9-11 Review
articles critiques
9-11 Research
reviews essays
9-11 Review
Attack & Cover-Up
Means & Motive
Info Warfare
Means & Motive
remote control
NORAD's no-show
war games
demolition tech
energetic materials
covert demolition
wtc explosives
military command
manufacturing enemies
empire expansion
attack on Afghanistan
invasion of Iraq
drug trafficking
petroleum pursuit
corporate profiteering
corporate welfare
urban renewal
gold heist
20th century attacks
Reichstag Fire
Operation Himmler
Pearl Harbor
Gulf of Tonkin
Operation Gladio
Operation Ajax
1990s attacks
Kuwaiti incubators
WTC 93 bombing
Oklahoma City
attack scenarios
Operation Bojinka

The 9/11/01 Attack:
Means, Motive, and Precedent

The execution of the September 11, 2001 attack required means possessed only by insiders in the U.S. government, and not by the alleged perpetrators, Osama bin Laden and his minions. An examination of who benefited from the attack also points to an inside job. While this notion is widely ridiculed, numerous historical precedents of false-flag operations give it credence.

In normal criminal investigations, prosecutors attempt to establish who had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out a crime, in order to identify suspects and direct investigations. Michael C. Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, told the Commonwealth Club that the administration that immediately accused al Qaeda of committing the 9/11/01 crimes never established that its members had the means, motive, or opportunity to commit the crimes.

e x c e r p t
title: Michael C. Ruppert Addresses the Commonwealth Club
authors: Michael C. Ruppert


What happened on 9/11?

While these attacks were arguably one of the most serious homicides ever committed, the investigation and "prosecution" of that case by means other than Dick Cheney's "war that will not end in our lifetimes" has never even approached the legal and logical standards governing all such investigations. No real case has ever been made that would pass first muster of even a junior assistant district attorney.

Without such a court process, we are forced to employ analogies and metaphors. But there remains to us the most successful, fundamental strategy for the prosecution of criminal behavior: demonstrating that a suspect (or suspects) did, or did not, possess the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime.

To date, the case that 9/11 was perpetrated solely by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda has never been proved, even to the most rudimentary standards. In fact, some 35 months after the attacks there has not been a single successful 9/11 prosecution anywhere in the world. The only conviction that had been secured, a German prosecution against Mounir El Motassadeq, charged with aiding the so called Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta, was overturned in 2004 because the US government refused to produce key witnesses such as Khalid Shaikh Muhammad or Ramzi Binal-Shibh and other evidence relevant to the charges. Every defendant in a western criminal case has the right to examine the evidence used against him and to cross-examine witnesses. To the general public as well as to the 9/11 research community, the mysterious and inexplicable failure of the nation’s air defenses that day remains the most glaring and gaping hole in the Kean Commission’s account and in the government's version of events. Scrambling fighter aircraft was a routine occurrence for years before 9/11.

In this section of 9-11 Review we examine the means, motive, and precedents relating to the 9/11/01 attack in some detail. In means we include evidence that would fall under either the means or opportunity elements of a criminal investigations. In precedent we provide evidence that helps to establish a pattern of behavior leading up to the 9/11/01 attack. These precedents reinforce the idea that the means and motive to carry out the attack were possessed only by U.S. government insiders.

page last modified: 2007-01-31
Copyright 2004 - 2011,911Review.com / revision 1.08 site last modified: 12/21/2012