Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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


Archive for November, 2012

Kevin Barrett
November 27, 2012

Leading US strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski – unofficial dean of the realist school of American foreign policy experts – has drawn an unflattering picture of US-Israel relations.

In a speech to the National Iranian American Council, Brzezinksi said:

“I don’t think there is an implicit obligation for the United States to follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do. If they decide to start a war, simply on the assumption that we’ll automatically be drawn into it, I think it is the obligation of friendship to say, ‘you’re not going to be making national decision for us.’ I think that the United States has the right to have its own national security policy.”

By denying any US “obligation” to “follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do,” Brzezinski accurately implied that this is exactly what the US has been doing up until now. And by plaintively opining that “the United States has the right to have its own national security policy,” the former National Security Adviser underlined the fact that since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, who secretly went to war with Ben Gurion in a doomed effort to abort the Israeli nuclear weapons program, the US has not enjoyed that right.

Brzezinski’s assertion that the US is being led by the nose like a stupid mule by the Israelis is perhaps the most candid statement of its kind ever uttered in public by a high-level US strategist. Brzezinski’s remarks reflect the mainstreaming of the arguments presented by leading US political scientists Walt and Mearsheimer in their book The Israel Lobby.

Indeed, Brzezinski has gone much further than Walt and Mearsheimer, who couch their critique of the tail-wags-the-dog US-Israel relationship in extremely cautious language. By laying it out so explicitly, Brzezinski is in effect joining the ranks of such scholars as James Petras and Grant Smith, who leave Walt and Mearsheimer in the dust as they boldly and accurately describe the outrageous, destructive, and quite literally criminal Israeli domination of the US. (As Smith argues in Foreign Agents, the hundreds of thousands of members of the Zionist Power Configuration described by Petras are acting as unregistered agents of a foreign power; if the law were properly enforced, they would all be in prison.)

The strong words from Brzezinski, and the mainstreaming of similar sentiments, illustrate a growing backlash against Israel’s ever-more-shameless, ever-more poorly concealed domination of the USA. The post-9/11 era has witnessed a rash of unbelievably arrogant Israeli actions, including:

• Benjamin Netanyahu’s reaction to 9/11. (He triumphantly chortled that 9/11 was “very good,” then hastily added that he meant it was very good for Israel.)

Read more

by Dennis McMahon, J.D., L.L.M.
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

WTC Building 7, also known as the Salomon Brothers Building or WTC 7, was a 47–story skyscraper that was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, Building 7 would have been the tallest high-–rise in thirty–three of our United States. Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker,” along with several major financial institutions.

BBC correspondent Jane Standley reported the destruction of WTC 7 a full 20 minutes before it collapsed – even though the building was still standing behind her.

Building 7, which was 100 yards from the Twin Towers, was not hit by an airplane on September 11, 2001, and suffered only minimal damage from debris falling from the North Tower. Several fires began burning on a few floors, and the entire building completely collapsed – almost into its own footprint – at 5:20 p.m. Numerous eyewitnesses, including members of the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) and other first responders, and multiple news sources, made statements that indicate that there was foreknowledge that WTC 7 was going to come down, despite the fact that no skyscraper in history had ever completely collapsed due to fire. (Much of this evidence of foreknowledge is detailed on the website of the Remember Building 7 campaign and other related sites.)

Where foreknowledge of an extremely unusual event is demonstrated, the possibility must be considered that the foreknowledge derived directly or indirectly from those who had inside information about, and/or control over, the event itself. Thus, if foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 can be shown, this would be a strong indication that Building 7 was subjected to controlled demolition, and that advance warning of Building 7’s demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring the building down. Thus, foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 is not only consistent with, but supportive of, the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Read more

Held Nov. 19, 2012

November 26, 2012
Paul Craig Roberts

The interview below with Osama bin Laden was conducted by the Karachi, Pakistan, daily newspaper, Ummat and published on September 28, 2001, 17 days after the alleged, but unsubstantiated, al Qaeda attack of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon. The interview was sensational. The alleged “mastermind” of 9/11 said that he and al Qaeda had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. The British Broadcasting Corporation’s World Monitoring Service had the interview translated into English and made public on September 29, 2001.

Osama bin Laden’s sensational denial was not reported by the US print and TV media. It was not investigated by the executive branch. No one in the US Congress called attention to bin Laden’s refusal of responsibility for the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on a superpower.

To check my memory of the lack of coverage, I googled “Osama bin Laden’s interview denying responsibility for 9/11.” Some Internet sites reproduced the interview, but the only mainstream news source that I found was a 1 minute YouTube video from CNN in which the anchor, after quoting an al Jazeera report of bin Laden’s denial, concludes that “we can all weigh that in the scale of credibility and come to our own conclusions.” In other words, bin Laden had already been demonized, and his denial was not credible.

The sensational news was unfit for US citizens and was withheld from them by the american “free press,” a press free to lie for the government but not to tell the truth.

Obviously, if bin Laden had outwitted not only the National Security Agency, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of Washington’s NATO puppet states, Israel’s Mossad, and in addition the National Security Council, NORAD, US air traffic control, and airport security four times on the same morning, it would be the greatest feat in world history, a movement building feat that would have made al Qaeda the most successful anti-imperialist organization in human history, an extraordinary victory over “the great satan” that would have brought millions of new recruits into al Qaeda’s ranks. Yet the alleged “mastermind” denied all responsibility.

Read more

Site Administrator: contrary to some of the information in this article, Osama bin Laden was not killed by Navy Seals in 2011. He died at least ten years ago and was a long time CIA asset. No sailors witnessed his burial at sea because there was nothing to bury.

By Associated Press
NOVEMBER 21, 5:00

WASHINGTON — Internal emails among U.S. military officers indicate that no sailors watched Osama bin Laden’s burial at sea from the USS Carl Vinson and traditional Islamic procedures were followed during the ceremony.

The emails, obtained by The Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act, are heavily blacked out, but are the first public disclosure of government information about the al-Qaida leader’s death. The emails were released Wednesday by the Defense Department.

Bin Laden was killed on May 1, 2011, by a Navy SEAL team that assaulted his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

One email stamped secret and sent on May 2 by a senior Navy officer briefly describes how bin Laden’s body was washed, wrapped in a white sheet, and then placed in a weighted bag.

According to another message from the Vinson’s public affairs officer, only a small group of the ship’s leadership was informed of the burial.

“Traditional procedures for Islamic burial was followed,” the May 2 email from Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette reads. “The deceased’s body was washed (ablution) then placed in a white sheet. The body was placed in a weighted bag. A military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker. After the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased’s body slid into the sea.”

The email also included a cryptic reference to the intense secrecy surrounding the mission. “The paucity of documentary evidence in our possession is a reflection of the emphasis placed on operational security during the execution of this phase of the operation,” Gaouette’s message reads. Recipients of the email included Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. James Mattis, the top officer at U.S. Central Command. Mullen retired from the military in September 2011.

Earlier, Gaouette, then the deputy commander of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, and another officer used code words to discuss whether the helicopters carrying the SEALs and bin Laden’s body had arrived on the Vinson.

“Any news on the package for us?” he asked Rear Adm. Samuel Perez, commander of the carrier strike group that included the Vinson.

“FEDEX delivered the package,” Perez responded. “Both trucks are safely enroute home base.”

Although the Obama administration has pledged to be the most transparent in American history, it is keeping a tight hold on materials related to the bin Laden raid. In a response to separate requests from the AP for information about the mission, the Defense Department said in March that it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing bin Laden’s body. It also said it could not find any images of bin Laden’s body on the Vinson.

The Pentagon also said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin Laden’s body if he were killed.

The Defense Department also refused to confirm or deny the existence of helicopter maintenance logs and reports about the performance of military gear used in the raid. One of the stealth helicopters that carried the SEALs to Abbottabad crashed during the mission and its wreckage was left behind. People who lived near bin Laden’s compound took photos of the disabled chopper.

The AP is appealing the Defense Department’s decision. The CIA, which ran the bin Laden raid and has special legal authority to keep information from ever being made public, has not responded to AP’s request for records about the mission.

Written by Adam Taylor
Friday, 23 November 2012
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

Editor’s Note: This is Part 7 (see Part 6) of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of their book Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at and other places where it is sold.

Although Popular Mechanics states the office fires in Building 7 reached temperatures of 1,100°F, both critics and supporters of the official story with technical expertise have pointed out that there is no evidence for fires that hot.

(Quotes from PM’s book are shown in red and with page numbers.)
Although Popular Mechanics states the office fires in Building 7 reached temperatures of 1,100°F, both critics and supporters of the official story with technical expertise have pointed out that there is no evidence for fires that hot.

The Popular Mechanics chapter regarding the mysterious collapse of WTC 7 shows itself to be no more promising than its previous chapter on the Twin Towers. PM begins this section by summarizing the history of the controversy surrounding Building 7 and the numerous investigations carried out regarding its collapse. PM correctly notes that many agencies were located in the building as tenants, including the Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City’s Office of Emergency Management. i The chapter discusses the initial FEMA investigation and how, after FEMA failed to provide an explanation for Building 7’s collapse, the task was then handed over to NIST. PM touts the NIST report on Building 7 as having finally proved the building was not destroyed with explosives. Contrary to PM’s assertion that the reason for WTC7’s collapse is “ less complicated and even more remarkable” (pg 66) than controlled demolition, it is apparent that the cause of collapse is still demolition, and that the NIST WTC7 report utterly fails to provide a reasonable explanation of what actually caused the collapse of the building.

The first section of PM’s WTC7 chapter mainly discusses the fire and damage to Building 7 and how this supposedly caused the building to collapse. Here is a summary of what NIST claims caused the collapse of WTC7:

The fires caused sufficient thermal expansion in the steel beams on the east side of WTC 7 to force the steel girder connecting Columns 44 and 79 to lose its connection with the latter, and to damage the floor framing on floors near Column 79.

The loss of that girder’s connection to Column 79, along with fire– induced damage to the floor systems around Column 79, caused Floor 13 to collapse.

The collapse of Floor 13 caused all the floors below it down to Floor 5 to collapse.

Column 79, being left with inadequate lateral support, buckled between Floors 5 and 14.

This buckling caused the downward movement of Column 79 (which caused the collapse of the east penthouse).

Columns 80 and 81, having also lost support, buckled, causing all the floors on the east side of WTC7, which had been weakened by the fire, to collapse..)

All the other interior columns then failed, leaving the building a hollow shell.

After most of the collapse had already occurred in the building’s interior, where it could not be seen from the outside, the exterior columns failed, completing the collapse. ii

Read more

By John Glaser
November 20, 2012

About 70 percent of retired three-and-four star generals took jobs with defense contractors or consultants, according to a report released Monday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Brave New Foundation. Huffington Post:

The report found that 76 out of 108 top generals took such jobs from 2009 to 2011, and a few continued to advise the Department of Defense while on the payroll of contractors. The report cited Gen. James Cartwright, who was elected to a paid position on Raytheon’s board of directors while serving on the Defense Policy Board. Adm. Gary Roughead also served on the board while joining the board of Northrop Grumman, earning $115,000 per year.

While this kind of legalized corruption is the essence of the revolving door associated with the military-industrial complex in the United States, this number has actually declined slightly in recent years.

In a Boston Globe review conducted in 2010, it was found that “750 of the highest ranking generals and admirals who retired during the last two decades” moved “into what many in Washington call the ‘rent-a-general’ business.” “From 2004-2008,” the report found, “80 percent of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives” in our massive military-industrial complex. Among the Globe findings:

Dozens of retired generals employed by defense firms maintain Pentagon advisory roles, giving them unparalleled levels of influence and access to inside information on Department of Defense procurement plans.

The generals are, in many cases, recruited for private sector roles well before they retire, raising questions about their independence and judgment while still in uniform. The Pentagon is aware and even supports this practice.

Read more

November 21, 2012
By Kevin Ryan

In the summer of 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Robert Wright, a counterterrorism expert from the Chicago office, made some startling claims about the Bureau in a written statement outlining the difficulties he had doing his job. Three months before 9/11, he wrote: “The FBI has proven for the past decade it cannot identify and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens at home and abroad. Even worse, there is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing within the United States.”[1]

Revelations since 9/11 have confirmed Wright’s claims. FBI management did little or nothing to stop terrorism in the decade before 9/11 and, in some cases, appeared to have supported terrorists. This is more disturbing considering that the power of the FBI over terrorism investigations was supreme. In 1998, the FBI’s strategic plan stated that terrorist activities fell “almost exclusively within the jurisdiction of the FBI” and that “the FBI has no higher priority than to combat terrorism.”[2]

A number of people are suspect in these failures, including the leaders of the FBI’s counterterrorism programs. But at the time of Wright’s written complaint, which was not shared with the public until May 2002, the man most responsible was Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI from 1993 to 2001.

Agent Wright was not FBI leadership’s only detractor, and not the only one to criticize Freeh. The public advocacy law firm Judicial Watch, which prosecutes government abuse and corruption, rejoiced at the news of Freeh’s May 2001 resignation.[3] Judicial Watch pointed to a “legacy of corruption” at the FBI under Freeh, listing the espionage scandal at Los Alamos National Laboratories, as well as “Filegate, Waco, the Ruby Ridge cover-up, the Olympic bombing frame-up of Richard Jewell, [and] falsification of evidence concerning the Oklahoma City bombing.”[4]

Judicial Watch said that Director Freeh believed he was above the law. The group went on to say that Freeh was “a man so corrupt he destroyed the office he led, and a man so cowardly he refuses to face the music for the illegalities he has allegedly committed.”[5] To this was added a claim that the FBI under Freeh was being directed by sinister yet unknown forces. ”In case after case throughout the 1990′s, the FBI seems to have tailored its investigative efforts to fit somebody’s pre-arranged script. The question is, who wrote that script — and why?”

Freeh became FBI Director on July 19, 1993, just five months after the first WTC bombing, three months after the Waco siege, and one day before the alleged suicide of Hillary Clinton’s former Rose Law Firm associate, deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster. Freeh’s predecessor was William Sessions.

Prior to his appointment by President Clinton, Freeh was a federal judge. He had been selected for that position by President George H.W. Bush in 1991. Before that, Freeh had been an Assistant District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and an FBI field agent.

Freeh was involved with U.S. counter-terrorism efforts for many years prior to his appointment as FBI Director in 1993. As an FBI agent he worked for the New York Field Office, which led the FBI’s counterterrorism effort. It was later the lead field office for Bin Laden investigations and was the first to establish a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) of state and federal law enforcement and intelligence personnel. Freeh worked there for seven years until he was promoted to Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1981. Throughout the 1980s, Freeh worked with or for U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City on 9/11.

Although Clinton was a Democrat, after his appointment as FBI Director Freeh immediately began forming alliances with Republicans in Congress. This apparently caused difficulty between the FBI and Clinton’s White House. Freeh also developed a secret relationship with his former supporter, former President George H. W. Bush. He used that relationship to communicate with the Saudi royal family without Clinton’s knowledge.[6]

Ignoring or facilitating domestic terrorism

Just five months before Freeh’s appointment as FBI Director, the World Trade Center (WTC) was bombed in an attack that killed six people and wounded a thousand others. It was blamed on a Pakistani-Kuwaiti by the name of Ramzi Yousef, along with about half a dozen others. However, as the New York Times reported, it was clear that the FBI was somehow involved as well.

“Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.”[7]

The 1993 WTC bombing was a terrorist operation that had been infiltrated by the FBI but the role that the FBI played in trying to prevent that operation, or allow it to go forward, has never been revealed. What has been revealed is that forensic data was falsified and “conclusions were altered to help the government’s case.”[8] These facts were revealed by Frederick Whitehurst, the chemist and supervisory special agent in charge of the FBI’s crime lab who became a whistleblower. The altered conclusions that Whitehurst described were made under the leadership of Louis Freeh.

A similar case occurred in April 1995, when the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (OKC) was bombed, killing 168 people including 19 children. Investigators have since learned that the FBI played a role in that bombing as well. Reasons that the OKC bombing was suspicious include the fact that there were secondary explosives found in the building that were not reported as part of the official account. And as with the events of 9/11, the FBI immediately confiscated, and refused to release, security videos that would have revealed what actually happened.[9]

Freeh’s colleague and personal friend, Larry Potts, was the FBI supervisor who was responsible for the tragedies at Ruby Ridge in 1992, and Waco in 1993. Potts was then given responsibility for investigating the Oklahoma City bombing.[10] Later it was claimed by one of the convicted conspirators that lead bomber Timothy McVeigh was actually acting under the direction of Potts.[11] As an apparent reward for Potts’ performance, in May 1995 Freeh promoted him to be his number two man as Deputy Director of the FBI. Two months later, Freeh removed Potts from that position due to public outrage at the appointment.

On the FBI links to the OKC bombing, author Peter Dale Scott wrote — “One such case of a penetrated operation “gone wrong” in 1993 might be attributed to confusion, bureaucratic incompetence, or the problems of determining when sufficient evidence had been gathered to justify arrests. A repeated catastrophe two years later raises the question whether the lethal outcome was not intended.”[12].

The result of the OKC bombing in governmental terms was the passage of a new anti–terrorism law in April 1996. This was a bill that would be mirrored by the USA Patriot Act six years later, and it was described as representing an assault on civil liberties. The Houston Chronicle called the bill a “frightening” and “grievous” attack on domestic freedoms. But Louis Freeh supported it.

Because many Congressional representatives opposed the bill, it was passed only after having been watered down. In Freeh’s words, it had been “stripped… of just about every meaningful provision.”[13] Freeh’s call for this legislation to be more restrictive of civil liberties must be considered with the fact that his agency was accused of facilitating the event that precipitated the legislation.

One of the obstacles often cited as a root cause for the FBI not doing its anti-terrorism job effectively was “the Wall.” This was a set of procedures that restricted the flow of information between law enforcement officers pursuing criminal investigations and officers pursuing intelligence information via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The procedures, set out in a 1995 memo from deputy attorney general (and future 9/11 Commissioner) Jamie Gorelick, were seemingly intended to prevent the loss of evidence, due to technicalities, that might be obtained via a FISA warrant.[14] Because such losses were never actually experienced, later claims about “the Wall” appear to be weak excuses to explain why information was not shared or actions were not taken.

In July 1996, TWA Flight 800 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean just after taking off from JFK Airport in New York, killing all 230 people on board. Freeh later claimed that “No one knew what brought it down.”[15] Curiously, the FBI took over the investigation despite the fact that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had priority over the investigation as established by law. FBI agents then blocked attempts by the NTSB to interview witnesses.[16]

One month after the explosion, chemists at the FBI crime laboratory in Washington found traces of PETN, an explosive component of bombs and surface-to-air missiles, in the wreckage.[17] Despite this, in November 1997, the FBI closed its investigation and announced that “No evidence has been found which would indicate that a criminal act was the cause of the tragedy of TWA flight 800.”[18]

This reversal of findings was led by Freeh and Jamie Gorelick. After meeting with Freeh and Gorelick, James Kallstrom, the agent in charge of the New York office where the TWA 800 investigation was being handled, produced several unlikely explanations for the detection of the PETN. Although none of these hypotheses was probable, the FBI was able to convince the media to change the story.[19]

Louis Freeh was leading the FBI during the investigation into the 1993 WTC bombing, at the time of the OKC bombing, and at the time of the crash of TWA Flight 800. All of these events suggest the facilitation, or cover-up, of terrorist acts by the FBI. However, these were not the only indications that Louis Freeh was leading an agency that facilitated terrorism.

Read more


Ferdinando Imposimato Points to AE911truth Evidence

[Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt of a letter written by Italian Supreme Court President Ferdinando Imposimato for the Journal of 9/11 Studies. While AE911Truth does not speculate on who was involved in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, we applaud Imposimato for speaking out on this important issue, calling attention to the explosive 9/11 evidence, and, most importantly, pursuing justice.]

Ferdinando Imposimato is the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy and a former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations. He is the author or co-author of seven books on international terrorism, state corruption, and related matters, and a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy.

The reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), November 20, 2005, set forth the following conclusions: The airplanes that struck each of the Twin Towers caused a breach as well as an explosion evidenced by a giant fireball. The remaining jet fuel flowed onto the lower floors, sustaining the fires. The heat from the fires deformed the building structures and both towers collapsed completely from top to bottom. Very little that was of any size remained after these events except steel as well as aluminum fragments and the pulverized dust from the concrete floors.

World Trade Center 7 also collapsed–in a way that was inconsistent with the common experience of engineers. All three buildings collapsed completely, but Building 7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7’s collapse violated common experience and was unprecedented.

The NIST report does not analyze the actual nature of the collapses. According to experts at the Toronto Hearings (Sept. 8-11, 2011), the collapses had features that indicate controlled explosions. I agree with architect Richard Gage and engineer Jon Cole, both highly experienced professionals [from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – now numbering 1,700 strong], who have arrived at their conclusions through reliable tests, scientific proof, and the visual testimony of people above suspicion, including firefighters and victims. The authoritative theologian David Ray Griffin has described very precisely why the hypothesis of controlled demolition should be taken into consideration. Various witnesses heard bursts of explosions.

According to NIST the collapse of Building 7 was due to fires provoked by the collapse of the twin towers. Chemist and independent researcher Kevin Ryan, however, has demonstrated that NIST gave contradictory versions of the collapse of Building 7. In a preliminary report NIST declared that WTC7 was destroyed because of fires provoked by diesel fuel stored in the building, while in a second report this fuel was no longer considered the cause of the building’s collapse. Additional comments on the NIST version of events have been made by David Chandler, another expert witness at the Journal of 9/11 Studies Letters, September 2012 Toronto Hearings. Despite NIST’s claim of three distinct phases of collapse, Chandler pointed out that many available videos show that for about two and a half seconds the acceleration of the building cannot be distinguished from freefall. NIST has been obliged to agree with this empirical fact as pointed out by Chandler, and now understandable by everyone.

The only possibility for achieving justice is to submit the best evidence concerning the involvement of specific individuals in 9/11 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and ask him to investigate according to the articles 12, 13, 15 and 17, letters a and b, of the Statute of the ICC, recalling also the preamble of the Statute:

“Recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and the well being of the world,”

“Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation, ”

“Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prosecution of such crimes, Recalling that the duty of every state to exercise its jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes, … ”

Better Tag Cloud