Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

Video about the head of the 9/11 Commission, Phillip Zelikow

CleanPrintBtn gray smallPdfBtn gray smallEmailBtn gray small

Video from Snowshoe Films

As Webster Tarpley notes, Zelikow is very important in the 9/11 cover-up. In 1998, Philip Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled “CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM: Imagining the Transformative Event.” Nearly two years later, PNAC picked up the CFR-Zelikow language, saying that the desired transformation “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor…”

In part one of this series, we hear from author Webster Tarpley, Professor Graeme MacQueen (religious studies, McMaster University, ret.), Ken Jenkins (filmmaker), and Peter Dale Scott, author.

Zelikow, hired as a Bush II transition team member for his expertise on al-Qaeda (according to Karen Hughes), didn’t want to hear anything about al-Qaeda from Richard Clarke, chief counter-terrorism expert on George W. Bush’s national security council. Similarly, John Ashcroft at the Dept. of Justice didn’t want to hear anything about al-Qaeda before 9/11 from Thomas Picard, acting director of the FBI. In these and other instances, Zelikow as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, suborned perjury, Webster Tarpley charges.

Tarpley reveals Zelikow’s cover-up role in the Able Danger FBI effort to expose “al-Qaeda” cells. Prof. Graeme MacQueen calls attention to Zelikow’s unique role in predicting then explicating the consequences of “the transformative event” as head of the commission charged with investigating the catastrophic terrorism of 9/11. Ken Jenkins and Peter Dale Scott note that Zelikow’s expertise is in creating and exploiting public myths, and that Zelikow’s links to the neo-cons date to the early 1980s. The 9/11 investigation was itself an inside job. (more) (less)

Wikipedia helps to clarify this point by adding: “In the Nov-Dec 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs he (Zelikow) co-authored (with the former head of the CIA) an article entitled ‘Catastrophic Terrorism’ in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force.”

ZELIKOW (part one/snowshoefilms series): 10 min. 16 sec.

Wikipedia helps to clarify this point by adding: “In the Nov-Dec 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs he (Zelikow) co-authored (with the former head of the CIA) an article entitled ‘Catastrophic Terrorism’ in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force.”

According to Wikipedia: “Prof. Zelikow’s area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, ‘public myths’ or ‘public presumptions’ which he defines as ‘beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known with certainty) and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.’ In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called ‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events (that) take on ‘transcendent’ importance and therefore retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. . . . He has noted that ‘a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make the connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all.” (“Thinking about Political History” Miller center Report, winter 1999, p 5-7)

SOURCE: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=17359