The Times, Lies, and Videotape
|
Henry See
October 3, 2006
Signs of the Times
|
 Ah, another bin Laden tape! And this time, it includes special guests stars Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah, two of the men accused of "spearheading" the 9/11 attacks! The tape was presented to us this weekend by the erstwhile Times of London with all the fanfare deserving of the "proof" that "only the flakiest of anti-American fantasists can go on claiming that Bin Laden, Atta, Jarrah and co had no hand in September 11". We'll come back to the weasel wording of this characterization later, but, for now, let's see what the Times is serving.
The article raises several points: that finally Atta and Jarrah have been seen together, that they are established as having been in Afghanistan in January 2000, a period long known as something of a black hole in the life of Atta (his whereabouts at this time long being unaccounted for), that Atta and Jarrah "had everything to live for" because "[u]nlike most of the other hijackers... Atta and Jarrah fitted easily into western society", and that, therefore, even the most promising, middle class, and potentially "American" of Arabs can become terrorists! Is Osama under YOUR bed? What about that Arab looking man down the street?
Be afraid! Be very afraid!
Dates and Places
The article in the Times states:
These images are part of a videotape, nearly an hour long, that was filmed at Osama Bin Laden's lair in Afghanistan 6½ years ago. They are revealed today for the first time, and they are a missing chapter in the searing story of the attacks on America on September 11, 2001.[...]
TEN days after Bin Laden's Eid speech, according to the date on the film, Atta and Jarrah read their martyrdom wills to the camera. This proof of their presence in Afghanistan at that time is just about the final main piece of the jigsaw: Atta, the man who decided zero hour on September 11 is for the first time on video, getting ready to record his "martyrdom" will.
Well, the unfortunate problem with the video is that the time code and date stamp are not reliable means of establishing dates and times. You might remember the images from the Pentagon parking security camera that show the explosion at the Pentagon and that were dated September 12. However, let's accept that the date for Bin Laden's appearance is correct.
The second point is that the video bears two different date stamps: January 8, 2000, when Bin Laden is addressing the gathering, and January 18, 2000, when we see Atta and Jarrah, individually and together. The coupling of the two parts together would appear to give the impression that Atta and Jarrah are in Afghanistan, but we only see them against a white wall that could be anywhere in the world. They might be in Afghanistan, or the camera could have been taken elsewhere, or video shot on two different cameras could have been edited together. Certainly from the video released on the Times' site, it is impossible to say with any authority that it shows more than that Atta and Jarrah knew one another.
But, again, we can also accept that they did know one another, and that they were together in Afghanistan when the video says. We aren't in a court of law here, and as we'll show below, it doesn't contradict the argument that 9/11 was an inside job.
They're Everywhere! They're Anyone!
The next point we wish to cover is the recurring theme in the article suggesting that if Mohammed Atta and Ziod Jarrah could become terrorists, then anyone could become a terrorist. Here are some relevant excerpts:
ATTA and Jarrah have never been pictured together before. Indeed, a key element of their tradecraft was that they steered clear of each other. They were leading figures in the September 11 story, not only because they flew the planes but also because they apparently had everything to live for. Unlike most of the other hijackers, who were mainly provincial Saudi fundamentalists, Atta and Jarrah fitted easily into western society.
To the Germans who knew them in Hamburg they seemed entirely normal. The tape explains this mistake. It would be hard to look less homicidal - until the camera pulls back and reveals that Atta is sitting next to an AK-47. [...]
So the tape not only fills a gap in the story of September 11 but also provides chilling proof of the difficulty of fighting Islamic terrorism: these two "normal", happy, unthreatening individuals turned out to have an explosive effect on the history of the 21st century. [...]
Unedited, the extraordinary footage also gives us a glimpse into the superficially ordinary character of the man who would later spearhead the devastating terrorist attack. [...]
THE significance of even a single frame of any of the September 11 pilots in Afghanistan could not be overestimated, let alone the sudden appearance of nearly 6,000 frames of the two most important and most puzzling hijackers.
Distinctively the black sheep of the whole lot - plotters and hijackers - Atta and Jarrah came from the two most liberal Arab countries, both from the heart of their respective communities, both from middle-class families, both intelligent, pleasant and trusted wherever they went, and both with impressive educational track records. Jarrah went to a Christian school in Beirut; Atta advanced his English at The American University in Cairo.
Then they both had ambitions beyond what they thought their countries could offer. [...]
