The meaning of 9/11

9/11 remains one of the most misunderstood events in modern history.   The first myth is that it came out of the blue on an unsuspecting America.   In fact  it is known that 11 countries provided advance warnings to the US about the 9/11 attacks, including Russia and Israel which sent 2 senior Mossad experts to Washington in August 2001 with a list of terrorist suspects that included 4 of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.   Moussaoui, now thought to be the 20th hijacker, was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners, and Newsweek later revealed (20 May 2002) that an agent had written that month that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers.   Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism chief in the White House, has since said that “50 CIA personnel knew that al-Hamzi and al-Mihdhar (2 of the hijackers) were in the US in July-August 2001, including the Director”, but never passed the information to the FBI.   And the former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has stated that “the information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence”.

Second, 9/11 is portrayed as acts of unprovoked aggression perpetrated without cause other than wilful violence.   In fact Osama bin Laden repeatedly demanded in the 1990s that the US should end its occupation of Saudi Arabia containing the two holy cities of Islam, should stop retaining in power Arab tyrannies in order to preserve Western interests in the Middle East particularly oil, and should cease its indiscriminate support for Israel against the Arab world – all of which demands were ignored by the US.   Of course that does not conceivably condone or justify an appalling atrocity like 9/11 which killed nearly 3,000 people, including 67 Britons.   But nor does it justify the following decade-long wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan which the US Brown University estimates ‘very conservatively’ cost the deaths of 137,000 civilians (which the Lancet calculated at a million) and created more than 7.8 million refugees.  

Third, 9/11 was the pretext to invade Iraq.   We know from the memoirs of O’Neill, Bush’s first Treasury secretary, that Bush had been committed from the very outset of his presidency in January 2001 to attack Iraq, only ‘show me a way to do it’.   Rumsfeld on the very day of 9/11 repeatedly demanded evidence from the CIA that Iraq was responsible.   When none could be produced, Bush was forced to fall back on the WMD excuse, despite knowing that no firm evidence had been produced of that either.   However vile was the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, the attack on Iraq was an unprovoked (and illegal) war driven by the US determination to get control of the Iraqi oilfields and to establish a US military platform in the heart of the Middle East.

Fourth, the line is already being spun that in the end the US prevailed.   Killing bin Laden is a rhetorical victory, but the reality is quite different.   Iraq is slipping under Iranian influence, the pro-Western Kabul government will not survive the US withdrawal in 2014, and with continued drone attacks Pakistan could well implode.   It has all cost the US £4 trillions, equal to the cumulative US budget deficits during 2005-10, taken the lives of 6,000 US soldiers, and weakened US power further when it was already haemorrhaging steadily towards Asia on finance, trade and economic grounds.   If that is victory, what counts as defeat?

12 thoughts on “The meaning of 9/11

  1. Michael,

    Great post, what does it take to get the media attention on this? Why is it so difficult to convince people about the events surrounding 9/11, when it is so obvious?

    Keep up the good work!


  2. Thank you for your thoughts on this Mr. Meacher.

    I wonder if you have come across an article by Kevin Fenton (researcher at – which seems to explore some of the information pertaining to Al-Hazmih and Al-Midhar. Here are some interesting bits I found from his article:-

    “A female CIA officer who we will call “Michael” then told Miller not to send the cable yet, saying Wilshire wanted to hold off on it—no one below Wilshire had authority to release such information to the FBI.

    A few hours after she blocked Miller’s cable to the FBI, Michael sent out a cable stating that the FBI had been informed of Almihdhar’s visa information. This was not true, and Michael must have known this at the time.”

    This CIA officer lied about the FBI being informed of the VISA.

    Fenton then mentions a CIA officer who was stationed with the FBI as part of the pre-9/11 exchange-system (which Richard Clarke mentions in his 2008 book):-

    “On the same day Miller’s cable was blocked, a CIA officer on loan to the FBI who we will call “Robert” briefed two FBI colleagues on what the CIA knew about the Malaysia meeting. Robert told the two FBI agents pretty much everything the CIA knew except the one key thing the Bureau needed to make it sit up and take notice—that Almihdhar had a US visa. Robert then told another CIA officer on loan to the Bureau there was no need to brief the FBI about Malaysia because he had already done so, ensuring this officer would not let slip the Almihdhar visa information.”

    So…another lie about the FBI being told, when they were not. It appears that “Robert”, “Michael” and Wilshire (among others) conspired to intentionally keep this information from the FBI and lie about them being told. Does this look like incompetence to you? I’d like to learn more about these two CIA officers who lied about the FBI being informed.

    Then Bangkok informed the CIA’s Alec Station (headed by Rich Blee) about Al-Hazmi’s travel to Los Angeles. Nothing happened, and again – the FBI was not informed. CIA director George Tenet was asked about it, under oath – and he replied ““I know that nobody read that cable”. Five years later, we have learned that at least 50 people at the CIA had read that cable – and amazingly, neither the FBI, the DOD or Richard Clarke’s office was informed for over a year. An entire year, with two well-known and high-value Al Qaeda terrorists in the United States, during a period of high-threat level.


    ‎9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser referred to George Tenet as “Mr. “I failed to tell the FBI for 18 months that two known al Qaeda killers were living in San Diego and planning the 9/11 attacks.”

    She and all the others affected, have a right to be very angry with Tenet and his friends.

    Fenton’s article:-

  3. I’ve also looked at your quote of John Loftus:-

    “the information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence”

    Do you know where he said that? I can’t find the original source and I’ve looked on C-SPAN too.


  4. The lefts loathing of everything and anything American is tiresome.
    The intelligence agencies of the US would have been dealing with millions of pieces of information at that time – to suggest they should have clearly identified and stopped (and because they didn’t imply some kind of compliance) is obscene.
    By the way – to BJ – check you facts….the US takes a tiny minority of their oil requirements from the whole of the Middle East…but when ever did the left pay heed to the truth.
    Michael – just saw you on the BBC in Liverpool (my home town) – hope you like it…..mightn’t be as posh as your multi-million pound pile in Oxfordshire – but we like it.

  5. Why not take a look at the Architects & Engineers for 911 truth at and then ask “WHY” the American Government is still hanging on to the ridiculous theory that the Trade Centre buildings were brought down by fires caused by burning jet fuel. Who makes this stuff up.

    It’s totally and utterly impossible, against all the laws of physics. They were brought down by controlled demolition, and the preparation of the explosives would have taken weeks if not months to organise. Chainey,Rumsfield and others were in it up to their necks. And yes it was the new “Pearl Harbour” needed to get into the Middle East along with their faithful lapdog Blair and the UK.

    And now “SHOCK HORROR” we’re in Libya, to protect the people of coarse, nothing at all to do with oil. And of course the Afghanistan adventure is just to keep us safe from those nasty terrorists, nothing at all to do with a certain gas pipeline and strategic US military bases on it’s route.

    I’m sickened by it all, and fear for my children’s future under modern day politicians of all persuasions, both here in the UK and US.

  6. I could expend thousands of words on “The Meaning of 9/11” but I just want to add one statement to my comment above…

    The “War on Terror” is a farce… It’s no more than a foil to allow the US and UK under their guise of free/ a free hand in waging perpetual war throughout the world. Especially if the bonus of “theatre war” is oil/gas and a few more lucrative contracts for The Corporates…

  7. Please answer the phone calls from Mr Ian Henshaw so you can work together and expose these terrible people that are ruining our world.

  8. It’s nice to see a member of parliment interested in trying to find out so many answers to the unanswered questions regarding 9/11, of which there are many. I find it very hard to believe the official story, and I’m certainly not alone. If so many questions remain unanswered is it any wonder that “conspiracy theorists” exist? If they only answered these questions maybe it would help reassure us that what they have told us is true. Instead they remain silent, or lie (proven many times) and destroy evidence on a massive scale. In response to Steve in Liverpool, when intelligence services receive so many warnings of a particular event, regardless of how many other “millions” of pieces of information they have received then they should put 2 and 2 together. That is their job. I find it very interesting that many leading members of the military were advised to not fly on that day. A CIA operative was told to stay out of New York, at that time, because they were expecting an attack on a massive scale that could claim “thousands of lives”. (See Susan Lindauer) And regarding your point on the oil and the US not needing the Middle East for their oil requirements? That may well be the case but if YOU did your research you would realise that is irrelevant. It is about the US controlling the world’s oil supply to maintain its role as the only superpower and allowing the Petrodollar recycling to continue to support its failing economy. If you have not heard of the petrodollar then I think you really do need to research a bit more. The US needs it to stay alive, and having control of that region assures this happens. It’s rather coincedental that in 2000 Saddam Hussein started using Euros to pay for oil, threatening the petrodollar’s existence. And Gadaffi also threatened to start paying for oil in Gold, or even setting up a new currency to rival the mighty dollar. We all know how they ended up.
    Anyway, thank you Michael for being brave enough to try and expose the REAL conspiracy. The one that the American Government calls “The Truth”.

  9. 911 was a big false flag, as are almost all major terrorist incidents – but as these covert fascists always say, the bigger their false flag is, the more the people will believe it! So what next?

    it’s a thoroughly upside down world, where just 1 UK parliamentarian has the balls and brains to begin very tentatively to tell the truth about the US, UK, Saudi, Israeli and other powers that be, re the 911 false flag.

    Why just one?

    The UK parliament really contains just one oligarchy which publically poses as being 2 democratic party political groupings; left & right, in order that people are made to feel they have some political choice, but really there is no more choice offered by UK national party politics today, than in choosing between supporting Roman Catholic Southern Europe and Lutheran/Anglican Northern Europe, or between supporting Sunni Arabia and Shia Iranian, or between the fascist democratic party and the fascist republican party.

    So in the UK on the left wing there is the watered down marxist communist oligarchy which says that we must all cooperate under their nationalised and globalised public corporate polit-beaurocracy, and on the right wing there is the free market libertarian oligarchy which says that we must all compete under their national and global private corporate oligarchy who already hold most of the western world’s capital, so it’s a foregone conclusion that all significant western private markets, are owned and controlled by the same small private elite oligarchy that hangs out in Switzerland and in other tax havens.

    Either Public Globalised Corporatism, or Private Globalised Corporatism is the only political choice we are now offered, which is a false dichotomy as each is controlled by an absolutist oligarchy, and which actually collude in order to support one another, where as technology should free each local community, and each individual to have more autonomy and more self-sufficiency than ever before – not less, than ever before.

    So I wonder how stupid Mr Meacher really is, as he still seems to be a watered down Marxist believing that an absolutist public national or global corporate oligarchy is for the best – poor old twit, or maybe it’s just his survival strategy, since so many of the Labour Party who might tell the truth about how the public are majorly rooked all the time by these coordinated public and private oligarchies, have died suddenly: Attlee, Bevan, Bevin, Gaitskill, Smith, Cook?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *