Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Tag: Saudi involvement

November 14, 2016

If this account is true–unless Trump merely intends to blame the Saudis which would be a continuation of the cover-up in different clothes–the CIA, Mossad, and the neocon nazis will kill him before he is inaugerated.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/trump-im-reopening-911-investigation/

A different site reports: The online fact-checker Metabunk noted, although Trump gave a speech in Richmond, Henrico County, on October 14, 2016, he did not mention 9/11 during the speech. However, he had talked about releasing secret 9/11 documents during a campaign event in Bluffton, South Carolina last February, saying that Americans “will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center” if he is elected as president.
“It wasn’t the Iraqis,” he said at the time, according to Real Clear Politics. “You may find it’s the Saudis. They have papers in there that are very secret. But you will find out.”

http://www.inquisitr.com/3711339/donald-trump-vows-to-reopen-911-investigation-fake-news-report-sparks-excitement-among-members-of-the-truth-movement/#i6yYwlyfl2o5EMwF.99

The Inquisitr seems suspect itself. The Inquisitr doesn’t call the official 9/11 story a conspiracy, which it most certainly is. The Inquisitr reserves “conspiracy theory” for the 2,700 architects and engineers for 9/11 truth, civilian and military pilots for 9/11 truth, firefighters for 9/11 truth, and for scientists and former high government officials who point out the implausibility of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Therefore, we cannot conclude that what Inquisitr says is correct either.

October 2, 2016
By Darren Smith
Source

Stephanie Ross Desimone filed suit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia alleging the nation provided material support to Al-Qaida in its terror attacks against the United States on September 11th, 2001. This represents the first of such filings–there–are almost certainly to be many following, since the United States Congress last Wednesday overrode President Obama’s veto of a sovereign immunity bill allowing foreign governments to be sued in the United States for supporting terrorist acts within the US borders.

Stephanie’s husband, Navy Cdr. Patrick Dunn, was murdered when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

The full text of the complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, is attached below:

Click to read complaint

Changes Expected During Post-Election Session

by Jason Ditz
September 29, 2016
Antiwar.com

Just 24 hours after standing up to the White House and intense Saudi lobbying and overriding the veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), the Congressional leadership is already feverishly backtracking and promising to “fix” the bill in such a way as to placate Obama and the Saudis.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R – KY) said the changes were worth “further discussion,” while his House counterpart Speaker Paul Ryan (R – WI) promised to outright “fix” the bill in such a way as to prevent “ant kind of retribution.”

While there was no real debate in the Senate ahead of the override vote, within the House several opponents were calling for changes that would dramatically weaken the bill to be immediately negotiated, win or lose, and it seems they’re getting exactly that, with everyone all set to knuckle under to warnings of Saudi outrage and “unintended consequences.”

The White House, which called yesterday’s override the “most embarrassing” thing the US Senate has ever done, mocked them for promising to fix the bill to placate Obama, saying that the Congress had “rapid onset buyer’s remorse.”

Public opinion is seen overwhelmingly in favor of JASTA as it is presently written, and indeed the White House sought to avoid this override until after the election so the will of the voters wasn’t so prominent for senators.

Reflecting the desire to keep the public placated, while at the same time giving in to Saudi demands, Sens Bob Corker (R – TN) and Lindsey Graham (R – SC) both indicated that the “fixes” would be implemented after the November elections, during the lame duck session.

That means for the next month and a half the JASTA nominally will be law, but with the understanding that it is going to be watered down to virtually nothing immediately after the vote, once everyone has gotten reelected for passing the bill, and can then shift focus back to what the Saudis want.

By Jordan Fabian –
Sept. 23, 2016
The Hill

President Obama on Friday vetoed legislation that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S courts, setting up a high-stakes showdown with Congress.

“I recognize that there is nothing that could ever erase the grief the 9/11 families have endured,” Obama wrote in his veto message. “Enacting JASTA into law, however would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.”

Obama’s move opens up the possibility that lawmakers could override his veto for the first time with a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

Republican and Democratic leaders have said they are committed to holding an override vote, and the bill’s drafters say they have the support to force the bill to become law.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) unanimously passed through both chambers by voice vote.

But the timing of the president’s veto is designed to erode congressional support for the bill and put off a politically damaging override vote until after the November elections.

Obama waited until the very end of the 10-day period he had to issue a veto, hoping to buy time to lobby members of Congress against the measure.

White House officials also hope congressional leaders will leave Washington to hit the campaign trail before trying for an override, kicking a vote to the lame-duck session after the election.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said the upper chamber will remain in session until the veto override vote is done.

“Now that we have received the veto message from the president, the Senate will consider it as soon as practicable in this work period,” said David Popp, a McConnell spokesman.

Under current law, 9/11 victims’ families may sue a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, such as Iran. JASTA would allow U.S. citizens to sue countries without that designation, including Saudi Arabia.

The measure has touched a political nerve ahead of an election in which terrorism has emerged as a central issue. It has strong bipartisan support and is backed by 9/11 families’ organizations.

Those families have sought damages from Saudi Arabia, since 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001 hailed from that country.

Critics have long been accused the Saudi government of directly or indirectly supporting the attacks, though a concrete link has never been proven.

In a statement, the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism said they are “outraged and dismayed” by the veto and call his reasoning “unconvincing and unsupportable.”

Read more

Administrator’s note: Another distraction from the real perpetrators. Recently the US government approved giving Israhell $38 billion over ten years. Not a bad payoff for helping to pull of 911. The Saudis helped but only helped. They didn’t plan it or carry it out internally.

by Jay Syrmopoulos
September 9, 2016
The Free Thought Project

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. House of Representatives, following the lead of the Senate, has passed a bill allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11 only days before the attack’s 15th anniversary. The measure passed unanimously, without objection or opposition, but President Obama has promised to veto the bill.

House Resolution 3815, also known as the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” or JASTA, creates an exception to sovereign immunity created by a 1976 law, which currently prohibits U.S. citizens from suing foreign countries for terrorism that kills Americans on U.S. soil. The unanimous vote in the House gives the Republican-dominated legislature the ability to override a promised veto from the White House.

The sovereign immunity law has been invoked to guard Saudi Arabia from numerous lawsuits related to their involvement in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Fifteen out of 19 men, who are alleged to have hijacked commercial airliners and used them as missiles to target the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

For all the excitement about the House’s unanimous passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), following a similar unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate in late May, it turns out that the bill offers nothing more than an illusion of the prospect of justice and accountability. It is, indeed, a cruel hoax.

A last-minute amendment to the final draft of the bill included a provision that allows for the U.S. attorney general and secretary of state to stop any pending legislation against the Saudis. The section that was quietly inserted into the legislation — “Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations” — allows the secretary of state to simply “certify” that the U.S. is “engaged in good-faith discussions with the foreign-state defendant concerning the resolution of claims against the foreign state.”

Read more

Michel Chossudovsky (Editor)
August 2012
Global Research

The 911/ Reader is part of Global Research’s Online Interactive I-Book Reader, which brings together, in the form of chapters, a collection of Global Research feature articles, including debate and analysis, on a broad theme or subject matter. To consult our Online Interactive I-Book Reader Series, click here.

INTRODUCTION

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history. a decisive watershed, a breaking point. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.

September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society.

A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.

Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” were set in motion.

9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.

September 11, 2001 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.

CIA Director George Tenet stated that same morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, without mentioning Afghanistan, pointed his finger at “state sponsorship,” implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, “I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution.”

That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.

The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage war on Afghanistan on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”. Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. The “just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11.

In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country in Central Asia of 30 million people.

The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.

Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress, which the mainstream media chose to either dismiss or ignore. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.

The 9/11 Commission Report has largely upheld the “outside enemy” mythology, heralding Al Qaeda as the “mastermind” organization behind the 9/11 attacks.

The official 9/11 narrative has not only distorted the causes underling the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, it has also erased the historical record of US covert support to international terrorism, while creating the illusion that America and “Western Civilization” are threatened.

Without an “outside enemy”, there could be no “war on terrorism”. The entire national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.

After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive Al Qaeda “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.

Read more

September 10, 2016
by Paul Craig Roberts


There are many conspiracy theories about 9/11. The US government’s own expanation of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory in which a few Saudi Arabians outwitted the American national security state. Little doubt that many of the more imaginative conspiracy theories were created for the purpose of stigmatizing any skepticism, no matter how well reasoned and supported, of the official story.

When thinking about 9/11, it is important to differentiate expert opinion from improbable explanations.

Among the expert opinion are 2,600 structural engineers and high-rise architects who comprise Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth and have written to Congress asking for a real investigation, Firefighters for 9/11 truth, Pilots for 9/11 truth, physicists and chemists who analyzed the dust from the twin towers and report finding reacted and unreacted materials used in controlled demolitions, and former government officials who understand that a security failure as great as 9/11 would have produced an immediate and exacting investigation.

These groups of qualified and experienced people say that the official story of 9/11 is false. Architects, engineers, and scientists say that the official story is physically impossible. Firefighters and WTC maintenance personnel say that there were numerous explosions within the towers and that the first explosions were in the sub-basements prior to the buildings being hit by airplanes. Experienced military and civilian pilots say the maneuvers of the aircraft are beyond the capability of the alleged hijackers. Both co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission and the legal counsel have written books in which they have said that information was withheld from the Commission, that the US government lied to the Commission, and that the Commission was set up to fail

In other words, the hard evidence simply does not support the official story.

We know that the official story is false. We don’t know who is responsible or the purpose the event was intended to serve. However, circumstantial evidence strongly supports suspicion of the neoconservatives whose high positions in the government would have enabled them to succeed with a false flag attack and to delay and divert any investigation until the official story was set in stone. We also know from the “dancing Israelis” that elements in the Israeli government had advance notice of the attack as Israeli agents were set up ready to film the destruction of the twin towers.

Read more

By Roger Stone
August 20, 2016
LewRockwell.com

Judicial Watch proved it. Under a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch was able to obtain a (heavily redacted) copy of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) directive that initiated the creation of ISIS in 2012. the DIA report states,

“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION . . . [SUPPORT] ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA . . . IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME . . .”.

Not even Judicial Watch seems to have appreciated the significance of this document, where its press release focused on the Benghazi attack. Recent releases of Hillary’s emails, moreover, confirm that taking out Assad has nothing to do with his alleged abuse of the Syrian people but because it will help Israel.

Just in case it has slipped anyone’s mind, Hillary was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Barack was inaugurated in 2008 and steps down in 2016. It happened on their watch. It could not have happened without their approval. They really did create ISIS!

The chemical attacks on Syrian citizens on 21 August 2013 was meant to justify lobbing cruise missiles into Syria. Obama was ready, but Americans were not. And when the ploy was debunked by a 50-page dossier the Russians provided to the UN, they resorted to “Plan B”, which was the creation of ISIS by the DIA.

The chemical weapons are widely believed to have been provided to the “rebels” by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, to whom the Bush family refers as “Bandar Bush”. But recent releases of Hillary’s emails suggest that she was directing the transfer of weapons from Libya to Syria and chemical weapons may have been among them.

The Benghazi attack appears to have been initiated because Ambassador Christ Stevens was concerned that some of the weapons being sent to Syria could be used against the civilian population. The Obama administration has stonewalled inquiries as to whether Benghazi had anything to do with transferring weapons to the rebels. That means “Yes!”

Read more

Glenn Greenwald
Aug. 25 2016,
The Intercept

As the numerous and obvious ethical conflicts surrounding the Clinton Foundation receive more media scrutiny, the tactic of Clinton-loyal journalists is to highlight the charitable work done by the foundation, and then insinuate — or even outright state — that anyone raising these questions is opposed to its charity. James Carville announced that those who criticize the foundation are “going to hell.” Other Clinton loyalists insinuated that Clinton Foundation critics are indifferent to the lives of HIV-positive babies or are anti-gay bigots.

That the Clinton Foundation has done some good work is beyond dispute. But that fact has exactly nothing to do with the profound ethical problems and corruption threats raised by the way its funds have been raised. Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, and tyrannical regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris jointly donated tens of millions of dollars to an organization run by her family and operated in its name, one whose works has been a prominent feature of her public persona. That extremely valuable opportunity to curry favor with the Clintons, and to secure access to them, continues as she runs for president.

The claim that this is all just about trying to help people in need should not even pass a laugh test, let alone rational scrutiny. To see how true that is, just look at who some of the biggest donors are. Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.

Read more

9/11 | 2016
A Weekend Symposium in NYC

Join Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, and other co-sponsors for a weekend symposium on the pursuit of 9/11 Justice fifteen years after the fateful events of September 11, 2001.

Hundreds of researchers and activists will come together in the historic Great Hall of Cooper Union in New York City on Saturday, September 10, and Sunday, September 11, 2016.

Together, in this 800-seat auditorium, we will discuss the state of ongoing efforts to expose the truth and obtain justice for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent victims and that continue to serve as the pretext for the Global War on Terrorism.

The conference will feature keynote addresses from respected legal figures, as well as panel discussions on the role of the Deep State and the significance of the recently declassified 28 Pages, presentations by movement leaders and researchers, and day-long evidentiary hearings on the World Trade Center’s destruction, which will be conducted by a panel of esteemed lawyers.

Day One: Saturday, September 10, 2016
Master of Ceremonies: Mark Crispin Miller

Panel Discussion
Creating Our Enemies: From the Mujahadeen to ISIS
Wayne Madsen, J. Michael Springmann, additional speaker(s) TBA

Keynote Address
9/11 as “Strategy of Tension”
Judge Ferdinando Imposimato
Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy

Panel Discussion
Meet the “9/11 Truth Action Project”
Bill Jacoby, Sander Hicks, Wayne Coste

Presentations
World Trade Center Science:
Education and Research Lay the Groundwork for Justice
Richard Gage, AIA, and Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, P.E., S.E.

Panel Discussion
28 Pages to 80,000 Pages:
Transparency as the Path to a New Investigation
Les Jamieson, Jeff Steinberg, additional speaker(s) TBA

Keynote Address
Lessons from Landmark Cases Applied to Prosecuting 9/11
Daniel Sheehan
Public Interest Attorney, Author of The People’s Advocate

Roundtable Discussion
Justice in Focus:
Toward Prosecuting the Crimes of 9/11
Daniel Sheehan, Gary Null, Mark Crispin Miller, Wayne Madsen, additional speaker(s) TBA

Day Two: Sunday, September 11, 2016

Participants

Master of Ceremonies
Dr. William Pepper, Esq.

Panelists (on various panels throughout the day)
Jane Clark, Michael Diamond, Yvonne Bushyhead, Bill Jacoby, Dave Meiswinkle, Mustapha Ndanusa, Mick Harrison, Andrew Kreig, Bill Veale, David Cole, Vance Green, Doug McKenzie, Les Jamieson, Barbara Honegger

Guest Panelists
Daniel Sheehan and Judge Ferdinando Imposimato

Presenters of Evidence
David Chandler (Physicist/Mathematician), Jonathan Cole (Civil Engineer), Richard Gage (Architect), Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey (Civil/Structural Engineer), Dr. Steven Jones (Physicist), Dr. Graeme MacQueen (Peace and Religious Studies), Tony Szamboti (Mechanical Engineer)

Sessions
Panel Discussion
Introduction to the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry

Panel Discussion
Legal Standards Related to Specific Crimes and Grand Juries

Presentations before an Attorney Panel
Presentations of Evidence

Panel Discussion
Legal Standards Applied to the Evidence: Is a Grand Jury Warranted?

Panel Discussion
Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry Legal Campaign Strategy

Speakers and panel:
Daniel Sheehan, litigated cases related to the Pentagon Papers and the Iran/Contra Affair;
Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy;
Richard Gage, AIA, AE911Truth
Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, University of Alaska Fairbanks;
Wayne Madsen, J. Michael Springmann
Mark Crispin Miller, professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU
William Pepper, International Human Rights attorney

Tickets and more information

Better Tag Cloud