racist mythology the War on (of) Terror was unleashed by certain mostly rich ‘white’ countries impacting mostly poor non-white societies and ethnic minorities.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck – namely the organized practice of global racism rationalized by reference to an entirely unverified rumour that the Arabs/Muslims ‘struck first’/got our women/killed our buddies.

It in this context that I believe the 9/11 hijacker story is fundamentally a racist myth and belief which we need to reconsider, re-investigate, and actively reject and denounce if we conclude that it is false.

Remaining uncertainty and ‘lack of proof’?
My colleague S says: ‘There being a lack of evidence for something does not equal proof against it’. This is technically true and is sometimes a valid point but in this context (see above and below) I call it the Rumsfeld doctrine, real scraping of the barrel logic when no one could find WMD post invasion of Iraq.

There are numerous ways that the truth is usually knowable in such circumstances as the official story portrays – the stubs of boarding passes from the airports alleged to have been the points of departure for the alleged Flights, witnesses who saw the men at those airports, DNA from normal aircrashes, recovery of the virtually indestructible black boxes and cockpit voice recorders - which could all confirm key parts of the narrative. But all are missing, or withheld, or never existed in the first place.

No Evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11
by Icelandic researcher Elias Davidson:
“The US authorities have failed to prove that the 19 individuals accused of the mass murder of 9/11 had boarded the aircraft, which they allegedly used to commit the crime.
• No authenticated, original, passenger lists, bearing their names, have been released;
• no one is known to have seen them board the aircraft;
• no video recordings documented their boarding;
• no boarding pass stub exists to document their boarding;
• and their bodily remains have not been positively identified.”
 http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/ ... idence.pdf
See other articles written by Davidson or collected on his fine site, such as his longer article: The Events of September 11 and the Right to the Truth  http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/ ... otruth.pdf .

See also Davidson's press release on the occasion of his submitting his memorandum to the UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur:
 http://www.mujca.com/eliasdavidson.htm



To concentrate on only the most obvious potential source of corroboration: 19 ‘Arab hijackers' board four planes at three international airports in which there are many CCTV cameras positioned and routinely working. Yet not a single image from the correct airports has come to light! How likely is that??? (Note that no pictures exist of the supposed perpetrators of the Madrid bombing, and the strange July 7th pictures have also been heavily challenged.)

Likewise if a hijacked Boeing really did disappear into the side of the Pentagon, why was it not shot down first for lack of the correct ‘friendly’ signal as it approached this mostly heavily fortified building in the world? (Actually, due to the currents of air set up by a Boeing flying at the proposed speed, it could not possibly have flown so low, so really the whole story is baloney, see  http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html).
You may like to play Hunt the Boeing at this point:  http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/ ... urs_en.htm .

But let us ignore proven impossibilities and for the sake of argument descend into a fantasyland of theoretical possibilities. A ‘Boeing passenger jet’ disappeared into the Pentagon – so why were the many photographic tapes from CCTV cameras overlooking the scene of the crime rounded up – within minutes in some cases? What possible legitimate interest could exist in non-disclosure – as has happened ever after, discounting the most bizarre release of a sequence of supposed ‘plane’ images which convinced no one, other than a few frightened American citizens who were most desperate for reassurance.

Without cogent answers and release of all this evidence, no court worth its salt could possibly conclude that the Pentagon dead should be laid at the door of alleged hijackers on those supposed Flights.

A similar argument could be made concerning the absurd tale of the hijackers taking over UA Flight 93, which supposedly took off at Newark, was hijacked on its way to San Francisco, and crashed after a heroic Hollywood tussle in a field at Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Any court worth its salt would soon discredit the story of mobile phone calls made when the plane was travelling at a speed and height where mobile phones could not possibly have operated: see  http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93 ). It would also want to ask itself whether the supposed hijackers should be sentenced to death for a crime where no body parts were ever found, and no Boeing is visible where it supposedly crashed! (See Hunt the Boeing, Shanksville version:  http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html).

It the authorities fabricated stories about two of the ‘hijacked airplanes’, why should anyone believe them about responsibility for the supposed Manhattan ‘aircrashes’ and their supposed consequences?

Therefore I say that in such cases, absence of key, newsworthy, evidence (whose release could only 'dish' the mushrooming 'conspiracy theories' which non-disclosure gives arise to), should indeed be taken to equate to proof beyond any reasonable doubt that the hijacker story is false..

But of course for some people, there will always be un’reasonable doubt’ – and fear, when it comes to concluding against the interests of Power. In fact nearly all of us suffer from this all-to-human tendency to a greater degree than we like to imagine. A short digression on the mechanics of denial will perhaps be in order:

I am arguing that, in the light of the above factors, taking refuge Rumsfeld-style in 'lack of evidence either way' can only be persisted in if we have a chronic fear of what happens when we cross or dis-identify with 'White' Power - which is also 'Judaeo-Christian' Power in this case - telling a story against Arabs/Muslims. (It is also Intel-Media Capitalist Military-Industrial and Big Oil Power in this case, so one could also call it classist to keep on giving the benefit of the doubt to Power, the more so if one lives in privileged distance from the sharp-end consequences being visited on those defined by the Powers that Be (PTB) as members of the dangerous 'Other' category).

