In 2002, Will Pitt wrote a book that completely exposed the run up to the Iraq war.....

[OldDem2012]

53. Here's part of an online article I wrote for a website back in 2002....

WAS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, ANOTHER PEARL HARBOR? IN WHAT SENSE?

We all know the first "official" story about the events of September 11, 2001. We were told that it was a sneak attack almost exactly like the one on Pearl Harbor more than sixty years ago. We were also told that despite the fact that U. S. intelligence had collected thousands, perhaps millions, of different bits and pieces of information, they had simply failed to put it all together in one coherent package. All of the terrible scenes of the destruction of the World Trade Center and people fleeing across Manhattan's bridges were brought to us in an unparalleled mainstream media event of round-the-clock reporting. I know that I personally will never forget that morning, nor the many weeks and months that followed.

Even before the first tower of the World Trade Center had fallen, the mainstream media began to openly speculate on who or what had done this to America. The names immediately pushed to the top of the list were Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, names with which most Americans had already become very familiar. We knew from what we had been told that they had the means, the motive, and the willingness to do this terrible act, and had actually planned and executed other terrorist attacks against Americans and American assets. All across the U. S., grief and shock turned to anger...and a very strong national desire to strike back at those that had done this awful thing.

Flash forward to the first couple of weeks of May 2002, and we’re starting to see a very different picture. We now know that Bush and his supporters knew that the terrorist attack was coming, and we’re learning more every day about just how much they really knew. Bush’s people are now spending quite a bit of time trying to blame the FBI, CIA, and others for either massive intelligence failures, or a failure to more fully inform Bush, or both. Additionally, Cheney is not only advising Bush not to hand over any of the intelligence briefings prior to September 11, 2001, he is also refusing to cooperate with the idea of convening an independent commission to investigate those terrible events.

Why? What are they hiding? What is it they don’t want us, the American people, to know?

Now, having said all of the above, consider for a moment the idea that the events of September 11, 2001, were ALLOWED to happen. Think about that concept for a moment.

One of the easiest ways to accomplish an objective is to allow some other event to happen that will set certain events into motion, or to have key security/military units stand down at a critical point in time, or both. Sometimes an objective can be accomplished by leaving a known spy in place and feeding that individual real data to find out where it goes, or false data to see if the opponent changes an operation that will allow you better access to data that you want. The variations are endless.

Think about the billions upon billions of dollars spent every year by U. S. civilian and military intelligence agencies gathering data in this country and overseas. Is it really believable that no one at the top of U. S. intelligence understood the true implications of the data that was being collected in advance of September 11, 2001? If your answer is “No”, then is it really believable that those same intelligence organizations would have failed to brief those in political control?

Once we are willing to at least consider the concept that September 11, 2001 was allowed to happen, then we have to ask why would it be allowed to happen? I think we know that the motive involved the further enrichment of the oil, energy, and defense industries. Major corporations like Enron, Unocal, and the Carlyle Group stood to gain enormous profits over the next fifty years if they could devise the means to gain control of the vast oil reserves of the Caspian Sea area.

But how would such a plan be enacted? Here is a possible seven-step process:

FIRST: Remove really smart and aggressive senior people from positions that may allow them to discover the plan, or failing that, bring them into the plan if no other option exists.

SECOND: Create bureaucratic roadblocks in the path of others that pass important information up the chain.

THIRD: Create cover stories gaining plausible deniability for key figures in the plan.

FOURTH: As the events unfold, orders customarily given under certain circumstances are not issued. Still other orders are given that send units in directions that are planned to be unfruitful. On September 11, 2001, jet interceptors failed to leave the ground for at least 26 minutes...long enough for at least two of the first three airliners to have hit their intended targets.

FIFTH: Have plans in place to create heroes of the victims, and to build public opinion in support of the goals of the plan.

SIXTH: Quickly push legislation through Congress that will protect the gains of the plan, and further the interests of the planners.

SEVENTH: Create an atmosphere of fear among the general populace and offer solutions to protect them at the same time.

Having read the seven points noted above, is the concept of allowing such a terrible event to take place really that far-fetched?