Translator's Note: Kevin Ryan is a well-known activist of the "truth-seekers" movement regarding the events of September 11, 2001 in the United States. He has served on the board of directors of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth movement and has co-authored several books and many articles on the topic with others.
People sometimes wonder why it is important to investigate the alleged hijackers and others who have been formally charged with the September 11, 2001 crimes. In the end, the accused 19 hijackers would not have been able to follow through most of what happened. The answer is that official accounts are important because they are part of these crimes. Identifying and examining the people behind the official 9/11 myth will help uncover those who are generally responsible.
The people who actually committed the 9/11 crimes didn’t just intend to hijack planes and bring down buildings - they intended to blame others for it. To carry out this plan, the real criminals needed to create a fake account of what happened, and this need was undoubtedly thought of much earlier. In light of this, official reports can be seen as linking the “blame others” part of these crimes and their physical parts.
The promotion of the idea of "Islamic terrorism" was the beginning of an effort to place blame on others, although the exact plan for the 9/11 attacks may not have been developed at the time. This idea was for the most part a transformation of the existing Soviet threat, which by 1989 was rapidly losing its ability to frighten the public, into something that would serve more pressing political needs. Paul Bremer and Brian Jenkins were at the forefront of this transformation of the Soviet threat into the threat of Islamic terrorism. Both Bremer and Jenkins were also closely associated with the events at the World Trade Center.
Coordinated advocacy for al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (UBL) appears to have begun in earnest in 1998. Then the bombings at the African US embassies were attributed to UBL and a group that was not yet reported, called al-Qaeda. The US government responded by bombing Sudan and Afghanistan, and with the help of The New York Times, it began to loudly advertise the big myth of a new enemy.
“This is, unfortunately, the war of the future,” said Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. "Osama bin Laden's organization essentially declared war on the Americans and made it very clear that this (applies) to all Americans, anywhere."
In retrospect, it is surprising that this was the first mention of al-Qaeda in the New York Times in just three years before 9/11. Even more surprising, the Washington Post did not report on al-Qaeda until June 1999, and its reports of the power behind this new threat were highly hypothetical.
“But for all his allegations of a worldwide conspiracy to kill Americans, the government's arguments are now largely circumstantial. The indictment does not explain in any way how bin Laden is running al-Qaeda or how he may have orchestrated the embassy bombings.”
Promotional video:
Despite Washington Post skepticism, reports of al-Qaeda continued in a strange mixture of propaganda and doubt. For example, The Times reported on the May 2001 trial of people accused of attacks on African embassies. This article contradicted itself by claiming that "the prosecutors never provided evidence directly showing that Mr. bin Laden ordered the attacks on the embassies," and at the same time that Bin Laden's "former adviser", a certain Ali Mohamed, stated that Mr. bin Laden "pointed out where a suicide truck could drive up." The fact that Mohamed worked for the US Army, FBI and CIA was not mentioned.
Other facts were also ignored. That UBL worked with the CIA and that Al Qaeda was essentially the creation of CIA programs like Operation Cyclone was a reality that was beginning to merge into the background. By the time 9/11 took place, these facts were clearly forgotten by most American leaders and media sources. Also overlooked were the stories of people like Frank Carlucci and Richard Armitage, who played an important role in Operation Cyclone and remained influential players during the 9/11 attacks.
In the two years prior to 9/11, the suspected hijackers were very active in the United States. They traveled extensively and often seemed to make an effort to get noticed. When they didn't try to be noticed, they were definitely not behaving like Muslims. Mohamed Atta's actions were indiscriminate, reminiscent of Lee Harvey Oswald's, and Atta appears to have enjoyed the protection of the American authorities.
Meanwhile, top US terrorism experts appeared to be contributing to al-Qaeda terrorism. Evidence indicates that US intelligence chiefs Louis Free and George Tenet facilitated and covered the terrorist attacks for years prior to 9/11. Both of their services - the CIA and the FBI - later took emergency measures to cover up evidence of the 9/11 attacks. And both services made fun of the trial of those who were formally accused of assisting the UBL and the alleged hijackers.
Anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke inexplicably helped UBL avoid problems by protecting him on at least two occasions. Clarke, without a twinge of conscience, was unable to control the known al-Qaeda cells operating in the United States. After 9/11, Clarke was among those who falsely identified Abu Zubaidah as the leading leader of al-Qaeda. Zubeida's testimony under torture was then used as the basis for the report of the 9/11 investigation commission.
Former CIA operative Porter Goss created the first official account of what happened on 9/11 with his mentor Bob Graham. It was the report of the Joint Congressional Investigation by the US Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees. The report was heavily influenced by people who were to become the prime suspects. For example, Richard Clarke was the one in charge of a confidential video conference at the White House that was completely unable to communicate between leaders and respond to attacks. Clark is cited 46 times in the Joint Investigation Report. CIA Director George Tenet was quoted 77 times, Louis Free 31 times.
This is why it is imperative that the people who worked on the original story of UBL and the accused hijackers are investigated for their role in 9/11. This includes not only those who were the figureheads behind the official communications, but more importantly, those who provided the testimony and testimony upon which those communications were built. The alleged hijackers and their associates should also be of significant interest to 9/11 investigators. This is because what we know about them was provided by people we can assume were involved in the crimes, and what we don't know about them yet may reveal more truth.
Kevin Ryan's Blog