Book review: Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11 by Elias Davidsson

hijack_DVby Dr. Ludwig Watzal, 


Before I came across the book “Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11” by Elias Davidsson, I believed in the official narrative on 9/11. I read the book twice. It shattered completely my former belief.

I’m no expert on 9/11 and do not believe in esoteric theories. My attitude towards 9/11 has been marked by a certain curiosity, but also by healthy skepticism. When I initially stumbled across articles questioning the official 9/11 narrative, I just read them and put them away. With Davidsson’s book, it was different: it immediately captivated me.

Having hitch-hiked extensively all over the United States and studied international relations at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, I am somewhat familiar with how American society ticks. I have noted that after every severe calamity in the US, an immediate inquiry is initiated to determine the facts. When it comes to airplane crashes, it befalls on the National Transportation Security Board (NTSB) to determine the circumstances in which the airplane crashed: the plane is pieced together from the debris, the cause of the crash is determined and a public report is issued regarding the circumstances of the crash. The U.S. government did not, however, permit the NTSB to investigate the 9/11 crashes. It had to be carried out, exceptionally, by the more secretive FBI, which has no obligation to publish its findings. Why did the U.S. government insist on such unprecedented secrecy?

Elias Davidsson’s book may provide an answer to this question. His book is a very thorough study of specific aspects of the 9/11 events that have hitherto been neglected. The strength of his book lies in its reliance on primary evidence, the sources for which are provided so that readers can check for themselves the accuracy and relevance of the evidence. Davidsson does not merely provide footnoted references to the sources but has actually posted a great number of source documents on his website, sparing readers tedious searches. This unusually user-friendly approach indicates the author’s willingness to subject himself to the most exacting scrutiny by readers. What makes his study so compelling is his judicious use of official U.S. government documents to undermine the assertions of the U.S. government itself. A great part of his sources are FBI documents culled from the U.S. National Archives (NARA).

The author provides persuasive evidence that the official narrative is riddled with contradictions, anomalies, puzzling coincidences, lies, forged and planted evidence; that witnesses were intimidated; and that news was fabricated. A substantial chunk of his book is devoted to an analysis of the telephone calls made between passengers and crew-members with their colleagues or loved-ones on the ground. It is actually the most comprehensive and thorough analysis of these phone calls undertaken to this date. One gets the rather sinister impression – reading the quoted phone calls – that the callers were not experiencing true hijackings. Readers will have to judge for themselves whether this impression is justified.

Elias Davidsson was born in Palestine in 1941 to Jewish parents and grew up in Jerusalem but lived for most of his life in Iceland. Apart from his double professional career, first as a computer expert and then as a music teacher and composer, he became interested in international law in the 1990s and published a number of extensive papers in the fields of international law, human rights law and international criminal law. In 2002, prompted by anomalies he discovered in the official narrative on 9/11, he started researching these events. The present book represents the culmination of ten years’ work.

The book is divided into four parts and 14 chapters. The style of the presentation is narrative and easy to follow. Davidsson’s book is the first one that demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, that there exists no evidence for the claim that Muslim terrorists hijacked planes on 9/11. His book is not limited to debunking this claim. He also shows that the U.S. authorities have failed to identify the debris of the aircraft that crashed or allegedly crashed at the various sites on 9/11. Based on his comprehensive analysis of the phone calls, Davidsson invites readers to consider what he designates as his best theory regarding the nature of the phone calls.

Before involving readers with the intricate forensics of the case, the author highlights the incredible swiftness with which the official narrative on 9/11 emerged: CBS news named Osama bin Laden as the main suspect within 15 minutes. Approximately 20 minutes after the second plane crash, President Bush declared that “America is under attack,” although he had no evidence that the events were related to a foreign source. The facts of the case were not determined by investigators, but by the U.S. Congress, meeting 24 hours after the events. Relying on a statement made by Senator Lott, Davidsson reveals that the congressional resolution was already in the works on the very day of the incident.

For the author, 9/11 was a brilliantly orchestrated “propaganda coup.” The dramaturgists of 9/11 must have envisaged that the events, played out real time on television, would serve to unite the American people and rally the population behind the flag. This turned out to be the case. The role of U.S. and European media in promoting the official 9/11 version is well known. Established media deliberately and routinely suppress facts that might undermine public belief in the official version, for example the admission by the FBI in June 2006 to possess no hard evidence of a link between Osama bin Laden and 9/11.

Is it possible to challenge Davidsson’s work? One might argue that a colossal crime such as 9/11 would involve so many people, that the plot could not be kept secret. According to this argument someone, among the many participants, would have long ago “spilled the beans.” How compelling is this view? What does it mean to “spill the beans”? How likely will eyewitnesses “spill the beans”?

First, it should be clarified that government conspiracies do not always remain secret. They are often exposed by scholars and historians. But as long as such exposure is limited to scholarly books and suppressed by the corporate media, these plots remain – for the general public – “conspiracy theories.” A few examples should suffice.

In 1967, the US and Israel conspired in attempting to sink the USS Liberty off the coast of Israel. The US Navy personnel who survived the perfidious attack attempted to raise public knowledge about this conspiracy but did not succeed. The facts have been thoroughly documented by British journalist Peter Hounam, who interviewed survivors and participants. They are known to those who wish to know, but are kept suppressed from the larger public.

The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment is cited as “arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history.” This experiment was conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service. The conspiracy of deception on which this experiment was based was only brought to public in 1972 by a whistleblower, i.e. 40 years after the experiment began.

Operation Gladio refers to terrorist acts secretly engineered by the secret services in Italy, Belgium, Greece, Turkey and possibly Germany during the Cold War. These murderous acts were staged to appear as terrorism by leftist groups. The operation was kept secret for 40 years in Western Europe with no one blowing the whistle. It was revealed in 1990 by the Italian Prime Minister Julio Andreotti, addressing the Italian parliament, but even that did not ensure wide public knowledge because major media did not cover the story. Most European people, including academics, journalists and politicians, are not aware of this murderous conspiracy which was carried out by their own government [under the control of US-led NATO -KB]. Those unaware of this operation will be tempted to call it a “conspiracy theory”.

In addition to media reluctance to report government conspiracies, the modus operandi of covert operations needs also to be considered. Covert operations carried out by the military are always organized according to the “need to know” principle. Michael Ruppert, one of the first independent investigators of 9/11, reminded readers: “From the Manhattan Project to the Stealth fighter, the US government has successfully kept secrets involving thousands of people. Secondly, in order to execute a conspiracy of the size and type I am suggesting [9/11], it is not necessary that thousands of people see the whole picture. The success of the US in maintaining the secrecy around the atom bomb and the Stealth fighter, or in any classified operation, lies in compartmentalization. A technician in Tennessee refining uranium ore in 1943 would have had no knowledge of its intended use or any moral culpability in any deaths that occurred as a result of it. Another technician in Ohio, mixing a polymer resin in 1985, would have had no knowledge of what an F117A looked like or what it was intended to do.”

Many people believe that a government employee aware of illegal practices by his agency or his superiors will immediately report to the police or speak to a journalist. This belief is not justified. Exposing high state crime requires great personal courage and entails risks to ones career, security or even life. Even the courageous whistleblower cannot be certain that those to whom he confides will publicize the information, suppress it, or inform on him to his superiors. Just consider what happened to Bradley Manning, Edward Snowdon or Julian Assange! Sadly, most people do not even dare to ask elementary questions about 9/11, afraid to be ostracized or even lose their jobs. Civil courage is a rare commodity.

Summing up his findings, Elias Davidsson refers to human rights norms according to which the families of 9/11 victims are entitled to know what happened to their next-of-kin; and society is entitled to have the perpetrators, planners and facilitators of the mass-murder identified, prosecuted and convicted. He furthermore sees in efforts to expose 9/11 a “revolutionary potential” because it would reveal what he sees as the monumental failure of our institutions to seek the truth on these murderous events.

Davidsson’s book is not an introduction to 9/11 critical studies. It caters to those who are already aware of the major anomalies in the official narrative. The book is a must read to those concerned with the stealthy transformation of Western democracies into police states and to those who oppose the wars conducted by the United States and its allies.


Is Steve Bannon plotting another 9/11?

By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

All sources on “Trump’s brain” Steve Bannon agree on one thing: Bannon wasn’t particularly interested in politics until September 11th, 2001.

Since then, they say, Bannon has been on an Islamophobic rampage.

Bannon is terrified that Islam is rising and the West, as Spengler foretold, is declining. He wants an all-out “civilizational war” against Islam and Muslims.

But something here does not compute.

Bannon is a smart guy. He has been called “the best-read man in Washington, DC.” And he is fully aware of “conspiratorial” analyses of current events. In fact, he is credited as the main force “mainstreaming conspiracy theories.”

Could Steve Bannon, the “best-read man in Washington,” have somehow missed the dozens and dozens of first-rate books, many published by some of the world’s leading academic presses, shredding the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 and revealing it as an inside job?

Does Bannon really believe that the three New York skyscrapers committed suicide by exploding into dust at near-free-fall acceleration due to relatively minor office fires? Can he actually believe that pilots who couldn’t fly Cessna training aircraft performed amazing feats of piloting to hit extremely difficult targets at absurdly improbable speeds? Does he really think that shrimpy little “muscle hijackers” armed with mere box-cutters magically took over commercial aircraft in some unimaginable manner that prevented the pilots from squawking the hijack code? Does he really think that the alleged 19 hijackers were somehow aboard the aircraft, despite the complete lack of every item of evidence (official passenger lists, ticket stubs, authenticated security videos, and testimony by airline employees that would have ticketed and boarded them) that the US government was obliged to provide under international law? And does he actually think those 19 patsies, who were not even on the planes, were “radical Muslims” even though they have been fully documented to have been coke-snorting, stripper-dating, gambling-junket-loving, pork-chop-relishing, Hebrew-speaking imposters?

These are just a few of the hundreds if not thousands of ridiculous official myths and legends that no intelligent, well-read person could ever believe about 9/11 – myths and legends that you would have to believe to think that Muslims, rather than the enemies of Muslims,  committed the crime of the century.

Is Bannon actually an idiot?

Maybe Bannon isn’t so smart after all. Maybe he is an idiot. Maybe he flew into a rage on 9/11 and remains so angry at Muslims that he has never looked beneath the surface of events.

But there is another, more likely possibility. Maybe Bannon isn’t stupid. Maybe he’s EVIL.

This isn’t just speculation. It is what Bannon himself is telling us. Listen to him:

‘Darth Vader. Dick Cheney. Satan. That’s Power’

The above seven-word quote speaks volumes. It suggests that Bannon understands that Dick Cheney played the role of “ultimate villain” on 9/11. That is what the two seminal books on the subject, David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor and Mike Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon, prove beyond any shadow of a doubt.

It isn’t hard to understand what’s going on in Steve Bannon’s mind.

Bannon, like Oswald Spengler before him, believes Western Christian civilization is in steep decline, and that only Sparta-like militarization can at least slow the process. In Bannon’s view, the only way to militarize the West, and thus slow or perhaps even reverse its decline, was to stage a massive false flag “attack on Western civilization.” So 9/11 was a good thing; being evil like Darth Vader, Dick Cheney, and Satan is proper conduct for political leaders, who — as Michael Ledeen puts it — should periodically “enter into evil.”

“Steve is a strong militarist. He’s in love with war. It’s almost poetry to him.”  – Bannon’s former close friend and writing partner, Julia Jones

But 9/11 failed to fully militarize the US and the West. We are still too much like Athens, not enough like Sparta.

We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years. There’s no doubt about that.” -Steve Bannon

So what would it take to put the US on total war footing, as during World War II? That is what Bannon wants. He yearns for a “fourth turning” — a war even bigger than World War II, which killed over 60 million people.

Bannon believes in authoritarian politics as preparation for a massive conflict between East and West, whether East means the Middle East or China.”  – Business Insider

Steve Bannon knows that the only way to get the “total war” situation he craves is to stage a false flag much bigger than 9/11. Then the whole “fifth column” he hates could be locked up in concentration camps. Then virtually the entire US GDP could be devoted to war. Then (in his demented imagination) the glorious Christian West could rise from the radioactive ashes to spread light and beneficence all over what is left of the planet.

Steve Bannon clearly wants to take his place on the list of his most admired leaders: Darth Vader. Dick Cheney. Satan. Maybe he even wants to upstage them. 

Bannon is undoubtedly the single most dangerous human alive today. He needs to be removed from power as quickly as possible.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s