Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Tag: Insider trading

“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

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

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


Afghan security personnel arrive after a deadly suicide attack in Jalalabad, east of Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2018. Attahullah Khogyani, spokesman for the provincial governor said a group of gunmen stormed the office of the non-governmental organization, Save the Children. (AP Photo)

By Sal Rodriguez
The Orange County Register
February 7, 2018

America’s forever war in Afghanistan will cost $45 billion this year, a Pentagon official told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.

Now in its 17th year, there seems to be no end in sight to what has mostly become a futile effort at nation building. Depending on how you calculate it, the total cost of the war to date somewhere between $841 billion and $2 trillion.

With numbers like that, since the government was going to blow hundreds of billions or trillions anyway, it’s hard not to ponder all the problems we might’ve been able to solve here in the United States for that amount of money, or even a fraction of it.

The human cost is also staggering. More than 26,000 civilians have been killed, tens of thousands more injured, more than 2,000 American soldiers have been killed, and many more injured. The trauma and destruction of war will be felt for generations to come.

After all of that, it isn’t clear that the United States has accomplished very much. The Taliban continues to gain ground, report after report has come out documenting waste and fraud in US spending in Afghanistan and it is known that our military has long looked the other way as Afghan security forces sexually abused children and continued funding units engaged in human rights abuses.

Read more

by Justin Raimondo
February 09, 2018
Antiwar.com

The Deep State spying scandal rolls on, with more details coming out daily. Here’s a few of the most shocking developments so far:

There was a second “dirty dossier” authored by the worst sleazebag in the Clinton camp, sent directly to the US State Department and from there via a convoluted route to the FBI. The dossier is said to be even sleazier than the Christopher Steele one. This was what went into the application to the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign.
Michael Isikoff, former journalist, now just a receptacle for Deep State propaganda, was working with the DNC against Trump: his Yahoo piece was cited by the Obama administration in their application to spy on the Trump campaign.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has issued a criminal referral to the Justice Department against “former” MI6 agent Christopher Steele for lying to the Committee under oath.:

“It appears the FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained for Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate of the opposing presidential candidate. It did so based on Mr. Steele’s personal credibility and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information. But there is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility.”

The Grassley-Grahama (Judiciary Committee) memo corroborates and expands on the Nunes memo, showing that the FBI lied to the FISA court, fed false information to the court, and exposes Rep. Adam Schiff as a serial liar.
Found among the FBI coup plotters’ text messages: we must prepare talking points for then FBI-Director James Comey because President Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing.” So the criminality goes straight up to the White House.

What’s interesting, in a disgusting way, is the reaction of the “left” and some “libertarians” to this truly scary development – the use of the Surveillance State to spy on and frame up political opponents. Listen to this podcast conducted by The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill, who openly disdains the idea that anything untoward or illegal was going on with this kind of surveillance: he is joined by Julian Sanchez, the Cato Institute’s “privacy” expert, who openly justifies the surveillance of “suspicious” Carter Page and tells us that there was basically nothing wrong with the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign.

Read more

Since Petrarch arrived from Avignon in 1341 to sing its praises, Rome in the Western mind has represented the ultimate threshold, the ultimate shrine


By Pepe Escobar
January 27, 2018
Asia Times.com

Italy will hold a general election on March 4. For the West, that’s quite momentous; voters deciding who rules in Rome will not only affect the third-largest economy in the eurozone but the full euro spectrum.

Italy’s debt is 130% of gross domestic product – the second-highest in the eurozone after Greece. Non-performing bank loans in Italy are the stuff of legend. The economy will grow by only 1.3% in 2018 – nearly half the European Union average (2.1%).

The political landscape reveals an unsavory triad. The center-left includes the Democratic Party of former prime minister Matteo Renzi – the Italian Tony Blair. Then there’s the largely discredited Five Star movement. And finally the center-right, with former prime minister Silvio “Bunga Bunga” Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party as a partner to the viscerally anti-immigration Northern League. This is the alliance that stands a strong chance of winning. But still they would need to form a coalition to govern.

Both Five Star and the Northern League want to hold a referendum on Italy’s membership in the euro in case member states cannot increase public spending. Berlusconi’s Forza Italia is even spinning the possibility of a parallel currency. The whole debate in Rome revolves on how to escape the trap of low growth and high unemployment.

This assortment of ills may look like Rome once again offering a living metaphor for the decline of the West. Alternatively, it might also offer a promise of renewal. In search of answers, I looked back in time and set off to the Forum for a walking conversation with the ruins of Rome.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud