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

The second part of the three-part series by Ben Howard, Aaron Good and Peter Dale Scott, "The Twenty Year Shadow of 9/11", has been posted at CovertAction Magazine, and I've been looking forward to it since I read the first part. But I'm sad to say I'm surprised by how shallow it is.

In this installment, "Why Did Key U.S. Officials Protect the Alleged 9/11 Plotters?", the authors provide many indications that the "hijackers" were protected by members of "our" "security services" once they arrived in the U.S.

But they never give us any indication that they realize they're talking about patsies. They write as if the patsies had committed the crimes.

And this is problematic because we've never seen any credible evidence tying them to the attacks. All the "evidence" against them that we've ever seen has clearly been fabricated; and none of the evidence that we should have expected to see, if the official story were correct, has ever come to light.

I can't help thinking there might be a problem with the authors' "methodology", which includes treating assumptions as facts.

It's not even difficult to spot them doing this, because they tell us they're doing it. For instance, they write:

Assuming Major General al-Shami was correct [...], it is worth exploring the implications of this fact.

As you can see, this is a very magical sentence, which starts by "assuming" and ends up with a "fact". I was taught as an undergrad not to do this.

Unless I missed it, they didn't even try to answer the question posed in their headline: "Why did key U.S. officials protect the alleged 9/11 plotters?" So I'll have to answer that one for you.

The "hijackers" had to be protected until the day of the attacks so they could be blamed for the "hijackings". Clearly, had they been in custody, it would not have been possible for anyone to blame them for anything.

The article is still worth a read, as long as you read it carefully. Some of the evidence they present is extremely important, but the crucial details are easy to overlook because they're buried.

The process by which the "hijackers" were moved into position, and the means by which they were protected once they were in place, are important parts of the story.

But the story of the "hijackers" is not the whole story of 9/11. It's not even the main plotline.

Oh well. I suppose half a loaf is better than none.