Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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


Archive for January, 2015

Thomas DiLorenzo
Jan. 20, 2015

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has now met all the necessary prerequisites to run for the Republican nomination: 1) He has met with Las Vegas billionaire Zionist Sheldon Adelson who reportedly educated him “about Israel”; 2) He has accepted at least $800,000 in campaign contributions from Adelson over a two-year period; and, most importantly; 3) He is planning a “mission”/pilgrimage to Israel.

No word yet on who will educate Walker “about America.”

When an event occurs that that fundamentally changes the dynamics of global geopolitics, there is one question above all others whose answer will most assuredly point to its perpetrators. That question is “Cui bono?” If those so indicted are in addition found to have had both motive and means then, as they say in the US, it’s pretty much a ‘slam-dunk’.

And so it is with the events of 9/11.

Discounting the ‘Official narrative’ as the absurdity it so clearly is, there are just two organisations on the entire planet with the expertise, assets, access and political protection necessary to have both executed 9/11 and effected its cover-up to date (ie the means). Both are Intelligence Agencies – the CIA and Israel’s Mossad whose motives were arguably the most compelling. Those motives dovetailed perfectly with the Neocon PNAC agenda, with it’s explicitly stated need for “…a catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” [1] in order to mobilise US public opinion for already planned wars, the effects of which would be to destroy Israel’s enemies.

This article marshals evidence for the proposition that “Israel did it”.

Control of World Trade Center Complex

The first step in preparations for the 9/11 attacks was to secure control of the World Trade Centre Complex itself. This was crucial because without complete control, the setting of explosive charges to bring down the towers would be next to impossible without serious risk of discovery.
Four key Zionist Network assets
Larry Silverstein
Frank Lowy
Ronald Lauder
Lewis Eisenberg

Larry Silverstein – Silverstein is a Jewish American businessman from New York. Larry obtained a 99 year lease on the entire world trade center complex on 24 July, 2001. [3] The towers were in fact close to worthless, being filled with asbestos, [4] yet Silverstein “felt a compelling urge to own them”. Silverstein had breakfast in “Windows on the World” restaurant (located in North Tower 107th Floor) every morning. [5] but was absent from this routine meeting on the morning of September the 11th. Silverstein’s two children, who also worked in the WTC, decided to take that day off as well. Larry Silverstein was paid a little over $4.5 Billion in insurance money as a result of the destruction of the WTC complex. [6] Silverstein was on personal friendship terms with Zionist media-magnate Rupert Murdoch, former Israeli president & infamous Zionist war criminal Ariel Sharon, as well as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. Silverstein was such good friends with Netanyahu that, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz he would speak with him on the phone every sunday. [7]

Frank Lowy [8]- Lowy, a Czechoslovakia born Jew, was the owner of Westfield America, one of the biggest shopping mall conglomerates in the world. Lowy leased the shopping concourse area called the Mall at the World Trade Center, made up of approximately 427,000 square feet of retail floor space.

Frank Lowy has an interesting history. He was a member of the Golani Brigade, and fought in the Israeli war of independence. Before this he was a member of Hagganah, a Jewish terrorist organization. He spends three months of the year at his home in Israel and has been described by the Sydney Morning Herald as “a self-made man with a strong interest in the Holocaust and Israeli politics.” He funded and launched the Israeli Institute for National Strategy and Policy, which will “operate within the framework of Tel Aviv University” in Israel. He is also close friends with many top Israeli officials such as Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, Bibi Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak. He was implicated in an Israeli Bank Scandal with Olmert. [9] Frank Lowy was not at the WTC on 9/11.

