Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Mossad in Malaysia

Rehmat’s World | April 22, 2010

On April 4, 2010 – Malaysia’s internationally known politician, Anwar Ibrahim (born 1947), country’s former Deputy Prime Minister (1993-98) and Finance Minister (1991-98) and currently the Opposition leader – claimed that Israeli intelligence agents (Mossad) have infiltrated into Malaysia’s Bukit Aman (Federal Police headquarter in Kuala Lumpur). The espionage link to Israel is the company named Asiasoft Global Pte Ltd. (Singapore), which has worked as a sub-contractor to upgrade the telecommunication systems for the police. Two of the directors of the firm, Izhak David Nakar and Ido Schechter, are reportedly Israeli citizens.

However, this is not the first time the ‘Israeli connection’ has been raised. In 2008, the Malaysian Home Minister told Parliament: “Then between November and December, a police report was lodged by the responsible police officers and investigated by one ASP Sairah. Then Sairah was transferred to Taiping and there was no news after that,”reported The Malaysian Insider.

How reliable is Anwar Ibrahim? Well, he is known for his good connections with the Jewish Lobby in the US through personal friendship and links to CIA-funded think tanks. In 2000, Malaysian politician Lim Kit Siang asked former prime minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to declare the outcome of a three year police investigation into whether Anwar Ibrahim was a CIA operative. Anwar Ibrahim had been a good friend of the former US Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton administration, William S. Cohen (1997-2001), son of a Russian Jewish immigrant Reuben Cohen.

No other Malaysian politician has forged such a relationship with individuals of the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, the former US Under Secretary of Defence and ex- President of the World Bank, who fervently believes that Israeli military dominance and power in the Middle East serves US interests. One of the principal advocates of the invasion and occupation of Iraq in furtherance of Israeli goals in the region, Wolfowitz was described by Anwar Ibrahim as his “great friend,” a person in whom he has “faith,” in a speech in the US on 19 June 2006.

It seems that now, Anwar Ibrahim may be trying to turn the tables on his old Zionist friends after being betrayed by Washington-based Zionist PR firm apco Worldwide, whose several directors are not only former Israeli high officials such as Shimon Shein, former Tel Aviv ambassador in Bonn, Itamar Rabinovich and former Tel Aviv ambassador in Washington. Its CEO in Israel Gad Ben-Ari was a personal adviser to former PM Rabin.

Speaking at the 2003 Organization of Islamic Countries  summit meeting in Malaysia in October 2003 – Malaysian prime minister Muhathir Mohamad, while urging Muslim youth to abandon suicide attacks and apply their faith to strive in science and technology – blamed Israel and its western allies for creating most of world’s crises and wars.

Malaysia is a multicultural, multiracial and multi-religion society ruled by a secular democratic government in which Muslims make a slight majority (60%). This makes easy for the Judeo-Christian foreign agents to incite communal clashes in Malaysia. Malaysia doesn’t recognize Israel. Israeli professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi in his book, The Israeli Connection, wrote about Zionists’ hatred toward the Muslim world and their support for anti-Muslim insurgencies and covert military and intelligence operations to destabilize Muslim countries especially those which don’t recognize the European Jewish occupation of Palestine. The book documents Tel Aviv’s involvement in the Iran-Contra fiasco, French genocide of Algerian Muslims, aiding Idi Amin and Ferdinand Marcos against Moro Muslim resistance, as well as collaboration with Chinese and Burmese genocide of Muslims in those countries. Currently the Israeli Mossad is very active in India where it carried out the 2008 Mumbai terrorist false-flag operation; in Afghanistan, in Lebanon, in Pakistan, in Indonesia, in Pakistan, in Iran, in Nigeria, in Somalia, in Malaysia and many other Muslim countries.

March 17, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Why is the CIA Fighting Release of Documents Relating to 4 Planes that Went Missing in 1980?

By Noel Brinkerhoff | AllGov | March 15, 2014

A federal judge has told the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other federal offices to continue looking for records pertaining to the disappearance of four transport planes in 1980.

The case was brought before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly by plaintiff Stephen Whitaker, who has attempted to obtain information about four DC-3 aircraft, one of which was flown by his father, Harold William Whitaker.

Stephen Whitaker filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the CIA, as well as the Department of Defense and the State Department, to learn if they possessed records that might explain what happened to the DC-3s.

The CIA refused to tell Whitaker if its archives held any relevant documents pertaining to his search. The agency cited various exemptions under federal law, including the CIA Act of 1949 (pdf), which allow it to avoid responding to certain FOIA inquiries.

Whitaker argued in his lawsuit that the CIA improperly invoked FOIA Exemption (b) (3) (pdf), which authorizes the agency to keep from revealing information on agency “functions” and “intelligence sources and methods.”

Kollar-Kotelly sided with Whitaker, ruling (pdf) that “the CIA has too broadly applied the CIA Act to withhold information pursuant to Exemption (b) (3).” However, she agreed with two other exemptions cited by the CIA that pertain to attorney-client privilege and the withholding of personnel and medical records.

The plaintiff’s search for information seems to be both personal and more.

He said the plane piloted by his father disappeared somewhere over Spain in October 1980. It had been purchased at auction from the Spanish Air Force and was being flown to Germany to become part of a museum.

A report from Spain’s Civil Aviation Commission on Accidents says the aircraft’s instruments may not have been fully functional, and that the radio may only have been capable of sending messages but not receiving them.

The report added that there was no record of a distress call from the pilot, or co-pilot Lawrence Eckmann, a major in the U.S. Army.

Stephen Whitaker also sought records from the government about Eckmann. The State Department claimed its search turned up nothing on Eckmann. The plaintiff challenged this assertion, and Kollar-Kotelly agreed that Eckmann had been excluded from the search, which was found to be “inadequate and should have been revised….”

The plaintiff seems to suspect that some of the DC-3s he has sought information on were used by the CIA in its covert operations.

His FOIA request to the spy agency asked for any information that would reveal whether “any of these persons or aircraft were later found to be employed or contracted by the CIA for service in Central America or elsewhere.”

The CIA has a long history of using DC-3s that ranges from the Vietnam War to the recent conflict in Libya that ousted the Gaddafi regime.

To Learn More:

Missing-Plane Records From 1980 Dissected (by Kevin Lessmiller, Courthouse News Service)

Stephen Whitaker v. Central Intelligence Agency (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia) (pdf)

Technical Report on the Disappearance of a DOUGLAS DC-3 Aircraft, Registration # ECT-025, on the 3rd of October, 1980, to the North of Palm of Majorca (Civil Aviation Commission on Accidents, Spain) (pdf)

March 15, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Shady Ashton’s role in regime change

BiDtDWUCYAAtVuO

By Finian Cunningham | Press TV |  March 14, 2014

Questions need to asked about the real role of the European Union’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

With her demeanor of quiet diplomacy and down-to-earth style, some may see her as a fixer of diplomatic solutions. But, increasingly, it seems that the British appointed European bureaucrat is playing a more sinister role of finessing regime change on behalf of Washington and its NATO allies.

Ashton – whose official British title is “Lady Ashton” – was made a member of the House of Lords under Britain’s archaic and undemocratic honors system back in 1999. She has never been elected by a popular vote, yet she has risen by political patronage to become Europe’s top diplomat deciding the fate of foreign states and millions of lives.

Up to now, Ashton has enjoyed something of a benevolent image akin to a “well-meaning auntie figure”. Mild-mannered and modest, she might be seen as an honest broker. For example, she is credited with helping to broker the P5+1 interim nuclear deal with Iran last November.

However, the covert involvement of Western governments in orchestrating the coup d’état in Ukraine and Ashton’s de facto participation in this regime-change operation makes her much less a lady and more a cynical operator who is far from an honest broker.

When the street protests sparked off in Kiev at the end of November, allegedly as a result of incumbent President Viktor Yanukovych’s refusal to sign a EU trade pact, Ashton was among the trail of top Western political figures who took it upon themselves to “mediate” in the ensuing political crisis.

While Ashton appeared to be mediating between the Ukrainian government and protesters in Kiev’s Maidan Square, she was nevertheless all the while stirring up the street demonstrations. She was photographed with protest leaders, including Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who is now the self-styled prime minister of Ukraine, even though these agitators were urging neo-Nazi violence and widespread law breaking.

The EU foreign policy chief was thus instrumental in lending credibility and legitimacy to what can only be described as a violent seizure of government. The criminal involvement of the American CIA and its various non-governmental incarnations in fomenting this coup is well documented. That makes Ashton a CIA collaborator.

Ashton deserves further scrutiny because more evidence is emerging that the street massacre in Kiev last month precipitating the seizure of Ukraine’s government was carried out by snipers working for the Western-backed coup plotters.

The latest revelations from Ukraine’s former security chief confirm that the shootings were orchestrated by members of the Western-backed coalition – the coalition that has since taken political power in Kiev. Aleksandr Yakimenko told Russian media this week that the building from where the snipers fired fatal shots at police and protesters on February 20 was under the full control of the organizers of the Maidan demonstrations. In particular, Andriy Parubiy, who has since been appointed by the Kiev junta as head of the National Security and Defense Council, prevented any measures at the time of the shootings to arrest the snipers, says Yakimenko.

Yet, Ashton, along with other European and American leaders, has said little about what appears to be a huge crime. Indeed, she has endorsed the ruling administration in Kiev as the “interim government of Ukraine” even though the evidence points to the new political office holders in Kiev as being an unelected junta that came to power through acts of terrorism.

A phone call leaked last week showed that the EU foreign policy chief knew about allegations of the massacre from as early as February 26 when Ashton was told by Estonia’s top diplomat Urmas Paet about the snipers working for the Ukrainian opposition. Up to 100 people, including civilians and police were killed in the gunfire on February 20.

When Ashton was told of this sinister covert action, all she replied to Paet was: “Gosh, we must investigate that…”

Well, since then, Ashton has kept a conspicuous silence on what appears to be an act of mass murder by the Western-backed opposition. Former Ukrainian security chief Yakimenko says evidence points to the involvement of US Special Forces. He says the agitators worked closely with the US embassy in Kiev.

Considering the grave criminal implications, it is revealing that Ashton had so little to say in response to the initial news over the phone from the Estonian foreign minister. That suggests that Ashton already knew of the criminal conspiracy to use terrorism in order to grab power, or she is now choosing to cover up.

Either way, Ashton’s silence on the sinister events in Kiev is damning and especially so as more incriminating evidence emerges about the incident being a Western state-sponsored act of terrorism. Russia is calling for an international inquiry, but Aston and her Western allies are saying nothing. What has become of the supposed honest broker?

Last weekend, the Lady was in Tehran on what was hailed as a landmark visit. It was her first visit to Iran since she became EU foreign policy chief in 2009.

Rather mischievously, she announced in Tehran that there was “no guarantee” that a comprehensive agreement to the P5+1 nuclear negotiations would be achieved. Ashton then offended the Iranian government when she embarked on “unsanctioned” meetings with various political dissident groups while in Tehran – unrelated to the nuclear issue. Some Iranian parliamentarians accused her of interfering in Iranian internal affairs. Was that Ashton’s calling card for more such agitation in Iran, just like in Ukraine?

This week, US president Barack Obama signed off on a continuation of American sanctions against Iran for another year, which does not bode well for a comprehensive settlement to the decade-old nuclear dispute and for the lifting of Western sanctions punishing the Iranian people.

Given her role in facilitating Western regime change in Ukraine, which has since led to a dangerous escalation of tensions between Washington, its European allies and Russia, Lady Ashton is showing herself to be someone who cannot be trusted. Not so much Lady Ashton, more like Shady Ashton.

March 14, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , , , | Leave a comment

“High-rise Safety Initiative” exposes 9/11 truth

By Dr. Kevin Barrett | Press TV | March 3, 2014

Do not ever set foot inside a tall building.

According to the US government, steel-frame high-rise buildings can suddenly crumble to dust for no apparent reason, plunging at free-fall acceleration straight into the ground.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) asserts that World Trade Center Building 7, a 47-story high-rise, imploded at 5:20 p.m. on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001 due to modest office fires of undetermined origin. According to NIST, these small fires somehow triggered a new physical phenomenon, unknown to science before 9/11/2001, called “thermal expansion.”

The results looked exactly like a classic controlled demolition.

If NIST were right, skyscrapers everywhere would be in danger of imploding at any time – all it would take would be a few small office fires.

Can tall buildings really just implode? A group of New Yorkers, led by 9/11 victims’ family members, wants to find out. NYCcan.org is launching a campaign called the High Rise Safety Initiative. If passed, the Initiative would force the New York Department of Buildings to investigate the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Such an investigation would almost certainly conclude that the official story of Building 7’s “collapse” is preposterous.

NIST’s report on WTC-7 is so obviously false that even Dr. Frank Greening – the only independent scientist who has ever made a serious effort to support the government’s position on the destruction of the World Trade Center – finds it ridiculous. Greening, formerly the go-to scientist for the so-called debunkers, is now a WTC-7 “conspiracy theorist.” So is virtually everyone else who has studied the demise of WTC-7.

So the good news is that nobody, not even pro-government people like Frank Greening, really believes NIST’s absurd claims about Building 7. That means that skyscrapers are not likely to start falling down due to wastebasket fires any time soon. “Thermal expansion” is almost certainly a myth – a complete and utter non-threat to the structural integrity of skyscrapers.

But the bad news is that skyscrapers really can suddenly implode at any time: They can be illegally destroyed in permit-free, unregulated demolitions by organized crime networks. And those deceptive demolitions can be disguised as “terrorist attacks” with the complicity of government insiders.

Larry Silverstein, a reputed organized crime figure with links to the Israeli and American governments, purchased the condemned-for-asbestos World Trade Center skyscrapers in July 2001. The first thing he did was to double the WTC’s terror insurance policy and hardball the insurers into changing the terms to “cash payout.”

After spending about $15 million of his own money to buy the condemned buildings, two months later – on September 11th, 2001 – “Lucky Larry” hit the jackpot. Controlled demolitions were conducted without permits, without asbestos removal, and without emptying the Twin Towers of people. Silverstein collected $4.6 billion dollars in cash from his insurers, plus rights to rebuild.

Silverstein’s televised admission that he “pulled” or demolished World Trade Center 7 makes him the worst self-confessed insurance fraud criminal in world history.

A few years after demolishing the World Trade Center and collecting billions of “double-indemnity” insurance dollars based on the bizarre notion of two completely separate and unrelated terrorist attacks – the two planes – Silverstein used his ill-gotten gains to purchase Chicago’s Sears Tower. Shortly thereafter, Silverstein hired Kroll Security, a company implicated in both the 9/11 and anthrax attacks, to guard his new high-rise icon.

The Sears Tower and other skyscrapers really could implode at any time for no apparent reason.

Thousands of lives really are at risk.

The High Rise Safety Initiative, sponsored by NYCcan.org, could help prevent future skyscraper disasters. A new investigation into the destruction of Building 7 could look at all the evidence, including:

*Eyewitness testimony that a countdown to demolition was broadcast over police radio during the seconds before the “collapse” of Building 7.

*Eyewitness testimony that preparatory pre-demolition explosions gutted WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11 before either Tower had collapsed.

*Videotaped proof that WTC owner Larry Silverstein confessed to demolishing WTC-7 on national television.

*Videotaped proof that the BBC and CNN erroneously reported the “collapse” of WTC-7 shortly before it happened, showing that those networks were reading scripts prepared by 9/11 conspirators but mistimed their script-reading.

The lead spokesperson for NYCcan.org’s High-rise Safety Initiative is Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Bobby when the North Tower of the World Trade Center exploded in ten seconds into thousands of tons of sub-100-micron dust, along with some grit and gravel-sized particles.

McIlvaine knows that the Twin Towers did not collapse; they exploded. (See the youtube video “North Tower Exploding” showing the explosions)

Bob McIlvaine knows that more than 1000 victims of the explosive demolitions of the Twin Towers did not leave behind so much as the tiniest sliver of bone. They were blasted to dust. Even the meticulous sifting and bucketing of WTC debris could not even find a sliver of fingernail from any of these 1000-plus people.

Other people who were blown to smithereens in the tremendous explosions that destroyed the Twin Towers did leave behind traces of themselves – and absolute, smoking gun proof that the buildings did not fall, but were blown up. That proof consists of the tiny splinters of human bone that were found all over the roof of the Deutsche Bank building, across the street from the World Trade Center, a few years ago.

Bob McIlvaine and the other family members of 9/11 victims deserve the truth about what happened to their loved ones. Only truth and justice can bring them inner peace. And only truth and justice can stop the neocons war on the world and establish world peace. The High Rise Safety Initiative, sponsored by NYCcan.org, could be an important step in that direction.

March 3, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Zim Shipping: New Evidence suggests Six Months Foreknowledge of the September 11th Attack Date and Potential Involvement in the Israeli Deep Cover Operation

By Keith Maart | February 20, 2014

Zim American-Israeli Shipping (“Zim”) was the predecessor company of the present Zim Integrated Shipping Services and was 49 percent owned by the Israeli government on 9/11. In 2004, the Israeli government sold their interest to the Israeli Ofer Brothers Group, which then became the sole owner of the company.[1] On 9/11, Zim’s headquarters was in Haifa, Israel, and it had worldwide regional offices in Hong Kong, Hamburg, Germany, and Manhattan, New York/Norfolk, Virginia.[2]

At the time of the 9/11 attacks Zim was one of two Israeli companies with lease contracts at the World Trade Center. The other Israeli tenant, Clear Forest, had a small office of 18 employees on the 47th floor of WTC 1 (the North Tower). According to the Jerusalem Post, Clear Forest had only four or five employees at the WTC on 9/11 and all escaped uninjured.[3] Although there were some variances in the WTC 1 tenant rosters between various media organizations, the majority showed that Zim occupied all of the 16th floor (WTC floor space approximated 50,000 square feet), 10,000 square feet of the 17th floor, and some space of the 29th floor of WTC 1.[4] Zim had about 250 employees at the WTC before its move-out, which would require somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000 to 60,000 square feet of office space.[5]

Amazingly fortunate for Zim, the company moved out of the WTC around Sept. 4, 2001 and into a newly built office building in Norfolk, VA, even though they had a significant remaining lease obligation at the WTC.[6] In fact, Zim picked this lucky move-out date about six months before they actually moved. An April 3, 2001 article in the Virginian-Pilot stated that Zim “expects to open its new [Norfolk] building by Sept. 4 and will eventually employ 235 people.”[7] Coincidently, pilot hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Shehhi were inexplicably in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area in February and April 2001 at the time Zim was apparently in the search and planning process for their Norfolk building.[8] Although Zim is reported to have had about 10 of its purported 20 remaining employees at the WTC on 9/11, none were killed or injured.[9] However, other media reports stated that Zim had 35 sales and marketing people and additional computer personnel remaining at the WTC on 9/11, indicating Zim had a small percentage of its remaining staff at the WTC on 9/11.[10]

Zim found the site in Norfolk, obtained all permits, drew up the architectural plans, and built its 2-story 45,000 square-foot steel frame/brick veneer office building in only six months, which is about as fast as humanly possible for a commercial office project.[11] It is so fast, that they even have a special name for it in real estate jargon; it’s called fast tracking, as a typical development period would be closer to one year.[12] [13] Fast track construction is utilized when a company needs to have their building completed in a short time as standard design and construction procedures are compressed to meet that goal. The added development challenges and construction risks of fast tracking were summed up by Zim’s real estate company when they stated in April 2001, “Since accepting Zim’s fast track project last month, Hunter has been involved in assisting with site location, selecting the development team of architects and general contractor, and developing strategic relocation plans for Zim’s employees… It is a terrific assignment that presents many challenges, not the least of which is to ensure that the site is completed by move-in by September 2001.”[14]

Zim’s remaining lease term had long been a point of debate, with 9/11 conspiracy debunkers claiming there was no evidence that Zim’s WTC lease term extended beyond their move-out date. However, a FOIA request to the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey by LetsRollForums.com resulted in a copy of the WTC tenant roster with lease expiration dates.[15] The Port Authority document showed that Zim entered into a 10-year lease contract starting on March 1, 1996 and expiring on Feb. 28, 2006, or about four and a half years after Zim’s September 2001 move-out date.[16] Confirmation that Zim’s remaining lease extended beyond their move-out date was further established by a Crain’s New York Business article on April 9, 2001 that stated, “Rising rent wasn’t an immediate concern [for Zim’s relocation decision] — several years remain on the lease.”[17]

Assuming Zim leased around 60,000 square feet at $30/square-foot at the WTC, its four and a half year remaining lease obligation would have been about $8 million.[18] Strangely, Zim did not seem concerned about high leasing costs when it entered into a relatively long 10-year lease in March 1996, and there is also no evidence that Zim tried to sublease its space in the six months they were planning and building their new office building in Norfolk. This is not the expected action of a company that stated their reason to vacate the WTC was to cut costs. Fortunately for Zim any worry about their $8 million lease liability disappeared when the WTC came crashing down on 9/11.

The burning question is why did Zim have to chance the added risks and challenges of fast tracking the development of their Norfolk office to guarantee its completion by Sept. 4, 2001 when it still had perfectly fine office space at the WTC with an existing four and a half year $8 million lease obligation? Zim’s public excuse that they moved to cut costs does not explain why it was mandatory that the Norfolk office be completed by Sept. 4, 2001. The fast track development process cost Zim more money and added unnecessary development risks. What difference would six months have made (i.e., fast track vs conventional development time period) when they still had occupancy rights with a significant lease obligation at the WTC? Apparently, Zim knew they had to be out of the WTC before September 11th, and that is why they did everything in their power to ensure they would be out of the WTC and in their new Norfolk office by Sept. 4th.

CIA Israeli Intelligence Assessment Regarding Zim Shipping and Mossad

A 1979 CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence shows that the CIA has long suspected that Zim has been used for Israeli intelligence support and cover.[19] [20] The CIA Israeli Assessment had this to say about Zim:

Other Israeli government organizations that provide support to the [Israeli] intelligence and security community are the Ministries of Finance and tourism, El Al, and the national shipping line, Zim. Unofficial Zionist organizations based in Israel and Jewish communities throughout the world also give aid to Israel operations when needed… Official organizations used for [Israeli intelligence] cover are Israeli Purchasing Missions and Israeli Government Tourist, El Al, and Zim offices, Israeli construction firms, industrial groups and international trade organizations also provide non-official cover. Individuals working under deep or illegal cover are normally charged with penetrating objectives that require a long-range, more subtle approach, or with activities in which the Israeli Government can never admit complicity.[21]

The CIA Israeli Assessment provides additional insight into Israel’s intelligence apparatus, including its methods and processes. In an interview with Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv in the early 80’s, former Mossad chief Isser Harel called the assertions of the document “malicious, dilettantish, distortions… but probably authentic,” and stated that the publication of the document had been a nightmare for him.[22] The CIA document basically shows that Israel has the means and experience to carry out false flag attacks by recruiting Arabs as deep cover operatives in covert operations, something they could also have done in the 9/11 operation. Deep cover operatives are often planted years in advance of the execution of an operation and can take on identities and backgrounds to fit the operation. Among many other important findings, following are some Israeli intelligence processes and methods that could have been pertinent to the 9/11 operation (references to sections of the CIA Israeli Assessment are given in parentheses):

  • The Israeli intelligence and security community is completely loyal and if the government requested the execution of a certain task, legal and illegal, it would be accomplished. (Section A3.b)
  • Mossad is also charged with inciting disturbances calculated to create mutual distrust among the Arabs and to draw Western sympathy away from the Arab cause. (Section B1)
  • The fact that Lebanon has a mix of Christians, Druze, and Muslim population has made that country attractive for intelligence projects and Israel has covert assets and has run operations in Lebanon. (Section B1)
  • Much of the activity against the Arabs in the Near East is based on “deep cover operations” by Israeli illegals or the recruitment of Arabs in third-countries followed by their dispatch or normal rotation back home to Arab areas. (Section B2)
  • Elishu (Eli) Cohen, an Egyptian-born Jew, was involved in Israeli sabotage operations (false flag attacks) against American and British installations in Egypt in 1952. (Section B2) Cohen’s sabotage operation became known as the Lavon Affair, a confirmed Israeli false flag operation against the US.[23]
  • The CIA Israeli Assessment provides two examples of Israeli “deep cover” operations, where Israeli operatives were put in place years in advance to establish other identities and backgrounds (i.e., “legends”). One operation required Eli Cohen to take the identity of a Syrian Arab while the other operation required an Israeli Johann Lotz to move to Germany for a couple of years to establish an identity of a German African Corps officer.[24] (Section B2) (Similarly, three of the pilot hijackers spent several years in Hamburg, Germany where they allegedly became radicalized Islamists.[25])
  • Mossad activities are generally conducted through Israeli official and semiofficial establishments, deep cover enterprises in the form of firms and organizations, some especially created for, or adaptable to, a specific objective, and penetrations effected within non-Zionist national and international Jewish organizations. (Section B4)
  • Many Israelis have come from Arab countries where they were born and educated and appear more Arab than Israeli in speech, demeanor, and attitude. By forging passports and identity documents of Arab and western countries and providing sound background legends and cover, Mossad has successfully sent into Egypt and other Arab countries Israelis disguised and documented as Arabs or citizens of European countries. (Section B4)
  • The Israelis have used false-flag recruitment pitches extensively and successfully. In several cases they approached citizens of Western European nations under the cover of a national NATO intelligence organization for operations in Arab target countries. (Section B4)
  • Shin Beth has picked up local Arab espionage agents on their way back to neighboring countries and doubled them (turned them into Israeli spies) in coordination with Military Intelligence. (Section C4)

Israel’s long history of false flag terror operations intended to blame Arabs is extensive and beyond the scope of this article; however, there are several confirmed and dozens of suspected operations since Israel’s creation in 1948.[26] Israel’s skillful use of deep cover Arab operatives and other covert tactics listed above sometimes makes it difficult to link Israel directly to the false flag events. A case in point is where the CIA notes above that Israeli intelligence operatives working for Zim are “normally charged with objectives that require a long range approach where the Israeli Government can never admit complicity.” This covert activities concept is often referred to as “plausible deniability” and is used to remove any direct connection to the covert operation. Even though Israel’s fingerprints have been all over many false flag attacks in the past, the smoking gun has been eliminated by design. Thus, one has to look at all other evidence in likely false flag operations to assess involvement and guilt.

Pilot Hijackers Exhibit Modus Operandi of “Non-al-Qaeda” Deep Cover Operatives

There are many anomalies and contradictions in the backgrounds, timelines, and activities of the 9/11 pilot hijackers which indicate they could have been deep cover operatives in a broader 9/11 conspiracy. A good analysis of the many hijacker contradictions between the 9/11 Commission findings (or omitted facts), the FBI’s Hijacker Timeline, and various media reports can be found at Historycommons.org.[27] A prime example of one of the many contradictions is that at least two hijackers ended up on alleged Zionist Jack Abramoff’s connected Suncruz gambling boat on Sept. 5, 2001 when the FBI Hijacker Timeline showed the hijackers elsewhere.[28] The 9/11 Commission also ignored this evidence and much more in their report.

The hijackers also did their best to leave behind an obvious trail of evidence that was easily found and quickly gave the FBI the support to tie them to the 9/11 operation stymieing any substantive investigation of the many anomalies and contradicting evidence.[29] [30] Not to mention the obvious plants of evidence like hijacker passports in the WTC and other wreckage.[31] Lastly, military operation Able Danger identified several al-Qaeda connections inside the US as early as December 1999, including Atta and other alleged 9/11 hijackers; however, the operation was shut down by senior military officials and lawyers who also prevented the unit from sharing the valuable information with the FBI for reasons that were wrong and inaccurate.[32]

Although the facts and evidence around the many hijacker anomalies and falsehoods are very detailed and complex and beyond the scope of this paper, following is a brief summary of some of the evidence suggesting the pilot hijackers were not what the US government said they were, and indicating that they may have been deep cover operatives (the Endnotes include references and links to sources with more detail).

Mohammed Atta — Journalist and author Daniel Hopsicker did very good investigative work around Atta when he interviewed various individuals who came across Atta; and found that Atta’s real life persona was nothing like the portrait painted by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission. In his book, “Welcome to Terrorland,” Hopsicker found among other things that Atta drank alcohol and ate pork (against Muslim beliefs), did drugs and partied heavily, slept with strippers, and spoke Hebrew.[33] [34] This is not the behavior of a devout Muslim who is planning to kill himself and then hopes to go to heaven and be greeted by 99 virgins. If Atta was not the Muslim extremist who believed deeply in his faith, as the US government made him out to be, then who was he? Atta came from an upper middle class Egyptian family and was fluent in 5 different languages, including English, despite supposedly never having spent any time in an English-speaking country before 9/11.[35]

Ziad Jarrah — Jarrah came from an affluent Lebanese family and by all accounts was a non-political non-devout Muslim brought up in private Catholic schools. Ziad’s two Lebanese cousins, Ali and Yusef Jarrah, were confessed and convicted spies for Israel. Although the February 2009 New York Times stated, “the men [Ziad and Ali Jarrah] were 20 years apart in age [actually 16] and do not appear to have known each other well,” it is apparently a subjective statement that is not based on any specified fact.[36] On the contrary, an October 23, 2001, article in the Los Angeles Times indicates that the cousins came from a “close-knit family” and that Ziad spent lots of time at the cousins’ house in Marj, as Ali’s apparently younger brother, Salim Jarrah, was Ziad’s age.[37] Marj is a small town in the agricultural Bekka Valley area of Lebanon where Ali had been a spy for Israel since around 1983. As it appears that Ali helped recruit his brother Yusef as a spy for Israel, it is likely that he could have done the same for his cousin Ziad.

The contradictions and discrepancies with the official story concerning Jarrah are revealing and significant. An excellent and well referenced article by Paul Thompson in Sept. 2002, entitled “The Two Ziad Jarrah’s” shows that there were two similar Ziad Jarrah’s in different places at the same time on several occasions and that Ziad’s real life persona was also nothing like the one portrayed by the 9/11 Commission.[38] Thompson also shows many timeline discrepancies in Jarrah’s alleged travels and activities, and that a slew of people who knew him best said he never exhibited devout Muslim tendencies nor did he ever express extremist ideology. Ironically, the 9/11 Commission’s sole support for Jarrah’s radicalization comes from a July 2002 classified German intelligence report.[39] The only noted source in the 9/11 Commission report on Jarrah’s Islamic radicalization comes from his girlfriend, Aisel Senguen, whose earlier statements in the press (as pointed out by Thompson) contradict statements attributed to her by the Commission.

Marwan Shehhi — Shehhi was Atta’s right hand man and shadowed him in the US for the 15 months before 9/11. He was also in the military of the United Arab Emirates (a US ally) while attending school in Hamburg from 1996 to 1999. Atta, Jarrah, and Shehhi allegedly went to Osama Bin Laden’s training camp in Afghanistan in December 1999 and met OBL for the first time. According to the 9/11 Commission, the speed with which OBL chose the three for the 9/11 operation was remarkable.[40] Why did OBL so quickly choose three unknowns he had just met for the biggest and most complex terrorist operation in history, or could the three potential deep cover operatives actually have proposed the 9/11 plans to him?[41] Was this “choice” actually a fictitious part of the official story of 9/11 intended to portray OBL as the culprit?

Hani Hanjour — Saudi pilot hijacker Hani Hanjour arrived for a second time in the US in April 1996, the exact month and year that Jarrah and Shehhi went to Hamburg, suggesting the deep cover operation may have begun as early as then.[42] Although Hanjour was the most experienced of all the pilot hijackers, he was not allowed to rent a single-engine Cessna airplane several weeks before 9/11 because the instructors, after taking three test flights with him, judged his flying skills too poor. However, the plane Hanjour allegedly flew on 9/11 (Flight AA 77 targeting the Pentagon) executed a very difficult turn and descent that reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver, with one air traffic controller commenting, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.”[43] Hanjour’s sophisticated flying maneuver on 9/11 is contradicted by all the other information corroborating his poor flying skills.

Zim and Other Israeli Groups Potential Involvement in the 9/11 Deep Cover Operation

The fact that Zim probably had at least six months foreknowledge of the specific attack date would suggest they probably had foreknowledge of the entire 9/11 operation. Indeed, even the alleged 9/11 hijackers did not start making their 9/11 flight reservations until Aug. 25, 2001.[44] However, Zim’s 9/11 connections do not end with their timely move-out of the WTC or with their known support and cover for Israeli intelligence (with its history and means of false flag attacks against the US). Zim also happened to be a tenant in a building that was most likely taken down by controlled demolition and there is evidence linking explosives to other Israeli groups in the NY/NJ area.[45] Coincidently, the owner of all three WTC towers that came down crashing down in controlled demolition style on 9/11, Larry Silverstein, was friends with three ex-Israeli Prime ministers, including Benjamin Netanyahu, to whom he was speaking weekly with at the time.[46]

An in-depth investigative report In December 2013 by this author on the “Celebrating/Dancing Israelis” shows that the FBI detected explosives in the Israelis’ van when they were apprehended on 9/11.[47] Although the FBI analyzed explosive samples taken from the Celebrating Israelis’ (CIs) vehicle, the lab results were never revealed in the FBI investigative documents, and were curiously still pending about two weeks after they were taken.[48] There is no rational or explainable reason for the FBI not to have completed the explosive tests in this time frame and the most logical reason for the FBI not showing the results is because the van tested positive for explosives.

The CIs happened to work for an Israeli-related moving company in the NJ/NY area, Urban Moving Systems (“UMS”), which was also apparently searched for explosives two days after 9/11.[49] (There were also at least three other Israeli-related moving companies in the immediate area with one under investigation by the FBI in conjunction with moving one of the hijackers.[50]) Coincidently, CI Yaron Shmuel worked for an Israeli explosives company after 9/11, which suggests he may have had a background in explosives.[51] In addition, five of fourteen Israeli Art students, or 37 percent, who provided their Israeli military backgrounds to US investigators worked in explosive ordnance units.[52] Thus, Israel had the expertise and human resources in the US to wire the WTC’s for demolition and the moving companies to help transport the explosives and devices.

It just so happens that at least two of the CIs were Mossad operatives and were involved in other US counterintelligence investigations according to various media sources.[53] The New York Times noted that the FBI even initially suspected the CIs of assisting the hijackers.[54] Several news agencies also reported that UMS was an Israeli intelligence front company.[55] The owner of UMS, Dominik Suter, fled back to Israel on Sept. 14, 2001 after being questioned by the FBI two days earlier.[56] In May 2002 the names of Suter and his wife appeared on an FBI 9/11 Watch List Report, which included among others, OBL, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”), all 19 hijackers (why if dead?), and 15 Arab individuals from Hamburg.[57] Out of over 300 names, those of Suter and his wife are two of just a few that are not Arab names.[58] This author’s investigative report showed that there was an obvious FBI cover-up in the investigation and that the CIs had foreknowledge of the attacks and that the CIs and other Israelis were probably more deeply involved in the 9/11 operation.[59]

Given the CIs and UMSs various connections to Israeli intelligence and explosives, and Zim’s known support and cover for Israeli intelligence, there is the possibility that the explosives used to take down the three WTC towers were manufactured in Israel and imported to the US on Zim ships. Coincidently, Zim’s main NY/NJ shipping port on 9/11 was Red Hook Port (“RHP”) in Brooklyn, which is a mere 3-mile drive to the WTC and by far the closest and most conveniently accessible to the WTC of the four NY/NJ area ports.[60] However, RHP is also the smallest (less than 4% of total NY/NJ port volume) and most logistically inferior of all the ports with no rail or air service and poor highway access. A December 1996 New York Times article noted that RHP excels in “specialized cargoes” and products that can be uploaded quickly and delivered to the immediate New York City area at night.[61] Although Zim received New York City tax credits in conjunction with the move to RHP, no other large international shippers like Zim appear to have chosen the small and inefficient RHP as their primary NY/NJ port. Zim is not at RHP now, and they may have moved out as early as November 2002.[62]

There are also several other potential Israeli connections to the Red Hook Port. At least one, and as many as four of the Celebrating Israelis, lived about one and a half miles from RHP.[62] In addition, another large Israeli related moving company (Moishes Moving) had an office/warehouse within a couple miles of RHP and two rental trucks found at UMS shortly after 9/11, were from a rental company located about two miles from RHP.[63] Zim first entered into its RHP contract in November 1996, and there is a confluence of alleged pilot hijackers and Israeli-connected events around that time which suggests the possible initiation of the 9/11 deep cover operation:

  • March 1996 — Zim Shipping extends its lease at the WTC to February 28, 2006, locking itself into a long 10-year lease obligation with no apparent concern for high leasing costs (see above).
  • April 1996 — Alleged pilot hijacker Ziad Jarrah arrives in Greifswald, Germany, and Marwan Shehhi moves to Hamburg (Jarrah moves to Hamburg around September 1997).[64]
  • April 1996 — Alleged pilot hijacker Hani Hanjour moves to the US for seven months. Hanjour will have several stays in US and allegedly come back for the last time in Dec. 2000.[65]
  • November 1996 — Zim Shipping transfers its NY/NJ port operations from the area’s most modern and busiest port of Port Elizabeth to the much smaller and logistically inferior Red Hook Port.[66]
  • April 1997 — The likely Israeli intelligence front company Urban Moving Systems is incorporated.[67]

A second confluence of events between the hijackers and various Israeli groups takes place in late 1999/early 2000, perhaps indicating a subsequent phase of the deep cover operation:

  • December 1999/January 2000 — Hamburg pilot hijackers Atta, Jarrah, and Shehhi allegedly attend OBL’s training camp in Afghanistan and allegedly are quickly chosen by OBL for the 9/11 operation (though the hijackers Afghanistan travel is not substantiated by the redacted FBI Hijacker Timeline).[68] [69]
  • November 1999 — Zim renews its Red Hook Port contract with the City of New York, probably for the same three-year period as in the original contract.[70]
  • December 1999 — Zim claims that they started looking for a new office location; although there is no other evidence to support this claim.[71]
  • Around October 1999 — Urban Moving Systems moves from a personal residence into its Weehawken office.[72]
  • Beginning of 2000 — Israeli Art Student activity begins in the US.[73]
  • Beginning 2000 — Hijackers Khalid Mihdhar and Nawaf Hazmi enter the US and move to San Diego.[74]
  • At least two of the CIs apprehended on 9/11 were under investigation in relation to other US counterintelligence investigations including one in San Diego.[75]

Other Important Geographic Nexus’ Between Pilot Hijackers and Zim

It has been well documented that certain Israeli groups had very close geographic and timeline connections to the three Southeast Florida 9/11 hijacker cells and the one in Paterson, New Jersey. The largest concentration of Israeli Art Students just happened to be located in Southeast Florida where the largest concentration of 9/11 hijacker cells were located.[76] The Paterson hijacker cell was in very close proximity to the CIs, UMS, and at least three other Israeli-related moving companies in that immediate area.[77] Zim’s WTC location was 25 miles from the Paterson cell’s apartment and Zim also has an office in Miami about 25 miles south of the hijackers’ main area of Hollywood, Florida. Coincidently, the pilot hijackers spent time in 8 of the 11 US cities where Zim had offices on 9/11, also including Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia, Jacksonville, Florida, Chicago, and Los Angles.[78] There is no obvious explanation for Jarrah’s two trips to Jacksonville and Atta and Shehhi’s stay in Brunswick, Georgia just happened to be approximately 75 miles between Savannah and Jacksonville.

Another critical area of activity for the alleged 9/11 hijackers was Hamburg, Germany. Hamburg was home to three of the pilot hijackers who had been living there since at least 1996 and where the 9/11 plans allegedly started to take form around early 2000.[79] Coincidently, one of Zim’s four worldwide offices is in Hamburg, giving them a significant presence in two of the three areas most crucial to the alleged hijackers and the 9/11 operation (New York and Hamburg).[80] In addition, 8 of 17 (44 percent) Israeli Art Students with known embarkation cities came to the US from Frankfurt, Germany in late March 2001.[81] Also, CI Yaron Shmuel just happened to hold a German passport.[82] Unfortunately, it is not known if, when, and where, Yaron Shmuel lived in Germany and if he had any potential connections to the Hamburg cell. In its investigation of the CIs, the FBI did not check with German intelligence to determine if Shmuel lived in Germany and if he may have had any association with the alleged Hamburg cell.[83]

Zim also had another of its four German offices in the river port city of Dusseldorf, a city which pilot hijacker Ziad Jarrah visited at least six times from October 2000 to August 2001.[84] The story is that Jarrah had a German-born girlfriend of Turkish descent in the Dusseldorf area (Bochum), and that is why, in the midst of the allegedly most sophisticated terrorist operation of all time (that would lead to his death); he visited her regularly in the year before 9/11. Jarrah’s Dusseldorf girlfriend may have been a cover story similar to that of Israeli operative Johann Lotz, who married a German woman (while still being married to an Israeli woman) in order to establish his deep cover identity/legend while part of an Israeli intelligence operation.[85]

Between three of his trips to Dusseldorf Jarrah also visited Lebanon, a country bordering Israel and the home of his family, including his two cousins who were spies for Israel at the time. Jarrah’s travels during this time period also included stopovers in cities where Zim had other offices, including Hamburg, Munich, Athens, Newark/New York, Atlanta, Jacksonville, and Miami. Lastly, Jarrah inexplicably visited the city of Thessaloniki, Greece (May 16 to 22, 2000), a month before coming to the US, another city where Zim has an office.[86] Dusseldorf and other cities may have been “debriefing” locations for Jarrah. Ziad’s Israeli spy cousin, Ali Jarrah, was debriefed by his Israeli handlers in Belgium, Italy and Israel, and also obtained travel documents to Israel from Greece, Turkey, and Jordan.[87] Zim has offices in Belgium, Italy, and Greece, and Ziad Jarrah travelled to Greece and Jordan, and had a stop-over in Istanbul on Dec. 26, 2000 before continuing on to Lebanon the next day (per FBI Hijacker Timeline).

A final confluence of hijacker and Israeli group activities kicks off at the end of 2000 and continues through to the 9/11 attacks:

  • November/December 2000 — The number of Israeli Art Student incidents increase at this time and continue through at least June 2001.[88]
  • December 2000 — Hamburg pilot hijackers Atta, Jarrah, and Shehhi spend their supposed first time in the Southeast Florida area which is the area of the largest concentration of Israeli Art Students.[89]
  • December 2000 — Pilot Hijacker Hani Hanjour re-enters the US for the last time.[90]
  • March 2001 — Zim enters into a fast track development contract to guarantee completion of its Norfolk office building by Sept. 4, 2001 (see above). Zim probably started its due diligence and negotiations of the development project a couple of months before.
  • March 2001 — At least eight Israeli Art Students enter the US in Dallas from Frankfurt, Germany (see Endnote 81).
  • April to June 2001 — The thirteen “muscle hijackers” (aka patsies) enter the US, primarily from Jeddah Saudi Arabia, a renowned CIA consulate/outpost.[91] [92]
  • April 2001- Alleged hijacker cells headed by Atta, Jarrah and Shehhi begin to be set up in the Southeast Florida area.[93]
  • May 2001 — An alleged hijacker cell headed by pilot hijacker Hanjour is set up in Paterson, New Jersey.[94] Alleged hijackers Khalid Mihdhar and Nawaf Hazmi are also members of this cell.
  • May to July 2001 — Four of the five CIs start working at UMS and appear to enter US around this time.[95] At least one, and possibly two CIs, had round trip air tickets coming from Israel to Newark on June 15, 2001 and returning Sept. 12, 2001, suggesting at least three months foreknowledge of the specific attack date. The other four CIs also had air tickets leaving the US immediately after Sept. 11th, suggesting not just foreknowledge, but probable involvement in the 9/11 operation.[96]
  • May to 9/11 (approximately) — Employment at Urban Moving Systems increases.[97]
  • July 2001 — Saudi hijacker Khalid Mihdhar re-enters the US for the last time.[98]
  • July/August 2001 — UMS inexplicably rents a second warehouse in Bayonne, New Jersey, next to Port Jersey, which is several miles south of the WTC and the second closest NY/NJ port to it.[99]
  • July 2001 — Alleged Zionist and Israeli-connected Larry Silverstein closes on the acquisition of WTC Towers 1 and 2.[100]

Zim America’s president, Shaul Cohen-Mintz, was quoted in the Journal of Commerce on October 18, 2001: “Naturally, no one is debating any more whether we had to move or not… Some people said it [the move] was like an angel sitting on our shoulders.”[101] Unfortunately, Zim’s move had a lot less to do with an angel and divine intervention than with giving the devil his due, with the devil wearing the Star of David while waving the Zim Shipping flag. And the debate now is not whether Zim had to move — they knew they had to — but how much foreknowledge Zim had and how deeply they may have been involved in the 9/11 operation.

The evidence presented in this article shows that Zim most likely had six months or more foreknowledge of the 9/11 attack date and was probably more deeply involved in what was almost certainly a false flag operation. The evidence further suggests that at least two pilot hijackers (Atta and Jarrah), and possibly all four, were probably deep cover operatives, put in place as many as five years in advance to establish identities and backgrounds (legends) of Islamic extremists. The evidence in this article has also touched on the many anomalies and contradictions involving the official story around the 9/11 hijackers and the alleged plans of the 9/11 operation between the key parties of OBL, KSM, and the pilot hijackers. Indeed, an overwhelming amount of the US’s evidence on the 9/11 plans relies on testimony garnered from torture and that is probably why KSM, Ramzi Binahshibh, and others still await trial more than 10 years after being apprehended.

Given Israel’s known history and practice of utilizing Arabs in deep cover intelligence operations, coupled with the atrocious and poorly transparent US investigations of the 9/11 attacks, it’s naïve and even ignorant to disregard the likelihood that some or all of the 9/11 pilot hijackers were used in a deep cover covert capacity by Israel. Israeli undercover intelligence officials working for Zim, UMS, and other Israeli groups in the US on 9/11 could well have been handlers for the hijackers or protected them from arrest, or even assisted them in the operation as once suggested in the New York Times on Sept. 13, 2001. The evidence presented in this article clearly points in this direction.


References and Endnotes

[1] Wikipedia, Zim Integrated Shipping Services, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zim_Integrated_Shipping_Services

[2] Zim Integrated Shipping Services Website, www.zim.com/aboutus/pages/factsandfigures.aspx. Zim was in transition from its America’s headquarters at the WTC to its new office in Norfolk, VA.

[3] Miriam Shaviv, “Zim Workers Saved by Cost Cutting,” Jerusalem Post, September 13, 2001. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/jerusalempost091301.html

[4] Wikipedia, List of Tenants in One World Trade Center, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center See also Endnotes 3 and 16 which confirm that Zim occupied the entire 16th floor.

[5] “Hunter Retained for Staten Island Office Project (for Zim American Israeli Shipping Co.),” Real Estate Weekly, November 14, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-80776351.html

[6] Dennis O’Brien, “Shipping Firm Moves Headquarters to Norfolk, VA,” The Virginian Pilot, Sept. 4, 2001 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-77831553.html . Although there were several articles that had Zim moving into their Norfolk office between one to two weeks before 9/11, this article and most of the others stated Zim moved in a week before 9/11.

[7] Christopher Dinsmore, “Firms Move to Norfolk Will Create 235 New Jobs, Shipping Company to Relocate Headquarters to Hampton Roads from New York City,” The Virginia Pilot, April 3, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-72716654.html In addition to stating that Zim expected to open its new building by Sept. 4, it also states that a Zim official said the company started looking to move its headquarters in December 1999. However, there is no evidence of Zim looking for another office location prior to its decision to move to Norfolk.

[8] Zim appears to have entered into a contract with Hunter Management in March 2001 for the development of its new office building in Norfolk, VA (see Endnote 11) and was most likely there before that time conducting due diligence. Per the FBI Hijacker Timeline (http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-01-of-02), pilot hijackers Mohammad Atta and Marwan Shehhi were in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area from Feb 19 to Feb 20, 2001 and from April 1 to April 4, 2001, for no apparent reason. Inexplicably, Atta opened a PO Box in Virginia Beach in February and closed it in April. (Norfolk is also headquarters for Naval Intelligence, whose office is approximately 4 miles from Zim’s new location.)

[9] Peter Tirschwell, “Zim Opens New Headquarters,” The Journal of Commerce, October 18, 2001. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/journalofcommerce101801.html.

[10] Lore Croghan, “Real Estate Watch: Shipper Sights Land on Staten Island, Zim Building office for Displaced Staff, Engineering Firm Stays Downtown (Moves to Staten Island, Escaped the Islamic Terrorist Attack on WTC,” Crains New York Business, November 19, 2001. Christopher Dinsmore, “Shipper Left World Trade Center for New York Just Before Attacks,” Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News/The Virginian Pilot, October 26, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79490582.html The above two articles show that Zim had 35 sales and marketing people and computer personnel remaining at the WTC on 9/11. Zim claimed to have only 10 (uninjured) people at the WTC on 9/11, approximately 25% or less of its remaining staff — perhaps the expendable gentile staff that was not being transferred to Norfolk.

