Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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


Tag: 911 Demolition

by Justin Pavoni
July 15, 2014

Why does everyone care so much about the Middle East? The answer is obvious: it’s all about the oil. Do you really think the United States would give a damn about Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Libya if they didn’t control so much of the world’s master resource? Not a chance. Seen in this light it’s easy to dismiss the propaganda about American intervention in the region.

War for American freedom? Nope.
War for Iraqi freedom? Nope.
War against terrorism? Nope.
War against WMD? Nope.
Oil? You bet.

War is fought for one reason and one reason only: money. The rest is just a means to manufacture consent on the part of an otherwise peaceful population. Oil, a.k.a. “black gold” is money in more than one way.

First, the availability of cheap excess energy translates directly to economic growth. The largest sources of cheap energy are the conventional elephant fields of the Middle East. Of these, the Ghawar field in eastern Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest. To make a long story short, you can’t manufacture cheap goods without relatively cheap energy. You can’t transport them without cheap oil. Those who control the world’s energy resources have a serious competitive advantage in the world economy.

Second, there’s more at stake than easy access to the world’s supplies of cheap energy. There’s the “petrodollar,” i.e. the methodology by which you must pay for the oil is as important, perhaps more important, than the oil itself. A quick history on the subject is valuable. In 1971 the United States under President Nixon defaulted on its international promise to redeem dollars for gold according to the Bretton Woods monetary agreement of 1944. Justifiably, there was a run on the dollar and it began to rapidly lose its purchasing power. To save the newly fiat currency, the United States (President Nixon and then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger) agreed to defend the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia so long as the Saudis agreed to settle oil contracts exclusively in dollars. The Saudis would reinvest their excess dollars in United States treasury bonds and the Americans would support the corrupt Saudi Regime. All other nations suddenly needed dollars to pay for oil. Defending this arrangement is one of the principal causes of all of the evil that has happened in the region since then.

Read more

Published on Jul 12, 2014

VisitHigh-Rise Safety Initiative for more info.

Mayor Slams Campaign to Reopen Probe of 7 WTC

De Blasio blasts 9/11 truther ballot initiative

Coalition proposes ballot referendum to investigate 9/11

9/11 truthers want public vote on further investigation

9/11 conspiracy group pushes vote for investigation

9/11 Conspiracy Theory May Finally Be Settled On November Ballot

Reporting from Bizarro World, the ABC anchor tells us Israel is the perpetual victim

by Justin Raimondo
July 11, 2014

Poor Diane Sawyer – recently kicked upstairs by ABC News, she started off her Wednesday report on the Israeli assault on Gaza by giving us the Bizarro World version of the latest news. In a conflict where as of this moment 86 Palestinians have been killed – nearly all civilians, mostly women and children – and as many as 1,000 wounded, with exactly zero casualties in Israel, Sawyer directed our attention to “the rockets raining down on Israel” – while on the screen we saw Israeli jets pounding Gaza. Pointing to a still photo clearly of Palestinians dragging a mattress through the rubble, she described it as “an Israeli family trying to salvage what they can.”

In Bizarro World – where up is down, black is white, and truth is falsehood – this makes perfect sense. And it kind of does in our world, too, on at least two levels.

ABC later acknowledged the “error,” but one wonders: a lie, once in circulation and widely accepted, is hard to refute, no matter how many “corrections” are issued. Lots of people still think Saddam Hussein organized the 9/11 attacks, and they don’t all work at the Weekly Standard. War propaganda, which is largely dependent on visual images larded with shock value, is not especially subtle. The idea is to bypass the rational mind and appeal directly to the target’s emotions.

Read more

by Andrew J. Hawkins
July 10, 2014

Bill de Blasio is no fan of the 9/11 truth movement. Photo: Associated Press

Mayor Bill de Blasio on Thursday denounced an effort by an off-shoot of the 9/11 truth movement to force the city to investigate the collapse of 7 World Trade Center during the terrorist attack 13 years ago.

“From what I’ve heard it’s absolutely ridiculous,” a peeved Mr. de Blasio said in response to a reporter’s question. “And it’s inappropriate, after all the suffering that went on 9/11 and since. It seems to be this is a very insensitive and inappropriate action.”

The so-called High Rise Safety Initiative, a group of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who reject the government’s explanations for the collapse of 1, 2 and 7 World Trade Center, recently submitted tens of thousands of petition signatures to force a question onto the November ballot, as reported by Crain’s. They hope to give voters the chance to compel the city to investigate the collapse of 7 WTC, which they consider to be suspicious.

The ballot initiative would have to be confirmed by the City Council first, and Mr. de Blasio said Thursday that it was his hope the council would reject the measure.

“I believe the City Council will share our view that this should never be on the ballot,” he said, with Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito nodding in agreement beside him.

In 2009, the city successfully challenged in court an attempt to include a referendum on the ballot calling for an investigation into 7 WTC’s collapse. But even if the council rejects this latest effort, the High Rise Safety Initiative could still put its question to voters by collecting enough signatures.

Written by Craig McKee
30 June 2014
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

One Man’s Personal 9/11 Journey

Dave Hooper presents his new film, “The Anatomy of a Great Deception,” at its first screening, held at the Motor City Casino in Detroit last March.

A personal journey of discovery began just over three years ago for businessman and filmmaker David Hooper when he began to ask questions about what really happened on September 11, 2001. The result of his quest is a ground-breaking documentary, The Anatomy of a Great Deception.

During his search for answers, each question Hooper asked led to another, until eventually he deduced that the official story of how 9/11 transpired simply couldn’t be true. Besides the emotional upheaval of that realization, Hooper faced the added pain of feeling isolated from family members and friends, who shared neither his conclusions nor his conviction that America had been betrayed. So, as a way of reaching out to loved ones, Hooper decided to make the film, in hopes that it would help them grasp the facts that had shattered his worldview.

Billed as a “fast-paced, first-person docu-thriller,” The Anatomy of a Great Deception provides a fresh perspective on what happened to the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers and Building 7. The latter, a 47-story, steel-framed structure that was not hit by a plane, fell almost seven hours after the second tower came down.

Read more

Russia Today (RT) Interview With Michael Hudson
July 09, 2014

At issue is who shall rule the world: the emerging 1% as a financial oligarchy, or elected governments. The two sets of aims are antithetical: rising living standards and national independence, or a renting economy, austerity and international dependency.

RT: Could you summarize for us the tried and tested steps that will lead from IMF loans, to Ukraine’s best assets ending up in private Western hands – the IMF’s ‘knee-breaker’ role as you memorably described it as?

Michael Hudson: The basic principle to bear in mind is that finance today is war by non-military means. The aim of getting a country in debt is to obtain its economic surplus, ending up with its property. The main property to obtain is that which can produce exports and generate foreign exchange. For Ukraine, this means mainly the Eastern manufacturing and mining companies, which presently are held in the hands of the oligarchs. For foreign investors, the problem is how to transfer these assets and their revenue into foreign hands – in an economy whose international payments are in chronic deficit as a result of the failed post-1991 restructuring. That is where the IMF comes in.

The IMF was not set up to finance domestic government budget deficits. Its loans are earmarked to pay foreign creditors, mainly to maintain a country’s exchange rate. The effect usually is to subsidize flight capital out of the country – at a high exchange rate rather than depositors and creditors getting fewer dollars or euro. In Ukraine’s case, foreign creditors would include Gazprom, which already has been paid something. The IMF transfers a credit to its “Ukraine account,” which then pays foreign creditors. The money never really gets to Ukraine or to other IMF borrowers. It is paid to the accounts of foreigners, including foreign government creditors, as in IMF loans to Greece. Such loans come with “conditionalities” that impose austerity. This in turn drives the economy even further into debt – forcing the government to tighten the budget even more, run even smaller budget deficits and sell off public assets.

RT: Can Ukraine expect the so-called ‘IMF effect’ of 1 in 5 of the impoverished population emigrating to work abroad, and what consequence could this have on a country to lose its brightest minds?

MH: Ukraine already draws in foreign emigrants’ remittances equal to about 4% of its GDP. (About $10 billion a year.) Most of this money comes from Russia, the rest from Western Europe. The effect of IMF austerity plans is to drive more Ukrainians to emigrate in search of work. They will send some of their earnings back to their families, strengthening the Ukrainian currency vis-à-vis the ruble and euro.

RT: How are the IMF’s tools in reality “weapons of mass destruction” as you quoted it?

MH: Lower budget deficits cause even deeper austerity and unemployment. The result is a downward economic spiral. Lower incomes mean lower tax revenues. So governments are told to balance their budgets by selling off public assets – mainly natural monopolies whose buyers can raise excess prices to extract economic rent. The effect is to turn the economy into a renting “tollbooth economy.” Hitherto free public roads are turned into toll roads, and other transportation, water and sewer systems also are privatized. This raises the cost of living, and hence the cost of labor – while overall wage levels are squeezed by the financial austerity that shrinks markets and raises unemployment.

RT: The IMF’s perhaps also a weapon of mass destruction in a more literal sense. The organization has publicly threatened and blackmailed Ukraine that it will ‘re-design’ its aid package, unless Kiev goes to war on fellow Ukrainians in the East of the country and stops them protesting. Does that not make it now literally a criminal accomplice or instigator of war and murder?

MH: The IMF’s “conditionality” is that it “pacify” the East. Pacification may occur violently in today’s Orwellian rhetoric. The only way in which actual political and economic peace can be achieved is by a loose federalization of Ukraine, to make each region independent of the kleptocrats in Kiev, who are appointed mainly from the West.

As for accusations of criminality, this always depends on who is the prosecutor, and what is the court! No country has yet prosecuted the IMF. All that voters can do is reject governments submitting to IMF conditionalities. Many voters who are able will “vote with their feet” and simply leave the sinking economy. So the IMF’s defense is that Ukraine and other clients are voluntarily committing suicide rather than being murdered. Austerity is ultimately a policy – nobody is holding gun to their head, except when political leaders are assassinated as in Chile in 1974 under Pinochet with the US Government behind it. In this sense, Ukraine today is a replay of Chile four decades ago.

Read more

Michael Hudson is research professor of economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

By John Eggerton

Over three dozen journalist organizations including the Radio Television Digital News Association, National Press Foundation, and the Society of Professional Journalists, have asked the President to drop the “excessive controls” on public information by federal agencies, branding it “politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies.”

There has been an ongoing tension between broadcast, print and online journalists and the Obama administration, with complaints that the Administration has limited access to events, while providing its own “coverage” through official channels.

In a letter to President Obama, the groups complained about policies that require journalists to go through public information officers (PIOs) before talking with staff and that have PIOs vetting interview questions and monitoring interviews with sources.

“You recently expressed concern that frustration in the country is breeding cynicism about democratic government,” the letter began. “You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in.”

“The practices have become more and more pervasive throughout America, preventing information from getting to the public in an accurate and timely matter,” said David Cuillier, president of the Society of Professional Journalists, in announcing the letter. “The president pledged to be the most transparent in history. He can start by ending these practices now.”

Read more

Ethics Symposium Meets 9/11Truth
Written by James McDowell
June 30, 2014

An inaugural ethics conference sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) — the world’s largest professional association dedicated to advancing technology — provided an exciting opportunity for AE911Truth to bring its message to the forefront of the scientific and engineering community last month.

IEEE promised that its 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology, held in Chicago on May 23-24, would offer “a rich scientific program of highest quality,” feature speakers from throughout the world, and bring together “scientists, engineers, ethicists, and practitioners from different disciplines to discuss questions and concerns related to ethics in science, technology, and engineering.”

Based on that billing, three 9/11 Truth Movement activists were inspired to respond to the call for papers with a case study addressing the topic “Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Science, Technology and Engineering.” The resulting paper, Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study, was co-authored by physicist John D. Wyndham, Ph.D. (a member of Scientists for 9/11Truth) and engineers Wayne H. Coste, PE, and Michael R. Smith (both members of AE911Truth and the IEEE).

Their paper began with a summary of the codes of ethics — adopted by many professional societies — that set forth the obligations of engineers “to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity” in order to uphold the credibility and usefulness of the profession. It then laid out evidence of scientific misconduct by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

The authors detailed “fabrication and falsification” of data — data that NIST used to “support its hypothesis of a gravity-only structural weakening and subsequent failure” of World Trade Centers One and Two. Furthermore, they recounted statements about NIST’s failures from knowledgeable insiders, such as James Quintiere, Ph.D., former chief of the NIST Fire Science Division. One such statement was that NIST permitted only limited public comments. Another was that NIST’s “final report did not include an independent peer-review process.”

Read more


Representatives of the High-Rise Safety Initiative stand in front of the City Clerk’s office on July 3, 2014 before submitting 67,192 signatures. Left to right: Ted Walter, NYC CAN Executive Director; Valerie Lucznikowska, Aunt of Adam Arias; Bob McIlvaine, Father of Bobby McIlvaine.

We are proud to announce that earlier today we submitted over 67,000 signatures to the City of New York – 37,000 more than the requisite number for a charter amendment to be submitted to the voters at this November’s election. If passed by voters on November 4th, it would require the City’s Department of Buildings to investigate the collapse of WTC 7 and any future high-rise collapses. We would like to extend our deepest gratitude to everyone who contributed blood, sweat, tears and hard-earned dollars toward this remarkable achievement. Together we did it!

Administrator’s note: This article is perfect in the way it illustrates how people lie to themselves about what happened, remain clueless about what really happened or are paid to provide a cover up while appearing to be “truth tellers”. I’ll let you decide.

By Danny Sjursen
Jul 3, 2014

From time to time, WhoWhatWhy discovers compelling voices you haven’t heard anywhere before. Here, we present U.S. Army Captain Danny Sjursen’s cutting analysis of U.S. wars since 9/11. It’s a timely reflection on the costs of freedom, and a major part of our national story now, 238 years after we declared independence.

What makes Sjursen’s perspective so intriguing is that he is, by all definitions, a model Army officer: West Point graduate in the top 10 percent of his class, decorated veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and soon, a history lecturer at the U.S. Military Academy. A native of Staten Island, he lost eight friends and family members—all firefighters—in the collapse of the Twin Towers. He’s the author of the forthcoming book “Surge of Candor: Reflections on Soldiers, Service and the War in Iraq”.

Here, Sjursen is writing as himself and the views are his own, not those of the government or the Army that still employs him. What this cavalry officer says about our wars will surprise you, whether you agree or not.


Maybe the American people get the wars they deserve. Or is that too harsh?

Perhaps much of the blame for our continuing Century of War lies with the bill of goods we were sold by well-funded, fundamentalist ideologues in that perfect storm of incompetence known as the Bush administration. It’s been 13 years since the Twin Towers crumbled in my hometown, nearly seven since I returned from my first war, and still I’m torn on the issue.

Here’s a fact: the United States military possesses finite resources. Despite the rhetoric many of us were raised on—that of perpetual growth, unipolar power, and undiminished potential—our armed forces have serious limitations. Our constraints include capability, funding, and willpower.

It’s true that American soldiers and marines have fought, and died, with great poise, professionalism, and courage. I’ve witnessed it first-hand. But that doesn’t change one salient truth: we haven’t won in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s worth asking why, before we embark on any more overseas military ventures.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud