Artifacts on display from the attack at the Pentagon. (photo: John Makely/NBC News)
go to original article
9/11 Museum World Trade Center Evidence: No Plane Hit Pentagon?
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
31 May 14
Part 2 of 2
The first step in learning the truth is choosing to look for it
At best, the events of 9/11 represent the catastrophic failure of numerous American agencies, including airport security, air traffic controllers, national air defense command, and the U.S. Air Force. That reality alone is enough to raise suspicions of a cover-up, if only to avoid accountability for lethal incompetence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
At worst, the events of 9/11 were the result of an almost unimaginable criminal conspiracy designed to produce the "new Pearl Harbor" that would enable fans of the New American Century (many of them members of the Bush administration) to take the United States in new, warlike, world-dominating directions (maybe something like a Global War on Terror).
In any event, the Bush administration fought long and hard to prevent any investigation of 9/11 and continued to work to undermine the 9/11 Commission until it produced its flawed report in August 2004. That final report omits any mention, much less explanation, of what Vice President Dick Cheney knew and when he knew it regarding the attack on the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission knew full well - and chose not to confront - the serious implications of the testimony to the commission by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (May 23, 2003):
During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President ... the plane is 50 miles out ... the plane is 30 miles out ... and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"
Conspiracies are by their nature hard to discover and hard to prove. All the same, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Even now, still in the shadows of 9/11, it might be instructive to hear President Bush and members of his administration vigorously questioned, under oath, as to why they decided to pay no attention - none at all (Bush is said to have told a CIA officer "you've covered your ass," which sounds in retrospect almost like foreknowledge) - to the CIA briefing paper with the title: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." Long after the facts of 9/11, the Bush people defended their absolute inattention and inaction based on the absence of evidence.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
For comments and responses see the original article