Lewis Eisenberg – Eisenberg was the head of the Port Authority of New York and authorized the lease transfer to Silverstein and Lowy. [10] Eisenberg was a large contributor to the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign, as well as a partner in the Jewish bank Goldman-Sachs. Eisenberg has been both a member of the Planning Board of the United Jewish Appeal/United Jewish Federation pro-Israeli government pressure group in the U.S. [11]

Ronald Lauder – Billionaire Estée Lauder Cosmetics magnate. He was the chairman of NY Governor George Pataki’s commission on privatization. He is the key individual who lobbied for the privatization of the WTC [12] — but he was also instrumental in the successful privatisation of the former Stewart Air Force Base. Oddly, the flight paths of flight 175 and flight 11 converged directly over this airport. Map

Lauder is active in the following organizations:

Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Jewish National Fund
World Jewish Congress
American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee
Anti-Defamation League
Jewish Theological Seminary.

Lauder was elected president of the World Jewish Congress on 10 June, 2007.

Lauder founded a school for the Mossad in Herzliya, Israel called the Lauder School of Government Diplomacy and Strategy. He is arguably the key Sayan in the preparation of 9/11.

Read more

January 16, 2015

The US Is an Elective Dictatorship

Empire’s Collateral Damage
by Nebojsa Malic
January 17, 2015

The January 7 massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine and the subsequent hostage standoff at a kosher supermarket – resulting in the death of 15 civilians, two police, and three terrorists – were much smaller in scope than the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US. Yet they have had almost the same impact, throwing not only France but much of Western Europe into turmoil and raising questions about Muslim immigration, foreign policy and government (in)competence.

But while the establishment is focusing hard on promoting its cognitive dissonance about “free speech” – while arresting dozens for voicing their opinions – and diversity, and the opposition talks about the dangers of Islamic immigration, the real elephant in the room goes unmentioned. Europe may well have a Muslim problem – but it definitely has an American Empire one.

False Flag or Failure?

It speaks volumes that the public’s trust has been depleted to such an extent by decades of Imperial propaganda (e.g. “Iraqi WMDs”) that in the aftermath of the attacks there was much speculation about them being a “false flag.” This is fueled in part by the confusing and conflicting mainstream media narrative about the attackers. They were identified with astonishing speed, but much about their background has remained in the realm of speculation: were they linked to Al-Qaeda in Yemen, or the jihadists in Syria, or both? Actual facts seem to be in short supply.

Read more

Paul Craig Roberts
Jan. 16, 2015

Neoconservatives arrayed in their Washington offices are congratulating themselves on their success in using the Charlie Hebdo affair to reunite Europe with Washington’s foreign policy. No more French votes with the Palestinians against the Washington-Israeli position. No more growing European sympathy with the Palestinians. No more growing European opposition to launching new wars in the Middle East. No more calls from the French president to end the sanctions against Russia.

Do the neoconservatives also understand that they have united Europeans with the right-wing anti-immigration political parties? The wave of support for the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists is the wave of Marine Le Pen’s National Front, Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party, and Germany’s PEGIDA sweeping over Europe. These parties are empowered by the anti-immigration fervor that was orchestrated in order to reunite Europeans with Washington and Israel.

Once again the arrogant and insolent neoconservatives have blundered. Charlie Hebdo’s empowerment of the anti-immigration parties has the potential to revolutionize European politics and destroy Washington’s empire. See my weekend interview with King World News for my thoughts on this potential game-changer.

The reports from the UK Daily Mail and from Zero Hedge that Russia has cut off natural gas deliveries to six European countries must be incorrect. These sources are credible and well-informed, but such a cut-off would have instantly produced political and financial turmoil of which there is no sign. Therefore, unless there is a news blackout, Russia’s action has been misunderstood.

Read more

Edward Snowden’s actions brought him accusations of treason, and a life of exile.

By Philip Giraldi
January 14, 2015
The American Conservative

As has been well documented, there are a lot of folks out there who do not like Edward Snowden very much, some of whom are prepared to do something about him up to and including his summary execution. It would be simplistic to suggest that everyone so inclined is motivated by selfish interests such as concern that a lack of support for certain government programs will lead to a loss of employment and income, but job security certainly might play a role in some cases. Others might well be irritated by the possibility that certain national security positions will be disdained by the public, just as the Transportation Security Agency is regularly lampooned currently.

I personally think that at least some of those government employees who hate Snowden despise him because they actually believe that he is a traitor to the United States, that he revealed secrets that should have stayed hidden, and that his activity will diminish American national security. Some governmental critics of Snowden are almost certainly particularly incensed because he was an “insider,” an employee who went rogue and violated his pledge not to disclose classified information to those who are not permitted access to it. His crime is therefore much more grievous than that of a journalist whose job it is to expose secrets because a key part of Snowden’s job was to protect them.

Having had to sign nondisclosure agreements a number of times, I appreciate that most employees take the commitment seriously. Those who believe otherwise, that classifying information frequently is a way to avoid accountability and even to hide criminal behavior, often also think that those who reveal such information should not be punished and should be protected under existing whistleblower legislation. But that in turn raises the question of what exactly is a whistleblower.

The Whistleblower Protection Act, originally passed in 1989, is actually quite broad in its definition of what makes someone a government whistleblower and therein lies much of the problem because a good deal is subject to interpretation. It also deliberately excludes whole categories of government employees in the areas of security and national defense. The original act, which was “enhanced” by Congress in 2012 and additionally by presidential directive later in the year, blocked retaliation directed against some federal employees who revealed a crime, a failure to abide by rules and regulations, corruption, gross mismanagement, waste of government money, an abuse of authority, or a significant and identifiable danger to public health or safety.

The protection mechanism is complex, including a special counsel and two boards, but an overwhelming percentage (over 90 percent) of employees who believe they have been treated badly and appeal the process are turned down, meaning that the actual protection can sometimes appear to be more notional than real. Where revealing certain types of information is specifically forbidden by laws on the books, courts have ruled that it is not considered whistleblowing. Holders of security clearances can, for example, have their clearances revoked, which is career ending, without any effective redress. Congressional staffers constitute a large group with significant potential access to wrongdoers but they cannot whistleblow at all.

Read more


F-16 fighter jets over Washington, DC

The immediate response to the 9/11 attacks of dozens of the most senior U.S. Air Force officials at the Pentagon who were together in a meeting when the attacks began appears to have been far from what we might reasonably expect, considering the serious and unprecedented crisis the officials had to deal with and the Air Force’s key role in responding to it. Evidence suggests that after the first plane crash at the World Trade Center was reported on television on September 11, 2001, there was a delay of over 10 minutes before the officials’ meeting was interrupted and the officials were alerted to the incident. The subsequent response of the officials appears to have been slow and lacking urgency.

Even after they saw the second hijacked plane crashing into the World Trade Center live on television, the officials reportedly spent several minutes just watching the news coverage of the attacks and then continued with their routine meeting, instead of immediately halting what they were doing and getting involved with responding to the crisis. [1] Furthermore, when the meeting finally adjourned, instead of helping with the response to the attacks, the Air Force’s most senior uniformed officer initially took the time to go upstairs, simply to bring a colleague down from his office to the Pentagon’s basement. [2]

Some evidence suggests that the officials in the meeting may have failed to realize the seriousness of what was taking place when they learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center, and this was why they reacted so slowly. They could, perhaps, have mistakenly thought that what they were hearing about was a simulated scenario in a training exercise. Indeed, one of the officials has recalled that when they learned of the first crash, “At first we thought it was part of the briefing.” [3] The officials may therefore have felt it was unnecessary for them to respond immediately.

If the officials were indeed confused about whether the attacks were real or simulated, might their slow response have been the intended result of an attempt by some of the people who planned and perpetrated the attacks to paralyze America’s defenses, so as to ensure the attacks were successful? Might these planners–presumably rogue individuals within the U.S. military–have arranged what would happen on September 11 so that these key Air Force officials would initially fail to realize that a real-world crisis was taking place, which they needed to respond to immediately?

The tactics used to prevent these officials from responding quickly could have been part of an effort to ensure key individuals from various military and government agencies, who might have organized a successful response to the attacks, were “out of the loop”–unavailable or unable to respond–when the attacks took place.

The evidence currently available is limited and inconclusive. But the behavior of the Air Force’s leaders when the 9/11 attacks began certainly deserves further scrutiny.


At the time the World Trade Center towers were hit, around 40 senior Air Force officers were together in a room in the basement of the Pentagon, attending a staff meeting chaired by General John Jumper. This was Jumper’s first staff meeting since he took over as Air Force chief of staff five days earlier. [4]

The regular meeting, known as the “Ready Brief,” was where the highest levels of the military would be updated on worldwide issues. [5] The briefing on September 11, as was always the case on the second Tuesday of each month, was about “black world activities”–things that would not usually be in the news. That day, it happened to be on the subject of anti- and counterterrorism. It included descriptions of terrorist incidents, and the faces of terrorists were being shown on the presentation screen. (Whether Osama bin Laden–the man who supposedly ordered the 9/11 attacks–was among the terrorists depicted is unreported.) [6]

Jumper’s meeting was attended by “all the Air Force senior staff who are in the Pentagon,” one of the participants has recalled. [7] Participants included Colonel Jack Egginton, executive officer to the Air Force chief of staff; Tim Green, assistant executive to the Air Force chief of staff; Lieutenant General Lance Lord, assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force; Lee-Volker Cox, executive officer to the assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force; Brigadier General Paul Kimmel, chief operating officer of the Air National Guard; Lieutenant Colonel Pierre Powell, deputy chief of the secretary of the Air Force’s action group; Brigadier General Robert Duignan, deputy to the chief of the Air Force Reserve; Lieutenant General Paul Carlton, surgeon general of the Air Force; and Brigadier General Charles Baldwin, the Air Force’s deputy chief of chaplains. [8]

The officers at the meeting should presumably have been promptly alerted to the crisis taking place in U.S. airspace and should then have immediately become involved in the Air Force’s response to it. And yet it appears this did not happen.


To begin with, there seems to have been a delay of over 10 minutes before these key officials were alerted to the first crash at the World Trade Center, which occurred at 8:46 a.m. The officials should surely have been made aware of the crash promptly after it was first reported on television, at 8:49 a.m. Instead, reports have stated, they learned about it at around 9:00 a.m. [9]

At that time, about halfway through Jumper’s meeting, an officer entered and quietly spoke to Pierre Powell, who was briefing the others in the room, presumably telling him what had happened in New York. Powell then stopped the briefing and announced that the screen was going to switch to live coverage from CNN, because a plane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers. [10] The large screen that had been showing briefing slides then switched to showing the CNN coverage of the burning North Tower of the World Trade Center. [11] “Right in the middle of the intelligence briefing, the big screens go black, they transfer from the intelligence briefing to live video feed from New York,” Lee-Volker Cox has described. [12]

The dozens of experienced Air Force officers in the room immediately realized the crash must have been something other than an accident, according to John Jumper. “There was a conference table full of airmen who looked at that dark blue sky on CNN, then looked at each other, and we knew right away that it wasn’t a navigation mistake,” Jumper recalled. [13] “Every airman in the room stiffened, because we knew exactly–instinctively–what was going on,” he commented. [14] And yet the meeting was not halted.

Read more

January 13, 2015
by Paul Craig Roberts

The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists’ office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killed seemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people.

Usually Muslim terrorists are prepared to die in the attack; yet the two professionals who hit Charlie Hebdo were determined to escape and succeeded, an amazing feat. Their identity was allegedly established by the claim that they conveniently left for the authorities their ID in the getaway car. Such a mistake is inconsistent with the professionalism of the attack and reminds me of the undamaged passport found miraculously among the ruins of the two WTC towers that served to establish the identity of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

It is a plausible inference that the ID left behind in the getaway car was the ID of the two Kouachi brothers, convenient patsies, later killed by police, and from whom we will never hear anything, and not the ID of the professionals who attacked Charlie Hebdo. An important fact that supports this inference is the report that the third suspect in the attack, Hamyd Mourad, the alleged driver of the getaway car, when seeing his name circulating on social media as a suspect realized the danger he was in and quickly turned himself into the police for protection against being murdered by security forces as a terrorist.

Hamyd Mourad says he has an iron-clad alibi. If so, this makes him the despoiler of a false flag attack. Authorities will have to say that despite being wrong about Mourad, they were right about the Kouachi brothers. Alternatively, Mourad could be coerced or tortured into some sort of confession that supports the official story.

The American and European media have ignored the fact that Mourad turned himself in for protection from being killed as a terrorist as he has an alibi. I googled Hamid Mourad and all I found (January 12) was the main US and European media reporting that the third suspect had turned himself in. The reason for his surrender was left out of the reports. The news was reported in a way that gave credence to the accusation that the suspect who turned himself in was part of the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Not a single US mainstream media source reported that the alleged suspect turned himself in because he has an ironclad alibi.

Read more

In Paris they march for “free speech” – and they’ll soon be marching off to war

by Justin Raimondo
January 12, 2015

It was only natural that “world leaders” would place themselves at the head of the Paris “unity” demonstration held to express outrage at the vicious Charlie Hebdo murders. Daniel Wickham, a student at the London School of Economics, compiled a list of the enemies of free speech who elbowed their way to the head of the march. Most hypocritical of all are the French themselves, who have laws against “hate speech” which are only selectively enforced and which have been used against the editors of Charlie Hebdo in the past. This cognitive dissonance was eloquently expressed by one Frenchman who carried a sign saying: “I’m marching but I’m conscious of the confusion and hypocrisy of the situation.”

That politicians would steal the spotlight and turn the sincere outrage of millions into an opportunity for self-advertisement is hardly surprising. Sincerity has its uses, however, and these will become apparent in the days and weeks to come. Those marchers will soon be cheering their soldiers as they go marching off to war, with “Je suis Charlie” inscribed on their banners.

The target? Syria, where “links” have been found between the Paris attacks and the self-proclaimed “Caliphate”of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The New York Times reports:

“Amedy Coulibaly, one of the three gunman responsible for the terrorist attacks in France last week, produced a video that appeared online on Sunday, two days after his death, showing him sitting below the flag of the Islamic State militant group and pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the organization’s leader.”

Read more

By Glenn Greenwald
Jan. 9, 2015

Defending free speech and free press rights, which typically means defending the right to disseminate the very ideas society finds most repellent, has been one of my principal passions for the last 20 years: previously as a lawyer and now as a journalist. So I consider it positive when large numbers of people loudly invoke this principle, as has been happening over the last 48 hours in response to the horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

Usually, defending free speech rights is much more of a lonely task. For instance, the day before the Paris murders, I wrote an article about multiple cases where Muslims are being prosecuted and even imprisoned by western governments for their online political speech – assaults that have provoked relatively little protest, including from those free speech champions who have been so vocal this week.

I’ve previously covered cases where Muslims were imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting “extremist” videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or (much more dangerously and rarely) Judaism. I’m hoping this week’s celebration of free speech values will generate widespread opposition to all of these long-standing and growing infringements of core political rights in the west, not just some.

Central to free speech activism has always been the distinction between defending the right to disseminate Idea X and agreeing with Idea X, one which only the most simple-minded among us are incapable of comprehending. One defends the right to express repellent ideas while being able to condemn the idea itself. There is no remote contradiction in that: the ACLU vigorously defends the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, but does not join the march; they instead vocally condemn the targeted ideas as grotesque while defending the right to express them.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud