Destruction of evidence, use of false evidence, and obstruction of investigations after the fact.
For now, this topic is very well-covered in Basis of Complaint of the Complaint and Petition and the other appendices referred therein.
The context and timing of the attacks, coming amid the Administration’s advance preparations before September 11 to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq.
For now we recommend Paul Thompson’s timeline of planning for the Afghanistan invasion.
Other leads we are considering for new “A”-series appendices:
“Forbidden Truth”: Negotiations with Taliban
Taliban wipes out opium production (Feb 2001)
Bush sends $43 million to Taliban (May 2001)
Carpet of gold or carpet of bombs?
India to support plan for Afghanistan invasion (Jun 2001)
Kevin Ryan was the top manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). He questioned common accounts of how the Twin Towers collapsed in a letter to Frank Gayle, the director of the government’s investigation into the World Trade Center disaster (November 11, 2004). UL fired Ryan on November 16, a few days after he forwarded the letter on the Internet.
See the exchange between UL and 911Truth.org on this matter here.
Ryan’s hometown paper, the South-Bend Tribune reported on the story on November 22.
We understand that an exploration of which parties may be complicit in a political crime—such as 9/11 surely was, on a vast scale—must include due consideration for the question of “cui bono?”: Who are the beneficiaries of given events? Benefits may accrue incidentally, unwanted, or unforeseen by the beneficiaries, and therefore benefit is insufficient in establishing culpability; but an impartial investigation necessarily will include consideration of possible culpability among beneficiary groups. Given the disturbing inconsistencies in the official story, such an investigation must ask, “Who would have had motive to allow or to facilitate the attacks?” “Who has displayed a willingness to exploit the events of 9/11 and their predictable consequences in the political, financial, and psychological realms?” “Are there indications that any of these beneficiaries may have been aware of the attacks in advance, or involved in obstruction of investigations either before or after the attacks?”
For now we are pursuing the ideas presented by Catherine Austin Fitts in her article, “Cui bono?”
The US government has a long history of covert operations and covert policies, undertaken outside public purview or control by Constitutional institutions. Moreover, many of these operations and policies are properly described as extragovernmental, i.e., implemented by associations that are only partly based in US government agencies, but which pursue their own agendas that are often at cross-purposes with official policy-makers. One term for this is “parapolitics”—the practice of political influence in secret by self-appointed, unaccountable groups. Both government-approved covert operations and covert parapolitical networks often have countenanced deliberate support for the rise of groups later designated to be “enemies” of the United States. Of the many such examples, especially germane are the decades of US support for radical Islamism in general, as well as specific US government participation in creating the network around Osama bin Ladin and in exploiting that network both as a support in achieving covert policy goals, and as an overt enemy of convenience.
For now we recommend:
PETER DALE SCOTT’S WEBSITE “ON WAR, 9/11, AFGHANISTAN, AL-QAEDA, DRUGS, OIL, IRAQ, BUSH, CHENEY, AND OSAMA BIN LADEN”
The many past cases when states (including the US government) and state agents pursuing their own agendas have countenanced attacks on their own nationals, fabricated non-existent attacks, or even planned for real attacks and blamed such attacks on an enemy of convenience (a “false flag”), the motive being to rule by fear, provide the pretext for war, silence dissent, or achieve other political and economic goals.
For now we recommend readings on the evidence that the Moscow apartment bombings of 1999, blamed on Chechen terrorists, were in fact false-flag terror attacks with a circle of complicity and orchestration among Russian agencies such as the FSB (former KGB).
(Back to Document Overview.)