March 21, 2017
Via Miami Herald
By Carol Rosenberg
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba
The man serving life in a federal penitentiary as the “20th hijacker” in the Sept. 11 attacks wants to testify at the 9/11 trial and has written the military judge offering his services.
“I am willing to fully testify on the 9/11 case,” Zacarias Moussaoui wrote in broken English in January, “even if I was charge on the death penalty case as it incriminate me.” It is handwritten and signed “Slave of Allah.”
He also signs it “Enemy Combatant,” which he is not. Moussaoui, 48, is a convict serving life at the SuperMax prison in Florence, Colorado. He pleaded guilty in 2005 in a federal court in Virginia to six conspiracy charges related to the 9/11 attacks.
“My take is he would like to be in the spotlight and is bored in solitary,” former Moussaoui defense attorney Edward MacMahon said after reviewing a filing for the Miami Herald. “ ‘Slave of Allah’ is how he signs all of his filings.”
A review of filings on the Pentagon’s war-court website shows Moussaoui has at least three times written Army Col. James L. Pohl, the judge in the Sept. 11 mass-murder case with no trial date.
The first docketed letter arrived at war-court judiciary headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, on Nov. 12, 2015 in an envelope from the U.S. penitentiary. It had a Purple Heart postage stamp.
James Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Emerging Threats at NATO – now that’s a lovely title – recently gave a talk at a private club in London on the Islamic State/Daesh. Shea, as many will remember, made his name as NATO’s spokesman during the NATO war on Yugoslavia in 1999.
After his talk Shea engaged in a debate with a source I very much treasure. The source later gave me the lowdown.
According to Saudi intelligence, Daesh was invented by the US government – in Camp Bacca, near the Kuwait border, as many will remember — to essentially finish off the Shiite-majority Nouri al-Maliki government in Baghdad.
Military Training in Iraq Fails, Militants Stronger, US Officials Say
It didn’t happen this way, of course. Then, years later, in the summer of 2014, Daesh routed the Iraqi Army on its way to conquer Mosul. The Iraqi Army fled. Daesh operatives then annexed ultra-modern weapons that took US instructors from six to twelve months to train the Iraqis in and…surprise! Daesh incorporated the weapons in their arsenals in 24 hours.
In the end, Shea frankly admitted to the source that Gen David Petraeus, conductor of the much-lauded 2007 surge, had trained these Sunnis now part of Daesh in Anbar province in Iraq.
Saudi intelligence still maintains that these Iraqi Sunnis were not US-trained – as Shea confirmed – because the Shiites in power in Baghdad didn’t allow it. Not true. The fact is the Daesh core – most of them former commanders and soldiers in Saddam Hussein’s army — is indeed a US-trained militia.
True to form, at the end of the debate, Shea went on to blame Russia for absolutely everything that’s happening today – including Daesh terror.
By Daniel Larison
February 28, 2017
The American Conservative
Steven Cook comes to a strange conclusion about the future of the U.S.-Saudi relationship:
It is not that the U.S. shouldn’t walk away from Saudi Arabia because it is a major oil producer and a partner in the fight against terrorism, or because the bilateral relationship has benefited Washington. The larger issue is that if Saudi Arabia is left to its own devices, it will sow more chaos in the Middle East.
Cook does a very good job summing up the enormous harm that the Saudis have done in recent years and the incompetence of their more meddlesome foreign policy, but I’m not buying the conclusion that we have to maintain the current relationship with them so that they don’t cause even more trouble. The Saudis are at best a liability for the U.S. at this point, and thanks to the wrecking of Yemen that our government has supported for the last two years I think it is fair to say that they have become a regional menace. That has occurred while the U.S. has been lavishing them with more arms than at any previous point in the relationship. It seems reasonable to assume that there is a connection there. If the Saudis had not had U.S. arms and assistance over the last two years, they and their allies would have been able to cause much less harm than they have, and the coalition likely would have had to come to terms with their enemies in Yemen instead of continuing their war.
Washington’s ongoing commitment to “reassuring” the Saudis has been a nightmare for Yemen and has done nothing to make the U.S. or the region more secure, so it isn’t enough to say that the Saudis would become even more destructive if the U.S. reduced or eliminated its support for them. That might be true, or it might not, but we know right now that the current arrangement of enabling their destructive behavior is indefensible. Keeping the relationship as it is might prevent worse evils if there were any evidence that the U.S. acts as a restraining influence on the Saudis, but in practice it has been just the opposite. We have given the Saudis the means to attack one of their neighbors, and our government has backed them to the hilt as they did so. There might have been a time when supporting the Saudis seemed the least bad option for the U.S., but now this relationship is noxious, it makes the U.S. complicit in their war crimes, and it undeniably contributes to regional instability. It is very unlikely that this relationship will be ended, but it definitely ought to be.
President George W. Bush was allowed to continue with a routine visit to a school when the terrorist attacks occurred on September 11, 2001. Remarkably, members of the Secret Service and other personnel responsible for protecting the president failed to evacuate him from the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, after they learned that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center and it became clear that America was under attack.
As the nation’s leader, Bush should have been considered a likely target for terrorists. Furthermore, his schedule had been publicized in advance and so terrorists could have found out where he would be on September 11.
And yet, after arriving there shortly before 9:00 a.m. on September 11, Bush was allowed to stay at the Booker Elementary School until around 9:35 a.m.–almost 50 minutes after the first hijacked plane crashed into the World Trade Center and over 30 minutes after the second hijacked plane hit the Trade Center. He left the school just two or three minutes before a third attack occurred, when the Pentagon was struck.
The Secret Service’s failure to promptly evacuate Bush from the school is particularly baffling in light of the accounts of some key officials who were with the president that morning, in which these men recalled being worried that the school would be attacked. There were even concerns that terrorists might crash a plane into it. The failure to evacuate the school is also alarming in that it left hundreds of people there–not just the president–potentially in danger.
It would be wrong to attribute the inaction of the Secret Service to incompetence. Agents who were in Sarasota for Bush’s visit to the city were highly skilled individuals. They arranged extensive security measures for the visit, and they acted with great urgency and professionalism as they protected Bush after he left the school. They appear to have only failed to adequately protect the president for a period of about 40 minutes in the middle of the 9/11 attacks, after he arrived at the school.
We need to consider, therefore, whether the inaction of the Secret Service at this critical time is evidence of something sinister. Could efforts have been made to somehow put the agents in Sarasota into a state of paralysis? They might, for example, have been tricked into thinking the reports they received about the terrorist attacks in New York were simulated, as part of a training exercise.
The inaction of the Secret Service could in fact be evidence that, in contradiction to the official narrative of 9/11, rogue individuals in the U.S. government were involved in planning and perpetrating the terrorist attacks on September 11.
NO ONE CALLED THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE FIRST CRASH DURING THE DRIVE TO THE SCHOOL
On the morning of September 11, 2001, President Bush was scheduled to visit the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, where he planned to take part in a reading demonstration, and then talk to parents and teachers about his education policies. 
His motorcade left the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort on Longboat Key, where he’d spent the previous night, at around 8:39 a.m. on September 11 and headed to the school. At 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.  Numerous people in the motorcade, including White House officials, military officers, and journalists, learned about the crash as they were being driven to the school.  But no one called the president to tell him what had happened.
Bush was first informed about the crash at around 8:55 a.m., when he arrived at the school. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, director of the White House Situation Room, ran up to him and said, “Mr. President, the Situation Room is reporting that one of the World Trade Center towers has been hit by a plane.” “This is all we know,” she added. 
(Administrator’s note: Bush admits he SAW the plane hit the first tower. How did he see that unless the Mossad agents who were filing the attack were sending him the live feed? )
Bush was told about the crash again by Karl Rove, his senior adviser, as he was shaking hands with members of the official greeting party outside the school.  He has recalled thinking at the time that the incident must have been “a terrible accident.” 
He then talked on the phone with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who was at the White House. She told him the plane that struck the World Trade Center was a commercial jetliner, not a light aircraft. But Bush still thought the crash was an accident and went ahead with the scheduled event.  At 9:02 a.m., he entered the second-grade classroom of teacher Sandra Kay Daniels to listen to the students reading. 
BUSH CONTINUED WITH THE READING EVENT AFTER BEING TOLD, ‘AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK’
A minute later, United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Bush was alerted to what had happened at around 9:05 a.m. to 9:07 a.m., when Andrew Card, his chief of staff, approached him and whispered in his ear: “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.” 
Despite receiving this devastating news, Bush carried on as if nothing was wrong. “In the middle of a modern-day Pearl Harbor,” author James Bamford commented, “he simply turned back to the matter at hand: the day’s photo op.”  Significantly, author Philip Melanson pointed out, “no [Secret Service] agents were there to surround the president and remove him instantly.” 
Bush listened to the children reading for five minutes, and then spent at least two minutes asking them questions and telling the school’s principal about the second crash.  He left the classroom shortly before 9:15 a.m.  He was still sticking closely to his schedule, which specified that he would conclude his participation in the reading demonstration at 9:15 a.m. 
The commission that was appointed by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to investigate the incident—which includes seven engineers and three non-engineers—is now charged with releasing an official report one month from now. Photo credit: MEHR News Agency/Asghar Khamseh
Iconic 15-story high-rise tragically claimed the lives of 16 firefighters and 10 civilians
By AE911Truth Staff
Feb. 20, 2017
Today, one month and one day after the Plasco Building incident in Tehran, we are releasing a preliminary assessment of what caused the demise of this iconic 15-story high-rise, which tragically claimed the lives of 16 firefighters and 10 civilians.
Although we’re an organization of architects and engineers dedicated to finding the truth about the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11, upon reviewing videos of the Plasco Building collapse and observing the improper rush to judgment about what caused it, we determined it was our ethical responsibility to bring our expertise to bear on this matter as well.
We therefore set out to prepare a report that was as comprehensive as possible in as short a time as possible in hopes of helping steer the dialogue in Iran and worldwide toward ensuring an unbiased, science-based investigation into the causes of the tragedy.
The commission that was appointed by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to investigate the incident—which includes seven engineers and three non-engineers—is now charged with releasing an official report one month from now.
We will be sending our preliminary assessment to every member of that commission as well as to members of engineering faculties and professional associations throughout Iran. We also plan to send it to news organizations in North America and Europe with the goal of getting them to report on this still-developing story.
Despite a media campaign trying to offload neoconservative Elliott Abrams onto the Trump administration, and considerable pressure from within the cabinet to appoint him Deputy Secretary of State, President Trump has decided against including the controversial interventionist and Iraq war supporter in his administration.
Like virtually all of his fellow neoconservatives, Abrams disdained Trump’s unwillingness to kowtow to our alleged “allies” and sneered at him for his supposed “ignorance.”
Media accounts – see here and here – attribute this to Trump being “thin-skinned” – Abrams was highly critical of Trump during the presidential campaign, as I pointed out on Twitter. But this is a remarkably superficial analysis of what really went on, for Abrams’ critique of Trump was that of a globalist who is unalterably opposed to Trump’s “America First” foreign policy views.
As our regular readers know, we here at Antiwar.com have been conducting a campaign against Abrams, urging the President not to appoint him and telling our readers to call both the White House and their congressional representatives.
Sen. Rand Paul also signaled that he would oppose Abrams, who would have been subject to Senate confirmation.
9/11 has been one of the biggest events in recent history that sparked a mass awakening across the world.
There has been much debate as to how it happened, who is responsible and why.
To this day about 1/3 of americans do not believe the official story.
In other areas of the world as much as 90% of the country does not believe the official story.
Here is a list of 24 facts that cannot be debunked about 9/11.
1) Nano Thermite was found in the dust at Ground Zero. Peer reviewed in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. ‘Niels Harrit’, ‘Thermite Bentham’, “The great thermate debate” Jon Cole, ‘Iron rich spheres’ Steven Jones, ‘Limited Metallurgical Examination (FEMA C-13, Appendix C-6)’. ‘Nano Tubes’
2) 1700+ Engineers and Architects support a real independent 9/11 investigation. Richard Gage, Founder. ‘Explosive Evidence’, ‘Blueprint for Truth’, ‘AE911′, ‘Toronto Hearings’, ‘Kevin Ryan’.
3) The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds). Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”. Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage. Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. ‘Building 7′, ‘WTC 7′.
4) Dick Cheney was in command of NORAD on 9/11 while running war games. ‘Stand down order’. “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?”. Norman Minetta testimony. “Gave order to shootdown Flight 93.”, ‘NORAD Drills’.
5) 6 out of the 10 Commissioners believe the 9/11 Commission report was “Setup to fail” Co-Chairs Hamilton and Kean, “It was a 30 year conspiracy”, “The whitehouse has played cover up”, ‘Max Cleland resigned’, ‘John Farmer’.
6) FBI confiscated 84/85 Videos from the Pentagon. ‘Moussaoui trial’ revealed these videos. Released Pentagon Security Camera (FOIA) does not show a 757 and is clearly missing a frame. ‘Sheraton Hotel’, “Double tree’, ‘Citgo”.
7) Osama Bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” CIA created, trained and funded “Al Qaeda/Taliban” during the Mujahideen. OBL was a CIA asset named ‘Tim Osman’. OBL Reported dead in Dec 2001 (FOX).
8) 100′s of Firefighters and witness testimony to BOMBS/EXPLOSIONS ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report. 9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses. “Explosions in the lobby and sub levels”, ‘Firefighter explosions’, ‘Barry Jennings’, ‘William Rodriguez’.
Straight after the “extreme vetting” blitzkrieg – which, technically, is not a “Muslim ban” – President Trump called the lucidity-impaired King Salman of Saudi Arabia and “requested, and the king agreed to support” (in the words of the White House), safe zones in Syria and Yemen.
No wonder serial eyebrows were raised facing the prospect of a Trump/House of Saud alliance in Syria — which the Saudis have been destroying for years via weaponizing/cash support for “rebels” – and Yemen – which the Saudis have been bombing in an unwinnable war.
Trump and King Salman did not exchange a single word on the “Muslim ban”. And why should they? Saudi Arabia is mercifully excluded from the “Muslim ban”.
The official White House statement did mention a Saudi request for Trump to lead “an effort” not only to “defeat terrorism” but also to improve the Middle East socially and economically. This could be easily interpreted as the House of Saud asking Trump to lead the Arab world. It will be no doubt exciting to monitor how the pan-Arab street will manifest its “approval”.
As for the safe zones, everyone is waiting for the Trump-ordered Pentagon assessment, to be led by “Mad Dog” Mattis, on how they would be enforced. Drones? Multiple Black Hawk patrols? Squadrons of fighter jets? Boots on the ground?
Certified jihadis with Saudi passports, meanwhile, enthusiastically turbo-charge their celebrations.
I’ll bomb your visa to ashes
On the “Muslim ban”, let’s cut to the chase. Trump’s seven-nation list is the Obama administration’s list. These nations were “rounded up” by the Obama administration already in 2011, and are included in Obama’s Terrorist Travel Protection Act 2015.
Homeland Security was already targeting these seven nations as “countries of concern”. Customs and Border Protection, detailing the “Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015”, even explicitly mentioned the seven nations. The whole package was signed into law on December 18, 2015, as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2016.
So the Trump White House is essentially enforcing a law that already exists. In a nutshell, it has been official USG policy for over a year to target, and turn admission to the US, an absolute odyssey for these nationals.
The law now says they can, but the debate rages on.
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
December 14, 2016
The American Conservative
Surviving 9/11 victims, as well as the families and loved ones of those who died that day, say they have reams of evidence linking the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the al-Qaeda hijackers—and they want their day in court, which may result in billions of dollars in damages.
In addition, proponents say such a lawsuit would finally force accountability on the kingdom, which despite being a longtime ally of the U.S. had a role in the birth of Wahhabism, the extremist cornerstone of faith that inspired al-Qaeda in the first place. Funding for the spread of that strain of Islam across the Middle East and elsewhere has been traced to members of the House of Saud for decades. So has financing for terrorism.
Up until September, the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) appeared to preclude civil action in U.S. courts against a foreign government for acts of international terrorism unless strict requirements were met—the toughest being that the government in question had to be on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, which Saudi Arabia is not. There were also hurdles to pass under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Nonetheless, some 9,000 civil lawsuits were filed on behalf of 9/11 victims. Those lawsuits have been locked in a back-and-forth battle between the victims and the Saudi defendants over whether the U.S. has jurisdiction, bouncing from the U.S. District Court of New York to the Second Circuit District of Appeals for over a decade. Sometimes the 9/11 victims have had the headwinds, other times the defendants, but there seemed to be no final word on whether these cases could go forward.
Until now. The Justice Against Terrorism Act (JASTA) passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, and it became law in September when Congress overrode the president’s veto. It gives the plaintiffs their strongest tool yet to see these cases through to a long-awaited conclusion.
But is passing a law that chisels away the last vestiges of foreign-state immunity the best way to handle the grievances of the 9/11 loved ones? Will it spur reciprocal legislation by foreign governments, which may now feel emboldened to bring Washington to court for perceived crimes, like funding militia groups or rebels that have committed violent acts, a.k.a. “terrorism,” against their people?
Skepticism for the bill seems to come from all directions—particularly among the legal establishment, former diplomats, and administration officials. Even foreign leaders have weighed in, with French parliamentarian Pierre Lellouche saying JASTA “will cause a legal revolution in international law with major political consequences.”
President Barack Obama, whose administration lobbied Congress hard against JASTA, warned in his September veto message against taking the role of fighting international terrorism out of the hands of national-security officials and putting it into the judiciary’s lap. Specifically:
Removing sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated as state sponsors of terrorism, based solely on allegations that such foreign governments’ actions abroad had a connection to terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil, threatens to undermine these longstanding principles that protect the United States, our forces, and our personnel.
Other critics, including a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, have ridiculed JASTA as an empty political effort to placate the 9/11 victims and assuage anti-Saudi sentiment, noting that the final bill was massaged to put more restraints on damages and allow the State Department to put a “stay” on cases indefinitely if it can certify it is in “good faith discussions” with the defendant toward a resolution.
“I think it was a cheap, political shot,” Freeman told TAC, calling the Saudi lawsuits “a witch hunt.” “This is utterly irresponsible, and it brings great discredit to the United States and does nothing to help the people it is supposed to benefit, so what’s so good about it?”
Even so, he said, the new law brings the U.S. closer to the embrace of creeping international law. “There has been a trend toward breaking down sovereign immunity on human-rights issues and subjecting states to international court’s jurisdiction, and JASTA walks right into that,” Freeman claims.
In fact, in November, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, to which the U.S. is not a party, raised the possibility that members of the U.S. armed forces and the CIA could be indicted in that tribunal based on reports of detainee torture in Afghanistan and in secret overseas prisons.
In addition to creating “an open season for lawyers to go after foreign governments for compensation for actions they might or might not have been able to control,” says former CIA foreign-service officer and TAC contributor Phil Giraldi, JASTA “raises the specter of of the U.S. again being shown to hold double standards for itself and others as the federal government has consistently blocked any recourse to our courts for people we have tortured or renditions by citing state secrets privilege.” Therefore JASTA might further encourage targeted countries to “take reciprocal action against U.S. officers and government employees.”
But for the 9/11 loved ones and their lawyers supporting the bill, these are familiar arguments that just don’t ring true.