Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Archive for June, 2014

Written by AE911Truth

All over the country this Independence Day, 9/11 Truth activists will be handing out a new brochure: “9/11 Truth: Good for America!” at Independence Day parades, picnics, and fireworks displays! We’ve got a patriotic message to share with our fellow Americans, and we are not shying away from our task this year. Join us in this nationwide public education effort!

The beautifully patriotic brochure comes complete with all positive benefits of the 9/11 Truth message — along with an insert highlighting the key evidence at the World Trade Center.

Activists can download the artwork at no cost and print it locally — either in color or in black-and-white, and either with the insert or without. Local groups can also customize the back section with information on your own 9/11 Truth group!

 

 

 

 

 

You can order this large vinyl banner now from our store in wide style or sidewalk width.

San Francisco 9/11 Truth activists will be out in full force on I with you!

“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts.” — Abraham Lincoln From inside the brochure:

 

Mounting forensic evidence, along with the testimony of thousands of experts in architecture, engineering, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, and related fields, has disproved the official narrative. The political and socio-economic changes that are resulting from the disclosure of what really happened on 9/11 are overwhelmingly positive. Indeed, after people process their initial shock at realizing that the World Trade Center evidence points to an internal operation — not the work of Muslim airplane-hijacking terrorists — they are often empowered by a newfound energy and zeal to act in positive ways that will benefit our country’s future.

Read more

by Russ Baker
June 27, 2014

Capture36-300x261
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, alleged 9/11 architect, after his 2003 arrest

What in the world is the FBI up to at Guantanamo? Why is it harassing the defense team of the accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his alleged accomplices?

The FBI is hip-deep in yet another dubious activity but, this time, even the not-so-adventurous New York Times is kinda-sorta on the trail. The self-proclaimed “paper of record” has produced several articles, albeit confusing ones, on the mysterious doings of our much-vaunted national police force.

What should be made clear is that by connecting a few dots, one can make out a major—even explosive—story hiding just out of plain sight. This story has a lot to do with the larger pattern of FBI misbehavior and points to at least one of the reasons why we never get better, more complete answers about the events of 9/11.

***

Readers of WhoWhatWhy are familiar with a growing litany of troubling actions on the part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the last few years (see for example this, this and this), compounding a disturbing legacy that has attended the outfit for much of its history. The Bureau has occasionally been scrutinized by the media, but as our Steve Weinberg reported, the G-men and journalists have just as often colluded to keep the public in the dark.

Now, for whatever reason, the New York Times has started to dig into….something. Unfortunately, the presentation is so grueling to get through and the core of the story so buried that it is impossible to say for sure what is going on.

It’s possible that neither the reporter, his editor, nor even conceivably their sources in the Guantanamo defense team understand the full magnitude of the story.

We can only guess that what’s at stake here is the FBI’s need to bury evidence of its own behavior—a baffling combination of incompetence and what seem to be deliberate actions running counter to the public’s s interest in full disclosure of events leading up to the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

For some perspective, we’d point you to reporting we did a while back about a prominent Saudi family living in South Florida—a family connected to a Saudi prince responsible for aviation issues—that interacted directly with a number of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. In that case, the FBI investigated hijacker visits and phone calls tied to the family’s house in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida, near where a number of the 9/11 suspects trained to fly planes.

Since shutting down that investigation, the Bureau has tried to act as if it never happened.

Connection? What Connection?

Read more

by Paul Craig Roberts
June 25, 2014

A final number for real US GDP growth in the first quarter of 2014 was released today. The number is not the 2.6% growth rate predicted by the know-nothing economists in January of this year. The number is a decline in GDP of -2.9 percent.

The negative growth rate of -2.9 percent is itself an understatement. This number was achieved by deflating nominal GDP with an understated measure of inflation. During the Clinton regime, the Boskin Commission rigged the inflation measure in order to cheat Social Security recipients out of their cost-of-living adjustments. Anyone who purchases food, fuel, or anything knows that inflation is much higher than the officially reported number.

It is possible that the drop in first quarter real GDP is three times the official number.

Regardless, the difference is large between the January forecast of +2.6 percent growth and the decline as of the end of March of -2.9 percent.

Any economist who is real and unpaid by Wall Street, the government, or the Establishment knew that the +2.6 percent forecast was a crock. Americans’ incomes have not grown except for the one percent, and the only credit growth is in student loans, as those many who cannot find jobs mistakenly turn to “education is the answer.” In an economy based on consumer demand, the absence of income and credit growth means no economic growth.

The US economy cannot grow because corporations pushed by Wall Street have moved the US economy offshore. US manufactured products are made offshore. Look at the labels on your clothes, your shoes, your eating and cooking utensils, your computers, whatever. US professional jobs such as software engineering have been moved offshore. An economy with an offshored economy is not an economy. All of this happened in full view, while well-paid free market shills declared that Americans were benefiting from giving America’s middle class jobs to China and India.

Read more

by Ted Snider
June 26, 2014
Antiwar.com

Once in a while the inconsistencies in American foreign policy become sufficiently clear to reveal the consistency in American foreign policy. Three contemporary inconsistencies in Iraq and Syria, all clearly connected, converge to throw America’s consistent foreign policy into sharp relief.

In an astonishing shift of geopolitical realities, America finds itself, literally, at war with itself. Though Syria and Iraq are consistently presented as two separate stories – the one in Syria as a hopeful rebellion; the one in Iraq as a terrorist uprising – the protagonist of the first story is the same character as the one cast as the antagonist in the second. As Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett have said, “Washington elites are effectively compartmentalizing these stories – but, in fact, they are intimately related.” In Iraq, America opposes the Sunni rebellion led by ISIS; in Syria, America is backing the Sunni rebellion where, as Juan Cole has put it, the “most effective opposition is ISIS.” So when Obama says at his West Point commencement that he will “ramp up” American support for Sunni rebels in Syria, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, using the same phrase, explains that “the United States has ramped up its support . . . providing lethal and non-lethal support where we can to support both the civilian opposition and the military opposition” in one policy discussion, and then the President announces that he is sending nearly 300 marines and 300 special forces to Iraq as advisors in another policy discussion, the translation is that America is arming and advising both sides of the same war: that America is providing lethal support against its own marines and special forces. In a war with two fronts, with increasingly porous borders blending it increasingly into one front, America is fighting for opposing sides on each front: in a stark exposition of foreign policy inconsistency, America is effectively fighting itself.

But it’s not an inconsistency. It is only an inconsistency if your premise about American foreign policy is that it has anything to do with aiding the foreign country for which the policy is designed. If that premise were true, then ISIS couldn’t be a terrorist organization and a liberation army simultaneously. But if you change the premise and accept the unalterable facts on the ground, that American foreign policy is really an instrument of domestic policy, that it is designed to benefit American, and not foreign, interests, then the inconsistency disappears. It is not inconsistent to fight with ISIS on one front and against ISIS on the other if fighting with ISIS brings about a favorable American outcome on one front and fighting against ISIS brings about a favorable American outcome on the other. The consistency is the favorable American outcome on both fronts. The ironic choice of partners is merely the means to those consistent ends.

You can’t change the facts. So you have to change your premises to make sense of the facts. The fact is, America is fighting against itself: with ISIS and the Sunni rebels in Syria and against them in Iraq. That leaves only figuring out the premise. What is the consistent goal to be attained by the inconsistent means without which American foreign policy makes no sense?

America has long sought to remove Bashar Al-Assad because it viewed Syria as the closest and most important ally of Iran. But it seemed to take America longer to realize that part of the blowback from its regime change in Iraq was that that was no longer true. The closest and most important ally of Iran was now Nouri al-Maliki’s Iraq. The consistent goal on both fronts of the war seems to be the weakening of Iran by the severing or weakening of Iran’s alliances.

Read more

by Paul Craig Roberts
June 24, 2014.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is trying to save the world from war. We should all help him.

Today Putin’s presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov reported that President Putin has asked the Russian legislature to repeal the authorization to use force that was granted in order to protect residents of former Russian territories that are currently part of Ukraine from the rabid Russophobic violence that characterizes Washington’s stooge government in Kiev.

Washington’s neoconservatives are jubilant. They regard Putin’s diplomacy as a sign of weakness and fear, and urge stronger steps that will force Russia to give back Crimea and the Black Sea naval base.

Inside Russia, Washington is encouraging its NGO fifth columns to undercut Putin’s support with propaganda that Putin is afraid to stand up for Russians and has sold out Ukraine’s Russian population. If this propaganda gains traction, Putin will be distracted by street protests. The appearance of Putin’s domestic weakness would embolden Washington. Many members of Russia’s young professional class are swayed by Washington’s propaganda. Essentially, these Russians, brainwashed by US propaganda, are aligned with Washington, not with the Kremlin.

Putin has placed his future and that of his country on a bet that Russian diplomacy can prevail over Washington’s bribes, threats, blackmail, and coercion. Putin is appealing to Western Europeans. Putin is saying, “I am not the problem. Russia is not the problem. We are reasonable. We are ignoring Washington’s provocations. We want to work things out and to find a peaceful solution.”

Washington is saying: “Russia is a threat. Putin is the new Hitler. Russia is the enemy. NATO and the US must begin a military buildup against the Russian Threat, rush troops and jet fighters to Eastern European NATO bases on Russia’s frontier. G-8 meetings must be held without Russia. Economic sanctions must be put on Russia regardless of the damage the sanctions do to Europe.” And so forth.

Putin says: “I’m here for you. Let’s work this out.”

Washington says: “Russia is the enemy.”

Read more

By John W. Whitehead
June 23, 2014
rutherford.org

“[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.”
—U.S. Supreme Court Justice William.Douglas

The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you—even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.

Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of security.In Wood v. Moss (2014), the Court granted “qualified immunity” to Secret Service officials who relocated anti-Bush protesters, despite concerns raised that the protesters’ First Amendment right to freely speak, assemble, and petition their government leaders had been violated. These decisions, part of a recent trend toward granting government officials “qualified immunity”—they are not accountable for their actions—in lawsuits over alleged constitutional violations, merely incentivize government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion.

Read more

by Patrick J. Buchanan
June 24, 2014
Antiwar.com

With the Islamic warriors of ISIS having captured all the border posts between Iraq, Syria and Jordan, we may be witnessing the end of Sykes-Picot.

That was the secret 1916 treaty by which the British and French carved up the Ottoman Empire, with the Brits taking Transjordan and Iraq, and the French Syria and Lebanon.

Sykes-Picot stuck in the craw of Osama bin Laden. Now his most fanatical followers have given him a posthumous triumph.

President Obama said over the weekend that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which seeks to create a caliphate out of the Sunni lands of Syria and Iraq it occupies, poses a threat to the United States.

Obama has thus committed 300 special forces to assist Iraq’s defeated and demoralized army, and there is talk of U.S. air and missile strikes and drone attacks on ISIS, in Syria as well as in Iraq.

That would constitute a new war. Yet the president, who taught constitutional law, says he does not need Congressional authorization.

Read more

By Pepe Escobar
June 20, 2014
Asia Times Online.com

Let’s cut to the chase. As in chasing that Zara outdoor summer collection, complete with state of the art assault rifles, brand new white Nike sneakers and brand new, unlimited mileage white Toyotas crossing the Syrian-Iraqi desert; the Badass Jihadis in Black.

Once upon a (very recent) time, the US government used to help only “good terrorists” (in Syria), instead of “bad terrorists”. That was an echo of a (less recent) time when it was supporting only “good Taliban” and not “bad Taliban”.

So what happens when Brookings Institution so-called “experts” start blabbering that the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) is really the baddest jihadi outfit on the planet (after all they were cast out of al-Qaeda)? Are they so badass that by warped newspeak logic they’re now the new normal?

Since late last year, according to US government newspeak, the “good terrorists” in Syria are the al-Qaeda spinoff gang of Jabhat al-Nusra and (disgraced) Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, the Islamic Front (essentially a Jabhat al-Nusra multiple outlet). And yet both Jabhat and ISIS had pledged allegiance to Ayman “the doctor” al-Zawahiri, the perennial gift that keeps on giving al-Qaeda capo.

That still leaves the question of what Men in Black ISIS, the catwalk-conscious beheading stormtroopers for a basket of hardcore tribal Sunnis and Ba’ath party “remnants” (remember Rummy in 2003?) are really up to.

We interrupt this desert catwalk to announce they will NOT invade Baghdad. On the other hand, they are busy accelerating the balkanization – and eventual partition – of both Syria and Iraq. They are NOT a CIA brainchild (how come Langley never thought about it?); they are in fact the bastard children of (disgraced) Bandar Bush’s credit card largesse.

The fact that ISIS is NOT directly in Langley’s payroll does not imply their strategic agenda essentially differs from that of the Empire of Chaos. The Obama administration may be sending a few marines to protect the swimming pools of the largest, Vatican-sized embassy on Planet Earth, plus a few “military advisers” to “retrain” the dissolving Iraqi Army. But that’s a drop of Coke Zero in the Western Iraqi desert. There’s no evidence Obama is about to authorize “kinetic support” against ISIS, even though Baghdad has already green-lighted it.

Even if Obama went ballistic (“targeted military action”), and/or manufactured a new kill list to be itemized by his drones, that would amount to no more than a little diversion. What matters is that the confluent ISIS/Beltway agenda remains the same; get rid of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki (not by accident the new meme in US corporate media); curb Iran’s political/economic influence over Iraq; fundamentally erase Sykes-Picot; and promote the “birth pangs” (remember Condi?) of vast wastelands bypassing centralized power and run by hardcore tribal Sunnis.

For the Empire of Chaos, ISIS is the agent provocateur that fell from (Allah’s?) Heaven; the perfect ski mask-clad tool to keep the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in Enduring Freedom Forever mode.

The icing in the (melted) cake is that the House of Saud has officially denied support of ISIS. So this means it’s true, even over Bandar Bush’s carcass. Cue to the official House of Saud and House of Thani narrative about ISIS: they are not in charge of what’s happening in Iraq. It’s all organized by the Ba’athist “remnants”.

Read more

Written by AE911Truth Staff
19 June 2014

Controversy Brims at Grand Opening of 9/11 Museum AE911Truth On-Site to Set The Record Straight

There was an awakening in New York last week as 9/11 Truth activists converged at the World Trade Centers for the Grand Opening of the September 11 Memorial Museum.

AE911Truth held a “What you won’t find in this 9/11 museum” press conference at the entrance to the Memorial Grounds, speaking to a gathered audience of about two dozen people.

Activist Rachel Colten, who handed out more than a dozen alternative museum guides, noted that people were very receptive to learning about really happened at the WTC on 9/11.

Walking the $700M sprawling 9/11 Memorial Grounds and Museum was a surreal experience for the AE911Truth activists who knew the truth.

Handing out thousands of alternative museum brochures that bore a striking resemblance to the official brochures, 9/11 Truth activists exposed the museum’s glaring omissions to throngs of visitors as they made their way to the Memorial.

Walking the $700M sprawling 9/11 Memorial Grounds and Museum was a surreal experience for the AE911Truth activists who knew the truth.The educational brochures created by AE911Truth were the same ones that caused CNN’s Jake Tapper, host of “The Lead,” to fly into an unprofessional and mean-spirited rampage earlier in the week. Falsely labeling AE911Truth a “conspiracy group” that is spreading “lies,” Tapper collaborated with Slate Senior Editor Emily Bazelon to denigrate those who work on behalf of the nonprofit organization, calling them insensitive to victims, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-corporation, crazy, and — get this — probable tax cheats.

Read more

Then ask yourself: “Did the laws of physics not apply on 9/11?”

Written by Carolyn Clark
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

This three-and-a-half-minute video — “9/11 In Perspective” — presents footage of eight buildings, ranging from nine to 62 floors, that have been either partially or fully engulfed in flames and yet remained standing despite massive internal destruction. Their major fires shown in these clips range from 1988 to 2008, and took place in U.S. cities (Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles) and abroad (Caracas, Madrid, Beijing, Delft).


“The truth is, before 9/11, the term global collapse didn’t even exist. Buildings survived fires, plane crashes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, botched demolitions and even nuclear explosions. Never, before or after 9/11, have we seen such catastrophic failures.”

Seeing the stubborn resilience of these high-rise steel structures makes one question the U.S. government’s contention that the Twin Towers were leveled by jet crashes and kerosene-fueled fires, and that a third building, World Trade Center 7, was destroyed by fires alone on September 11, 2001. In fact, after watching this video, it’s reasonable to ask oneself: “Which am I going to believe, the official conspiracy theory about 9/11 or my own eyes?”

In one instance, a Delft University of Technology building in The Netherlands sustained a minor, partial collapse due to fire. Even in this case, however, the collapse was localized and asymmetric, and it occurred at nowhere near free-fall acceleration. The narrator, Scootle Royale, points out that prior to 9/11, “the phrase ‘global collapse’ did not even exist,” and that both before and after 9/11, “fires, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, botched demolitions, and even nuclear explosions” have left buildings intact.” He concludes, “Never before or after 9/11 have we seen such catastrophic failures” as the 9/11 official conspiracy theorists would have us believe.

Better Tag Cloud