However it is not enough to see this situation starkly and sharply, we also need to see this situation with sadness compassion and patience, since we have all of us at times been spooked by fear of Consequences from on High: it is a normal part of how our society operates to be imprinted psychologically by Power and to live in fear of doubting its compulsory verities. (See the fine essay by Tova Gabrielle, The Psychology of Patriotic Denial,  http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/POPD.html .)

Note further that in this case we have all been quasi-hypnotised by being fed with weird material directly into our sub-conscious – planes swallowed by buildings with no bits falling off, buildings ‘falling’ into dust – at the same time as we have been given very heavy counter-interpretations and injunctions not to notice what we have seen. Thus it is no wonder that many people must unconsciously fear being themselves zapped into dust if they allow themselves to join in transgressive discussions among the bad children who need and feel impelled to talk about Father’s abuse.

So, to return to answering my friend, S:

There do exist in the world such people as fit the description of religious fanatics who would die to kill harmless others. A subset of these are followers of a perverted version of Islam. In principle it isn't impossible that some of them got together on September 11th, and murdered over 2,800 people. So it isn’t in principle racist to entertain the possibility of this story. However it will be racist to persist with that story, if all the the elements in that story can be successfully challenged as

• logically impossible and/or
• baseless and/or
• vanishingly unlikely in the actually prevailing circumstances and/or
• capable of an entirely different and more plausible interpretation (pre-positioning of patsies, not actual hijackers).

In the present case I believe that there can be no good reason not to consider it racist

a) IF that story was told/repeated by mostly white Western 'fasiqs' (untrustworthy sources - media who are known to have lied about Iraqi WMD, who continue to lie all the time about steel melted by aircraft fuel); and

b) IF that story is such that it casts in a bad light members of an ethnic group or religion which the dominant media/group telling the story have a long history of conflict with/difficulty concerning; and

c) IF there is NO good reason for thinking that Arabs/Muslims clever enough to attack the US would be so stupid as to provoke a huge backlash against Arabs/Muslims [complete absence of Cui Bono reasons for thinking Arabs did it]; and

d) IF there is clear evidence of Cui Bono motivation on behalf of the dominant Western elite from whom the story originates – see Michael Chussodovsky The ‘Demonization’ of Muslims and the battle for Oil  http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?cont ... leId=4347; and

e) IF there is also evidence of planting of false stories (the story of the Barbara Olsen mobile calls, since retracted; another of the Flight 93 callers is supposed to have introduced himself to his own mother ‘Hello Mum, this is Mark Bingham!') and planting of physical evidence in absurd ways (e.g. the passport of Satam al-Suqami, Atta’s supposed colleague on ‘Flight 11’ was reported to have turned up on a street near the WTC in almost unscathed condition; Atta’s will left behind at the airport along with ‘Koran’ and Flight Manual, the fake American 77 Flight Data Recorder, the fake 'Bin Laden' videos, etc);


See also Jim Fetzer: 9/11 Ten reasons why the hijackers were fake.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gtqAr2 ... re=related
1) Massaoui trial - accused of not saving lives by coming forward: but a year before M confessed to a different plot, re release of 1993 Sheik, denied connection to 911; FBI agent testified that he had observed Massaoui taking flight training, even surmised possible Twin towers crash plan and had told his superiors 70 times about his suspicions!
2) Allah Akbar cry is inappropriate - last words attributed to suicide terrorists should have been the Muslim confession of faith (shahadeen);
3) Massaoui trial tape from cockpit voice recording is supposed to have carried passenger voices;
4) Cell phone calls could not have been made at height and speed alleged - Prof AK Dewdney research, Physics 911;
5) Hijackers could not have flown the planes;
6) FBI special agent Flagge says that M Atta had left luggage at Portland with terorist manual and convenient list of the 19 hijackers;-
7) FBI has not revised its list despite ...
8 ) Five to seven of these 'hijackers' have turned up alive and well (BBC; etc);
9) None subject to any autopsy;
10) No Arab names on any passenger manifest
.

f) and IF researchers strip away every ancillary prop in the whole tale (e.g. even if Arabs were drawn in in some way to be the patsies, as they were, those we know about were far from devout Muslims, but were good time guys who gambled, used drugs, prostitutes, met up at Vegas, as Webster Tarpley has shown in 9/11 Synthetic Terror – Made in USA, which draws on work by Daniel Hopsicker, but with a more reliable overview, based on his experience in Italy and Germany at a time when patsies were being framed to ‘prove’ links to the Red Brigades or the Red Army Fraction; About which period see the very important authoritative book by Swiss political scientist, Daniel Ganser: Nato’s Secret Armies – Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe.)

In these circumstances, then to continue to believe this emotionally charged and prejudicial and dramatic tale in the absence of courtworthy evidence is manifestly irrational. By any self-respecting Truth movement its status should be publicly declared to be NOT that of Truth but that of a rumour or urban legend or hearsay. And by any self-respecting anti-racist movement opposed to the criminalizing of communities, its status should be publicly declared to be that of a racist rumour, on a par with the urban legend told by Enoch Powell about the widow of Wolverhampton who supposedly was having sh*t pushed through her letterbox by ‘grinning picaninnies’.

Since one of the main ways racism works is that hostile rumours/folktales/Myths are too swiftly and/or unquestioningly credited by members of the antagonistic over-group concerning the member(s) of the undergroup (e.g. lynch mob reaction after slightest rumour of a white woman just been raped by a black guy; blood-libels about Jews eating Christian babies and 'the Jews' killed 'Christ'), then I would conclude that not to check this rumour out is a serious political error, especially in the light of the immense damage this story has been used to justify, albeit many who give it credence are not at the sharp end of its ramifications .... unlike many ordinary Muslims;


A friendly but determined Gauntlet for Anti-racists
Throwing down this gauntlet will require not just courage but also tact and compassion. As I mentioned before if we do it wrongly, there is a risk of adding more heat than light to our case when some people take against us for supposedly calling them – and not the hijacker legend - racist. But handled with the necessary compassion and skill, this could give us a useful opportunity to soften the condemnatory style which afflicts so many of us, ever since we chased the evil 'racists' in the Anti-Nazi League for example.

So to remind ourselves: what do we mean by 'Racism' in this context?

We should make it clear that the gauntlet being thrown down concerns:

a) Racism as cynical machination or ideological obsession: Racism in these senses is a big part of the motivation and modus operandi of those elite groups who put the story about in the first place;

b) Racism as background vulnerability: the tendency of so many of us in Western Imperialist societies to believe stuff which ends up being harmful to non-'whites', members of the 'lower orders' in the global class/caste hierarchy;

c) Racism as unconscious fear to break with this ruling group mind, which is integrally racist/imperialist/classist and sexist too;

d) Racism as a massive political mistake and luxury made by leaders and some members of political parties, groups, websites, etc (whether ‘white’-majority Left, Peace, Anti-racist, Green, Liberal, ‘progressive’, Interfaith, Christian, etc)

who are heavily caught up in Mainstream media,
who consider it the height of theoretical sophistication to join in the sneering against ‘conspiracy theories’ (‘the poor man’s cognitive coin’);
are removed from the worst of the consequences which result from that mistake, and
who may also fear to lose their relatively privileged status of ‘access to the media’ or ‘credibility’ (defined by the Powerful) if they have solidarity with the truth of the least powerful, most-lied-about sectors of British and global society.

Because of the many racist political dividends yielded by those who invested in the creation of this Hijacker Psyop, the decision by these groups who claim to oppose racism in all its forms NOT to investigate the complete absence of court-worthy evidence concerning the 'hijackers' legend must surely derive from the factors identified as b), c) and d) above, though a) will doubtless be in the mix as well in the invisible shape of some spook-infiltration, capture of some ‘anti-war’ and ‘truth groups’ etc.

At all events these racisms will need to be repeatedly and firmly and compassionately challenged – and in some ways one could also say ‘healed’. (How does one fight fear?) Although no single panaca exists, in my view nothing else would help us so much to end the War on Terra which is bearing down so hard upon Muslim members of the global underclass as for all progressive people to unite in uprooting the 9/11 Myth in its entirety.

It is no crime to have been fooled by a powerful psyop, to have swallowed a racist bloodlibel, I did it too at first, through to 2003. But it is racist to continue to cling to it once the evidence which was supposed to have justified it has all been stripped away, or turns out not to exist, and may well never have existed.

I hope the reader will by now agree with me that the onus is on defenders of this central-most core of the 911 Nonsense to say why, in the light of the work of Elias Davidson (  http://www.mujca.com/eliasdavidson.htm ) and many others, it isn't racist to continue to subscribe to it and/or passively collude with this racist rumour instead of calling a spade a spade.

There comes a time when silence is betrayal – Martin Luther King.

May all beings be safe, may all beings be happy.

Keith Mothersson
Joint co-ordinator of 911 Truth Scotland (but this drafted in personal capacity)
Secretary and Buddhist Representative, All Faiths for 911 Truth (but in personal capacity).

2b Darnhall Cres,
Perth

01738 783677
07815 653389

keith[dot]mothersson[at]phonecoop[dot]coop

Feedback, criticism, advice, additional references, offers of collaboration, re-posting, copying, etc all welcome. Please keep trying if one means of communication is blocked for any reason. If after a reasonable time you don’t hear from me it means I didn’t hear from you.

All Faiths for 911 Truth Declaration and Appeal is at  http://www.mujca.com/allfaiths.htm and see open letter To See or Not to See at  http://www.mujca.com/allfaiths2.htm

Personal website (very unfinished)  http://www.keith-mothersson.co.uk