One Out Of Three Ain't Good

The third installment of "The Twenty Year Shadow of 9/11", a three-part series by Ben Howard, Aaron Good, and Peter Dale Scott, has been posted at CovertAction Magazine, and it starts with a note from the editors:

[Because this series has been the result of a collaboration among three writers with extensive knowledge about 9/11, U.S. hegemony, and the commonly suppressed aspects of our system of governance, our authors decided to take a different approach with Part 3. Rather than present one consensus conclusion, they present here three separate concluding sections—one from each author. We hope this format takes full advantage of the unique perspectives that each have to offer.]

The series started out well, and I praised the first installment without any reservations. The second installment turned out to be surprisingly dismal, to be blunt, and it raised the question, "What's going on here?"

Now we have the answer.

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.

Peter Dale Scott et al.: The Twenty Year Shadow of 9/11

I'm pleased to recommend an excellent article by Aaron Good, Ben Howard and Peter Dale Scott, published yesterday by CovertAction Magazine, called The Twenty Year Shadow of 9/11: U.S. Complicity in the Terror Spectacle and the Urgent Need to End It.

It's part of

a three-part re-evaluation of 9/11 in light of startling new evidence that may change many minds about the so-called “craziness” of those who have refused to accept the “official” government story of this traumatic and defining event

The authors describe the plan of the work as follows:

In this first installment, we examine how the U.S. for decades has utilized Islamic terrorists as assets for its own ends. In Part 2, we look at how CIA figures actively prevented other government agencies from exposing the al Qaeda presence in the U.S. prior to the attacks. In the third and final article, we explore the deep political and historical implications of the U.S. government’s “emergency” powers in order to offer some conclusions about 9/11.

After an overview of the ways in which 9/11 and its aftermath have changed the U.S. and the world, the authors provide a comprehensive history lesson on those "Islamic terrorist assets", starting in the early days, when they were used as pawns of U.S. foreign policy, and working up to the day of the attacks, when they were used as pawns of U.S. foreign policy.

It's a horrible story, but I can't wait for the next two installments. I urge you to click this link and learn this history. You simply can't make sense of anything that's going on in the world without this background.

It's tough enough with it!