Sponsors

Webster Tarpley on the Real Causes of 9/11 Email Print

Webster Tarpley has a long background of service in international journalism.  His lengthy record of service in the field has provided him with many contacts, which he uses judiciously, as well as an international perspective, enabling him to see well beyond the smoke and mirrors generated by governments functioning as self-serving mechanisms.

Tarpley, who received richly deserved praise for an earlier unauthorized biography of George Bush the Elder, which exposed the family's involvement in providing funding for Hitler's Third Reich, has delivered a prolifically researched and dramatic work detailing the real causes of 9/11.  

He makes the case for continuing investigation into the series of tragedies that transformed the entire world amid the plumes of smoke surfacing from New York's burning Twin Towers.

9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in U.S.A., now in its third edition, is an indispensable work in that it tackles the number one issue that America and the world needs to currently confront.  

While many might state that issues such as affordable jobs and medical care surpass all other issues in importance, the one concerning which Tarpley has devoted this informative volume - that of state-sponsored, false flag synthetic terror - surpasses in overall importance everything else within both national and international boundaries.

If you are one of the many skeptics of the pat explanation provided by the government and the 9/11 Commission that the attacks on that fateful day were all interlinked with the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden, a genius of mythical proportions controlling the world from an Afghanistan cave, this book will loom as a welcome and illuminating volume of reason and penetrating insight.  

Tarpley debunks this prevailing myth with precise insight.

The reason why this issue exceeds all others in importance is that, until the network behind the Cheney-Bush Junta is fully exposed, a group or groups representing the same line of thought will remain in Washington.  

As Tarpley points out, evicting the ruling Junta from office is imperative to eliminate the dire and imminent threat of nuclear war, as evidenced by the truculent stands of neoconservatives in the Middle East, with Syria looming close on the prospective nuclear radar screen.

Tarpley makes the same basic points that have been consistently made here regarding who is actually in charge and how the ruling Junta developed.  He notes that a shadow government would never entrust strategic decision making to a "moron" such as George W. Bush.  He sees the sage of Halliburton and the oil-military axis, Dick Cheney, as a major spokesperson but takes one significant step beyond this perspective.

In tracing the events of 9/11, Tarpley naturally covers the bizarre and fearful behavior of George W. Bush in Sarasota, where America could have been facing a nuclear threat or coup, only to see the putative chief executive continue a photo opportunity session with an elementary school girl reading "My Pet Goat."  He probes the reader's mind, however, with where he proceeds from there.  

Tarpley drops a bombshell as he recounts the message received by Cheney and communicated to him from Washington to Bush aboard Air Force One.  According to no less an insider than Bob Woodward the message communicated was "Angel is next."  In White House jargon Angel represents Air Force One.

A case is built beginning with this reference of a bloodless coup in progress.  Tarpley's explanation resonates with reason based on what we saw and were told at the time.  There was Bush's long absence from Washington and his engaging in what to outside observers could represent wandering flight missions to nowhere.  

There was also the period where Air Force One zigzagged and flew at low altitude.  Such activity is consistent with seeking to become a more difficult target for an attacker.

Tarpley's contention that any power takeover involved some of the highest sources in government was buttressed by the fact that the planes involved in the 9/11 crash disasters were never scrambled, when such a response is automatic under Federal Aviation Administration rules whenever aircraft display erratic behavior.  

He also focuses on unanswered questions regarding the crashed plane in a Pennsylvania field and the holes left in the Pentagon following what was described as an attack by a plane.  According to aeronautical engineering experts, it appeared from the size and shape of the holes that the damage more likely resulted from a missile attack.

Another fascinating area of Tarpley exploration is that of the scene at the Twin Towers.  The author minces no words in his denunciation of New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's decision, clearly at the behest of Cheney and Bush, to remove all of the charred steel following the crashes and subsequent fires.  

In one particularly telling ring of irony, the company hired to clear away what could have represented vital evidence was the same one used after the Oklahoma City bombing for the same purpose.

While Rudolph Giuliani, through mainstream media post-9/11 spin, was exalted almost to the level of sainthood, Tarpley is to be admired for seeing through the smoke and mirrors.  He reveals that it is a felony to remove potential evidence from a crime scene, which Guiliani did to a marked degree.  The question is why?

Tarpley's disclosures concerning the response of the Cheney-Bush Junta to the tragedy and the ultimate appointment of an investigating commission, only after prolonged pressure was applied, are some of the best of a work filled with crucial information.  

Tarpley provides brief background sketches of the 9/11 Commission members, proving conclusively that, with the exception of the group's single "wild card," former Vietnam War hero and U.S. Senator, Max Cleland, the group consisted of Washington Beltway insiders more conducive to holding the line and not making waves than probing for fresh answers.  

It is particularly significant that Colleen Rowley, a Time "Person of the Year" and foremost 9/11 whistleblower, was never called to testify.

Tarpley's main scorn reserved for the 9/11 Commission process is directed toward John Lehman.  Tarpley reveals that Lehman, a former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration, was a signer of the September 20,2001 letter from the Project for the New American Century calling for a "war on terror" against Iraq.

He also discloses that, rather than probing for new information pertaining to the Twin Towers scene, Lehman instead unfairly scapegoated valiant New York City firefighters, contending that they had not done enough.  Naturally nothing was said about removing potential evidence from the crime scene over the protests of those same firefighters.

Another significant point covered by Tarpley was the overlooked evidence that the 9/11 Commission ignored.  Scores of experts have insisted that it is impossible to generate fires of the nature that occurred at the Twin Towers, as well as another building nearby that caught fire without being hit by aircraft, based on the official explanation.  

Past experiences reveal that buildings remain standing after being hit by aircraft.  It requires explosive devices to trigger the fiery destruction and collapses that reeked havoc in New York's financial district on 9/11.

Prominent Indian author Arundhati Roy uttered my favorite quote from 9/11 Synthetic Terror.  On August 16, 2004, Roy told the American Sociological Association in San Francisco: "Terrorism is the privatization of war" and that "terrorists are the free marketers of war."

Webster Tarpley has extended his efforts beyond the research and writing of this comprehensive work on 9/11 to the realm of cohesive action.  He is currently interacting with others to seek answers to questions being dodged rather than investigated.  

Tarpley is a prominent member of the 9/11 Commission for Truth.  He urges those reading his book to join in that effort.  The Commission met recently in Chicago, listening to an address from Tarpley as well as a speech from Dr. Bob Bowman, candidate for Congress from District 15 in Florida.  

The book contains such a breadth of research that to fully review it would require space commensurate with the length of the work itself.  Tarpley's ambitious undertaking demolishes the accepted mainstream media and political explanation of events in the same manner that Mark Lane in the sixties demolished the official Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.  

9/11 Synthetic Terror can be purchased at ProgressivePress.com.  It supplies a needed wakeup call to Americans at a pivotal period of history when the maniacal and predatory actions of neoconservatives, with many focused in the ranks of the Project for the New American Century, threaten the world with nuclear extinction.  

As Tarpley indicates, it is time to remove the "nuclear football" from the clutches of the ruling Junta in the same way that, in the final days of the Nixon Administration in 1974, Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger removed that deadly option from a highly disturbed, paranoiac American leader.

The current bloodthirsty, power mad Washington neocons need to be stopped before it is too late.  Americans need to vigilantly demand answers to important questions that have heretofore been swept under the rug.              


KEYWORDS: , , , , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Dean Calls Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki An "Anti-Semite." | On The Sniper Shooting Spree in Seattle >
 Display:
Here's why I take EVERYthing Tarpley says with a salt shaker in my hand:

He also focuses on unanswered questions regarding the crashed plane in a Pennsylvania field and the holes left in the Pentagon following what was described as an attack by a plane.  According to aeronautical engineering experts, it appeared from the size and shape of the holes that the damage more likely resulted from a missile attack.

Totally bogus, which some of the more sophisticated believers in a 9/11 conspiracy, have themselves comprehensively debunked. They even argue, correctly, that the "no-plane" theorists have hurt the 9/11 conspiracy movement because it is so easily proved wrong. Thus, they say, people who might otherwise have believed there was a 9/11 conpiracy are put off the idea by those claiming the Pentagon was hit by a missile when that is obviously not the case.

The hole perfectly fits a Boeing 757, hundreds of eyewitnesses saw it, tons of wreckage was recovered, family members brought to the scene saw wreckage, et cetera, ad nauseam.

by Meteor Blades on 07/31/2006 05:10:57 AM EST

initially for the following reason.  The critical respondent notes that Tarpley's stated view in "Synthetic Terror" and elsehwere harms critics of the prevailing 9/11 mainstream theory.  The leading figures embrace Tarpley and have taken the same position regarding the Pentagon attack of 9/11.  John Leonard is the publisher of "Synthetic Terror" and, along with Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, wrote "The War on Freedom," which espouses the same view as Tarpley on this issue.  David Ray Griffin in "The New Pearl Harbor" also presents the same view, as does Mike Ruppert in "Crossing the Rubicon" and Jim Marrs in "Inside Job."  Also consider that Tarpley is one of the leading voices and a frequent speaker at 9/11 Truth Commission meetings.  

Since I have mentioned the most prominent critics of the mainstream 9/11 position and these are the authors of the major books on the subject, just where is the great dissension against Tarpley's Pentagon view?  None of these prominent voices or debunkers of his position are mentioned.  All we have is one blanket comment.

It should be noted that the critical view Tarpley expresses was articulated shortly after the mainstream theory was presented.  It was delineated in Le Monde, the French daily which is one of the most respected newspapers in the world.  This view has been stated with great frequency throughout Europe.

The Tarpley criticism attacks a theory with ad hominem comments and generalities whereas Tarpley, in Chapter VII of "Synthetic Terror" covering pages 249 to 259, relies on specifics rather than generalities and emotion.  In terms of the various witnesses the critic claims have addressed this point and verified the Boeing 757 position, Tarpley notes that many of those witnesses are military officers, Pentagon officers, or federal employees.  He cites the "very evident" conflict involved.

On page 251 Tarpley presents the dimensions of a Boeing 757-200 and contrasts them with the size of the impact hole estimated by Marrs.  He also notes, in reference to the tremendous damage the critic describes on the ground, with what he terms the "pristine" Pentagon lawn between the building and a multi-lane highway that passes nearby.  As for eyewitnesses, Tarpley quotes a host of them along with their observations on pages 254-255.

I have yet to see any of these specifics mentioned by Tarpley, much of which were included in the Le Monde account, views of experts, and testimony from those claiming to be eyewitnesses, refuted by anyone.  They certainly have not been refuted by Tarpley's critic in this instance.

Bill Hare      

by Bob Kendall on 07/31/2006 11:29:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
...I attacked anyone personally. I said the so-called evidence that Tarpley offers on Flight 77 and the Pentagon is bogus. That is not ad hominem. Saying that the commenter obviously needs a reading comprehension class would be ad hominem.

Here are some experts who agree with me about Flight 77:

"Hunt the Boeing" Answers

New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail

September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations
Using LS-Dyna

High-Fidelity Visualization of Large-Scale Simulations

The fact that Tarpley uses the estimate of the hole in the Pentagon by Jim Marrs (from Inside Job) is a real clincher in the bad sourcing department. Among other things, Marrs claims that UFOs working together with secret societies, have been trying to run the world throughout recorded history.

Here's a photo showing what the hole really looked like. Golly, it's the size of a Boeing 757:

by Meteor Blades on 08/01/2006 05:04:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
re ad hominem commentary?  How about beginning with the comment about taking everything and with the benefit of some caps no less with a shaker of salt or words to that effect?  How about ending with ad nauseum and in between making comments that suggest some form of attention deficit or retardation in the wake of compelling evidence rendering an issue that continues to be discussed in logical and coherent fashion as if this happened to be the most obvious slam dunk conclusion one could ever reach?

Then there is the example given about the person making the comment needing a reading comprehension course, and that being ad hominem.  The reading comprehension reference is only valid when applied to the individual making the original criticisms.  

First off, my entire adult professional life, or the better part of it, I have been constantly judged and analyzed, as well as on occasion being questioned on the air, about things I have written in the realms of international affairs, legal articles as editor of my school's law review, domestic and international politics, as well as movie history by experts in those various fields.  While there would of course be occasional differing viewpoints, as is the case in any kind of extended discourse, there was never any issue made about issue analysis based on research or comprehension.  Believe it or not, some of these individuals I am certain possessed expertise beyond the level of your own personal experience.  

The question involved here is that what I wrote was never addressed, indicating severe informational analytical shortcomings and absence of comprehension.  The term ad hominem commentary is generally used to refer to personal attack or reference substituted for logical analysis.  From the grain of salt comment to ad nauseum and what was in between there was personal opinion inserted in place of any kind of analysis.  Experts seemingly abounded but not one was mentioned who refuted Tarpley's 9/11 Pentagon missile point.  I noted that there was a super abundance of negative opinion without foundation inserted that was masquerading as careful logical analysis.  I suggest going over what was originally written.  There is no analysis or refutation, only a series of negative comments and unsubstantiated generalities.

