Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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


Category: 911 Cover-up

By Daniel Larison
January 16, 2017
The American Conservative

In a speech to US troops last month, he denounced the “false promise” that “we can eliminate terrorism by dropping more bombs,” and piously proclaimed that “democracies should not operate in a state of permanently authorized war.”

An audacious statement—given that it is Obama himself who’s made perpetual warfare the new normal, and the president the ultimate “decider” in matters of war and peace. Where George W. Bush secured congressional authorization for the two major wars he fought, Obama has launched two undeclared wars (in Libya and against ISIS), ordered 10 times as many drone strikes as his predecessor, and this summer bombed six different countries just over Labor Day weekend. And it is Obama who is largely responsible for warping the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force—passed three days after 9/11 to target Al Qaeda and the Taliban—into an enabling act for endless war, anywhere in the world.

Obama has been able to do this in part because he has had the luxury of facing virtually no organized opposition to any of his wars on any grounds. Media coverage of his interventions has tended to be favorable or neutral, and even when his policies have come under some criticism it has never been sustained for long enough to do him much political damage. He has faced scant opposition within his own party, and in most cases he has faced even less from his otherwise vehement political opponents. Even when he is challenged on waging unauthorized wars, very few oppose his interventions outright, and there aren’t even enough of the former in Congress to force a debate or vote on any current U.S. military engagements.

While presenting himself as the president responsible for ending America’s foreign wars, he has involved the U.S. in at least four new ones to one degree or another since the spring of 2011. However, his decisions to initiate, escalate, or join these wars have faced remarkably little scrutiny and even less resistance. Obama is responsible for his own policies, but he could not have done so much at such low political cost if both Congress and the press weren’t so content to accept presidential warmaking. Thanks to the constant berating of hawks that he is too “passive” and the bleating of foreign policy pundits that Obama is guilty of “inaction” abroad, the president has been able to get away with being one of the most interventionist foreign policy presidents in modern U.S. history while being viewed by many in both parties as very nearly the exact opposite.

Read more

Daniel L. Davis
January 16, 2017
The National Interest

“Why It Pays to Be the World’s Policeman – Literally,” written by Thanassis Cambanis in Politico, serves as an excellent compilation of the best neoconservative justifications for the overuse of American military power abroad. It also serves as an excellent exposé illuminating the fatal flaws of their logic. Being the world’s policeman does not pay, and indeed, if left unchecked, could one day cost the nation dearly.

The first tactic used by those advocating the aggressive use of lethal military power abroad is to cast the matter in black-and-white, all-or-nothing terms. Cambanis tries to paint all who don’t support expansionist views with the emotionally negative tag of “isolationist.” The absence of a reckless policy of adventurism is hardly isolationist. Its antithesis is intelligent restraint.

There is much wisdom in increasing international engagement in diplomacy and trade while husbanding military strength. Such a philosophy increases global engagement, increases business opportunity for American goods, and ensures that the military instrument will be sharp and ready to defend the country if necessary. That is as far from “isolationist” as one can get. Unfortunately, the word that comes closest to accurately describing the worldview advocated by some neocons is “imperial.”

The definition of imperial is “characterizing the rule or authority of a sovereign state over its dependencies; domineering, imperious.” Cambanis doesn’t hesitate—or blush—in listing the benefits to maintaining an aggressive military-based foreign policy. He writes:

America runs a world order that might have some collateral benefits for other countries, but is largely built around U.S. interests: to enrich America and American business; to keep Americans safe while creating jobs and profits for America’s military-industrial complex; and to make sure that America retains, as long as possible, its position as the richest, dominant global superpower. . . . America’s steering role in numerous regions — NATO, Latin America, and the Arabian peninsula — gives it leverage to call the shots on matters of great important to American security and the bottom line. . . . America’s “global cop” role means that shipping lanes, free trade agreements, oil exploration deals, ad hoc military coalitions, and so on are maintained to the benefit of the U.S. government or U.S. corporations.

To say the United States “runs” the world order, to boast that massive defense spending is a good “jobs program” and that a key function of the U.S. Navy is not the defense of the nation but to give “U.S. corporations” financial security, is the very definition of an imperial power. I find such ideas obscene. More importantly, however, these views are dangerously flawed and overlook some critical facts.

Read more

by William J. Astore
January 14, 2017

Will Donald Trump keep his campaign promise to end America’s wasteful wars overseas? Since he’s stated he knows more than America’s generals, will he rein them in? Will he bring major reforms to the military-industrial complex, or will he be nothing but talk and tweets?

At Trump’s first news conference as president-elect, he had little to say about the military, except once again to complain about the high cost of the F-35 jet fighter program. The questions asked of him dealt mainly with Russia, hacking, potential conflicts of interest, and Obamacare. These are important issues, but how Trump will handle the Pentagon and his responsibilities as commander-in-chief are arguably of even greater import.

Ironically, the last president who had some measure of control over the military-industrial complex was the retired general who coined the term: Dwight D. Eisenhower. Another president – Jimmy Carter – attempted to exercise some control, e.g. he canceled the B-1 bomber, a pet project of the U.S. Air Force, only to see it revived under Ronald Reagan.

Excepting Carter, US presidents since Ike have issued blank checks to the military, the Pentagon, and its bewildering array of contractors. Whether Democrats (JFK, LBJ, Clinton, Obama) or Republicans (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, the Bushes), rubber-stamping Pentagon priorities has been a common course of presidential action, aided by a willing Congress that supports military spending to “prime the economic pump” and create jobs.

Ike, of course, was hardly perfect, but he had the cred to command the military, to rein it in, perhaps as much as any one man could in the climate of fear generated by McCarthyism and the Cold War hysteria of the 1950s. Hardly a pacifist, Ike nevertheless came to hate war. Can we imagine any president nowadays writing these words?

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Read more

Former NIST employee of 14 years Peter Michael Ketcham makes his first public appearance since speaking out against the NIST World Trade Center investigation in Europhysics News, the magazine of the European Physical Society.

By Patrick J. Buchanan
January 11, 2017

Though every Republican in Congress voted against the Iran nuclear deal, “Tearing it up … is not going to happen,” says Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Hopefully, the chairman speaks for the president-elect.

During the campaign, Donald Trump indicated as much, saying that, though the U.S. got jobbed in the negotiations — “We have a horrible contract, but we do have a contract” — he might not walk away.

To Trump, a deal’s a deal, even a bad one. And we did get taken.

In 2007 and 2011, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies assured us, “with high confidence,” that Iran did not have an atomic bomb program.

Yet our folks forked over $50 billion for an Iranian show and tell to prove they were not doing what our 17 intelligence agencies told us, again and again, they were not doing.

Why did we disbelieve our own intelligence, and buy into the “Chicken Little” chatter about Iran being “only months away from a bomb”? The Greatest Comeback:… Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $4.86 Buy New $7.28

Corker also administered a cold shower to those who darkly warn of a secret Iranian program to produce a bomb: “In spite of all the flaws in the agreement, nothing bad is going to happen relative to nuclear development in Iran in the next few years. It’s just not.”

Under the deal, Iran has put two-thirds of the 19,000 centrifuges at Natanz in storage, ceased enriching uranium to 20 percent at Fordow, poured concrete into the core of its heavy water reactor at Arak, and shipped 97 percent of its enriched uranium out of the country. Cameras and United Nations inspectors are all over the place.

Even should Iran decide on a crash program to create enough fissile material for a single A-bomb test, this would take a year, and we would know about it.

Read more

By James F. Tracy
January 10, 2017

This article by Professor James Tracy first published in August 2015 is of particular relevance in relation to the “fake news” campaign directed against the alternative media.

In a bitter irony, the media coverup of the CIA’s covert support to Al Qaeda and the ISIS is instrumented by the CIA which also oversees the mainstream media.

Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, if any, relationships, yet the seldom acknowledged history of their intimate collaboration indicates a far different story–indeed, one that media historians are reluctant to examine.

When seriously practiced, the journalistic profession involves gathering information concerning individuals, locales, events, and issues. In theory such information informs people about their world, thereby strengthening “democracy.” This is exactly the reason why news organizations and individual journalists are tapped as assets by intelligence agencies and, as the experiences of German journalist Udo Ulfkotte (entry 47 below) suggest, this practice is at least as widespread today as it was at the height of the Cold War.

Consider the coverups of election fraud in 2000 and 2004, the events of September 11, 2001, the invasions Afghanistan and Iraq, the destabilization of Syria, and the creation of “ISIS.” These are among the most significant events in recent world history, and yet they are also those much of the American public is wholly ignorant of. In an era where information and communication technologies are ubiquitous, prompting many to harbor the illusion of being well-informed, one must ask why this condition persists.

Further, why do prominent US journalists routinely fail to question other deep events that shape America’s tragic history over the past half century, such as the political assassinations of the 1960s, or the central role played by the CIA major role in international drug trafficking?

Popular and academic commentators have suggested various reasons for the almost universal failure of mainstream journalism in these areas, including newsroom sociology, advertising pressure, monopoly ownership, news organizations’ heavy reliance on “official” sources, and journalists’ simple quest for career advancement. There is also, no doubt, the influence of professional public relations maneuvers. Yet such a broad conspiracy of silence suggests another province of deception examined far too infrequently—specifically the CIA and similar intelligence agencies’ continued involvement in the news media to mold thought and opinion in ways scarcely imagined by the lay public.

The following historical and contemporary facts–by no means exhaustive–provides a glimpse of how the power such entities possess to influence if not determine popular memory and what respectable institutions deem to be the historical record.

The CIA’s Operation MOCKINGBIRD is a long-recognised keystone among researchers pointing to the Agency’s clear interest in and relationship to major US news media. MOCKINGBIRD grew out of the CIA’s forerunner, the Office for Strategic Services (OSS, 1942-47), which during World War Two had established a network of journalists and psychological warfare experts operating primarily in the European theatre.

Many of the relationships forged under OSS auspices were carried over into the postwar era through a State Department-run organization called the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) overseen by OSS staffer Frank Wisner.

The OPC “became the fastest-growing unit within the nascent CIA,” historian Lisa Pease observes, “rising in personnel from 302 in 1949 to 2,812 in 1952, along with 3,142 overseas contract personnel. In the same period, the budget rose from $4.7 million to $82 million.” Lisa Pease, “The Media and the Assassination,” in James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, Port Townsend, WA, 2003, 300.

Like many career CIA officers, eventual CIA Director/Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Richard Helms was recruited out of the press corps by his own supervisor at the United Press International’s Berlin Bureau to join in the OSS’s fledgling “black propaganda” program. “‘[Y]ou’re a natural,” Helms’ boss remarked. Richard Helms, A Look Over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency, New York: Random House, 2003, 30-31.

Wisner tapped Marshall Plan funds to pay for his division’s early exploits, money his branch referred to as “candy.” “We couldn’t spend it all,” CIA agent Gilbert Greenway recalls. “I remember once meeting with Wisner and the comptroller. My God, I said, how can we spend that? There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it. It was amazing.” Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, New York: The New Press, 2000, 105.

When the OPC was merged with the Office of Special Operations in 1948 to create the CIA, OPC’s media assets were likewise absorbed.

Wisner maintained the top secret “Propaganda Assets Inventory,” better known as “Wisner’s Wurlitzer”—a virtual rolodex of over 800 news and information entities prepared to play whatever tune Wisner chose. “The network included journalists, columnists, book publishers, editors, entire organizations such as Radio Free Europe, and stringers across multiple news organizations.” Pease, “The Media and the Assassination,” 300.

Read more

by Jacob G. Hornberger
January 6, 2017
The Future of Freedom Foundation

The fight between Donald Trump and the CIA over the supposed Russian hacking scandal has at least two positive benefits: One, it helps to remind us what the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state has done to us here at home. Two, it enables us to ask an important fundamental question: Given that the Cold War ended decades ago, why don’t we just ditch the entire national security establishment and restore a constitutional republic to our land?

The conversion of the federal government from a constitutionally limited government to a national-security state occurred after World War II. U.S. officials said that the Soviet Union, Red China, and the communist world posed a grave threat to the United Staes. In order to combat this threat, they said, it would be necessary for the United States to become like them — a national-security state. If America failed to do that, the argument went, the country would end up falling to the Reds.

That meant, for the first time in U.S. history, a vast and ever-growing military establishment, which would consists of military bases and installations all over the country and all over the world.

It would also mean calling into existence the CIA, a secretive agency with omnipotent powers, including the powers to assassinate (i.e., murder) people, to kidnap people, to torture people, to bribe foreign officials, to incarcerate people, and to effect regime change operations in foreign countries, including ones whose leaders were democratically elected.

It also meant calling into existence the NSA, a secretive agency with the omnipotent power to secretly spy on both the citizens and foreigners.

It was all justified in the name of keeping us safe from the Reds. What most Americans failed to notice was that this new-fangled governmental structure was quite similar to that found in the governmental structures of the Soviet Union and China.

And sure enough, after the conversion, America became like them. For example, the CIA began assassinating people, including people who had never committed any acts of aggression against the United States. The assassination attempts against Cuban leader Fidel Castro come to mind. Neither Castro nor Cuba had ever attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. But it was considered okay to murder him simply because of his communist or socialist beliefs.

Read more

What to expect from his new director

By Philip Giraldi
January 6, 2017
The American Conservative

The midnight oil is burning over at the Central Intelligence Agency as senior managers consider options relating to how to play new president Donald Trump and new director Mike Pompeo, neither of whom possesses any serious understanding either of intelligence operations or of how to lead 20,000 often difficult-to-manage employees.

With the exception of the 1976 turnover that followed shortly after the devastating Church Commission report and simultaneously brought in Jimmy Carter as president and Admiral Stansfield Turner as director, the agency has always been able to control the transitions and wind up on the right side of those in power. It has maintained its prerogatives through its use of an elaborate dog-and-pony briefing show that carefully revealed some of the organization’s most cherished secrets to convince the new boss of the immensely valuable product provided by CIA. John F. Kennedy was in that fashion beguiled by Allen Dulles before he soured on the relationship as a result of the dissimulation surrounding Bay of Pigs. Ronald Reagan, who was in any event inclined to be pro-agency, reportedly came away from his first major briefing astonished by what had been revealed.

Today, however, the CIA is in transition and under fire over the Russian hacking issue, though most believe that the war or words and tension with the president will largely vanish after the inauguration. With the post-9/11 reorganization of the intelligence apparatus—including the creation of a Director of National Intelligence, who is only nominally in charge but in control of a separate staff, and the expansion of Pentagon spying, the agency has lost a good deal of its exclusivity and clout.

Current Director John Brennan is seen as Obama’s man and is not popular in some circles inside the agency, where the president is viewed as weak and vacillating while Brennan is regarded as a presidential poodle, poseur, and yes-man. He is most notably disliked by the traditional spies from the former Deputy Directorate of Operations who have seen their elite status eroded under his leadership as he has promoted paramilitary officers instead of traditional agent handlers to lead the clandestine service. As Brennan will be departing in any event, few will defend the fusion centers that he has created to combine analytic and operational capabilities along the existing lines of the Counter Terrorism Center. Critics believe that putting intelligence collectors together with analysts who meet with the intelligence consumers will inevitably politicize what is being reported.

Read more

January 7, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

In an op-ed for the Baltimore Sun, two former, high-ranking intelligence officials tore apart the Obama administration’s vocal and as-yet unproven claim that the Russians interfered with the U.S. election — and hacked systems of the Democratic establishment — to ensure a Donald Trump win.

Read here

Stephen Lendman notes the ongoing Fake News from the NYTimes and other presstitutes re “Russian hacking”

Media Hype Fake News Report Claiming Russian US Election Hacking

by Stephen Lendman

Media scoundrels are all over the new CIA/FBI/NSA report, supporting it like gospel, disgracefully claiming Putin ordered America’s election hacked to help Trump defeat Hillary – despite no evidence in the contents proving it.

In a statement released to reporters, Trump said “(w)hile Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines.”

Media hype barely stopped short of suggesting Putin declared war on America, a disgraceful example of hyperbolic misrepresentation of reality.

The militantly anti-Russia, anti-Putin, anti-Trump New York Times headlined “Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds,” saying:

The report was “a virtually unheard-of, real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about to direct them…”

That’s as clear as it gets to America’s self-styled newspaper of record calling Trump’s election illegitimate – a seditious act surrounded by a body of Big Lies.

Previous articles explained no hacking occurred. Information was leaked by one or more Democrat party insiders, angry over Hillary stealing her party’s nomination.

Blaming Russia, Putin specifically, is part of bashing its sovereign independence and leadership. Virtually everything reported through official channels, regurgitated by media scoundrels, are lies, damn lies and Big Lies.

The Times: Trump “issued a written statement that appeared to concede some Russian involvement” in America’s election.

Fact: False! His statement, quoted above, said nothing of the sort, stating “there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines” – meaning no Russian attempt to hack America’s election or influence its results. Trump believes it. So should everyone. Nothing disproves it.

The neocon/CIA house organ Washington Post headlined “Declassified report says Putin ‘ordered’ effort to undermine faith in US election and help Trump,” covering the same misinformation and Big Lies as The Times and other media scoundrels.

Read more

Chris Sarns, a member of AE911Truth, did an analysis of the destruction of WTC 7 in a four part series. The fourth part is below. Follow the link to read all four parts.

By Chris Sarns

I first noticed the conundrum that suggested that the “10-story gouge” in the side of WTC 7 could not have actually existed back on September 6, 2006, while I was “debating” with Ryan Mackey in an online forum: See Conundrum in June 2004 Progress Report.

NIST’s first report, published two years earlier, referred to the “middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground.” It then went on to read: “No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.” — NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L, page 18 [PDF page 907] See June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST SP 1000-5).

Obviously, debris large enough to create a 10-story gouge, one-fourth to one-third the width of the building, would have landed in the first floor lobby, along with everything it brought down, including the third-floor lobby.

NIST depicted this “damage” in the graphic on page 23 as “Possible region of impact damage” and again on pages 31 and 32 [PDF pages 920 and 921] as “Approximate region of impact damage.”

Also, 9/11 researcher Winston Smith found another statement that conflicted with NIST’s 10-story gouge theory in the report on WTC 7 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Chapter 5 on page 20. It read: “According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.” See Federal Emergency Management Agency, Chapter 5, WTC 7.

Later I found still two more quotes that were in conflict with NIST’s theory of the 10-story gouge.

The first quote came from FDNY Chief Frank Fellini, who was in charge of operations at West and Vesey streets. Referring to “building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the tower,” Fellini said: “When it fell it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street.” See World Trade Center Task Force Interview—Chief Frank Fellini—Interview Date: December 3, 2001.

The second quote was an obfuscated comment buried in NIST’s Progress Report. Only after careful reading does it become clear what NIST meant in referring to “debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to the 5th floor*), noted that the atrium glass was still intact.” — NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L, page 18 [PDF page 907]

Photo in a post about the “10-story gouge” at the JREF Forum on April 10, 2007.

*The atrium, not the damage, extended from the ground floor to the fifth floor. Thus, the “10-story gouge” should have taken out much of the atrium glass; but it didn’t, according to this NIST report. See The Evidence for the “10-Story Gouge.”

Read more

Better Tag Cloud