This section provides a brief and very incomplete discussion of some of the criticisms that have been levied against the U.S. official explanation regarding what happened on 9-11.  There is not enough material in this section from which to draw any serious conclusions.  CRR is aware that much more material is available on this subject and intends to perform additional research when time and resources allow.

NOTE: The outline below is presently being maintained by CCR.  If you or your organization would like to sponsor this page, please contact us.

CRITICISMS OF THE OFFICIAL U.S. EXPLANATION OF THE TERRORIST ATTACKS.

A        The attacks could not have been carried out without state sponsorship.

B      The hijackers’ profiles are not consistent with the cited evidence.

C        Conclusions.

A      The attacks could not have been carried out without state sponsorship

1       The attacks were too well organized to have been performed by a loosely connected network such as al Qaeda. 

a        Summary.

i     Many intelligence experts agree that the attacks must have been in the planning from anywhere between one and five years. (Mueller III 4-19-2002; Diamond and Kiely 6-19-2002)  Only a tight organization could have kept the operation a secret for so long. 

 

b        Expert(s) who more or less support the criticism

i     Eckehardt Werthebach, former president of Germany’s domestic intelligence service (Bollyn 12-21-2001)

 

ii     Horst Ehmke - formerly directed the German secret service.

(A)   “Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service.” (cited in Bollyn 12-21-2001)

 

iii     Andreas von Bülow, former head of the parliamentary commission that oversees the German secret services.

(A)    “The planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement—to hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers.  This is unthinkable, without years of support from state intelligence services.”  (cited in Bollyn  12-21-2001; Gallagher 1-25-2002)

 

iv     Brigadier General Dr, Mahmoud Khalaf, professor at Egypt’s Higher Military Academy, fellow of the British Royal Institute for Home Defense, and member of the Scientific Association of the U.S. Army.  (Gallagher 1-25-2002)

(A)    Speaking at a conference in Cairo, Egypt on January 5 2002, titled, “Who committed the September 11^th attacks and Why?” he told his audience, “We are confronted with a technical operation of extremely great dimensions.  We estimate that the planning organ for this operation must have consisted of at least 100 specialized technicians, who needed one year for planning.  Each stage of this operation has many details, and every single technical detail needs measures, which are called, ‘deception,’ and camouflaging against around ten specialized organs in the United States which are called the ‘Intelligence Community.’  We will not say the CIA, but we will say the DIA, which is the Defense Intelligence Agency.  The DIA has highly qualified technical capability . . . . I will not exaggerate and say it can monitor every single square meter of the planet audio-visually at any moment – [and] the agency called the National Security Agency . . . . Yes, there was penetration of the security system and the U.S. Armed Forces.”  (cited in Gallagher 1-25-2002)

 

v     Stan Goff, former Green Beret (1970-1996)  (Goff 10-2001a;b)

 

2       High-placed U.S. officials must have been complicit in the attack.

a        Expert’s who support this criticism.

i     Andreas von Bülow, former head of the parliamentary commission that oversees the German secret services.

(A)    “There are 26 intelligence services in the U.S.A. with a budget of $30 billion, which were not able to prevent the attacks.”  (Bollyn  1-21-2002)

(B)    On 9-11, four planes had been simultaneously hijacked – an unprecedented event in U.S. history - and “for more than 60 decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies kept the fighter planes on the ground.”  (cited in Bollyn  1-21-2002; Mulgrew 2-23-2002)

 

ii     Brigadier General Dr, Mahmoud Khalaf, professor at Egypt’s Higher Military Academy, fellow of the British Royal Institute for Home Defense, and member of the Scientific Association of the U.S. Army.  (Gallagher 1-25-2002)

(A)    See above comment.

 

iii     Stan Goff, former Green Beret (1970-1996)  (Goff 10-2001a;b)

 

3       What little evidence that the U.S. has presented implicating Osama bin Laden in the 9-11 attacks is suspicious.

a        Despite the claim that the U.S. was totally in the dark before the attacks, in the 48 hours that followed, the FBI was able to come up with an extensive list of the suspects. 

i     Problems with this.

(A)    It is hard to believe that they could have produced a list of the alleged terrorists in such a short time if the FBI had not already known about these men.  Identifying the terrorists involves much more work than just picking names from a passenger list.  In order to verify that the alleged terrorists did not use aliases, an investigation – much longer than 48 hours – would have to have been undertaken.

 

ii     Implications.

(A)    The U.S. may have been unconcerned about finding the true perpetrators.  The real intention behind the so-called evidence may have been to blame certain individuals that would have implicated bin Laden as the mastermind behind the attacks and therefore give the U.S. a ‘valid’ excuse to start ‘a new kind of war’ that would last a ‘very long time.’ 

 

4       Much of the evidence that was immediately found seems almost too convenient.

a        Mohammed Atta’s passport.

i     Mohammed Atta’s passport was reportedly found at the WTC crash site conveniently located on top of the rubble where it could be found quickly unscathed amid a scene of total destruction that was so intense it supposedly destroyed the shock and fireproof black boxes.  (Bollyn 1-21-2002)

 

b        Problems with this.

i     It almost appears planted evidence.

(A)    Expert(s), who support this criticism.

(1)     Andreas von Bülow, former head of the parliamentary commission that oversees the German secret services.

(a)     “95 percent of the work of intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation.”  (cited in Bollyn 1-21-2002)

(b)     The evidence that was allegedly left behind by the terrorists looks more like what would have been left by “a herd of stampeding elephants.”  How is it that terrorists, who presumably kept the entire operation secret for who knows how long, could have been so foolish as to leave such obvious clues about who they were?  (cited in Bollyn 1-21-2002)

 

i     Some of the evidence looks as if it were almost intentionally left behind.

(A)    Examples.

(1)     The alleged terrorists are purported to have used their own credit cards with their real names to purchase their plane tickets.  (Bollyn 1-21-2002)

(2)     They used their real names at the flight schools.  (Bollyn 1-21-2002)

(3)     They left a rental car containing a flight manual written in Arabic.  (Bollyn 1-21-2002)

 

(B)    Problems with this so-called ‘evidence’

(1)     It seems almost too convenient.  It is therefore, at the very least, worthy of an inquiry aimed at assessing its validity.

 

(C)    Expert(s) who support this criticism.

(1)     Andreas von Bülow, former head of the parliamentary commission that oversees the German secret services.

(a)     He stated that the evidence resembled the German game, “Schnitzeljagd” where little pieces of paper are left as clues for the children.  (Bollyn 1-21-2002)

 

5       The “smoking gun” videotape of Osama bin Laden is problematic.

a        It could have been fabricated or doctored.

i     Possible methods.

(A)    Alteration.

(B)    Fabrication.

 

ii     Comments that have been made that acknowledge this possibility.

(A)    Andreas von Bülow, former head of the parliamentary commission that oversees the German secret services. 

(1)     “When one is dealing with intelligence services, one can imagine manipulations of the highest quality. Holly wood could provide these techniques. I consider the videos inappropriate as evidence.”  (cited in Bollyn 1-21-2002)

 

b        It only showed that bin Laden had prior knowledge of the attacks.  It does not prove that he was behind the planning of the attacks or that he financed them.

 

B      The Hijackers’ Profiles are not consistent with the cited evidence.

1       Summary.

a         Several skeptics of the official story have noted that the evidence that the US agencies used to ‘prove’ the guilt of the alleged hijackers does not match the profile of a Muslim fanatic. 

2       Examples.

a        Instructions for hijackers.

i     Summary.

(A)    One of the so-called pieces of evidence that the U.S. used to ‘prove’ the guilt of the suspected Muslim hijackers was a five-page document that the FBI claims was a set of instructions allegedly written by Mohammed Atta to the hijackers.  It was supposedly found in Mohammed Atta’s baggage.  According to some critics, the style of language used in the instructions do not match the profile of the suspected Muslim terrorists.

 

ii     Sample quotations.

(A)    “The time of fun and waste is gone”  (cited in Fisk 9-29-2001)

(1)     Criticism.

(a)     “Lebanese and Palestinian suicide bombers have never been known to refer to ‘the time of fun and waste’ – because a true Muslim would not have ‘wasted’ his time and would regard pleasure as a reward of the after-life.”  (Fisk 9-29-2001)

(B)    “Be optimistic ... Check all your items – your bag, your clothes, your knives, your will, your IDs, your passport ... In the morning, try to pray the morning prayer with an open heart.”  (cited in Fisk 9-29-2001)

(1)     Criticism.

(a)     “And what Muslim would urge his fellow believers to recite the morning prayer – and then go on to quote from it? A devout Muslim would not need to be reminded of his duty to say the first of the five prayers of the day – and would certainly not need to be reminded of the text. It is as if a Christian, urging his followers to recite the Lord's Prayer, felt it necessary to read the whole prayer in case they didn't remember it.”  (Fisk 9-29-2001)

(b)     “the use of the word "optimistic'' with reference to the Prophet is a decidedly modern word.”  (Fisk 9-29-2001)

(C)    “In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate ... In the name of God, of myself, and of my family.”  (cited in Fisk 9-29-2001)

(1)     Criticism.

(a)     “The problem is that no Muslim – however ill-taught – would include his family in such a prayer. Indeed, he would mention the Prophet Mohamed immediately after he mentioned God in the first line.”  (Fisk 9-29-2001)

 

b        Possible explanations.

i     It has been suggested that the oddity of language used in the letter might have been introduced by its translation.  Robert Fisk noted that in the past the CIA had used Lebanese Maronite Christians to translate Muslim documents.  It is therefore quite possible that the translators of the document were not Muslims and consequently did a poor job translating the instructions.  (Fisk 9-29-2001)

 

C     cONCLUSIONS.

a         The information in this section came from just a few sources.  Although the points raised are thought provoking, more discussion on the subjected is needed before any kind of strong conclusion can be made. 

 

Copyright © 2002  Center for Cooperative Research.  All Rights Reserved.