Does the `blowback’ paradigm explain 9/11?
By rahnuma ahmed
In last week’s column, `9/11, growing disbelief at US govt’s account a decade later’ (New Age, September 12, 2011), I’d wanted to write about the `blowback’ paradigm, as well.
But, after having written about retired general Wesley Clark’s revelations about the Bush administration’s decision to `take out’ seven countries in five years, former deputy assistant secretary of defense colonel Ronald D. Ray’s assertion that the official story of 9/11 is that of `the dog that doesn’t hunt,’ former deputy assistant secretary of state Dr. Stephen Pieczenik’s allegation that the War on Terror is an `orchestrated type of war,’ that the pilot who crashed his plane into the Pentagon must have been a trained military pilot, a `sleeper’, i.e., an agent who is trained to kill and is activated many years later¬—after all this, there wasn’t much space left for talking about the Toronto Hearings, let alone, the `blowback’ paradigm.
A body of internationally-reputed experts and academics, discontented with the US government’s official investigation of 9/11, organised and held the International Hearings on the events of 9/11, on the tenth anniversary of the Twin Tower attacks (8-11 September 2011). Seriously flawed. It fails to describe what happened. Who did what, and why.
I had been in two minds. Slipping in a brief mention of the blowback paradigm, I felt, would not make much sense to many readers.
But the blowback paradigm, I hasten to add, is not the only 9/11 paradigm. There’s an official one, the `fanatic Muslims’ one. Nineteen of them planned 9/11, they used boxcutters and mace to hijack the flights, they had no other help but that provided by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Despite warnings and predictions made by investigators and terror experts, both domestic and foreign, the US government did not `acquire or synthesize sufficient intelligence prior to September 11 to prevent the attacks’ (Nicholas Levin, `What is your HOP level?’, April 1, 2004). But there’s more to this theory. The 9/11 attacks could occur only because the US is a free society. The wretched hijackers took advantage of that.
Closely tagged to the `fanatic Muslim’ hijackers theory is the `incompetence’ theory. According to this, the failure to prevent, or defend, America against 9/11 was due to `incompetence or criminal negligence’ on the part of the White House, and US intelligence agencies, FBI, CIA, NSA etc. It was not, however, due to `malicious intent or foreknowledge…of US government operatives,’ which is downright `unthinkable’. What is needed, is an investigation which identifies and clears up the `failures.’ This is the line taken by the `Kean Commission’, known after Thomas Kean, former New Jersey governor, who chaired the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (set up in 2002); also known as the `9/11 Commission’. These failures, signals the Kean Commission, will be found only at the `middle and lower levels.’
Linked closely to these two theories is the `Saudi/Taliban double cross theory’ which takes the line that the role of `fundamentalist Saudis in high places’ in financing al-Qaeda is actually much greater than revealed. But why was it kept secret? Because of the Bush family’s close business ties to bin Laden’s family. This is why the 9/11 inquiries were obstructed: as a `favor to [Bush family’s] Saudi clients’; also, because if the truth were to come out it would make the Bushies `look bad.’ This line, writes Levis, is taken by BBC reporter Greg Palast, and filmmaker Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11).
A related variant of the above theories is the `Taliban/oil pipeline’ one, which goes somewhat like this: Bush & Co. had conveniently ignored the possibility of an attack, had lowered bin Laden investigations to facilitate `ongoing pipeline negotiations with the Taliban,’ one taken by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, Forbidden Truth: US-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for bin Laden (2002).
Then there’s the Neo-cons/`rogue factions’ theory, which propounds that Bush & Co. were `blindsided by super right-wing elements’ within the US military/intelligence complex, who `effectively attempted or even succeeded in staging a coup.’ According to Levis, this line is taken by Lyndon LaRouche, Thiery Miessan and others. There’s a `Bush suckered’ theory as well. His administration was suckered into the events. By who? Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, China, Russia, German Nazis, singly or in combination. It is usually propounded by lone crusaders.
There’s a cluster of theories which can be umbrella’d under Letting It Happen (LIH), with its own set of variants: Letting It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP), Letting It Happen On Purpose Plus (LIHOP+), Making It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP).
