Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Tag: Shanksville

Aug. 17, 2016
911 Blogger

Fourteen suburban newspapers in the Dallas/Ft Worth area contain online 9/11 Truth Ads which are running for three months. The 14 papers have a combined readership above 243,000.

Not only are these ads timed to coincide with September 11th, 2016, but also with back to school, school activities, school sports and autumn events. Readership interest increases when school starts.

About Star Local Mediahttp://starlocalmedia.com/site/about.html
Star Local Media”A media company comprising 14 community newspapers and Web sites that has been serving suburban North Texas for more than a century. We pride ourselves on being the sole comprehensive news source for our areas.”
”Our coverage includes news, business, sports and entertainment in our Live and Local section. We also represent our local businesses with our display and classified advertising. Our readers can count on timely and relevant information delivered to their doorstep or digital devices.”

Star Local Media Newshttp://starlocalmedia.com/
Star Local Media Businesshttp://starlocalmedia.com/business/
Allen – http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamerican/
Carrollton – http://starlocalmedia.com/carrolltonleader/
Celina – http://starlocalmedia.com/celinarecord/
Coppell – http://starlocalmedia.com/coppellgazette/
Frisco – http://starlocalmedia.com/friscoenterprise/
Lewisville – http://starlocalmedia.com/lewisvilleleader/
Little Elm – http://starlocalmedia.com/littleelmjournal/
McKinney – http://starlocalmedia.com/mckinneycouriergazette/
Mesquite – http://starlocalmedia.com/mesquitenews/
Plano – http://starlocalmedia.com/planocourier/
Rowlett – http://starlocalmedia.com/rowlettlakeshoretimes/
The Colony – http://starlocalmedia.com/thecolonycourierleader/
The Leader – http://starlocalmedia.com/theleader/
Lake Cities Sun – http://starlocalmedia.com/lakecitiessun/

There are a total of four ads comprised of animated graphics which link to YouTube videos. The individual ads randomly rotate to each of the 14 suburban newspapers.

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

07/25/2016
911 Blogger

Recently former FBI agent Mark Rossini and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke have raised the issue of CIA withholding in relation to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. This is an aspect of 9/11 that the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate. Despite this failure the mainstream media still loves to pretend the 9/11 Commission did a super job. This endorsement is probably based in part on the fact that the mainstream media has done a horrible, horrible job of investigating this aspect of 9/11. Basically the media hides their own lack of investigation by pretending the 9/11 Commission did a thorough job. The withholding is not a small detail that has little import. The truth about the withholding will likely change the entire context of the war on terror. It is that important.

Clarke and Rossini have both obscured the conduct of the FBI in the withholding:

Rossini:

Dina did not know at all about the recruitment effort. Dina just knew that the methodology by which the CIA knew about these terrorists was via an “intelligence method”, (which Dina erroneously and innocently thought was protected then by the “wall”).

9/11 Final Thoughts

Clarke:

Finally, 18 months after the two al-Qaeda men arrived in the U.S., the CIA, in a very low key way, passed a report to the FBI about al-Mihdhar and al-Hamzi. It was too late. Their trail had gone cold. They had entered the final phase of preparations for 9/11.

Behind the 28 pages

People who have followed this aspect of 9/11 are aware that the FBI UBLU which received the info acted in a very strange manner. Here are a few reasons the conduct was irregular:

1) Corsi’s claim of wall hindrance contradicts with the statements of NSLU attorney Sherry Sabol.
2) Remember the context at the time. Lots of terrorist chatter. Clarke and CIA officials were sounding the alarm.
3) The Cole investigation was a criminal matter. Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were linked to the Cole by way of the Malaysia meeting and the Yemen hub.
4) Why would UBLU personnel not involve high level FBI immediately? Were they worried about a terrorist attack in the US? Were they worried about CYA if their interpretation of the wall was later deemed to be BS? It makes no sense that they wouldn’t involve higher level officials like head of CT Dale Watson.
5)If the wall was really the issue then why on earth was the investigation marked routine? That is outrageous. The routine flag strongly suggests that the wall was an excuse to conceal another reason. Perhaps Alec Station deputy chief Tom Wilshire was still running things even after the sharing and he made sure the investigation was not successful by having the UBLU assign a single rookie intel side agent to perform the search.

If the UBLU also sat on the info then the CIA recruitment story becomes less credible as an explanation. The media have never interviewed any Alec Station or UBLU personnel directly involved in the withholding loop (i.e. Blee, Wilshire, Bikowsky, Corsi, Middleton). Journalists don’t have to go to Saudi Arabia to get answers as to why CIA and FBI personnel obstructed at least two al Qaeda investigations. Sadly for the public the media in the US doesn’t care enough about the public interest to get answers.

“Are you an expendable firefighter? At the moment, it would appear so.” — Brian Maxwell

by Michael DeFilippo
July 2, 2016
Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth

From oil rigger to fireman to 9/11 activist — whatever he undertakes, Brian Maxwell carries with him his high ideals.

The Scotsman joined the Edinburgh Fire and Rescue Service in late 2000, back when it was called the Lothians and Borders Fire and Rescue Service. After having spent ten rigorous years as a fire and gas detection technician on oil rigs, Maxwell found his new service-oriented vocation rewarding. He embraced the camaraderie in the fire station, which he likened to a family unit.

Less than a year into his firefighting job, Maxwell witnessed the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like the rest of the world, he was stunned. And like many onlookers, both live at the scene in downtown Manhattan and remotely via television, he wondered why the Twin Towers collapsed. But when a satisfactory explanation never presented itself, he accepted the version put forth by the United States government and the mainstream media.

It wasn’t until 2010 that Maxwell watched the now-famous 9/11 documentary, Loose Change, by Dylan Avery. When it ended, Maxwell remembers being “in shock.” That day “changed my life,” he declares. From then on, Maxwell openly questioned the official story.

A few years later, Maxwell learned of Tony Rooke, a filmmaker who was seeking funding to produce a documentary about 9/11, and he made a donation. Upon finding out that Maxwell was a fireman, Rooke asked him to make an appearance in the film. Maxwell agreed.

The main focus of Incontrovertible is World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), which collapsed — purportedly from fires — late in the afternoon of 9/11. Once the film was released, Maxwell gave copies of the DVD to friends, firefighters in his unit, policemen in the street, and military personnel. He was hopeful that once they realized the facts about WTC 7, they would be as shocked and incensed as he was at the cover-up. “I thought that mass action would follow! But exactly the opposite occurred: indifference, apathy, silence,” Maxwell recalls.

Read more

July 20, 2016
by Paul Craig Roberts

James Jesus Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence for three decades, long ago explained to me that intelligence services create stories inside stories, each with its carefully constructed trail of evidence, in order to create false trails as diversions. Such painstaking work can serve a variety of purposes. It can be used to embarrass or discredit an innocent person or organization that has an unhelpful position on an important issue and is in the way of an agenda. It can be used as a red herring to draw attention away from a failing explanation of an event by producing an alternative false explanation. I forget what Angleton called them, but the strategy is to have within a false story other stories that are there but withheld because of “national security” or “politically sensitive issues” or some such. Then if the official story gets into trouble, the backup story can be released in order to deflect attention into a new false story or to support the original story. Angleton said that intelligence services protect their necessary misdeeds by burying the misdeed in competing explanations.

Watching the expert craftsmanship of the “Saudis did 9/11” story, I have been wondering if the Saudi story is what Angleton described as a story within a story.

The official 9/11 story has taken too many hits to remain standing. The collapse of Building 7, which, if memory serves, was not mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission Report, has been proven to have been a controlled demolition. Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration, which can only be achieved with controlled demolition.

Over 100 firemen, policemen, and building maintenance personnel who were inside the two towers prior to their collapse report hearing and experiencing multiple explosions. According to William Rodriguez, a maintenance employee in the north tower, there were explosions in the sub-basements of the tower prior to the time airplanes are said to have hit the towers.

Read more

July 4, 2016
by Kevin Ryan
911 Blogger

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about 9/11 is that people often ask us to “Never Forget” while at the same time never learning, let alone remembering, anything about the crimes. This is a beautiful example of Orwell’s concept of Doublethink in which citizens covet their own unconsciousness in order to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable facts. One such fact is that we were given a string of false, contradictory official accounts for the failure of the national air defense systems that day and the last one given is the most unbelievable.

The ever-changing accounts for the failure to intercept any of the four hijacked planes began two days after the attacks. That first account was provided in an official hearing to confirm General Richard Myers as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). Myers testified that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked flights until after the Pentagon was hit. Although Myers did not sound terribly confident in his knowledge, people thought he should have been, considering that more than 48 hours had passed and he had been serving as acting CJCS during the attacks.

A second, contradictory story was given five days later, when the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) provided a partial timeline of the notifications it had received from the Federal Aviation Administration and the responses that followed. The timeline showed that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43 am, a full 20 minutes before it impacted the south tower of the WTC. Moreover, F-15 interceptor jets from Otis Air Force Base were said to be airborne by 8:52, having been scrambled in response to the first hijacking.

General Ralph Eberhart, who was commander of NORAD on 9/11, reiterated the timeline in testimony to the U.S. Senate in October 2001 and for two years it stood as the official account. Eberhart added that NORAD was notified about the hijacked Flight 77 coming into Washington at 9:24 am, fourteen minutes before it impacted the Pentagon. He repeatedly told the Senate Armed Services Committee that this was a “documented notification.”[1]

A book released in January 2003 further established this account of the military’s response. The book, called Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face Of Air Defense Mission, was based on hundreds of interviews with the personnel responsible for conducting the nation’s air defenses that day. It was authored by Leslie Filson, public affairs officer for the 1st Air Force, and had been reviewed for accuracy by all the top brass who were in charge of the air defenses on 9/11.

In May 2003, Eberhart’s subordinates General Larry Arnold and Colonel William Alan Scott gave the third version of the story by presenting a slightly revised version of NORAD’s timeline. They contradicted the timeline for Flight 175, saying that NORAD was not notified of the hijacking until three minutes after that aircraft had crashed into the south tower. This was despite the fact that when asked by a U.S. Senator about “the second hijacked plane somewhere up there,” Eberhart had previously said “Yes, sir. During that time, we were notified.”

Arnold and Scott also revealed for the first time that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 93 at 9:16 am. This was 47 minutes before that flight allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, at 10:03 am. Obviously, interceptor jets could have easily reached and escorted Flight 93 given this revised timeline.

Colonel Robert Marr, who was running the response at NORAD’s North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS), repeated several times in an interview with investigators that he recalled monitoring Flight 93 during the time that it was hijacked.

It was not only Marr who remembers monitoring Flight 93 in the NEADS battle cab. NEADS intelligence officer Lt. Col. Mark Stuart, who was standing right next to Marr during the crisis, reported the same thing. Both of them said that they were tracking Flight 93. And many air traffic controllers made clear in their handwritten notes from that day, and their personal statements afterward, that Flight 93 was known as a hijacking long before it was destroyed.

General Arnold clarified in testimony to the Commission that, “It was our intent to intercept United Flight 93. And in fact my own staff, we were orbiting now over Washington, D.C. by this time, and I was personally anxious to see what 93 was going to do, and our intent was to intercept it. But we decided to stay over Washington, D.C., because there was not that urgency. So we elected to remain over D.C. until that aircraft was definitely coming towards us.”

Read more

Excerpts from a couple speeches that George W. Bush gave in the two months following 9/11, juxtaposed with some of what we’ve since heard about the 28 pages from former Senator Bob Graham, 9/11 victims’ family members and a number of Congressmen.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 08, 2016

This text first published in August 2012. It was reposted on September 11, 2015 in the context of the 14 years commemoration of the tragic events of 9/11, September 11, 2015. It provdes a detailed introduction and overview as well as a collection of articles by Global Research authors on 9/11 and the “Global War on Terrorism”.


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

Posted on June 4, 2016
by WashingtonsBlog

Presumption of a Cover-Up …

Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he’s probably trying to hide his crime. American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guilt for the person who destroyed the evidence.

So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?
Judge and Prosecutor Destroy Evidence

For example, it was revealed last week that the judge overseeing the trial of surviving 9/11 suspects conspired with the prosecution to destroy evidence relevant to a key suspect’s defense. And see this.

(The Defense Department has also farmed out most of the work of both prosecuting and defending the surviving 9/11 suspects to the same private company. And the heads of the military tribunal prosecuting the 9/11 suspects said that the trials must be rigged so that there are no acquittals.)
Destruction of Videotapes

The CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.

9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

And:

Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

Read more

AE911Truth
Richard Gage, AIA
May 19, 2016

Richard Gage, on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, “mugging” for the camera while educating millions of viewers on the “collapse” of WTC 7. The producers showed the video we provided of Dan Rather on CBS saying, “Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.”It’s the kind of rare opportunity that members of the 9/11 Truth Movement wish would come more often.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, was invited to bring the evidence for the explosive demolition of the three World Trade Center towers to viewers of C-SPAN today on its morning program Washington Journal. His 45-minute appearance — which can be viewed here by those who did not see it live — is enabling the 9/11 Truth message to reach a national television audience of millions.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud