Letters on "Was the US government alerted to September 11 attack?"

ON THE WSWS
Donate to
the WSWS!

News Feed
Contact the
WSWS
Editorial Board
New Today
News & Analysis
Workers Struggles
Arts Review
History
Science
Polemics
Philosophy
Correspondence
Archive
About WSWS
About the ICFI
Help
Books Online

OTHER
LANGUAGES
German
French
Italian
Russian
Polish
Czech
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
Portuguese
Turkish
Sinhala-
Tamil
Indonesian

LEAFLETS
Download in
PDF format

WSWS : News & Analysis : The US War in Afghanistan

Letters on "Was the US government alerted to September 11 attack?"

12 February 2002

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The following are a selection of letters received in response to the series “Was the US government alerted to September 11 attack?” by Patrick Martin, posted January 16, 18, 22 and 24.

Thank you for this brilliant series, Patrick. Be careful with the Pearl Harbor investigation precedent—it was a whitewash, as was the 1995 investigation. If you don’t know it, please check Robert Stinnett’s impressive 1999 book, Day of Deceit (The Free Press). Every move of the Japanese fleet was known—there was no “radio silence” as myth has it; part of the eight-stage provocation plan was the concentration of the Pacific Fleet in one place, Hawaii, on the pretext that this would make it easier to defend against saboteurs. Only the naval command in Hawaii was kept out of the loop of crucial intelligence, some of it actually gathered in Hawaii by the army. The media were also furnished with advance knowledge of the imminence of war, but did not disclose they had been briefed.

24 January 2002

Your series on the reactions of September 11 was very thought-provoking. However, one aspect that has been overlooked by the media and “those in charge” is the financial transactions that took place leading up to the WTC tragedy. Other than being a short-lived (two-three days) news topic during the first few weeks following September 11, the profiteering in the stock market as a result of the attack has been a non-issue in the media and the SEC / FBI / Secret Service investigations. In fact, the topic has vanished into thin air despite the relative ease of tracking those who invested nearly $5 billion in Treasury notes and heavily shorted airlines and other WTC-based companies according to Barry Grey’s article of October 5. It seems to me that the revelation of those who benefited from the attack would be a major news item, but oddly enough, it hasn’t been covered.

I would like to see a follow-up of Barry Grey’s article providing more information concerning this issue and the findings of any investigations that have been conducted. I believe the American public has a right to know who were the people or organizations that had access to certain information which allow them to profit from September 11.

Sincerely,

24 January 2002

To me, the biggest piece of evidence that the CIA was involved in the September 11 events is that someone from the USG rounded-up and escorted all the bin Laden and Saudi Royal relatives out of the USA between September 11 and 13. Considering that 15 of the alleged bombers were allegedly Saudis, from a covert action perspective, it makes perfect sense that one of these people would have been the case officer for the bombers. So, in effect, while a thousand other Arab Muslim male suspects were detained, the group of prime suspects was shuffled out of the country. That to me is a sure sign that CIA counterintelligence was involved.

27 January 2002

Dear friends of the World Socialist Web Site,

I have a doubt about the hijackers of September 11. In my heart I feel that whoever did it was a puppet in the hands of powerful secret services of “(very) capitalistic countries.” I even think that there was a kind of brainwashing of the terrorists behind the terrible action. But, of course, I have no evidence.

But let’s go back to my doubt: On flight 77, from Dulles airport, Washington, there were Khalid Al-Midhar, Salem Alhamzi, Majed Moqued. None of them was sitting in the aisle. Maybe I am not smart enough, but if I were a hijacker I would have asked for a seat in the aisle. Why? Because, sitting in the aisle, it is easier to stand up without asking permission from another passenger... I imagine a hijacker going very early to the check-in to get the right seat. I think it is elementary, isn’t it? So why were all of them sitting in seats complicated for standing up and getting in action? This is my doubt, what do you think?

Rome, Italy

31 January 2002

P.S. Your web site is very interesting, I always read it.

Thank you so much for such a treasure trove of truthfulness and courage in these hours of gathering darkness. I am a freelance writer covering the September 11 “assault” for a couple independent papers in Washington State, and I’ve been following similar tangents in my coverage. And I get to feeling like a voice crying out in the wilderness, as people just calmly go about their business as the cancer of creeping fascism spreads through the body politic. So thanks for the inspiration and new information.

8 February 2002

Top of page

The WSWS invites your comments.