If the appearance of this video solves one mystery, the big question about both Atta and Jarrah is still with us: how on earth did such impressive young men with everything to live for develop such a mindset? Neither was mad and neither was brainwashed. If anything at all they were both the antithesis of such naive and easy explanations.
One would confidently argue that someone of the calibre of Mohammed Atta would have been incapable of being brainwashed.
A reading of these excerpts should be disturbing to any Arab living in the real Axis of Evil: the United States and Britain. Obviously, Arabs living within reach of the third member, Israel, are already aware that their lives are worth nothing. Moreover, it should be disturbing to anyone who cares about freedom. It is apparent what message the author is attempting to convey: if someone gifted like Mohammed Atta or handsome like Ziod Jarrah, who were the most 'Westernized' of the alleged hijackers, who "had everything to live for" as defined by the material values of modern capitalist society, who come from the two 'most liberal' Arab countries, can become "terrorists", then it could happen to anyone, and 'we' have a really serious threat on our hands. In other words, he is peddling the zio-con lie about Arabs and Muslims. They are just not reasonable! You just can't talk to them or negotiate with them! See, they could have had it all!!!
The subtext of his message is clear, and that it can be published so brazenly in The Times should give us all pause to think.
Among the many lies and justifications given by the zio-cons and the globalists to justify the crusade against Islam and the 'war on terror', they are pushing the line that the spreading of the global market and the gradual development of Western style economies and governments will end 'terrorism' by making good consumers of us all. They know it isn't true, but that is what they want us to believe. They, in their hearts of gold -- that is, cold and pitiless -- can understand how the "provincial" Arabs could become 'terrorists'. They can be easily brainwashed! And if anyone knows anything about how to control populations through brainwashing, it is the pathocrats in the US, Britain, and Israel. The Times article is an excellent example.
But here we see 'modern' Arabs, those who should 'know better' refusing the bounty -- or the bribe. So it seems that the imposition of Western culture, economics, and government isn't going to stave off terror. Perhaps it encourages it?
Be afraid! Be very afraid!!!
And to top it off, the writer is described as "chief investigative reporter for Al-Jazeera Television Pictures"! My god! An Arab! He should know! Harriet, grab my gun! Didn't our neighbours say they were from...well, they aren't from here!
But reread this sentence:
"THE significance of even a single frame of any of the September 11 pilots in Afghanistan could not be overestimated, let alone the sudden appearance of nearly 6,000 frames of the two most important and most puzzling hijackers."
Do you see the subtle way this passage is worded? If the missing piece was whether or not Atta and Jarrah knew each other, then one picture of them together suffices to establish the fact. It makes no difference whatsoever that there are "6,000 frames". However, the impression Mr. Fouda is attempting to leave with the reader is that it is somehow 6,000 times more important, as if it makes the two men 6,000 times more guilty.
Such writing is the method of propaganda, not news reporting.
But, then again, we must ask ourselves whether or not Mohammed Atta and Ziod Jarrah were, in fact, 'terrorists', and, if they were, or they thought they were, were they in fact the people "spearheading" the 9/11 attacks?
The Provenance of the Video
The Times article says the following about the origin of the video:
The unedited video was passed to The Sunday Times through a previously tested channel. On condition of anonymity, sources from both Al-Qaeda and the United States have confirmed its authenticity. It has no sound - and lip-readers have failed to decipher it, according to a US source - but the images speak loudly for themselves.
Hmmm.... "passed to The Sunday Times through a previously tested channel"... "on conditon of anonymity... both Al-Qaeda and the United States have confirmed its authenticity". Not only have we "anonymity", we see unanimity! Both Al Qaeda and the US! That's some break-through!
Or is it?
It is part of the public record that the US was siphoning funds to bin Laden via Saudi Arabia during the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. There were reports that bin Laden met with a CIA official at a hospital in Dubai in June 2001. There are also reports of the use of 'Al Qaeda' members by the US during the war in Kosovo. So the idea that they are in opposition to one another should be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, Jason Burke, in his book Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, paints a picture of the organization that is much, much different than that depicted by the zio-cons, a view that was shared at one point by Mr. Fouda.
According to Wikipedia, Mr. Fouda has said, "I do not really believe there is such a thing as al-Qaida, the organization; there is al-Qaida, the mind-set."
But let us, for the sake of argument, accept, if only momentarily, that Al Qaeda and Uncle Sam are really enemies. In such a case, each has something to gain from insisting on the authenticity of the video, as well as on Al Qaeda's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. For the US, it inflates the threat and adds more fuel to the fires of fear that have been stoked in the 50 States since 9/11. For Al Qaeda, accepting the authenticity of the video, whether or not Atta and Jarrah were involved in the attacks, is good public relations. "Yes, we did it! Yes, we are the only force opposing US imperialism."
Which makes it curious that these 'Islamic terrorists' have been reticent to claim credit for them. The only time 'Osama' claimed credit for the attacks was via a very poorly done fake video 'found' by US soldiers after the invasion of Afghanistan. It was obvious that the man who we were told was Osama in the video was someone else. In other words, Osama has never claimed credit for the attacks.
The other "admission of guilt" from Al Qaeda comes, funnily enough, from an interview carried out by one Yosri Fouda, journalist for Al Jalzeera. Cooperative Research, in their profile of Mr. Fouda, has this to say about the interview:
It is originally reported that Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda interviews 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 9/11 associate Ramzi Bin al-Shibh at a secret location in Karachi, Pakistan, in either June [London Times, 9/8/2002] or August. [Guardian, 9/9/2002]
Details and audio footage of the interview come out between September 8 and 12, 2002. The video footage of the interview al-Qaeda promised to hand over is never given to Al Jazeera. [Associated Press, 9/8/2002]
Both figures claim the 9/11 attacks were originally going to target nuclear reactors, but "decided against it for fear it would go out of control." Interviewer Fouda is struck that Mohammed and bin al-Shibh remember only the hijackers' code names, and have trouble remembering their real names. [Australian, 9/9/2002]
Mohammed, who calls himself the head of al-Qaeda's military committee and refers to bin al-Shibh as the co-ordinator of the "Holy Tuesday" operation, reportedly acknowledges "[a]nd, yes, we did it." [Fouda and Fielding, 2003, pp. 38]
These interviews "are the first full admission by senior figures from bin Laden's network that they carried out the September 11 attacks." [London Times, 9/8/2002]
Some, however, call Fouda's claims into doubt. For example, the Financial Times states: "Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda's interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: 'I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape].
It could have been a script written by the FBI.'" [Financial Times, 9/11/2002]
Mohammed is later variously reported to be arrested in June 2002, killed or arrested in September 2002, and then arrested in March 2003. After this last arrest report, for the first time Fouda claims this interview took place in April, placing it safely before the first reports of Mohammed's capture. [Guardian, 3/4/2003; CTV Television, 3/6/2003]
Bin al-Shibh also gets captured several days after Fouda's interview is broadcast, and some reports say he is captured because this interview allows his voice to be identified. [CBS News, 10/9/2002; Observer, 9/15/2002]
As a result, Fouda has been accused of betraying al-Qaeda, and now fears for his life. [Independent, 9/17/2002]
As the Washington Post states, "Now Al Jazeera is also subject to rumors of a conspiracy." [Washington Post, 9/15/2002]
Yet after being so reviled by al-Qaeda supporters, Fouda is later given a cassette said to be a bin Laden speech. [MSNBC, 11/18/2002]
US officials believe the voice on that cassette is "almost certainly" bin Laden, but one of the world's leading voice-recognition institutes said it is 95 percent certain the tape is a forgery. [BBC, 11/18/2002; BBC, 11/29/2002]
So there is, let us say, reasonable doubt about the interview.
Moreover, the US, in spite of many assertions made after 9/11 that it would produce 'proof' of Al Qaeda's implication, has yet to offer the slightest shred of evidence. And that is five years after the event!
The FBI doesn't include 9/11 among the crimes for which bin Laden is 'wanted' because they admit that there is nothing that ties him to the crime. A conservative debunker of "conspiracy theories", responds to this point:
Another claim I hear is that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 because the "most wanted" poster description of him on the FBI web-site omits any mention of his role in that terrorist attack. That poster was originally done in June 1999 and refers specifically to his role in the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. However, it also refers to his involvement in other terrorist attacks.
Rex Tomb, chief of investigative publicity for the FBI, is said to have commented, when asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the Bin Laden's Most Wanted Web page, that "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." Dan Eggen of the Washington Post reported that "FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices."
"[M]erely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices"?!?! The author of this piece, Cliff Kinkaid from gopusa.com, leaves unasked the question, "Why, five years after the greatest criminal act ever perpetrated on the US, have no criminal charges been laid?"
A lack of 'hard evidence', perhaps?
So if there is a lack of 'hard evidence' that Osama himself was involved, then can we be certain that Atta and Jarrah had anything to do with it? An unpleasant question, one that might even get the person who poses it labelled a "terrorist sympathiser", subject to detention and the newly enshrined methods of torture, in the United States. But enquiring minds want to know.
Returning to the new video itself. Notice that it has no sound and that lip-readers have been unable to "decipher it"!
But "the images speak loudly for themselves", says Mr. Fouda.
Well, we thought the images in the video footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in 1983, even though it didn't have sound, spoke loudly for themselves. However, it was no secret at the time that the US was supporting Saddam, was his ally, and was selling to him the ingredients for the very same WMDs that later became such an issue. So we had more than the images to go in in order to come to some judgement.
In this case, in spite of what The Times and other mainstream papers would have us believe, the context is slightly more hazy. And that leads us into the crazy world of...
Conspiracy Theory
You knew it was coming, right? At some point we were going to have to deal with that crazy conspiracy theory, confront it head on, that 19 Arabs, guided by a fugitive in a cave in Afghanistan planned and carried off 9/11.
And, now we know. They weren't working from a cave, they were working from a "complex" near Kandahar airport! Writes Fouda:
In the background are the tall mud-red walls of an impressive compound. It is clear that the location is part of a complex of about 80 buildings called Tarnak Farm in the desert near Kandahar airport. It was Bin Laden's clan base during his Afghan sojourn - where he lived with his family and the inner core of Al-Qaeda.
American intelligence knew all about Tarnak Farm. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Laden's wives and the one where he himself was most likely to sleep".
Well, now it all makes sense, seems somehow possible, if not plausible, don't you think? There were cell phone connections, though whether they extended to in-flight capabilities, we aren't certain....
According to The Times article, an image putting Atta and Jarrah together, and linking them to Osama bin Laden, was the missing piece of the puzzle that 'proves' the three were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and by doing so, it debunks "conspiracy theorists" and "the flakiest of anti-American fantasists"!
[The lack of link] played nicely into the hands of conspiracy theorists, both in the Muslim world and in the West. Now the investigators have the proof, and only the flakiest of anti-American fantasists can go on claiming that Bin Laden, Atta, Jarrah and co had no hand in September 11.
Ouch!
That would have been a hard blow if it had been aimed at anything other than a straw man or had anything to do with reality.
Remember the Kennedy assassination? Remember Lee Harvey Oswald? He was the patsy, the one selected to take the fall so that the real perpetrators would get away. And then he was shot before he could open his mouth and testify at any sort of kangaroo trial they would have organized. The trouble with patsies is that they best serve their function when they are dead. Then they can't plead innocence, claim they were set up, or offer evidence that contradicts the official story.
Atta and his crew were very likely patsies, that is, if the intelligent Atta, the one for whom the attacks wouldn't have happened at all according to Fouda, wasn't a Western asset himself, one who was done away with after his usefulness was over.
One possibility is that Atta and the others were part of a planned Al Qaeda operation of some sort, much less impressive than the one staged on 9/11, and that they were used. Or they thought they were, and were being groomed by their handlers to take the fall. It is known that Israeli intelligence had them under surveillance. Why? Because they had been identified as 'terrorists', you say. Or because they were the perfect guinea pigs, the perfect group to take the fall? And the real operation had to be planned around their movements, or their movements had to be coordinated to match real events.
If Atta and his gang of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists had actually gotten on the planes, why is there absolutely no evidence showing this? Why are their names not on the manifests? Why are the manifests curiously short when the actual numbers of passengers are compared to the numbers claimed to have died when the "terrorists" are included?
In other words, where is the proof?
There is none. There is nothing that puts any of the hijackers on any of the planes. The phone calls from the planes were likely staged, as cell phones didn't work from those altitudes in 2001. So the people that received the calls were fed the information needed to 'seed' the conspiracy theory of 19 Arab terrorists.
So tying Atta and Jarrah doesn't prove anything at all in regards to their participation to 9/11. It does nothing to "debunk" the "conspiracy theorists". It is but one more piece in the veil being pulled over our eyes.
We leave the last word to Mohammed Atta's father.
"[Mohammed] was still alive after the attack. He called me twenty-four hours and forty-eight hours after the attack."
That was the last time. Because, after that, says the father, "they indeed killed him." [Inside 9-11: What Really Happened, Der Spiegel, p. 211.]
|
|
|
|
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](/signs/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
