Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Archive for December, 2013

12/27/2013
911 Blogger.com

Want to take a peak at what is in those 28 pages that were blacked out of the Joint Inquiry?

A meeting between Prince Bandar, the brother in law of the head of Saudi Intelligence, and Governor George Bush, CIA headquarters is named after his father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bush_Center_for_Intelligence#cite_note-cia_vt-1

“My dad told me before I make up my mind, go and talk to Bandar. One, he’s our friend. Our means America, not just the Bush family. Number two, he knows everyone around the world who counts. And number three, he will give you his view on what he sees happening in the world.”

“There are people who are your enemies in this country,” Bush said, “who also think my dad is your friend.”
“So?” asked Bandar, not asking who, though the reference was obviously to supporters of Israel, among others.
Bush said in so many words that the people who didn’t want his dad to win in 1992 would also be against him if he ran. They were the same people who didn’t like Bandar.

“Can I give you one advice?” Bandar asked.
“What?”
“Mr. Governor, tell me you really want to be president of the United States.”
Bush said yes.
“And if you tell me that. I want to tell you one thing. To hell with Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn’t, who likes Bandar or doesn’t. Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understand that, and that will make sure they help you.”
Bush recognized the Godfather’s advice. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. But he seemed uncomfortable and remarked that that wasn’t particularly honest.
“Never mind if you really want to be honest,” Bandar said. “This is not a confession booth. If you really want to stick to that, just enjoy this term and go do something fun. In the big boy’s game, it’s cuttthroat, it’s bloody and it’s not pleasant.” -pages 4-5
http://www.amazon.com/State-Denial-Bush-War-Part/dp/B0016HLI9S#reader_B0016HLI9S

In June 1999, while Governor of Texas, Bush announced his candidacy for President of the United States.

While George Bush would win the Presidential election in Late 2000, and a new Vice President, a new Secretary of Defense, a new Secretary of State, and a new National Security Advisor would take their offices. The CIA Director would remain the same. So would the counter terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke but for some unexplained reason Clarke was demoted with the arrival of the new Administration.

“Some CIA sources say that George Tenet set the tone for the CIA’s Saudi relationship by relying heavily on developing close relationships with top Saudi officials, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, then the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Tenet met regularly with the Saudi ambassador. CIA officers familiar with the agency’s relationship with Saudi Arabia say that about once a month, Tenet would slip away from CIA headquarters and travel to Bandar’s nearby estate in McLean, Virginia, for quiet talks.”

“Bandar and Tenet had a very close relationship,” said one CIA officer. “Bandar had a unique role, he was in charge of the American relationship for Saudi Arabia.”

“But some CIA officers handling Saudi issues complain that Tenet would not tell them what he had discussed with Bandar, making it difficult for agency officials to know the nature of any deals their boss was arranging with the Saudis.” page 188
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743270665/centerforcoop-20#noop

Meanwhile “The Planes Operation” which was an idea of KSM and his former co-horts Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad and known about for years by the intelligence agencies*(1) which is one reason why he was already wanted under a sealed indictment, was no longer an idea, but was becoming operational. CIA and NSA were monitoring Al Qaeda’s communication switchboard in Yemen where future 9/11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar happened to live and so knew of a planned meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Read more

Dual-citizen nominee’s lifetime benefit to Israel comes at a heavy cost to America

by Grant Smith
December 28, 2013

The rushed campaign to insert Stanley Fischer straight from his position leading Israel’s central bank into the number two spot at the Federal Reserve has allowed little time for research into the appointee’s career or for informed public debate about his record. Like the failed recent Obama administration-Israel lobby pincer move to ram approval for U.S. military strikes on Syria through Congress, avoiding such due diligence through velocity may actually be the only means for successful Senate confirmation.

Some of Fischer’s accomplishments – from co-authoring a seminal textbook on macroeconomics to handling economic crisis at the IMF have – not surprisingly – been recalled by his many supporters. Other doings that shed light on Fischer’s controversial attributes – such as overhauling how U.S. aid and trade packages are delivered to Israel – have been mostly ignored. Appointing an openly dual Israeli-American citizen into the most important central bank in the world could be a watershed moment. While the doors of federal government have long swung open for Israel-lobby appointees focusing most – if not all – their energies on advancing the interests of a foreign state, any who were actually Israeli dual citizens have traditionally kept that a closely-guarded secret. Fischer’s long-term boosters, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), likely want to accustom Americans to openly dual citizens circulating between top roles in the U.S. and Israeli governments. A closer examination of Fischer reveals that average Americans have good reason to oppose his appointment, because his lifelong achievements for Israel have imposed high costs and few benefits to the United States while making peace more difficult to achieve.

Read more

John Glaser
December 20, 2013
Antiwar.com


The big, scary terrorism argument for having an unwieldy and unconstitutional NSA surveillance apparatus has been slowly disintegrating since the start of Snowden’s leaks. This week was really the death knell, with all three branches of government agreeing, at least, that the bulk metadata program doesn’t actually thwart terrorists.

The Washington Post:

From the moment the government’s massive database of citizens’ call records was exposed this year, U.S. officials have clung to two main lines of defense: The secret surveillance program was constitutional and critical to keeping the nation safe.

But six months into the controversy triggered by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the viability of those claims is no longer clear.

In a three-day span, those rationales were upended by a federal judge who declared that the program was probably unconstitutional and the release of a report by a White House panel utterly unconvinced that stockpiling such data had played any meaningful role in preventing terrorist attacks.

But there is more evidence that the terrorism justification for these programs is bullshit. Today the New York Times reports that “Secret documents reveal more than 1,000 targets of American and British surveillance in recent years, including the office of an Israeli prime minister, heads of international aid organizations, foreign energy companies and a European Union official involved in antitrust battles with American technology businesses.”

It’s funny how NSA officials, when they are pulled onto Capitol Hill to testify in front of Congress, never mention the fact that a large part of NSA surveillance targets allies and bureaucratic heads of innocuous aid organizations. It’s hard to create domestic political acceptance of Big Brother when not even the most paranoid phobic considers their surveillance targets a threat.

Read more

By Pepe Escobar
Dec. 23, 2013
Asia Times Online.com

The big story of 2014 will be Iran. Of course, the big story of the early 21st century will never stop being US-China, but it’s in 2014 that we will know whether a comprehensive accord transcending the Iranian nuclear program is attainable; and in this case the myriad ramifications will affect all that’s in play in the New Great Game in Eurasia, including US-China.

As it stands, we have an interim deal of the P5+1 (the UN Security Council’s five permanent members plus Germany) with Iran, and no deal between the US and Afghanistan. So, once again, we have Afghanistan configured as a battleground between Iran and the House of Saud, part of a geopolitical game played out in overdrive since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 along the northern rim of the Middle East all the way to Khorasan and South Asia.

Then there’s the element of Saudi paranoia, extrapolating from the future of Afghanistan to the prospect of a fully “rehabilitated” Iran becoming accepted by Western political/financial elites. This, by the way, has nothing to do with that fiction, the “international community”; after all, Iran was never banished by the BRICS, (ie Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), the Non-Aligned Movement and the bulk of the developing world.

Read more

By Ray McGovern
Press TV
December 26, 2013

Fifty years ago, exactly one month after John Kennedy was killed, the Washington Post published an op-ed titled “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.” The first sentence of that op-ed on Dec. 22, 1963, read, “I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency.”

It sounded like the intro to a bleat from some liberal professor or journalist. Not so. The writer was former President Harry S. Truman, who spearheaded the establishment of the CIA 66 years ago, right after World War II, to better coordinate US intelligence gathering. But the spy agency had lurched off in what Truman thought were troubling directions.

Sadly, those concerns that Truman expressed in that op-ed — that he had inadvertently helped create a Frankenstein monster — are as valid today as they were 50 years ago, if not more so.

Truman began his article by underscoring “the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency … and what I expected it to do.” It would be “charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without Department ‘treatment’ or interpretations.”

Truman then moved quickly to one of the main things bothering him. He wrote “the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.”

It was not difficult to see this as a reference to how one of the agency’s early directors, Allen Dulles, tried to trick President Kennedy into sending US forces to rescue the group of invaders who had landed on the beach at the Bay of Pigs, Cuba, in April 1961 with no chance of success, absent the speedy commitment of US air and ground support.

Read more

Yesterday New York Times Chief Washington Correspondent David Sanger was the guest on CSPAN’s Washington Journal, where he had this to say about Building 7’s collapse:

“We have not found any evidence so far – that doesn’t mean there’s none there – but we’ve not found any evidence so far to suggest that the building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes that flew into them.”

Sanger was responding to a question from a caller who wanted to know why, despite the massive billboard standing right outside the New York Times Building, the paper of record had failed to “fairly and objectively cover this crucial issue.”

Now with a senior representative of the New York Times on the record saying, “We’ve not found any evidence so far,” it is time to let Sanger and the editors know that the evidence is there. All they need to do is look and they’ll easily find it. Contact the NY Times Today!

Last week over 1,000 people contacted the BBC in response to our action alert regarding the BBC’s one-sided article on the ReThink911 campaign. Let’s surpass that level of support today. Please take 2 minutes right now to contact David Sanger and the NY Times editors. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.

To: dasang@nytimes.com, washington@nytimes.com, metro@nytimes.com, national@nytimes.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, nytnews@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com

Bcc: NYTimesOutreach@AE911Truth.org

Dear Mr. Sanger and Editors of the New York Times,

On Sunday, December 23, 2013, you, Mr. Sanger, told a caller on CSPAN’s Washington Journal that the New York Times had not found any evidence so far to suggest that the collapse of WTC Building 7 was caused by anything other than an indirect result of the airplanes flying into the Twin Towers. I am writing to tell you that the evidence is indeed there, and I urge you to look into it. 2,100 architects and engineers have signed a petition at AE911Truth.org calling for a new investigation based on this evidence. The following points are just a few from among the growing body of evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Building 7 came down by controlled demolition.

Building 7 accelerated downward at absolute free-fall for the first few seconds of its 7-second symmetrical collapse.

However, a building cannot undergo free-fall if it is meeting any resistance from any of the columns below it, as any resistance would slow the building’s descent.

Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been “crushed” by the upper freely falling section.

The destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building had to have been accomplished by other means, i.e. explosives or incendiaries, to allow the upper section of the building to fall through it in free-fall. Learn more about the free-fall of Building 7.

There is clear evidence of melted steel at Building 7, first reported on by the NY Times, and incendiaries in numerous dust samples from Ground Zero.

As you well understand, the implications of the controlled demolition of Building 7 are extraordinary, since it is integral to the 9/11 events, and therefore the question of what happened to Building 7 is of the greatest importance. I thank you in advance for taking the time to seriously examine this crucial issue.

Sincerely,

[Name, address]

Written by AE911Truth Staff
Thursday, 19 December 2013 14:04
A DVD by Massimo Mazzucco

Review of the Film by Simon Day and Commentary on the Italian Premiere by AE911Truth Staff

The DVD reviewed here is quite important for the 9/11 Truth movement generally. However, it ventures far outside the scope of AE911Truth’s mission and area of expertise. While we review, and wholeheartedly embrace, the excellent segments of the DVD that cover the World Trade Center evidence, we specifically do not endorse, or even discuss, the other three hours of material on the DVD.

Award-winning director Massimo Mazzucco commands the debate with the “debunkers” in this powerful new documentary about the 9/11 Truth Movement’s challenge to the official conspiracy theories of 9/11.

In September 1997, “The Project for the New American Century,” a Washington, DC-based US think tank, was founded with the purpose of promoting US global leadership. In September 2000, they published a report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.” In this document, we find the following statement: “[T]he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Wind the clock on another year to the devastating events of September 11th, 2001, and we have a plausible candidate for this New Pearl Harbor. This is the case made by Massimo Mazzucco in his superb new DVD, September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor. This epic production stands head and shoulders above most of the other offerings that try to span the spectrum of the events on 9/11. So what makes this one so special? For me, there are three key points to be highlighted.

Read more

Dec. 19, 2013
Interview from the Corbett Report

On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act we talk to G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, about America’s central bank. We discuss the origins and functions of this monstrosity, as well as its role in maintaining and expanding the wealth and power base of the banking cartel that own and operate it. We also discuss the growing public awareness of the Fed and the rising movement of those seeking to abolish it.

ABC News
By AARON KATERSKY and RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Dec. 20, 2013

Families of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks today celebrated a federal court’s ruling that allows relatives of people who died in the 9/11 terror attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.

Most of the hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001 were from Saudi Arabia, and the complaint states that much of the funding for the al-Qaeda terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.

An attempt to Saudi Arabia in 2002 was blocked by a federal court ruling that said the kingdom had sovereign immunity. That ruling was reversed Thursday by a three-judge federal panel.

“I’m ecstatic…. For 12 years we’ve been fighting to expose the people who financed those bastards,” said William Doyle, the father of Joseph Doyle, 25, a Cantor-Fitzgerald employee who was killed in the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

“Christmas has come early to the 9/11 families. We’re going to have our day in court,” he told ABCNews.com.

The ruling struck down an earlier decision that found Saudi Arabia immune from lawsuits. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it’s in the “interests of justice” to allow them to proceed.

Families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks and insurers who lost billions of dollars covering damaged businesses have alleged Saudi Arabia bankrolled al-Qaeda, knowing the money would be used for terrorism.

The lawsuit, filed a decade ago by the Philadelphia firm Cozen O’Connor, accuses the Saudi government and members of the royal family of serving on charities that financed al-Qaeda operations.

Source

Reid Allows Bill to Bypass Committees, Vote Likely in January

by Jason Ditz
December 20, 2013
Antiwar.com

Yesterday’s open letter from Senate committee leaders warning against the Iran sanctions bill appears to have had the opposite effect, as Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D – NV) is said to have decided to bypass the committees outright and could bring the bill to a vote as soon as January.

The bill would impose yet more sanctions on Iran’s oil industry, violating the interim P5+1 deal with Iran and likely ruining ongoing diplomacy with the nation. President Obama has promised to veto the bill, warning it would sabotage the talks and might lead to a war.

Senate hawks like Lindsey Graham (R – SC), for whom that is the entire point, have promised to secure a veto-proof majority of 67 Senators for the bill, and early reports are that some 50 are now looking to be co-sponsors, suggesting that’s a real possibility.

In addition to imposing new sanctions on Iran, the bill also expresses Senate support for an Israeli attack on Iran at any time, pledging American support to such a war whenever it is launched.

Better Tag Cloud