Go to home page

This article appears in the September 17, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

[Print version of this article]

Still Seeking the Truth
About the 9/11 Attacks

Sept. 12—The origin of the disastrous regime-change wars of the past 20 years is still a mystery, one which Americans must solve to right the injustice which was done to them. The who, how, and why of the 9/11/2001 attacks, and of the deadly and terrifying “anthrax letters” which followed in the next two weeks, are still unexplained. Fundamentally, the attempt to find that truth began with Lyndon LaRouche’s statements reacting to the 9/11 attacks in real time that morning, in a radio interview which had just begun when the first Tower was hit in New York. LaRouche, though he died in February 2019, is still being attacked for those statements by geopoliticians defending the era of failed wars which followed.

Here are two statements on the subject made at the Schiller Institute’s Internet Town Meeting on this 9/11, twenty years later, by those directly involved: First, LaRouche’s interviewer that day; and second, the National Chair of the 9/11 Families and Survivors, United for Justice against Terrorism. Then we have a statement by French political leader Jacques Cheminade about the latest attack on Lyndon LaRouche’s 9/11/2001 interview.

None of the Conflicts After 9/11 Have Ended

View full size
Schiller Institute
Jack Stockwell

Jack Stockwell: Good Day! My name is Jack Stockwell. Lyn was a friend of mine. At 9 o’clock in the morning of September 11, Lyn was on my live radio show, with me in Salt Lake City, Utah. I don’t even remember what we were going to talk about that morning, but only a few minutes into the show the attack on America was underway. And Lyn immediately said, without any apparent forethought,

We’re trying to figure things out. They will blame this on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. And this is simply not possible to be done from a cave in Afghanistan. This is only possible through the complicity of corrupt and criminal elements of the United States’ security apparatus.

So, it was immediately branded a conspiracy theory, and, by the way, any of you listening, if you have any extra conspiracy theories, I need some, because all mine have come true!

But if you ask the average person on the street what happened on 9/11, they’re going to tell you: “the Twin Towers and the Pentagon,” and maybe the annual reading of the names of those that perished and of some jokester possible congressional candidates coming along who say, “If you elect me, I’ll make sure the government tells you all the truth there is about 9/11.” Just like we’re all waiting for the truth on JFK, or UFOs.

But what the average adult alive back then does not remember—and I was reading an essay the other day by Thierry Meyssan—was that that same morning, after the smoke is billowing down the streets and everybody is panicking and running around, 10 o’clock that morning, Richard Clarke triggered the Continuity of Government plan. Bush was rushed off to Nebraska with the top CEOs of the top floor corporations of the Twin Towers the night before, and other members of high office—I think maybe Cheney—were ushered off to that mountain in West Virginia, supposedly waiting for the destruction, as that last plane was supposed to do, of the Capitol Building, to bring an end of our constitutional republic.

View full size
EIRNS/Stuart Lewis
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

So, a month and a half—and this is where it gets into more of Lyn’s predictions—after the attacks, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the Office of Force Transformation. From then on, the United States was no longer going to win any wars. In fact, they were going to drag wars out, just as long as they possibly could.

This is exactly what has just happened in Afghanistan. The war started there right after 9/11, was only supposed to last for a few weeks, but it never stopped. None of the conflicts that began in these same Middle Eastern countries that began after 9/11 have ended. On the contrary, just complete instability has taken hold in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and all of Lyn’s predictions have been verified over the last 20 years.

It’s troubling that very few people can actually see how much the world has changed, all in the footprint that he predicted back then. Most refuse to see the responsibility of the Western democracies for the crimes committed in the wider Middle East, and day-by-day, these same people cannot see what has happened, as Lyn also predicted, the tremendous level of surveillance, the surveillance of every one of us, to the point now where most of us are in denial, to the level that we are being watched, monitored, recorded, lists that we are being put on, even to the point where Australia is now probably the most dangerous country on the planet for human rights. And, in this country, politics have completely taken over science, with a mandatory this, and the mandatory that.

You know, as I was preparing for this, I wondered what Lyn would have to predict for the next 20 years, since he was so accurate about the last 20 years. But there’s really nothing to wonder, if you understand Lyn’s worldview, Helga’s, Harley’s and all the rest of the associates. Then, if you understand the American Principle that Lyn taught, if you can see past the evening news readers on television, you know the only way out of this current situation is Lyn’s concept of an economic unity among sovereign nations, versus empire.

What a prophetic declaration that early morning on my radio show, 9/11/01! And if Lyn was so correct about his on-the-spot, off-the-top-of-his-head analysis of what happened that morning, and what would happen as a result following that morning, what else might he have been correct about?

Thank you for this honor.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Terry Strada

The Saudi Connection Will Now Start To Come Out

Terry Strada: Last October, I started working with members in the House, trying to introduce a new piece of legislation called, “The 9/11 Transparency Act.” I was garnering support for it in the House. Every member that I spoke with, or every member’s staff—COVID was going on, so a lot of these meetings were like this, on the phone—were all in agreement: Something needs to be done; these files cannot be kept a secret; it’s been 20 years, or going on 20 years. There’s not a threat to national security, probably, in a lot of this, and it’s time to release whatever we can.

