The Essence of September 11th
I am not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican. I am not in favor of bipartisanship, but rather I aspire to be non-partisan in my inquiries.
I have no power except for the choices I make in relation to my day-to-day life. I have no money except that which I earn through a very small pension from the Canadian government, along with what I earn through teaching psychology on a part-time basis, as well as through the selling of a few books which, by the Grace of God, have been written and self-published.
I am a Muslim by choice, and I have been a traveler on the Sufi mystical path for more than 30 years. However, the manner in which I pursue these commitments is quite different than is the case for some who call themselves either Muslim or Sufi, and, consequently, I am often considered something of a pariah in both worlds.
There were no family or friends of mine who were among the approximately 3,000 people who were murdered on 9/11. Moreover, I didn’t lose a business or any property at the World Trade Center that day, and I didn’t lose any money on the stock market as a result of those events (I didn’t gain anything either because I do not own any stocks).
In the aftermath of 9/11, I was reported to the FBI as a possible terrorist. I know this through other individuals and not via the FBI. I had been described by the individual who reported me as someone who had no visible means of support (I was surviving on unemployment insurance at the time) and who had a state of the art computer (it was an ‘As Seen On TV’ purchase that was an upgrade of my old computer which had been a gift, but it was far from a state of the art computer). I also had been described as a Sufi who was engaged in secretive activities (because of the relative absence of Sufis and Muslims in the area I did, to a certain degree, pray and chant various litanies by myself, plus, due to financial circumstances and a variety of life contingencies, I had moved quite a few times in the previous several years, so, I had few friends or acquaintances in the area where I had just moved prior to 9/11, and, therefore, privacy was sort of a natural aspect of my life at the time). Fortunately, I did not end up in Guantánamo.
In the late ‘60s, I was a draft resister. I didn’t agree with the taking of life then – especially in relation to fabricated and self-serving reasons that sought to justify the wholesale slaughter and oppression of a people who were not seeking to oppress America – and I don’t agree with the taking of life now … whether this be in the form of suicide bombers who kill thousands of innocents and, yet, have the temerity to refer to themselves as Muslim, or in the form of American military forces who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan and, yet, have the temerity to refer to themselves as liberators and freedom fighters.
I do not belong to any group or organization because, by inclination and experience, I do not care for the political machinations, positioning for power, and abuse of social dynamics that tend to go on in relation to almost every single organization I have come across both within Muslim and non-Muslim communities. I do not wish to seek to control others, and I do not appreciate others trying to control me.
I am not a member of the ‘9/11 movement for truth’, but neither do I stand shoulder to shoulder with those who ascribe to the ‘official’ version of 9/11. However, I try to be a reflective observer of both sides.
I have stated the foregoing considerations so that a reader may have some small context within which to place that which follows. I do not have either a religious or political purpose for writing this book.
It would not surprise me if 19 people calling themselves Muslim were to have arrogated to themselves sufficient delusional justification to believe they have the right to take the lives of innocent people in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. This would not surprise me – sad though it is to admit as much – because I have witnessed, first hand, a comparable sort of arrogance, ignorance, and delusion in many places within the Muslim world, both in North America and abroad.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised to discover that rogue elements within the US military/intelligence/political/corporate community had sought to arrogate to themselves the sort of self-serving justification needed to kill some 3,000 individuals on September 11, 2001 in order to further a pathological agenda for controlling the world’s people and resources. Such a possibility would not surprise me because I have been a first-hand witness to many of the events of the last 50 years in which millions of innocent people have been murdered, oppressed, disappeared, and exploited by those in the political, military, and corporate worlds whose moral depravity, narcissism, and psychopathic pathologies seem to have no boundaries.
Nor would I be surprised if it turned out that many of the events on 9/11 were the result of a perfect storm of incompetence, confusion, and human error. Evidence for the existence of all three of these factors is an omnipresent reality in our collective, everyday life.
All but 70 of the 585 pages of The 9/11 Commission Report from The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States chaired by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton were directed at building a case for who was to blame for 9/11 (and what to do about it) rather than being directed toward fully and carefully analyzing the nature of the events which transpired on 9/11. In my opinion, the foregoing percentages should have been reversed – with 515 pages being devoted to critically analyzing the events of 9/11 and only 70 pages being devoted to matters pertaining to who did it, together with what to do about that individual or those individuals … for it makes no sense to get carried away with the who if one does not have an adequate understanding of what may have transpired that day. In other words, one should have some understanding of, and insight into, what was done before one will be in a position to determine whether this or that individual was capable of doing that ‘what’.
Even if the 19 hijackers named by the FBI are responsible -- in some, yet to be determined way -- for the events of 9/11, one might also like to consider if there were others who could have aided and abetted those 19 individuals to do what they are alleged to have done. Possibly, if the hypothetical grand jury on which I am serving [more on this issue shortly] were to indict the aforementioned 19, there also might be a determination made by that fictional grand jury concerning the probable existence of additional, un-indicted co-conspirators.
The so-called ‘official’ version is not the only purported explanation for 9/11 which seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time on trying to determine the who of 9/11, along with what to do about this who. Indeed, an increasing amount of pages and books from the 9/11 truth movement seem to be directed at identifying possible perpetrators within the intelligence, military, political, and corporate communities in relation to the events of 9/11, along with suggestions about what people should do about this.
Whatever the merits of the foregoing respective cases may be, they undermine and detract from attempts to focus on the ‘what’ of 9/11 rather than the ‘who’ and ‘why’ of that day. Consequently, in this book, I will try to concentrate as much as possible on the issue of ‘what’ and put aside the other matters for another day.
Within much of the following, I have decided to assume the role of someone who is on a grand jury and reflect on how such a person might reflect on, and think about, an array of evidence, testimony, and documents concerning the events of 9/11. In other words, I see my role to be one of, among other things, asking a lot of questions about things which don’t make sense to me or about which I wish to know more, and, as well, I would see my role as being one of trying, in relation to everything I considered, to exercise critical, independent judgment before casting a vote or making a decision.
In a grand jury, a prosecutor or district attorney brings certain evidence, documents, and testimony before the members of that jury for purposes of either investigating certain possibilities and/or seeking an indictment against one or more persons believed to have been responsible for this or that crime. However, grand jurors are not bound by the intentions of the prosecutor but can choose to go in whatever direction their individual consciences dictate with respect to either the matters being brought up by the prosecutor or any other matters of legitimate interest to the members of the grand jury.
The grand jury is a people’s court. It does not belong to the government other than in the sense that a given grand jury must be convened by the government, but once the jury is convened there is absolutely nothing to prevent that grand jury from moving in any direction it wishes with respect to the issues and problems being brought before it by the government. The members of a grand jury may ask for whatever evidence seems relevant to any matter that is of concern to them. Moreover, they have the latitude to request the prosecutor or district attorney to subpoena witnesses or documents which are considered to be germane to the matters at hand.
For purposes of this book, I am going to treat The 9/11 Commission Report, as well as the book: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up To The Facts edited by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan, along with various NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) documents as the primary evidence or testimony that is being brought forth by a hypothetical prosecutor who is investigating the events of 9/11 on behalf of an unknown governmental body. However, additional documents, testimony, and various forms of evidence from sources other that the foregoing three works will be introduced from time to time.
My task, as a member of my hypothetical grand jury, is to try to make sense of what I am being told. In addition, my task will be to both ask questions about what is, in a manner of speaking, being presented to me as well as to try to render critical, sound judgment concerning all that is being considered and analyzed during the hypothetical grand jury deliberations.
When a district attorney or federal prosecutor convenes a grand jury, they do so with their own purposes in mind. I would like to reiterate a point made earlier – namely, as a grand juror, I am not restricted to the purposes for which a given grand jury has been convened, but, rather, I am bound by considerations of morality, critical judgment, truth, logic, evaluation of evidence, and justice which may, or may not, coincide with the interests of the government.
The contents of this book are the thoughts, ideas, questions, problems, and issues which have occurred to me while I have read a variety of materials concerning the events of 9/11. The contents of this book constitute the sort of deliberations I might make as a member of a grand jury that had been convened to inquire into the matters of 9/11.
However, as indicated earlier, I am more interested in the ‘what’ of 9/11 than the ‘who’ or ‘why’. I will leave to others in additional hypothetical grand juries to raise questions about the ‘who’ and the ‘why’ with respect to 9/11. The questions which I have revolve about the nature of the ‘what’ of 9/11. What actually took place on 9/11; what evidence is there concerning these matters; what is the credibility of such evidence or testimony, and, what questions or problems arise in conjunction with seeking to determine this ‘what’?
In a grand jury the members do not profess to be experts about this or that subject. Their function is to consider the evidence, ask questions about that evidence, deliberate upon such evidence, and make recommendations concerning the need for having access to further information through the examination of additional witnesses and/or documents, which can be subpoenaed by the government, in order to determine whether, or not, such evidence supports the weight of an indictment.
Moreover, the last several hundred years of American history have demonstrated that people from all walks of life, economic status, racial and ethnic backgrounds have been very, very good, for the most part, in being able to arrive at decisions which often are capable of capturing the complexities and nuances of cases that explore a variety of technical issues involving science, engineering, religion, business, and politics. Jurors do not necessarily have to be able to conduct experiments or write technical papers in some given subject to competently perform as a juror. Rather, jurors have to be able to assess whether the structure of the thinking involved in such activities constitutes a coherent whole that can be accepted either beyond a reasonable doubt or which may be considered to be consistent with a preponderance of the evidence for any given case.
Jurors are often instructed by judges that the only tool necessary to be a juror is common sense. This tool is invaluable in assessing the credibility of witnesses, or the strength of an argument, or the quality of information being entered into evidence.
The only other quality needed by a juror is to enter into a case without any preconceptions about the truth of a matter. Prejudice and bias render a juror incapable of fulfilling his or her function within the jury process.
In this regard, the present book is not rooted in any presuppositions about the identity of who the guilty parties may be in the matter of 9/11. On the other hand, this book does critically examine the issue of whether, or not, there is good reason to believe that there is a fundamental need for further public inquiry into the events of 9/11.
Jurors – whether through a grand jury or traverse jury (trial jury) -- are determiners of the facts. This function of fact determination is not the function of the judge, the prosecution, expert witnesses, appellate courts, or even the Supreme Court … this remains the province of the people, and it constitutes one of the bedrocks in which democracy is rooted.
The grand jury system was created because the people who came to the place that came to be known as the United States of America had a healthy disrespect for the sort of abuses which were inherent in the exercise of institutional power. The grand jury was intended to serve as the first and last bastion of defense against any government being able to oppress people – intellectually, socially, religiously, politically, financially, and economically.
It is all very well that the federal government has undertaken a study which resulted in the release of The 9/11 Commission Report. However, the ultimate moral and civic responsibility for accepting or rejecting that document, either in part or wholly, rests entirely with the people and not with the government.
Finally, in the following pages, I have no theory to offer concerning the events of 9/11. No conspiracy theory of whatever variety [whether ‘official’ or otherwise] is being put forth in the following pages.
My task is to consider the tenability of evidence in relation to claims being made by various individuals who seek to give expression to the ‘official’ version (e.g., The 9/11 Commission Report), along with the views of those who might wish to serve as defenders of that perspective (e.g., Debunking 9/11 Myths by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan or some of the NIST documents).
What is being offered in the following pages is, hopefully, a rigorous examination of a set of data. The not-so-hypothetical case before the hypothetical grand jury on which I am serving is this: Has the government made its case with respect to the events of September 11, 2001? More specifically, has the government shown that the crimes committed on 9/11 were not only perpetrated by the 19 Arab individuals who have been named by the FBI, but has the government shown that those 19 individuals were acting alone and were operating without the assistance of other people within the United States?
Of course, there is evidence – as discussed in The 9/11 Commission Report – which implicates other individuals beyond the 19 alleged hijackers of September 11, 2001 as also having played a role in helping to bring about the events of 9/11. However, the concern which I have as a hypothetical grand juror is the following question: Could the alleged 19 hijackers have perpetrated the crimes with which they have been charged without assistance of a person (or persons) unknown who is (are) a citizen (citizens) of the United States?
The reasons for citing The 9/11 Commission Report as one of the primary documents for my hypothetical grand jury hearing is obvious since that book is considered by many to be the definitive account of the events of 9/11. However, there also are several reasons why I have selected Debunking 9/11 Myths as a second basic document on which to focus within the following pages.
First, although there have been a number of works released to the public which do explore various aspects of the 9/11 tragedy (e.g, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11 by Gerald Posner and Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War On Terror by Richard A. Clarke) Debunking 9/11 Myths is an enlarged version of an article that appeared in the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, and both the original article as well as enhanced follow-up seem to have a rather unique sort of purpose in the 9/11 literature. More specifically, each of these latter two documents purport to give expression to an attempt to examine the credibility and tenability of various ideas, questions, interpretations, and judgments concerning the events of 9/11, but – and, I think this is very important – never (not for a nanosecond) do the researchers, writers, participants, or editors of either the Popular Mechanics article or the subsequent book based on that article raise any questions concerning the ‘official’ story which also happens to be a conspiracy theory – allegedly, the very focus of the Popular Mechanics article and book.
As such, Debunking 9/11 Myths, along with its progenitor article, do not appear to be an attempt to look at available evidence and possibilities concerning conspiracy theories in an evenhanded manner but, rather, seem to be an attempt to critique only those approaches to the 9/11 issue which do not accept the ‘official’ version of what happened on 9/11. As such, Debunking 9/11 Myths is akin to a witness for the prosecution who is seeking to challenge the credibility of ideas which run counter to the ‘official’ story of 9/11.
Part of the task of a grand juror is to assess the value, weight, and credibility of such witnesses. Since Debunking 9/11 Myths appears to be an attempt to foreclose on the possibility that the truth concerning 9/11 is anything other than what the ‘official’ story says is the case, I feel it is a worthwhile exercise to critically examine what goes on within the testimony of that ‘witness’.
Another reason for selecting Debunking 9/11 Myths as an appropriate subject of investigation is because there appear to me to be certain parallels between the way in which the book Debunking 9/11 Myths argues its case and the manner in which The 9/11 Commission Report presents its case concerning the events of 9/11. If one understands the character of the problems which arise in Debunking 9/11 Myths, and if one understands the nature of the issues which are either not addressed by that book or are addressed in problematic ways, and if one understands the nature of the errors which are made in Debunking 9/11 Myths, and if one understands the questions which have not been raised or adequately answered by Debunking 9/11 Myths, and if one understands the character of the holes or lacunae that are present in the form of argumentation being used in Debunking 9/11 Myths, then I believe one will have insight into the structural character of the nature, problems, questions, lacunae, and errors of The 9/11 Commission Report. Moreover, if one has insight into all of the foregoing, then one may understand why there needs to be not only a new investigation into the events of 9/11 but, as well, why there needs to be an investigation into the entire process through which The 9/11 Commission Report was generated.
The people who died on 9/11 deserve this. The people who lost love ones on 9/11 deserve this. The American people deserve this. The people who have died and lost loved ones in Afghanistan and Iraq deserve this -- whether these be Afghanis, Iraqis, Americans, or people from other countries – who have been caught up in the hostilities there.
-------------------------
Book Release Information
The foregoing is an excerpt from The Essence of September 11th by Bill Whitehouse.
If there is only one book you read about the 9/11 controversies, this work provides the best summary of the essential themes, issues, facts, and questions concerning the tragic events of 9/11.
The Essence of September 11th engages the issues surrounding 9/11 from a very different perspective -- namely, that of a member of a hypothetical grand jury which is faced with the task of critically examining the available evidence concerning all manner of 9/11-related topics in order to determine whether or not a further public inquiry into 9/11 is appropriate and necessary.
The Essence of September 11th takes an in-depth look at the very heart of the many controversies swirling about 9/11. These issues range from the response to 9/11 by the FAA, NORAD, and the FBI, to The 9/11 Commission Report, as well as the various technical theories put forth by NIST, FEMA, and different scientists and engineers which purport to explain how the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed or which supposedly account for what transpired at the Pentagon on 9/11. In addition, a very careful analysis is pursued in conjunction with a book pubished by Popular Mechanics entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths.
Seeking to walk a line between aligning itself with either the government's own 'official' conspiracy theory or the many versions of conspiracy theory that are not 'official,' The Essence of September 11th avoids getting sidetracked with irrelevant considerations such as trying to identify guilty parties and attempts, instead, to focus strictly on an impartial analysis of the evidence in order to determine the essential features of 9/11.
Many questions are raised in The Essence of September 11th. The only certain answer which arises out of the pages of this book is that, after careful review, the available evidence indicates the government's 'official' version of 9/11 is not tenable in either principle or detail.
If you would like to order either an e-book version of The Essence of September 11th or a non-virtual copy of this work, please click on the following link:
