Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Archive for February, 2018

By Daniel Larison
February 22, 2018
The American Conservative


Two Air Force F-22 Raptors fly over Syria, Feb. 2, 2018, while supporting Operation Inherent Resolve. Air National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Colton Elliott

The Trump administration confirms that it has nothing but contempt for the Constitution and international law:

The Trump administration has decided that it needs no new legal authority from Congress to indefinitely keep American military forces deployed in Syria and Iraq, even in territory that has been cleared of Islamic State fighters, according to Pentagon and State Department officials.

It is not new for a president to ignore the law in matters of war, but this is an especially egregious example of it. Not only is there no authorization for U.S. forces to be in Syria for any reason, but our military presence there has absolutely no legal justification of any kind. There is no U.N. resolution that authorizes U.S. forces to be there, the local government expressly opposes our military presence on its territory, and there is no remotely plausible self-defense justification for having U.S. military personnel in Syria. The war on ISIS was itself unnecessary, but now that the threat from ISIS is even smaller than it was there is no credible case that the U.S. is in Syria to defend itself or anyone else. The U.S. is certainly not coming to the defense of a treaty ally. On the contrary, U.S. military involvement in Syria is putting our forces on a possible collision course with the armed forces of a treaty ally. Besides being a terrible, ill-conceived policy, an indefinite military intervention in Syria is undeniably illegal, and the administration’s claims to the contrary are nonsense.

As ridiculous as the Trump administration’s disregard for the law is, Obama bears more than a little responsibility for this absurd situation. It was Obama who illegally expanded the war on ISIS into Syria, and he was the one who first ordered U.S. forces into Syria. He did all this with no authorization from or debate in Congress, and he presided just as illegally over more than two years of war. The Obama administration’s legal defense that the 2001 AUMF authorized its actions in Syria was a bad joke, but unfortunately very few seriously contested that claim and so the illegal intervention was allowed to continue. Trump inherited Obama’s illegal war in Syria, and has chosen to continue it indefinitely. It is now up to Congress and the public to rein in this latest executive overreach. If Trump is allowed to get away with perpetuating an illegal war without end, the last remnants of the constitutional limits on presidential warmaking will be destroyed.

“We’re trying to clear up the reputation of our own profession. We can say what didn’t happen that day, no matter what the government report says.” Roland Angle

BBC Journalism 101:They’re Just ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ in Need of an Explanation

By AE911Truth Staff
Feb. 16, 2018

Two weeks ago, the BBC published a vapid iteration of its unrivaled brand of anti-journalism on all things 9/11, which it unironically titled: “The people who think 9/11 may have been an ‘inside job.’”

Unlike the hate-mongering Gizmodo article of two weeks before that, the BBC piece adopted a softer tone, trotting out the familiar trope of suggesting that people believe in “conspiracy theories” because of their supposed “need for an explanation that’s proportional to the event itself.”

We’re told there’s a “dissonance that results when people hear that a relatively small group of men using low-tech weapons caused such cataclysmic carnage.” It’s as if the author, Chris Bell, and the expert he quotes never considered that cognitive dissonance is the very reason so many people cling to the official narrative despite being faced with the overwhelming evidence of its falsity.

Featured in Bell’s piece are, among others, British 9/11 family member Matt Campbell and AE911Truth’s board member, Roland Angle, PE, a civil engineer of 50 years. Bell writes of Angle:

“Any apparent discrepancy [regarding the BBC’s reporting of WTC 7’s total destruction 23 minutes before it actually occurred] was cleared up by a 2008 report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which found that WTC7 collapsed after fires on multiple floors ‘caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down’.

“But that did not change the minds of the conspiracy theorists.

“AE911 Truth board member Roland Angle alleges there are significant errors in the NIST report. ‘We’re trying to clear up the reputation of our own profession,’ Roland tells me. ‘We can say what didn’t happen that day, no matter what the government report says.’

“‘We think there’s a serious issue here.’”

Fortunately, anticipating that there would be a disconnect between the article and what actually transpired in the interview with Chris Bell, Roland Angle decided to tape it.

Read more


“[T]he 9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.”
From ‘Mafia stalker’ to Anti-Terror Investigator, Judge Fought Corruption on Many Fronts

By Laurie Sihvonen
Feb. 15, 2018
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

On January 2, 2018, the world lost a true hero in the fight for human rights, justice, government accountability, and, most recently but not least, the truth about the events of 9/11.

Judge Ferdinando Imposimato of Italy, honorary President of the Italian Supreme Court, died in Rome at Gemelli Policlinico, where he had been admitted to the intensive care unit on December 31, 2017. We at AE911Truth consider ourselves fortunate to have worked alongside Judge Imposimato for the cause of 9/11 Truth during his last several years, and we are extremely grateful for his dedication to our mission.

9/11 Involvement

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Judge Imposimato was quick to assist a representative of the Italian government who was in New York City counseling families of victims from that country.

Eleven years later, in September 2012, the judge wrote a letter published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, in which he stated categorically, “[T]he 9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.” According to Imposimato, the events of 9/11 constituted an “American Gladio” and were designed to raise support for the US-led invasion of Iraq.

The judge remained committed to the pursuit of a legal resolution to the questions surrounding 9/11, which he felt could be accomplished through the International Criminal Court and/or the United Nations.

Judge Imposimato and other legal panelists evaluate the evidence given by more than a dozen technical and building professionals who testified to the explosive destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.

In October 2014, a newly formed Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry in the U.S. invited Judge Imposimato to participate in its quest for 9/11 justice. After accepting that invitation, he conversed regularly with the organization’s co-founder and president, attorney Jane Clark, helping develop legal strategies.

The following October, 9/11 researcher, author, and speaker Barbara Honegger was invited by Imposimato’s long-time colleague and translator, Adam Buckley, to speak in Rome. Accompanying Honegger on the trip were Clark, renowned public interest attorney Daniel Sheehan, and Sheehan’s colleague Sara Nelson. That trip facilitated two years of collaboration between the judge and Clark as they prepared for 9/11-related legal actions to be taken in the U.S. courts.

Read more

Says US Meddling Done ‘For the Good of the System’

Jason Ditz
February 18, 2018
Antiwar.com

Always underpinning the US investigations into allegations of Russian election meddling was the unspoken reality that the US too has a history of meddling in foreign elections when it suits their interests.

James Woolsey, the CIA Director from 1993 to 1995, addressed questions on that point, admitting that the US has interfered in elections in the past, but “only for a very good cause,” and when they thought rigging the vote would benefit democracy.

“It was for the good of the system,” Woolsey insisted. Researchers suggest the US interfered in elections at least 81 times since World War 2, far more often than Russia. Some analysts are arguing that the two are not equivalent, however, because the US meddling was “pro-democracy” in intent.

Yet a casual look at CIA involvement in regime changes shows myriad times when US interference involved ousting democratically elected governments, often by orchestrating coups, to prop up regimes seen more favorable to US interests. In the 1950s, this included regime change in Iran to support BP oil profits, and one in Guatemala for United Fruit Company.

February 17, 2018
by Paul Craig Roberts

Now the Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein confirms what I told you in my previous post. Mueller found no evidence that Russia had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 election. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/bitter-john-brennan-reacts-mueller-indictment-13-russians-election-meddling-plot/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=thegatewaypundit.com&utm_term=68735&utm_content=2191016

So what was Russiagate all about?

It was exactly, precisely what I told you it was about from the very begining. It was a conspiracy orchestrated by the military/security complex, CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committed against Donald Trump.

Trump’s emphasis during his presidential campaign on normalizing relations with Russia, which the neocon Obama regime had turned into “America’s most dangerous enemy,” was a threat to the power and budgets of the military/security complex. Without a demonized enemy, what is the justification for a 1,000 billion annual budget and the laws passed in the 21st century that completely destroy the protections provided by the US Constitution?

From the Clinton/DNC standpoint, a Trump victory would halt the vast riches pouring into the Clinton/DNC pockets from “pay to play.” The Clinton Foundation and the Clintons themselves were on their way to both being billionaires with the DNC collecting the registration fees. This was a model for one party rule. And along comes Donald Trump.

I doubt Trump knew what he was stepping into. So far he has been unable to function as President. But now that the FISA court has on record Rosenstein and Comey’s confessions that the spy warrants requested by the FBI to spy on Trump are based on deception of the court, the conspirators against Trump face indictment, conviction, and prison, if Trump has the balls, which he might not have. We cannot even be sure Trump understands the situation.

What perhaps has surely happened is that former CIA director John Brennan is now exposed by the total failue of Mueller to find a Trump/Putin conspiracy against American democracy. Rosenstein’s statement that “there is no allegation in [Mueller’s] indictment that any American was a knowing particiipant in this illegal activity [illegal activity is an unsubstantiated assertion only]. There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians’] conduct altered the outcome of the election.”

Brennan as CIA director had lied under oath to Congress to the contrary.

Rosenstein and Comey are trapped in their confessions to the FISA court that the FBI obtained spy warrants from the court via deception of the court. See: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/22/spy-court-finds-survelliance-operating-outside-law/

What we must ask ourselves is how it is possible in the Great American Democracy that people totally devoid of all integrity, all honesty, all respect for truth can be confirmed by the US Senate as heads of the CIA, FBI, and National Intelligence?

How is it possible that these utterly corrupt people can go before the House and Senate continuously and tell lies under oath and never be held accountable?

How is it possible that American Democracy is so utterly weak that nothing whatsoever can be done about it?

What kind of America is it when it is ruled by blatant transparant lies?

In what sense do The People exist?

February 17, 2018
by Paul Craig Roberts

It is long past time for someone in the shithole known as Washington to tell us why Americans have been killing and dying in Afghanistan for 17 years. Is it to steal the country’s minerals? Is it to control the location of pipelines? Is it to keep American taxpayers money flowing to the US military/security complex? Is it to finance the CIA’s black operations with drug profits? Or is it to prove that the neoconservatives’ dream of US world hegemony is a chimera?

Here are some questions for you from a voice you never have heard:

Letter of the Islamic Emirate to the American people!

The American people, officials of independent non-governmental organizations and the peace loving Congressmen!
With the hope that you will read this letter prudently and will evaluate the future of American forces and your profit and loss inside Afghanistan in light of the prevailing realities alluded to in the following lines!

The American people!

You realize that your political leadership launched a military invasion of our country 17 years ago. This invasion was not only contrary to the legal and national norms of our own sovereign country but also a violation of all international rules and regulations, but still the following three main points were put forward by your authorities to justify this illegitimate invasion:
Establishing security by eliminating the so called terrorists inside Afghanistan.
Restoring law and order by establishing a legal government.
Eradicating narcotics.

However let us analyze how successful your war-monger leaders were in achieving the above three slogans in this illegitimate war?

Increased insecurity and fighting:

In 2001 when your ex-president George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, his justification for that felonious act was the elimination the Islamic Emirate (Taliban) and Al-Qaeda.

But despite continuing this bloody war for seventeen years and accepting huge casualties and financial losses, your current president Donald Trump – to continue the illegal 17 year old war in Afghanistan – acknowledged increased insecurity and emergence of multiple groups instead of the single unified Islamic Emirate (Taliban).

This was stated by Trump while declaring his new war strategy for Afghanistan and South Asia on 23rd August 2017 and seventeen years later, again ordered the perpetuation of the same illegitimate occupation and war against the Afghan people. Since your authorities admit the presence of multiple warring factions inside Afghanistan, it verifies our claim that by invading Afghanistan and overthrowing a unified responsible government of Taliban, the Americans have merely paved the way for anarchy in the country.

No matter what title or justification is presented by your undiscerning authorities for the war in Afghanistan, the reality is that tens of thousands of helpless Afghans including women and children were martyred by your forces, hundreds of thousands were injured and thousands more were incarcerated in Guantanamo, Bagram and various other secret jails and treated in such a humiliating way that has not only brought shame upon humanity but is also a violation of all claims of American culture and civilization.

In this lopsided war and as confirmed by your own military authorities, 3546 American and foreign soldiers have been killed, more than 20,000 American forces injured and tens of thousands more are suffering mentally but in reality the amount of your casualties is several times higher and is deliberately being concealed by your leaders. Similarly this war has cost you trillions of dollars thus making it one of the bloodiest, longest and costliest war in the contemporary history of your country.

Read more

Stephanie Savell
February 15, 2018
The Unz Review

I’m in my mid-thirties, which means that, after the 9/11 attacks, when this country went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq in what President George W. Bush called the “Global War on Terror,” I was still in college. I remember taking part in a couple of campus antiwar demonstrations and, while working as a waitress in 2003, being upset by customers who ordered “freedom fries,” not “French fries,” to protest France’s opposition to our war in Iraq. (As it happens, my mother is French, so it felt like a double insult.) For years, like many Americans, that was about all the thought I put into the war on terror. But one career choice led to another and today I’m co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.

Now, when I go to dinner parties or take my toddler to play dates and tell my peers what I do for a living, I’ve grown used to the blank stares and vaguely approving comments (“that’s cool”) as we quickly move on to other topics. People do tend to humor me if I begin to speak passionately about the startlingly global reach of this country’s military counterterrorism activities or the massive war debt we’re so thoughtlessly piling up for our children to pay off. In terms of engagement, though, my listeners tend to be far more interested and ask far more penetrating questions about my other area of research: the policing of Brazil’s vast favelas, or slums. I don’t mean to suggest that no one cares about America’s never-ending wars, just that, 17 years after the war on terror began, it’s a topic that seems to fire relatively few of us up, much less send us into the streets, Vietnam-style, to protest. The fact is that those wars are approaching the end of their second decade and yet most of us don’t even think of ourselves as “at war.”

I didn’t come to the work that’s now engulfed my life as a peace activist or a passionate antiwar dissenter. I arrived circuitously, through my interest in police militarization, during my PhD work in cultural anthropology at Brown University, where the Costs of War Project is housed. Eventually, I joined directors Catherine Lutz and Neta Crawford, who had co-founded the project in 2011 on the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. Their goal: to draw attention to the hidden and unacknowledged costs of our counterterror wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a number of other countries as well.

Today, I know — and care — more about the devastations of Washington’s post-9/11 wars than I ever imagined I would. And judging from public reactions to our work at the Costs of War Project, my prior detachment was anything but unique. Quite the opposite: it’s been the essence of the post-9/11 era in this country.

Numbers to Boggle the Mind

In such a climate of disengagement, I’ve learned what can get at least some media attention. Top of the list: mind-boggling numbers. In a counterpoint to the relatively limited estimates issued by the Pentagon, the Costs of War Project has, for instance, come up with a comprehensive estimate of what the war on terror has actually cost this country since 2001: $5.6 trillion. It’s an almost unfathomably large number. Imagine, though, if we had invested such funds in more cancer research or the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure (among other things, Amtrak trains might not be having such frequent deadly crashes).

Read more

Michael Hoffman
February 13, 2018
The Unz Review


Dresden, Germany, February, 1945

It was Shrove Tuesday, 1945 in the magnificent German art city of Dresden, which was packed with helpless Christian refugees fleeing the Red Army of the Stalinist USSR. Dresden’s native Lutheran and Catholic children, dressed in their festive Saxon folk costumes, were aboard a train taking them home after Mardi Gras parties at different points in the far-flung city. Still merry from the night’s festivities, they cavorted on the train prior to Ash Wednesday, February 14, and the solemnities that would be observed even in wartime, in memory of the passion and death of Jesus. In the sky Allied fighter planes caught sight of the civilian train and opened fire on the children inside, whose blood was soon pouring out of the wreckage.

This carnage registers almost not at all in the American mind. The holocaust in Dresden, lasting two days and killing at least 100,000 people, like the atomic holocaust in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, usually merits not much more than a few sentences or a single paragraph in the back pages of metropolitan newspapers, unlike “Yom HaShoah (יום השואה) Holocaust Remembrance Day,” in April, which is observed with countless civic, educational and media events, hosannahs, apologies and genuflections, from the Vatican to the White House. The barely remembered German and Japanese victims of Allied war crimes were of the wrong race and religion.

In the spring of 1945, after prosecuting the bombing holocaust against every major German city, and with the end of the Second World War in sight in Europe, Winston Churchill began to consider his reputation in the post-war period, when the 500,000 German innocents he ordered incinerated could come back to haunt him and stain his prestige. On March 28, 1945 he issued a deceitful, back-stabbing memo blaming the mass incineration on his own Bomber Command and by insinuation, upon its commander Arthur Harris, whose force would be denied a post-war campaign medal, and Harris a peerage. Harris and Bomber Command had been only following Winston Churchill’s explicit orders, yet Churchill attempted to shift responsibility onto the corps of airmen who had suffered among the highest casualties of any branch of the British military.

Churchill, like many others, endeavored to blame Germany for being the first to saturate civilians with terror-bombs —at Guernica in Spain on behalf of Franco’s forces, and in Rotterdam, during the war with Holland. In both cases Churchill stated that thousands had been killed. Even one death is regrettable of course, but less than 100 people were killed in Guernica according to historian David Irving, and less than a thousand in Rotterdam, when the Luftwafe accidentally struck a margarine factory and the flammable liquid burned houses nearby. Churchill had said “thousands” died in Guernica, and that 30,000 perished in Rotterdam, which is more than what Deborah Lipstadt says died in the two-day inferno in Dresden (the absurdly low figure of 25,000 is now the officially fixed count to which the “news media” comform without deviation).

The Germans had pledged not to be the first to bomb civilian centers in Britain. Churchill had hoped they would carpet bomb London to give him the excuse to silence the large peace movement in England which was dogging him in 1940, at a time when the Germans had not dropped a single bomb on London, almost a year after Britain had declared war on Germany. The British Prime Minister obtained his pretext toward the end of August, 1940, when a lone, wayward German bomber “lost its way flying up the Thames” river. It had orders to attack an oil refinery, but instead dropped its bombs on London’s East End. No one was killed thankfully, but Churchill was elated. He had the excuse he needed to massively retaliate against Berlin, knowing Hitler would respond in kind, and that the British peace movement would vanish in the smoke and flames of the “Battle of Britain” and the “Blitz.” Churchill ordered a hundred bombers to attack Berlin. Royal Air Force (RAF) commanders warned him that the Luftwaffe would do the same to London.

Read more

by Mike Whitney
February 13, 2018
The Unz Review


Former CIA Director John Brennan. Credit: U.S. Government

The report (“The Dossier”) that claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia, was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The company that claims that Russia hacked DNC computer servers, was paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Trump’s alleged connections to Russia was launched on the basis of information gathered from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The surveillance of a Trump campaign member (Carter Page) was approved by a FISA court on the basis of information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The Intelligence Community Analysis or ICA was (largely or partially) based on information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. (more on this below)

The information that was leaked to the media alleging Russia hacking or collusion can be traced back to claims that were made in a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The entire Russia-gate investigation rests on the “unverified and salacious” information from a dossier that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign. Here’s how Stephen Cohen sums it up in a recent article at The Nation:

“Steele’s dossier… was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative…from the time its installments began to be leaked to the American media in the summer of 2016, to the US “Intelligence Community Assessment” of January 2017….the dossier and subsequent ICA report remain the underlying sources for proponents of the Russiagate narrative of “Trump-Putin collision.” (“Russia gate or Intel-gate?”, The Nation)

There’s just one problem with Cohen’s statement, we don’t really know the extent to which the dossier was used in the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment. (The ICA was the IC’s flagship analysis that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.) According to some reports, the contribution was significant. Check out this excerpt from an article at Business Insider:

“Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report they released in January about Russia’s election interference because they didn’t want to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN.” (“Mueller reportedly interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier — here’s what it alleges, and how it aligned with reality”, Business Insider)

Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have been used in the ICA.

Read more

By Patrick J. Buchanan
February 13, 2018
The American Conservative


IDF soldier stationed at Israel’s northern border. Credit: Israel Defense Forces/Flickr/CreativeCommons

Candidate Donald Trump may have promised to extricate us from Middle East wars, once ISIS and al-Qaida were routed, yet events and people seem to be conspiring to keep us endlessly enmeshed.

Friday night, a drone, apparently modeled on a U.S. drone that fell into Iran’s hands, intruded briefly into Israeli airspace over the Golan Heights, and was shot down by an Apache helicopter.

Israel seized upon this to send F-16s to strike the airfield whence the drone originated. Returning home, an F-16 was hit and crashed, unleashing the most devastating Israeli attack in decades on Syria. Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu says a dozen Syrian and Iranian bases and antiaircraft positions were struck.

Monday’s headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page blared:

“The Iran-Israel War Flares Up: The fight is over a Qods Force presence on the Syria-Israeli border. How will the U.S. respond?”

Op-ed writers Tony Badran and Jonathan Schanzer, both from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, closed thus:

“The Pentagon and State Department have already condemned Iran and thrown their support behind Israel. The question now is whether the Trump administration will go further. … Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (has) affirmed that the U.S. seeks not only to ensure its allies’ security but to deny Iran its ‘dreams of a northern arch’ from Tehran to Beirut. A good way to achieve both objectives would be back Israel’s response to Iran’s aggression — now and in the future.”

The FDD is an annex of the Israeli lobby and a charter member of the War Party.

Chagai Tzuriel, who heads the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence, echoed the FDD: “If you (Americans) are committed to countering Iran in the region, then you must do so in Syria — first.”

Our orders have been cut.

Iran has dismissed as “lies” and “ridiculous” the charge that it sent the drone into Israeli airspace.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud