Debunking America’s “War on Terror”

Finding Bombs in all the Wrong Places

Posted: May 24, 2012 by NOI Research Group
By Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

It has been over 2 and one-half months since the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan invited members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to present their scientific analysis of what happened on September 11, 2001. Architect Richard Gage, of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and chemist Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the peer-reviewed Journal of 9/11 Studies, presented to a packed auditorium indisputable evidence that the three buildings that fell at the World Trade Center on 9/11 were brought down by strategically placed bombs and not by hijacked airliners. Yet what is being promoted in the mainstream media as newsworthy are not the bombs that brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, but the Guantanamo trials of suspects who are alleged to have planned the hijacking of the planes, as well as a recently foiled “underwear bomber” attack.

In the meantime political hucksters like Glenn Beck just aired a so-called exposé of the Nation of Islam, trying to link it to as many bad things that he could think up—without presenting one single shred of evidence. Beck even called Minister Farrakhan a 9/11 “truther.” Since when did the title “truther”—which I assume means either one who is telling the truth or one who is looking for the truth—become a pejorative term? Well, I guess that Mr. Beck could not call the Minister a “liar” or a “terrorist,” so calling him a “truther” was as tough as he could get. Representative Peter King held hearings trying to link the Nation of Islam to the “radicalization of black prisoners” and the recruitment of Black males to become part of a “violent” organization. But everybody knows that members of the Nation of Islam are not allowed to carry or use carnal weapons or to be the aggressor in word or deed.

The obvious goal of all this negative talk about The Minister is to dissuade the public from listening to what he is saying and prepare the public to accept the demise of Minister Farrakhan, President Barack Obama and the Nation of Islam at the hands of the nefarious forces that control America. In his February Saviours’ Day message the Minister pointed out that when Oklahoma City was bombed in 1995, the first thing they said on the news was that it was perpetrated by the Nation of Islam. This false charge set the stage for 9/11 to take place, which resulted in an attack on Islam, all Muslims, and on American and foreign charities whose mission was to aid Islamic development. Since 9/11, America has used its “War on Terror” to send military forces to kill innocent people in seven Muslim countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia and Lebanon. Ironically, many of the people killed in these countries were killed by unmanned remotely controlled aircrafts called drones. Could the planes that struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have been piloted by remote control?

So now these same people claim to have thwarted an “Al-Qaeda plot” to blow up a plane with a suicide bomber coming from Yemen donning explosive underwear; however, the www.bbc.co.uk article “Al-Qaeda underwear bomber ‘was undercover agent’” reported that the “bomber” was really a Saudi agent working in conjunction with America’s CIA. So here we have an admitted conspiracy by the CIA and Saudi intelligence claiming to have infiltrated an organization and “exposed” a terrorist plot. But whose plot was it? Is this a repeat of the 1960s, when the FBI under the COINTELPRO program would infiltrate Black organizations as agent provocateurs, entice them to do some illegal activity, then turn them in?

But let’s go back to 2009 and the infamous Nigerian “underwear bomber” on Flight 253, which landed in Detroit on Christmas day. There are varying “official” versions of the event, each of which has not been properly investigated. Indeed, there is one big puzzle presented by a passenger by the name of Kurt Haskell who witnessed a well-dressed older man intercede on behalf of the young Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, at the check-in gate in Amsterdam, Holland. Haskell, a lawyer, heard the man tell the airline agent in an American accent that Umar was a refugee from Africa and that he wanted him on the plane even though Umar did not have a visa. Remarkably, the man said, “We do this all the time.” And the pair was sent to airport higher ups down the corridor to get permission. Who was this man who could intercede on behalf of a foreigner at U.S. Customs? Mr. Haskell gave interviews recounting this story, while U.S. government officials vehemently denied that Mr. Umar had an accomplice. These government officials never publicly showed any security camera video of Umar at the check-in gate at the Amsterdam airport.

Minister Farrakhan gave us the meaning of a patsy: patsy means “dupe” or “scapegoat.” And this is what Umar was in this incident—a patsy for the United States government.

So if Umar was a patsy and the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by strategically placed explosives, then the so-called hijackers and those that are alleged to have planned the hijackings were “patsies” of a bigger scheme. Is the American public more interested in some “underwear bomb” than in the tons of high explosives used to kill nearly 3,000 people and plunge America into an unending war on Islam? Or is the American media more interested in diverting attention from the real questions and the evidence that provides answers to these questions?

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has not been given the attention that well-educated scientists should be given over such an important issue; however, they are taking their information to the public. They have produced a powerful new documentary called “9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out,” and are now scheduling a World Premiere Tour from the west coast to the east coast. It will begin in Beverly Hills, CA, on May 22 and hit at least 25 cities, proceeding through the month of June. The film features cutting-edge 9/11 evidence presented by 50 experts in their fields, such as high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled-demolition technicians, and more. The documentary will be submitted to film festivals around the world.

In February at the Nation of Islam Saviours’ Day, Mr. Gage flatly asserted and then proved that the smallest of the three World Trade Center buildings, WTC 7, was not brought down by a plane or a fire or debris from the other buildings. Thanks to the highly controlled media, most of the American public does not even know that a third building, the 47-story WTC 7, went down at 5:21 PM right after WTC 1 and 2 fell—each of the three buildings falling into its own footprint. In fact, it was the U.S. government’s own report put out by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) that prompted Mr. Gage, an architect by trade, to get involved with finding a more plausible explanation for the collapse of those three buildings on September 11th.

The NIST report blamed the collapse of all three buildings on fire; however, Mr. Gage pointed out that never in the history of steel-framed buildings has a skyscraper had a “complete collapse” due to fire—NEVER. How, then, do you have three major skyscrapers falling due to fire and leaving in their wake finely pulverized concrete and distorted pieces of steel full of gaping holes? Mr. Gage went on to present side-by-side videos of the collapse of WTC 7 and buildings destroyed by demolition experts using strategically placed explosives. He ran these videos over and over again to emphasize that what happened in a controlled demolition looked exactly like what happened to all three World Trade Center buildings. So the question of who did or did not fly the planes into buildings 1 and 2 becomes IRRELEVANT to the issues concerning the crime that was committed that day.

How could the American government flatly deny and refuse to investigate the possibility of bombs being in those buildings and yet now seem so interested in “underwear bombs” coming out of Yemen? Please go to www.ae911truth.org and join the “truther” movement and help us find the real 9/11 bombers before they strike again.

(Dr. Ridgely A. Mu’min Muhammad, Agricultural Economist, National Student Minister of Agriculture, Manager of Muhammad Farms. He can be reached at drridge@bellsouth.net)

SOURCE: noirg.org/finding-bombs-in-all-the-wrong-places/

---

See also:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: The Official Legend of 9/11 is a Fabricated Setup
The June 2002 Plan to Market a New 9/11 Mastermind

By Chaim Kupferberg
Global Research, March 15, 2007

Editor's note

The Pentagon has released a 26 page transcript of the "confession" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (pdf) who is now being presented to World public opinion as the mastermind and architect of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

This "confession" was read (in his presence) from a prepared text by his "personal [legal?] representative" at "military hearings" held behind closed doors at the US Guantanamo concentration camp.

According to the transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claims responsibility for the attacks on the WTC twin towers and the Pentagon: “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z.”

According to his prepared statement, he also "confessed" to an impressive list of terrorist attacks as well as the planning of a “second wave” of post 9/11 attacks, which were to include the bombings of skyscrapers in New York, Chicago and Washington, attacks on London's Heathrow airport, Canary Warf and the Tower of Big Ben.

He also claimed responsibility for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Richard Reid’s attempt to ignite a shoe bomb on an Transatlantic flight in December 2001, and the October 2002 Bali bombings in Indonesia.

In a statement read by his personal representative, he allegedly confessed to planning the assassination of several former presidents, including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, as well as Pope John Paul II.

With regard to The Wall Street Journal's reporter Daniel Pearl, KSM's statement reads: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl...For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head.”

KSM was arrested in March 2003 and was then imprisoned for more than three years in secret CIA detention facilities. He claims to have made this confession without any form of pressure being exerted on him. Several press reports suggest that he was tortured.

Khalid Sheikh Mohamed personifies the "outside enemy" of America. His "confession" upholds the illusion that Al Qaeda outwitted the 40 billion dollar US intelligence apparatus, in waging a terrorist attack on America.

The arrest and confessed statements of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed serve to uphold the official 9/11 narrative, namely that the 9/11 attacks were masterminded by Islamic terrorists.

The following text by Chaim Kupferberg, first published by Global Research in October 2003, shortly after the arrest of KSM, reveals with foresight and accuracy the nature of the propaganda ploy. According to Kupferberg, a "marketing plan" was established in June 2002 to introduce Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the public as the 9/11 mastermind.

Kupferberg exposes how the official legend was fabricated around Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

His analysis reveals the historical background behind the creation of the 9/11 Legend. The latter serves to drown the lies and inconsistencies contained in the official 9/11 narrative; it also sustains the "global war on terrorism".

Serious doubts have been expressed on the authenticity of the KSM confession. The latter is ultimately intended, in a clumsy and inept fashion, to uphold the shaky legitimacy of the Bush administration.


Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 15 March 2007

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Research, October 26, 2003

[Note: the following text originally published by Global Research on October 26, 2003 was excerpted by the author from a much longer text, see references at the foot of this article]

The Official Legend of 9/11 as a prefabricated set-up.

As we will see, the Moussaoui indictment had lain the groundwork for the eventual Khalid Shaikh Mohammed/ Ramzi Binalshibh/ Mustafa Ahmed nexus that really gets rolling in June 2002, when Khalid is first introduced as the 9/11 "mastermind", then proceeds through Binalshibh's choreographed arrest in September 2002, and culminates with the simultaneous arrest of Khalid and Mustafa Ahmed in March 2003. Further, we will see how FBI Director Mueller uses the details in the Moussaoui indictment to explicitly pair up Khalid and Mustafa Ahmed - a full nine months before these characters end up sharing news space for their own simultaneously choreographed apprehensions.

The unsealed December 2001 Moussaoui indictment also set out two "unindicted co-conspirators" who had yet to play their final roles in the unfolding 9/11 Legend - Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed al-hawsawi (the "official" paymaster)...

Of the various pivot points in the unfolding 9/11 Legend, the time period of June 4-5 2002 was among the most significant.

...Around the same time that the joint Senate-House Inquiry was proceeding under the co-chairmanship of Bob Graham and Porter Goss (the September 11 breakfast partners of Omar Saeed's reported ISI "handler"), Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was formally introduced as the operative mastermind behind 9/11. John J. Lumpkin of the Associated Press wrote the definitive article here, courtesy of the revelations of an anonymous "top U.S. counterterrorism official"

...Lumpkin's key June article served as a guidepost as to how the unfolding 9/11 Legend would finally crystallize. As reported by Lumpkin, in the same article where Khalid was introduced as the new 9/11 mastermind, he was also "accused of working with Ramzi Yousef in the first bombing of the World Trade Center [in '93]" in addition to working with Yousef on a 1995 plot (code-named Bojinka) to bomb a dozen airliners headed to the United States

...It was not by accident that the 9/11 paymaster - now officially dubbed as Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi - was mentioned in an article introducing Khalid as the mastermind. As it turned out, about the same time that Lumpkin's article was making the rounds, Robert Mueller was making a statement before the Senate-House Committee, narrating the full details of the money trail story (as set out in the Moussaoui indictment), but this time adding the role of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who, according to Mueller's statement, shared a credit card with Mustafa Ahmed "Alhawsawi."

Thus, Mueller inserted Khalid into the Money Trail Story by way of a direct connection with the "Mustafa Ahmad" alias. And now, thanks to Lumpkin, "Mustafa Ahmad" was not to be thought of as simply a convenient pseudonym, but rather as a real person, bin Laden's bona fide "financial chief"...

...Once Lumpkin's June 2002 article on Khalid was out, further incriminating details were coming out fast and furious. According to CBS News, U.S. officials now had "evidence" that Khalid had met with "some of the 9/11 hijackers at their Hamburg, Germany apartment in 1999." Presumably, Ramzi Binalshibh - Mohammed Atta's Hamburg roommate who was also thought to be a potential "twentieth hijacker" - was among them. Lumpkin's key June article also mentioned Binalshibh as part of Atta's Hamburg "cell." And as Binalshibh was paired with Mustafa Ahmed as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Moussaoui indictment, we have perhaps an indication that Khalid, Binalshibh, and Mustafa Ahmed were part of a concerted strategy touched off in early June 2002 to bring this phase of the 9/11 Legend to a close. Conveniently timed for release on the very next day - June 6, 2002 - further news followed that, according to National Security Agency intercepts, Khalid was heard talking on the telephone with hijacker Mohammed Atta. Moreover, for the very first time, authorities were now reporting that Khalid was actually the uncle of Ramzi Yousef. In other words, when the nephew failed to bring down the Towers in '93, the uncle took up the slack in '01.

Perhaps it was this sort of conceptually artistic symmetry that made Khalid so attractive as the designated mastermind. Through Khalid, one had a direct connection to the first World Trade Center attack, providing a smoking gun continuity leading directly to al-Qaida. Prior to Khalid's June 2002 public promotion, he was lurking on the official terror lists merely as an indicted conspirator in the 1995 Bojinka plot masterminded by Ramzi Yousef. Thus, while Khalid had not previously been directly connected to the 9/11 plot, he did make the "most wanted" cut based on his alleged 1995 collaboration with Yousef. With that in mind, one can almost picture sitting in with the members of the National Security Council on a balmy Spring morning in late May 2002, leafing through their photo albums as they argued over the most appropriate candidate to close off the official 9/11 Legend. As it turned out, they chose the guy with the unibrow and the hair shirt.

What was the official reason for revealing the role of Khalid at this point in time? According to CBS News, it was senior al-Qaida figure Abu Zubaydah (captured a few months previously) who had "fingered [Khalid] as the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks." Abu Zubaydah, the first "big fish" captured in the War On Terror, had previously - and conveniently - been fingered as a major al-Qaida player by Ahmed Ressam...

... As we will see, once Ramzi Binalshibh's number comes up for apprehension (in September 2002), followed by the capture of Khalid and Mustafa Ahmed in March 2003, another version will be offered for the timing of Khalid's introduction as 9/11 mastermind. But first, we should take note of James Risen's June 5, 2002 article for the New York Times, in which Risen reported that the authorities "had begun to suspect soon after the [Sept. 11] attacks that [Khalid] had some role in the hijackings. But in the next months, a detailed financial investigation of the money trail from the plot led officials to believe that he had a more prominent role than previously suspected." In other words, as Risen had framed it, Khalid had first garnered notice for 9/11 by way of his connection to the money trail. Was this a retrospective addition into the record? - for Khalid most certainly did not make it into the Money Trail Story as of December 2001, when pretty much all the details of the money trail were crystallized within the Moussaoui indictment. On the other hand, there is a possibility that Khalid was intended from the very beginning to be featured as the 9/11 mastermind, yet perhaps he could not be safely inserted back into the Legend by way of the money trail until that nasty confusion over the "Mustafa Ahmad" alias was resolved...

...By June of 2002, the contents of the Moussaoui indictment could indeed be viewed as the clear signpost pointing the way to the manner in which the final loose ends of the Official 9/11 Legend would be tied up for posterity. With Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi already tied together as unindicted co-conspirators in the Moussaoui case, FBI Director Robert Mueller would, by this time, explicitly weave in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, pairing him up with Mustafa Ahmed and thereby inserting this newly-christened 9/11 mastermind into the Money Trail Story. The Associated Press' John Lumpkin would reference all three in his key June 2002 article. It is as if the powers-that-be were putting this trio of nefarious characters on notice - from here on, their fates were to be indelibly entwined.

If habitual coincidence is the mother of all conspiracy theories, then one must surely raise a discerning eyebrow at the revelation that, around this time - after more than a decade of staying hidden in the shadows - Khalid Shaikh Mohammed suddenly was stricken with an urge to conduct his very first interview, with none other than Ramzi Binalshibh at his side. The journalist chosen for this honor was the London bureau chief of Al-Jazeera, Yosri Fouda...

...On September 9, 2002, the die was cast. Al-Jazeera was broadcasting Part I of Fouda's historic interview with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. For the first time, millions would hear - from the planners themselves - exactly how the September 11 plot was put in motion. It was al-Jazeera's version of VH1's Behind The Music, featuring guest commentaries from Vincent Cannistraro and Lyndon LaRouche. Unfortunately, viewers would only get the audio feed of Khalid and Binalshibh, as Binalshibh and Khalid purportedly had confiscated from Fouda his videotape of the proceedings before he had taken leave of them back in June.

In more ways than one, September 9 was an ideal launch date for the interview broadcast. By then, the mainstream media had the whole summer to feed the public - and themselves - with various leaks, revelations, and "official" comments concerning Khalid and Binalshibh's newfound place in the 9/11 pantheon. Set-up and payoff. Moreover, the interview was now being broadcast in the immediate lead-up to the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, thereby further raising the profile of this historic broadcast...

...It was practically a seamless propaganda extravaganza, except for one small detail - Fouda had gone on record as dating the interview to June of 2002, thereby raising the prospect of two plausible scenarios. Scenario One: Khalid and Binalshibh's respective roles in the plot were first discovered solely due to Fouda's contact with them; or Scenario Two: The decision to send Fouda on his interview errand was made at the same time that a decision was made to market Khalid as the new 9/11 mastermind. Of the two scenarios, the first one was far more palatable - from a propaganda perspective - as at least it could be kept within the borders of plausible deniability, and only Fouda would get burned by it. The second scenario, however, would raise the prospect of one of those uncomfortable coincidences that could conceivably expose the 9/11 Legend as a pre-fabricated set-up.

Only two days after the initial broadcast of Fouda's interview with Khalid and Binalshibh - on the first anniversary commemorating the 9/11 attacks - Pakistani forces, accompanied by FBI agents, raided an apartment complex in Karachi. After a "four hour" gun battle involving "hundreds" of Pakistani soldiers and policemen, the authorities captured, among a few others, Ramzi Binalshibh himself. Their original target, however, had been Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom they had been tracking for months throughout Karachi. While Khalid had just barely slipped away only a few hours before Pakistani forces had arrived at his door, the authorities were reportedly "surprised" to discover that they had netted Binalshibh in the process. At least that is now the official version of the day's events...

...With the well-timed arrest of Ramzi Binalshibh in September 2002, journalist Yosri Fouda was in a bind. Only days before, he had gone on record - repeatedly - as dating his interview with Khalid and Binalshibh to June 2002. Up to the time of Binalshibh's arrest, the official legend had it that Khalid's pivotal role as 9/11 mastermind was revealed to U.S. authorities through their interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in March 2002. Now, in the aftermath of Binalshibh's capture, word was circulating that perhaps authorities had learned of Khalid's true role by way of Fouda. That contention, of course, would remain most plausible if Fouda's interview could definitively be back-dated to a time before early June 2002 - that is, to a time before Khalid was first publicly announced as 9/11 mastermind. The alternative scenario quite simply pointed to a conclusion that would have to be denied at all costs - that the decision to out Khalid publicly as the 9/11 mastermind was coordinated with the decision to send Fouda on his interview errand with Khalid. Had Fouda erred, then, by initially claiming that his historic interview had taken place in June 2002? Had he possibly exposed a seam pointing the way to a coordinated set-up?

Soon after the Binalshibh arrest, Fouda took the opportunity to revise the date of his interview for the record, revealing to Abdallah Schleifer of the Kamal Adham Center For Journalism:

Fouda: "Actually, this question of dates is very important for another reason. All of these Islamist websites that were denouncing me alluded to my interview as taking place in June. That's what I mentioned both in my article in The Sunday Times Magazine and in my documentary - that I met them in June."

Schleifer: "So?"

Fouda: "I lied."

Schleifer: "Really?"

Fouda: "Yeah."

Schleifer: "But you're going to come clean with [us], right?"

Fouda (laughter): "Yes, of course. I lied because I needed to lie. I'll tell you why. Because I thought, maybe even expected, that if something when wrong and I needed to get in touch with them through a website or a statement or a fax...they would be the only ones who would know that I had met them one month earlier than I let on, and so I'd know I was talking to the right people.

So after the first wave of denunciations a pro-Qa'ida website "jehad.net" put up a statement online in the name of Al-Qa'ida clearing me of any blame or connection with Ramzi's arrest and I knew this was an authentic communique because it alluded to the interview taking place in May."

Apparently, Fouda had lied again, for on March 4, 2003 (i.e. a few days after Khalid's eventual arrest), Fouda offered up this newest version of his 48-hour encounter to The Guardian:

"It was late afternoon, Sunday 21 April 2002, when I packed my bags before joining Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-shibh for a last prayer before saying goodbye."

That, as they say in legal parlance, is a very definite recollection. In short, Fouda had impeached his own testimony through these two explicitly detailed, contradictory dates. Fouda, through this compounded lie, was now calling into question the very credibility of his entire interview with Khalid and Binalshibh...

...Recall that, back in June 2002, the "official" legend at the time had it that it was Abu Zubaydah, back in March 2002, who had spilled the goods on Khalid. Yet with Khalid's March 2003 apprehension, this one aspect of the legend was duly revised. As revealed by Keith Olbermann in a March 3, 2003 MSNBC.com item: "Ironically, it would be [Fouda's] interview that would point out, to U.S. intelligence, that [Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed and Binalshibh were the brains behind the 9/11 attacks"...

...Within weeks of Binalshibh's Sept. 11, 2002 arrest, the disinformation apparatus was revisiting the Daniel Pearl thread of the 9/11 Legend, this time with a bombshell UPI exclusive from Richard Sale and Anwar Iqbal, dated September 30, 2002:

..."Bob Baer, a former case officer in the agency's Directorate of Operations, said he provided Pearl with unpublished information about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed...

...'I was working with Pearl,' said Baer, who had written a book about his time as a CIA official and has acted as a consultant and source for numerous media outlets. 'We had a joint project. Mohammed was the story he was working on, not Richard Reid' "...

...In Baer's book, See No Evil, Khalid is mentioned briefly as an expert in hijacking planes, but precious little detail is offered. One must be extremely cautious in assimilating any "official" details about Khalid offered after June 2002, as one cannot be sure as to which biographical details were fabricated solely to buttress Khalid's early June 2002 legend as the 9/11 mastermind. Interestingly, while Baer's brief reference to Khalid in his book is one of the very few public characterizations of him offered between September 2001 and June 2002, one must wonder why Baer chose to wait a good eight months after the Pearl kidnapping before revealing this new chapter about Khalid. Even more so, one must wonder why, back in June 2002, when Khalid was making the headlines as the newly marketed 9/11 mastermind - and at a time when the red-hot Baer was doing the post-9/11 media circuit - he apparently did not find it newsworthy to reveal the Khalid angle to the Pearl story. Or perhaps he had forgotten it altogether, and it had taken as long as three weeks after the Binalshibh arrest to jog his memory.

But with his memory now firmly jogged, apparently he would set out to discover what happened to his "joint project" partner, Daniel Pearl. Perhaps to his horror, he discovered that Pearl might have been disposed of by their joint research subject. "I have heard from (intelligence) people who follow this closely that it was people close to [Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed that killed him [Pearl], if it wasn't Mohammed himself," Baer revealed to UPI...

...On September 26, 2002, only days before Baer's bombshell admission, John Lumpkin of the Associated Press presented his update on the 9/11 paymaster role. Recall that it was Lumpkin who had written, back in early June 2002, the definitive article introducing Khalid as the 9/11 mastermind, including references to the now-official paymaster Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi (a.k.a. Shaikh Saiid al-Sharif) and Ramzi Binalshibh. Now, Lumpkin was reporting the contents of Robert Mueller's formerly secret testimony before the Joint Senate-House Committee, made back in early June 2002, around the time of Lumpkin's key article on Khalid...

...And, as if to lay the groundwork for Khalid and al-Hisawi's eventual simultaneous capture, Lumpkin wrote, "Both al-Hisawi and Mohammed are at large and are among the most wanted al-Qaida figures remaining." He might also have mentioned Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, but then that wasn't the point of the article. As I have argued, the time was fast approaching for al-Hisawi, Binalshibh, and Khalid (in conjunction with the Moussaoui indictment) to wrap up this segment of the 9/11 Legend and to take their indelible places in the official history books...

...Approaching the end of 2002, with Binalshibh secretly stashed away in U.S. custody - and with most people focused on the emerging War In Iraq - the time was now ripe to bring this part of the Official 9/11 Legend to its neat and tidy conclusion. For the record, the aforementioned John J. Lumpkin of the Associated Press (who had written the definitive June 2002 article introducing Khalid as the new 9/11 mastermind) took the opportunity - on December 27, 2002 - to clarify the true identity of the official 9/11 paymaster, this time providing the very first explicit acknowledgment of those troublesome contradictions previously conveyed through the pages of the Associated Press...

...Not that many people noticed - or cared. Still, all that prior nasty confusion concerning the 9/11 paymaster alias had to be qualified and clarified in time for [Mustafa Ahmed] al-Hisawi's approaching "official" arrest...

...In any case, the main story points of the Official 9/11 Legend were fully elaborated and resolved with the simultaneous capture of Khalid and the official paymaster, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, in March 2003. Only weeks later, however, with the War In Iraq in full sway, these presumably senior operatives in the 9/11 plot drew negligible scrutiny from the media and the public at large. Both men were reportedly stashed away in secret locations, presumably sharing the fruits of their interrogations with anonymous officials, who would duly pass off the requisite "scoops" to writers with a curious penchant for special intelligence access (Gerald Posner, for example).

Meanwhile, the - perhaps choreographed? - farce of the Moussaoui trial would drag on, with Moussaoui reportedly insistent on calling Khalid and Binalshibh as witnesses for the defense. At this point, one would be cautioned as to drawing any firm conclusions about the ongoing events of the Moussaoui trial. The important fact to keep in mind is that Moussaoui all along was likely set up as the convenient vessel through which the Justice Department and Mueller's FBI - cunningly obscured by Mueller's hedges - would gradually elaborate the main contours of the Official 9/11 Legend in that crucial first year following 9/11. In other words, by way of the lone Moussaoui indictment, the authorities were able to provide the illusion of a massive legal investigation covering literally thousands of pages, spanning continents in order to ferret out the full depth of Moussaoui's nefarious associations. In this respect, one might surmise that once Moussaoui has fully served his purpose as an investigative / propaganda vessel (as he likely already has), the authorities will then proceed to demonstrate that the Moussaoui case was never particularly relevant after all - thereby successfully concealing the all-important function that his case did serve in the finely calibrated public dissemination of the Official 9/11 Legend.

Given the foregoing, it remains to be seen how the authorities will conclusively deal with the festering anomalies surrounding their three prize catches - the elusive Binalshibh, the perhaps dead Khalid, and the perhaps fictitious Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi. Nevertheless, it is a safe bet that in the meantime, the authorities will continue to weave ever more complex and murky tapestries around the personalities of these operatives, employing the mercenary talents of writers like Gerald Posner to add to the crumbling sediment of "facts."

Chaim Kupferberg is a freelance researcher, writer and frequent Global Research contributor.

SOURCE: globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5087

Kenyanpatriot,

I couldn’t agree with you more!

--

Mossad - The Israeli Connection To 911
By Christopher Bollyn
Exclusive to American Free Press
4-14-5

U.S. investigators and the controlled media have ignored a preponderance of evidence pointing to Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, being involved in the terror attacks of 9/11.

From the very morning aircraft smashed into the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon, news reports have indicated Israeli intelligence being involved in the events of 9/11 - and the planting of "false flags" to blame Arab terrorists and mold public opinion to support the pre-planned "war on terror."

Shortly after the destruction of the twin towers, radio news reports described five "Middle Eastern men" being arrested in New Jersey after having been seen videotaping and celebrating the explosive "collapses" of the WTC.

These men, from a phony moving company in Weehawken, N.J., turned out to be agents of Israeli military intelligence, Mossad. Furthermore, their "moving van" tested positive for explosives.

Dominic Suter, the Israeli owner of Urban Moving Systems, the phony "moving company," fled in haste, or was allowed to escape, to Israel before FBI agents could interrogate him. The Israeli agents were later returned to Israel on minor visa violations.

The Assistant Attorney General in charge of criminal investigations at the time was Michael Chertoff, the current head of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Chertoff, the son of the first hostess of Israel's national air carrier, El Al, is thought to be an Israeli national.

One of the Israeli agents later told Israeli radio that they had been sent to "document the event" - the event which took the lives of some 3,000 Americans.

Despite the fact that the Israelis arrested in New Jersey evidently had prior knowledge or were involved in the planning of 9/11, the U.S. mainstream media has never even broached the question of Israeli complicity in the attacks.

ISRAELIS FOREWARNED

On September 12, 2001, the Internet edition of The Jerusalem Post reported, "The Israeli foreign ministry has collected the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack."

Yet only one Israeli was killed at the WTC and two were reportedly killed on the "hijacked" aircraft.

Although a total of three Israeli lives were reportedly lost on 9/11, speechwriters for President George W. Bush grossly inflated the number of Israeli dead to 130 in the president's address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

The fact that only one Israeli died at the WTC, while 4,000 Israelis were thought to have been at the scene of the attacks on 9/11 naturally led to a widespread rumor, blamed on Arabic sources, that Israelis had been forewarned to stay away that day.

"Whether this story was the origin of the rumor," Bret Stephens, the Post's editor-in-chief wrote in 2003, "I cannot say. What I can say is that there was no mistake in our reporting."

ODIGO INSTANT MESSAGES

Evidence that Israelis had been forewarned several hours before the attacks surfaced at an Israeli instant messaging service, known as Odigo. This story, clear evidence of Israeli prior knowledge, was reported only briefly in the U.S. media - and quickly forgotten.

At least two Israel-based employees of Odigo received warnings of an imminent attack in New York City more than two hours before the first plane hit the WTC. Odigo had its U.S. headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The Odigo employees, however, did not pass the warning on to the authorities in New York City, a move that could have saved thousands of lives.

Odigo has a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact others based on certain demographics, such as Israeli nationality.

Two weeks after 9/11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo's vice president, reportedly said, "It was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message."

The Internet address of the sender was given to the FBI, and two months later it was reported that the FBI was still investigating the matter. There have been no media reports since.

Odigo, like many Israeli software companies, is based and has its Research and Development (R&D) center in Herzliya, Israel, the small town north of Tel Aviv, which happens to be where Mossad's headquarters are located.

Shortly after 9/11, Odigo was taken over by Comverse Technology, another Israeli company. Within a year, five executives from Comverse were reported to have profited by more than $267 million from "insider trading."

Through Israeli "venture capital" (VC) investment funds, Mossad spawns and sponsors scores of software companies currently doing business in the United States. These Israel-based companies are sponsored by Mossad funding sources such as Cedar Fund, Stage One Ventures, Veritas Venture Partners, and others.

As one might expect, the portfolios of these Mossad-linked funding companies contain only Israeli-based companies, such as Odigo.

Reading through the strikingly similar websites of these Israeli "VC" funds and their portfolio companies, one can't help but notice that the key "team" players share a common profile and are often former members of "Israel's Intelligence Corps" and veterans of the R&D Department of the Israel Air Force or another branch of the military. Most are graduates of Israel's "Technion" school in Haifa, Mossad's Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, or a military program for software development.

The IDC, a private, non-profit university, is closely tied to the Mossad. The IDC has a "research institute" headed by Shabtai Shavit, former head of the Mossad from 1989 to 1996, called the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism.

The IDC also has a "Marc Rich Center for the Study of Commodities, Trading and Financial Markets" and a "Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy." The cosmetics magnate Ronald S. Lauder, who is a supporter of Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his far-right Likud Party, founded the Lauder school.

Lauder, president of the Jewish National Fund and former chairman of New York Governor George Pataki's Commission on Privatization, is the key individual who pushed the privatization of the WTC and former Stewart AFB, where the flight paths of the two planes that hit the twin towers oddly converged. Ronald Lauder played a significant, albeit unreported, role in the preparation for 9/11.

Pataki's wife, Libby, has been on Lauder's payroll since at least 2002 and reportedly earned $100,000 as a consultant in 2004. According to The Village Voice, between 1994 and 1998, Gov. Pataki earned some $70,000 for speaking to groups affiliated with Lauder.

THE PTECH CUTOUT

Ptech, a mysterious software company has been tied with the events of 9/11. The Quincy, Massachusetts-based company was supposedly connected to "the Muslim Brotherhood" and Arab financiers of terrorism.

The firm's suspected links with terrorism resulted in a consensual examination by the FBI in December 2002, which was immediately leaked to the media. The media reports of the FBI "raid" on Ptech soon led to the demise of the company.

Ptech "produced software that derived from PROMIS, had an artificial intelligence core, and was installed on virtually every computer system of the U.S. government and its military agencies on September 11, 2001," according to Michael Ruppert's From the Wilderness (FTW) website.

"This included the White House, Treasury Dept. (Secret Service), Air Force, FAA, CIA, FBI, both houses of Congress, Navy, Dept. of Energy, IRS, Booz Allen Hamilton, IBM, Enron and more," FTW reported.

"Whoever plotted 9/11 definitely viewed the FAA as the enemy that morning. Overriding FAA systems would be the most effective way to ensure the attacks were successful," FTW reported. "To do this, the FAA needed an evolution of PROMIS software installed on their systems and Ptech was just that; the White House and Secret Service had the same software on their systems - likely a superior modified version capable of 'surveillance and intervention' systems."

But did the U.S. government unwittingly load software capable of "surveillance and intervention" operations and produced by a company linked to terrorism onto its most sensitive computer networks, or was Ptech simply a Mossad "cutout" company?

Oussama Ziade, a Lebanese Muslim immigrant who came to the U.S. in 1985, founded Ptech in 1994. But the company's original manager of marketing and information systems was Michael S. Goff, whose PR firm, Goff Communications, currently represents Guardium, a Mossad-linked software company.

And Goff comes from a well-to-do line of Jewish Masons who have belonged to Worcester's Commonwealth Lodge 600 of B'nai Brith for decades. So, why would a recently graduated Juris Doctor in Law leave a promising law career to join forces with a Lebanese Muslim's upstart company sponsored with dodgy funders in Saudi Arabia?

"As information systems manager [for Ptech], Michael handled design, deployment and management of its Windows and Macintosh, data, and voice networks," Goff's website says. "Michael also performed employee training and handled all procurement for software, systems and peripherals."

AFP asked Goff, who left the Worcester law firm of Seder & Chandler in 1994, how he wound up working at Ptech. "Through a temp agency," Goff said. Asked for the name of the agency, Goff said he could not remember.

Could it be Mossad Temps, or maybe Sayan Placement Agency?

Goff, the original marketing manager for Ptech software, said he did not know who had written the code that Ptech sold to many government agencies. Is this believable?

Goff leaves a legal practice in his home town to take a job, through a temp agency, with a Lebanese Muslim immigrant who is selling software, and he doesn't know who even wrote the code?

AFP contacted the government agencies that reportedly have Ptech software on their computers, and IBM, to ask if they could identify who had written the source code of the Ptech software.

By press time, only Lt. Commander Ron Steiner of the U.S. Navy's Naval Network Warfare Command had responded. Steiner said he had checked with an analyst and been told that none of the Ptech software has been approved for the Navy's enterprise networks.

SOURCE: www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm

---

See also:

The Lavon Affair
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/lavon.html

Mossad Bombs Paradise Hotel in Mombasa
The precise anatomy of an attack that only "looked like" it was targeted on Jews, Part 1
jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=5402&page=1 (Reply #12)

Israel Tries To Steal Mombasa "Evidence"
The anatomy of an attack that only "looked like" it was targeted on Jews, Part 2
jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=5402&page=1 (Reply #12)

Who is Behind the Bulgaria "False Flag" Attack on Israeli Tourists?

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
Global Research, July 20, 2012

On July 18, 2012, an attack on an Israeli tourist bus in Bulgaria took the lives of 5 Israeli nationals, a Bulgarian, and the mysterious suicide bomber. It is reported that the suspect, a young Caucasian, had a fake Michigan driver’s license. According to Israeli Haaretz, a top Bulgarian official warned that it would be a “mistake” to blame a specific country or organization for the attack. However, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had other ideas.

Quick to point the finger at Iran, Mr. Netanyahu called it an “Iranian terror network spreading throughout the world”. He added: "Exactly 18 years after the attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina, the Iranian terror continues to hurt innocent people." Apparently, it takes a village and some to set Iran up.

These serious allegations with a potential for disaster, demand scrutiny on several levels. The most fundamental question which needs to be addressed is who benefits from these attacks. One must question the location – location, location, location. And finally, analyze the empirical data.

Who Benefits?

In spite of Israel and its Washington lobbies pushing for a war against Iran, of late, prominent voices have adopted a less bellicose stance towards Iran and its nuclear program. The possibility of any military action against Iran which would undoubtedly lead to a closure of the world’s most important oil chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz, has prompted politicians around the globe to opt for a diplomatic solution to end the impasse with Iran.

Somewhat optimistically, Iran is investing its efforts in diplomacy. While continuing to work towards a mutually acceptable solution with the P5+1, Iran is making extensive preparations for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit it will be hosting in Tehran in August. Over the past three centuries, Iran has never initiated a war and it would seem unlikely that at this juncture Tehran would resort to terrorism and solicit condemnation and possibly war. On the other hand, the targeting and killing of Israeli citizens by Iran would serve to support and justify Netanyahu’s call for military action against Iran.

For Netanyahu, domestic dissatisfaction aside, Israel’s policy of settlement expansion, a policy which government appointed jurists called legal, has brought international condemnation. With the moderate Kadima party pulling out of government, leaving Netanyahu in charge of a hard-line coalition opposed to Middle East peace, Israel needs support from its allies more than ever. Undoubtedly, Israel would have greater support as a victim instead of an aggressor.

Location, Location, Location

In addition to the Bulgaria attack, Mr. Netanyahu has blamed Iran for attacks in other countries, including the apparent foiled attack in Cyprus and the accusations leveled against Iran for plotting an attack in Kenya.

Bulgaria - Bulgaria and Israel have very cordial relations. In July 2011, an Israeli-Bulgarian declaration pledged wide range cooperation. A year later, on July 8th, Bulgaria’s former foreign minister Solomon Passy told The Times of Israel that Israel should aggressively seek to join NATO and the EU. Passy said: “Israel is part of Western civilization and of the Euro-Atlantic political culture and that’s why Israel shouldn’t be shy to vocally say that it wants to become a member of NATO, the EU and OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe]”. Ten days later, an attack against Israel took place in Bulgaria.

Thailand – Thailand and Israel have had cordial relations with moderate and steady trade. In January 2012, Thailand recognized Palestine as an independent state. A month later, Israel blamed Iran for “terrorist attacks” in Bangkok. Allegedly, one of the perpetrators had carried his “Iranian” passport on him to carry out the mission.

India - India and Israel have had very amicable relations. On July 17, 2003, JINSA’s executive director delivered a speech in Washington to the US–India Political Action Committee International Conference on Terrorism in India in which he put Israel, the United States, and India in the same boat – as the number one on the terrorist hit list (Bonney 2008). In 2008, India launched Israel’s spy satellite into orbit. In spite of its close ties to Israel, India has not stopped trade with Iran. In fact, two days prior to the day Israeli embassy staff in India were targeted on February 13, 2012, India defended its oil trade with Iran.

Georgia – Israel’s relations with Georgia are unique. It was widely reported in 2008 that Israel had the green light to attack Iran from Georgian territory. Israel is thought to have played a prominent role in the Russian-Georgian conflict (see link for full details of the relationship. In 2010, Georgia and Iran entered a new phase in their relationship and Nino Kalandadze, the Georgian deputy foreign minister expressed that “ties will further deepen”. As with India, Iran was blamed for the bomb attempts in Georgia.

Given the nature of Israel’s relations with these countries, one cannot definitively conclude why these countries were picked by the perpetrators of these crimes. Perhaps these Israeli allies are not safe for Israelis, or they are safe for false-flag operations.

Empirical Data

Mr. Netanyahu made a clear reference to 1994 saying: “Exactly 18 years after the attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina, the Iranian terror continues to hurt innocent people." The 1994 bombing in Argentina was blamed squarely on Iran without any evidence while all other voices were silenced. Prominent voices such as Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles who suggested that [Argentine] government and military figures may have sought to embarrass the Menem government because of its decision to release the files” being investigated in the AMIA building at the time. An important project being carried out at the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association building was a review of previously secret government files that reportedly reveal how Nazis entered Argentina following World War II helped by Argentine officials. The review of the files had gone on for two years, but had not been completed at the time of the bombing. “Speculation centered on the possibility that former Argentine government and military officials, fearful of exposure, were responsible for the bomb attack.”

This is but one of the many instances where allegations against Iran have been made without any proof. However, there have been many instances where Israeli false flag operations have come to light.

Many reports as well as a detailed account (“Operation Cyanide”) reveals the Israeli plan to kill everyone on board the USS Liberty in 1967 and put the blame on Egypt. The survivors prompted President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to order the investigation to conclude the attack was a case of mistaken identity.

Israel has always had a knack for stealing passports and other IDs to carry out false flag operations. According to The New Zealand Herald (September 21, 2004)[ii], Mossad agents tried to steal New Zealand passports, causing friction between New Zealand and Israel. It is not the first time this has come to light, according to the same source. Mossad agents had stolen Canadian passports to assassinate a Jordanian leader. These are not isolated cases.

In January 2012, it came to light that Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, while toting U.S. passports and posing as CIA officers, they recruited Jundallah operatives. One month later, in February, NBC reported that according to US officials, Israel armed and trained the terrorist MEK.

While there is plenty of empirical data to support that Israelis are not shy about false flag operations, one would be hard pressed to accept that Israel would carry out a false flag operation and kill its own. Not so.

The 1976 Operation Entebbe was a great tribute to Israeli courage and praise of Israeli commandos of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) who rescued Israeli citizens at Entebbe airport in Uganda. But newly released British government documents reveal that the 1976 rescue of hostages, kidnapped on an Air France flight and held in Entebbe was a false flag operation – the file claims that Israel itself was behind the hijacking.

This “rescue operation” which became known as “operation Jonathan” in honor of the unit’s leader – Yonatan Netanyahu, the current Prime Minister’s brother. Yonatan was killed in the false flag operation – as were four other Israelis.

When it comes to Israel’s political agenda, no sacrifice is too great. A move against Iran will reverberate throughout the world. It is important for political leaders around the globe to understand that it may take a village to implement a political agenda, but it is up to them to make sure that the agenda does not destroy the global village.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and author with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.

Notes

Jewish Center Bombed in Argentina. The Christian Century. Chicago: July 27, 1994. Vol. 111, Iss. 22, p. 716 (2 pp.)
[ii] www.stormfront.org/solargeneral/library/www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/09/Israel_spy7.html

SOURCE: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31992

--

"Scenarios" of Sudden Disasters for Mankind: ‘Are the London Olympics a target for a False-Flag Attack?’

By Adrian Salbuchi
Global Research, June 14, 2012
Russia Today

"The two fundamental elements for a successful Strategy are: Secrecy and Surprise!” Juan Domingo Perón, Argentine President

It might be wise to take a closer look at some unnerving indications that the London Olympics might be the stage for a horrific “False Flag” attack, as part of the Global Power Master’s strategic need to break their present global political and economic deadlock.

“False Flag” attacks happen when a militarily strong Nation stages a controlled and very high profile military or terror attack on its own territory and interests, then immediately blaming it on a target foreign power or entity, using it as an excuse to wage war.

Such events carry their tell-tale signs; their “stigmata” so to speak because, when planned, they must include some sort of “communication or cueing mechanism” so that those in the know can make sure neither they, nor their associates, nor loved ones should happen to be in “the wrong place at the wrong time”.

Is something along these lines on Global Power Master drawing boards for the up-coming London Olympics? The question would surely sound ludicrous, were it not for a May 2010 Report issued by The Rockefeller Foundation (RF) and Global Business Network (GBN) that “predicts” exactly that.

Called “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”, it carries introductions by Rockefeller Foundation president Judith Rodin and GBN chairman Peter Schwartz, both members of the powerful New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think-tank, a key geopolitical planning node of the Global Power structure embedded deep inside the US.

The Report defines its purpose in rather nondescript terms: “The Rockefeller Foundation and GBN began the scenario process by surfacing a host of driving forces that would affect the future of technology and international development. These forces were generated through both secondary research and in-depth interviews with Foundation staff, Foundation grantees, and external experts”.

Then, they go on to define “the matrix of four very different futures” in store for Mankind:

“(1) Lock-Step: a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback” (you can almost see them watering at the mouth over this one!).

“(2) Clever Together: A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues” (definitely no sign whatsoever that today’s power brokers are doing anything even remotely leading to that!)

“(3) Hack Attack: An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge” (more slurpy Power Elite mouth watering with this one!), and,

“(4) Smart Scramble: An economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems” (and where the powerless suffer and die, whilst the powerful go into high-tech-security ‘business as usual’ mode…)

When detailing Scenario 3 (Hack Attack), we find the following surprising “scenario building” in this Report: “Devastating shocks like September 11, the Southeast Asian tsunami of 2004, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake had certainly primed the world for sudden disasters.

But no one was prepared for a world in which large-scale catastrophes would occur with such breathtaking frequency. The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the “doom decade” for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change.”

“The 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000”!?!? What a “scenario”!! …followed by three “natural” disasters” that can probably be artificially triggered by covert technologies such as HAARP and others…

Now, God forbid: but were such a scenario to come true as Rockefeller envisions, it will of course be blamed by the Western governments and its obedient media PsyWar on a grand global “conspiracy” spearheaded by Iran, seconded by Syria, Pakistan and North Korea, applauded by Venezuela, Cuba, facilitated by the Occupy Wall Street, Indignado and Assange movements, and abetted by Russia and China.

A conspiracy to end all conspiracies!…and a hell of an excuse to “smoke them all out”, unleashing the Dogs of War barking in the nervous arsenals of the US, UK, EU and Israel, whilst clamping down on protesters everywhere. It would allow launching a revamped “Global War on Terrorism”, Version 4.1.

The Rockefeller Report then adds, “Not surprisingly, this opening series of deadly asynchronous catastrophes (there were more) put enormous pressure on an already overstressed global economy that had entered the decade still in recession… Most nation-states could no longer afford their locked-in costs, let alone respond to increased citizen demands for more security, more healthcare coverage, more social programs and services, and more infrastructure repair….”

Wow!! Sounds an awful lot like the world the Global Power Masters are already building and imposing on all of us everywhere!

False Flag events require highly complex, covert and labyrinth-like mega-engineering, absolute secrecy and surprise, and solid buffers isolating the on-going government authorities, whose “total innocence” must be fully safeguarded and believable.

Presidents and ministers must be able to go live on radio and TV exclaiming with indignation that their country is a victim of “a day that will live in infamy!”, or maybe stand atop the rubble of collapsed towers and yell, megaphone in hand, “The people that did this will hear from us soon!”.

Yet, make no mistake: those who perpetrate false flags know that – in the long run – the truth comes out. The point here is to make sure that “the long run” is really very, very long. That when global public opinion finally learns the truth, 60, 80, 100 years down the road, the issue is no longer “political”, but rather a mere historical curiosity.

Whether it’s the sinking of the USS Maine in Cuba which served the US to make war on Spain in 1898, or the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 which dragged the US into World War I, or Pearl Harbor in 1941 which (again!) dragged America into World War II, or the (non-sinking!) of the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in ’64, or the USS Liberty in ’67…Just make sure the truth comes out generations later when nobody really cares anymore.

Problems however, started piling up on the Global Power Elite when glaring inconsistencies began surfacing over September 11th and July 5th in London, whilst they are still very political events, and definitely not yet “history”.

That’s when lots and lots of political “damage control” has to be brought to bear, with the entailing political cost.

Have the Global Power Masters learned from past mistakes and perfected their military, political and psychological warfare mechanisms?

Are they in such dire straits that they need to pull a really big one like this on the world, as a means of “escaping forwards”?

Let’s hope it won’t be London… But anyway, let’s stay alert…!

Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. www.asalbuchi.com.ar

SOURCE: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31434

---

See also:

Report: Israel fears 'anniversary attack' at Olympics
UK's Sunday Times reports of growing concern that Iran, Hezbollah may try to target Israeli athletes at London Games

Ynet
Published: 07.22.12, 06:52 / Israel News

Israel has voiced serious concerns that Iran may try to stage a terror attack against Israeli athletes competing at the 2012 London Games, the Sunday Times reported.

The coming Summer Olympics, which will kick off on Friday, mark the 40th anniversary of the Munich Games massacre, which saw terrorists kill 11 Israeli athletes and coaches.

What can be seen as the regular concern of terror attacks against Israelis worldwide has been exponentially amplified following the attack on Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria, on Wednesday.

Five Israelis were killed and 32 others were injured in the attack.

Israel, Bulgaria and the US are investigating the attack. The US became involved after the terrorist was found to be in possession of a fake America passport.

The Israeli rescue mission dispatched to Burgas immediately after the attack included Mossad and Shin Bet officers, according to the Sunday Times.

The newspaper said that it was a Mossad agent, watching Sarafovo Airport CCTV footage, who spotted the suicide bomber. The terrorist's identity is still unknown.

The Burgas attack was, in many ways, Israel's nightmare scenario: The appearance of "stealth terrorists," whose detection is much harder.

Despite initial assessment that the terrorist was acting alone, Israel believes that he had at least one accomplice.

Bulgarian authorities have issued a sketch of a man described as an American citizen named "David Jefferson," who may have carried another explosive device with him.

The report said that Israel has intelligence indicating that Iran's Quds Force – largely regarded as Tehran's hit squad – was planning to use a suicide bomber against Israeli targets overseas.

According to the report, the Mossad agents sent to Burgas informed both Jerusalem the agency's London station of the discovery.

The Israeli Olympic mission has already arrived in London.

The past few months has seen Israel detect – and thwart – several terror plots against Israelis, most recently one in Cyprus and one in South Africa.

Since May 2011 Israel has prevented more than 20 attempted terror attacks.

Nevertheless, there was no intelligence indicating Israelis in Bulgaria were about to become a target.

The attack has sparked greater concerns that it may be the first in a series, or a prelude to a bigger attack at the London Games.

SOURCE: www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4258554,00.html

--

International Olympic Committee Rules Out Minute of Silence for 1972 Munich Killings…Again

SOURCE: www.theblaze.com/stories/international-olympic-committee-rules-out-minute-of-silence-for-1972-munich-killings-again/

I don't mean to be rude wanyee, but those 9/11 conspiracy theories are nonsense.

A little background check on the expert in the article you quoted has revealed what I had already guessed: they are not experts. They are loony conspiracy theorists.

Just so you can get a balanced view of the 9/11 event, please have a read of this report. (I know, I know... scientific facts from real experts such as Physics and Engineering PhDs aren't as exciting as fiction, but just try it).


Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Also, the US Gov dedicated a page to debunking the top theories on it's official website - packed with with sources.

www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html

Wanyee, instead of giving me a wall of text and links and further-reading suggestions, just tell me what you personally think are the top five "plot holes" in the 9/11 tragedy, and the conclusion they point to.

We can start from there.

"Conspiracy theorists are the exact opposite of scientists - they throw away data that doesn't fit their existing theories."

-Some random guy.

amadain and otishotish,

Indeed, the BEST place to begin is identifying the “plot holes” in the official 9/11 account.

So, before we proceed, I hope that you have at least noted the following highlighted publications from my previous post:

1. "The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States by National Commission on Terrorist Attacks" – This constitutes the official 9/11 account, as presented by the United States Government.

2. "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions” – This is a critique or blow-by-blow rebuttal of “The 9/11 Commission Report”.

Below is a very useful summary of “plot holes” (in chronological order) as detailed in Dr. Griffin’s "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions". These omissions and distortions point to the simple conclusion that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed, and therefore constitutes a cover-up.

Otishotish, you have raised the very important point concerning the “alleged” hijackers. Please note that the first omission in “The 9/11 Commission Report”, as listed by Dr. Griffin (below), concerns these alleged hijackers. As you pointed out, since the FBI Chief publicly stated that the initial names might have been mistaken or taken from stolen identities, this should have been reflected in the (2004) “The 9/11 Commission Report”, which was supposed "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11."

--

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571 Page Lie

By Dr. David Ray Griffin
Global Research, September 8, 2005

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers - including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC - are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta - such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances -- that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed - an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft" - a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel - that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel - made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner - even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras - including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike - could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family - all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period - were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds - testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks - Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart - were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command - even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department" - although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference - although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36 - in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon - one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimonies, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim - made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them - that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291)

SOURCE: globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=907

See also:

Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report
www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

otishotish,

Now, we're getting somewhere.

Since The 9/11 Commission Report is seriously inadequate in explaining what really happened on 9/11, there have been calls for the United States government to launch a new, extremely thorough and impartial re-examination of the terrible acts of 9/11 and the events leading up to them.


Political Leaders for 911 Truth

Global Research, March 5, 2009

Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth (http://pl911truth.com/) is today being launched as the latest formal group calling for a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. The organization is headed by Councilor (Senator) Yukihisa Fujita of Japan and former Senator Karen Johnson of Arizona.

This initiative is formed around a petition asking President Obama "to authorize a new, truly independent, investigation to determine what happened on 9/11."

Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth thus joins other concerned citizens’ groups calling for a new investigation, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and Veterans for 9/11 Truth.

Independent researchers from these professions have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that the official investigations have been cover-up operations.

Senator Yukihisa Fujita explains the new initiative: "Thus far there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or in other capitals around the world. Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth has been formed to encourage such a response."

The organization is being launched with 20 charter members, including a former US governor, a former US senator, former US representatives, and former and present members of the British, German, Japanese, Norwegian, and European parliaments.

Charter member Robert Bowman, former head of the "Star Wars" program, explains the continuing relevance of the issue: "The 9/11 Tragedy has been used as the excuse for two deadly wars of aggression, for taking away our rights, and for committing war crimes that have undermined America’s reputation. Only by exposing the truth about 9/11 can we end this madness."

Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth invites other people who hold, or have held, a political office---whether elected or appointed, whether municipal, state, provincial, national, or international--- to sign the petition at pl911truth.com.

Senator Johnson sums it up: "The organization believes that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now---not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration’s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed."

SOURCE: globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12565

--

See also:

Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report
www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Wanye, the first thing I asked you not to do was to give me a wall of text. Then you give me a wall of text.

I wanted the five most groundbreaking plot holes of the 9/11 tragedy just to keep the topic concise and easy to manage.

You also seem to have only one source for your information - www.globalresearch.ca, a tinfoil hat conspiracy website which covers topics such as "Mind Control" and the "New World Order".

Regarding the article you posted: Dr. David Ray Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. He should stick to his original field of study instead of confusing himself with the behaviour of skyscrapers under extreme heat and pressure. Until he gets himself a PhD in Science / Engineering / Architecture I'm not going to pay any attention to his "theories".

So, to sum up: I didn't read your list because a) I asked for 5 points only and you gave me 115 b) it hurts my eyes and c) Dr. David Ray Griffin has no authority to speak about metallurgy, structural physics, chemical reactions etc etc.

Could you give me what you think are five of the most important plot holes / questions?

Wanyee:

You are definitely a true believer. The important point I made is that there are people with the same names as some of the hijackers in Saudi Arabia. (I can well believe that since I know of two people whose first and last names are exactly the same as mine.) That led to some confusion during the first 2 or 3 weeks of the investigation. That confusion was quickly cleared up.

You have been at this for overa year now. I think it is time you left the house for some fresh air. Have a drink, a little joint, and maybe some in+out.

Indeed Otishotish. A very good example is our very own Onyango Oloo who happens to have a doppelganger with an identical name. Incredibly both OO's write & have had articles published in our dailies. The similarity ends at the name levels (NB: their Christian names are different) since one bats for ODM while the other bats for G-7, much to the consternation of some Jukwaaists who have been shocked by OO supporting one position one day, then opposing it the next. You have to add OO the human rights activist or OO the lawyer to separate the two ;D

jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=5352&page=1#67875

amadain, otishotish and b6k,

Is There Evidence For Any Of The Alleged Hijackers?

“As we have seen, serious questions have been raised about at least eight of the alleged hijackers. But there is an even more radical question: Do we have any publicly available proof that any of the 19 men named by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission were on any of the four planes that day?” (Griffin, 2005:22-23).

“The shocking answer is: No. We have been told that their names were on the flight manifests. But the flight manifests that have been released have no Arab names on them (1). Students of this subject who have tried to get final flight manifests from the airlines have been refused (2). Presumably the 9/11 Commission, with its subpoena power, could have obtained copies of the actual passenger manifests from United and American Airlines and cleared up the question of whether the names of the alleged hijackers were on them. But the Commission’s report, besides not containing copies of these manifests, reveals no sign that this issue was even discussed. The Commission evidently simply repeated the official story about 19 Arab hijackers with no investigation into serious questions that have been raised about it” (Griffin, 2005:23).

“The Commission’s treatment of the alleged hijackers – a central feature of the official conspiracy theory presupposed by the Commission – does not bode well for the rest of the report” (Ibid).

Ref:

Griffin, D.R. (2005). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press

Footnotes:

1. The flight manifest for AA 11 that was published by CNN can be seen at www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html. The manifests for the other flights can be located by simply changing that part of the URL. The manifest for UA 93, for example, is at www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html. (These links are presently not working)

2. For example Icelander Elias Davidson reported that when he wrote to American Airlines, asking for the final flight manifest for AA 11 on September 11, 2001, he received the following reply:

Dear Mr. Davidson:
Thank you for your email dated August 5 [2004]. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you.
At the time of the incidents we released the actual passenger manifests to the appropriate government agencies who in turn released certain information to the media. These lists were published in many major periodicals and are now considered public record. At this time we are not in a position to release further information or to republish what the government agencies provided to the media. Instead, should you require a copy of these lists may we suggest that you research major periodicals for copies of their publications containing the information you seek.
Mr. Davidson, I trust this information will be of use to you.
Sincerely,
Karen Temmerman
Customer Relations, American Airlines