It was decided that it made sense to go over to the Senate. Sen. [Robert] Menendez (D-NJ) was the one who stood up and said, “I’ll do it!” and he also is the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, which is a very powerful position to have. He got Senators Blumenthal, Grassley, and Booker on board, but most importantly, got Senator Schumer on board, who happens to be the [Majority] Leader of the Senate.

This was really important. We did a big press conference on August 5th to announce the legislation and to tell the reporters that were there listening, why it’s so important to learn the truth about the Saudi connection. I gave what was one of my more powerful speeches, because, after I gave it, they went and entered it into the Congressional Record. I was very proud to have that happen, and very proud to stand there with those Senators, speaking the truth of how important it is that young people, people my age, all the family members, understand how this country was so brutally attacked. If the Saudis have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. But, there’s been just too much time that’s gone by, and they were saying that this mandatory declassification review process was necessary, and they were going to go forward with it.

Well, the White House—that got their attention. They understood pretty clear, because it was introduced in the House the very next day by Hakeem Jeffries and [Bill Pascrell]. It didn’t take long for the White House to say, “This is powerful; this is going to happen. We have a choice here, either to get ahead of it….” We kept asking for the President to bring it to your desk quickly. You can sign this at any time; you don’t need it to go through all of the avenues that a bill normally goes through. It was a simple bill. It was based on the Abbottabad language.

When they raided the Abbottabad complex, and killed Osama bin Laden, they brought back troves of information on computer disks and papers, and all of that, and everything was classified. Congress wrote a piece of legislation that made everything go through this mandatory declassification review process, and that released a lot of the documents.

That’s the same premise of this legislation. The President said, “OK, I think it’s going to happen. I can do this,” and he turned it into an Executive Order, rather than a piece of legislation. He actually shortened up some of the dates and lengthened them in other places.

So, the very first set of documents should go through this process and be released before September 11. That’s a 2016 summary of Operation Encore, which is that 10-year secret investigation that the FBI did on the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia]. That summary should be released to the greatest extent possible, this week.

The Executive Order goes on to talk about in the next 30 days what will come available, and then 30 days after that. He gives it a 6-month period for all of these documents to go through this review process. The accountability mechanism that is installed in the legislation—now in the EO—is that they have to answer to the President of the United States of America. They can no longer go behind closed doors and keep things a secret, without explanation.

So, they have to answer to the President, and they have to answer to the Chairmen of the Intelligence Committees in both the House and the Senate. Now, they have to answer to all of them. That is a very positive step, but we don’t know, until we see the first document, exactly how serious they are, and what they’re going to reveal. But, I’m looking forward to seeing them.

What are the implications of the fact that tens of thousands of pages have still not been released up to this point?

I would say that the biggest question that we had all these years, is “Was there a support network put in place in the United States prior to the September 11th attacks?” And, if that support network was put in place, which I very much believe it was, “What did it look like?” That’s what this Operation Encore, that investigation into the Saudi connection, is what I believe will start to come out, and we will see more details of what that apparatus, that support system actually looked like.

More names will become available, telephone numbers, money transfers, who was transferring the money. And are there other Saudi nationals that were also helping some of the other hijackers? Right now, we know of two. We know of [Omar] al-Bayoumi and [Fahad] al-Thumairy, who were tasked to meet and greet the first-arriving hijackers out in San Diego. That’s what our lawsuit is premised on, because that’s what the judge ordered discovery on. That we had enough evidence when we went to the courtroom. She said, “OK, you can go forward with it on these two individuals, and on these two hijackers.”

But just think about it. If we know of three people that were involved with those two, and there’s 17 more, so, 3-4 more Saudi nationals. There’s just a trove of information that we don’t know, because they’ve kept it from us.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Jacques Cheminade

Cheminade Answers FranceInfo’s Slanders

Jacques Cheminade, President, Solidarité & Progrès Party: Paris, Sept. 11, 2021: In a program entitled “Complorama,” launched on September 3, FranceInfo attacked the late American politician Lyndon LaRouche on September 9. He is accused of conspiracy for having declared that the attack of September 11, 2001 was “ordered from within, by the American government itself, to justify the wars led by the United States in the Middle East.” This accusation is part of the “logic” of another program, aired by France Culture, titled “Mécaniques du complotisme: les attentats du 11 septembre 2001,” aired on September 10, 2019 and updated today, under the signature of Roman Bornstein and based on the “works” of Rudy Reichstadt and Tristan Mendès France.

The latter program outlines that this American conspiracy had arrived in France “via Jacques Cheminade.” The same accusation is made in the dossier on [right-wing politician] Philippe de Villiers, published by [the French weekly] L’Express on June 3-9, 2021, for which I would be, “the true founder of French-style political conspiracy.”

A good journalist must multiply and compare his sources; a bad one circulates rumors and appeals to established opinion. Although the above accusations obviously fall into the second category, it is necessary at this point to clarify issues and provide concise elements of judgment.

Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed by telephone on a Jack Stockwell radio program from Salt Lake City at the same time as the September 11, 2001 attacks. One can still listen to it on YouTube, which I personally just did again.

He judged “on the spot” that it was an attack putting into question “the integrity of the United States,” and that spectacular events of this type are likely to lead to fundamental political changes. He emphasizes that Osama bin Laden and his accomplices could not have organized it alone out of the caves of Afghanistan. And, based on his experience, he asserts that the four planes flew long enough to have been spotted by the American air defense system. He concludes that it is either a question of incompetence, both in the preparation of the attacks and in their immediate aftermath, on the part of the American government and officials; or else, the action of a personality or group of personalities inserted into the system and ready to seize an opportunity, organized or not, to impose their views.

The desire for destabilization is clear here, he [LaRouche] says, and risks justifying an irresponsible and dangerous reaction by the American government. In no way does he say that the attack was organized by the U.S. government itself.

It is clear from today and what happened in Afghanistan, that on the one hand 20 years of disastrous warfare followed the 2001 attacks and that the Patriot Act was subsequently established to set up a “surveillance society” in the United States itself.

In this sense, yes, the United States launched its wars and interventions all over the world, not for the sake of a “responsibility to protect” democracy, but in the name of the interests of the City of London and Wall Street—that is to say, of dominant financial forces conscious of seeing their existence threatened.

Why is this so? And this is where lies the essence of what is not said about LaRouche. For him and for me, it is not a question of some “plot of dark forces,” but of a policy carried out in broad daylight by political forces that hardly hide their designs by acts, even if they try to hide them under a stream of pretexts (war on terror, defending a just order, etc.).

Indeed, LaRouche explicitly mentions the context of the crisis of the international financial and monetary system, which leads the interests of a misguided financial capitalism to seize the opportunity of such acts and even to make them happen.

In his interview of September 11, 2001, LaRouche emphasized the need to change the international financial and monetary order—a New Bretton Woods—in order to build the basis for an order of stability, through the mutual development of international relations and cooperation between states that would gradually reduce the possibility of such acts.

Subsequent investigations by LaRouche’s friends, and sometimes other sources, have shown the protection offered by official Saudi elements to some of the perpetrators or organizers of the attacks, by having provided them with means, at least financial.

This made it possible to implicate the then Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, whose role in the purchase and deployment of military equipment is well known in France. It seems that on this aspect of things the French journalists dealing with September 11 have shown much less curiosity. (An exception stands for the January 5, 2015 Paris Match article, “Les 28 pages qui gênent la Maison Blanche.”)

The victims of the attacks themselves have, on several occasions, expressed their desire to be better informed about what really happened than what they hear from existing official sources, what we would call today their “narrative” or “storytelling.”

President Joe Biden himself has just promised to publish, within the next six months, elements of the file that have been classified as “national security secret” until now. So there was indeed something rotten in the affair; one hopes that those who spread the accusation of conspiracy at all costs, have read Hamlet.

Today, after the debacle of NATO and the United States in Afghanistan, the establishment of responsibility for the September 11 attacks is of decisive importance. Indeed, either we in the West continue this policy of permanent war that has become more and more intense since 2001 and less and less manageable at this level—and with disastrous consequences, including for ourselves—or we succeed in drawing lessons from the situation.

It comes down to what LaRouche proposed in 2001 and still remains essential: To generate a new order of peace and stability through mutual development in the world—a New Bretton Woods—or else, to go towards economic and human disaster, ultimately creating the conditions for a world war, here again either by human error or by the utter defiance, of wanting to impose one’s own order, by a financial oligarchy.

In the current situation in France, the challenge is to get out of the dilemma between, on the one hand, a vertical “Atlanticist” order by which we are witnessing the dismantling of our industrial, agricultural, scientific and national educational capacities; and on the other hand, a context of justified demonstrations of anger but going nowhere for lack of a programmatic solution. This type of controlled environment is consistent with the motto of British imperialism, “divide and conquer.”

Returning to conspiracy theorizing, there are three kinds of dangerous fools: (1) Those who see no conspiracy anywhere, even in the sunlight of reason; (2) those who see conspiracies everywhere, emanating from dark forces or deep states, without looking for the real causes, or even the worst ones; and (3) those who multiply accusations against those who offer solutions to get out of the existing dilemmas.

In any case, we must all go back to the root of things and not propagate unfounded rumors: by applying this principle at the top, from which things are defined, and by tirelessly searching for solutions to reach an agreement at a relatively higher level, where an agreement between human beings at a lower level seems impossible.

This is called the coincidence of opposites through mutual development, the only guarantee of being better oneself—without distorting the thought of a deceased man, and by examining in his writings and interventions what he could have brought to the world during his lifetime.

Back to top    Go to home page