[BACK TO MAIN] [SKEPTICS LINKS]
September 11th: On This Date In History
THE DEVIL'S CALENDAR
After the attacks, everyone wondered if the calendar
was to blame. Holiday historians spun legends about events that supposedly
happened on Sept. 11 in years past. Could one of these have inspired the
perpetrators to pick that day? I decided to investigate.
After several hours of research, I found that many "Sept.
11 in History" claims were plain wrong. This was no surprise. Simple facts
are easily corrupted, and always demand verification. Equally
predictable was that Eurocentrism prevails. I have yet to see anyone ask,
at least in English, whether a solution to the riddle should be sought
in the Muslim calendar. Not for the first time since last September, I
wished I knew Arabic. Or does a command of Arabic numerals suffice? As
we shall see, a bunch of numerologists believe the truth is in the numbers
themselves: 9 and 11.
As I considered the various histories and claims, I was
struck suddenly by the brilliance of Divine Plan. Every one of the confirmed
past Sept. 11 events connects to 9/11/01 in eerie and prescient ways that
cannot be dismissed as coincidence. Stunned, I gradually drew the only
The timing of the attacks was operational. Once the plotters
were ready, they picked a Tuesday in September. End of story.
Now let's tell some good ones, in the spirit of Ambrose Bierce.
Jack Riddler, June 2002
YES. = Looks true.
NO. = Looks false.
??? = Unknown. Any scholars care to confirm?
1609: Kooyanisqatsi. 1683:
Turks. 1786: Constitution. 1919:
Marines. 1922: Mandate. 1936: Dam.
1941: Pentagon. 1948: Jinnah. 1971:
Khruschev. 1972: Olympics. 1973:
Allende. 1978: Peace. 1978:
Smallpox. 1990: Bush. 1994: Kamikaze.
1998: Monica. 1999: Putin. 2001:
Qaeda. 2001: Rudy. Numerology
and Revelation. 119 and 911: Emergency Day?
(A few other listed events listed in italics are taken from an ABCNEWS
Sept. 11, 1297.
Scots under William Wallace defeat the English at Stirling Bridge.
Sept. 11, 1609
"Henry Hudson discovers Manhattan island."
Does the choice of Sept. 11 for the attack on the World
Trade Center signify that the lost descendants of the Manhattan tribe have
returned to reclaim their island? Unfortunately for this most romantic
of all impossibilities, trusty Encyclopedia Britannica dates Hudson's sighting
of Manhattan to Sept. 3, 1609. Anyway, the first European conquistador
to spot the later New York harbor was actually Giovanni da Verrazanno,
But let's not have that get in the way of a story! The
year of Hudson's voyage is correct, and he explored the river later named
for him as far north as Albany. So let us fantasize that his crew made
a landfall on Manhattan and claimed it on behalf of their Dutch paymasters
on Sept. 11, 1609. That way, Sept. 11 becomes the day on which New York
City was born. In 1624, the Dutch dispatched a garrison and a governor
for the territory, Peter Minuit. To the local Mohegan Indians, Minuit gave
a pile of trinkets (which future historians valued at 24 U.S. dollars,
for some unfathomable reason). Lacking a concept of land ownership, the
tribe of Manhattan did not realize that the crazy European thus turned
their island of streams and gentle hills into his real estate. The Dutch
began building New Amsterdam, in the area south of Wall Street, and property
values have never been the same. The Mohegans disappeared from the area,
done in by European diseases and guns. The English renamed the colony New
York, after seizing it in 1664. About 336 years later,
terrorists started knocking the city down.
But where is the Indian connection to the miniature Apocalypse
in Manhattan? For that, we must travel almost to the other side of the
continent, to the territory of the Hopi.
In three verses, a centuries-old Hopi prophecy predicts
the future doom of America and its civilization. The first verse has been
translated as follows:
If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite
This, the Hopi say, refers to uranium, oil, coal and the
other fuels of the white man's civilization, the use of which has always
created disaster and is certain to bring greater ones. Uranium is the special
disaster of the Southwest Indians, who lost much of their uranium-rich
holy land to America's nuclear programs, and many lives to cancer working
The second verse:
Near the Day of Purification, there will be cobwebs
spun back and forth in the sky.
Now Sept. 11 was not the Day of Purification, although
it may have been a harbinger. The Day of Purification is actually more
like what Bob Marley meant, when he sang
Some people think
great God will come from the sky
take away everything
and make everybody be high.
On the Day of Purification, everything the white man has
built disappears. The land is restored to its pristine state and rightful
As for the "cobwebs in the sky," we are all familiar with
those. For the moment, world air traffic has declined from its all-time
high, which we shall date, for convenience, to Sept. 10, 2001.
The third verse:
A container of ashes might one day be thrown from
the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans.
Out of hallowed ground, the white men drew uranium, from
which they made their container of ashes: The Bomb. This verse has been
rendered in English as a conditional - "might be thrown" - so it leaves
us with the hope of avoiding the nuclear conflagration it implies.
Or maybe the translator of the third verse was an optimist,
and he used a conditional form to keep us from despair. A forgivable mistake.
Translating from the Hopi is said to be difficult, because of the language's
unusual verb forms. Scholars are fascinated by the way Hopi expresses concepts
of time and space. "An event at a great distance from the speaker is characterized
as having occurred in the distant past," Britannica writes. "The shorter
the spatial distance, the less the temporal distance is seen to be." In
other words: Stand on the right spot, and all history exists in a single,
The Hopi prophecy serves as inspiration and script for
one of the greatest films ever, Koyaanisqatsi, directed by Godfrey Reggio
and photographed by Ron Fricke over ten years time before its release in
1981. Indelibly beautiful, its majestic visual style radically affects
the next 20 years of film history, and is adopted by many a maker of ads
and music videos. The film renders the prophecy in real-life footage, set
to a choral symphony by Philip Glass, with no dialogue or actors. Dispassionate,
the camera adopts the perspective of space aliens discovering the North
American continent, mostly in remote, wide-angle views of natural and human
landscapes. Stop-action photography shows days go by within minutes, revealing
cities, highways and factories as supertechnical anthills bursting with
life - and busily burning more than nature will restore. The art of it
lies in reaching that not as a moral but as a visible conclusion. The Hopi
word, koyaanisqatsi, has several related meanings: "1. crazy life; 2. life
in turmoil; 3. life disintegrating; 4. life without balance; 5. a state
of life calling for another way of life." Like no other, the film shows
how and why all of these meanings apply to modern-day America.
In the most dramatic sequence, vast stretches of land
are rent by a series of increasingly terrible explosions: Thousands of
tanks arrayed in rows, poised to strike in battle. Stock footage of quarrying
and earth moving. Controlled demolitions of skyscrapers. Whole districts
knocked down. Surplus warplanes bombed in target practice. Atomic tests
in the desert. Patches of jungle incinerated in Vietnam. Chorus and orchestra
reach a crescendo just as the series ends, abruptly, in complete silence,
with the eeriest moment of all. We see the Empire State, the Chrysler and
other Midtown New York buildings stand, as though empty, amid slow-moving
wisps of clouds. The panorama is viewed from a high-altitude, static vantage
point, to the south. A distant wind blows. The message is clear: as your
civilization reaps, so it sows. One day the endless, grasping war on earth
and fellow man shall visit the great, opulent city of ghosts. You are not
More than any other image in the film, this one bespeaks
a Ground Zero of the future. The footage is shot from the roof of World
Trade Center 1.
Sept. 11, 1683
"Turkish army defeated at the gates of Vienna."
As an answer to "Why the suicide killers chose September
11," Christopher Hitchens wrote in The Independent (Oct. 3, 2001) that
this was the day on which the "conquering armies of Islam were met, held,
and thrown back at the gates of Vienna." In this overwrought fantasy, the
hijackers timed their attack as a symbolic reversal of the Turkish defeat
- and as the first blow in a new conquest of European civilization. I see
at least two problems. First, the battle, in which a Polish army defeated
the Turks, was actually won on Sept. 12, 1683.
