Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Saudi cutout and the CIA shadow over 9/11

As Riyadh fights 9/11 families in US courts, buried intelligence testimony points beyond the kingdom to a far more protected hand.

By Kit Klarenberg | The Cradle | September 10, 2026

On the eve of 9/11’s silver anniversary, it was widely reported that a forthcoming New York District Court civil case brought against notorious Saudi government operative Omar Bayoumi would deliver “smoking gun” proof tying Riyadh directly to the attacks. Yet evidence alleging that Saudi intelligence managed two future hijackers as potential assets and did so through a “liaison relationship” with the CIA has lain largely unexamined in plain sight. As scrutiny of Riyadh grows, the agency’s shadow remains almost entirely outside the frame.

Bayoumi has long been accused by major news outlets and US officials of maintaining an intimate and suspicious relationship with hijackers Nawaf Hazmi and Khalid Mihdhar, immediately upon their arrival in the US in January 2000.

A subsequent FBI investigation, dubbed Operation Encore, concluded there was a “50/50 chance” Bayoumi (and the House of Saud by extension) had detailed advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. This explosive finding was not publicly divulged until March 2022.

Far less attention followed a year later, when a bombshell filing lodged in the Office of Military Commissions – the military court system overseeing prosecutions of 9/11 defendants – surfaced publicly.

The document summarizes classified government discovery disclosures and private interviews conducted with anonymous high-ranking US intelligence officials. Its contents set out confidential-source allegations that the CIA sought to recruit at least Hazmi and Mihdhar, if not others who later participated in the 9/11 attacks, “via a liaison relationship” with Riyadh’s General Intelligence Directorate.

The declaration also alleges that the 9/11 Commission was deliberately sabotaged by its chief Philip Zelikow, who personally endeavored “to blunt” inquiries “into Saudi involvement with the hijackers.” Concurrently, senior FBI officials tasked with investigating the attacks were prohibited from interviewing Saudi nationals, despite “many” leads pointing directly to Riyadh’s Washington, D.C., embassy. According to the filing’s sources, probing those connections risked exposing the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate (GID) as a CIA “cutout” in its clandestine dealings with the future hijackers.

High-ranking FBI officials quoted in the filing discuss how the GID was a longstanding CIA “proxy,” exploited by the agency whenever it was “unwise or not practical … to undertake an operation directly.”

This need was particularly pronounced in the context of cloak-and-dagger CIA connivances conducted “on US soil.” After 25 years, it appears Riyadh could finally take the fall for a dastardly CIA operation that one way or another resulted in 9/11. As planned, there is little chance of the agency itself landing in the dock.

‘CIA team’

Among the court filing’s most dynamite excerpts is the insider testimony of an FBI special agent, who was posted to Alec Station – the CIA’s Al-Qaeda tracking unit, ultimately responsible for recruiting Hazmi and Mihdhar as assets.

When, in January 2000, the special agent learned the pair –  known Al-Qaeda operatives under intensive CIA and NSA surveillance – had multi-entry visas to the US, they produced a report warning Bureau headquarters. Its dispatch was blocked by an unnamed CIA analyst.

According to the agent’s account, the same analyst directed the GID to make contact with Hazmi and Mihdhar upon their arrival, then falsely told subsequent US government inquiries that the FBI had been informed of the pair’s presence in the US.

The agent also alleged having witnessed CIA director George Tenet and operations director James Pavitt boast about how they “conspired to obstruct the 9/11 Commission” by concealing the analyst’s activities and identity from investigators.

In the process, an extraordinary, hitherto unreported component of Riyadh’s relationship with the hijackers remained determinedly unexplored. The FBI special agent alleged Hazmi and Mihdhar were explicitly provided US visas by the American consulate in Jeddah, “to facilitate the operation run by the Saudis’ GID and the CIA team.”

This disclosure is all the more tantalizing given that 15 of the 19 hijackers obtained a total of 18 visas in Saudi Arabia. Fourteen were issued at the US consulate in Jeddah, 11 of them by a single consular officer, Shayna Steinger. Many of the applications were incomplete or contained details that should have invited far greater scrutiny.

Steinger arrived at the Jeddah consulate in July 2000, fresh out of Columbia University, and went on to approve visa applications for 11 future hijackers. At the time, consular officers in Jeddah were divided over how rigorously Saudi applicants should be screened. Some argued that young Saudi men should be interviewed and required to demonstrate a clear purpose for travel, but the consulate generally followed a more permissive approach.

However, Steinger personally took it upon herself to reverse this policy. Moreover, she issued visas to future 9/11 hijackers despite their applications frequently being incomplete or error-strewn, based on forged documents, and their contents giving ample grounds for suspicion.

Steinger nonetheless interviewed Hani Hanjour, who purportedly piloted Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon. Afterward, she rejected his application for a three-year US visa, due to apparent doubts over his stated purposes in the country. Nonetheless, Steinger approved Hanjour’s renewed application two weeks later.

In ensuing official investigations, she offered wildly contradictory accounts of why the hijackers’ visas were granted. In Hanjour’s case, Steinger initially claimed he provided requested supporting documentation.

She subsequently admitted he actually hadn’t, but Hanjour’s “middle-class” background purportedly led her to conclude he was trustworthy.

If the court filing’s account is accurate, future 9/11 hijackers were granted entry to the US so the CIA could recruit them upon arrival, raising the troubling possibility that Steinger was acting on Agency instructions.

A network hidden in plain sight 

Once Hazmi and Mihdhar touched down in Los Angeles in January 2000, almost immediately they crossed paths with Omar Bayoumi at an airport restaurant. FBI reports cited in the court filing indicate a witness who observed their meeting saw Bayoumi “dropping a piece of paper” near the pair’s table, “then striking up a conversation with them” in a manner that appeared “unnatural.” The witness relayed this account to the Bureau in 2002, but it was never publicized.

In interviews with Operation Encore investigators years later, Bayoumi maintained that his meeting with Hazmi and Mihdhar was pure happenstance. The extraordinary assistance he gave them immediately thereafter – including finding them an apartment, co-signing their lease, setting up bank accounts for them, and gifting them substantial sums toward their rent – was simply charity for fellow Muslims who could barely speak English and were unfamiliar with western culture, Bayoumi asserted. But the filing offers numerous striking insights into the dark reality of his contact with the future hijackers.

For example, it appears Bayoumi was secretly instructed to recruit Hazmi and Mihdhar at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles by extremist cleric and Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs official Fahad Thumairy.

The filing cites evidence indicating Bayoumi was himself in California “to spy on local dissidents” of Saudi extraction. He was seen with the two 9/11 hijackers “on numerous occasions,” going to the extent of organizing “a social gathering for the hijackers.” We can only guess who may also have been in attendance.

Another stunning exposure in the filing concerns Hazmi and Mihdhar lodging with long-time FBI informant and asset Abdussattar Shaikh from September 2000 onwards. Shaikh failing to provide their surnames to his handler despite being asked has been known for many years.

The joint congressional and Senate intelligence committee probe into 9/11 ruled the pair’s stay with Shaikh was “the [US] intelligence community’s best chance to unravel the September 11 plot.” Insulating Hazmi and Midhar from Bureau scrutiny may have been his explicit objective.

The filing indicates he himself “was receiving funds” from Riyadh, while simultaneously serving as an FBI informant. “Prominent” Saudis “would stay at Shaikh’s boarding house while visiting California,” it states.

His mission was “to monitor the activities of [Saudi] citizens while they were abroad.” Hani Hanjour also stayed with Shaikh alongside Hazmi, after Mihdhar returned to Saudi Arabia in late 2000. It appears that at every stage Stateside, the hijackers were in intimate proximity with figures connected to Saudi intelligence.

If the filing’s account that the GID was acting on the CIA’s behalf is accurate, this contact raises the obvious prospect that the agency – via its Riyadh “proxy” – was directly monitoring the movements of Hazmi, Mihdhar, and Hanjour – if not other Saudi-born hijackers – from the moment they entered the US at the agency’s direction, until 9/11 itself.

How far the CIA could have tracked or influenced their actions and movements remains unknown. The proximity described in the filing nevertheless demands an explanation.

The files Langley kept from the FBI 

The established record shows that Alec Station repeatedly withheld the presence of Hazmi and Mihdhar in the US from the FBI until it was too late. The filing records how in June 2001 Station representatives showed senior Bureau officials photographs of three Al-Qaeda operatives, including Hazmi and Mihdhar.

However, the CIA refused to answer questions about the individuals in the photos, or provide identifying information. Had it done so, the FBI could have readily found Hazmi and Mihdhar’s names and addresses listed in San Diego’s local phone directory.

This was a flagrant dangle, obviously intended to gauge the Bureau’s knowledge of the identities of the individuals pictured, and their presence in the US. The filing also indicates the FBI conducted a dedicated counterintelligence investigation into Bayoumi prior to 9/11, due to suspicions that “he was operating as an intelligence officer.” Yet, when the Bureau contacted the CIA for information on Bayoumi, they were told the agency “held no files” on him at all – a “falsehood.”

In reality, the CIA maintained plentiful “operational” records on Bayoumi, which were “never passed to the FBI.” Such brazen stonewalling persisted long after 9/11. Upon learning tens of thousands of dollars had been sent from Haifa bin Faisal, wife of Saudi ambassador to the US Bandar bin Sultan, to Bayoumi’s wife, the Bureau attempted to subpoena their financial records from Washington, D.C.’s Riggs Bank. Per the filing, “officials at Riggs thwarted the FBI’s efforts to obtain the records for a year.”

Riggs Bank, which counted US presidents and CIA-installed Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet as clients, collapsed amid major money laundering scandals in 2005. Post-9/11 investigations identified financial improprieties in accounts held by several wealthy Saudis – including a lack of required background checks and consistent failure to alert regulators over large transactions violating federal banking laws.

Riggs’s downfall precisely mirrors the unceremonious end of many confirmed CIA front banks past, such as Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which assisted criminal cloak-and-dagger connivances including Iran/Contra.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the filing records how “diplomatic pressure” was exerted on the FBI not to investigate Riyad’s myriad connections to 9/11. Bureau agents testifying to the joint inquiry into the attacks were moreover “instructed not to reveal the full extent of Saudi involvement with Al-Qaeda.”

Senior officials at FBI headquarters knew “of both Bayoumi’s affiliation with Saudi intelligence and … the existence of the CIA’s operation to recruit Hazmi and Mihdhar,” but “suppressed investigations” into these burning matters.

The filing concludes by noting Bayoumi was subsequently arrested in Britain on immigration charges immediately after 9/11, with authorities finding “extremist literature in his apartment.” The significance of this disclosure has gone entirely unnoticed since 2022.

Only now, as a result of the New York court case, has the media acknowledged how, within days of the attacks, “game-changing” evidence directly implicating Bayoumi in 9/11 was seized from his British home by counterterror police, then shared with the FBI, which British investigators say failed to provide crucial information in return.

The evidence Britain could not pursue

The seized material reportedly included a phonebook listing over two dozen Saudi government officials in the US and Saudi Arabia; flight simulator software; tickets and travel documents; and a notepad featuring a sketch of an aircraft.

An accompanying note from a British counterterrorism officer stated of the latter: “contains handwritten notes mathematical calculations re height of planes.” A member of the 9/11 families’ legal team behind the court action told BBC, “it’s the mathematical calculation of the [Pentagon] crash.”

By 22 September 2001, this seemingly incontrovertible windfall was in the Bureau’s possession. So too were highly illuminating home video tapes of Bayoumi roaming around Washington, D.C. in 1999, highlighting security measures in place at the Capitol building, openly discussing nearby Reagan National Airport, and referencing an unspecified “plan” on camera. Other tapes feature Bayoumi in close quarters with senior Al-Qaeda figures such as US-born cleric Anwar Awlaki, assassinated in a September 2011 US drone strike in Yemen.

While British detectives apparently believed the evidence could support an extradition request, the FBI did not supply the material needed to sustain one. Bayoumi was released after seven days without charge and later returned to Saudi Arabia.

The US response takes on darker significance alongside allegations that the CIA used its Saudi liaison to approach Hazmi and Mihdhar while withholding their presence from the FBI.

It does, however, strengthen the case for investigating whether an aborted recruitment operation was concealed after ending in catastrophe. Media reluctance to examine the filing’s “proxy” allegations ensures that question remains safely outside the courtroom.

We must ask ourselves whether the 2016 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which permitted the families of 9/11 victims to sue Riyadh in US courts, was purposefully passed to keep the House of Saud in line.

Successive Saudi governments have fought tooth and nail to overturn the legislation, while released correspondence indicates that Saudi representatives sought help from convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein to lobby for its repeal behind closed doors.

JASTA proved controversial in some quarters, with some critics warning it could trigger reciprocal legislation in foreign countries, given criminal US activities abroad. Legal experts argued it undercut the principle of sovereign immunity.

The plaintiffs’ evidence may yet establish that Saudi officials provided material support to the hijackers. The military filing raises a separate and more dangerous question: whether some of those officials were acting as a CIA cutout in their dealings with future 9/11 hijackers.

But the CIA is not a defendant in the civil action, and Bayoumi is not personally on trial. The state-secrets privilege has repeatedly shielded the agency’s clandestine operations from meaningful judicial scrutiny.

Unless the alleged liaison channel is examined, the Saudi case may expose one layer of the 9/11 support network while leaving the most protected layer untouched.

September 10, 2026 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , , | Comments Off on The Saudi cutout and the CIA shadow over 9/11

Kiev plotted terror attack on UK ambassador in Moscow – FSB

RT | September 10, 2026

Russian security operatives have foiled a Ukrainian plot to carry out a false-flag attack on the British ambassador and other diplomats in Moscow, which was intended to draw the UK into a direct conflict with Russia, the Federal Security Service (FSB) has said.

In a statement on Thursday, the agency said it had detained a Russian national who worked for an organization contracted to protect the British Embassy in Moscow. The man collected sensitive information about embassy security on instructions from a Ukrainian contact, as well as personal data on diplomatic personnel, including photographs, home addresses, details of vehicles, and itineraries, the FSB said.

“The Kiev regime planned to carry out sabotage and terrorist attacks against British diplomatic representatives in Moscow to subsequently blame Russia for them in order to draw the United Kingdom into direct armed conflict with the country, secure additional weapons deliveries [to Kiev], and ramp up sanctions on Russia,” the agency said.

Neither the UK Embassy in Moscow nor British Ambassador Nigel Casey has commented on the statement.

The FSB said the suspect had been recruited by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and acted on instructions of Ukrainian blogger Dmitry Karpenko, also known as “Apostle Dmitry.”

Karpenko, 44, became known for recording interviews with Russian prisoners of war and covering POW swaps between Moscow and Kiev, as well as for propagating videos featuring Russian nationals collaborating with the Ukrainian military.

Karpenko was also criticized by Ukraine’s Commission on Journalistic Ethics, which said his videos exposed prisoners’ identities and at times resembled interrogations. The blogger also faced accusations of Islamophobia after an interview with a captured Russian serviceman from Chechnya, during which he made remarks widely seen as offensive to Muslims.

Britain has been one of Ukraine’s biggest backers since the escalation of the conflict in 2022, providing billions of pounds in military and financial assistance to Kiev. London has also refrained from condemning Kiev over a string of assassinations and bombings targeting Russian military officials and public figures inside Russia.

After Ukraine claimed responsibility for the 2024 killing of Russian General Igor Kirillov, commander of the Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Protection Forces, Downing Street said Britain would “not mourn” his death.

September 10, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , | Comments Off on Kiev plotted terror attack on UK ambassador in Moscow – FSB

9/11 was an Inside/Outside Job

“Inside” or “Israeli” Job?

Video Link
By Luke Marshall | Sigh Ops | September 9, 2026

You know the drill by now: 19 Muslim hijackers directed by a man on dialysis in an undisclosed cave in Afghanistan outsmarted NORAD, the CIA, and the FBI armed with nothing more than box-cutters and blind optimism.

You also know that even if these coke-snorting, liquor-guzzling, religious fundamentalists weren’t too busy hitting strip clubs or gambling in Vegas to finally get around to their plans of jihad, a number of logistical hurdles should have stopped them: airport security, military interceptor planes, or their inability to fly single-engine Cessnas, let alone commercial airliners.

So that leaves two important questions unanswered: who did 9/11, and how did they pull it off?

Skeptics of the official story have supplied their own answers to these questions.

You have probably heard the 9/11 Truth Movement’s Greatest Hits play on an endless loop for the past twenty years.

WTC 7, “Dancing Israelis”, the Project for a New American Century, a New Pearl Harbor, etc.

Even Roger Waters took some time out of his busy schedule to go on Tucker Carlson so he could do his best rendition of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s Greatest Hits as opposed to his own catalogue of Greatest Hits from the Pink Floyd days.

But you’ve heard all of that.

You’re not here for the greatest hits.

You’re here for the blueprint. The who and the why.

No more entry-level 9/11 Truth for Dummies tier drivel. If you want that, you’re in luck because the internet is saturated with trite, stale information regarding what took place on 9/11.

In my last video, I discussed some of the nonsense holding back 9/11 Truth from becoming 9/11 Justice.

So let’s shift our focus to what really matters: who did 9/11 and how they did it.

What we will see is that the complex operation behind 9/11 involved both an inside and an outside layer. The outside handled sensitive issues like the logistics of airport security and ensuring that the World Trade Center Complex fell into the right hands. The inside made sure that WTC security didn’t get in the way and that the attacks were profitable, among other things.

Who was in charge of securing the hijacked planes? Who had access to the WTC buildings? Who amongst them had access to demolition explosives? Who profited? Who made sure these individuals were never found out?

Without these two operational layers working in tandem to accomplish all this, 9/11 would not have been possible.

So let’s move past surface-level talk of steel’s melting point and the physics of free-fall speed.

Let’s explore the ins and outs of this inside-outside job.

Act I: The Outside Element – The Gatekeepers

Of the four planes hijacked on 9/11, three departed from airports whose security was provided by one company: Huntleigh USA, a subsidiary of ICTS International.

So who is ICTS?

A quick Google search might net someone the answer that ICTS is a Dutch aviation security firm. However, ICTS is about as Dutch as Benjamin Netanyahu is Palestinian.

The company was formed in 1982 by alumni of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security and counter-intelligence agency, and former employees of El Al, Israel’s national airline. Shin Bet has a long, sordid history of extrajudicial killings, assassinations, and torture. El Al has its own unique past regarding international drug smuggling. As early as 1973, an El Al steward was arrested for attempting to smuggle a quarter million dollars in opium and hashish into the United States. Decades later, the pattern of El Al drug trafficking continued, with a cocaine smuggling ring involving the security liaison between El Al and Shin Bet teaming up with a former Shin Bet official and head of security for the Office of the Prime Minister.

In short, ICTS was not your typical security outfit. Based off all outward appearances, it appears to be an Israeli intelligence front. A look at the upper brass of ICTS reveals a number of interesting connections pertaining to 9/11.

The Airport Security-WTC Nexus

Menachem Atzmon joined the supervisory board of ICTS in 1999, eventually becoming the Director, Chairman of the Board, and majority shareholder.

Before taking over ICTS, Atzmon was the Director of Zim Shipping—an Israeli state-affiliated shipping giant with offices in the World Trade Center since the early seventies. Zim completed their move from the 16th and 17th floor of WTC 1 just a week prior to 9/11. Defenders of the official narrative point out that Zim had announced their departure from the WTC in April of 2001. However, they leave out one crucial detail: Zim was in such an incredible rush to vacate the WTC that they broke their lease five years early.

At the time of 9/11, Zim Shipping was co-owned by The Israel Corporation and the Government of Israel. Atzmon was the CEO of the Israel Corporation from 1984 until 1986—the period of time he was the Director of Zim.

Avraham Shalom

The Israel Corporation was founded by the State of Israel and Shaul Eisenberg. Eisenberg’s multinational conglomerate—The Eisenberg Group—had as one of its subsidiaries Atwell Security. Atwell was the recipient of a contract with the New York Port Authority in 1987 to provide security for the World Trade Center complex. Atwell lost the contract after the discovery that Atwell’s President Avraham Shalom (operating under the alias Avraham Bendor) was the former Head of Shin Bet responsible for the murder of two Palestinians and its subsequent cover-up. To spare himself from criminal prosecution, Shalom blackmailed the Israeli government with a list of extrajudicial assassinations by various Israeli agencies, securing himself and his co-conspirators a presidential pardon in exchange for his resignation, as detailed in Rise and Kill First by Ronen Bergman.

Israeli Nuclear Theft, PROMIS Software, and the WTC

The New York representative for Atwell during the WTC contract negotiations was Peter Malkin, the former Chief of Operations for the Mossad, legendary for his role in capturing Adolf Eichmann. Shalom and Malkin worked alongside Rafi Eitan, the handler of the Jonathan Pollard espionage ring.

Rafi Eitan

Eitan’s shadow looms large in the seedy annals of Israeli Intelligence.

  • Eitan posed as a chemist while traveling to Pennsylvania to visit NUMEC, a nuclear processing plant alleged to have supplied Israel with the enriched uranium the country used to acquire its nuclear arsenal. A declassified FBI document lists an individual named Avraham Bendor accompanying Eitan on this Pennsylvania trip. The FBI released a detailed statement in 1980 made by a former NUMEC employee who said in 1965 that he “encountered armed strangers on the uranium plant’s loading dock one night in early 1965. The NUMEC employee said they were loading what appeared to be canisters of HEU onto a truck in racks that he had not seen before.” The man also saw a shipping manifest showing the ship was bound for Israel indicating it was likely on the Zim-Israel shipping line which it was according to the National Security Archive. He said that a NUMEC manager later “threatened him to keep his mouth shut about what he had seen.”
  • According to the testimony of ex-Mossad agent Ari-Ben Menashee, Eitan was the brainchild of installing a trapdoor for Israeli intelligence into PROMIS software—the software later sold by Robert Maxwell to sensitive US defense facilities such as Sandia National Laboratories, which is at the center of US nuclear weapons systems.

Notice the incestuous loop: Zim Shipping, Atwell Security, and the WTC complex were all tethered to NUMEC-era Israeli intelligence networks. Menachem Atzmon not only had a position with both Zim and the Israel corporation at the time of the failed Atwell contract, but he went on to hold a senior position at the company responsible for the security of three of the four airports from which planes were hijacked on 9/11.

The Atzmon-Friedman-Netanyahu Axis

Atzmon’s network extended directly into the highest echelons of power where Israeli and American interests meet through Steven L. Friedman—a childhood friend of Benjamin Netanyahu and the American legal counsel for the Likud Party. Friedman was officially registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent for the Likud Party until 1996.

Atzmon was the President of the Israel Development Fund. The fund was established by Friedman in 1989. During the time period when Atzmon worked as the President of the Israel Development Fund, he also worked as the national treasurer of the Likud Party. In Israel, Atzmon was convicted of campaign finance fraud and given a suspended one-year prison sentence. Despite denials by Atzmon, close associates of Netanyahu claimed that the fund functioned as a source for illicit cash for Netanyahu’s successful 1993 campaign to lead the Likud party.

ICTS Financial Crimes

Atzmon wasn’t the only questionable figure at ICTS.

Ezra Harel worked on the Supervisory board with Atzmon at the time of 9/11. At one point, Harel even became the majority shareholder of ICTS.

Ezra Harel, Harel’s father, and Atzmon were arrested and questioned in Israel after driving a separate company, Rogosin, into total insolvency. According to Haaretz, the company suffered from years of odd investments and high-management fees that Harel himself pocketed. The company eventually grew incapable of paying back bondholders after torching more than 100 million shekels.

Harel just so happened to be the chairman of Dash 200+, a company that modified Boeing 747 aircraft from passenger to cargo use.

Security Failures?

Against this backdrop of Israeli intelligence and financial crime, the ICTS track record of “security failures” borders on the unbelievable.

Richard Reid
  • The Shoe Bomber (Richard Reid): ICTS guarded the departure gate for Reid’s flight. Just a day earlier, Reid had been flagged and delayed by an ICTS agent due to his disheveled appearance and lack of luggage. Yet the next day, Reid waltzed through security with a Walkman loaded with anti-Israeli messages, an issue of Newsweek featuring pictures of Osama bin Laden, and explosives. As The Sword and the Neck describes it, “looking like he just finished shopping at Terrorists-R-Us.” Not too long before the attempted attack, Reid had been flying around on El Al to Tel Aviv. Reid’s father said, “My son is a determined boy, and I can imagine him being determined enough to blow himself to bits, but I just can’t believe that he would want to hurt anyone else in doing it unless, that is, he has been brainwashed.”
    Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
  • The Underwear Bomber (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab): Farouk departed from a flight in Amsterdam with screening provided by ICTS. Farouk was known to US intelligence after his father warned two CIA officers at the US embassy in Nigeria of Farouk’s extremist views. US State Department officials were prevented from revoking his visa by US intelligence lest their Al Qaeda investigation be foiled.

The Surveillance Afterlife

ICTS didn’t vanish after the War on Terror reached its apex. It evolved.

AU10TIX, an ICTS subsidiary founded by former Unit 8200 man Ron Atzmon alongside others previously belonging to military intelligence, makes facial ID verification for online platforms, which has been used by Twitter, Airbnb, Paypal and Fiverr. This is only one example of the Israeli intelligence-to-privatized surveillance-state pipeline we have seen time and time again.

Securing the airports was only half of the equation.

To pull off an operation of the magnitude of 9/11, the target—the World Trade Center—had to fall into the right hands.

Act II: The Outside Element – Privatization and Payout

The Likud Fingerprint

One of the individuals instrumental in the privatization of the WTC was Lew Eisenberg, the NY Port Authority Chairman. Eisenberg was the man responsible for negotiating the long-term leasing of the WTC complex with Larry Silverstein. Lew Eisenberg donated to the formerly discussed Israel Development Fund at the behest of Steven Friedman. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency describes Eisenberg as a friend of Netanyahu.

Eisenberg got his start at the Port Authority after being nominated by Governor Christine Todd Whitman to chair the Commission on Privatization and Competitive Contracting in 1994. After the 9/11 attacks, Whitman, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency at the time of 9/11, assured the public within days of the attacks that the air in Manhattan was safe to breathe despite the buildings containing lead and asbestos because the concentrations were such that they didn’t “pose a health hazard.”

A class action lawsuit was filed against Whitman and the EPA, with Judge Deborah Batts of the Federal District Court in Manhattan saying that the “allegations in this case of Whitman’s reassuring and misleading statements of safety after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks are without question conscience-shocking.”

The effort to privatize the WTC complex was in large part spearheaded by the economic strategy of New York Governor George Pataki. Lew Eisenberg worked on the transition teams of Pataki, Whitman, and even the Bush-Cheney transition team.

Another prominent individual largely responsible for ensuring that the WTC complex ended up in the right hands was billionaire Ronald Lauder, the sole heir of the Estee Lauder cosmetics fortune.

From Reagan to Netanyahu to Epstein to the World Trade Center

Ronald Lauder

Lauder was the Chairman of George Pataki’s New York State Research Council on Privatization, which influenced the decision to privatize the WTC complex. Pataki and Lauder shared a close relationship, with Pataki’s wife working as an employee of Lauder. Lauder was one of Pataki’s largest campaign contributors.

Not only was Lauder on Pataki’s Council on Privatization, but he was also a major donor to none other than Steven Friedman’s charity, the Israel Research Foundation, which was closely tied to the Israel Development Fund. Lauder not only abetted Netanyahu’s ascent to power through financial contributions alongside Friedman and Eisenberg, but the cosmetics heir also helped pull political strings for his friend Bibi.

Lauder brought Republican campaign strategist Arthur Finkelstein in on Netanyahu’s campaign against Shimon Peres. Finkelstein’s propaganda, in addition to a series of conveniently timed suicide bombings in the weeks leading up to the elections, led to Netanyahu winning in a shocking upset. Finkelstein worked as a strategist for other people inside the Lauder orbit, including not only Lauder himself during his failed 1989 New York City Mayoral Campaign, but for George Pataki and New York Senator Alfonso D’Amato, the man who urged Lauder to run for office.

To understand the importance of this nexus of connections centering on Lauder, we must pull back and look at Lauder himself. Lauder’s role extends far beyond just New York City Politics and the ascendancy of Benjamin Netanyahu.

In addition to being the sole heir of the Estée Lauder Cosmetics fortune, Lauder has long been a prominent figure in the world of Jewish philanthropy, currently holding the position of President of the World Jewish Congress, where he works alongside others like Baron David de Rothschild of the infamous Rothschild banking dynasty.

Lauder was also a friend and supporter of Donald Trump, with the two having known each other for more than fifty years. They share an interesting connection, with Lauder being a long-time friend of Trump’s mentor Roy Cohn. Cohn was a prominent lawyer with high-level connections to the Reagan White House, the CIA, FBI, and organized crime. Cohn ran a sexual blackmail ring involving pedophilia that allegedly ensnared none other than former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in its kompromat.

Lauder held a position in Ronald Reagan’s cabinet during the Republican’s first term as the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs. During Reagan’s second term, Lauder landed a position as the US Ambassador to Austria. While this ambassadorship may seem like a dull, historical footnote at first, it becomes much more interesting when one realizes that Lauder may have been the individual responsible for securing Jeffery Epstein his fake Austrian passport.

Lauder’s later ties to Epstein and those in his circle are a matter of record.

Ronald Lauder was a member of the Mega Group, which was co-founded by billionaire Leslie Wexner. Epstein set up an LLC for billionaire Leon Black and Lauder to acquire a $25 million work of art. Epstein and Lauder communicated for years. It’s really no secret.

Epstein’s Austrian passport featured a photograph of him alongside a non-Jewish name, which would have had to have come to him through an unconventional channel since Epstein did not meet the requirements needed to obtain the passport, such as long-term residency in Austria. Given Lauder and Epstein’s mutual acquaintances Donald Trump, Leslie Wexner, and Epstein’s former Bear Stearns employer Alan Greenberg, Lauder as the unconventional channel through which the passport was obtained would make sense. Also, given the history of Israeli intelligence using ambassadors to procure fake passports for operatives and Lauder’s undeniable sympathies for the Zionist cause, the likelihood of Lauder procuring the passport seems high.

The tight-knit milieu of wealthy businessmen and Israeli-intelligence-linked individuals with ties to the World Trade Center, the airports from which the 9/11 planes were hijacked, and the Likud Party comes full circle with Larry Silverstein—the man who acquired the World Trade Center complex only six weeks before the buildings he purchased became cemented in the public mind as the symbol of terrorism.

Lucky Larry

Larry Silverstein

The financial windfall Larry Silverstein found himself at the center of as a result of the September 11th attacks is nothing short of mind-boggling.

  • The Insurance Heist: In April of 2001, a group of several different investors led by Silverstein Properties came to an agreement, and Larry Silverstein, who had already acquired WTC 7, signed a 99-year lease for $3.2 billion for buildings 4 and 5. Silverstein only put $14 million of his own money down on the lease. The WTC had earlier that year been estimated to be worth $1.2 billion, and the Port Authority only had $1.5 billion in insurance coverage on the WTC, yet Silverstein managed to finagle $3.55 billion of insurance on the buildings.
  • Right to Rebuild: Silverstein’s insurance broker was unable to cover such a large amount, and the deal had to be split among 25 different dealers. The complicated and unusual deal was finalized the month of the attacks. The Silverstein group was even given the right to rebuild and expand if the buildings were destroyed.
  • Removing the Asbestos Removal Problem: The WTC buildings were in the process of having asbestos removed from the buildings, which was an extremely costly process. As of May of 2001, prior to Silverstein acquiring the buildings, the Port Authority received a ruling on a longstanding suit against their insurers seeking more than $600 million dollars to cover the costs of asbestos removal. Ultimately the ruling was that the all-risk insurance policy held did not entitle their insurers to include this under their coverage.
  • The Double-Indemnity Jackpot: As James Corbett of the Corbett Report states in 9/11 Trillions: Follow the Money, “Within hours of the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11th, Silverstein was on the phone to his lawyers, trying to determine if his insurance policies could construe the attacks as two separate, insurable incidents rather than one.”

Not only would Silverstein rake in cash hand over fists as a result of the attacks and avoid all the prickly complications of asbestos abatement which would have costed hundreds of millions of dollars, but the SEC offices in WTC 7 which were investigating systemic financial corruption stemming from the dot-com bubble were conveniently destroyed along with the offices of some of the other tenants housing sensitive information such as the Department of Defense, CIA, Secret Service, and New York Office of Emergency Management. Similar to the Pentagon being struck in the Budget Analyst Office the day after Donald Rumsfeld announced $2.3 trillion the Pentagon couldn’t account for.

Silverstein—similar to many individuals involved in the decision to privatize the WTC complex—is no stranger to those in the highest echelons of Israeli political power. Silverstein collected friendships with Israeli Prime Ministers the way a more normal individual might collect postage stamps or trading cards. Former Israeli Prime Ministers Silverstein counts as friends are Yitzhak Rabin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. Silverstein is also a friend of current Israeli president Isaac Herzog. Netanyahu and Silverstein were so close that despite political differences, Bibi found time every Sunday to call Silverstein. Silverstein offered Epstein-associate Ehud Barak a job as his representative in Israel after Barak left the army in 1995. Many of these friendships were accrued by Silverstein when he was in the process of attempting to create a free trade initiative in the Negev. Some in Israel were skeptical of the proposal, due to such free trade zones having been established in third-world countries where workers receive starvation wages while entrepreneurs reap the benefits of tax exemption and high profits. Others were concerned the free trade zone would be a hub for money laundering. Eventually, after numerous unsuccessful attempts, Silverstein dropped the initiative.

With the airports’ security secured and the ink still drying on the World Trade Center’s paperwork, Israeli operatives were operating on American soil en masse while suspicious tenants roamed the halls which Lucky Larry Silverstein had just acquired.

Act III: The Outside Element – Soothsayers and Prophets

Israel’s role as the beneficiary of the American empire’s war on terror is obvious, with the policy goals stated in the Oded Yinon plan, the Clean Break memo, and the various writings of the Neo-Conservative, Project for a New American Century aligned think tanks largely accomplished as a result of America’s declaration to fight a global war against terrorism as a result of 9/11. However, one can simply turn to Benjamin Netanyahu, whose lackeys were securing their positions in the World Trade Center and the airports from which the planes were hijacked on 9/11 to gather his feelings regarding the worst crime to ever take place on American soil.

“Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, ‘It’s very good.’ Then he edited himself: ‘Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.’” (“A Day of Terror: The Israelis; Spilled Blood is Seen as Bond That Draws Two Nations Closer,” New York Times, Sept. 12, 2001.)

While the remains of corpses still burned in the rubble and a country that is supposedly Israel’s greatest ally still reeled from the devastation of the attacks, Netanyahu stated that the attacks were very good for American-Israeli relations to none other than The New York Times—what many would consider the most prominent and prestigious publication in the world.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s thoughts regarding 9/11 and its benefit to Israel didn’t change in the following years.

“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.” — Benjamin Netanyahu, ‘Did Israel Benefit from the 9/11 Attacks?, The Economist (April 16, 2008)

Netanyahu’s callous feelings regarding the attacks, combined with the fact that prominent individuals responsible for his ascendancy to power held sensitive positions in the World Trade Center and three of the four airports from which planes were hijacked, are a cause for concern.

Other high-level Israeli political figures and intelligence personnel displayed a seemingly prophetic intuition regarding Arab terrorism in New York City and the alleged culprit of the attacks in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Former Israeli Prime Minister and a fellow friend of Lucky Larry Silverstein, Ehud Barak, went on the BBC possibly only an hour after the attacks to insinuate that Osama Bin Laden had perpetrated the attacks, then stated that Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan, and then declared that America needed to wage a war on terror in response to the attacks.

Not only did Netanyahu and Barak share a commonality despite their political differences in being chummy with WTC owner Silverstein, but the two were in the IDF Unit Sayaret Maktal, with one of the unit’s specialties being response to airplane hijackings.

Arnon Milchan, the Israeli spy turned Hollywood Mogul producing films such as L.A. Confidential, Pretty Woman, Natural Born Killers, and JFK, was involved with a couple of films with, let’s call it, fortuitous imagery pertaining to 9/11. (Say what you will about the man, but he has some heavy hitters under his filmography.)

Israeli intelligence asset Milchan was the Executive Producer of The Medusa Touch, in which a commercial airliner crashes into a skyscraper.

Milchan was also one of the producers of David Fincher’s Fight Club, which ends with Ed Norton and Helena Bonham Carter watching a series of high-rise towers brought down via controlled demolition by a terrorist organization targeting banking institutions, accompanied by the eerie track “Where’s my mind?” by The Pixies.

Milchan belonged to Israel’s top secret intelligence-agency Lekem, and was involved in espionage, arms dealing, and securing components for Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

The former Director of the Mossad, Isser Harel, in a 1979 conversation with journalist Michael Evans, had what one could generously call incredible foresight. Evans recalls the interview in the Jerusalem Post, “I sat with former Mossad chief Isser Harel for a conversation about Arab terrorism. As he handed me a cup of hot tea and a plate of cookies, I asked him, ‘Do you think terrorism will come to America, and if so, where and why?’ Harel looked at his American visitor and replied, ‘I fear it will come to you in America. America has the power but not the will to fight terrorism…’ As to the where, Harel continued, ‘New York City is the symbol of freedom and capitalism. It’s likely they will strike the Empire State Building, your tallest building [he mistakenly thought] and a symbol of your power.’ … Twenty-one years later, the first part of Harel’s prediction came true; except, of course, that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were much taller than the Empire State Building.”

Act IV: The Outside Element- The Intelligence Web

“Dancing Israelis”

Leading up to 9/11, Israeli intelligence continued to weave its web of influence not only through the halls of the World Trade Center complex and the runways from which the hijacked planes took off, but through the entire American political and economic ecosystem.

The most well-known example of the Israeli intelligence presence in the United States as it pertains to 9/11 is in the case of the “Dancing Israelis.”

On the morning of 9/11, within minutes of the first plane striking the WTC, three men were spotted seated on top of a moving van, taking pictures of the towers, laughing, and celebrating. After being spotted, they fled the scene, and the FBI put out an all-points bulletin for officers to look for a white van with Urban Moving Systems on its side. Later on at 3:56 PM, the van was pulled over, and five men were inside: Sivan Kurzberg and his brother, Paul, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omar Marmari.

Kurzberg, according to the police report, told the officers, “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

Despite the men telling police an innocent explanation for their behavior that day, when the photographs were developed, it was revealed that the men were indeed celebrating, laughing, high-fiving, and Sivan Kurzberg was even photographed holding up a lighter to the flame-engulfed WTC building in the background.

The FBI confirmed that two of the men had ties to Israeli intelligence and believed them to be working on some kind of Mossad operation. One of them had $4,700 in his sock, and the men had plane tickets for various places around the globe for their immediate departure. FBI reports show the men making contradictory statements to investigators. The men were held in federal custody for 71 days, then deported back to Israel. The owner of Urban Moving Systems, Dominik Sueter, was questioned by the FBI, with the agency concluding that “Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation”.

When investigators returned to question Sueter, they found that he had hastily fled to Israel.

What conclusions did the FBI draw from their investigation? Well, they thought they were likely Israeli intelligence, but don’t worry, they think their target was not the US but rather studying Islamic Groups and Charities with potential ties to terrorist networks.

Later on, on Israeli television, where the men were being interviewed, Oded Ellner said they were there to document the event.

It was none other than Epstein associate Alan Dershowitz who stepped in as a negotiator on behalf of the men when they were being held in federal custody in order to smooth things over with the U.S. Government, as Christopher Ketcham reported in CounterPunch.

The Israeli “Art Students”

In January of 2001, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) began receiving a number of reports of young Israeli “art students” attempting to gain access to the offices of the DEA and other law enforcement and Department of Defense agencies. A deluge of these kinds of reports came in from over 40 cities within the first six months of 2001. Israelis were discovered diagramming the inside of federal buildings and possessing photographs of federal agents. One report claimed that between March of 2001 and September 11th, 140 Israelis were detained or arrested, with another report claiming that an additional 60 were detained or deported following the attacks.

One can read about these Israeli “art students” in a 60-page DEA memo intended only for senior officials at the Department of Justice, which was leaked to the press. The memo contains a summation of the modus operadi of these “art students”: “In general, these individuals appear to be organized in teams of 8 to 10 people, with one person described as the ‘Team Leader’. They are usually encountered in pairs or individually carrying a makeshift art portfolio. Several times, they have been seen or admitted to being dropped off in an area by the Team Leader, who returns later to pick them up. The females are usually described as very attractive, and all are generally in their early to mid-20s. Most admit to having served in the Israeli military. This is not surprising given the mandatory military service required in Israel; however, a majority of those questioned have stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal intercept, or explosive ordnance units. Some have been linked to high-ranking officials in the Israeli military. One was the son of a two-star general, one served as the bodyguard to the head of the Israeli Army, one served in a Patriot missile unit. That these people are now traveling in the U.S. selling art seems not to fit their background.”

Not only does the memo mention that some of the Israeli nationals had a background in demolition and explosive ordinance units, but the Orlando DEA had linked these “art students” to an ongoing drug investigation involving MDMA. However, Ketcham in his article mentions that this could possibly be a smokescreen to conceal the more obvious spying angle.

In December of 2001, Fox News aired a four-part series conducted by Carl Cameron where he reported that these “art students” were at the center of an investigation by federal officials into the existence of a possible Israeli espionage ring which was tracking Al Qaeda leading up to 9/11. One investigator said to Cameron, “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.”

In the four-part series when the question was put forward by a Fox anchor to Cameron as to the question of Israeli foreknowledge of 9/11 and how clear it was to ‘investigators that some Israeli agents may have known’, Cameron states, “Well, it’s very explosive information obviously and there’s a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected none of it necessarily conclusive it’s more when they put it all together a bigger question they say is ‘How could they not have known?’ Almost a direct quote.”

Israeli Intelligence and the 9/11 Hijackers

Christopher Ketcham, who wrote a piece on the Israeli art students for Salon, later wrote a piece for CounterPunch magazine expanding upon this research, delving into the story of the Urban Moving Systems employees detained after 9/11. Ketcham, in an outstanding feat of journalism, unveiled a number of damning revelations relating to the vast network of Israeli nationals operating in the United States and the alleged 9/11 hijackers. Perhaps the most damning of these is the proximity of the Urban Moving Systems and art-peddling Israeli nationals to the 9/11 hijackers.

All five hijackers of American Airlines 77, which struck the Pentagon, had addresses or were active within a six-mile radius of towns associated with the Urban Moving Systems Israelis. They were all operating on the same stomping grounds of northern New Jersey.

One of the “art students”, former Israeli Military Intelligence Officer Hanan Serfaty, rented two separate apartments close to the mail-drop location and apartment of Mohammed Atta. The distance between Atta’s mail-drop and one of Serfaty’s apartments was approximately 2,700 feet. Atta and the hijacker pilot of United Airlines 175 shared an apartment only 1,800 feet from Serfaty’s apartment. Serfaty was moving around significant sums of cash. These strange happenings occurred in Hollywood, Florida, an area which, according to the aforementioned DEA memo, appeared to be “a central point for these individuals, with several having addresses in this area”.

More than thirty of the 120 “art students” lived in Hollywood, which was home to nine of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, with five more in the surrounding area.

Christopher Ketcham writes in CounterPunch, “In at least six urban centers, suspected Israeli spies and 9/11 hijackers and/or al-Qaeda–connected suspects lived and operated near one another, in some cases less than half a mile apart, for various periods during 2000–01 in the run-up to the attacks. In addition to northern New Jersey and Hollywood, Florida, these centers included Arlington and Fredericksburg, Virginia; Atlanta; Oklahoma City; Los Angeles; and San Diego.”

German publication Die Zeit reported that the Mossad provided US intelligence with the names of two of the hijackers prior to the attacks—Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi—with these two operating in Hollywood, Florida, in close proximity to Israeli “art students” as well as the Urban Moving Systems Israelis in New Jersey. Hazmi also visited Oklahoma City on almost the same dates as three of the art students. (Interesting aside: Zacarias Moussaoui, who allegedly planned to participate in 9/11, was in flight school in Oklahoma from February to May of 2001. This school was visited by Atta and al-Shehhi. Moussaoui just so happened to meet the shoe bomber that ICTS let through their gates, according to some accounts.)

One of the “art students” arrested leading up to 9/11, Michal Gal, was bailed out by an employee of Amdocs, an Israeli telecommunications company which counted some of the largest phone companies and US government agencies among its clients. The company, whose upper brass was filled with former Israeli Military personnel, was investigated twice within a single decade on charges involving espionage-related leaks of data. This in part resulted in them becoming one of the subjects of the four-part Carl Cameron Fox News investigation.

Amdocs acquired an Israeli company called Comverse. Comverse bought the Israeli instant messaging company Odigo in 2002, but already had a stake in the company as early as January of 2001. Odigo is notorious amongst those who believe that Israel is responsible for 9/11 due to two Odigo employees working at the company’s offices just outside Tel Aviv receiving warning of a non-specific terrorist attack about to take place only two hours prior to the 9/11 attacks in New York. The Odigo offices in New York were within a mile of the WTC complex.

One of the Odigo co-founders created the first internal web network for the IDF. Another Odigo co-founder worked at AMDOCS after his time in R&D for the Israeli Air Force. Comverse founder Kobi Alexander fled to Namibia after facing multiple accounts of fraud and charges related to irregular stock trading in the United States. He had been an intelligence officer in the Israeli army. Two other executives were charged with the same options backdating scandal.

Now some have theorized that the Israeli “art students” as well as the Urban Moving Israelis were not necessarily directing the hijackers, but were merely monitoring Islamic Fundamentalist groups. Others have theorized that the “art students” may not have been intelligence at all, but part of an Israeli ecstasy peddling ring, an idea hinted at in the DEA memo. Ketcham mentions that the mention of MDMA trafficking could possibly serve as a smokescreen. Ketcham even makes the astute observation that the obvious nature of the Israeli “art students” and their spying might have been serving the purpose of drawing attention to themselves to either distract from the real Israeli operatives at work on American soil or to confuse and muddy the waters of any potential investigation.

A cousin of one of the 9/11 hijackers was reported by the New York Times to be a potential Israeli spy reporting on Hezbollah and Palestinian groups to Israeli intelligence.

What we can say is that the “dancing Israelis” and their fellow countrymen and women, in conjunction with the ties of Israeli intelligence to the WTC and airport security through ICTS, Zim, Silverstein, Lauder, Friedman, and the other assorted cast of characters, paint an obvious picture of who plays the outside role in this inside-outside job. Through Ketcham’s investigative journalism, we can see how not only did the outside angle ensure control of airport security and the World Trade Center, but they even managed to keep tabs on and possibly direct the hijackers themselves.

Act V: The Outside Element- The Clean-Up Crew

Just as important as having people in place at the World Trade Center complex and airports was having people amenable to the plans of the Inside-Outside plotters who could ensure that no legitimate investigation into the attacks ever took place. Even a cursory glance at the official story, which men like Ehud Barak were seeding into the public consciousness within moments of the attacks, reveals obvious inconsistencies. So how did the plotters manage to keep the legal system from becoming a thorn in their side?

One such mechanism of control was the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. In my previous piece, I mentioned how Jordana Feldman, who ran the Epstein Victim’s Compensation Fund, was a crucial individual when it came to the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. Feldman designed the fund alongside Ken Feinberg. Feinberg was one of three arbitrators who helped determine the market value of the Zapruder film, the video showing the assassination of President Kennedy. The Zapruder film was purchased by Time-Life, whose co-founder Henry Luce had a relationship with the CIA. The role of two of the individuals heading the fund in the aftermath of separate historical events widely considered to be subject to institutional cover-up remains pertinent to the role of both Feinberg and Feldman with the 9/11 fund.

A non-negotiable clause of the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund was that, in order to receive any kind of settlement, no lawsuit could be filed against the airlines for any lack of security. This helped to further shield companies like ICTS from legal culpability and suspicion. That this clause was worked into the conditions of the Compensation Fund perhaps shouldn’t come as a surprise when we see the conflicts of interest involving people involved in the distribution of the funds.

All of the cases were presided over by Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York. Hellerstein did not disclose his own conflict of interest in his rulings, specifically as it relates to Huntleigh USA and ICTS. Hellerstein’s son Joseph Hellerstein worked for law firm Amit, Pollak, Matalon and Company, based in Tel Aviv, Israel. The firm represented an Israeli defense contractor partnered with Boeing, a sister company of ICTS, and RFID device company Better Online Solutions (BOS).

Boaz Harel, the brother of Ezra Harel, took over the majority interest of ICTS after the death of his brother, who sat on the board of BOS. The chairman of the BOS board was Edouard Cukierman, the president of a private equity firm that owned Catalyst Investments, which had as its president Boaz Harel. Catalyst Investments was a major shareholder of BOS. While this convoluted thread is difficult to untangle, one can read the motion filed in the US second court of Appeals by 9/11 widow Ellen Miriani, which parses out the incestous nature of the Hellserstein-ICTS axis in detail. (Side note: the Israeli defense contractor Hellerstein’s son represented, Aeronautics Defense Systems, specializes in unmanned aerial systems including the Dominator UAS which is modeled on twin-engine passenger aircraft.)

Hellerstein also represented Cantor Fitzgerald. Those who read my last piece will be familiar with the head of Cantor, Howard Lutnick, an Epstein associate currently working in the Trump administration who was conspicuously absent from his office in the direct impact zone of the North Tower on 9/11. Lutnick gave office space to fellow Epstein-associate and former wife of Prince Andrew, Sarah Ferguson, who also was absent from the North Tower on 9/11 despite a meeting she had scheduled. After 9/11, Cantor allegedly brought in more money than they had before the attacks. The company was fortunate not to suffer from an inability to trade due to the existence of their revolutionary electronic trading platform e-speed. This type of software is reminiscent of software owned by other tenants in the Twin Towers, whom we will address in detail later.

Hellerstein appointed Sheila Birnbaum to settle as many of the cases as possible. Birnbaum was a lawyer at the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

The law firm Skadden had a history of serving Israeli companies. One senior partner, Ken Bialkin, was the National Chairman of the ADL in addition to working for a host of other Zionist groups. Bialkin was instrumental in forging ties between American and Israeli companies and guiding Israeli companies to go public in the United States.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that in Bialkin’s office at Skadden, one might find him hosting Neo-Conservative thought leader Norman Podhoretz or Henry Kissinger.

We can also see people friendly to Israel in the institutional cover-up of 9/11 heading the legal proceedings involving Larry Silverstein and his World Trade Center insurance settlement.

Who was the judge presiding over Silverstein’s case?

None other than Michael Mukasey.

Michael Mukasey

In my previous article, I mentioned Mukasey and his son’s role in Jeffrey Epstein’s legal defense as well as the father-son duo’s overall careers as legal fixers for white-collar criminals. However, I think we all need a quick refresher. For more detail, I encourage you to visit my previous article, 9/11 was an Epstein Job.

  • Michael Mukasey grew very close to 9/11 cover-up artist and later Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani when the two worked at the same law firm in the seventies.
  • Michael, along with his son Marc, worked as a justice advisor on Giuliani’s presidential campaign.
  • Michael Mukasey was the US Attorney General from September of 2007 to January of 2009, meaning he was the Attorney General during the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein’s Sweetheart Deal, as well as Epstein’s conviction and sentencing. Epstein’s sweetheart deal seemingly would need the institutional blessing of Michael Mukasey.
  • Epstein and Ghislaine acquired legal counsel from Michael’s son Marc, who worked for Giuliani’s law firm.
  • Marc, in addition to representing people such as FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried for his cryptocurrency fraud arrest and Congressman Matt Gaetz after allegations of sex trafficking, also represented Epstein associate Trump during his first term when people were probing into the president’s finances.
  • Marc Mukasey represented Israeli entrepreneur Joel Zamel, who formed a strategic partnership between his firm, Psy-Group, and Cambridge Analytica that helped propel Trump into the Oval Office. Psy-Group was an Israeli Private Intelligence agency with headquarters in Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C.
  • Michael Mukasey penned a letter in 2010 to Obama advocating for the President to pardon Israeli Spy Jonathan Pollard.

Larry Silverstein violated Mukasey’s order not to make inflammatory statements regarding the case of his WTC insurance settlement publicly when Silverstein criticized the slow payout on his settlement. However, Mukasey did not find Silverstein in contempt despite his blatant violation of the aforementioned order.

Silverstein, who argued that the events of 9/11 should count as two separate insurable incidents, something he had discussed on the phone with his lawyers within hours of the attacks, would in part get his way due to the rulings of Mukasey, who saw to it that the attacks were considered two separate incidents.

The same outside element that had ties to the World Trade Center complex, airport security, and even the movements of the hijackers themselves also left behind their indistinguishable fingerprints on the legal proceedings and investigations into the attacks. But what about those on the inside?

Act VI: The Inside Element

While the outside element managed to obtain a presence on the inside, we will see that several connections extending past the explicitly Israeli-Outside faction exist and are worthy of consideration. The outside and inside elements should not be viewed as conflicting or opposing groups. Rather, 9/11 was the result of a confluence of this outside-Israeli faction and the Inside element—a circle of WTC tenants, Bush Administration officials, prominent Neo-Conservatives, intelligence assets, and private interests with these two groups sharing mutual interests and ideologies in common. In fact, the confluence is so complete that at times the groups can seemingly lose contrast, operating as one singular entity. This group cohesion was essential to the success of their operation.

So what groups and individuals comprise the inside element?

Private CIA for Hire

Kroll, a financial and risk advisory firm, according to some, largely functions as a private intelligence firm, having been called the “CIA of Wall Street”. The company routinely hires former Mossad, CIA, and MI5 employees. French intelligence even suspected that the company had at times served as a front for CIA activity. The founder of Kroll, Jules Kroll, was hired by Robert Maxwell two weeks before his mysterious death to investigate the “dark forces” he said had mobilized against him. More recently, the firm was hired by Harvey Weinstein to wipe the electronic devices of one of his alleged victims of any evidence of sexual assault.

After the 1993 WTC bombing, Kroll was contracted to revamp the security of the complex.

Jerome Hauer

Jerome Hauer, the Managing Director of Kroll at the time of 9/11, instead of going to his office in the WTC, made television appearances announcing that the man responsible for the attacks was none other than Osama Bin Laden, as well as dismissing the notion that any kind of explosives had been used. This display, reminiscent of Ehud Barak’s appearance on the BBC, is even more conspicuous given Hauer’s position managing security for the WTC.

Hauer’s position at Kroll was not his first job at the WTC complex.

As part of the mayor’s office under Giuliani, in 1996, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) was created to respond to emergencies and help facilitate communications between different agencies in the event of an emergency. The OEM’s emergency operations center was housed on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, a controversial decision following the 1993 WTC attacks. The decision to place the Emergency Operations Center in the WTC was allegedly made by Jerome Hauer, the first director of the OEM, who had been appointed to the position by Giuliani.

The New York Times described Hauer’s job with the OEM as “sitting around all day thinking up horrifying ways for things to be destroyed and people to die.”

Speaking to the Times, Hauer mentioned the kinds of emergencies he was concerned with, saying, “helicopter crash, subway fire, water main break, ice storm, heat wave, blackout, building collapse, building collapse, building collapse.”

Not only was Hauer obsessed with building collapses, even going so far as to keep trophies from building collapses the way a serial killer might collect the jewelry of the women he dismembers, but he was also tapped into the Bush administration. On the day of 9/11, Hauer advised top officials in the Bush administration to start taking the antibiotic Cipro. Hauer also began hinting to the media that Saddam Hussein was going to unleash an anthrax attack through foreign terrorists.

Hauer had previously worked at Scientific Applications International Corporation, which employed Stephen Hatfill, the initial suspect in the investigation of the Anthrax attacks. SAIC worked on developing protocols for handling anthrax “hoax letters”.

SAIC just so happens to hold patents related to thermite.

Hauer’s strange connections relating to 9/11 do not end here. Hauer hired John P. O’Neill to Kroll just before 9/11. O’Neill had been an FBI Special Investigator with expert knowledge of Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda networks alleged to have committed the 1993 WTC bombing. O’Neill would not be as lucky as Hauer and other top executives at the WTC complex. O’Neill died in the attacks.

In the aftermath of 9/11, public officials and the mainstream media repeated that the poor response to the attacks largely centered around a failure of imagination. After all, who could have foreseen planes flying into buildings as an act of terrorism?

As it turns out, many individuals had foreseen the possibility of just such a scenario, with one of them being Brian Michael Jenkins, the Deputy Chairman of Kroll from 1989 to 1998. After the 1993 attacks, Jenkins assessed the potential for a terror attack on the WTC involving planes.

During his career, Jenkins served as an advisor to many different government agencies, including the State Department and the Department of Defense. Jenkins is an expert on terrorism and transportation security, and in 2000 was an advisor to the National Commission on Terrorism. In addition to all of this, Jenkins had been an advisor to the president of the RAND Corporation after his time in the Special Forces. Some other RAND advisors during the time of Jenkins’ advisory role were Donald Rumsfeld, Frank Carlucci of the Carlyle Group, Condoleezza Rice, and PNAC member Francis Fukuyama.

Perhaps the most interesting endeavor Jenkins undertook during his career as a civil servant, as it pertains to 9/11, was his time as a member of the White House Commission on Aviation and Security in the late 90’s. In this position, Jenkins worked with CIA director John Deutch and James Abrahamson of Securacom, a company that provided security services for the WTC after the 1993 bombing by integrating the various electronic security systems installed in the buildings. The commission, with Abrahamson, Deutch, and Jenkins, recommended that all airliners and the FAA’s Wide Area Augmentation System should be updated with a modernized Global Positioning System (GPS). Some authors have theorized that GPS-guided autopilot systems took remote control of the planes hijacked on 9/11.

Securacom Secures Control?

A discussion of the World Trade Center wouldn’t be complete without delving deeper into the previously mentioned Securacom, which James Abrahamson was employed by in addition to his role with Jenkins on aviation security for the Clinton White House.

Securacom began work for the WTC following the 1993 bombing. The company later changed its name to Stratesec after a lawsuit was filed against them by a smaller company named Securacomm. The court found an effort by Securacom to financially “bury” the plaintiff in an attempt to crush the smaller company through “vexatious litigation”.

In addition to James Abrahamson of the Aviation and Security Commission, Stratesec also had Wirt Walker III, a relative of the Bush family, and Marvin Bush, the brother of George W. Bush, on its board. Marvin Bush sat on the Board of Directors from 1993 to 2000, leaving to work for HCC Insurance, one of the many companies providing insurance coverage to the WTC.

Stratesec had several interesting clients in light of the September 11 attacks. Not only did they provide security for the WTC, but they also were contracted by United Airlines and Dulles Airport for security purposes.

Another Stratesec client of note is Los Alamos National Laboratory, which developed thermite electric matches. The dynamic gas-phase condensation method of producing thermite was pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

An FBI memo details how the FBI was considering investigating potential 9/11 related insider trading involving Stratesec after discovering 56,000 shares of Stratesec were purchased between September 6th and September 10th. Stratec shares went from $.75 a share to $1.49 once the markets opened back up after the attack, with the companies airport security systems being in higher demand after the attacks. An investigation was not pursued, with the FBI memo stating that “no ties to terrorism or other negative information” was discovered during their investigation of the two redacted individuals.

Profiteers? Perpetrators?

The North Tower was struck by American Airlines Flight 11 between floors 93 and 99. A single tenant, Marsh and McLennan, occupied all of these floors as well as one floor above the point of impact. Tenants of the WTC were responsible for any upgrades in leased spaces. Marsh fireproofed floors 93-100. Additionally, Marsh demolished floors 95-98 before updating the fire alarm and sprinkler systems of those floors. Marsh made modifications to floor 94 in 1998 and floor 95 in 2000.

The chairman and CEO of Marsh and McLennan at the time of 9/11 was Jeffrey Greenberg. In 1993, American International Group (AIG), a finance and insurance company, bought 23% of Kroll. The head of AIG at the time was Maurice Greenberg. Maurice’s son, Jeffrey Greenberg, two years after AIG acquired the 23% stake in Kroll, left AIG to work at Marsh and McLennan.

Greenberg was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as well as a trustee of the Brookings Institution. Lee Hamilton, the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, was also a trustee of the Brookings Institution.

The CEO of Marsh, Jeffrey Greenberg, was in midtown Manhattan at the time of the attacks at the company’s headquarters, where he had an “unobstructed view of lower Manhattan,” where he saw “smoke rising from One World Trade Center and the fireball erupt from the second tower.”

Greenberg stepped down from his position at Marsh after being charged by New York State Attorney Elliot Spitzer of running a kickback scheme, but “Mr. Greenberg was never charged with any wrongdoing, while Mr. Spitzer was later engulfed in a prostitute scandal.”

Maurice Greenberg was also in Spitzer’s crosshairs, with Spitzer alleging that AIG was involved in sham reinsurance transactions and shady accounting practices.

AIG has a colorful history that has been the source of scrutiny and questions regarding the monumental bailout they received after 2008, as well as the company’s ties to the CIA’s precursor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and allegations of money laundering possibly related to cocaine trafficking out of Mena, Arkansas during Bill Clinton’s tenure as Governor.

Donald Rumsfeld (Left) and Paul Bremer (Right)

Paul Bremer worked as the CEO of Marsh Crisis Consulting, a subsidiary of Marsh and McLennan. And maybe not so coincidentally, just hours after the attacks, he would appear on MSNBC to announce that the attacks were carried out by Osama Bin Laden. Bremer and 1,700 other employees of Marsh had offices in the North Tower from floors 93 to 100, the exact area of the collision. 294 of Marsh’s employees died in the attacks while Bremer spoke cool, calm, and collected to his televised audience—just like fellow WTC employee Hauer.

Bremer held various positions in the US State Department, working for a time as an assistant to Henry Kissinger. Bremer was the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. Kissinger Associates had deep ties with BCCI. BCCI was a bank with deep ties to the world of intelligence and eventually became embroiled in scandal. The BCCI scandal involved laundering drug money, financial crimes, sex trafficking, and the funding of terrorism. Ronald Reagan appointed Bremer as the ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism and coordinator for counterterrorism in 1986. After his time at Marsh, in 2003, George W. Bush appointed Bremer the presidential envoy to Iraq, and Bremer became the country’s Chief Executive Authority under the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Paul Bremer was also on the Board of AkzoNobel, a company that makes fireproofing coating for skyscrapers called Interchar. Bremer was also on the International Advisory Board of the Japanese company Komatsu, which manufactures mining, construction, and military-grade equipment. In 1996, Komatsu patented a thermite device which could “demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.”

Another such individual worthy of consideration is Stephen Friedman (not to be confused with Netanyahu’s childhood chum), who worked as a Senior Principal at Marsh and McLennan Capital Corp at the time of the attacks.

Friedman’s resume reads like a who’s who of the Western establishment.

Marsh, which was in the direct impact zone of the North Towers, occupying floors 93-100, had 294 of their employees die in the attacks. One lucky survivor who just so happened to be running late due to traffic, Richard Groves, exposed the link between the company AIG and Marsh, a software called Silverstream possibly used to funnel money through the WTC during the 9/11 attacks.

The year before 9/11, Marsh contracted Silverstream software to create a digital connection between Marsh and their clients for the purpose of paperless transactions. Silverstream had already provided similar software for companies like Alex Brown, Deutsche Bank, and Morgan Stanley, but the software created for Marsh far exceeded the software Silverstream created for these other companies. Richard Andrew Grove, a salesman who managed the project for Silverstream, noticed fiscal anomalies in the billing of the account of this project. After discovering $10 million in suspicious purchase orders with vendors appearing to sell Marsh large quantities of suspicious hardware.

Grove approached Marsh executives with these anomalies, and some executives urged him to keep quiet. Executives at Marsh Grove felt he could trust were killed on September 11th during a conference call, which Grove was running late to due to traffic. The Marsh executives who had told Grove to keep quiet were the ones who had scheduled the meeting and were also the ones absent.

After September 11th, Convar, a German firm was hired to retrieve data from hard disks discovered at Ground Zero.

In an article published on CNN titled Computer Disk Drives from WTC Could Yield Clues, states, “An unexplained surge in transactions was recorded before the attacks, leading to speculation that someone might have profited from previous knowledge of the terrorist plot by moving sums of money. But because the facilities of many financial companies processing the transactions were housed in New York’s World Trade Center, destroyed in the blasts, it has until now been impossible to verify that suspicion.”

A separate article from Reuters reported this suspicious surge in transactions: “The suspicion is that inside information about the attack was used to send financial transaction commands and authorizations in the belief that amid all the chaos the criminals would have, at the very least, a good head start. Of course, it is also possible that there were perfectly legitimate reasons for the unusual rise in business volume. It could turn out that Americans went on an absolute shopping binge on that Tuesday morning. But at this point there are many transactions that cannot be accounted for. Not only the volume but the size of the transactions was far higher than usual for a day like that. There is a suspicion that these were possibly planned to take advantage of the chaos.”

One of Convar’s data retrieval experts said, “There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million. They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the mainframes were destroyed.”

Some have speculated that this technology connecting Marsh to their clients via Silverstream was used to carry out these transactions.

Former LAPD officer and investigative journalist Michael Ruppert said that one of Marsh’s e-clients, Deutsche Bank, had its computer systems externally taken control of immediately prior to the attacks, “Within, I would guess — I’d have to go back and look at the book, but it was no more than a week of the attacks — I was being contacted by a lot of people, from inside official sources who were raising a lot of questions. This one particular person was extremely credible. They absolutely convinced me they had been an employee of Deutsche Bank in the Twin Towers, and they told me very clearly that in the moments right before the attacks and during the attack — there was a 40-minute window between the time the first plane struck the World Trade Center and the second plane — that Deutsche Bank’s computers in New York City had been ‘taken over.’ Absolutely co-opted and run. There was a massive data purge, a massive data download, and all kinds of stuff was moving. And what this person said very clearly was that no one in the Deutsche Bank offices in the towers at the time had the ability to prevent what was going on from any of their terminals.”

Convar never confirmed whether or not Marsh’s unique Silverstream software was the mechanism through which these large transactions immediately preceding the attacks were cleared through.

Explosive Connections

United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south face of the South Tower from floor 77 to floor 85. One of the companies in the impact zone, Baseline Financial Services, had offices on the 77th and 78th floors of the South Tower. The company was led by Joseph Kasputys. Kasputys was the head of a company called Primark from 1987 to 2000, which, for a period of time, owned the company Triad International Maintenance Company, which modified Boeing Airplanes. Baseline, according to NIST, made modifications to the southeast of floor 78, which would later be the location where Flight 175 struck.

On floor 91 of the South Tower, Washington Group International had offices. The construction and mining firm acquired the government services business of Westinghouse Environmental Services Co., a company which operated the Savannah River National Laboratory. The Washington Group operated Savannah beginning in 1999 through the end of their contract with the DOE in 2009. Savannah Labs had shared tech with Lawrence Livermore Labs beginning in 1997. Savannah Labs developed sol-gel technology. Lawrence Livermore Labs used sol-gel when making nano-thermite. An interesting aside: Savannah Labs assisted in rescue operations after 9/11.

E. Preston Rahe Jr, became the President of Westinghouse Environmental Services Co in 2000 after being appointed by Washington Group after the buyout. Later, Rahe would go on to work for Lawrence Livermore National Security, the managing contractor of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which was founded by Washington Group International, Bechtel, the University of California, and Amentum, with Rahe being the representative of Washington Group International’s interest. There, he served on the Board, and on the advisory Board was John Gordon. Gordon was a former Homeland Security Advisor and Deputy National Security Advisor for George W. Bush. He was also the Deputy Director of the CIA from October of 1997 to June of 2000. Gordon was also on Bush Sr.’s National Security Council.

Kevin Ryan points out that Gordon would have worked closely with A. B. Krongard, the Executive Director of the CIA. Krongard has been suspected by some of insider trading in relation to 9/11 due to the firm he headed until 1998, Alex Brown Inc., buying many of the suspicious put options on United Airlines before the 9/11 attacks.

In 1996, Washington Group International acquired Morrison Knudsen Co., a civil engineering and construction company with a history of building demolition, with The Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce Reporting that the company was hired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to demolish over 200 buildings.

Inside the Pentagon, the comptroller at the time of 9/11, Dov Zakheim, had previously worked for SPC International, a subsidiary of Systems Planning Corporation. SPC developed a “flight termination system” for the US military, which claims on its website to provide “a fully redundant turnkey range safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles.”

SPC’s fire safety and emergency research division, Tridata Corporation, carried out an analysis of the WTC’s safety for the US Fire Administration after the 1993 bombing.

As Comptroller of the Pentagon, Zakheim was responsible for overseeing the $2.3 trillion, which Donald Rumsfeld announced could not be accounted for prior to a plane striking the Pentagon’s Budget Analyst Office.

The Final Act

The public was told immediately after the attacks what beliefs were within the narrowly prescribed parameters of safe opinion by people like Ehud Barak, Jerome Hauer, and Paul Bremer.

We were told the attacks were a failure of imagination despite the people responsible for the WTC complex’s security envisioning such an incident.

We were told that no explosives were used by Jerome Hauer, who worked in the World Trade Center and previously held a position with a company that holds patents related to thermite and developed protocols for handling anthrax letters.

There was no systemic failure of imagination.

On 9/11, the system functioned exactly the way it was designed to.

And to be clear, the name of any given individual or group here does not necessarily imply direct involvement in 9/11. I’m not trying to present some kind of cartoonish view of the attacks where every single individual mentioned was brought into a smoke-filled room and debriefed on what their role would be in the conspiracy. Power doesn’t work that way and neither do intelligence operations. At least for the most part. What we are looking at here is a network—an ecosystem of intelligence operatives, private interests, Zionist operatives, and legal fixers with shared interests, institutional alignments, and ideologies. On 9/11, those with direct involvement knew that they could count on this system to operate the way it was designed to. The point of detailing this network’s ties to the WTC, airports, and the larger system at play is to show how such a conspiracy could have functionally taken place without making the execution of the 9/11 attacks seem like something one would have watched in a poorly written 80’s crime thriller.

The outside layer of Israeli-intelligence-aligned assets secured ownership of the World Trade Center Complex and the security of the airports, kept tabs on the men who supposedly hijacked the planes, had people amenable to the cause in place for damage control, and delivered the narrative that suited their purposes on the BBC.

The inside layer, through shady tenants like Kroll and Stratesec, was in the position to make sure that all the logistics inside the buildings took place without a hitch once the environment was made safe by the outside layer.

The 9/11 Truth Movement largely ignores the material, on-the-ground, documentary evidence involving suspicious tenants, financial crimes, intelligence operatives, and legal chicanery in favor of focusing on debates revolving around fringe physics or low-brow conspiracies with vague perpetrators instead of naming names.

The mainstream narrative that maintains that 9/11 was all a failure of imagination and that the truth is too difficult to parse out ignores the fact that the blueprint is out in the open for anyone to see. It lives in corporate filings, lease termination dates, archived articles, and leaked FBI documents.

The blueprint is drawn.

The question is: what do we do with it?

Selected Resources and Further Reading:

September 9, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on 9/11 was an Inside/Outside Job

Trump Slaughters Wedding Guests, Zelenskyy Threatens Airliners

By Kevin Barrett | September 6, 2026

When Zelenskyy threatened to shoot down civilian airliners last week, Putin called it “state terrorism.” Putin is right, of course. But the expression he used, “state terrorism,” is a repetitiously redundant pleonasm.

Virtually all terrorism is state terrorism. So appending the word state in front of the word terrorism isn’t really necessary.

Case in point: Trump’s slaughter of Iranian schoolgirls, female volleyball players, and wedding guests. Such acts fit the definition of terrorism: politically-motivated attacks on civilians. The purpose of attacking civilians is to inspire fear or terror among them, so they will react in ways that further the terrorist’s political plans.

Terrorist Trump and his Israeli owners have made no secret of the fact that they intend to attack civilians and especially civilian infrastructure in Iran—which even the mainstream media acknowledges is a war crime—in hopes of spreading so much pain and misery and death that the Iranian people rise up against their government. But as Caleb Carr explained in his post-9/11 book The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians, such “punish-the-civilians” policies rarely work. Hitler’s buzz-bombs didn’t convince the British to rise up and overthrow Churchill, nor did the British and American firebombings of German cities cause the Germans to revolt against Hitler. On the contrary, such terrorist policies typically backfire: the people punished worst are dead, while the survivors feel selected by God or fate or destiny to unite behind their nation’s leadership and fight even more furiously against the foreign terror-mongers attacking their country.

And Iran—where a powerful cult of martyrdom is built into the majority religion—is the last country on earth that anybody is ever going to successfully terrorize into submission. Iran’s war on terror, specifically its war on Zio-American terror, is genuine, and likely to be far more successful than the ersatz US equivalent.

Civilian Casualty Ratios Keep Rising

The West likes to think it is growing increasingly civilized. But its wars grow ever-more barbaric and terrorist. In World War I, about half of the slightly over 20 million deaths were civilians. In World War II, just one generation later, nearly two-thirds of the 60 million deaths were civilians. The Vietnam terror war waged by the USA probably killed far more than the two million official death count, with more than three-quarters of the victims civilians. Likewise, the official death counts in the 9/11 wars against Iraq and Afghanistan—and the covert wars on Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, and of course Palestine—are almost certainly far too low, while the civilian-to-military casualty ratio just keeps getting higher, and is probably in the 80% or higher range. (For high-end casualty estimates that counter the official undercounts in these wars, read Gideon Polya.)

Let’s ask Gemini, which obviously comes with a pro-state bias, who the real terrorists are. Hey Gemini: How many civilians have died in all the wars beginning with World War I, and what percentage were killed by non-state actors?

Gemini: An estimated 110 million to 140 million civilians have died in all wars globally starting from World War I (1914) to the present day, with the vast majority—roughly 95% or more—killed by state actors (governments and their official militaries) rather than non-state actors.

Given Gemini’s bias, we can safely translate “95% or more” as “99%+.” I rest my case: Virtually all terrorism is committed by governments.

But that’s not the way the government’s propaganda apparatus sees it. They want you to believe that the world is a scary-scary place full of evil (non-government) terrorists plotting to bomb you or shoot you or crash your airliners or blow up your buildings. And they want you to run to the real terrorists—the government—for protection.

That’s why they chose 9-1-1 as the date code for their big 2001 psy-op. When you’re terrified and panicked and faced with senseless violence, who do you call? You call the government in hopes they will save you. The three digits 9-1-1 subconsciously represent the trust populations place in their “big mommy and daddy,” their government, to get them out of serious trouble. Specifically, the terrorist perpetrators of 9/11 wanted panicked Americans to volunteer their persons and/or their tax money, not to mention their fervent ideological and emotional support, to their Israeli-occupied government so it could “protect them from further such attacks” by invading the Middle East and destroying Israel’s enemies.

It was in fact Israel’s agents who blew up the Towers after flying remote-controlled planes into buildings. Through Epstein-style blackmail, financial control, and media domination, Israel infiltrated the US government like a parasite hijacking the brain of its host, sending Uncle Sam on a state terrorism spree whose only major beneficiary was the malignant Zionist entity itself.

But even people who imagine that 9/11 was done by al-Qaeda—the same al-Qaeda that the US created and has supported since its inception in the Afghan war against the USSR, the same al-Qaeda whose Syrian chief Trump recently invited to the White House and playfully sprayed with perfume—and who further imagine that al-Qaeda is a non-state entity as opposed to a US-Israeli front—ought to take a hard look at the statistics to get a sense of how nonexistent a threat “non-state terrorism” really is. As I wrote in Questioning the War on Terror:

Statistically, there are good grounds for wondering whether we should bother to worry about terrorism at all. Roughly 3000 Americans have been killed by (allegedly non-state) terrorists during the past century. In other words, a whole century’s worth of terror victims equals three days’ worth of cigarette fatalities, a week’s worth of deaths from bad medical treatment, or a month’s worth of automobile deaths. Shouldn’t we worry far more about cigarettes, doctors, and automobiles than about terrorists?

And how does your chance of being killed by terrorists compare with your chance of being struck by lighting? It turns out that lighting is a vastly greater threat. There are on average about 1000 lightning victims per year in the USA, whereas the average number of terror victims per year—a number wildly skewed upward by the fluke of 9/11—is still only about thirty.

Are terrorists at least more dangerous than… bathtubs? Nope. It turns outthat your chances of drowning in your bathtub are more than ten times as great as your chances of being killed by a terrorist.

Should we declare war against lightning bolts and bathtubs? Should we install PA systems in our bathrooms reminding us that the threat level of bathtub drowning has been raised to orange? Should we create a new Department of Bathtub Security (DBS) empowered to do sneak-and-peak warrantless searches of our bathrooms to make sure that we’re using no-slip bathmats? Should we invade and occupy countries that we falsely blame for bathtub deaths? Would this be any crazier than what we’re doing now, allegedly due to the equally insignificant “terrorist threat”?

So the whole notion of terrorism as a supposedly non-state phenomenon is a scam, a hoax, and a psy-op. Grossly exaggerating the alleged threat posed by non-state terrorists is itself a form of state terrorism, in the sense that the state is using propaganda to terrorize its population for political purposes.

Imagine a sadistic criminal who ties up and tortures his victim, all the while insisting that his actions are motivated by a desire to protect the victim from an imaginary bogeyman. That criminal is the government, the victim is its population, and the imaginary bogeyman is the supposed threat of non-state “terrorists.”

War for a Multipolar World: The Real War on Terror

The covert World War III being waged today appears, on the surface, to be between the Zionist-oligarch-occupied world-domination-seeking West, on the one hand, and the partisans of the multipolar-world, led by China, Russia and Iran, on the other. But beneath the surface, there is a philosophical-ideological war. It isn’t as obvious as the capitalism-vs.-communism Cold War clash, but it’s real nonetheless.

The ideological dimension of World War III can be expressed as follows: Should governments gain legitimacy through terror, or through competent administration in service to the public good?

While no government perfectly embodies either ideal, Israel and its occupied USSA come close to being pure terror states. Both governments purport to be protecting their populations from “terrorist threats” and derive much of their perceived legitimacy from that purported protection. 9/11, and 10/7 (“Israel’s 9/11”) were the sacrificial spectacles that undergird the grossly mendacious ideological foundations of both terror states. Both terror states, built on foundations of state violence and lies, are having trouble maintaining public confidence.

China, for its part, does maintain popular consensus in part through somewhat mythologized but largely accurate accounts of its suffering at the hands of foreign aggressors, from the Opium War and the Century of Humiliation through the brutal Japanese occupation and subsequent US war on China through Korea. But its government primarily derives legitimacy not through violence and sacrifice, but through competent administration in the public interest.

If we ask Western-biased Gemini to contrast public confidence in the respective US and Chinese leadership, we find that worldwide China’s government inspires far more confidence, and that domestically:

United States: Public confidence in U.S. leadership and future direction faces continuous polarization, heavily influenced by shifting political administrations, domestic divisions, and foreign policy friction with traditional allies.

China: Domestic sentiment inside China reflects steady confidence in national economic power, technological growth, and rising global standing, which sustains government legitimacy and popular backing for Beijing’s international posture.

When Covert World War III finally ends with a multipolar victory, insha’allah, let us hope and pray that Chinese-style “competent administration” rather than Zio-American “terror lies in service to Girardian sacrifice” becomes the basis of a reasonably virtuous world authority capable of enforcing international law and punishing the real terrorists.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Trump Slaughters Wedding Guests, Zelenskyy Threatens Airliners

The dangerous European illusion about a war with Russia

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 4, 2026

The Leipzig incident exposed something more troubling than the incident itself: the confidence with which German and European authorities seem to approach the possibility of a direct confrontation with Russia.

While German and European authorities go public, in what looks like a ridiculously rehearsed performance, accusing Russia of “hybrid attacks,” it seems clear to any attentive observer that Europeans are completely disconnected from reality.

The central question lies elsewhere: what would happen if Russia actually decided to attack Germany?

The answer would probably be very different from what Europeans seem to imagine.

First of all, the obvious needs to be repeated: Europe is not Ukraine.

The Special Military Operation in Ukraine is taking place in a specific territory, with its own military dynamics and within certain strategic limits. From the earliest stages of the conflict, Moscow established a clear list of strategic objectives to be achieved through conventional means of warfare, while respecting the civilian population and avoiding unnecessary escalation.

There are clear reasons for this approach in Ukraine. Despite the delusional Banderist attempts to rewrite history, the truth is that Russians and Ukrainians have always been one people, sharing common ethnic, cultural, and religious roots. Millions of Russians have Ukrainian relatives and vice versa. An unrestricted war against Ukraine would consequently affect millions of Russians. Therefore, there is nothing surprising about Russia’s strategy of military restraint.

None of this would happen in Europe.

A direct confrontation between Russia and a NATO member would produce completely different calculations. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and other European countries would not be regarded as fraternal nations occupied by coup juntas. On the contrary, they would be regarded as total enemies, against whom the use of force would face far fewer constraints, if any.

The idea that a potential Russian offensive against Europe would simply consist of more drones, sabotage, and limited attacks against infrastructure seems extremely comforting. And precisely for that reason, it is dangerous. Europeans are provoking Russia while taking the experience of Ukraine as an example of what could happen to them in a potential direct war.

But this calculation is wrong. Russian actions against Europe would be completely different. In Ukraine, Russia’s foremost concern is to spare civilians. Attacks against infrastructure are avoided, offensives are restrained, and even retaliation for Ukrainian provocations on Russian territory is often ignored simply because Russia does not want the violence of a potential escalation to result in the deaths of more Ukrainian civilians.

In Europe, the immediate and total destruction of every enemy target would be the highest priority, regardless of the humanitarian costs. Europeans are not Ukrainians, and the ties between Russia and Western Europe are not the same as the ties Russia has with Ukraine. There would be no comparable pressure within Russian public opinion for restraint in the use of force.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that restraint in the use of force in a war with Europe could actually be dangerous for Russia, since it would be dealing with countries belonging to a collective-defense bloc with nuclear capabilities. Russia would therefore be forced to launch attacks powerful enough to dismantle the offensive capabilities of its adversaries, regardless of the costs. It would be a matter of security.

This does not mean that Russia wants to start a war against Germany. Nor does it mean that every incident on German territory is automatically part of a Russian military campaign. It means that European governments should take much more seriously the consequences of turning every incident on European territory into another step toward escalation. And, of course, it means that Russia has nothing to do with the recent suspicious incidents in Europe – which could be either sabotage carried out by local militants or carefully prepared false-flag operations.

Berlin has already announced diplomatic measures against Moscow, including the closure of the Russian consulate in Bonn and measures against Russian institutions on German territory. The European Union is discussing new sanctions. The more Europe turns incidents of this kind into direct political confrontation, the greater the need to understand where the limits of escalation lie. Russia certainly does not care about diplomatic actions, but Moscow is definitely growing tired of Europe’s participation in Ukrainian terrorism.

Europeans should ask themselves whether they are really prepared to discover, through their own experience, what the Russian response would be in the event of an open war.

They definitely should not try to see these consequences.

September 5, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on The dangerous European illusion about a war with Russia

Nearly half of US citizens say Washington’s post-9/11 wars ‘worth the cost’

The Cradle | September 3, 2026

Nearly half of US citizens believe the wars waged by Washington in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond after the 11 September 2001 attacks have been “worth it,” a YouGov poll published on 2 August shows.

The poll was commissioned ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attacks, which the US government used as a pretext to launch the so-called “War on Terror” that led to the deaths of nearly 5 million people.

Respondents were asked if fighting “against the threat of terrorism through military operations abroad” and introducing “increased security and surveillance inside of the United States … have been worth the cost.”

Forty-eight percent responded yes, while another 27 percent said they weren’t sure. The remaining 25 percent said no.

Support for this view was strongest among Republicans, with 71 percent responding yes.

When asked whether some people in the US government knew about the 11 September attacks beforehand but let the attacks happen anyway, 39 percent of respondents agreed, and the same number disagreed.

Immediately after the attacks, US officials blamed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Al-Qaeda was founded in the 1980s in Afghanistan. At the time, the CIA was arming and funding Islamic extremists known as “mujahideen” to fight the occupying Soviet Army.

The CIA later supported Al-Qaeda militants fighting in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Iraq, and Syria, while claiming to be opposed to the group.

In 2024, the US helped install former Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Ahmad al-Sharaa as president of Syria following the CIA’s 14-year covert war to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad.

When YouGov asked if Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks, 38 percent agreed, while 34 percent disagreed.

Pro-Israel officials in the administration of former US president George W. Bush began pushing for an invasion of Iraq immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC.

The US government and media launched a massive propaganda campaign to wrongly convince US citizens that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had collaborated with Al-Qaeda to carry out the attacks and that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the US homeland.

Sixty-seven percent of respondents to the poll said that the amount of surveillance by the US government had been affected “a lot” by the 9/11 attacks.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush signed the Patriot Act, which gave the US government sweeping powers to surveil US citizens, allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to track their phone calls and movements.

When YouGov asked if “Muslims in the United States have been treated better, about the same, or worse than people of other religions,” 52 percent of respondents said Muslims have been treated worse.

Among Democrats, 71 percent agreed with the statement, while 28 percent of Republicans agreed.

After 9/11, many US citizens became hostile to Muslims, viewing them as “terrorists.”

A 2023 report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University estimated that 4.5 million people have died as a consequence of the US wars since the 9/11 attacks.

The US military carried out attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

Of the 4.5 million deaths, roughly 900,000 were killed by direct violence. Roughly 3.6 million resulted from “indirect” deaths caused by the aftereffects of the wars.

September 3, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Nearly half of US citizens say Washington’s post-9/11 wars ‘worth the cost’

Lockerbie: Is the Masud case just merely a whitewash for CIA terrorism?

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 25, 2026

The Americans have their man for the Lockerbie bombing and are close now to a trial which in any democracy wouldn’t be allowed to happen due to the legal irregularities and malfeasance. But before we ask ourselves whether even the U.S. is a real democracy – or one that has all the auspices of one without the heart – we should never forget the farce of the original trial which found two Libyan spooks guilty of making and planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, with barely a grain of solid evidence to even link them to the crime. A travesty of justice on an epic scale was the theme established in the Netherlands at Camp Zeist, and we can hardly blame the Americans for continuing the theme with remarkable fortitude, impervious to any ignominy which exposes their first efforts as perfidious evidence-tampering and witness intimidation on a grand scale.

The madness continues at an even greater pace, though.

Soon, a Libyan suspect called Abu Agila Mohammad Masud will stand trial, accused by the Americans of being the bomb-maker. Yet the details around his arrest and interview (read: ‘torture’) are louche at best, and most insiders believe he is a patsy. In recent months, U.S. investigators have unearthed impressive amounts of documents, data, testimonies and even the accused Masud himself – building their case that ‘The Libyans did it’ – but none of it really stands up to assiduous scrutiny, legal or otherwise. Even a U.S. judge recently commented that the prosecutor’s case risked going to appeal in the event of Masud being found guilty, as most of the evidence hadn’t been ‘legalised’ by a number of countries’ authorities around the world. “Proceed at your peril,” the judge recently warned the prosecutor. One has to wonder: if U.S. prosecutors cannot even perform such a remedial task as getting stamps from the various judicial authorities, then how convincing can their case be in the first place – and who is behind the initiative?

The Lockerbie case breaks all the records for precedents. Within the borders of the UK, it is the greatest terror act there has been – but also the greatest cover-up by the British and Scottish governments, particularly the latter. We should not judge the investigations, though, by what they have uncovered – or covered up – but more by their omission to look at key facts, interview star witnesses, and not be distracted by political agendas. The two camps, which offer only the binary options of, on the one side Gaddafi, and on the other a Palestinian group who were experts in bringing down planes, is juvenile and not at all serious. There are nuances there which need to be unpacked, and if investigators are unable or unwilling to examine them, then we can only conclude that a massive miscarriage of justice is still being carried out today.

It is perhaps also an oversimplification to imagine that state actors could have played a role in the bombing of Pan Am 103 while operating on their own initiative. The camp which concludes the PFLP-GC were culpable – led by Dr Jim Swire – perhaps don’t go far enough in their own investigation before drawing conclusions that this group carried it out. Even the Saudi press just in recent days pointed the finger at its chief bomb-maker Marwan Khreesat as being the likeliest candidate, but still miss the point entirely. Regardless of whether you are in the Gaddafi camp or the PFLP one, everyone seems to be missing the bigger story and failing to look for bigger pieces of the jigsaw. The thought process seems to be that if we can nail the bomber, then we will work out who commissioned him. And so in the meantime, any investigation into who was the architect of Lockerbie will always be overlooked. This perverse dichotomy of logic is what has made the case unsolvable for nearly 40 years – which suits a number of Western governments who knew about Pan Am 103 beforehand and remained silent.

And yet there is evidence out there in the domain of intelligence circles which confirm that Khreesat was indeed the bomb-maker, but he was not working for the PFLP – he had gone freelance. While it is hard to imagine that the CIA allowed the bomb on board so as to kill three rogue officers who were on the flight, hell-bent on blowing the whistle when they got back to the U.S. about the program which effectively helped Shia groups in Lebanon become drug-runners – it is likely to be true. But what is much harder to imagine is that it was CIA officers themselves who had been planning to bring down a U.S. plane in Scotland for at least two years, with the express purpose of cranking up the pressure on President Reagan to bomb Libya and overthrow Gaddafi. Framing the Libyan leader so as to muster an enormous outcry in the U.S. was the plot, when two CIA officers met Safia Gaddafi’s wife – the financier of the plot – in a south London mosque in June 1987 to hammer out a strategy. For obvious legal reasons, I cannot publish their names, but it has been confirmed to me by a British agent who was there on other business that Khreesat was the bomb-maker. Gaddafi’s ex-wife wanted badly to seek revenge for her divorce and losing a child, according to the MI6 agent, who listened to the whole meeting and was shocked by what they were hearing.

Yet none of this is being examined or verified. The MI6 officer in question has presented themselves to the U.S. prosecutor and was only too aware that in 1988 one of the many weekly ‘controlled flights’ from Lebanon en route to the U.S. had drugs on board, but were an easy way of not simply getting a bomb on board, but were ripe for being used to deflect blame towards Gaddafi – and so the two accused at Camp Zeist were used by Gaddafi’s wife as stooges for the bombing. Among a coterie of DIA, CIA and MI6 officers in Lebanon at that time, all knew of the CIA plot and all knew it was only a matter of time before a Pan Am flight came down over Scotland. It was simply a question of timing before all of the elements lined up – and the three renegade officers on board completed the last piece of the puzzle.

The Libyans had to fake the evidence, though, which was essential for Safia Gaddafi to agree to finance the whole thing – and by Christmas 1988 everything was in place.

It was critical that the two Libyans accused – one being somewhat of an expert with explosives – were framed, and so they were set to task to set up the Malta link which was crucial for the FBI and CIA – and now for the prosecutor in the Masud case. Perhaps they knew they were being set up, and in the case of Meghrahi, sent someone else to go to “Mary’s shop” to buy the clothes. There are still many questions left wide open, but a rogue CIA operation which involved killing U.S. citizens would certainly explain the extraordinary lengths the Americans are going to presently to cover up what really happened to Pan Am 103. But who was the poor soul tricked into carrying the bomb onto the plane in his luggage? Not the young Lebanese man Khaled Nazir Jafaar, who was already working for the DEA drug-running program and thought that his cassette recorder – or at least his suitcase – was packed full of heroin, making him nervous when he stood in line to check in at Frankfurt’s Pan Am desk. The real ‘bomber’ whom the CIA used was a white, powerful key figure of international politics who was happy to take his own life. Lockerbie is a movie which can’t be made, as Hollywood producers would argue that no one would believe the real story – and Americans certainly aren’t ready to find out the truth, a point that Erik Kenerson, the U.S. prosecutor of the Masud case, is probably banking on.

August 25, 2026 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , | Comments Off on Lockerbie: Is the Masud case just merely a whitewash for CIA terrorism?

Ukraine provoking Bulgaria with drone incident

By Lucas Leiroz | August 14, 2026

Instances of Ukrainian interference in the internal affairs of European countries continue to grow. The Kiev regime is intensifying its destabilization activities abroad, using even terrorist tactics to boycott its own European allies. As the pro-Ukraine agenda becomes increasingly unpopular in Europe, the regime is left with little choice but to employ illegal interference methods to prevent its source of military and financial aid from drying up.

Recently, Kostadin Kostadinov, leader of the Bulgarian opposition party Revival, publicly advocated for the expulsion of the Ukrainian ambassador to Sofia, Olesya Ilashchuk. He accuses the Ukrainian diplomat of interfering in Bulgaria’s domestic affairs, particularly regarding recent drone incidents.

These comments come amidst the controversy surrounding the incursion into Bulgarian airspace by a Ukrainian drone, which exploded in the Kardam region near energy facilities of the Trans-Balkan Pipeline. Bulgarian Ministry of Defense specialists analyzed the wreckage and concluded it was a “Maya” UAV used by the Ukrainian armed forces.

Following the incident, the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Ukrainian diplomats in the country to provide explanations to the authorities in Sofia. However, Ambassador Ilashchuk’s stance was deemed inappropriate. She downplayed the incident’s significance, regarding it as insignificant, even though the explosion occurred near an energy facility – a situation that could have led to serious consequences, such as larger explosions, massive fires, and the release of toxic gases.

Kostadinov commented on the matter, stating that the ambassador should immediately be declared “persona non grata”. He considers it intolerable for a foreign diplomat to downplay the seriousness of a drone incident on Bulgarian soil. Furthermore, he asserted that by acting this way, she is undermining relations between Ukraine and Bulgaria – doing the exact opposite of what a diplomat is supposed to do.

“She clearly does not contribute to good diplomatic relations between Ukraine and Bulgaria and there are sufficient grounds for her to be declared persona non grata,” he said.

The opposition leader described the case as an “act of aggression” and further stated that Ukraine is likely involved in other similar occurrences that need to be investigated by Bulgarian authorities. Moreover, he believes this is linked to the fact that Bulgaria has recently reduced its assistance to the Ukrainian regime. The apparent goal is to interfere in the Bulgarian government’s decisions, pressuring it to actively participate in the war if it wishes to avoid incidents like this.

It remains unclear what Ukraine’s actual intention is with these drone operations. The regime may be seeking to directly coerce Bulgaria – as well as other European countries – by demonstrating its capacity to damage local energy facilities if its interests are not met. Alternatively, the Ukrainian intention could be to stage “false flag” attacks, leading Bulgarians to believe that Russia is behind these incursions.

Ultimately, the Ukrainians’ goal is to ensure that their source of funds and weapons does not dry up. As European nations see their weapons stockpiles and financial reserves decrease – and with local populations increasingly stopping their support for pro-Ukraine policies – the regime grows concerned about the future of international aid, prompting it to stage provocations designed to spark panic in Europe and thereby attempt to regain support.

However, the Ukrainian strategy to regain support is proving unsuccessful. The Bulgarians did not fall for the regime’s trap and acted rationally, investigating the drone’s origin and demanding explanations from Ukrainian diplomats. Furthermore, stances like Kostadinov’s demonstrate that the local people desired an even harsher response, such as the expulsion of diplomats and the severing of relations.

In other words, the Ukrainian strategy of attempting to regain support through provocations, fear, and terror is actually having the opposite effect – making the pro-Ukraine agenda even more unpopular among Bulgarians and other Europeans as well. Ultimately, this demonstrates how the regime’s true nature is becoming apparent to the Western public, who no longer believe the Ukrainian government’s deceptive narratives and are unwilling to continue contributing to the conflict’s indefinite prolongation.

It is inevitable that this will lead to deeper repercussions. European governments are likely to increasingly scale back their aid to Ukraine in the near future – whether by choice or simply because they lack the capacity to continue assisting, given the depletion of available military and financial resources in Europe. At some point, international assistance will prove insufficient, leaving the regime with no alternative but to recognize its defeat on the battlefield.


Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

August 14, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Militarism | , | Comments Off on Ukraine provoking Bulgaria with drone incident

Israel Fabricated Iranian Assassination Threat Against Trump In Attempt To Ramp Up Iran War

The CIA Has Accused Israel Of Fabricating Iranian Assassination Threat

By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | August 13, 2026

Last month, “intelligence” was relayed by Israel that Iran was supposedly planning on assassinating Trump, which resulted in him “secretly flying out of Turkey in an alternate military aircraft”.

But the claims of an Iranian assassination attempt against Trump relayed by Israel were deemed to be bogus even by U.S. intelligence.

The Washington Post reported that “The assassination threat was relayed by the Israeli government to the CIA, where analysts did not view the intelligence as compelling and conveyed that skepticism to Trump administration officials”.

The article added, “Another official called the reports of threats against Trump’s life ‘Israeli-derived, not U.S.-generated, and viewed as low confidence.’”

The article added, “Some U.S. intelligence officials saw Israel’s sharing of the warning about threats to Trump’s life as designed less to inform than to influence the president’s decision-making and U.S. policy in the region, a current and a former U.S. official said” with the report quoting one official saying it “fit a broader pattern of Israeli intelligence reporting that some officials see as designed as much to shape presidential decision-making as to inform it”.

Indeed, fabricated claims of Iran planning to assassinate Donald Trump seem to have been Israel’s most successful deception deployed to get Trump to carry out its preferred policy on Iran.

Journalists Max Blumenthal and Ken Silva have documented how the FBI recruited Pakistani national Asif Merchant to take part in a sting operation supposedly surrounding an Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump, in what Ken Silvia called “at the very least… a highly controlled FBI sting operation that never posed a threat to Trump” if not “a case totally fabricated by the undercover agents”.

Since then, Benjamin Netanyahu has repeated baseless claims of Iran trying to assassinate Trump in an attempt to get him to go to war with Iran.

In June of 2025, Benjamin Netanyahu baselessly claimed that Iran was behind the assassination attempts against Trump by Thomas Crooks in Butler, Pennsylvania, and by Ryan Routh at Mar-a-Lago, claiming that Iran “tried to assassinate President Trump twice”.

This deception seems to have influenced Trump’s decision to bomb Iran for Israel in June of last year, with the White House tweeting “I was the hunted- now I’m the hunter” in reference to the bombing.

Fabricated claims of Iran trying to assassinate Trump were also a large part of Israel’s campaign to get Trump to enter a full-scale war on Iran this year.

According to Reuters, before the bombing, “Netanyahu, ‌determined to move forward with an operation he had urged for decades, argued that there might never be a better chance to kill Khamenei and to avenge previous Iranian efforts to assassinate Trump”.

It was also a key talking point of the late Neo-con Zionist senator Lindsay Graham, who joined Benjamin Netanyahu is lobbying Trump for the war.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Graham likened Iran’s leader to Adolf Hitler and told Trump that Iran was in a historically weak position. They talked about the regime’s efforts to assassinate Trump in 2024. ‘If you think Trump forgets stuff, you’d be mistaken,’ Graham said.”

Yet again, Israel has fabricated claims of Iran trying to assassinate Trump in an attempt to get him to ramp up the Iran war.

August 13, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Israel Fabricated Iranian Assassination Threat Against Trump In Attempt To Ramp Up Iran War

Was the Drone Attack on US LNG Tanker in Egypt a False Flag?

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 31, 2026 

Short answer… I think so.

On Wednesday July 29, 2026, at roughly 3:20 pm CET, a drone struck the Energos Winter — a Marshall Islands-flagged floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) owned by US company New Fortress Energy — on its starboard side at Egypt’s Mediterranean port of Damietta, in the northern Nile Delta. The fire spread to a nearby Bermuda-flagged LNG carrier, the Gaslog Salem. Both crews were evacuated, the blaze was brought under control, and no injuries were reported. Both vessels were subsequently moved offshore for assessment; the Energos Winter was pulled off the quayside before the fire was fully out.

Egyptian harbor responders got on scene fast from both the land side and with fire and rescue tugs, which several accounts credit with preventing a much larger disaster — a fire spreading to the terminal infrastructure or fully involving either LNG hull would have been catastrophic. Egypt’s Petroleum Minister Karim Badawi traveled to the port personally to oversee the response.

CNBC and CNN framed this attack as part of a widening campaign on energy infrastructure, implicitly blaming Iran: Iran, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias have all broadened strikes, with Iraqi Iran-aligned militias launching drones at oil infrastructure in Riyadh and Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province this same week. The Damietta strike was viewed by many in the West as extending that campaign from Gulf oil into Mediterranean gas.

I think the attack at Damietta was an Israeli false flag that was intended to stir tensions between Cairo and Tehran. Iran inadvertently set the stage for such a narrative. Two days prior to the drone attack Iranian state TV ran a segment headlined about revenge against Ukraine, showing a multi-target map of European-energy-linked infrastructure, which included Damietta, marked with a pin, citing its LNG capacity (5.2M tons/yr) as a “gateway for gas exports to Europe” descriptor. Damietta was not the focus of the broadcast and was merely identified as one of several possible targets. Everything beyond that — i.e., that the map amounts to Iran claiming or committing the strike at Damietta — is inference layered on top. The critical point about the framing: the stated enemy was Ukraine, not the US or Egypt.

Many in the West were quick to point the finger of blame at Iran. Yet Egypt’s Minister of Information, in an interview with Al Arabiya, denied the Wall Street Journal’s claim that the Egyptian government considered Iran responsible for the drone attack on two ships in Damietta port.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Aragchi issued a statement insisting that it wasn’t Iran and that it was an Israeli false flag operation to try to drag Egypt into an anti Iranian coalition. I think Aragchi is correct.

Give credit to Mossad for monitoring Iranian media and taking advantage of the news broadcast to quickly create an incident that would cast the shadow of blame on Iran by virtue of the news broadcast that had listed Damietta as one of many possible targets for retaliation against Ukraine. It is very easy for an organization like Mossad to mount such a drone attack in two days… Guilt by association.

Video interviews

July 31, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , , | Comments Off on Was the Drone Attack on US LNG Tanker in Egypt a False Flag?

Iran summons UK ambassador over ‘baseless’ assassination claims

Al Mayadeen | July 9, 2026

Iran summoned the British ambassador in Tehran after London accused the Islamic Republic of involvement in a stabbing attack against an Iran International staffer in the United Kingdom, rejecting the allegations as “groundless and false.”

The Iranian Foreign Ministry delivered a protest note to the British envoy, denouncing London’s attempts to make unfounded accusations against Tehran and create a hostile atmosphere toward Iran.

The move came after British authorities summoned Iran’s chargé d’affaires in London following the conviction of two Romanian nationals over the 2024 stabbing of Pouria Zeraati, a staffer working for Iran International.

Tehran rejected the British claims that the attack was connected to Iranian state institutions, describing the accusations as politically motivated and without evidence.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the British accusations regarding alleged Iranian security activities in the United Kingdom were unacceptable and lacked credibility. The ministry said London’s statements sought to divert attention from Britain’s own conduct and its policies toward Iran.

The British envoy was summoned to receive Tehran’s formal protest after UK officials alleged that the stabbing incident was carried out on behalf of the Iranian state.

Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected similar accusations from Western governments, saying such claims are part of political pressure campaigns against Tehran.
London accuses Tehran over journalist stabbing case

British authorities summoned Iran’s chargé d’affaires after George Stana and Nandito Badea were sentenced to 12 and eight years in prison, respectively, over their role in the 2024 attack on Pouria Zeraati.

Zeraati was stabbed near his home in southwest London in March 2024.

British prosecutors claimed the two Romanian nationals acted as proxies for Iranian authorities. The defendants had denied charges of wounding with intent but were convicted at London’s Woolwich Crown Court.

The British Foreign Office said the judge concluded that the attack was carried out “in the interests of, and on behalf of, the Iranian state.”

Tehran has rejected the accusations, with the Iranian Embassy in London describing them as “unfounded, politically motivated and hostile allegations.”

The diplomatic dispute comes amid broader tensions between Iran and Britain, with London repeatedly accusing Tehran of activities it claims threaten British interests.

British officials said the case followed what they described as a pattern of alleged hostile activity by Iranian intelligence services in the United Kingdom.

Iran has rejected such claims, accusing London of adopting confrontational policies and using allegations against Tehran for political purposes.

The latest diplomatic dispute reflects continued friction between the two countries, which has intensified in recent years over issues including sanctions, regional developments, and competing political narratives.

July 9, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | | Comments Off on Iran summons UK ambassador over ‘baseless’ assassination claims

The art of the recycled deal: Trump and the outcome Israel cannot tolerate

By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | June 17, 2026

There are many lessons to be learned from the latest made-for-Israel war on Iran. The first and most damning is that the war resolved the very crisis it created. Donald Trump celebrated the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the lifting of the blockade against Iran. Two conditions that were fully in place before Benjamin Netanyahu dog walked Trump into this war. The agreement that concluded the war took us back to exactly where we stood before America spent $200 billion, and where Americans continue to pay Israeli surcharge tax at the pump and grocery stores.

As for Iran’s nuclear program, the arithmetic does not lie. The 400 kilograms of 60-percent enriched uranium that Iran possessed were zero before Trump — pressured by his largest Israel-first donors — tore up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran had fully complied not only with the IAEA non-proliferation agreement, which Israel has never signed nor accepted, but with the additional protocols governing verification and monitoring of its civilian nuclear program.

Trump canceled the deal anyway, not because it failed America, but because it did not satisfy Israel’s veto.

The deepest irony is that Iran’s nuclear knowledge and capabilities are more advanced today than when Trump discarded the JCPOA. Any new agreement — even one stricter in structure than the original — is therefore being negotiated from a fundamentally weaker position than the one that existed in 2018. No treaty can unlearn what Iran already knows.

On Monday, June 15, Trump heralded the end of war bragging that Iran agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. In a leaked copy of the supposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), item 8 states: “The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons ...” The word reiterates is not incidental. It is a direct reference to Article III of the 2015 JCPOA, which Trump most likely never read, where Iran had already affirmed: “… that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” Same commitment. Same language. Different signatures. Twelve weeks of a war that went nowhere to get here.

From “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” to celebrate an MoU to reopen a Strait that was open before $200 billion and countless American and Iranian lives were squandered. Trump’s triumph is much ado about nothing.

He canceled an existing deal that took years to negotiate, inflicted economic hardship on ordinary Iranians, and allowed Iran’s nuclear advancement to leap forward. It is, in the most literal sense, like redefining water as H2O. The molecule did not change. Only the dressing did. Israel’s war took Trump back to the starting point, at twice the cost to American taxpayers.

The same special-interest group that pushed Trump to cancel the JCPOA, lobbied him long before the 2024 election. Israel-first donors poured hundreds of million into his campaign as a down payment for this war. Netanyahu visited Trump seven times in thirteen months, manipulating, and scheming for another made-for-Israel war.

This war should also carry a lesson for the Arab Gulf states that long believed American military bases were a guarantee of their security. Instead, they found themselves sidelined and never consulted on a war waged, directly or indirectly, from their own soil, ultimately in service of an Israeli agenda. Foreign military presence does not deliver security. It delivers dependency. Lasting regional stability is built through regional cooperation, on terms beneficial to the region.

More importantly, the region must now reckon with a pattern it can no longer afford to ignore: wherever Israel goes, instability follows. The so-called Abraham Accords brought Israel into the Gulf. What followed was bombs, drones and economic ruins never seen since the Second World War.

I have lived in the Gulf. The only pop people could hear was the backfire of an aging car exhaust. In the last three months, friends shared recordings of ballistic missiles splitting the sky and drones buzzing overhead. Israel did not bring a defense shield; it brought a target. Its presence is a magnet for unrest. It is a carcass attracting wasps.

In fact, Israel is an agent of disorder and a parasite nurtured by chaos. It wraps itself in the language of partnership, mutual benefit, and shared values, deceiving others into believing the arrangement is reciprocal when it is entirely one-directional.

Israel’s record speaks for itself: a genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing across the West Bank, 1.3 million internal refugees in Lebanon, the occupation of Syrian land following Assad’s fall, destabilization operations in northern Iraq and Sudan.

In Iraq, the American invasion and regime change did not satisfy Israel’s insatiable lust for total chaos. It targeted Iraqi scientists and waged war against knowledge itself. The blueprint, in this view, has not changed for Iran. Israel’s dissatisfaction over the MoU with Tehran is not that it fails to produce a non-nuclear Iran, but that it fails to wipe out knowledge. Its broader objective is the suppression of scientific and technological development across the region. Israel seeks neighbors unable to think independently, consume, not produce, import rather than innovate. It wants to maintain a monopoly over nuclear capabilities and control over regional scientific advancement.

Israel brought ruins to the U.S., too. The made-for-Israel Iraq war helped detonate the financial crisis of 2008, saddling future American generations with trillions in accumulated debt that has never been fully reckoned with. A war that Trump condemned, criticizing Democratic leadership for failing to impeach George W. Bush who “got us into the war with lies.”

The cost of current Trump’s made-for-Israel war on Iran requires no economist to explain. It arrives uninvited in every American home, at the meat counter, in every grocery bill, every gas receipt, every price that keeps rising without explanation. They may not realize its extent, yet. By the time they do, the damage to the U.S. economy, as in 2008, will be too deep to reverse.

To undermine potential peace with Iran, the ungrateful Israel-first loyalists like Ben ShapiroMark Levin are already panicking and challenging Trump’s MoU. Israel will activate the constellation of media outlets controlled by Israel-first billionaires to shape what Americans see, read, and are permitted to question. The once-respected 60 Minutes, under a new Israel-first boss, Bari Weiss, allows Netanyahu to handpick his own interviewer. Who knows, maybe he submits his own questions, too.

Now, Netanyahu and American Zionists have sixty days to sabotage a final deal with Iran. Israel will mobilize its donors, lobby Congress, and if that fails, resort to what it has perfected. A false flag operation against American forces in the region, or another assassination in Lebanon.

A conflagration ensues, and once again, it will be fought with American money and American lives. Because a Middle East free of American military entanglement is the one outcome Israel cannot tolerate — a prospect more threatening than any Iranian nuclear centrifuge.

June 17, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on The art of the recycled deal: Trump and the outcome Israel cannot tolerate