If ad hominem is somehow odious then supercharged emotional language and propaganda will serve the same purpose.  Perhaps taking first semester college English would be helpful, since supercharged language and the use of propaganda are points raised in such courses.  A logic course would be helpful as well since there is a wide gap separating what is passing here for refutation when a string of generalities were woven together instead.

Perhaps the saddest spectacle of all is what is presented as "proof" in the form of the attachments with the commentary.  Two of the attachments did not come through.  The two I did see were efforts on the part of professionals to reconstruct the act of a plane hitting the Pentagon.  Fine, this is a beginning point, not an ultimate refutation of Tarpley and others.  From that point one needs to measure the damage and provide potential conclusions.  The idea is to see where the research takes one, not to self-righteously declare, "I'm right, they agree with me!" as is being done here.  A researcher needs to operate with an open, not a closed mind.

First Tarpley is criticized and now it is Marrs.  These are two of the leading and most respected figures of the 9/11 Truth Commission, but yet the initial complaint that I pointed out and was never responded to was that people presenting the Pentagon missile theory are making it difficult for others presenting an alternative 9/11 theory.  The Marrs comments dealt with actual numbers and the criticism was in a completely different realm, about statements he allegedly made about UFO's.

As I noted, Tarpley and Marrs were influenced as investigators by interviewees and various types of evidence, including an article strongly criticizing the mainstream view that appeared in Le Monde, a respected French newspaper.  This view has been presented frequently elsewhere in Europe and I have not seen it refuted to this point.  Of course, it is easy to make a comment criticizing Le Monde and any European views by using the old Cheney-Bush line about "freedom fries" and the like.

As for Marrs and his UFO theories, some of the top scientists in the world hold views that are apparently vastly different than your own, as well as certain experts in the aviation field.  Senator Barry Goldwater, a believer in UFO's, lamented that, try as he might, he did not have a high enough clearance as an Air Force Reserve General to get into Hamilton Air Force Base in Ohio to check out certain UFO specimens said to be held there.  Robert Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were reputed to be fascinated by the field.  For Marrs, a veteran investigator with far more experience in the field than you possess, to delve into this area among others is not surprising at all.  To dismiss everything he might say or write in any other field because of this is anti-intellectualism to a sad and dangerous degree.

An investigator is always willing to look at the facts if investigation is the true goal.  In this instance it appears to be a case of ego enhancement to the extent of "I'm right and that is that!" when, from all I have read, school is definitely out on this important issue.

To present a picture indicating where the object, be it plane, missile, or whatever, hit, and then declare, "See, that's it, a Boeing could cause that" is anti-scientific since the logical proposition is to begin with a supposition and proceed from there, conducting measurements and ascertaining damage on the ground as well.  A look at a photo by itself is hardly proof positive without corresponding evidence.  

It would help to step back and begin analyzing and stop beating the drums pertaining to a bedrock position predicated on a few photos.  A little humility and openmindedness can go a long way.  The sad element is that the mindset I see on display is an almost messianic "I am right" belief and corresponding denigration of other views, which is the antithesis of intelligent and productive investigation of any kind.

I have already spent much more time and expended more effort than I thought I would.  In most magazine or newspaper settings one commentary and a follow-up is the extent of what occurs.  In this case we have had two apiece and at this point I am moving on elsewhere, and will continue to focus on this issue as well as others regarding 9/11.  You need not bother writing anymore comments on this subject because it is now over, as I noted, since I have dealt with this long enough and you can certainly move on from here to state your views elsewhere should you desire to do so.

Bill Hare                

by Bill Hare on 08/01/2006 11:30:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Lol ...Thanks so much for this! This is exactly what U are looking for...
youtube video converter
YouTube to iPod
The YouTube Video to iPod can convert videos from YouTube.com to format suitable for your iPod.
YouTube to Zune
The YouTube Video to Zune can convert videos from YouTube.com to format suitable for your Zune.
YouTube to 3GP
Want to watch YouTube videos with your mobile phone, the YouTube to 3GP is a good helper.
YouTube to AVI
The YouTube Video to AVI can convert videos from YouTube.com to AVI.
YouTube to PSP
PSP can play not only  games but videos. The YouTube to PSP can make it.
YouTube to WMV
The YouTube Video to WMV can convert videos from YouTube.com to WMV.
YouTube to MPEG
How to download Videos from youtube
and other video to AVI,MOD, FLV ecoded by Java.
May it Gadgets helpful To your lifestyle... Enjoy!!

by u111u on 06/29/2008 02:42:48 AM EST

 Display: