Asked But Not Answered

The second installment of the series "The Twenty Year Shadow of 9/11", by Ben Howard, Aaron Good and Peter Dale Scott, has been posted at Covert Action Magazine.

It's an enormously detailed and very important work, and I've written a not-very-favorable review of it.

If you're not interested in the details, please don't click here:

Asked But Not Answered: "Why Did Key U.S. Officials Protect the Alleged 9/11 Plotters?"


I'm pissed!

I wholly agree with your opinion, Winter. I will add my reaction to the article.

I must be starting to think like a trial lawyer/barrister. (Perhaps I'll have to get a bow tie or twol)

I expect an article like this one to start with an Opening Address which provides the purpose, context and structure of the following article.

I expect this to be followed by a logical presentation of the case i.e. “make your case”. All points are relevant and connected to each other leading to a conclusion which was outlined in the Opening Address as the purpose of the article and the motivation for reading it.

Lastly, I expect a brief Summary of the argument, its purpose (again) and meaning going forward.

I didn't get any of that from this article.

It was tedious to read because my mind kept rebelling on me asking, “Why am I reading about all these characters?” “Where's this going?” “These guys are going to be expert 747 pilots?” Bullshit!

I felt like a bucket of Lego blocks had been spilled out on the floor in front of me. A few were being joined and then put down. Then a few more were joined and put down again.

At no point was the plan for all these blocks elucidated. Well, except that some of these block(head)s MAY have been protected. No shit?!

Then the authors talked about the lego blocks as if they were part of an actual contraption or machine and ignoring the point that it can only be a model. In other words, they talked at times like the model was the real thing. (Does that qualify for Equivocation?)

Our Middle Eastern friends didn't blow up shit as far as the WTC demolition is concerned. They were only and always unwitting patsies providing cover (the model) for the real culprits (who go unmentioned). And, as you made clear, Winter, this essential fact, that they were cover, was left out of the article entirely.

The next question is, if anyone is interested, why the lack of context and structure? Is it just journalistic incompetence?

There are two questions that I would be interested in the answers to. And they are-

“Was a section, at least, of the US Navy and a section, at least, of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) pissed at the CIA for blowing a hole in their ship killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others?

And, if so, "What did they do about it?"

good points / good questions

And for that matter, was the State Department pissed at the CIA for blowing up the Embassy buildings in East Africa?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.