Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). This fifth part examines why the official narrative has never been comprehensively scrutinised in a public civil trial. The focus is on limited investigative mandates, Philip Zelikow’s Commission of Inquiry and contradictions that have been swept under the carpet.
When the Pope proclaims a particularly solemn and binding doctrinal decision ‘ex cathedra’, it is regarded as infallible. The decision is final and explicit, and is binding on the entire Church. A Catholic may be excommunicated for persistently denying a binding dogma, which in the Middle Ages was tantamount to a death sentence.
The way in which the official 9/11 narrative was first imposed as dogma on the US population – from the manual labourer to the university professor – and later on the citizens of the US’s vassal states, is reminiscent of the treatment of a papal dogma from darker, bygone times. The official account of 9/11 was that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists armed with carpet knives, under the guidance of Osama bin Laden, who is said to have directed the entire operation from a cave in Afghanistan. Questions or doubts were not permitted and usually led to problems at work, as the political surveillance state was already well established by 2001.
Countless critical journalists and academics who came too close to the truth in their investigations in the years following 11 September 2001 were ‘cancelled’, marginalised in public life or even lost their jobs – not only in the US, but also in Europe, and even in Switzerland, as the example of Dr Daniele Ganser shows. Ganser lost his teaching post after receiving an explicit warning from his university not to spread any more conspiracy theories. The tentacles of the genocidal Zionist criminals reach far beyond the US.
However, the Bush administration always had great difficulty when it came to backing up its claims with facts. This was also the case with the ‘irrefutable evidence’ of Bin Laden’s guilt in the 9/11 attacks, which George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, former General Colin Powell, had promised to present to the US vassal states when declaring the NATO Article 5 alliance case. To this day, Washington has failed to do so.
Instead, the Bush Jr administration went to great lengths to make the public believe that a genuine investigation into the background to 9/11 was taking place. The media never tired of highlighting the FBI’s investigation as the largest in the history of the ‘Bureau’, involving thousands of FBI agents. Thousands of foreign government and intelligence officials were also interviewed, and the US intelligence agencies – which at the time numbered ‘only’ 16 – primarily investigated themselves. There were congressional hearings, and so on. With this pretence of genuine activity, the public was successfully kept in the dark for a while.
In parallel, inspections of the intelligence agencies and a joint congressional inquiry were carried out by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Whilst this sounded good, in reality the intelligence officials were left to their own devices, and they certainly did not ask any awkward questions that might have plunged not only the Bush administration but the entire US system into crisis.
And then, in the autumn of 2002, the US public and the world were also presented with an utterly ‘credible’ spectacle: the appointment of the ‘National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks of 2002’. The Commission was presented as an “independent, non-partisan body”. However, the Commission’s remit was also severely restricted. The official version of the collapse was not to be questioned. Similarly, the government-run “National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)”, which had been tasked with conducting a scientific investigation into the collapse of the towers, was only permitted to do so on the premise that the structural integrity of the skyscrapers was completely intact on all floors at the time of the collapse. This, however, ruled out controlled demolition as a possible explanation from the outset.
Nevertheless, the Commission of Inquiry continued to work diligently. For 19 days, it held public hearings, listened to the testimonies of around 160 witnesses, conducted more than 1,200 interviews and reportedly studied thousands of documents. It then published a detailed public report*, which was subsequently available in every US bookshop.
All this took place under the leadership of Philip Zelikow. His many years of service, including at the White House and on the US National Security Council, had qualified him as a thoroughly independent and reliable chair of this commission. Malicious tongues claimed at the time, however, that Zelikow had already finalised the commission’s report before its very first meeting.
The result of the Commission’s enormous effort was that a number of failings within the US intelligence services were criticised. But the official 9/11 narrative remained untouched, as Zelikow had taken great care to ensure that no one was invited who might have raised critical questions about the many inconsistencies in the official version.
From a legal perspective, all 9/11 investigative activities, including those of the Commission, were aimed solely at identifying alleged errors and shaping policy in the aftermath of the attack. None of these activities led to any criminal consequences; no one within the establishment was held to account; nor were there any binding judgements, except against the accomplices and accessories of the 19 young Arabs who had allegedly hijacked the aeroplanes. All of the latter died on 11 September. Some of their arrested supporters were convicted by civil courts. The alleged masterminds (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) were charged before a US military commission at Guantanamo Bay. The proceedings remain unresolved to this day.
In other words: the few quasi-judicial proceedings that have taken place at all in connection with 9/11 were held behind closed doors, far from public scrutiny, at the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay.
It must therefore be noted that there has not been a single public civil criminal trial in which all aspects of the attacks have been fully investigated, including sworn statements from independent experts on the precise mechanisms of the collapse of the WTC towers.
How very different this was from the investigation into the crash of Pan Am Flight 103 on 21 December 1988, caused by a terrorist act, which brought the aircraft down on the Scottish village of Lockerbie. More on this in Part VI.
* National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Authorised Edition, W. W. Norton & Company, New York 2004, ISBN 0-393-32671-3.
Note:
See the articles
- The Unanswered Questions of Ground Zero – Series: 25 Years After 9/11 (Part 1/6) by Rainer Rupp
- Just a few seconds’ deviation from a stone in free fall – Series: 25 years after 9/11 (Part 2/6) by Rainer Rupp
- “How can aircraft-grade aluminium penetrate this steel?” – Series: 25 years after 9/11 (Part 3/6) by Rainer Rupp
- The Great Silence on Profiteers, Secret Services and Israel – Series: 25 Years After 9/11 (Part 4/6) by Rainer Rupp
in WELTEXPRESS.
