Tarpley: 9/11 Synthetic Terror (2/19)
ri...@math.missouri.edu
*9/11 SYNTHETIC TERRORISM MADE IN USA*
Page 4
INTRODUCTION
/There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own navy,
its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas
of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free
from the law itself. Senator Daniel K. Inouye during the Iran-contra
scandal./
This book would not have been possible without the efforts of the 9/11
truth movement, a true planetary cooperation by citizens of the world,
which was called into being by the crimes of September 11, 2001 and the
subsequent coverup. I am indebted for many insights to numerous authors
of print and internet studies of 9/11; the extent of this indebtedness
and the names of the individual researchers are acknowledged in the text
and the bibliography. The 9/11 truth movement, its activists,
organizers, filmmakers and demonstrators, has had the immense historical
merit of opposing those who have sought to incarcerate the intellectual
life of the world in a grim new prison house of the human spirit, the
monstrous 9/11 myth.
On September 7, 2001 I left Dulles Airport in northern Virginia on an
Air France flight en route to Europe. 9/11 itself overtook me in Berlin.
Because of the time difference, I learned of the terror attacks in the
afternoon. I immediately concluded that the events of that day, because
of their scope, complexity, and technical precision, could not have been
possible without the massive complicity of a faction of the US political
and military command structure. This is what the US taxpayers were
paying $40 billion a year for! It was also clear to me that the goal of
this operation was a new world war on a vast scale something along the
lines of the Thirty Years War of 1618-1648, which killed about a third
of the population of central Europe. In the intentions of its planners,
this new conflict was to be a population war, designed to exterminate
large parts of the population of the developing sector, including the
Arab and Moslem countries, and eventually China. It was the desperate
bid of a bankrupt and declining power to re-assert world domination
based on blackmail. It was a world-historical turn towards disaster.
On the evening of 9/11, I attended a memorial service at the Berliner
Dom, the Berlin cathedral which had been destroyed by allied bombing
during World War II, and which had lain in ruins through most of the
communist era in East Berlin. I listened and approved as a leading
prelate called for a peaceful response to the gigantic atrocity. This
was the wisdom of Berlin, a city which had undergone, not one, but
scores days of 3,000 dead during the world wars. This was the lesson of
the twentieth century which the neocons refuse to learn: the utter
futility of war. A day later, I went to the Kaiser-
Wilhelms-Geddchtniskirche, the Emperor William II memorial church on the
Kurf|rstendamm in what had been the western sector. This church had also
been reduced to rubble by the allied bombing. The ruined parts had been
kept as shell-scarred rubble, and a modern chapel erected next to them
during the early 1960s. And here prayer services were being held around
the clock in response to the immense tragedy. Here I realized that it
was my duty to do everything in my power to establish the truth of 9/11,
Page 5
and to tear down the absurd myth that was already being elaborated as
the pretext for new world wars and incalculable human losses.
I issued my first challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy regarding 9/11
on October 26, 2001 at the Indiana Consortium of International Programs,
which was held in the beautiful hoosier countryside about fifty miles
east of the Wabash at Brown County State Park. Here I invited an
audience of academics and scholars to think back to Vietnam as a time
when the government, most professors, the media, and the pundits were
all tragically wrong about virtually everything facts in the case,
diagnosis of the world situation, strategy, and tactics. We were now
living through another such time, I argued. The invasion of Afghanistan,
then under way, was as I argued not a military operation, but the
systematic bribing of the CIAs old network of druglords and warlords,
backed up with bombing and special forces as enforcers.
I gave an expanded, more detailed, and above all more radical version of
this critique on January 20, 2002 at Hanover College, a picturesque
Indiana campus set on the bluffs of the Ohio River overlooking the
wooded hills on the Kentucky side. This time the audience was larger,
some 150 people in a packed lecture hall. Here I was able to build on
the pioneering insights of French activist Thierry Meyssan and the
Riseau Voltaire website, on former SPD German Technology Minister
Andreas von Buelows landmark interview to the Berlin Tagespiegel of
January 13, 2002, and former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidts incisive
remark of December 10, 2001 to German N-TV that the activation of
Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty on mutual assistance among the
alliance members was illegitimate, since proof had to be delivered that
the Sept. 11 terror attacks came from abroad [and] that proof has still
not been provided. (N-TV, Dec.10) As of September 11, 2004, three years
and many failed commissions and investigations later, it has still not
been provided. My own understanding of the 9/11 events developed further
through my participation, as speaker and listener, in the Lucern,
Switzerland, conference of November 1-2, 2003, which was attended by
Andreas von B|low, Gerhard Wisnewski, Peter Dale Scott, Mike Ruppert,
Nick Begich, and Thomas Meyer; in Carol Brouillets San Francisco
International Inquiry-Phase One of March 26- 29, 2004; in the Toronto
International Inquiry Phase Two of May 25-31, 2004, organized by Barrie
Zwicker, Ian Woods, and Michel Chossudovsky; and in the Manhattan Center
conference of September 11, 2004 in New York City, organized by Nico
Haupt and Nick Levis with the support of Jimmy Walter. I also derived
encouragement and ideas from a manuscript on the collapse of air defense
on 9/11 sent to me by my good friend Maurizio Blondet, a courageous
Catholic journalist who writes for Avvenire, the Milan daily newspaper
of the Italian Catholic Bishops Conference.
At the conferences mentioned and others, I have advocated the creation
of an Independent International Truth Commission (IITC) on 9/11 in which
a panel of distinguished international personalities, including
statesmen, artists, philosophers, historians, scientists, and
humanitarians would hear evidentiary briefs prepared by the leading
experts in the 9/11 truth movement, for the purpose of rendering an
authoritative finding on the veracity of the official version. The
approximate model for such proceedings would be the Russell-Sartre
Tribunal of 1966-67; without wanting to endorse
Page 6
the philosophical views of its two leading personalities, it is clear
that this was an effective forum in educating the intellectuals of the
world against the Vietnam War, and could have a similar function in the
age of the phony war on terrorism. I have since benefited from the
wise advice of Ralph Schoenman of KPFA in San Francisco, who was the
general secretary of the Russell Tribunal. He and I belong to a very
exclusive club, that of graduates of Princeton University who have made
the critique of the current US oligarchy and ruling class into the
central business of their lives. It is my hope that this book will add
new momentum to the forces around the world that are converging on the
IITC as an indispensable part of the effort for 9/11 truth, and thus for
world peace and economic development, in the months and years ahead.
A key feature of this study is its approach to the roots of 9/11. I do
not see 9/11 as an event growing exclusively or even primarily out of
conditions in Afghanistan or the Middle East. Rather, I see 9/11 as the
culmination of a decade-long crisis of economics, finance, politics
military affairs, and culture in the United States. In the broadest
sense, 9/11 is the wages of a disastrous decade of economic
globalization, and of the impoverishment and weakening of an entire
society. 9/11 does not grow out of US strength, but represents a
desperate flight forward in an attempt to mask US weakness. 9/11 fits
within the tradition of NATO geopolitical or spheres of influence
terrorism as it was practiced in Italy and West Germany during the years
from 1965 to 1993.
I reject the naove or sociological explanation of terrorism. This
approach says that misery, oppression, and desperation give rise to
terrorist organizations which spontaneously express these underlying
moods. But we live in an era in which political and social reality are
incessantly manipulated by huge and pervasive intelligence agencies
CIA, FBI, MI- 6, FSB (KGB), Mossad, BND, SDECE, SISMI and the like
whose cumulative effect is to over-determine or sur-determine observed
reality. I therefore contend that the more reliable conceptual model for
understanding terrorism is one that situates the secret intelligence
agency, or factions thereof, in the center of the process, recruiting
prospective terrorists from the immiserated masses and forming them into
clandestine organizations which are henceforth subject to guidance from
outside, behind, and above. High-profile international terrorism is not
spontaneous; it is artificial and synthetic. It requires expert
terrorist controllers. Because of this, the starting point for realistic
appraisal of 9/11 is not primarily the sociology of the Middle East, but
rather the historical record of NATO and CIA state-sponsored terrorism
in western Europe and elsewhere in the post-World War II period. For it
is here, and surely not in some distant cave of the Hindu Kush, that we
can find the methods and personnel which produced 9/11. If the term
grotesque originally meant something that came out of a cave, we can
justifiably dismiss the official explanation of 9/11 Bin Laden with
his laptop in an Afghan cave as the grotesque theory of terrorism.
Synthetic terrorism is a strategy used by oligarchs for the purpose of
waging war on the people that is to say, on the middle class in
Machiavellis sense of popolo. Terrorism must therefore be opposed. My
own understanding of these events is informed by having experienced
first hand, as analyst, journalist, and author, the Italian and German
terrorism of the 1970s and 1980s.
Page 7
In June 1978, while working as a correspondent in Rome, I was contacted
by Giuseppe Zamberletti of the Italian Christian Democratic Party. The
kidnap-murder of former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro had reached its
tragic climax in May 1978, when Moros body was found in the trunk of a
car in Via Caetani in downtown Rome, three blocks from my office at that
time. Zamberletti had been one of the very few Italian political leaders
who had suggested a NATO role in the attack on Moro. Two days after Moro
was kidnapped, and his bodyguards murdered, Zamberletti attracted the
attention of the British press, which wrote that Signor Zamberletti, an
intelligent Christian Democrat who has worked as deputy Interior
Minister in charge of the Italian secret services, made a number of
interesting comments about NATO. It seems that Zamberletti said that De
Gaulle left NATO because of the dozens of assassination attempts against
him, and that France, after that, and by implication as a result of
that, had succeeded in keeping terrorism under control. (London Times,
March 17, 1978) In another interview, Zamberletti said that an effective
defense against terrorism would have to be vigilant in all directions
360 degrees, as he put it. (Panorama, July 4, 1978) Here was de
Gaulles celebrated formula of defense tous azimuths, against nominal
allies as well as adversaries, west as well as east, US and UK as well
as USSR. With this, Zamberletti became the target of the Anglo-American
party in Italy.
Zamberletti asked me to prepare a study of how the mass media had
treated the Moro case, which had been the dominant news story for two
months. I gathered a group of friends and co-workers from the EIR news
agency I was working for at the time, and told them of the proposal. Out
of a desire to defeat the nightmare of terrorism and provide justice for
Moro, most of them -- Italians and a couple of Americans -- volunteered
to spend their month-long summer vacation assembling the study that
Zamberletti had requested. No money was ever involved. The more we
looked, the more we found, and soon our study -- entitled Chi ha ucciso
Aldo Moro? (Who Killed Aldo Moro?) had grown far larger than the brief
overview Zamberletti seemed to have had in mind. The writing was done
during the summer of 1978 in what was then the EIR European headquarters
in the Schiersteinerstrasse in Wiesbaden, Germany, not far from
Frankfurt airport. The resulting product was released at a press
conference in Rome in September 1978. It was extensively if unfavorably
reviewed in the newsmagazine Panorama. The main finding was that Moro
had been killed by NATO intelligence, using the Red Brigades as tool and
camouflage at the same time. The cause of the assassination was Moros
determination to give Italy a stable government by bringing the Italian
Communist Party into the cabinet and the parliamentary majority. This
plan was opposed as a violation of the Yalta spheres of influence,
which made Italy a vassal of the US -- by the Henry Kissinger wing of
the US foreign policy establishment, as well as by certain factions of
the Italian ruling elite, grouped around the reactionary P-2 lodge,
which was still secret at that time. Accordingly, my study named
Kissinger, NATO, and British intelligence as prime suspects, and not the
Warsaw Pact embassies named by the Italian media. Later, Moros widow
revealed that her husband had been directly threatened by a leading US
figure over the issue of expanding the majority to include the PCI. This
figure had told Moro that any attempt to bring the PCI into the
government would bring terrible consequences for him personally. Some
commentators identified this US figure as
Page 8
Kissinger, and here they were on firm ground. With this, the thesis of
the study, Chi ha ucciso Aldo Moro, was vindicated. I therefore have a
track record as someone who opposes terrorism; I have shown in practice
that I understand how terrorism works. This is something which sets this
book apart from the babblings of the tribe of terror experts who
populate cable television and purvey disinformation.
Another thesis of the 1978 study was that those who glorify and lionize
terrorism, providing the terrorists with ideological cover, should be
investigated as its accomplices. One pro-terror ideologue whom I singled
out in this regard was Antonio Negri, Professor of Doctrine of the State
at the University of Padua, near Venice. Later, in April 1979, Judge
Calogero of Padua issued arrest warrants for Toni Negri, Franco Piperno,
and other leaders of the allegedly defunct Potere Operaio group. They
were charged with being not just the ideologues and sympathizers, but
part of the leadership of the Red Brigades. It was said that Calogero
had been influenced by my Moro dossier. Today Negri is still operational
from his jail cell, helping to inspire a regroupment of violent
anarchist criminal energy groups like the Black Bloc, which represent
the culture medium from which future terrorists are being recruited by
intelligence agencies in Europe. After the publication of Imperial
Hubris, this thesis should be applied to the CIA, home of what appears
to be the most influential chapter of the Bin Laden fan club.
I have also learned much from three European experts. One is Brigadier
General Paul Albert Scherer of Germany, one of the truly great
counter-intelligence specialists of recent decades. Scherer, a Social
Democrat, was the chief of the Militdrischer Abschirmdienst (MAD), the
West German military counter-intelligence service, in the early 1970s.
Between 1985 and 1994 I had the opportunity of spending many hours with
General Scherer, primarily discussing Soviet questions, but also
branching out into historical matters and other themes. This book is,
after all, an exercise in counter- intelligence. I do not know what he
will think of my present conclusions, but I have derived permanent
benefit from his insights, and I thank him.
Another who deserves my thanks is the late G. L. Bondarevsky, the
distinguished Soviet orientalist and member of the Russian Academy of
Sciences. A Russian Jew born in Odessa, Bondarevsky became the dean of
Soviet and later Russian experts on the five republics of central Asia
and beyond into the Middle East; he was the author of the definitive
scholarly study on the pre-World War I Berlin to Baghdad railway. At a
conference in Germany in the spring of 1991, when the world was still
reeling from the shock of the First Gulf War, I briefed Bondarevsky on
some preliminary research into George H.W. Bush and his clan. I
stammered out an important conclusion in my substandard Russian: Ego
otets zaplatil Gitleru! his father, meaning Prescott Bush, paid
Hitler, was what I wanted to express. Vy you dont tell vorld real
story of bastard Bush? replied Bondarevsky in his unique English. It
was thanks to Bondarevskys interest and engagement that I was able to
overcome the bureaucratic inertia of EIR, still my employer at that
time, and obtain the time necessary to write the 1992 George Bush: The
Unauthorized Biography together with Anton Chaitkin. Bondarevsky, who at
the age of 83 was also one of the worlds leading experts on the
petroleum industry, was found dead in his apartment on August 8, 2003,
the victim of a mysterious murder, most likely
Page 9
arranged by the Anglo-American oil cartel or their agents. His friends
are determined to keep his memory alive, and to secure justice for him
some day.
The third recipient of my thanks is the late Professor Taras Vasilievich
Muranivsky of the Moscow State University of the Humanities. Professor
Muranivsky was the President of the International Ecological Academy of
Moscow and later the Schiller Institute of Russia at the time I was the
President of the Schiller Institute of the United States, and he made it
possible for me to visit the Russian capital in October 1993, just after
Yeltsins tanks had bombarded the Russian White House. He nominated me
as a consultant to the IEA, one of the first intellectual associations
to be formed in Russia after the loosening of the police state. Thanks
to Muranivsky, I worked in Moscow under the curfew for two weeks, had
the opportunity to stand before the White House, looking up at the fire-
blackened structure. I saw the daily tragedy of the Soviet middle class
in the streets. Russia, it was plain to see, was being destroyed by the
Anglo-American finance oligarchs. Who would be next? Muranivsky died on
July 17, 2000. During one visit to the United States, Muranivsky had
said in a briefing: The US would like to treat Russia like a banana
republic. But its a nuclear banana. This reality of this thermonuclear
danger is present in these pages.
The present study embodies a number of criteria which I believe derive
directly from the 9/11 events. 9/11 was an example of state-sponsored,
false-flag, synthetic terrorism, hereinafter called synthetic terrorism.
My thesis is that the 9/11 events were organized and directed by a rogue
network of high government and military officials of the United States,
with a certain participation by the intelligence agencies of Britain and
Israel, and with a more general backup from the intelligence agencies of
the other Echelon states (Australia, New Zealand, Canada). This US
network represents the current form of the Dulles
Brothers-Lemnitzer-Landsdale network of the early 1960s, of the Bay of
Pigs- Kennedy assassination-Gulf of Tonkin networks of a slightly later
era, and of the invisible government/secret government/parallel
government/shadow government that was widely understood to have been the
prime mover of the Iran-contra affair. The 9/11 rogue network subsumed
some of the asteroids of the 1990s, that is to say, the privatized
intelligence enterprises operating under Reagans executive order 12333.
The September criminals were financiers, top-level bureaucrats,
flag-rank military officers, top intelligence officials, and technical
specialists; the prime focus of their operations was in all probability
a series of private sector locations, where confidentiality could be
best assured by excluding elements loyal to the constitution. It is
therefore probably misleading to think of people like Cheney as the
hand-on field commanders of the terrorist forces of 9/11, although
Cheney appears to have been complicit in other ways. Bush was expendable
enough to undergo an assassination attempt that morning; he owes his
continued tenure in office to his speedy capitulation to the demands of
the September criminals. As time has gone on, Bush has undoubtedly
learned something more about the invisible government he allowed to take
over his administration. By 2004, Bush had to be considered as witting
as it was possible for a person of his faculties to be about the basic
facts of terrorism.
Page 10
Because of the wretched performance of the Kean-Hamilton 9/11
commission, many well established facts and timelines pertaining to 9/11
have been blurred and defaced. The 9/11 commission has corrupted and
confused public awareness of the basic facts of 9/11 far more than it
has enhanced it. It is a rule of thumb for researchers that some of the
most revealing information on a cataclysmic event like 9/11 generally
becomes available in media reports in the immediate aftermath of the
event. This is before the editors and producers have fully assimilated
the party line of the oligarchy on what has happened, so they may well
publicize facts which are incompatible with the official, mythical
version of events. As time goes by, such heuristic revelations become
rarer, although they may yet inflict fatal blows on the official story,
particularly if the official story is beginning to break up. The 9/11
commission represents the triumph of oligarchical scholasticism, the
embalming of what had been a living tragedy into a smoothed-over
textbook account from which virtually all of the truth has been drained.
This book therefore often gives priority to materials generated soon
after 9/11, before the mind-control line of the regime became totally
hegemonic.
The reader will understand this book better after a short note on the
criteria of selection which have informed it. There already exist
encyclopedias and encyclopedic timelines on 9/11 by such writers as Nico
Haupt and Paul Thompson, to both of whom I am indebted for much
empirical material. My aim has not been to compete with them in
exhaustive completeness, but rather to offer a definite hypothesis about
what happened on 9/11. This book has therefore been constructed along
the following conceptual lines:
1. Mass gullibility about the events of 9/11 is based on unmediated
sense certainty re-enforced by merciless and repetitious media
bombardment. Receptivity to the 9/11 myth is correlated with a
Hollywood-style, sense-impressionist naove epistemology, complicated by
the schizophrenic and autistic elements present in Anglo-American
culture. Belief in the 9/11 myth is agreeable to a way of thinking in
the tradition of John Lockes empiricism, which is here formally
rejected and repudiated. I do not offer information so much as a method,
and the method used here is that of Plato, Machiavelli, and Leibniz. I
join Plato in refusing the illusions of the cave in favor of dialectical
reason. I assert that understanding 9/11 requires a conceptual
framework; my approach is therefore conceptual and empirical, but not
empiricist. The framework here is that of patsies, moles, and expert
professionals discussed below.
2. This book stresses those aspects of 9/11 which indicate state
sponsorship by a rogue network or invisible government operating inside
the US government and military. Other aspects are given less
consideration or omitted entirely.
3. This book stresses those aspects of the official version which are
physically impossible. Many dubious aspects and contradictions of the
official story are not treated if they can be construed as a matter of
opinion, rather than being susceptible to rigorous physical proof. The
same goes for physical evidence, such as pictorial evidence, where
individual interpretations of what is seen may diverge. At the same
time, I urge researchers interested in these aspects of the
Page 11
problem to continue their efforts so that the catalogue of physical
impossibilities can be expanded as it doubtless deserves to be.
4. I have sought to be guided by Machiavellian political realism, rather
than by the irrational appeals of propaganda.
I express my gratitude to my old friend Raynald Rouleau of Quebec City
for his matchless computer expertise. Finally, this book would have been
impossible without the patience and good will of my publisher, John Leonard.
Webster Griffin Tarpley
Washington DC
September 11, 2004
Page 12
Go to Next Page <911.syntheticterrorch1.htm>