Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

Archive

Archive for June, 2010

June 14th, 2010
by David DeGraw

Building on my Af-Pak War Racket report, a few recent news items help expose the true drivers of current wars around the world.

#1) Wherever there is a war, look for CIA/IMF/private military war profiteers covertly funding and supporting BOTH sides in order to keep the wars raging and the profits rolling in. As former CIA Station Chief John Stockwell explained: “Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the US military machine to turn.”

Here’s an important glimpse of truth to seep through last week in the NY Times, via Raw Story:

US-backed ‘bribes’ in Afghanistan may be funding Taliban

On June 7, the day Afghanistan became America’s longest-ever war, the New York Times reported on an ongoing investigation poised to prove that private security companies “are using American money to bribe the Taliban” to fuel combat and thus enhance demand for their services. The news follows a “series of events last month that suggested all-out collusion with the insurgents,” the Times said.

“The American people are paying to prop up a corrupt government that may be using our money to pay private companies to drum up business by paying the insurgents to attack our troops,” [Kucinich] said…. The Times interviewed a NATO official in Kabul who “believed millions of dollars were making their way to the Taliban.”

#2) On top of that report, Sunday’s headlines read, “Pakistani spy agency supports Taliban:”

Pakistan’s main spy agency continues to arm and train the Taliban and is even represented on the group’s leadership council despite U.S. pressure to sever ties and billions in aid to combat the militants, said a research report released Sunday.

The findings could heighten tension between the two countries and raise further questions about U.S. success in Afghanistan since Pakistani cooperation is seen as key to defeating the Taliban, which seized power in Kabul in the 1990s with Islamabad’s support.

U.S. officials have suggested in the past that current or former members of Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, have maintained links to the Taliban despite the government’s decision to denounce the group in 2001 under U.S. pressure.

First off, these two reports are really not news at all. Reports of American tax dollars ending up in the hands of the Taliban have been coming out since the start of the war and the ISI, as the CIA has been well aware of for years now, has been playing both sides of this war and is pivotal in keeping the war going. Secondly, I have long wondered when the CIA / US military would start exposing all of this in the mainstream propaganda press as a pretext to further expand the war into Pakistan.

#3) As a result of all this, and not surprising at all to people who were paying close attention to Obama’s surge strategy, costs and death counts are quickly rising. Jim Lobe reports from Afghanistan that the “News is Bad.”

While U.S. officials insist they are making progress in reversing the momentum built up by the Taliban insurgency over the last several years, the latest news from Afghanistan suggests the opposite may be closer to the truth.

Even senior military officials are conceding privately that their much-touted new counterinsurgency strategy of “clear, hold and build” in contested areas of the Pashtun southern and eastern parts of the country are not working out as planned despite the “surge” of some 20,000 additional U.S. troops over the past six months.

Casualties among the nearly 130,000 U.S. and other NATO troops now deployed in Afghanistan are also mounting quickly.

#4) In a propaganda effort to spin away from all the latest bad news, the desperate US military has pulled this dusty old news report out of their back-pocket and launched a psychological operation in the NY Times to give a positive spin in hopes of further manipulating US public opinion:

U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves…. The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

Click to read the rest of the article Global War Racket Exposed: Trillions in Resources & Funding Our Enemies.


August 30th, 2009

Witness flight path vs official flight path

Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government’s story to be a “monstrous lie”

A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, “conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.”

They have compiled the most pertinent testimony into an 81 minute video presentation entitled National Security Alert, which has earned the respect and praise of a growing number of distinguished academics, journalists, writers, entertainers, pilots, and military personnel.

The investigation involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day. It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT.

NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT – SENSITIVE INFORMATION from Citizen Investigation Team on Vimeo.

Click to read the rest of the article Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information.

[The Israeli Mossad is] ruthless and cunning, with the capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian-Arab act.” -Report issued by the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS); September 2001

QUESTION: Who leased the World Trade Center (WTC) only seven weeks before the 9/11 attacks?

ANSWER: Larry Silverstein who explained his reason for buying the towers as follows: “I felt a compelling urge to own them.” Silverstein generally had breakfast in the WTC’s “Windows on the World” restaurant every single morning. But on the morning of 9/11, he never showed up — nor did his daughter, who worked in WTC Building 7.

Silverstein was personal friends with Rupert Murdoch, a key player in the Zionist controlled media, former Israeli President and war criminal Ariel Sharon, along with current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

According to Israeli daily Haaretz, Silverstein was such good friends with Netanyahu that he would receive a telephone call from him every single sunday.

…and Frank Lowy, the owner of retail conglomerate Westfield America. In May 2001, Westfield paid $127 million for a 99-year lease on the retail area beneath the WTC. Lowy was once a member of Israel’s Golani Brigade and fought in Israel’s so-called “war of independence,” which saw hundreds of thousands of Palestinians terrorized from their historical lands.

Lowy, too, steered clear of the WTC on 9/11.

QUESTION: Who authorized the lease of the WTC complex to Silverstein?

ANSWER: Lewis Eisenberg, Chairman of the New York Port Authority.

Not only are all three men Jewish, but they are all also prominent members of the Jewish Anti Defamation League (ADL) and the United Jewish Appeal.

Click to read the rest of the article Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED.

Written by Darcy Wearing and Richard Gage, AIA

Thursday, 24 June 2010

Having had the privilege of speaking with Tom Sullivan, an actual explosive-charge placement technician, we have some new insights to pass along as to how controlled demolition works, where it started, and the effect that 9/11 had on the demolition industry. Sullivan gained his experience as an employee of the leading firm in this field, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI). Sullivan stresses though “I do not in anyway represent CDI and what I have to say is based on my own experience and training,”

Sullivan attended high school with Doug Loizeaux of the Loizeaux family. The Loizeaux family, through the father Jack, independently started the whole controlled-demolition industry and turned it into a highly profitable business. Sullivan, before he became connected to CDI, was an independent photographer during his early years in Maryland. He would be sent to CD sites and take still pictures of the jobs. He became infatuated with the CD industry. The time came when he would do both, being the placer of the “cutter charges” on the primary joints, and photographing the jobs for promoting the business. Soon he would switch to full-time employee status of CDI — as verified by AE911Truth’s verification team.

Click here to read the rest of the article Explosive Evidence at WTC cited by former CDI employee.

Read more on the Explosive Truth about the WTC Destruction

Tuesday, March 1 2005
By Michael Kane

In this special report, Michael Kane recounts the personal story of JP Morgan IT professional, Indira Singh, a heroic 9/11 whistleblower who was fired, harrassed, and physically threatened for exposing the Saudi/terrorist-linked origins of one of the government’s most pervasive software systems, and thereby offering the 9/11 Commission more truth than it ever wanted to know. – Editor

“Ptech had all the markings,” said Indira Singh. All the markings of a CIA front company.”

“I think there is a CIA within the CIA,” Indira told From the Wilderness (FTW). “I think there is a Shadow CIA that does the Iran-Contra type of things–they get funding from illicit methods–and that the Saudi’s are in on it. They might have trained some operatives, and later it backfired – it was blowback within blowback, perhaps.”

“What I do know, what the money trails do show, is that the Saudi’s are complicit. In other words, the ones that are extremely fundamentalist, the ones that promote Wahabiism-I’m not saying it’s all of them, but parts of them–are working hand-in-hand, lock step with elements within American intelligence whether it’s official or unofficial. There’s proof of that.”

March 2, 2005 (911truth.org): Wall Street whistleblower Indira Singh has had her professional life ripped away from her because of keeping the promise she made to some 3,000 victim’s who died at Ground Zero on 9/11. She made that promise at Ground Zero on 9/11 as a civilian EMT. Indira was supposed to be on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center that morning, but she was late.

“I made a promise,” said Indira during a lengthy FTW interview, “that if anything fell into my lap, I wouldn’t look the other way and I’m keeping that promise.”

Something did fall into her lap . . . something big.

Indira is an IT professional who started First Boston’s Information Technology Group in 1970 and had worked on Wall Street up until 2002. She has been an IT consultant for Bank Trust, the U.N., JP Morgan, and American Express. In 1988 she started TibetNet, a derivative of the Defense Advanced Research Project (DARPA) Internet, the service on which you are likely reading this report at the moment.

On 9/11/2001, Indira worked for JP Morgan in a field called Risk Management, involving computer systems and programs designed to keep JP Morgan’s entire information and financial structure safe. She had also worked with a Defense Advanced Research Project – DARPA-funded technology group, with close ties to the CIA. This provided her with contacts deep within the government and corporate America. She was working on a program for JP Morgan – the next generation of risk software – whose function was to think about all the information going on throughout the enterprise as bank business was being conducted worldwide.

It would detect money laundering and other crimes in real time and then do something about it; perhaps alert an “intelligent” software agent or a person, or shutdown the transaction immediately. This capability could be accomplished by using an evolution of PROMIS software. FTW has extensively covered the PROMIS software controversy, the software stolen by the Justice Department from Inslaw which over the past two decades has evolved and merged with artificial intelligence.

“We were moving into the realm of much smarter software – next generation software – that would collect information on the fly and sort of think about it,” said Indira. The CIA was interested in the technology behind Indira’s risk application at one point. So was the Defense Department.

Indira’s vision was to create software that could respond to “extreme event risk.” 9/11 was an extreme event. Risk Management involves devising ways to stop big problems from happening throughout the enterprise. She needed a company to provide a key piece of this enterprise software.

“All the industry gurus recommended Ptech.”

Indira was unsure whether Ptech was right. After all, they were a small company, and with software this expensive you couldn’t afford to choose wrong. But everywhere she looked boosted her confidence in Ptech, especially when viewing their list of prominent clients.

The White House, Treasury Department (Secret Service), CIA, FBI, both houses of Congress, Air Force, Navy, Department of Energy, IRS, Booze Allen Hamilton, IBM, Enron and even NATO all used, and as of this writing, some still use Ptech software. IBM, a global strategic partner with JP Morgan, had selected Ptech for their Preferred Vendor program.

All of this convinced Indira that Ptech was the right choice. After getting the extensive site clearance JP Morgan required, Indira invited Ptech to the premises for a one-day evaluation of their software. But according to Indira, everything was wrong that day. They didn’t come with anything needed to do the one-day evaluation, but Ptech’s chief scientist, Dr. Hussein Ibrahim, suggested to Indira that they develop the software on his laptop.

“If you know how these things are conducted, that was a show stopper,” says Indira. Ptech would have been able to walk away with the blueprint to Indira’s program on their laptop, and JP Morgan would have been left with nothing. Indira decided Ibrahim’s proposition was a definite deal breaker.

Risk blueprints worth millions of dollars aren’t given away at an introductory meeting; the industry doesn’t work that way. To this day Indira is unsure of why Ibrahim would have even suggested this. “He’s not a stupid man,” she said, “he knows this is not how business is conducted.”

Click on link to read the rest of the article on the Journey of a Wall Street Whistleblower.

Radio interview of Indira Singh and her investigation of PTech.

June 8, 2010
Shawn Hamilton

I recorded this interview in San Francisco at the Marine’s Memorial Club and Hotel on February 19, 2010. The occasion was the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth press conference announcing the group had surpassed 1000 signatures from licensed building professionals calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings. Griffin was a keynote speaker.

Richard Gage, AIA, and Professor David Ray Griffin at the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth press conference, 19 February 2010. (Photo Credit Ted Wood)

Shawn Hamilton (S.H):“How do you account for the apparent psychological resistance even among members of the alternative media—who should know better—to even looking at the evidence?”

David Ray Griffin (DRG):“In one sense it’s obviously a big mystery because these are people who’ve been on the forefront of exposing American complicity—you know, if we talk about Howard Zinn, Chomsky; we’re talking a long, long time here, so I never criticize these gentlemen because they’re heroes; they’ve done what they’ve done; we wouldn’t be here without them and so on.” He said he wasn’t sure about some of the “younger guys.”

“Some of it is, I think, fear. There is a lot of things to fear. I’m not talking about fear for their lives although I’ve heard of people who’ve said, ‘yeah, I’m afraid for my life,’ but I don’t think that’s the main thing. It’s more a fear of, well, job loss. That’s a big one for reporters. I talked to a reporter who had done one nine eleven story and so I said, ‘Well, are we going to get another one out of this lecture,” and he said, ‘I don’t think so. I don’t think my job would survive one more story.’

“Then, more generally, loss of reputation. The effectiveness of this term ‘conspiracy theory,’ ‘conspiracy theorist’ and that no member of the press can be a conspiracy theorist because they’re supposed to be objective, even if objective means parroting everything the government says. In our day that’s what counts for objective. But if you parrot what somebody says who’s espousing what is defined as a conspiracy theory, which in the definition that I gave earlier means a theory that contradicts a theory the government has already spoken on, then that a conspiracy theory in the negative sense and very few reporters could survives in their jobs if they explicitly said that.”

SH: “I understand that for the mainstream media, but what about the alternative media? There’s a split even at KPFA. They don’t want to touch this. They don’t even want to look at it. I’m not saying believe it, just look at the evidence.”

Click on link for the rest of the article on Media resistance to 9-11 issues.

by Michael Rivero

It’s the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need.

In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licinius Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus’ version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of its worth. If the owner sold, Crassus’ slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private land holder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero.

In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan.

Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. But Spartacus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Spartacus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.

Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Spartacus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Spartacus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Spartacus had no choice but to march on Rome.

Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus’ army and even though Pompey took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year.

With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome.

The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.

Julius Caesar’s political opponent, Cicero, for all his literary accomplishments, played the same games in his campaign against Julius Caesar, claiming that Rome was falling victim to an internal “vast right wing” conspiracy in which any expressed desire for legislative limits on government was treated as suspicious behavior. Cicero, in order to demonstrate to the Romans just how unsafe Rome has become hired thugs to cause as much disturbance as possible, and campaigned on a promise to end the internal strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers.

What Cicero only dreamed of, Adolph Hitler succeeded in doing. Elected Chancellor of Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his power imposed by German law. Unlike Cicero, Hitler’s thugs were easy to recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary powers.
Then the Reichstag burned down; a staged terrorist attack.

The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the total rule of Der Fuehrer. Hitler had German troops dressed in Polish uniforms attack the radio station at Gleiwitz, then lied to the Germans, telling them Poland had invaded, and marched Germany off into World War Two

The state-sponsored schools will never tell you this, but governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared to leave no other choice.

Click on link to read the rest of the article Fake Terror – the road to war and dictatorship.

May 5, 2010
By Christopher Bollyn

Badness always manifests in destruction and corruption, while goodness always manifests in preservation and benefit.
– Socrates in Plato’s Republic (ca. 374 B.C.)


“Wanted” posters of Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak in Jerusalem, April 2010. Olmert and Barak are accused of bribery and corruption in Israel and indictable for serious war crimes in Gaza. Both men are architects of the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11. Olmert, for example, was on a secret visit in New York City on 9-11. When will we see posters in the United States calling for the arrest of Olmert and Barak?

IT IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN that 9-11 was a Mossad operation – period.
– Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College

“And how can it be profitable for a person’s immorality to go unnoticed and unpunished? The consequence of a criminal getting away with his crimes is that he becomes a worse person.”
– Socrates in Plato’s Republic, “Happiness and Unhappiness”

Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, has been in the United States for a week of meetings and speeches. He is, in my opinion, the key suspect of being the mastermind of the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11. I am providing this brief article to explain how I think he did it.

Within minutes of the airplane crashes on 9-11, Ehud Barak (the founder and master of the Israeli military’s covert operation force, the Sayeret Matkal) was in the London studio of the BBC World ready to provide a plausible (and political) explanation to the world. Barak, the real mastermind of 9-11, was the first person to call for a “War on Terror” – and U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and the Middle East. This is how false-flag terrorism works. The perpetrator is the first one to assign blame by pointing his finger at his enemy in order to shape public opinion, which is the real purpose of such atrocities.

Ehud Barak (Brug) was born at Kibbutz Mishmar Hasharon on 12 February 1942. He enlisted in the Israeli Army at age 17, became a career army officer, and helped to found and lead the elite Sayeret Matkal covert operations commando unit. After serving as head of Israeli Intelligence and Central Command during the 1980s, Barak was appointed IDF Chief of Staff, in 1991. Barak was Israel’s minister of defense during Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip in 2008-2009. Based on the report of the U.N. Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, written by Justice Richard Goldstone, Barak is legally responsible for a host of war crimes committed during that assault. The United States (and all other nations who have ratified the Geneva Conventions) are obliged to arrest Ehud Barak based on the evidence and findings presented in the Goldstone report.

Click on the link to read the rest of the article on How Ehud Barak Pulled Off 9-11.

General Ralph Eberhart

“During those entire 109 minutes … this country
and its citizens were completely undefended.”

– Senator Mark Dayton

General Ralph Eberhart was the commander in chief of NORAD–the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace–when the 9/11 attacks occurred.

Considering that NORAD failed to intercept any of the four aircraft targeted in the attacks and successfully defend New York and Washington, one would reasonably expect Eberhart to have been somehow held to account. And yet that did not happen.

In fact, nine years on, we still know very little about what Eberhart did while the 9/11 attacks were taking place. From what we do know, his actions seem far from reassuring. Eberhart at least gave the impression of having an unclear picture of what was going on. Accounts of his actions reveal no decisive attempts to respond to the attacks. He appears to have been particularly slow to order a plan that would give the military control of U.S. airspace and get all aircraft grounded. Furthermore, in the middle of the attacks, he decided to drive from his office at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, to NORAD’s operations center in Cheyenne Mountain–a journey that apparently put him out of the loop for about an hour.

EBERHART’S ACTIONS ON 9/11

Ralph Eberhart began the morning of September 11, 2001 at NORAD headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base. [1] He told the 9/11 Commission that he learned of the crisis that was unfolding when the command director at NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (presumably Captain Michael Jellinek) called at 8:45 a.m.–one minute before the first World Trade Center tower was hit–and “informed him of the ongoing circumstance of a suspected hijacking on the East Coast.” Eberhart subsequently went to his office and saw the television coverage of the first attack on the WTC.

He “asked if the aircraft that was suspected of impacting the World Trade Center was the same aircraft that was a suspected hijack, and was told that they were not.” Eberhart has recalled that there was apparently “great confusion in the system” at this time. But after news broke of the second attack on the WTC, he said, it was “obvious” to him that there was “an ongoing and coordinated terrorist attack” taking place. [2] And yet his subsequent actions were hardly impressive, considering the urgency of the situation.

Eberhart tried contacting General Henry Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but was unable to, since Shelton was airborne at the time, on his way to a NATO meeting in Europe. Eberhart then “contacted higher command authority at the Pentagon,” he has recalled. [3]

He also spoke briefly with General Richard Myers, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was on Capitol Hill, where he had been meeting with Senator Max Cleland. At some point between 9:03 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., according to Myers’s recollection, Eberhart phoned the vice chairman’s military aide on his cell phone, which the aide then passed to Myers.

EBERHART UNCLEAR ABOUT DETAILS OF HIJACKINGS AND NORAD’S RESPONSE

Eberhart updated Myers on the crisis, telling him the two WTC towers had been hit and there were “several hijack codes in the system.” This, according to Myers, meant “that the transponders in the aircraft [were] talking to the ground, and they’re saying … we’re being hijacked.” [4] However, if Myers’s recollection is correct, Eberhart was apparently either mistaken or deliberately giving false information: None of the pilots of the four flights targeted that morning keyed the code that would indicate a hijacking into their plane’s transponder. [5] There should have been no “hijack codes in the system” at that time.

Eberhart told Myers he was working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to get all aircraft over the U.S. to land. He also said NORAD would be launching fighter jets in response to the attacks. [6] As Myers would recall two days later, “I think the decision was, at that point, to start launching aircraft.” [7] However, NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), based in upstate New York, had already launched fighters by that time: Two F-15s had taken off from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts at 8:46 a.m. [8] So if Myers’s account is correct, Eberhart–the man in charge of NORAD–was apparently either unaware of the actions of NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector or knowingly giving out false information.

Furthermore, when he was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission in March 2004, Eberhart claimed he’d had “no knowledge of the circumstances that initiated the scramble” of fighter jets from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia at 9:24 a.m. [9] Extensive evidence uncovered by the Commission showed that NEADS scrambled those fighters in response to an incorrect report it had received that American Airlines Flight 11–which hit the WTC at 8:46 a.m.–was still airborne and heading south, toward Washington, DC. [10] At the time of his 9/11 Commission interview, Eberhart said, he had only “recently” been made aware of these circumstances. [11] How could the man in charge of NORAD on September 11 have been unaware of such crucial information for nearly two and a half years after the attacks occurred?

After learning of the attacks in New York, Eberhart stayed at Building 1 at Peterson Air Force Base–the headquarters of the Air Force Space Command, which, as well as NORAD, he was the commander of–because, he said, “he did not want to lose communication.” [12] However, he soon set out on a journey that caused him to lose communication with others involved in the emergency response for 45 minutes or longer.

EBERHART OUT OF COMMUNICATION WHILE TRAVELING TO OPERATIONS CENTER

At “approximately 9:30,” according to his own recollection, Eberhart left Peterson Air Force Base and headed to the NORAD operations center in Cheyenne Mountain. [13] The operations center was about 12 miles away, a journey that takes “roughly 30 minutes,” according to the 9/11 Commission Report. But, as the Washington Post noted, “The trip to Cheyenne Mountain can be time-consuming if traffic is bad,” and the drive took Eberhart 45 minutes. [14]

The journey may in fact have taken even longer. Eberhart told the 9/11 Commission that by the time he arrived at the operations center, the authorization for the military to shoot down threatening aircraft had been passed down NORAD’s chain of command. NORAD finally passed on this authorization to its three air defense sectors at 10:31 a.m., which would imply that Eberhart reached the operations center shortly after that time, more than an hour after he said he left Peterson Air Force Base. [15]

Furthermore, while he was making the journey to Cheyenne Mountain, Eberhart “couldn’t receive telephone calls as senior officials weighed how to respond,” according to the Denver Post. [16] He reportedly “lost a cell phone call with Vice President Dick Cheney.” The reason why Eberhart had problems receiving phone calls is unclear, though it has been reported that “New repeater stations were installed almost immediately” after 9/11, “to fix the phone problem.” [17]

During the period when he was reportedly traveling to the operations center, at 9:49 a.m., Eberhart “directed all air sovereignty aircraft to battle stations, fully armed” over the Pentagon’s air threat conference call, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. [18] Presumably he was either able to successfully issue this order himself despite his communication problems, or the order was issued on his behalf by a subordinate who was participating in the air threat conference call. However, when an aircraft is at “battle stations,” its pilot is in the cockpit, but with the engines turned off, ready to start them and taxi out only if a scramble order should follow. [19] So Eberhart’s order would have meant that any air sovereignty aircraft not already airborne would have remained on the ground, rather than immediately getting into the air, where they could have quickly intercepted a hostile aircraft.

The reason Eberhart decided to relocate to Cheyenne Mountain at such an important time, when his uninterrupted participation in the crisis response would presumably have been essential, is unclear. According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center “had communications capabilities not available at Peterson.” [20] And Eberhart told the 9/11 Commission that, on his communications loop, it had “quieted down” before he decided to head out to the mountain. [21]

All the same, if Eberhart’s account of his actions is correct, it would mean that, in the middle of the worst terrorist attack in the history of the U.S., the commander of NORAD was, at least to some degree, out of the loop for maybe an hour or more.

MILITARY ONLY TAKES CONTROL OF SKIES AFTER ATTACKS ENDED

The one key action Ralph Eberhart is known to have taken in response to the 9/11 attacks was to implement a modified version of a plan called “SCATANA,” which would clear the skies and give the military control over U.S. airspace. However, Eberhart only ordered that this plan be put into operation at around 11:00 a.m., about two hours after the second WTC tower was hit and it became “obvious” to him that a coordinated terrorist attack was taking place.

When he was asked before the 9/11 Commission why it had taken so long to initiate the plan, Eberhart recalled that people had been approaching him and telling him to “declare SCATANA.” However, he added, NORAD “could not control the airspace that day with the radars we had and all the aircraft that were airborne. … So, if I suddenly say, ‘We’ve got it, we will control the airspace,’ we would have had worse problems than we had that morning because I cannot provide [air] traffic deconfliction like the FAA has.”

Eberhart therefore requested that a modified version of SCATANA be devised, telling those that were calling for the plan, “I will execute SCATANA once you have a modified SCATANA that clearly delineates the lines in the road and doesn’t cause a bad situation to become worse.” The modified SCATANA that Eberhart subsequently implemented allowed navigational aids to stay on, and selective approval for specific and necessary flights. [22]

Eberhart was implying to the 9/11 Commission that his delay in ordering SCATANA was due to the time required to put together this modified version of it. However, he has not specified the time at which he asked his colleagues to start preparing the modified SCATANA. Was it at 9:03 a.m., when the second WTC tower was hit and everyone realized that the U.S. was under attack–a time when the value of such a plan would presumably have been obvious? Or was it later on? If later on, how much later?

AMERICA ‘COMPLETELY UNDEFENDED’ DURING ATTACKS

A fuller analysis of Ralph Eberhart’s actions on September 11 will only be possible when more evidence comes to light revealing what he did at the time of the attacks. It seems remarkable that we still know so little about the actions of the man who, as commander of NORAD, was in charge of the air defense of the U.S. In that role, Eberhart oversaw a catastrophic failure, which, in the words of Senator Mark Dayton, meant that for “109 minutes … this country and its citizens were completely undefended.” [23]

And yet, rather than being held accountable, or even just criticized, for that failure, in October 2002 Eberhart was put in charge of the newly created Northern Command (NORTHCOM), described as “the nation’s premier military homeland defense organization,” which had the mission of countering threats and aggression against the United States. [24]

As Dayton concluded, “The situation is urgent when we do not get protected in those circumstances [that occurred on 9/11], and it is even worse when it is covered up.” [25]

NOTES

[1] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 465.
[2] “Memorandum for the Record: Interview With CINC NORAD (Commander in Chief NORAD), General Edward ‘Ed’ Eberhart.” 9/11 Commission, March 1, 2004.
[3] Ibid.; Richard Myers with Malcolm McConnell, Eyes on the Horizon: Serving on the Front Lines of National Security. New York: Threshold Editions, 2009, p. 10.
[4] Richard Myers, interview by Jim Miklaszewski. NBC News, September 11, 2002; “Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Richard Myers, Affiliated With NORAD.” 9/11 Commission, February 17, 2004; Richard Myers with Malcolm McConnell, Eyes on the Horizon, p. 9.
[5] “Government Official Has New Evidence Regarding Hijacked Airlines.” CNN, September 11, 2001.
[6] “Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Richard Myers, Affiliated With NORAD”; Richard Myers with Malcolm McConnell, Eyes on the Horizon, p. 9.
[7] Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Holds Hearing on Nomination of General Richard Myers to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 107th Cong., 1st sess., September 13, 2001.
[8] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 20.
[9] “Memorandum for the Record: Interview With CINC NORAD (Commander in Chief NORAD), General Edward ‘Ed’ Eberhart.”
[10] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 26-27, 34.
[11] “Memorandum for the Record: Interview With CINC NORAD (Commander in Chief NORAD), General Edward ‘Ed’ Eberhart.”
[12] “General Ralph E. ‘Ed’ Eberhart.” U.S. Air Force, February 2004; “Memorandum for the Record: Interview With CINC NORAD (Commander in Chief NORAD), General Edward ‘Ed’ Eberhart.”
[13] “Memorandum for the Record: Interview With CINC NORAD (Commander in Chief NORAD), General Edward ‘Ed’ Eberhart.”
[14] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 465; T. R. Reid, “Military to Idle NORAD Compound.” Washington Post, July 29, 2006.
[15] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 42; Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 240.
[16] Bruce Finley, “Military to Put Cheyenne Mountain on Standby.” Denver Post, July 27, 2006.
[17] Pam Zubeck, “Cheyenne Mountain’s Fate May Lie in Study Contents.” Colorado Springs Gazette, June 16, 2006.
[18] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 38, 463.
[19] Leslie Filson, Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face of Air Defense Mission. Tyndall Air Force Base, FL: 1st Air Force, 2003, p. 55; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 27.
[20] Pam Zubeck, “Cheyenne Mountain’s Fate May Lie in Study Contents.”
[21] “Memorandum for the Record: Interview With CINC NORAD (Commander in Chief NORAD), General Edward ‘Ed’ Eberhart.”
[22] William B. Scott, “Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks.” Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 3, 2002; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Twelfth Public Hearing. 9/11 Commission, June 17, 2004; Lynn Spencer, Touching History, p. 269.
[23] Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Making America Safer: Examining the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. 108th Cong., 2nd sess., July 30, 2004.
[24] Gerry J. Gilmore, “Eberhart Tabbed to Head U.S. Northern Command.” American Forces Press Service, May 8, 2002; “Key Players: Commander, Northern Command, Gen. Ralph Eberhart.” Government Executive, April 15, 2003.
[25] Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Making America Safer: Examining the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

by Paul Craig Roberts

In 1995 Kenneth Trentadue was murdered by federal agents in a federal prison in Oklahoma City. A coverup immediately went into effect. Federal authorities claimed Trentadue, who was being held in a suicide-proof cell, had committed suicide by hanging himself, but the state coroner would not buy the story.

Prison authorities tried to get family consent to cremate the body. But Trentadue had been picked up on a minor parole violation, and the story of suicide by a happily married man delighted with his two-month old son raised red flags to the family.

When the Trentadue family received Kenneth’s body and heavy makeup was scraped away, the evidence (available in photos on the Internet) clearly shows a person who had been tortured and beaten. His throat was slashed and he may have been garroted. There are bruises, burns and cuts from the soles of Trentadue’s feet to his head, wounds that obviously were not self-inflicted.

As the state coroner noted at the time, every investigative rule was broken by the federal prison. The coroner was not allowed into the cell, and the cell was scrubbed down prior to investigation.

The federal coverup was completely transparent. A US senator made inquiries, but the US Department of Justice (sic), knowing that it would not be held accountable, stuck to its fabricated story.

That was a mistake. Trentadue’s brother, Jesse, is an attorney. He believes that federal officials, like everyone else, must be held accountable for their crimes. He has been battling the Justice (sic) Department and the FBI for a decade.

Jesse Trentadue has amassed evidence that his brother was mistaken for Tim McVeigh’s alleged accomplice in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Federal agents, believing that they had Richard Lee Guthrie in their hands, went too far in attempting to force him to talk.

Jesse Trentadue learned that the FBI had informants planted with two groups on which McVeigh may have relied: a white supremacist paramilitary training compound at Elohim City and the Mid-West Bank Robbery Gang. The implication is that the FBI had advance notice of McVeigh’s plans and may have been conducting a sting operation that went awry.

The FBI has documents that name the informants. Teletypes from then FBI director Louis Freeh dated January 4, 1996, and August 23, 1996, confirm that the FBI had informants imbedded with the Mid-West Bank Robbery Gang and in Elohim City. In these documents, Freeh reports to various FBI field offices that the Elohim City informant (possibly explosives expert and German national Andreas Carl Strassmeir) “allegedly has had a lengthy relationship with Timothy McVeigh” and “that McVeigh had placed a telephone call to Elohim City on 4/5/95, a day that he was believed to have been attempting to recruit a second conspirator to assist in the OKBOMB attack.”

Click for the rest of the article Uncovering a DOJ coverup.

Radio Interview of Jesse Trentadue

New OKC Revelations Spotlight FBI Involvement In Bombing.

Better Tag Cloud