Do not ever set foot inside a tall building.
According to the US government, steel-frame high-rise buildings can suddenly crumble to dust for no apparent reason, plunging at free-fall acceleration straight into the ground.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) asserts that World Trade Center Building 7, a 47-story high-rise, imploded at 5:20 p.m. on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001 due to modest office fires of undetermined origin. According to NIST, these small fires somehow triggered a new physical phenomenon, unknown to science before 9/11/2001, called “thermal expansion.”
The results looked exactly like a classic controlled demolition.
If NIST were right, skyscrapers everywhere would be in danger of imploding at any time – all it would take would be a few small office fires.
Can tall buildings really just implode? A group of New Yorkers, led by 9/11 victims’ family members, wants to find out. NYCcan.org is launching a campaign called the High Rise Safety Initiative. If passed, the Initiative would force the New York Department of Buildings to investigate the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Such an investigation would almost certainly conclude that the official story of Building 7′s “collapse” is preposterous.
NIST’s report on WTC-7 is so obviously false that even Dr. Frank Greening – the only independent scientist who has ever made a serious effort to support the government’s position on the destruction of the World Trade Center – finds it ridiculous. Greening, formerly the go-to scientist for the so-called debunkers, is now a WTC-7 “conspiracy theorist.” So is virtually everyone else who has studied the demise of WTC-7.
So the good news is that nobody, not even pro-government people like Frank Greening, really believes NIST’s absurd claims about Building 7. That means that skyscrapers are not likely to start falling down due to wastebasket fires any time soon. “Thermal expansion” is almost certainly a myth – a complete and utter non-threat to the structural integrity of skyscrapers.
But the bad news is that skyscrapers really can suddenly implode at any time: They can be illegally destroyed in permit-free, unregulated demolitions by organized crime networks. And those deceptive demolitions can be disguised as “terrorist attacks” with the complicity of government insiders.
Larry Silverstein, a reputed organized crime figure with links to the Israeli and American governments, purchased the condemned-for-asbestos World Trade Center skyscrapers in July 2001. The first thing he did was to double the WTC’s terror insurance policy and hardball the insurers into changing the terms to “cash payout.”
After spending about $15 million of his own money to buy the condemned buildings, two months later – on September 11th, 2001 – “Lucky Larry” hit the jackpot. Controlled demolitions were conducted without permits, without asbestos removal, and without emptying the Twin Towers of people. Silverstein collected $4.6 billion dollars in cash from his insurers, plus rights to rebuild.
Silverstein’s televised admission that he “pulled” or demolished World Trade Center 7 makes him the worst self-confessed insurance fraud criminal in world history.
A few years after demolishing the World Trade Center and collecting billions of “double-indemnity” insurance dollars based on the bizarre notion of two completely separate and unrelated terrorist attacks – the two planes – Silverstein used his ill-gotten gains to purchase Chicago’s Sears Tower. Shortly thereafter, Silverstein hired Kroll Security, a company implicated in both the 9/11 and anthrax attacks, to guard his new high-rise icon.
The Sears Tower and other skyscrapers really could implode at any time for no apparent reason.
Thousands of lives really are at risk.
The High Rise Safety Initiative, sponsored by NYCcan.org, could help prevent future skyscraper disasters. A new investigation into the destruction of Building 7 could look at all the evidence, including:
*Eyewitness testimony that a countdown to demolition was broadcast over police radio during the seconds before the “collapse” of Building 7.
*Eyewitness testimony that preparatory pre-demolition explosions gutted WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11 before either Tower had collapsed.
*Videotaped proof that WTC owner Larry Silverstein confessed to demolishing WTC-7 on national television.
*Videotaped proof that the BBC and CNN erroneously reported the “collapse” of WTC-7 shortly before it happened, showing that those networks were reading scripts prepared by 9/11 conspirators but mistimed their script-reading.
The lead spokesperson for NYCcan.org’s High-rise Safety Initiative is Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Bobby when the North Tower of the World Trade Center exploded in ten seconds into thousands of tons of sub-100-micron dust, along with some grit and gravel-sized particles.
McIlvaine knows that the Twin Towers did not collapse; they exploded. (See the youtube video “North Tower Exploding” showing the explosions)
Bob McIlvaine knows that more than 1000 victims of the explosive demolitions of the Twin Towers did not leave behind so much as the tiniest sliver of bone. They were blasted to dust. Even the meticulous sifting and bucketing of WTC debris could not even find a sliver of fingernail from any of these 1000-plus people.
Other people who were blown to smithereens in the tremendous explosions that destroyed the Twin Towers did leave behind traces of themselves – and absolute, smoking gun proof that the buildings did not fall, but were blown up. That proof consists of the tiny splinters of human bone that were found all over the roof of the Deutsche Bank building, across the street from the World Trade Center, a few years ago.
Bob McIlvaine and the other family members of 9/11 victims deserve the truth about what happened to their loved ones. Only truth and justice can bring them inner peace. And only truth and justice can stop the neocons war on the world and establish world peace. The High Rise Safety Initiative, sponsored by NYCcan.org, could be an important step in that direction.
A federal court in the United States has rejected a civil rights lawsuit challenging the New York Police Department’s spying activities against Muslims.
On Thursday, the court in Newark in the state of New Jersey ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the NYPD’s intelligence unit had discriminated against Muslims by spying on mosques and other locations in New Jersey.
The 2012 lawsuit was the first to challenge the NYPD’s spying operations against Muslim groups and individuals in the US. It had accused the police of spying on Muslims at several mosques, restaurants and schools since 2002.
The plaintiffs “have not alleged facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that they were targeted solely because of their religion,” US District Judge William Martini wrote in the decision. “The more likely explanation for the surveillance was to locate budding terrorist conspiracies.”
“The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself,” the judge added.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the plaintiffs, warned that the ruling could give the green light to more spying on Muslims elsewhere in the US.
“In addition to willfully ignoring the harm that our innocent clients suffered from the NYPD’s illegal spying program, by upholding the NYPD’s blunderbuss Muslim surveillance practices, the court’s decision gives legal sanction to the targeted discrimination of Muslims anywhere and everywhere in this country, without limitation, for no other reason than their religion,” CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy said.
In late September 2001, a couple of weeks after 9/11, the United States was struck with what the Bush regime dubbed a “second wave” of terrorism. Letters laced with deadly anthrax spores arrived in the mailboxes of prominent media figures and two American senators. Five people were killed and 17 others were infected.
A concerted effort was made by the Bush regime and the mainstream US media to present the anthrax attacks as the work of the same people who perpetrated 9/11. They were, in a sense, correct, but the people behind 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax fiasco were not members of al-Qaeda or adherents of the Islamic faith.
A very clear and discernible pattern of propaganda was foisted upon the American public following 9/11. Zionists from Israel and the US took a leading role in assigning responsibility for the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbour. Unsurprisingly, the Zionists immediately pointed fingers at all of their Middle Eastern rivals and adversaries, from resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to countries such as Iraq, Iran and Syria.
Israel’s enemies were being portrayed as America’s enemies too. Together, said the Zionists, Israel and America can defeat “the forces of darkness.” Israel’s crude campaign of innuendo and Orwellian projection manifested within a few hours of the 9/11 attacks. Israeli politicians Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres all made public statements calling on the US and other Western powers to initiate a global “war on terrorism,” a term coined by Likudniks in the 1980s.
Israel’s army intelligence service Aman and the former Mossad chief Rafi Eitan trumpeted brazen disinformation shortly following 9/11, alleging Iraqi involvement in the attacks. In August of 2001 the Mossad delivered a propagandistic “warning” to the CIA alleging al-Qaeda and Iraq were working together and were plotting terror attacks on major US landmarks. The neoconservatives, who are for all intents and purposes emissaries of the Israeli regime in the US, went straight to work in the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, the New York Times and other Zionist-controlled media outlets, attempting to portray Arabs and Muslims generally as the sponsors of 9/11 and the source of all terrorism in the world.
The same pattern of Zionist deception is apparent with the anthrax attacks. Israel’s partisans immediately mobilized a propaganda initiative to link Iraq and al-Qaeda to the anthrax mailings.
On various occasions [former US] president George W. Bush and vice president Dick Cheney told reporters that al-Qaeda was likely involved in the lethal mailings. The docile mainstream media unquestioningly repeated this unfounded assertion. A stunning piece of disinformation appeared in an Oct. 27, 2001, report in the London Times, alleging that an Iraqi official met with 9/11 patsy Mohamed Atta in the Czech Republic in April 2001. The report went on to suggest that during the rendezvous the Iraqi official gave Atta a flask of anthrax. The origin of this dubious claim was noted in the article: Israeli security sources. The chief of Czech foreign intelligence, Frantisek Bublan, later revealed that this supposed meeting never took place and was nothing more than a propaganda invention of interested parties. “Promoting a so-called ‘Prague connection’ between Atta and [the Iraqi official] al-Ani might have been a ploy by U.S. policymakers seeking justifications for a new military action against…Saddam Hussein,” Bublan told the Prague Post.
When the Iraq/al-Qaeda propaganda narrative fell apart, the FBI targeted two… within the US bio-weapons establishment: scientists Steven Hatfill and Bruce Ivins. The FBI began harassing Hatfill and publicly called him a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation.
Hatfill vehemently denied the charges and was eventually exonerated. He later sued the FBI and other US government agencies, winning a settlement of more than $5 million in damages. Like Hatfill, Ivins was an unlikely suspect for the anthrax attacks as well.
There was no evidence tying Ivins to the anthrax letters and he had no conceivable motive. The FBI launched an intense campaign of innuendo against Ivins in an effort to convict him in the court of public opinion. Ivins allegedly committed suicide while in a Maryland hospital just before he was set to be indicted and stand trial. How convenient.
Ivins worked at a US bio-weapons facility called USAMRIID in Fort Detrick, Maryland. This is where the FBI claims the anthrax used in the attacks originated. Since there is no evidence that Ivins was involved in the anthrax mailings, there is likewise no reason to believe the FBI’s claim that the anthrax spores used in the letters originated from that facility.
Another curious event took place during the anthrax affair that garnered little attention from the mainstream press for obvious reasons. An Arab-American scientist who worked at the same Fort Detrick facility as Ivins was the victim of an attempted frame-up. Shortly before the first known victim of the anthrax attacks was confirmed, an anonymous letter was mailed to the FBI that attempted to implicate Dr. Ayaad Assaad as a “potential biological terrorist.” The author of the letter claimed to have worked with Assaad previously and alleged that Assaad had a vendetta against the US government, urging the FBI to stop him. The letter prompted the FBI to investigate Assaad. The FBI questioned him in early October 2001 and quickly cleared him of any involvement with the anthrax attacks.
Strangely, the FBI seemed uninterested in finding out who sent the anonymous letter implicating Assaad, even though the contents and timing of the letter were amazingly conspicuous, coming just prior to a real bio-terrorist attack. Assaad suspected the letter-writer was involved in the anthrax mailings and opined that his Arab background made him the “perfect scapegoat.”
One possible source of the frame-up letter was a man named Dr. Philip Zack, a microbiologist and Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army. Zack worked at USAMRIID alongside Assaad in the early 1990s. Zack and other employees at the lab formed a clique called the “camel club” to bully Arab co-workers, particularly Assaad. One day in April 1991 Assaad found a poem in his mailbox written by Zack and other members of the “camel club” which mocked his Arabic heritage. Zack and several of his fellow anti-Arab racists voluntarily left the facility when Assaad informed his superiors of the harassment campaign.
In 1992, anthrax spores, Ebola virus and other deadly pathogens went missing from the Fort Detrick facility. An internal investigation discovered that someone was entering the lab late at night to conduct unauthorized research involving anthrax. The inquiry also revealed that Dr. Philip Zack made an unauthorized visit to the lab on Jan. 23, 1992, at a time when he was no longer working at the facility. Despite Zack’s suspicious past behaviour and harassment of Assaad, the FBI made no effort to pursue him as a suspect in the 2001 anthrax investigation.
A very revealing aspect of the whole affair was the fact that the anthrax-tainted letters were made to look like a Muslim who was angry at Israel and the United States authored them. “Death to Israel, Death to America, Allah is Great,” the letters read. Whoever was actually behind the anthrax mailings was evidently attempting to lead authorities to believe a Muslim or group of Muslims was responsible.
So where did the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks come from? Researcher Robert Pate posited a plausible theory in an essay entitled, “The Anthrax Mystery: Solved” In the paper, Pate suggests Israel is the most likely culprit. According to Pate’s research, Israel had the means, motive and opportunity to secure anthrax spores and deliver them to her targets without being detected. Pate demonstrates that Israel has had a sophisticated chemical and biological weapons program since its inception in 1948. Israel has produced biological agents including anthrax at the Israel Institute of Biological Research (IIBR) in Ness Ziona, located a few miles southeast of Tel Aviv.
“With the help of Jewish scientists from the former Soviet Union,” Pate opines, “Israel’s bio-weapons research has probably surpassed that of all other nations. The Soviet Union’s bio-weapons program had 32,000 scientists and staff working in 40 different research and production facilities. Two thousand of these scientists worked exclusively on the Soviet anthrax program. A significant number of these scientists may have immigrated to Israel and become employed in her bio-weapons programs.”
Pate cites a research paper by Dr. Avner Cohen titled “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control” which outlines Israel’s biological and chemical weapons capabilities. Anthrax is certainly in Israel’s biological arsenal. In the paper, Cohen also describes how Zionist militants poisoned Palestinian water supplies with deadly pathogens during the 1948 ‘Nakba,’ wherein Zionist gangs completely destroyed and depopulated more than 500 Arab villages in order to birth… [Israel entity] . Historical examples of Zionist biological warfare noted by Pate, in addition to Israel’s penchant for false flag terrorism against its “allies” such as the Lavon Affair and USS Liberty attack, lead him to believe that Israel was willing and able to commit a biological attack in the US – a classic false flag operation to frame her enemies for political gain.
“A motive for the anthrax attacks would be to blame Arab terrorists or a ‘rogue nation’ for this atrocity and to help launch the United States into war against Israel’s enemies,” writes Pate. “[Israel’s motive] in launching the anthrax attacks would be to bring America into war against Iraq and to remove that country as a potential threat to…[Israel].” As noted earlier, Israeli intelligence contrived a false story to implicate Muslims where they claimed to have observed a meeting between an Iraqi official and alleged al-Qaeda ringleader Mohamed Atta in the Czech Republic in which an exchange of anthrax is said to have occurred. If Israel had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks, then why did they propagate lies with the intent to implicate Iraq and al-Qaeda? American authorities admit that no Muslim or Arab was involved in the anthrax mailings, so who else but Israel and corrupted Americans in the Bush administration could have been behind this obvious false flag?
It can be said without doubt that some members of the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks. Press reports revealed that White House officials including Bush and Cheney went on a steady regimen of the drug known as Cipro, a powerful antibiotic effective against anthrax infection, weeks before the anthrax-trained letters were first discovered.
The theory that Israel and its accomplices in the Bush administration launched a biological false flag operation as a “second phase” of the overarching 9/11 deception is well within the realm of possibilities regarding 2001’s anthrax attacks in the US. It is certainly far more plausible than the FBI’s flimsy and still-unproven case against Bruce Ivins who conveniently died before any evidence could be aired in the courts.
But it would be foolish to place any hope on President Obama — a committed servant of the Israeli-American empire — to launch a new, independent investigation into any of these troubling matters.
Media Roots presents American Anthrax, a documentary comprised of news footage that establishes, by history’s own narration, how everything you’ve been told about the Anthrax Attacks is a lie. Conceptualized, edited and produced by Robbie Martin, co-host of Media Roots Radio.
September 11, 2001, shook the United States to the core, a country that had been nearly untouchable since its democratic inception. However, immediately following this horrific tragedy, another equally as impactful ‘terrorist attack’ occurred when weaponized anthrax was sent to multiple Congressman and journalists through the U.S. Postal Service.
The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were both one-time events that happened in two prominent cities. Unlike 9/11, the Anthrax Attacks localized terrorism and spread fear to every corner of American life, where the simple act of getting your mail could prove to be fatal. Five people died as a result of breathing in the deadly anthrax spores, including postal workers and one NY Post reporter. Countless others were infected.
The Bush administration initially tried to link this ‘second wave of terrorism’ to al-Qaeda with zero proof. Once that talking point out-lived its usefulness, the official narrative began leaning towards Saddam Hussein and his mythological biological weapons program.
Establishment propagandists like John Mccaine and ABC news reporters intentionally spread disinformation to plant the seed in the public mind that the anthrax came from Iraq, which eventually lead to Colin Powell’s infamous 2003 WMD speech at the UN. All the while, the U.S. government was fully aware that the anthrax did not come from an external source, because the strain showed tell-tale signs of being a specific anthrax strain that was weaponized and manufactured by the U.S. military.
Regardless, the idea of the Anthrax Attacks being executed by an external terrorist organization remained conventional wisdom the public was conditioned into believing in the aftermath of 9/11. Eventually, two men were accused of being the perpetrators behind the attacks, yet no charges were ever brought to either of them. The first accused individual, Steven Hatfill, ended up being rewarded a multimillion dollar settlement from the government for being wrongly accused before any evidence was presented against him. The subsequent accused individual, Bruce Ivins, allegedly committed suicide while the FBI was trying to break him into confessing.
Ultimately, the FBI asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to verify its evidence pointing to Ivins as the main suspect. Instead, the NAS concluded that the DNA in the anthrax sent in the mail was in fact not a match to the anthrax Ivins worked with. Before the National Academy of Sciences finished their independent investigation, the FBI rushed its preestablished conclusions about Ivins’s guilt to the press, and the case was closed. To this day, the FBI has never commented on the many glaring contradictions in the official government narrative about the Anthrax Attacks.
Follow Robbie at @fluorescentgrey
A recently released 9/11 Commission memo highlights the role of government “minders” who accompanied witnesses interviewed by the commission. It was added to the National Archives’ files at the start of the year and discovered there by History Commons contributor paxvector.
The memo, entitled “Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses,” complains that:
- Minders “answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses;”
- Minders acted as “monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.” The staff thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution;” and
- Minders “positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions.”
The memo was drafted by three staffers on the commission’s Team 2, which reviewed the overall structure of the US intelligence community. One of the drafters was Kevin Scheid, a senior staffer who led the team. His co-writers were Lorry Fenner, an air force intelligence officer, and lawyer Gordon Lederman. The complaint was sent to the commission’s counsels, Daniel Marcus and Steve Dunne, in October 2003, about halfway through the commission’s 19-month life.
According to the memo, some minders merely policed prior agreements between the commission and their parent agency about what the commission could ask witnesses, and others were simply there to make a list of documents the commission might want based on a witness’ testimony. However, some minders saw their role differently.
Intimidation through Physical Positioning
The three staffers argued minders should not answer questions for witnesses because they needed to understand not how the intelligence community was supposed to function, but “how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality.” However: “When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have preempted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses’ view of their roles and responsibilities.”
The memo also describes the minders’ conduct in detail: “… [M]inders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses.”
The staffers also worried about minders taking “verbatim notes of witnesses’ statements,” as they thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution.” They believed that “the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses.”
Another problem with the verbatim notetaking was that it “facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission’s lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.”
In response to this, the three staffers proposed not that minders be banned from interviews, but a set of rules governing minders’ conduct. For example, minders were to keep a “low profile,” sit out of witnesses’ sight, not take verbatim notes and not answer any questions directed at the witnesses.
Perhaps the most remarkable proposal is that the number of minders be limited to one per witness. The memo indicates that where an interviewee had served in multiple agencies, more than one minder would accompany the witness. The memo therefore requests, “Only one minder may attend an interview even if the witness served in multiple agencies,” meaning a witness would at least not be outnumbered by his minders.
False Statement by Chairman Kean
Commission Chairman Tom Kean, a Republican, first raised the issue of minders in a press briefing in early July 2003 . He said, “I think the commission feels unanimously that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency. You might get less testimony than you would.”
He was asked about the minders again on September 23 at another press briefing. Instead of saying the minders represented “intimidation,” he commented: “Talking to staff, what they have told me is that as they’ve done these interviews, that the interviewees are encouragingly frank; that they by and large have not seemed to be intimidated in any way in their answers. … I’m glad to hear that it’s — from the staff that they don’t feel it’s inhibiting the process of the interviews.”
The commission’s Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, commented, “it is our feeling that thus far, the minders have not been an impediment, in almost all cases.” He added that there were “one or two instances where the question has arisen,” but, “neither are we aware at this point that the presence of a minder has substantially impeded our inquiry. And nor have we run into a situation where we think a witness has refrained from speaking their minds.”
However, the Team 2 memo, sent a mere nine days after Kean and Hamilton’s remarks, shows Kean’s statements to have been untrue. The memo even referenced “Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses” in the title, contained unusually strong language and was co-drafted by a leader of one of the commission’s teams.
Nevertheless, it is unclear whether Kean and Hamilton made the false statements knowingly. One of the criticisms at the commission was that the ten commissioners were cut off from the body of the staff, and all information that flowed from the staff to the commissioners went through the commission’s executive director, Philip Zelikow.
Author Philip Shenon, who wrote a history of the commission, found that at the start of the commission’s work Zelikow drafted a welcome memo containing ground rules for staffers, such as not talking to journalists. One of the rules was that the staff should not talk freely to the commissioners. If a staffer were contacted by a commissioner, he should not deal with the commissioner himself, but contact Zelikow or his deputy, who would then “be sure that the appropriate members of the commission’s staff are responsive.”
This rule was rescinded after complaints from some of the commissioners, including former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. Nevertheless, Zelikow’s control of information continued. When the commission’s counterterrorism team found a draft of the final report to be overly deferential to the FBI, they did not launch a formal objection to the draft’s language through the commission’s bureaucracy, but a female staffer cornered Gorelick “where Zelikow would not see it”–in the ladies room.
No more than an hour after the World Trade Center Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, Israel’s leaders initiated a coordinated campaign to blame their enemies for the attacks.
Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister, appeared live in studio at the [state-run] BBC on 9/11, wherein he described his desire for the United States and other major powers to lead a global campaign of annihilation against the Arab/Muslim world. “[T]his is the time to deploy a globally concerted effort led by the United States, UK, Europe and Russia, against all sources of terror,” the Israeli war criminal stated. Dubbing this campaign a “global war on terror,” Barak continued: “It’s a time to launch an operational, complete war against terror even if it takes certain pains from the routine activities of our normal society.” “Bin Laden sits in Afghanistan… Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea… these kinds of states should be treated as ‘rogue states,’” said Barak, in a call for the US to take pre-emptive actions against countries that Israel views as impediments to its domination of the Middle East.
Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister on 9/11, duplicated Barak’s war cry against the Muslim world. “[The] war against terror is an international war,” Sharon said at a press conference in Israel shortly after the disaster, describing an impending global conflict as “a war of a coalition of the free world against all the terror groups and against whoever believes they can pose a threat to freedom.” The Israeli politician Shimon Peres forwarded an identical sentiment as his Likudnik compatriots. “The war against terror is an international war,” he said, adding: “This is a war between the good and the bad.” “The fight against terrorism,” Peres proclaimed, “is an international struggle of the free world against the forces of darkness who seek to destroy our liberty and our way of life.”
Later on the day, Ehud Barak and the Israel-first champion Richard Perle appeared on a [state-run] BBC program where they outlined what amounted to a Zionist war plan of quick, successive offensives against all of Israel’s enemies. Barak pointed fingers at Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad as “rogue actors” that need to be dealt with. Richard Perle emphasized the need to deal with the “states that sponsor terrorism,” and not just disparate groups of armed rebels who reside in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. The following day Benjamin Netanyahu added the Palestinian Authority to the list of enemies.
Nine days after the attacks Netanyahu expanded his list of foes that would be prime targets in the Zionist-devised “war on terror.” At a speech before the US House of Representatives’ Government Reform Committee on September 20, Netanyahu suggested that US vengeance in the face of 9/11 terrorism should be visited upon “Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, and several other Arab regimes, such as the Sudan.” Netanyahu also named “Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Hizbullah and others in Syrian-controlled Lebanon, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the recently mobilized Fatah and Tanzim factions in the Palestinian territories, and sundry other terror organizations based in such capitals as Damascus, Baghdad, and Khartoum” as legitimate targets. Netanyahu’s diatribe was no less than a declaration of war against the entire Arab/Muslim world with few exceptions.
The revealing statements of these Zionist warmongers were consistent with a broader Israeli strategy outlined by Benjamin Netanyahu and his Zionist associates in the 1980s. In 1979 and 1984 Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders organized two conferences to discuss terrorism under the auspices of the Jonathan Institute. The purpose of the two events was to seduce Western military, intelligence and political figures to join Israel’s crusade against the Muslim world, deceptively disguising their imperialist agenda as a “war against terrorism.” The second conference in 1984 produced a book edited by Netanyahu entitled Terrorism: How the West Can Win. “The two conferences organized by the Jonathan Institute, in Jerusalem in July 1979 and in Washington, D.C., in June 1984, were major events and highly effective for Israeli and Western propaganda,” wrote Edward S. Herman and Gerry O’Sullivan in their book The “Terrorism” Industry: The Experts and Institutions That Shape Our View of Terror.
It did not take long for Israeli leaders to inform us of how beneficial the 9/11 attacks were for Israel’s anti-Arab/Muslim agenda. On Sept. 12, 2001, the New York Times quoted a jubilant Benjamin Netanyahu. In reference to the 9/11 attacks, Netanyahu said: “It’s very good. … Well it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel].” “[The September 11 attack will] strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror,” he said. The Israeli public, the New York Times reported, “took cold comfort in concluding that Americans now share more of their fears.” The article further reported that Israel’s political and military leaders were content the attacks “would awaken the United States to the threat of global terrorism” and have the effect of lessening American government pressure on Israel, giving the regime in Tel Aviv a free hand to suppress the Palestinians.
Netanyahu reiterated this sentiment in 2008 when he told an Israeli university audience that “We [Israel] are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” adding that the atrocity “swung American public opinion in our favor.” Ariel Sharon and his inner circle of Likudniks and Mossadniks came to a similar conclusion, announcing that the 9/11 attacks were nothing less than a “Hanukkah miracle” of good fortune for Israel. “The Israeli political-security establishment is coming to the conclusion that the terror attacks on September 11 were a kind of ‘Hanukkah miracle’ for Israel, coming just as Israel was under increasing international pressure because of the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians,” reported Israel’s Haaretz newspaper. Aluf Benn, writing for Haaretz, further observed:
“Osama bin Laden’s September 11 attacks placed Israel firmly on the right side of the strategic map with the U.S., and put the Arab world at a disadvantage as it now faces its own difficult decisions about its future. That’s the impression left by the speeches given by Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy and National Security Council chairman Maj. Gen. Uzi Dayan, at this week’s Herzliya conference on national security.”
Ami Ayalon, a former chief of Israel’s internal security service Shin Bet, confirmed that Israel’s leadership was overjoyed. “Since September 11, our leaders have been euphoric,” Ayalon told France’s Le Monde newspaper. “With no more international pressures on Israel, they think, the way is open.” An Israeli professor named Ehud Sprinzak told the UK’s Telegraph newspaper: “From the perspective of the Jews, [the September 11 attack] is the most important public relations act ever committed in our favour.” Within hours of the event, pro-Israel analyst George Friedman, the director of Stratfor, announced that the “big winner” of the day was Israel. “The big winner today, intended or not, is… Israel,” wrote Friedman on his website, speculating that “The United States is obviously going to launch a massive covert and overt war against the international radical Islamic movement that is assumed to be behind this attack.” Friedman explained that the tragedy would have the effect of aligning “U.S. and Israeli interests [and it will also make] the United States dependent on the Israelis.” Friedman concluded: “The Israeli leadership is feeling relief. Given that pressures for Israel to restrain operations against the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian groups will decline dramatically.”
Surprisingly, Efraim Halevy, the director of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency on 9/11, also admitted that Israel benefitted exponentially from the attacks. In an interview on The Standard, a Canadian current affairs television program, Halevy was asked about the theories that Israel’s Mossad was involved in 9/11 for political gain. “Obviously Israel benefited,” Halevy capitulated. Predictably the Israeli spymaster denied any involvement, leading us to believe that 9/11 working out to Israel’s advantage is purely coincidental.
Coincidentally, one day before 9/11 the Washington Times reported on a 68-page study released by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), which contained some telling revelations about Israeli conduct. The study was geared towards devising a plan to enforce a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord. Acknowledging Israel’s penchant for ruthlessness and deception, the paper’s authors described the Israeli Army as a “500-pound gorilla … well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank.” Israel is “known to disregard international law to accomplish mission” the authors added. In their assessment of the Mossad, the group of US Army strategists said the Israeli agency is a “wildcard” that is “ruthless and cunning” and has the “capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”
Israel’s long history of false-flag terrorism includes events like the King David Hotel bombing in 1946, wherein Zionist terrorists from the Irgun militia (which later became the Likud Party) detonated bombs in the Jerusalem hotel to spur the British into relinquishing their control of Palestine. Ninety-one people died in the bombing. The Lavon Affair of 1954 saw Zionist terrorists explode firebombs in British and American-owned buildings in Egypt with the intention of having the attacks blamed on Muslims. Then there was the USS Liberty assault in 1967, where Israel deliberately attacked a US surveillance ship during the Six-Day War, killing 34 American servicemen. And those are just a few of the more well-known false-flag terror operations of… [Israel] against its perceived “allies.”
Did Israel pull off its grandest deception of all on 9/11? A clue into the whole matter was revealed by the Telegraph newspaper, which reported that in August of 2001 Israel’s Mossad warned the CIA that terror attacks on major US landmarks were imminent. The Mossad’s warning was unspecific as to where and how the attacks would occur, but related that a cell of 200 terrorists were present on American soil and were planning a major operation. The Israelis linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told their American counterparts there were “strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement.”
Even the Bush administration admits that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, so Israel’s attempt to link Iraq to the plot in their dubious “warning” is telling. Immediately after 9/11, Israel and its neocon partisans in the US initiated an intense campaign of innuendo to connect Iraq, as well as Arabs and Muslims generally, to the attacks. Aman, Israel’s military intelligence service, quickly disseminated disinformation asserting Iraq was involved in 9/11. Rafi Eitan, a veteran Israeli intelligence chief, duplicated Aman’s anti-Iraqi propaganda when he publicly proclaimed that Saddam Hussein was the “mastermind” of the attacks. Jewish neocons in Washington also spread the Israeli-contrived myth of Iraqi involvement with a determined passion. This deceitful Zionist campaign of disinformation was so intensive that polls later showed a large percentage of the naive American public believed Saddam Hussein and Iraq were involved in 9/11.
The Mossad’s August 2001 warning is evidence of manipulation on the part of the Israelis, considering that 200 suspicious individuals did happen to be in the United States in the months leading up 9/11, but they were not Arabs or Muslims. In December of 2001 Fox News aired a four part series detailing a “secretive and sprawling investigation” into Israeli espionage in the US. Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron reported that 200 Israelis had been arrested shortly before and after 9/11 in connection with the inquiry into the attacks. Some of the Israeli suspects, reported Cameron, belonged to electronic surveillance intercept and explosive ordinance units in the Israeli military. In the first part of the video series Cameron said: “A highly placed investigator said there are ‘tie-ins.’ But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’”
The first and only people arrested on the very day of September 11, 2001, were not Arabs or Muslims with links to al-Qaeda or Iraq, but were Israelis with ties to the Mossad. Five Israelis were witnessed video taping the plane impacts into the WTC. A witness named Maria saw three of the Israelis on top of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment in New Jersey. Minutes after the first plane hit the tower she saw them celebrating, laughing and shouting with joy and mockery, as well as taking pictures of themselves smiling with the burning towers in the backdrop. Alarmed by what she saw, Maria called the police who later pulled over the five Israelis and arrested them. The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, informed the police: “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”
The Jewish daily newspaper, The Forward, confirmed that two of the five Israelis were Mossad agents whose names appeared in a national intelligence database. They worked for a New Jersey-based moving company called Urban Moving Systems whose Israeli owner, Dominik Suter, abruptly and suspiciously fled the US back to Israel days after 9/11, leaving his moving business in complete shambles. Journalist Christopher Ketcham revealed that Urban Moving Systems was a front for Israeli intelligence.
It is inconceivable that the five dancing Israelis didn’t know exactly what was going to happen on 9/11. Some reports suggested the Israelis had set up their cameras to film the attack prior to the first plane crash. The former CIA officer Robert Baer said they were in place to film before either plane hit the WTC. If that is so, then the Israelis must have had intimate prior knowledge of the time, place and nature of the attacks. It is indisputable that the five Israelis were indeed celebrating before the second plane hit the south tower. Most people thought the initial plane strike was just a terrible accident, but somehow the five Israelis knew it was a terrorist attack immediately.
While in custody the Israelis admitted they were happy because the attacks would benefit Israel. One of them reportedly said, “The United States will [now] take steps to stop terrorism in the world.” Another remarked: “Israel now has hope that the world will now understand us.” How did they know the attacks would benefit Israel unless they also knew beforehand who would be blamed for them? How would they have known any of this unless Israel was directly involved in bringing about this event and having it blamed on the designated patsies? All of the Israeli suspects, including the five dancing Israelis, were eventually released back to Israel due to Zionist pressure from the highest levels of the White House and Department of Justice.
Much like the Zionist-led campaign of innuendo against Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks, the allegations of Osama bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11 are likewise built upon an edifice of falsehood. Bin Laden’s name was continuously invoked by the talking heads of the mainstream media, but no evidence was proffered to support the notion that he planned or was in any way involved in the attacks. In 2006, the FBI admitted that the Bureau had no evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11. “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11,” the FBI’s Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb told journalist Ed Haas.
Former Pakistani spy chief Hamid Gul explained that the media’s obsession with blaming bin Laden was a pre-planned deception. In a September 2001 interview Gul told the Washington Times: “Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.” When asked who he believed sponsored the attacks, Gul replied: “Mossad and its accomplices.”
Veteran CIA officer Milt Bearden echoed a similar sentiment, telling CBS’s Dan Rather: “This was a tremendously sophisticated operation against the United States — more sophisticated than anybody would have ascribed to Osama bin Laden.” “Now I would go so far as to say that this group who was responsible for [the attacks], if they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden out there they’d invent one because he’s a terrific diversion for the rest of the world,” Bearden said.
Despite popular belief bin Laden did not “take credit” for the attacks.
The US invasion of Afghanistan, which was predicated on the unproven assertion that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda committed 9/11, was thus an illegitimate act of naked aggression. Further proof that the Bush regime had no evidence linking al-Qaeda to 9/11 was its refusal to provide the Taliban with the evidence. In October 2001, the Taliban offered the Bush regime a conditional agreement in which the Taliban would surrender bin Laden to a third party country if the US halted its bombing campaign against Afghanistan. All that the Taliban asked for was evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the crimes of 9/11 and upon receiving it they would immediately hand him over. The Bush regime angrily rejected the offer and continued its merciless offensive against the downtrodden country. “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know [bin Laden’s] guilty,” Bush said.
Niaz Naik, a former top Pakistani diplomat, revealed that the US invasion of Afghanistan was pre-arranged. Naik told the [state-run] BBC’s George Arney that US officials informed him of their war plans against Afghanistan months prior to the invasion. “The US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban even before last week’s [9/11] attacks,” he told [the state-run] BBC News. Naik asserted that the objective of the US invasion was not to capture bin Laden but rather to eliminate the Taliban. He explained that the US would not drop its war plans against Afghanistan “even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.”
NBC News confirmed Naik’s claims in a May 2002 report headlined “U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida: White House given plan days before Sept. 11.” The report detailed the contents of a formal National Security Presidential Directive, which “amounted to a game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth.” The plan is said to have “dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan.” The security directive, reported NBC News, “outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks.” The NBC report talked about the “striking parallels” between the Bush regime’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan after 9/11 and the one laid out in the pre-9/11 security directive: “[T]he security directive included efforts to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.” The NBC report concluded: “The couching of the plans as a formal security directive is significant […] because it indicates that the United States intended a full-scale assault on al-Qaida even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred.” Bush was supposed to sign off on this aggressive plan two days before 9/11, but it is unlikely public opinion would have supported such a scenario prior to the attacks.
The evidence presented herein is by no means comprehensive. It is but a small fraction of the available evidence showcasing direct Israeli participation, if not orchestration, of 9/11 to bring about a “war of civilizations” between the West and Islamic world. In September of 2000 the neoconservative group called the Project for the New American Century spoke of a “new pearl harbour” that was needed to facilitate their militarist war plans. Shortly after 9/11, that same group — which was headed by Jewish neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan — called on President Bush to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq in order to protect Israel. Regime change in Iraq was described as an “important Israeli strategic objective” in a 1996 Israeli strategy paper written by leading Jewish neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who all became high-ranking officials in the Bush administration in 2003, leading the drive for a war against Iraq alongside the Israel-first champion Paul Wolfowitz.
The neoconservative movement, which is widely held to be responsible for hijacking the Bush administration and pushing America into the disastrous wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, is at its core a Jewish-Zionist cabal. The movement was, since its inception… [was] led by Zionist inclinations. “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it,” writes Gal Beckerman in an article for the Jewish Forward newspaper. “As a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of [some] Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.”
Not shy about their central role in shaping US foreign policy towards the Middle East, several of the leading neocons boasted about their takeover of the Bush administration. In a [state-run] BBC documentary titled “The War Party,” Richard Perle acknowledged that “the President of the United States on issue after issue has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives.” “George Bush’s current foreign policy is basically a neoconservative foreign policy,” gloated PNAC founder William Kristol. Meyrav Wurmser, the wife of neocon David Wurmser, admitted that the neocons are driven by Zionist ideology: “Yes, many of us [neocons] are Jewish… Most of us, all of us in fact, are pro-Israel.” “The war in Iraq,” wrote Israeli journalist Ari Shavit in a 2003 article that appeared in Haaretz, “was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”
Through deception and subterfuge, Israel and its agents in the US conspired to engineer an endless civilizational conflict between the West and the Arab/Muslim world, for the benefit of Zionism and its expansionist objectives. Corrupted Americans assisted this diabolical scheme and will forever bear the shame of aiding and abetting evil.
Brandon Martinez is a freelance writer and journalist from Canada whose area of expertise is foreign policy, international affairs and 20th and 21st century history. His writing is focused on issues such as Zionism, Israel-Palestine, American and Canadian foreign policy, war, terrorism and deception in media and politics. Readers can contact him at email@example.com.
By Andrew Mills | RINF Alternative News | January 17, 2014
On December 12, 2013, well known attorney, Dr. William Pepper, sent a letter to the U. S . Department of Commerce Inspector General on behalf of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. The letter concerned certain structural feature omissions found in early 2012 in the drawings on which the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) based their conclusions in their 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) on 9/11. (NIST is one of the agencies under the Department of Commerce.) Dr. Pepper’s letter asked that that the Inspector General investigate and have NIST correct the Report.
As most Americans know, a third building (WTC7) of the WorldTradeCenter complex of buildings collapsed on the same day as the twin towers. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that housed offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, as well as the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s OperationsCenter. It collapsed at around 5 pm on 9/11. No airplane crashed into it and it experienced only minor fires before it collapsed. It fell straight down, right into its own footprint, and the speed of fall was very close to gravitational free fall. Many people at the time remarked that its collapse closely resembled the collapse of buildings due to intentional demolition.
Of those Americans who know that Building 7 collapsed on 9/11, very few are aware that the government through NIST actually investigated the causes of the building’s collapse. The report by NIST was released to the public in August 2008, nearly seven years after the attacks. The drawings upon which the report was based were released only in 2011 in response to a FOIA request. At the time of the release of the report, many professional engineers and architects had serious misgivings about the report as it basically contended that for the first time in history, the symmetrical, complete collapse of a large, fire protected, steel framed building was said to be fire induced.
As noted in Dr. Pepper’s letter, since the release of the drawings, structural engineers have spent considerable time comparing these drawings to the descriptions of the collapse model provided in the report. Their findings revealed that critical structural features in Building 7 were inexplicably missing from consideration in the Report. These critical features included stiffeners, that provided critical girder support, as well as lateral support beams which supported a beam which allegedly buckled. Only through the omission of any discussion about the stiffeners and the lateral support beams is NIST’s probable collapse sequence possible. It is the unanimous opinion of these structural engineers that with the inclusion of these critical features, NIST’s probable collapse sequence must be ruled out.
As Dr. Pepper’s letter notes, the group of architects and engineers unanimously believe that the NIST Report’s conclusion of collapse due to fire could not have been justified if the stiffeners and the lateral support beams were not omitted. The credibility of NIST and the Department of Commerce requires that they open an investigation into the potential negligence and/or misconduct by the lead investigators of NIST’s Building 7 investigation and that NIST be directed to produce a corrected analysis and report on the collapse of Building 7, this time, by fully taking into account the presence of the stiffeners and the lateral support beams.
After the discovery of these omissions, the group of architects and engineers who discovered them pressed NIST for over a year to get an answer to the question as to why these critical features were omitted from the Report’s discussion and analysis. But they were greeted with silence until October 25, 2013 when a NIST public relations official finally acknowledged that the stiffeners had been omitted, but incredibly, from an engineering standpoint, said they were not necessary to consider.
With the submittal of Dr. Pepper’s letter, which was accompanied by a detailed engineering analysis, NIST has never before been challenged this way, with their own data and information that they themselves have released. They appear to be caught between a rock and a hard place. At the very least they should be forced to release their WTC 7 collapse modeling data. They have not responded to the letter as of yet.
But this is court-room level evidence of impropriety involving the preparation of the WTC 7 report, and will clearly be an embarrassment to NIST. It shows that the demand for a new WTC 7 investigation by those skeptical of the Report’s conclusions was in order all along. Even if nothing else is re-investigated about 9/11, the collapse of Building 7 richly deserves a thorough investigation .
Here is a link to Dr. Pepper’s letter to the Department of Commerce Inspector General:
Andrew Mills is a groundwater hydrologist employed in an engineering consulting company. He and his wife have six children and 18 grandchildren. He was active in the civil rights movement in the 1950′s and 1960′s.
A new MIT report is challenging the US claim that Assad forces used chemical weapons in an attack last August, highlighting that the range of the improvised rocket was way too short to have been launched from government controlled areas.
In the report titled “Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence,” Richard Lloyd, a former UN weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), examined the delivery rocket’s design and calculated possible trajectories based on the payload of the cargo.
The authors concluded that sarin gas “could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the ‘heart’, or from the Eastern edge, of the Syrian government controlled area shown in the intelligence map published by the White House on August 30, 2013.”
Based on mathematical calculations, Lloyd and Postol estimate the rocket with such aerodynamics could not travel more than 2 kilometers. To illustrate their conclusion, the authors included the original White House map that depicted areas under Assad control and those held by the opposition. Based on the firing range and troop locations on August 21, the authors conclude that all possible launching points within the 2 km radius were in rebel-held areas.
“This mistaken intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action based on false intelligence. A proper vetting of the fact that the munition was of such short range would have led to a completely different assessment of the situation from the gathered data,” the report states.
The authors emphasize that the UN independent assessment of the range of the chemical munition is in “exact agreement” with their findings.
The report goes on to challenge the US Secretary of State’s key assessments of the chemical attack that he presented to the American people on August 30th and to the Foreign Relations Committee on September 3rd in an effort to muster a military attack on Syria.
“My view when I started this process was that it couldn’t be anything but the Syrian government behind the attack. But now I’m not sure of anything. The administration narrative was not even close to reality. Our intelligence cannot possibly be correct,” Postol told McClatchy news.
“The Syrian rebels most definitely have the ability to make these weapons,” he said. “I think they might have more ability than the Syrian government.”
It also remains a mystery why the particular type of rocket that was used in the attack was not declared by the Syrian government as part of its chemical weapons arsenal when it agreed to destroy its chemical weapons and their delivery methods. OPCW inspectors charged with implementing the agreement also did not discover such a rocket in possession of government forces.
Syria agreed to the destruction of its chemical weapons through a deal brokered by Russia and the US after a sarin gas attack on August 21. Western nations blamed the deadly attack on President Bashar Assad’s forces, while Damascus accused the rebels for the incident. The UN fact-finding mission had no mandate to find out who carried out the attack.
Under the UN-backed plan, all of the country’s declared 1,290 tons of toxic agents should be destroyed by June 30. Initially, the first batch of the most dangerous materials was to be moved out of Syria on December 31.
However, the deadline was missed because of the ongoing war in Syria and technical issues. It was only on January 7 that “priority chemical materials” left the Syrian port of Latakia on a Danish ship for international waters.
The official story of 9-11 is collapsing almost as fast as the Obamacare website. Most Americans are now well aware of the strange collapse of WTC Building 7, the video that captures the sound of the actual explosion that initiates the collapse of WTC7, the very strange behavior of the Secret Service as President Bush read about goats at Booker Elementary School. We have all seen the photographs that confirm the remains of demolition “cutter charges” in the remains of the towers. And we all know how the BBC reported that Building 7 collapsed 26 minutes before it actually happened. indicating a script was being followed (but alas, not carefully enough).
With the official story in free fall, Americans are wondering just who did this heinous deed. With the US Government itself the prime suspect, many are asking if the US Government had help from an outside nation, one with a long track record of world-changing dirty tricks.
There is a great deal of evidence that implicates the nation of Israel as a co-conspirator with the Bush administration. First, there was the massive Israeli spy ring uncovered in the United States just before 9-11, and how some of the “Dancing Israelis” arrested after being seen cheering and dancing as the World Trade Towers collapsed turned out to be Mossad spies! Then there was the strange case of Odigo, an Israeli-owned company whose New York offices received a warning about the attacks before the planes used in the attacks had even left the ground! All four of the hijacked planes departed from airport gates whose security was provided by the same Israeli security company. Israel has a long track record of playing dirty tricks against the United States and other countries, including the Lavon affair (framed on Egypt), Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty (initially framed on Egypt), and Israel’s smuggling a radio transmitter into Libya that was used to send fake messages that tricked President Reagan into bombing Libya.
As people start to seriously examine the plethora of evidence regarding Israel’s numerous perfidies it comes as no surprise that recently we have seen Israel’s “useful idiots” launch a propaganda campaign to claim that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9-11 attacks, based on a lawsuit brought against Saudi Arabia by the families of the victims. But anyone can bring a lawsuit against anyone for anything. That does not mean the lawsuit allegations are true. Nonsense lawsuits are a reality of the modern US court system, as are lawsuits staged primarily as political and propaganda stunts, which is what this appears to be. At the very least this propaganda is intended to deflect interest away from Israel. At worst, it is the start of the campaign to justify military invasion of that country, just as Saddam’s nuclear weapons were the excuse to invade Iraq, and the more recently (and thankfully failed) attempt to justify invasion of Syria by claiming Syria’s government was gassing their own people.
As I have mentioned before, the best way to tell if you are being lied to is to look for what should be there but isn’t. In the case of the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, what should be there and isn’t is a motive for Saudi Arabia to do something like that.
George Bush had a motive to do 9-11. He needed that “new Pearl Harbor” to enrage Americans into the century of war called for by the Project For The New American Century. Israel certainly had a motive to do 9-11 and frame Muslims for it, to trick Americans into siding with Israel’s continued land grabs and wars against Israel’s enemies, with Israel’s agenda being (as it was with the Lavon affair, the USS Liberty, and the Libyan radio hoax) that Americans fight those wars for them!
Saudi Arabia does not have a history of dirty tricks, nor a demonstrated ability to carry out such deceptions. More to the point, Saudi Arabia has no motive to attack the United States. The Saudi princes have grown very rich indeed through the Petrodollar arrangement. Saudi Arabia buys many American products and weapons ($61 billion in 2011), and unlike Israel, the American taxpayer does not have to give them the money first with which to buy those weapons. Whereas Israel constantly takes money out of the US, the Saudis pour it in! Private Saudi investment in the US economy is over $400 billion. Saudi Arabia is a major creditor to the US Government. Exact figures are hard to find but Saudi Arabia has loaned the US Government hundreds of billions of dollars.
Saudi Arabia is not going to risk an attack on the US because all that wealth would vanish. The Saudi wealth inside the US would be frozen or seized, and the outstanding loans to the US would never be repaid. The “useful idiots” trying to save Israel by blaming 9-11 on Saudi Arabia have yet to come up with a motive for the Saudis to do something like 9-11 that risks losing all that cash.
Remember that Saudi Arabia was being framed for 9-11 right from the start. One of the accused hijackers, a Saudi Pilot named Saeed Al-Ghamdi, was still alive after 9-11 and sued the US Government for defaming him.
And finally, here is some common sense that totally undermines the attempt to frame Saudi Arabia for 9-11. If Saudi Arabia really wanted to hurt the United States, they don’t need to fly airplanes into skyscrapers to do it. All they have to do is ask for their money back, all at once. The resulting damage to the US financial system would make 9-11 look like a minor inconvenience in comparison.
And it would be perfectly legal for Saudi Arabia to ask for their money back.
Which is why we know that the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11 has no more basis in fact than the claim that Saddam had nuclear weapons or that Assad gassed his own people right in front of the UN chemical weapons inspectors.
As the media tries to blame Saudi Arabia for 9-11, it is worth recalling that the Bush administration initially claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11 to sell the 2003 invasion, then later admitted Iraq had actually been innocent. So there is a pattern of the US simply using 9-11 as a “one size fits all” excuse to invade yet another oil rich nation.
The burial of former Lebanese Finance Minister Mohammed Shatah next to assassinated ex-premier Rafic al-Hariri in Beirut’s Muhammad al-Amin mosque was as striking and deliberate in symbolism as the towering structure itself.
Last Friday’s assassination of the Hariri family’s senior advisor and one-time U.S. ambassador was by similar method: a massive car bomb detonated under his convoy as it drove through the heart of Beirut’s upscale downtown district. As if to purposefully underscore the parallels and frame the post-assassination narrative, it also occurred just a few hundred yards from the site where the billionaire Hariri was murdered in February 2005.
Just as after Hariri’s killing, the calculated recriminations of the March 14 coalition, led by the Future Movement, came fast and furious. Blame was laid squarely at the feet of Hezbollah. March 14 supporters were quick to point out that the crime took place less than three weeks before the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL; the U.N.-established court tasked with investigating the Hariri assassination) was set to open proceedings against four accused Hezbollah members.
The shoddy STL investigation, relying heavily on telecommunications data wholly compromised by Israeli intelligence and their captured agents, has been previously discussed.
Did the masterminds of the Shatah assassination hope the Lebanese population would turn against Hezbollah, already facing strong rebuke for its intervention in Syria by March 14 politicians (despite that the latter have implicitly lent support to radical takfiri elements involved in the Syrian conflict since its earliest days)?
As with all political upheavals in Lebanon, the question that must be asked is, “who benefits?” Does Hezbollah? Although Shatah was a stalwart March 14 operative who decried Hezbollah’s role in Syria, he was nevertheless regarded as a relative moderate. But the increasingly virulent sectarian discourse of those on the fringes of this political alliance (and many at its center) and the cover they have extended to extremists like fugitive Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir, cannot be ignored. Beirut after all, is still reeling from recent twin suicide car bombings at the Iranian embassy followed shortly thereafter by the assassination of Hezbollah senior commander Hassan al-Lakkis. On Thursday, innocent Lebanese civilians were again victims of a car bomb detonated in the Haret Hreik neighborhood of Beirut’s Shia-majority southern suburbs, known as the dahiyeh.
“Moderate” Sunni politicians like Shatah are viewed as expendable, for their killing only serves to polarize the wider Sunni community by inciting sectarian hatred and thereby marginalize more reasoned voices. Even Lebanon’s Grand Mufti was not spared as he was accosted after mourners’ passions were stoked by Sheikh Ahmad al-Omari, the cleric who delivered the sermon at the funeral of a young man also killed in the assassination. As Al-Akhbar reports, “Omari attacked Hezbollah, describing it as the ‘party of the devil.’ He called on the Shia to ‘disown’ Hezbollah ‘if they are true believers,’ and stressed the ‘patience of the persecuted Sunni sect is running out.’”
Again, does Hezbollah achieve any gain, political or otherwise, with Shatah’s demise?
The irony is that the inflammatory rhetoric and policies of March 14 parliamentary bloc members have led to the exponential growth of radical forces in the country. One only has to recall how former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Bahia Hariri and others insinuated the Lebanese Army was responsible for provoking Salafist cleric al-Assir’s armed forces to launch an attack against them this past summer in Sidon, killing 18.
Son of the late prime minister and Future Movement head Saad Hariri also did not waste any time in essentially blaming the victims themselves for Thursday’s attack: “They are at the same time victims of [Hezbollah’s] involvement in foreign wars, particularly in the Syrian war.”
The northern city of Tripoli and the Ain al-Hilwah Palestinian refugee camp near Sidon have provided extremist groups with safe refuge. Details have now emerged pointing to a possible link between those in the camp and recent events.
Just as in Iraq, moderate Sunni politicians have been singled out for assassination by takfiris who seek to exploit their spilled blood, provoke co-religionists into committing crimes against civilians and stir a simmering sectarian pot.
Who are the likely perpetrators behind Mohammed Shatah’s assassination and the dahiyeh bombing?
The very same ones the U.S. and Saudi-backed March 14 coalition have emboldened.
Rannie Amiri is an independent commentator on Middle East affairs.
The assassination of former Lebanese Finance Minister Mohammed Shatah will open a dangerous chapter in Lebanon, a bit similar to the one that followed the assassination of late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Shatah was no ordinary man in the region, and the attack occurred at a crucial moment in Lebanon and its neighborhood’s history. Here, escalated tensions and sedition will never let such a crime pass by without major repercussions. The killer knew it!
Hariri’s assassination in 2005 was a turning point for Hezbollah’s image in the Arab and Islamic world, and contributed to the Syrian army’s withdrawal from Lebanon. These events weren’t just a result of local demands. Former US President George W. Bush and his French counterpart Jacques Chirac were also involved.
The Sunni-Shia strife that ripped Iraq apart after the American-British invasion was further consolidated when Hezbollah, with its large Shia base, was accused of murdering the new symbol of modern Sunnism in the region: Rafik Hariri. Back then, political accusation preceded all real investigations on the ground.
Now, what to expect after Shatah’s assassination?
Former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was brief, while Future bloc leader Fouad Siniora elaborated, hinting that the Syrian regime planned the crime, and its Lebanese allies, mainly Hezbollah, carried it out. In the March 14 statement, Siniora echoed the calls that followed Hariri’s murder, urging to take Shatah’s assassination to the international level, something we expect to hear quite often in the coming weeks amid international pressure on Hezbollah and Lebanon.
Head of the National Struggle Bloc MP Walid Jumblatt was alone in his call for reason and moderation. He knows quite well that some are seeking to exploit the assassination to achieve bigger political gains. He also understands that this assassination is apt to take the country from sectarian sedition to the battlefield.
The Shatah assassination occurred while Lebanon was at a crossroads. The future government and the current presidency are now up for grabs amid political bickering between Hezbollah and March 14. But behind both parties is a larger and deeper conflict taking place in Syria.
The assassination ought to increase pressure on the formation of a Lebanese government and a formula for a presidential agreement. Previously hesitant, the international community is now expected to support these solutions as the death of Shatah and the other martyrs raised the alarm about a bloody year awaiting Lebanon.
Shatah’s murder also paves the way for further assassinations, clashes, and blasts. Obviously there is a plan to transform Lebanon into an arena for a regional and international conflict that has not been settled in Syria.
What if a Hezbollah leader or ally is killed in the coming days? Will we hear that it is a retaliation for the Shatah murder? Who will break this vicious cycle?
Israel may also find an opportunity to conduct a military operation. It is reported that Hezbollah’s incursion in Syria and the widening rift with its former Sunni base offers Israel the right opportunity to strike. In Lebanon, Israel may redeem what it couldn’t achieve in Iran. At least that’s what the Israelis believe.
The assassination put the Syrian regime and Hezbollah in a raging storm of accusations at a critical time. The world is heading toward the Geneva II conference and an historic understanding with Iran. The international tribunal investigating Hariri’s murder will soon begin its sessions.
Martyr Mohammed Shatah was no ordinary man. Neither was martyr Wissam al-Hassan. Shatah, a man with hefty economic and political baggage, was, just like security man Hassan, standing on a pivotal local, regional, and international intersection. With such assassinations, it is easy to point figures, but it is hard to support accusations with evidence as political exploitation comes in smoothly.
A dark period of major transformation is awaiting Lebanon, but unfortunately the fierce battle ahead won’t yield any winners. What if a fait accompli government was imposed on Hezbollah and its allies? How will Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah put his words “don’t mess with us” into action? Those messing with him this time will have an international cover far larger than the one they had before the assassination.
The latest deadly attack in Lebanon’s capital Beirut is yet another desperate attempt to destabilize not only that country, but the entire Middle East to precipitate all-out sectarian war.
The murder of senior Lebanese Sunni political figure, Mohamad Shatah, on Friday in a massive bomb blast that hit his motorcade as it drove through downtown Beirut was aimed at implicating the Shia Hezbollah and closely allied Syrian and Iranian governments.
Syria’s government of President Bashar al-Assad, along with Hezbollah and Iran, swiftly condemned the assassination of Shatah, who was formerly Lebanon’s finance minister between 2008 and 2011.
But the condemnations didn’t stop anti-Syria politicians within Lebanon and various Western media outlets from pointing the finger.
“Anti-Assad ex-minister killed in Beirut bomb,” was the headline carried by Reuters and Britain’s Daily Telegraph, among others.
This contrived innuendo betrays who the real perpetrators are.
Mohamad Shatah, a senior political adviser to Lebanese opposition leader Saad Hariri, was indeed a strident critic of Hezbollah and Syria’s Assad, accusing them of fuelling bloodshed in Syria and also sectarian tensions inside Lebanon. His political views were consistent with the narrative of the pro-Zionist Western media, as well as Saudi Arabia.
Shatah could therefore be considered an ally of the West, Saudi Arabia and the Zionist Israeli regime. But that very profile may have been what made him a prime target, not for Hezbollah or Syria, but for his so-called allies.
The day before his killing, Shatah had reiterated criticism of Hezbollah, claiming that the group was using Syria to consolidate its military strength in Lebanon.
Within minutes of Shatah’s murder, the Saudi-backed Lebanese opposition leader Saad Hariri implicated Hezbollah for the attack. “Shatah’s murderers are the same ones who assassinated former premier Rafik Hariri.” This was a reference to the bomb-blast killing of his father, Rafik, also a former prime minister, in 2005.
A United Nations-backed Lebanese tribunal has indicted five members of Hezbollah for that 2005 murder. The trial is set to open in the coming weeks in a Hague court. For the past eight years Hariri’s group have accused Hezbollah as well as Syrian intelligence over that assassination, without the accusations gaining much credibility.
Both Hezbollah and Syria have strenuously denied any involvement, saying that there is no evidence, and that the tribunal is politically driven. Hence, they have refused to cooperate with the forthcoming trial.
That is why Saad Hariri said of the latest killing: “The accused… are the same ones who are running away from international justice.”
Shatah’s assassination this week comes at a sensitive time, which strongly suggests who the real perpetrators might be.
First, the atrocity serves to re-ignite the accusations against Hezbollah, and its regional allies, in the murder of Rafik Hariri just when the case is being re-opened in an international court.
Secondly, there is the forthcoming Geneva II political talks organized to find a peaceful solution to the nearly three-year Syrian crisis. If Hezbollah, and by extension Syria and Iran, can be linked by sensational media claims of involvement in the murder of high-profile Lebanese politicians, then that would have a damaging impact on the Assad government during the Geneva negotiations.
Thirdly, and this is more to the point of who are the likely perpetrators, the murder of Mohamad Shatah comes at a time of mounting sectarian tensions and violence across the region. Lebanon has witnessed a wave of deadly bomb attacks and assassinations in recent months, which have mainly targeted Shia areas of Beirut.
Earlier this month, a senior Hezbollah commander was shot dead. And at the end of last month, a twin suicide bomb attack on the Iranian embassy in Beirut killed 29, including Iran’s cultural attaché, Ebrahim Ansari. Back in August, a bomb outside a Sunni mosque in Sidon reportedly butchered 40 people.
This violence replicates the pattern of sectarian bloodshed unleashed in neighboring Syria and Iraq. There is ample evidence to show that that violence is being systematically fuelled by Saudi Arabia, working in collusion with Israeli and Western intelligence.
Israel in particular has a long track record of sabotaging Lebanon from within, having invaded that country in 1978, 2000 and 2006. There is also evidence that its agents were the real authors of the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005.
Lebanon is particularly vulnerable to sectarian strife. The country’s communal wounds are still raw from the 15-year-old civil war between its Sunni, Shia, Christian and Druze communities, which ended in 1990. There have been renewed sectarian clashes between Sunni and Shia/Alawite groups in Sidon, Tripoli and several other towns over the past year. Saudi-backed Sunni clerics have been prominent in agitating sharper tensions in Lebanon.
This pattern of sectarian destabilization within Lebanon and across the Middle East by external forces is consistent with the latest murder of Mohamad Shatah in Beirut. The massive blast is believed to have come from a 50-60 kg bomb wired in a booby-trapped car. Wreckage was scattered 100 meters away and some 40 other cars were damaged, some of them upended. This was a professional hit with a devastating message.
In the grand nefarious scheme of geopolitics it matters little that Shatah was a prominent Sunni figure who was an ardent critic of Hezbollah and Syria. Indeed, from the viewpoint of the agents of subversion and destabilization, Shatah’s political and religious affiliation would have made him a prime target for their purpose of trying to explode sectarian war.
The heinous role played by Saudi, Israeli and Western intelligence in inflicting untold suffering on civilians across the Middle East, whether Shia, Sunni or Christian, means that their capability of using the dirtiest tricks knows no limits. The murder of Mohamad Shatah would be viewed by these dark forces as merely an expendable sacrifice if that means achieving the bigger aim of inciting all-out sectarian war in Lebanon; and engulfing the entire region in internecine flames.
The powers that gain from this atrocity are those that sow division and thrive on conflict in order to shore up their illegitimate hegemony over the region and over the mass of its ordinary, decent people.