“There is no excuse at this stage of American development for a posture of political innocence, including an unquestioning acceptance of the good faith of our government. After all, there has been a long history of manipulated public beliefs in high-profile situations, especially bearing on matters of war and peace. Historians are in increasing agreement that the facts were manipulated (1) in the explosion of USS Maine to justify the start of the Spanish-American War (1898), (2) with respect to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to justify the previously unpopular entry into World War II, (3) in relation to the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964 that was used by the White House to justify the dramatic extension of the Vietnam War to North Vietnam, and, of course, most recently (4) to portray Iraq as harboring a menacing arsenal of weaponry of mass destruction justifying recourse to a war defying international law and the United Nations. The official explanations of such historic events as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the assassination of President Kennedy have also not stood up to scrutiny by objective scholars. In these respects, the breaking of trust between government and citizenry in the United States has deep historical roots, and is not at all merely a partisan indictment of the current leadership associated with the right wing of the Republican Party. But it does pose for all of us a fundamental, haunting question. Why should the official account of 9/11 be treated as sacrosanct and accepted at face value, especially as it is the rationale for some of the most dangerous undertakings in the whole history of the world?” (Richard Falk, Professor emeritus, Princeton University Foreword to, June 16, 2004.)

Related Categories
False-Flag: 2001. 9-11