UQ Wire: Re. Daniel Hopsicker On The 911 Inquiry
Sign up for the wire at:
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.
Re. Daniel Hopsicker On The 911 Inquiry
Sent as a Letter To The Editor of Scoop.co.nz in response to Daniel Hopsicker's The Red Herrings Of 9/11
From Carol Brouillet
To The Scoop Editor,
Since I organized the San Francisco International Inquiry into 9-11, I took offense to the article posted by Daniel Hopsicker blasting our inquiry, as well as the upcoming inquiry in Toronto.
If you look at the Final Program posted on my website at http://www.communitycurrency.org/InquiryProgram.html , you will discover that many of the allegations and references, derogatory remarks, are completely offbase, and unsubstantiated. There are links to the texts of the actual Inquiry speeches, videos of presentations, and the audio portions/radio programs which are available on the internet.
Daniel Hopsicker did complain, at the time of the Inquiry, that he did not share the views of most of the other registered participants who otherwise unanimously agreed that the official narrative of 9-11 is unsubstantiated, that evidence has been destroyed, that a massive cover-up is underway. Daniel seems to buy into the 19 hijackers story, although news reports suggest that several of the "alleged hijackers" are still alive and well. The F.B.I. has come up with no paper trail, and frankly- I do not know the truth about what happened on those planes.
What we tried to do at the Inquiry was present the best historical evidence that suggests that this would not be the first time the U.S. has "staged an incident" to get public support for war, describe what "special operations are and some history of recent special operations." The biggest fingerprints of a special operation, besides the "false cover story" is often what doesn't happen- the failure of "standard operating procedures," in the case of 9-11- the failure of the U.S. military to scramble any planes until after the attack on the Pentagon.
We also looked at the links between the I.S.I, Pakistan, Mohamed Atta, and top U.S. government officials. Why was head of Pakistan's I.S.I., Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, the "money man behind 9-11," who had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta meeting with top U.S. officials from September 4th- the 13th? When we marched on our Senators demanding an investigation of 9-11, this was one of the questions we raised, only to have Bush and Cheney ask to have the Inquiry limited and overseen by the CI,A and the very men who breakfasted with Lt. Gen. Mahoud Ahmad, Pakistani's I.S.I. chief, on the morning of September 11th (Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham- headed the House/Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee which conducted the official Inquiry into 9-11).
We looked at who was on the Commission, their conflicts of interest, their history of covering up government scandals.
We looked at who profited from "The War on Terrorism," the geopolitical interests, who wanted access to the oil and drug producing regions.
There were no public presentations in the main Theatre on "missiles hidden in the undercarriage of the airliners,""voodoo hex placed on the WTC by the Spiders from Mars" "plaster molds of alien footprints to literature written by alien abductees to presentations on "The Reptilian Perspective: Serpents of Wisdom or Snakes in the Grass" "witnesses who could testify to seeing Mohamed Atta and Ollie North talking together in low voices under a street lamp on a drizzly night in D.C."
Daniel Hopsicker quotes John Kaminski (who did not attend the SF Inquiry) "The unknown men who played the roles of the so-called Arab terrorist hijackers were really recruited by either American and/or Israeli intelligence services in a scheme set up as a diversion to inflame dumb Westerners against the Islamic world." which is probably not actually a quote, and he calls Kaminski a "remote controller." Then Hopsicker attacks the film "Aftermath- Unanswered Questions from 9-11" because George Soros is in it. I'm not a fan of Soros, but all he says in the opening is that we should be questioning the Bush Administration- in a healthy society- people don't blindly accept the self-serving pronouncements of the powerful.
Daniel Hopsicker is peddling the same Saudi connections that Michael Moore is focusing on. I agree that there is a Saudi connection, after all Al Qaeda was created with C.I.A. and Saudi money to the tune of 8 billion, the largest covert operation in American history. There are financial links between the Bushes and the Saudis; the Bin Laden family was flown out in the wake of 9-11 when other planes were grounded. This deserves to be investigated which was one of the reasons Hopsicker was invited to speak on what he had learned from his investigation of Mohamed Atta, who was part of the official story. However, to think that this particular aspect of 9-11 will lead to unravelling the whole truth is shortsided in my opinion.
Many feel by narrowly focusing on the Saudi connections, a limited hangout would condemn Bush and a few others, be used to justify a war on Saudi Arabia and maintain a "War on Terrorism." For the most part, at the Inquiry, the consensus was that "The War on Terrorism" is a "War of Terrorism" against the American people and the world, and we would like to see the "War Game" busted once and for all.
There is evidence that a handful of highjackers wielding boxcutters could not have been solely responsible for the collapse of the World Trade Center Complex on September 11th. Building number 7 wasn't hit by a plane or any significant debris and had only a minor fire in it. It collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition and the government cannot explain it. The parameters of the Commission are basically to reinforce the official story and justify the construction of the National Security State. They simply are not interested in pursuing the truth about 9-11.
At least at our Inquiry, people were genuinely interested in the truth and discovering the who, what, why, how of 9-11. We did want to create space for witnesses to come forward. Ellen Mariani, the brave widow who launched the RICO suit against Bush, and other officials for their role in 9-11, spoke, as well as her attorney, Phil Berg, and they did gather information, testimony that will be useful to them in their court case. I don't think witnesses are as likely to speak to the "National Commission." At the Inquiry, anyone who registered, could propose any 'avenue of discussion, topic of research' that they wanted to- but if it was something truly bizarre and unrelated to the truth about 9-11, no one would probably attend the session. A law of Two Feet prevailed- "If you aren't learning or contributing, go somewhere else."
The main presentations were held in the Herbst Theatre which could hold 970 people. We also had meeting rooms on the second floor where the Inquiry was more or less "self organizing" according to Open Space principles. There was room for dialogue, discussion, networking, organizing. The day following the Inquiry, twenty-six people met and decided to form an a real international organization to nurture and assist the 9-11 movement. A series of documentaries are currently being produced through the collaborative effort of the many, many documentary film-makers who came to the Inquiry and feel that the information is vitally important and needs to reach a much wider audience.
Besides being attacked and ignored by some of the press, the movement has made considerable gains in the press and within the Peace Movement and within the Green Party. I imagine that the attacks and attempts to marginalize the movement will increase as we become a genuine threat to the Bush Administration and the many entrenched Democrats who are also deeply involved in 9-11 and the cover-up.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.