The more important error is conceptual. Although they
were Muslim, the Turks were not the "conquering armies of Islam," but of
the Ottoman Empire. Unlike the Arab and Moorish invasions of Spain and
France in the 8th century, the Turkish campaign, 900 years later, was not
driven by religious fervor but by imperial expansionism. Calling the Ottomans
at Vienna an Islamic army is like calling the British colonization of India
a Christian crusade. The Arab Islamists who allegedly pulled off the Sept.
11 attacks are unlikely to have viewed the Ottoman Turks, who dominated
the Arab world for centuries, as the role models of an Islamic revival.
But the idea serves Hitchen's intent of portraying "Islamic fascism" as
an enemy that must be defeated militarily, at all costs. In his gut, he
seems to have understood that mixing up Arabs with Turks, Muslims with
Persians, and Islamists with fascists has long been an essential feature
in the American (and British) practice of war in the Middle East. Alas.
Hitchens was a man of greater subtlety, before he decided to lead the war
charge from the left.
Sept. 11, 1777.
General George Washington and his troops are defeated by the British
under Gen. Sir William Howe at the Battle of Brandywine in Pennsylvania.
Sept. 11, 1786
"Convention of Annapolis opens with the aim of revising
the Articles of Confederation."
This was the first conference of the Constitutional Convention,
which led to the adoption of the constitution and the establishment of
the federal government the next year. Sept. 11 in a sense was the day when
the United States was born. Were the Sept. 11 attacks therefore the work
of enemies who hope to kill the American nation? Or perhaps of enemies
from within, who hope to undo the Republic by initiating the founding of
a new, imperial form of government? Today's new constitution is not being
written by a convention; it is being announced at press conferences by
Tinpot Ceasars reading prepared scripts.
Sept. 11, 1789.
Alexander Hamilton appointed first U.S. secretary of the treasury.
Sept. 11, 1814.
U.S. forces led by Thomas Macdonough route the British fleet on
Sept. 11, 1864.
A 10-day truce is declared between Generals Sherman and Hood so
civilians may leave Atlanta, Georgia (in advance of the city's destruction
by Sherman's forces).
Sept. 11, 1885.
Author D.H. Lawrence born in Eastwood, England.
Sept. 11, 1916.
The "Star Spangled Banner" is sung at the beginning of a baseball
game for the first time in Cooperstown, N.Y.
Sept. 11, 1919
"U.S. marines invade Honduras."
The incursion actually lasted from Sept. 8 to 12, according
to "Instances of Uses of United States Armed Forces Abroad," a 1975 list
prepared by the Congressional Research Service. "A landing force was sent
ashore to maintain order in a neutral zone during an attempted revolution,"
the report states. Not unlike CNN today, the report does not specify who
defined the "neutral zone" (easy enough to guess), what its purpose was,
or what the sides in the conflict were. This was during the Wilsonian period
of frequent U.S. aggressions in Central America and Mexico, and the fifth
invasion of Honduras since 1903. Now for the bonus question. On how many
days in the calendar did U.S. forces not land somewhere? (See 1965.)
Sept. 11, 1922
"British Mandate for Palestine."
If true, this raises the possibility that the "Attack
on America" was timed as a rejection of the history that gave birth to
Israel. But the British did not declare a mandate on Sept. 11, as is claimed
on many sites. British forces took Palestine from the Turks in 1918, and
set up a colonial authority in 1920. Britain officially declared the Mandate
for Palestine in April 1922, and it was approved by the League of Nations,
reluctantly, on July 24. According to a contemporary British report, new
governors took their oaths of office in Jerusalem on Sept. 11, 1922. A
letter-writer to The Independent claims that Arabs proclaimed that a day
of mourning, but in my brief research I have found no independent confirmation.
Britannica says the mandate "came officially into force" on Sept. 29, 1923,
but even if accurate, this is yet another nominal distinction. Fact is,
the British civil administration began in 1920, and it allowed a high quota
for Jewish immigration starting in that year, infuriating the Arab population.
The names by which British power later called itself need not concern us.
Sept. 11 may have stuck in the Arab consciousness as the symbolic beginning
of the Mandate. The key question is whether the alleged Sept. 11 terrorists
believed this to be the case.
Any Arabic speakers out there care to clarify this story?
Sept. 11, 1936
"FDR dedicates Boulder Dam, now known as Hoover Dam."
A significant economic milestone. The building of large-scale
dams around the world in the early part of the 20th century practically
transformed civilization. For many millions of people, dams stopped annual
floods and brought electricity. As projects requiring huge organization
and resources, they were engines of development and nation-building. States
buttressed their dominance within economies as the providers of infrastructure.
The environmental consequences of salinization, a consequence of dam-building,
may cause even greater disasters than Sept. 11, and the collapse of the
towers was not unlike a dam break. In either case, potential energy stored
by human action is released in a single, catastrophic blow. But it is safe
to say that the dedication of the Hoover Dam had no direct relation to
the 9/11 attacks.
Sept. 11, 1941
"Ground was broken on construction of the Pentagon."
Now that IS spooky! Sixty years later, to the day, it
gets hit. So far, I have confirmed only that Pentagon construction began
in Sept. 1941, but I have found no document specifying the 11th for the
groundbreaking. Obviously, this a big item for those who believe the Pentagon
is an occult design, much like the attacks themselves.
"Roosevelt authorizes warships to open fire at German
and Italian ships."
In a sense, this was the day on which the United States
entered World War II. The lend-lease program had begun in 1940, now American
shipping to Britain was being hit regularly by German submarine warfare.
Roosevelt therefore authorized warships accompanying convoys across the
Atlantic to fire first at approaching German and Italian warships.
Sept. 11, 1944.
American troops enter Luxembourg. More than 6,000 trucks of the
Red ball Express kept gasoline and other vital supplies rolling in as American
troops and tanks pushed the Germans back toward their homeland.
Sept. 11, 1948
"Death of Jinnah, founding father of Pakistan."
"Mohammed Ali Jinnah, also called QA`ID-E A'ZAM (Arabic:
'The Great Leader'), b. Dec. 25, 1876 in Karachi, India (now in Pakistan),
d. Sept. 11, 1948, Karachi, Indian Muslim politician, founder and first
governor-general (1947-48) of Pakistan." (Britannica)
Sept. 11 has since been celebrated in Pakistan as Jinnah
Day, a secular holiday. There is an apparent connection between the
Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, and Mohamed Atta, the presumed lead
hijacker of the Sept. 11 attacks, but it's a stretch to think the attacks
were timed as a commemoration of Pakistan's founder, a relatively secular
leader. Yet what was the head of ISI, Mahmud Ahmad, doing in Washington
on Jinnah Day, 2001? He had been there for more than a week already, conferring
at length with his contacts at the White House, Pentagon and CIA, on his
second intensive visit in less than three months. What were they talking
about? (See here.)
Sept. 11, 1962.
Thurgood Marshall is appointed a judge of the 2nd Circuit Court
Sept. 11, 1965.
"The 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) arrives in South Vietnam and
is stationed at An Khe."
Sept. 11, 1971
"Nikita Khrushchev dies of a heart attack at 77."
The death 30 years ago of a Soviet leader who was deposed
in 1964 surely has nothing to do with the attacks, but even this has inspired
a theory. A writer called J.R. Nyquist claims that Soviet insiders are
still running Russia behind the scenes and (I love this part) are close
to fulfilling a 40-year plan, hatched by Khrushchev among others, to lull
the West into complacency by having their empire appear to fall apart -
before delivering a surprise death blow. The Sept. 11 attacks, in this
scenario, were a distraction, timed as a tribute to one of the commies
who came up with the original plan. Patriots beware, because the next stage
will involve the nuking of every city in America later this year, using
megaton-range suitcase nukes filled with "red mercury," on the October
anniversary of the Russian Revolution.
So, um, if the Russians are really getting ready to destroy
us that utterly (supposedly in an alliance with China, Iraq and all of
the usual Enemies of America), why would they ruin the surprise and endanger
their plan by engaging in a peripheral "distraction" like Sept. 11? And
did the 40-year plan to flatten America by suitcase nuke really require
that the fall of the Soviet Union be faked? The most interesting thing
about this story is that the writer, who denounces "conspiracy theories"
insofar as they do not involve commies, has the reputation of a superbrain
on the right-wing scene.
Sept. 11, 1972
"The troubled Munich Summer Olympics end."
This is what FOXNEWS wrote in a piece connecting this
event to the attacks of 2001:
"For 21 hours, under live television cameras, hooded gunmen
of the Palestinian faction Black September held Israeli athletes hostage,
killing 11 of them during a botched getaway and airport firefight with
German antiterrorism squads."
However, the actual terror attack ended a week before
Sept. 11. All that happened on Sept. 11 was that the Olympics came to an
end, and so the connection is tenuous at best. As
for the events of Sept. 1970, from which the "Black September" group took
its name, go here and click on "Kamikaze Precedents."
Sept. 11, 1973
"Chile's president, Salvador Allende, killed in a
Salvador Allende was too popular for his own good. He
committed the unprecedented heresy of coming to power in a democratic election
as an avowed Marxist, and of striking an independent course for his nation.
A CIA study in 1970 noted that the "U.S. has no vital national interests
within Chile" and that Allende's election would not alter "the world military
balance of power." But the Agency warned that success by Allende would
pose the threat of a good example, encouraging other countries to follow
the same path.
A CIA-sponsored anti-communist scare campaign helped prevent
an Allende victory in the 1964 elections. In 1970, he won a plurality of
37 percent, in a three-way split, and took power with the blessings of
the defeated president, Eduardo Frei. The U.S. immediately imposed a credit
embargo and other measures to "make the economy scream," as CIA director
Richard Helms advised in a memo. U.S. copper interests, whose Chilean holdings
were nationalized, and the multinational ITT cooperated in a broad campaign
to destabilize Chile. As it had since 1964, the CIA continued to plant
anti-Allende scare stories through paid assets in the Chilean press.
Nixon's national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, was
highly devoted to the effort. Newly released documents cited by Christopher
Hitchens establish Kissinger's role in the 1970 assassination of the commander-in-chief
of the Chilean army, Rene Schneider, for the crime of supporting the democracy.
The U.S. government hoped for a successor who could get over "the apolitical,
constitutional-oriented inertia of the Chilean military" (CIA memo, Blum,
210) and stage a coup d'etat against Allende. Incredibly, while leading
a trade boycott on Chile, the U.S. increased military aid to the country,
as a means of penetrating the army. Fearing his own officers, Allende was
forced to accept this offer.
In March 1973, despite a sabotage campaign, his United
People party captured an all-time high of 44 percent in parliamentary elections.
The presidential palace was attacked by military elements loyal to a right-wing
party in June. Fatefully, Allende refused calls from within his party to
distribute arms among the people. On Sept. 11, the presidential palace
was occupied by troops under the command of General Augusto Pinochet, with
U.S. backing. Allende was taken away and shot to death.
Pinochet's forces rounded up thousands of Allende loyalists
in Santiago Stadium and instituted a reign of torture, execution and assassination
that cost more than 3,000 lives, according to present estimates. Subversive
books were burned and women were made to stop wearing pants. Economists
of the Chicago School were called in to guide the country on tight monetarist
reins that foreshadowed the policies of Margaret Thatcher (a staunch defender
of Pinochet to this day). Everything was re-privatized, down to the government
pension plans, unions were crushed and the general population further impoverished.
But Chile was restored as an "open market," with high profits for multinational
corporations. By meeting all debt payments and IMF requirements, Chile
qualified for regular praise as an "economic miracle" in the pages of the
New York Times. By 1990, when democracy was restored, the Times was refering
to the dictator as "President Pinochet," now "seeking a fourth term."
Sept. 11, 1973, raises at least three questions that
1) The CIA has often destabilized societies and overthrown
legitimate governments, but the bloody coup of Sept. 11, 1973 has gone
down as the textbook case. Chile became the spearhead for Operation Condor,
a CIA-directed alliance of six South American dictatorships, who agreed
to track down and extradite each others' dissidents. Geostrategists have
blithely recommended the "Pinochet Solution" as an option for dealing with
economic instability and uppity populations in Iran, Russia, Brazil...
and why not the United States itself? Is it far-fetched that those who
live and prosper from applying terror to foreign countries will one day
use the same means on their own people?
Click here to read how the
U.S. government and military have worked for 35 years in developing an
apparatus for domestic military rule that can be activated at any time,
without need of a formal announcement.
2) In a now famous comment on Allende at a 1970 White
House meeting, Kissinger made no secret of his contempt for democracy:
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due
to the irresponsibility of its own people" (Marchetti, 48). Had Allende
been a cruel and unpopular tyrant, he might have won the CIA's favor. His
sin was that he was a democrat, and that he hoped to do good for his people.
Whether or not his politics would have worked, absent the foreign disruption,
is another question. He did not deprive Chileans of their right to remove
him from office in an election, and this made him vulnerable to removal
by a foreign power. The elected government of Jacobo Arbenz, in Guatemala,
suffered the same fate in 1954, when it was overthrown in a coup directed
by the CIA. This initiated a series of American-armed military regimes
that killed hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans. From the case of Arbenz,
Fidel Castro said he learned that allowing democratic government is futile,
if the United States is determined to destroy it. Is Castro paranoid? What
would have happened to the Cuban Revolution, had Castro not turned Cuba
into a dictatorship? Would he have survived, only to be ousted in a fair
and democratic election? Or would he have been done in, like Allende?
and search the NARCONEWS site for items about the most recent U.S. project
to destroy democracy in Latin America, the April 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela.
It failed, unlike the Pinochet coup, and it was condemned by a majority
of Latin American nations. Perhaps times are changing, and the day will
come when Castro can finally loosen up his act.
3) General Pinochet endured a surprise house arrest in
Britain in 1997, but finally escaped punishment. The most culpable living
perpetrator on the American side, Kissinger, is celebrated as a foreign
policy genius on TV and still serves as a top-level private adviser to
the present administration, NATO, and foreign powers including China. The
day after the attacks on New York and Washington, the man behind the bombing
of Cambodia and the rape of East Timor issued a barely disguised call for
a world war on all enemies. He wrote, "any government that shelters groups
capable of this kind of attack, whether or not they can be shown to have
been involved in this attack, must pay an exorbitant price" (Washington
Post, Sept. 12, 2001, italics mine). The example of Chile shows that the
U.S. government shelters groups capable of massive terrorist attacks, and
that one of their masterminds is Henry Kissinger. What price should this
William Blum, Killing Hope. U.S. Military and CIA Interventions
Since World War II, 1995.
Edward Boorstein, Allende's Chile. An Inside View, New
Christopher Hitchens, "The Case Against Henry Kissinger,"
Harper's, June-July 2001, also available as a book.
Victor Marchetti and John Marks, The CIA and the Cult
of Intelligence, New York, 1974.
Sept. 11, 1978
"Signing of Camp David accords between Israel and
The peace talks between Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin and
Jimmy Carter were held at Camp David from Sept. 5 to Sept. 17, 1978. While
Sept. 11 falls within those two weeks, nothing was actually signed on that
day. The deal between Israel and Egypt took effect officially on Mar. 26,
1979. "Camp David" has since been a metaphor for U.S.-led peace processes.
Some have suggested the terrorists chose Sept. 11 to signal their rejection
of peace with Israel, but this has no basis. After the attacks, the White
House rather implausibly claimed that Camp David might have been the intended
target of United Airlines Flight 93, the plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania
field on Sept. 11. Why? The isolated summer residence was unoccupied, and
inoccuous as a landmark. There would have been no cameras to record the
Sept. 11, 1978
"Death of Janet Parker, war photographer, final victim
of smallpox (contracted in lab accident)."
Janet Parker contracts smallpox in a lab accident in
Britain and dies at age 40 on Sept. 11, 1978. Let us pray she remains the
final victim. The coincidence is spooky, because ever since the Sept. 11
attacks the specter of this particular disease has been raised as the worst-case
scenario for bio-terrorism.
From ancient times until the announcement in the 1970s
by the World Health Organization that smallpox had been eradicated, the
wildly contagious pathogen killed untold millions, including a number of
Mohegan Indians in the future borough of Manhattan. But has smallpox really
been wiped out, or is that just a myth propagated as a public relations
success by WHO? In fact, outbreaks have been claimed many times in Africa
since 1978, and most recently just last week, in Pakistan. Are these outbreaks
really of smallpox, or of a different form of pox?
At any rate, the scientists who engage in debate on whether
they should wipe out the last remaining strains seem to think smallpox
has been eradicated, so I shall trust them for now, and assume that the
outbreaks since 1978 have been of different pox strains.
"The Agency" had an episode last March about an Arab terrorist
who turns himself into a smallpox bomb, but except for the set of the CIA-sponsored
CBS series, the only known stockpiles of the pathogen are in the possession
of the U.S. and Russian governments. After smallpox was wiped out, the
superpowers kept samples "for research, if necessary." This was Janet Parker's
doom. She was infected by a leak of borrowed samples, in a lab where she
was taking medical photographs.
Why don't the Russians and Americans kill the virus? "We
are just beginning to understand the functions of the genes of viruses
that belong to this class" of pox, says Bernard Moss, a virologist at the
National Institutes of Health, who is quoted in a fascinating piece about
smallpox on the "Urban Legends" site. "It may be that five years from now,
or ten years from now, we will have a question and we will either need
access to the DNA of the smallpox virus, or the smallpox virus itself,"
This fuzzy answer suggests Moss has no clue why smallpox
should be kept, except that scientists always know better than mortals.
Here is an item that speaks far more plainly:
"In the summer of 1971, the Soviet Union apparently conducted
an open-air test of a biological weapon containing smallpox virus. The
experiment caused a smallpox outbreak that killed three and required a
massive vaccination campaign to confine it to a port on the Aral Sea, in
Kazakhstan..." (IHT, June 17)
Moss simply does not want to admit that the only realistic
potential use of the smallpox virus stockpiles is as a weapon of biological
warfare, and that neither the Russians nor the Americans trust the other
side to completely destroy their stockpiles.
The same pathology of bad logic was evident when the U.S.
military secretly bred new forms of anthrax in the 1990s, in violation
of U.S. law and the international biowarfare conventions. When this was
revealed last year, after the anthrax attacks on the media and Congress,
the excuse was that Saddam, or somebody, might cook up a similar pathogen.
In other words: "By making this anthrax, even before the Iraqis conceive
of it, we might be able to develop an effective vaccine."
Of course, given the rich variety of life, Saddam's scientists
could invent some other, unrelated germ. That would render the "preventive"
breeding of anthrax useless as a defense, but we would still have viable
material for, um, just in case. Yeah, that's right. Like, maybe for retaliations.
Yeah. Wait, no, not retaliations per se, but, um, this anthrax is also
good to have around for experiments. You know, like, scenarios.
In the past, the U.S. military has conducted pathogen
tests on the populations of American cities, for example spraying contagions
over San Francisco and in the New York subway to see how well they spread.
This fits into a gruesome history of experimentation on unwitting human
subjects, such as the U.S. radiation experiments in the 1950s.
Last December, the New York Times claimed William Capers
Patrick III, the dean of American biowarfare scientists, once authored
a secret paper on the effects of sending anthrax through the mail. (See
Wayne Madsen in Counterpunch, Apr. 8, 2002, www.counterpunch.org). Patrick
denied this, but the BBC repeated the story and said a CIA contractor used
his paper in designing tests to determine the viability of mailed anthrax.
Of course, even if all this is true, only by coincidence
did someone else later have the same idea, in Oct. 2001. Only by coincidence
was one of the U.S. military's illegal anthrax strains used in mailings
to the media and the Congress, killing five people. Unlike the original
CIA experimenters, anyone who did something that irresponsible would have
been a rogue element. A lone perpetrator. Of course.
Here is a translation of the all-purpose government alibi:
Gee, officer, I only drove the bus up to the abyss
and parked it safely, with the front wheels barely hanging over edge. I
didn't think it would actually fall over. Maybe I forgot to lock the brake?
Gosh, I'm sorry about all the explosives I left in there.
Meanwhile, a team of international scientists last year
thawed out three dead men in Norway, who were frozen in the tundra after
succumbing to the Great Influenza Epidemic of 1918. That pathogen killed
20 million people before it disappeared. Its workings are entirely unknown
to science. The biologists want a sample to study possible cures, just
in case the disease ever returns.
Dense lay people have been known to ask questions like,
how can influenza return if it is otherwise extinct? Well, come on, imagine
that the pathogen should escape! Say, in a lab accident. Yeah. Say it leaks
somehow from a lab, where a team of international scientists are working
hard on coming up with a cure. Say it catches on, and starts killing people
again. What will we do then, without a cure, if we never let the scientists
start their research in the first place?
Poor Janet Parker died in a lab accident. The connection
to Sept. 11 suddenly starts to make sense. Students of tragedy may mistake
all this as evidence of hubris. Students of comedy will recognize it as
their old friend, stupidity.
Meanwhile, at a secure underground facility...
Damn you, Anthrax Lady!
You just wiped out the male sex!
Or, wait... (the head of the research team thought)
What if Saddam gets a hold of one of these frozen
Norwegians? What if the Bagdad Anthrax Lady uses a sample from them to
create a new super-flu? Like, what if she engineers the flu to go after
specific genes in humans, so they only kill members of a given ethnic group,
say, our own? ...
Oh, my God, what if she engineers it to go after the
Y-chromosome, so it only kills men?! ...
Obviously, we had better develop this capacity ourselves,
right away, so we can have a vaccine ready before that bitch even gets
Let's see here, I guess we'll need one for Arabs,
one for Chinese, one for Africans, one for Latins...
Are we forgetting anybody? Say, maybe we can combine
an ethnovirus with one that targets the Y-chromosome, so, like, it only
kills males in each group, and leaves the women. Like in the Bible, where
they massacre the men and keep the virgins. Oooh... Just kidding. Of course,
now that we have thought of it, we will have to try it, to see if it's
possible. You never know what the Anthrax Lady might come up with...
Hmm, the ethnic part is not so easy, but we've come
up with a lot of ways to hit the Y-chromosome. Why not? A whole separate
structure, fat and rich for the bombing...
Once we cook it up, we'll need to vaccinate, of course.
- Starting with every single employee of this lab, I might add. I want
you all to know that YOU are our most precious asset...
Hey! What are you doing? Nimrod. You can't just pour
that down the sink! We didn't zap it yet!...
Great. Now it's alive, and loose. Which one was it,
the one for Polynesians with hunchbacks?
What's that? It was the one for men? Which men? You
mean - unadulterated? All the men? You just poured the unfiltered Y-chromosome
killer down the sink?
Shut down the sewers! Can we somehow raise the acid
content of the water supply?...
Come on. Come on, people, I want ideas! You're supposed
to be the best. That's what you're paid for and this is a national emergency.
Fuck, a world emergency!...
What are you smirking at, Tina? Care to share your
thoughts with the rest of us? No? I didn't think so. (Under breath: goddamn
Well, nothing's happened yet. Maybe it just died.
But let's have a story ready to pin the blame. Just in case...
Sept. 11, 1985.
Pete Rose of the Cincinnati Reds recorded his 4,192nd hit, breaking
Ty Cobb's career record.
Sept. 11, 1986
"Biggest one-day plunge on Wall Street."
The Dow Jones Industrial Average falls 86.61 points to
1,792.89, the biggest one-day decline by points until that time. Yawn.
How boring, compared to the crash of Oct. 1987, or the market's inflation
and volatility in the years since. Nowadays 86 points is a quiet day. Who
can make a decent margin, just out of that? I hate slow market days!
Sept. 11, 1990
"President George H.W. Bush delivers 'New World Order'
Speech to Congress."
Iraq occupied Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990. At that point,
the U.S. government had armed and assisted the Iraqi tyrant for more than
a decade, pitting him against the despised Shiite theocracy in Iran. The
Iraqi invasion came as the climax of an enormously complicated history
of secret deals and double-crosses, which bears reviewing because of its
relevance to events today.
In 1978, an Islamic fundamentalist revolution overthrew
the Shah of Iran. He had been the country's dictator since 1953, when the
CIA and the British had helped him overthrow the parliamentary government
of Mossadegh, who had committed the crime of nationalizing the country's
In November 1979, Iranian students seized the personnel
of the U.S. embassy as hostages, creating a terminal crisis for the Carter
Carter's domestic situation was further exacerbated by
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan of Dec. 1979, although this was the
intended effect of a U.S. covert destabilization of Afghanistan, as admitted
since by Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski. The idea
was to get the Soviets into their own "Vietnam," and it worked. In the
next decade, the U.S. would covertly funnel four to six billion dollars
(matched dollar for dollar by the Saudis) into the Afghanistan jihad, organizing
the effort under the Zia heroin-money dictatorship in Pakistan and assembling
an "international" of Islamist mercenaries like Osama Binladin: the "Afghan
In Sept. 1980, Saddam invaded Iran in an attempt to grab
oil-rich territories - after receiving a green light from the U.S. government,
which thus thought to extract revenge and put pressure on Iran. At the
same time, the Reagan presidential campaign under William Casey was engaged
in the illegal "October Surprise" negotiations with Iran, promising to
supply arms if the Iranians held the hostages until Carter had lost the
Nov. 1980 election.
The Iranians released the hostages a few minutes after
Reagan's inauguration, and the covert U.S. arms shipments to Iran began
in early 1981, via Israeli arms dealers. Casey became the chief of a CIA
that ran the ongoing war in Afghanistan, training the likes of Osama Binladin,
and started a series of genocidal conflicts in Central America.
In other words, from the beginning the key players inside
American politics acted in away that encouraged the mass slaughter between
Iran and Iraq, by giving clandestine support to both sides. The Iran-Iraq
war continued for eight years, during which the arms dealers of the West
celebrated it as an opportunity to sell to both sides.
The U.S. arms shipments to Iran became a scandal with
the "Iran-Contra" revelations of 1986, but the most significant U.S. support
went to Iraq. The Atlanta branch of the CIA-connected Italian Bank Lavoro
financed Saddam's arms purchases with billions
in loans guaranteed by the U.S. Agriculture Department. American defense
contractors built Iraq's supergun, and even its weaponized anthrax originated
with a U.S. company in a government-approved deal.
Early in the war, Saddam discovered that it was not so
easy to take territory from a country with three times the population of
Iraq. By the mid-1980s the Iranians were inching towards Bagdad, and the
long-suffering peoples of Iraq grew restless. Luckily for Saddam, the CIA
fed him the satellite surveillance data that he needed to survive the various
Iranian "final offensives" of 1985 to 1987.
Reports in 1987 that Iraq had used poison gas to kill
5,000 civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabjah passed with little
more than a burp of protest from the United States - although they have
since been taken up as Exhibit 1 in the list of Saddam's crimes. This is
almost certainly a myth. The Iraqi victims of Halabjah died during a battle
in which Iranian and Iraqi forces both used poison gas, against each other.
Regardless, Bush and Saddam were allies throughout the
1980s, at a time when Iraqi forces commited horrific crimes. Saddam's ultimate
victory in the war he began consisted in staying in power and battling
the numerically superior Iranians to a final stalemate in 1988.
And what had he gained? All he held, in the end, were
untold billions in debt, the lion's share due to the two countries who
financed and benefited most from Iran's containment: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Following the war, these same two rich ingrates raised oil production against
the wishes of Iraq and other OPEC hardliners, causing prices to fall and
putting the squeeze on Saddam's ability to pay them off.
But Saddam still had his arms, if not the cash, and decided
this was a good moment to rediscover the injustices of colonial history:
In the 1920s the British, the better to control their Empire in the Near
East, had peeled an oil-rich coastal section of Iraq away and bestowed
it upon a local feudal clan, known today as the royal family of Kuwait.
As long as Saddam was fighting Iran, and Kuwait was willing to give him
money, this had not mattered. But now his speechwriters recalled that Kuwait
is the "17th province" of Iraq. Further, Kuwait was drilling diagonally
into oil fields under Iraqi territory, and disputing Iraq's claim to two
unoccupied coastal islands.
Saddam saw a chance to cut his debt and solve many other
issues to his favor, maybe even grab the whole of Kuwait. He massed his
forces to the south and began issuing ultimatums to the Kuwaitis. Most
readers are probably aware that as the crisis peaked, on July 30, 1990,
the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, visited Saddam and delivered
a non-commital statement of neutrality in the conflict among Arab neighbors.
To Saddam (and to anyone who has read the transcript), it sounded just
like the green light for an invasion of Kuwait.
When the invasion came, President Bush had a revelation.
At last, he saw the insanity of covert entanglements with military dictatorships,
fundamentalists and feudal monarchies.
Ha ha ha! But seriously, folks...
He saw the folly of a whole economy based on the territorial resource
of oil, and he was appalled at the great cost of America's attempt to control
that resource at the source by maintaining a military hegemony on the other
side of the world. Above all, he understood that government by secrecy
had led to nothing but disaster.
In a daring Sept. 11 speech to the Congress, he set the nation on
a bold new course. He revealed the full details of the above history and
promised there would be no more secret deals and subversions of democracy.
The United States would cease to arm its future enemies. It would redirect
the untold billions until then devoted to subsidizing the profits of American
oil companies to measures of energy conservation and the development of
alternative energies and sustainable settlements. This would serve ultimately
to end dependence on oil from the Middle East, and usher in a new age of
peaceful coexistence with the world.
After Saddam took the bait and invaded Kuwait, the United
States began deploying half a million troops to Saudi Arabia, starting
on Aug. 7. That date became the obsession of a Saudi hero of the Afghanistan
jihad, Osama Binladin, who objected to the presence of U.S. troops, and
who insisted that Saudi Arabia could organize its own defense. This was
actually true, for several reasons. For one thing, Saddam was never going
to invade Saudi Arabia in the first place, as was clear already at the
time. The alleged Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia was little more than a pretext
to deploy the American troops.
Second, Saudi Arabia was extremely well-armed, having
bought an estimated $200 billion in military technology from the United
States during the 1980s. Much of this went into the construction of a network
of sophisticated military harbors and "superbases," with secure underground
tunnels and bunkers criss-crossing the landscape. (One day "we" may get
to bomb these, just like with the ones we built in Afghanistan.) These
bases, built by local contractors like the Saudibinladin Group, met the
exacting technical specifications of the U.S. military - so that as the
American troops arrived, they found themselves well-provided with a familiar
and extensive infrastructure already in place. It was as though someone
had been preparing to accommodate a large American force for ten years.
Which they had!
So nicely set up, the war still needed its political justifications.
Bush martialed a coalition of 28 allies and got the Japanese, Germans,
Saudis and Gulf States to pony up many billions for the liberation of Kuwait
(The war was the first ever to make a direct profit for the Pentagon).
At home, he was confronted with a moderate level of protests and nearly
half the Senate against him. With the deployments underway, Bush therefore
spoke to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 11, 1990, delivering a speech
entitled: "Towards a New World Order."
Here is the passage where he uses the miscreant phrase:
We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The
crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity
to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled
times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era
-- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice,
and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of
the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony.
A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while
a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new
world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've
known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle.
A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom
and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.
A new era was indeed a-dawning, above all because the Soviet
Union was in a state of advanced collapse. Brzezinski's Afghanistan gambit
had succeeded as one of many factors in the Soviet decline. (It had also
spread the CIA-trained "Afghan Arab" network around the world.) Bankrupt
and plagued by nationalist uprisings, the Soviet empire was opening up
to Western capital, as China had done since the late 1970s. The Western
power elite understood that great changes were coming in the world order.
The old system was entering a new phase, which has been called globalist,
and which involves a greater role for openly "internationalist" institutions.
But nobody needed Bush to tell them that!
Many people think Bush's speech was the declaration of
a one-world government. They seize on the phrase, "new world order," as
though it signifies a specific, organized power, the N.W.O. - something
apart from "America," something that may one day subject the U.S. government
and its people to the strictures of the United Nations, NATO or some other
globalist structure. To me, this idea is hash. Bush
was always the player and front-man of the Old World Order, the same American-centered
power elite that governed most of the planet long before the Berlin Wall
Bush needed a war. For many reasons, in part because we
live in a system that requires the occasional war as a condition of its
reproduction - but mainly to preclude the possibility that the decline
of the Soviets would be accompanied by a call to withdraw American military
hegemony over the world. The true enemy was the potential for "Peace Dividend"
now that the Cold War was ending.
This was why Saddam was so convenient. A cornered animal,
he joined the ranks of renegade tyrants when he swallowed Bush's bait,
and tried to take his cut of the international gangsters' pie by force.
In reality, the function of the "New World Order" speech
is depressingly ordinary. Bush does not want to "supplant" anything. He
intends to prove the rule of the jungle, in which the strong subjugate
the weak, by showing that the strongest can subjugate anyone they please.
Since this is not the sort of justification for a war that flies with the
voting public, Bush says the opposite of what he means. When politicians
go to war, they always rediscover the lofty Western ideals that they otherwise
never mention. Their speechwriters reach into the Churchillian bag and
pull out assurances about how war brings peace, justice and order to the
world. This allows them to go blow up and starve a few hundred thousand
Iraqis, during the war and in the 10 years since killing a larger number
of civilians than the population of Kuwait itself, so as to keep restore
a medieval regime with a clear conscience.
(In the process, the United States itself suffers on the
order of 100,000 casualties. Oh, you didn't realize? "Casualties" includes
the wounded as well as the several hundred dead. What do you call a victim
of the no doubt multi-causal ailment known as "Gulf War Syndrome"?)
Although I can believe that the Bush mob (or their friends
and underlings) are involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, I doubt the timing
was meant to secretly honor Papa's words. Brigands plunder when the time
is ripe for plunder; they do not ask a calendar for permission.
Sept. 11, 1994
"Kamikaze steals Cessna, takes off for White House."
A Cessna crashed into the wall of the White House at
3 a.m. on Sept. 12, 1994, two stories below the Presidential bedroom. The
Clintons were not in Washington. The government released the following
account: Frank Eugene Corder, a criminal with suicidal tendencies, stole
the plane from Baltimore on the previous night (hence Sept. 11, my little
cheat). He flew it to DC, looped around the Washington Monument, and finally
smacked into the White House, causing minor damage. The pilot was killed.
As a result, the government tightened restrictions over Washington airspace.
The rumor among reporters ever since was that anti-aircraft missiles were
installed to protect the building against a repeat attack.
Sept. 11, 1997.
Scots voted to create their own Parliament after 290 years of union
Sept. 11, 1998
"Starr report submitted to Congress."
As though two years of having the universe revolve around
the O.J. Simpson Trial were not enough, the Starr Inquisition achieved
a new low point in the crusade to stupify the American mind.
Forget what real crimes Clinton may have committed. Revealing
those would have implicated a whole system, including the Republicans -
in fact, starting with the Republicans. As governor of Arkansas
in the 1980s, Clinton was involved in protecting CIA-sponsored shipments
of arms to the Contras and cocaine into the United States through the airport
at Mena, Arkansas. Could the Republicans have nailed him for that? Obviously
not. The trail would have led back to Oliver North and George Bush, the
true kingpin of the 1980s crack trade. Mena thus became Clinton's ticket
to the top - really the beginning of a vast practical joke on the American
people. Thanks to Mena, Clinton had the goods on Bush, and vice-versa.
They ran against each other for the presidency, but with their shared secret
they knew that neither would ever rat out the other. Clinton could safely
become president, and be trusted not to take the lid off of the October
Surprise, the Bush regime's war crimes in Central America and Iraq, the
dealings with Saddam prior to the invasion of Kuwait, or (the salient point)
the CIA drug business at home.
Still, the true-blue Republicans hated Clinton! Oh, did
they ever want to nail him. They tried a song-and-dance routine called
Whitewater, but Clinton's business cronies were too resistant to interrogation
(or too terrified) to talk, and anyway the affair smelled too much like
the routine of corrupt money dealings known to the majority of politicians,
Democrats and Republicans alike, to really stir the public's ire. So the
opposition settled on the safest course, which was to satiate the unspoken
urges of the Puritan right wing: They talked about Clinton's dick.
For eight years, the Republicans wielded Bill's scary
appendage as a substitute for their own lack of a presentable politics,
and the media played along. Hell, even dipshit Bill played along. At any
time, starting with the 1992 campaign, he could have banished the peeping
toms with a few strong words: "My private life is not a subject of political
discussion. My consenting relations with other adults are none of your
business. Get your noses out of my crotch!" Any sane and self-respecting
person would have done this. One such statement, phrased with the right
mix of diplomacy and force, could have made up for the gaping paucity of
Clinton's achievements. The man from Hope and candidate of Change changed
nothing of substance while in office, but with twenty honest words, he
could have at least helped America grow the fuck up.
Clinton never said anything remotely like that, not even
after he achieved the only real goal of his first term by winning a second
term. Instead, he consistently let himself get roped into the sex-scandal
In January 1997, a reporter at the post-inaugural press
conference asked what kind of underwear he wore: briefs or boxers? And
he answered! His Vaunted Braininess, the Rhodes scholar, was the only guy
in the room who apparently didn't get the joke: that he was about to spend
his second term getting hammered yet again for his affairs, in this case
the unconsummated fling with Monica.
And even in 1998, when the tawdry game was all too obvious,
he was suckered into saying he "never had sex with that woman, with Miss
Lewinsky," although he knew this was exactly what Mullah Starr was
waiting for him to say, so that he could spring the trap. How could Wild
Bill have been such a willing patsy in the hijacking of his own member?
Was it on a bet? Was it a game he arranged with Newt and Ken and the rest,
as a way of keeping politics trivial and concealing the true scandals of
Maybe it was!
Osama Binladin entered the American consciousness as the
No. 1 Enemy of Civilization at around the same time that Monica burst into
fame as the naive intern with the big mouth. The month before Starr presented
his report, on the Aug. 7 anniversary of the 1990 U.S. deployment in Saudi
Arabia, large bombs were exploded outside the U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania, killing some 280 mostly local people. (As usual, the U.S. appears
to have known what was coming in advance, but we'll cover that elsewhere.)
Osama Binladin was credibly blamed for inspiring, and
possibly planning the simultaneous embassy attacks. The CIA, already then
under George Tenet, suggested three targets for the president to retaliate
upon. One, in Sudan, turned out to be a pill factory, completely unrelated
to terrorist activity. Another, a base in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan,
was not training Qaeda but Pakistani fundamentalists backed by the ISI.
The third was actually one of Osama's bases, but he had just left it when
U.S. cruise missiles rained down on all three targets, on Aug. 20.
And what was the scream that thereupon arose on the Republican
right? "Clinton is only bombing those countries to distract us from Monica!"
(Just imagine the embassy attacs had come under a Republican administration!)
Pretending to be appalled, the Republicans did everything
they could to assure that the bombings would be ignored, and that everyone's
attention would focus on Monica when the Starr Report came out in its full
pornographic (and totally irrelevant) glory on Sept. 11. This set into
motion the impeachment hearings, the charges of which were restricted to
the truly laughable matter of Clinton having lied to the Starr Inquisition
about his relationship with Lewinsky. (In other words, if there had not
been an inquisition, this "crime" could have never been committed.)
Meanwhile, Saddam had kicked out UN weapons inspectors
and refused to allow them back into Iraq if they included Americans, charging
credibly that the U.S. inspectors were spying out targets for the frequent
U.S./UK bombings of Iraq - one of the few things not actually allowed under
the terms of Iraq's arrangement with the UN. The U.S. issued a series of
ultimatums and finally staged a large-scale four-day bombing of Iraq starting
on December 18... the day of Clinton's impeachment!
Once again, a hue and a cry among the Clinton bashers:
"He's only bombing Iraq to distract us from Monica! It's just like Wag
The impeachment hearings dragged on through a long part
of the next year, during which the U.S. led a NATO war on Yugoslavia in
support of the Kosovar Albanian insurrection - after demanding that Yugoslavia
accept occupation of its entire territory by NATO forces or be bombed.
This is not the place to go into the full story of how this illegal war
was manufactured and justified. The point is that the U.S. and its allies
engaged in 78 days of bombing, destroying Yugoslavia's infrastructure and
killing thousands of civilians, against the protests of most of the world's
countries. Accusations of genocide were raised against the Serbs, which
later turned out to be fabricated.
And what were the pundits of the American right-wing (and
many an average American) once again screaming? "He's only bombing Yugoslavia
to distract us from Monica!" Now ask yourself: How much U.S. media coverage
did the Kosovo war get? How much coverage did the impeachment get?
I humbly propose a Copernican reversal of the Republican
Theory of Clinton. They say he bombed this and he bombed that to distract
us from Lewinsky, but think about it: Which was the real crime? Could it
be that Monica actually served as the distraction from the bombings?
And that this strategem worked best with the Republicans who were most
in love with her?
The elder Bush needed a fancy speech to justify his war.
When war was waged under Clinton, so many people were busy with the Monica
Show that they didn't even notice. Maybe the handlers of Bush Jr. can learn
from that, and arrange for the next murderous bombing of Iraq, possibly
with nuclear weapons, to be sold to the American people as an irrelevant
distraction from The Pretzel.
In some quarters, the Bash-Clinton routine is supposed
to continue ad infinitum. One need only read the various organs of near-religious
Clinton-hating that arose in the 1990s, like WorldNetDaily and NEWSMAX,
to see that they now seek to pin responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks
on him - mainly because they think he insufficiently funded a U.S. defense
budget that exceeds that of the next 25 nations combined. As was the case
throughout his administration, the least of Bill's
sins (or his occasional odd merits) are to be recycled indefinitely as
a symbolic scapegoat for the crimes of an entire establishment - one that
includes both him and the Republicans.
I shall leave it to professionals in Clinton Bashing,
like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, to devise a connection between Monica's
cigar and the cigar-shaped airplanes, as they shall, inevitably, and must.
They cannot help themselves, but I shall resist. Let him wear chainmail
undies, for all I care: I am not touching that man's penis!
The true conjunction of Sept. 11, 1998 with Sept. 11,
2001 lies in this: A society obsessed with infantile
diversions will never know what hit it until far too late.
Do you wrestle with dreams?
Do you contend with shadows?
Do you move in a kind of sleep?
Time has slipped away.
Your life is stolen.
You tarried with trifles.
A victim of your folly.
-- Frank Herbert
Sept. 11, 1999
Darkness in Moscow.
No bombs went off in Moscow on Sept. 11, 1999, as far
as I am aware. The Russian capital was in the grip of a series of random
bombing incidents that killed more than 300 people between Aug. 31 and
late September. These were blamed on Chechen terrorism, with thousands
of ethnic Caucasians rounded up or expelled from the city that autumn,
but the authorship of the attacks has never been officially explained.
Another wave of bombings, attributed to separatist Muslim rebels, was underway
in Dagestan, the Russian province neighboring Chechnya.
In mid-August Boris Yeltsin had appointed a new premier,
the until-then relative unknown vice-mayor of Petrograd, Vladimir Putin,
former head of the FSB, the successor organization to the KGB. Putin was
Yeltsin's fourth choice of prime minister in one year. The Yeltsin presidency
had reached its low point, its leader enfeebled and alcoholized, the treasury
emptied over many years in a coordinated plunder by his cronies and allied
oligarchs, the country's second and most devastating economic crash of
the 1990s having come the year before. Many observers speculated on his
accession that Putin's would be the last in the merry-go-round of Yeltsin
governments, that he was the choice of a "strongman" faction at FSB and
the security services who wished to impose order on the country's chaos.
Just before the terror wave begins, the intelligence service
STRATFOR predicts that when Yeltsin's mood next changes, as is wont to
happen on a three-month basis, it will be Putin who deposes Yeltsin, and
not vice-versa. Within weeks of his appointment, five apartment houses
collapse in horrific explosions and the populace is pitched into a panic.
Putin shows a firm front and prepares a new offensive in Chechnya, from
which federal Russian forces had withdrawn after a bloody debacle and amid
widespread protests by Russian soldier's mothers in 1996.
The last incident occurs on Sept. 23, when local authorities
announce they have defused another large apartment bomb found in the Moscow
satellite city of Ryazan. Two men who allegedly planted the bomb are arrested
by the police, after attempting to get away by flashing FSB identification
cards. The FSB acknowledges that the two men are its agents, and states
that the "bomb" was actually a fake using powdered sugar instead of real
explosives in a security exercise. Members of the local bomb squad still
insist the powder was a real explosive, and the apartment dwellers in Ryazan
to this day remain nervous, believing they only narrowly escaped death.
This was the end of that year's apartment bombing incidents.
The FSB story drops out of the media and into the realm
of febrile rumor. Russian forces launch a brutal offensive in Chechnya,
reducing to dust whatever was left was left over of Grozny from the 1996
action. On the evening of Dec. 31, 1999, Yeltsin goes on television to
abruptly announce his resignation, elevating Putin to the post of interim
president and endorsing him as his successor. It later leaks out that Putin
forced him out with threats - and the promise that his family and immediate
circle would not be exposed for their role in the emptying of the country's
treasury by Russian oligarchs, old spooks and mobsters, and their international
associates who spirited much of the booty offshore and to Switzerland.
By law, Yeltsin's resignation moves the long-awaited presidential
elections of June 2000 up by three months to March 2000, destroying the
hopes of a variety of long-term challengers-in-the-waiting by virtually
guaranteeing victory for Putin. Once again, a Russian election has been
subverted. Putin thus catapults from relative obscurity to Russia's Savior
in four months flat. A new party is founded just for him. He is elected
and inaugurated in a ceremony of astonishing pomp, marching through the
palace over a red carpet that goes on for miles as trumpets blare.
Over the next two years, the country's independent media
are shut down, appropriated by state-owned companies or Putin allies. Journalists
and political organizers are subject to mass harrassment and arrest. There
is a break with Boris Berezovsky, former Yeltsin ally, last of the media
oligarchs, who flees the country to London. There, he produces a 2002 documentary
claiming the Sept. 1999 attacks were authored by elements within the FSB.
Putin is meanwhile greeted into the halls of world power
as the man who got Russia back on keel, cultivating a buddy-buddy relationship
as a German-speaker with Chancellor Schröder. In early 2001, he has
his first summit with the freshly-appointed American president. Bush tells
the American people that he has "looked into President Putin's eyes, and
seen that he is a man with a good soul." After Sept. 11, 2001, Putin becomes
a reliable ally in Bush's anti-terror campaign, so far exceeded in his
protestations of loyalty to the cause perhaps only by Tony Blair. The link
is drawn between Qaeda and the various Chechen rebel factions. Putin says
his country faces the same enemy as America.
What did he and Bush really see in each other's eyes?
Sept. 11, 2001: The Attacks.
On the morning of the attacks, presumed Qaeda members
convicted for the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania are scheduled
to receive their sentence at the New York federal courthouse, just a few
blocks away from the World Trade Center. This is postponed by the attacks.
need we look any further for reasons why Qaeda
would choose this date, if it is responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks?!
Excuse my shouting. Helps, sometimes.
Now that we have settled that, let's see what else is
going on. Here is some well-founded speculation about what people are doing
as the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 breaks around the world, from time zone
to time zone:
Mullah Omar wakes up in Afghanistan.
Osama Binladin and his doubles wake up, presumably in
various southern Asian locations.
Prince Turki wakes up to the third or fourth day of his
sudden retirement, presumably in Saudi Arabia.
Henry Kissinger wakes up in Berlin.
Alan Greenspan wakes up in Zurich, Switzerland.
Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari take an early flight
to Boston from Portland, Maine.
Mahmud Ahmad, head of Pakistani intelligence agency ISI,
wakes up in Washington, DC, as do Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and many
The Carlyle Group convenes its annual meeting of investors
in Washington, DC, Frank Carlucci presiding, with James Baker and representatives
of the Binladin family present.
Warren Buffet wakes up in Omaha, Nebraska and heads to
Offut Air Force Base for a charity breakfast, at which he meets with leading
executives, at least one of whom would normally have gone to work that
day at the World Trade Center.
George W. Bush and his entourage visit Emma Booker Elementary
School in Sarasota, Florida.
John O'Neill can't believe what is happening.
Neither can anyone else.
Colin Powell smells the coffee in Lima, Peru.
Rudy: Footnote to History?
Sept. 11 is also election day for primary contests across
the United States, including the mayoral primary in New York City. This
is postponed because of the attacks. A week later, Mayor Giuliani, saying
he is the only man who can lead New York during the crisis, proposes he
stay in office three months past the end of his term, in violation of the
city's charter. If he does not get his way, Rudy threatens to push for
an immediate repeal of term limits so that he can run again. Republican
candidate Michael Bloomberg and one of the two Democratic primary candidates,
Mark ("Spineless") Green, say they are ready to accept Il Duce's idea.
Fernando Ferrer, the other Democratic candidate, refuses the deal and stares
Rudy down, forestalling the establishment of New York City's first open
dictatorship. Green edges out Ferrer in the rescheduled primary, amid allegations
of vote fixing. Bloomberg reaches into his own pocket for a 15 million
dollar ad blitz during the last week of the campaign and takes the general
election from Green, amid allegations of vote fixing. Count Rudy returns
to his crypt, to await his next chance.
And now for the Satanic
Numerology seems to rely on the art of fudge. Numerologists
produce the results they desire by arbitrarily adding, subtracting or multiplying
digits as convenient. Here is a sample of one numerological speculation
I discovered on the Net:
The flights that were hijacked were: #11,
#93, #175, #77...add the seperate flight numbers
Of course not. Just click your heels together, Dorothy, because
nothing is ever, ever a coincidence!
Eleven thru 14...Done in order.....is this coincidence?...naw!...these
birds do it all by the "numbers"
At any rate, it requires little fudging to find that many
elevens are associated with the events of Sept. 11: We
have the date, the 11th, and the Twin Towers themselves, the largest eleven
in the world. Before you laugh, consider that New York's Channel 11 spotted
this obvious feature and used it in a mid-1980s ad campaign, in which the
station's director of marketing wanders desperately around the city looking
for the "Biggest 11 in New York," and yet never notices the towers, which
are always in the background behind him. Long before the the World Trade
Center construction plans were approved, the architects would have become
aware that the towers look like an eleven, even if this was not their initial
intent (I suspect, but cannot prove, that the initial idea behind the design
of giant block-towers without offsets was to maximize rentable space!)
The first of the crash flights was AA11. As the first letter of the alphabet,
A has a numerological value of 1, so "AA" is also an eleven. The second
flight, UA175, thus has an eleven in the form of "A1." The third flight,
AA77, is a multiple of 11 (7x 11=77). That's already seven semi-unfudged
Eleven is supposed to be the number of power (or hubris)
in various numerological cosmologies, so many people have seized on this
as evidence of an occult dimension to the attacks.
In this view, the unforgettable and traumatizing, televised
destruction of the towers is a spell, cast on the general population by
the top-level conspirators of the power elite who orchestrated the attacks.
Their psychological ritual is designed to sap our energies and make us
submissive, possibly to feed their vicarious need for fire and blood. Whether
there is a physical basis to this dark magic doesn't matter. It still might
serve as the motive for the presumed high-level occultists, who believe
Have we not already accepted that the attacks were committed
in the name of a religion? Maybe so, just not the one we thought.
This kind of speculation usually ends with a look at the
bible, and the logical stop there of course is the last book, Revelation,
the story of the apocalypse and second coming. Wherein we find that verse
"They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless
pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon (Destroyer), and in Greek he is called
This refers to the king of a plague of machine-like locusts
who devastate the land in the one of the book's prophecies of doom, but
it stands alone quite well, doesn't it?
Not that I buy it. But like all the rest of what we have
discovered on this fanciful little trip: Spooky.
119 or 911? The Day of
As a final numerological game of the author's choosing,
we shall note that 9/11 is the reverse of 11/9. In American date notation,
that would be November 9th, the date on which the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.
Rarely are the start and end points of an historical epoch so clearly demarcated,
in two single days, in fact, in two seconds, just short of 12 years apart,
to be more precise 11 years and 10 months - from the moment a chisel is
hesitantly taken to the Wall in Berlin, its holder wondering whether he
or she will really be allowed to chip it away, to the second when AA11
flies into the Tower, as though fired into the forehead of the world.
The Lost Years, an age of bubbles and phantoms, of false
starts and illusions, of the lie that "We Never Had It So Good." Of fattening
the Sheeple for the Slaughter?
From 11/9 to 9/11, Leviathan-who-spans-the-globe, centered
in America but not exactly American, had every opportunity to choose reason,
freedom, justice and peace in the world. What could Leviathan, greed incarnate,
born of war, ever choose?
In American date notation, Sept. 11 comes out to 911,
which is the number for police, ambulances and fire fighters, so many of
whom were caught and killed when the Towers fell. Some ask if the date
was chosen for the implicit psychological message:
From now on, life is an emergency. Out of whack.
Leviathan, War, thou art Kooyanisqatsi.
But if you know what your life is worth
You'll fight for yours right here on Earth
Now you see the light.
Stand up for your right!
[BACK TO MAIN] [SKEPTICS LINKS]
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This page may contain copyrighted material the use
of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, environmental,
and social justice issues, etc., in the belief this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the