According to the core theory, i.e., Letting It Happen, also termed, `Wishing for Pearl Harbor’ theory, Bush & Co. looked the other way, expecting, hoping an attack would happen so that they could `push through’ their Project for A New American Century (PNAC)/Christian Nation/Plunder Program `wholesale’, this included the already-planned invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. `[But Bush & Co.] did not directly facilitate the attacks, or incriminate themselves’, they just let them happen; this is held by the Democratic Underground.
The LIHOP theory holds that Bush & Co. and/or other elements in the US government, secret services or the establishment knew in advance that the attacks were going to happen, they `worked to ensure that it would happen.’ This insider help included the Air Force standdown, inactions expressed thus, `we were only holding a wargame and it was subverted by evildoers.’
`Knowing in advance and working to ensure that it would happen’, is raised a notch above by Letting It Happen On Purpose Plus (LIHOP+, or Full LIHOP) theorists, who are of the opinion that a `genuine’ terrorist plot was exploited. `Why leave something so important in the hands of amateurs?’ The dream of Islamist extremists of crashbombing planes into American targets was `subverted and…steered to fruition by masterminds within the US power elite.’ The terrorist group of hijackers was infiltrated and helped, `possibly even replacing them or steering the planes (or drones) by remote control, or doing whatever else was thought necessary.’
Advocates of Making It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP) think that there were no hijackers. That the whole thing had been planned years before 2001, that it was finally executed as an inside job by elements within the US intelligence apparatus and Bush & Co., that this included false-flag excuses i.e., a covert operation designed to deceive the public by laying the blame for the attack on the enemy. A famous historical instance is the Reichstag fire of 1933 when the German parliament building was set on fire by the Nazis in order to lay the blame on the communists, and to garner public support for crushing them. That patsies (fall guy) were used, or a fully fake list of hijackers (`9/11 suicide hijackers risen from the dead,’ New Age, December 28, 2009). That the planes were flown by remote control or replaced by drones. That wargames mimicking the 9/11 attacks were deliberately planned, and held, to confuse the majority of the military. To provide an alibi, a back-up story.
MIHOP is also dubbed `Northwoods 2001’, in rememberance of the original Northwoods operation (1962), a false flag plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to the plan, innocent people would be shot on American streets; boats carrying Cuban refugees would be sunk on the high seas; a wave of violent terrorism would be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. `People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro,’ to give the Joint Chief chair Lemnitzer and his cabal `the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war’ against Cuba. The memo was ordered destroyed and erased but a single copy survived in an archive, which was declassified in the mid-1990s; ABC’s investigative reporter James Bamford investigated the incident and wrote about it in Body of Secrets (2001). Initially, the book’s publication was blocked by the the Reagan administration.
Another framework which describes and explains the events of 9/11 is known as the New World Order (NWO) approach, subscribed to by professor Michel Chossudovsky, Chaim Kupferberg and Don Paul. According to this, writes Levis, the master plotters are not just `elements within the US’ but the global ruling elite. A hardcore faction within the elite decides to orchestrate an incident to allow them to gain greater control of the world, to allow `their proxies to seize key resources, reshape the world, drop the democratic facades and transition to corporate feudalism.’ De-populating the world, in other words, slaughtering huge numbers of people, is one of the likely goals. `The Bush mob are lower-order handmaidens, who may not have been privy to details in advance.’
Remember, president Bush had continued reading `The Pet Goat’ story to a classroom of second-graders (Emma E. Booker Elementary School, Sarasota, Florida), and had begun a 20 minute pre-planned photo op, fifteen minutes after it was clear that the US was under attack? According to the official storyline, Bush was informed by his aide Andy Card while reading to schoolkids (not earlier, which a detailed scrutiny of the timeline suggests to researchers), but Bush, the president of the most-powerful nation on earth, was neither whisked away by the secret service after the attack, proclaimed to be the `worst terrorist attack ever on American soil’. Nor did he, as Commander-in-Chief, feel obliged to ask Card any additional questions after being informed of the attack. Nor did he issue any shootdown order for the Air Force. Nor did he ask if the photo op should be cut short. Instead, he just sat and read aloud the Goat Story.
The stage is now set for writing about the blowback theory, adhered to by left, liberals and progressives, and why the 9/11 Truth movement, known as the Truth-ers in brief, are critical of it.
[Concluding Part, to be published tomorrow]Show