[11] “Hunter is Representative for Zim Relocation,” Real Estate Weekly, April 25, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-74887463.html It appears that the construction period for Zim’s office building was an incredibly short 4 months. Per Real Estate Weekly, “Hunter Management Corp. has been named Owner’s Representative in charge of the relocation of Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. from its headquarters in New York’s World Trade Center to a 45,000 SF office building soon to be under construction in the Lake Wright Office Complex in Norfolk, VA.”

[12] “Fast tracking” a real estate development means to compress standard design and construction procedures and timelines in order to meet the owner’s schedule to use the structure. In a project of this type, time is of the essence, and project processes that would normally run in sequence must be run in parallel. Following is a good summary of what fast tracking a project requires and then Wikipedia’s basic definition. Fast Track Design Description: www.structuresdb.com/about/fasttrack.asp Wikipedia Fast Track Construction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-track_construction

[13] This author was a commercial real estate lender in a prior life and I could say through experience that the typical development/construction period for a 50,000 square foot office building would be 12 to 18 months depending on the status of the land and permitting approvals. The construction loan period would coincide with this development period. “Fast track” construction/development is used when someone needs a building to be completed quickly; however, there are more construction and design risks when this methodology is used. Following is an example of a construction timeline for a 3-story 75,000 square foot building which is approximately twelve months. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/commercial-construction-TC102893583.aspx http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/commercial-construction-project-plan-TC001018445.aspx

[14] “Hunter is Representative for Zim Relocation,” Real Estate Weekly, April 25, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-74887463.html

[15] Phil Jayhan, “World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA 1972-2001,” Letsrollforums.com, January 14, 2011, www.letsrollforums.com/press-release-world-trade-t24256.html Phil Jayhan and the Letsrollforums.com website appear to have misunderstood the tenant roster. They believe the tenant list goes all the way back to 1972; however, it appears to be the tenant roster as of the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse date of the towers.

[16] WTC Tenant Roster with Tenant Dates (apparently as of Sept. 11, 2001) www.editgrid.com/labc/common/FOIA_Request_Occupancy_WTC_1972-2001

[17] Alice Lipowicz, “Zim American Ships Itself Out of NY, New Headquarters in VA will Cut Costs, Move Means Layoffs,” Crain’s New York Business, April 9, 2001.

[18] Zim’s remaining WTC lease obligation is calculated at 60,000 square feet of office space, multiplied by $30 per square foot per year rental rate, multiplied by fifty-four remaining lease months, or $8.1 million (i.e., $30/12 X 54 X 60,000 = $8,100,000).

[19] CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence, March 1979 www.serendipity.li/cia/counterspy/secret_cia_documents_on_mossad.htm When the Iranian students captured the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979, a multi-volume CIA and State Department file was found which included a March 1979 CIA Assessment of Israeli intelligence. The Washington Post and Boston Globe ran articles relating to the documents in early 1982, with the reputable but now defunct CounterSpy Magazine publishing the entire report in May-June 1982. (The Washington Post ran another article in May, 1991.) The CIA report is very detailed and provides a summary of each of Israel’s intelligence agencies, including Mossad, Shin Beth, Military Intelligence, and The National Police. Per the document’s “Comments on Principal Sources,” most of the information in the publication has been derived from a variety of sources including covert assets of the CIA, publications of the Israeli Government, and reports prepared by the US Department of Defense. It also lists 19 “Supplementary Overt Publication” sources. The link above is to a page on the Serendipity website which has the full CIA analysis along with an Introduction and Afterword from CounterSpy Magazine. The CounterSpy Afterword includes a discussion on the document’s authenticity, including an excerpt from former Mossad chief Isser Harel, who in a Ma’ariv interview called the assertions of the documents “malicious, dilettantish, distortions……but probably authentic,” and that the publication of the document had been a nightmare for him.

[20] Following are three other sources confirming the authenticity of the 1979 CIA Analysis of Israeli Intelligence: “Documents from the U.S. Espionage Den,” Federation of American Scientist, Issue 70, September 1997. www.fas.org/sgp/bulletin/sec70.html “Iran Hostage Crisis,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis The “Hostage-Holding Motivations” section discusses the CIA’s Assessment of Israeli Intelligence. David Ignatius, “Bungles, Bobbles and Spies; The Tehran Papers: Portrait of CIA in a Maze of its Own Design,” Washington Post, May 5, 1991. www.serendipity.li/cia/counterspy/The_Tehran_Papers.pdf

[21] See Endnote 19, CIA Assessment of Israeli intelligence. The CIA’s comments on Zim Shipping can be found in Section A2 and Section B4. www.serendipity.li/cia/counterspy/secret_cia_documents_on_mossad.htm

[22] See Endnote 19. This quote is from the introduction of the Counterspy Magazine article exposing the CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence.

[23] Wikipedia, Lavon Affair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

[24] One “deep cover” example was, Johann Wolfgang Lotz (aka Zeev Gur Arich), an officer in the Israeli Military who went undercover in 1959 as a former Nazi officer to infiltrate special weapons activity by German scientists in Egypt. After receiving training in Israel he went to Germany, married a German woman (while still being married to an Israeli), and surfaced as an East German refugee and former African Corps officer. Lotz then moved to Cairo (1960/61) and opened a riding academy where he made the acquaintance of a number of prominent and well-placed Egyptians. Lotz also made a number of trips to Western Europe for debriefing and was eventually caught and imprisoned in 1965 and sent back to Israel in 1968 in a prisoner trade. Another “deep cover” example was Eli Cohen, an Egyptian-born Jew who was involved in Israeli sabotage operations against American and British installations in Egypt in 1952. Mossad recruited Cohen for an illegal operation designed to develop intelligence networks and acquire political and military information in Syria. Cohen adopted the identity of the late Kamil Amin Thabet, a Syrian-born merchant, and emigrated to Argentina in 1961 where he became an active member of the Arab community. Cohen eventually returned to Syria in 1962 where he was assisted by two Arabs who had previously been recruited by the Israelis. He made numerous contacts with Syrian political and military personnel. In 1965 Cohen was caught in Syria, convicted of spying and hanged.

[25] Mohammed Atta went to Hamburg, Germany, in 1992 to attend school, and Ziad Jarrah and Marwan Shehhi both moved to Hamburg in April 1996. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (Section 5.3), it was in Hamburg that the three pilot hijackers allegedly became radicalized fundamentalists.

[26] Israel has a long and assorted history of false flag attacks against the US and other nations. The primary goal in most of Israel’s false flag terror attacks is to set the blame on Arab interests for the benefit of Israel. Although the level of evidence against Israel varies among the false flag attacks, there are indications of Israeli involvement in dozens of false flag attacks since around the time of its creation. Following is a link to an article by Chris Bollyn discussing Israel’s history of false flag terror, which gives several other examples of Israeli false flag terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks: Chris Bollyn, “America the Target: 9-11 and Israel’s History of False Flag Terrorism,” http://www.bollyn.com/america-the-target-9-11-and-the-history-of-false-flag-terrorism

[27] “2/14/2008: Newly Released FBI Timeline Reveals New Information about 9/11 Hijackers that was Ignored by 9/11 Commission,” Historycommons.org, February 14, 2008. http://www.historycommons.org/news.jsp?oid=140393703-423

[28] “September 5, 2001: Hijackers go on Gambling Cruise in Florida,” Historycommons.org http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=hijackers%2C+suncruz&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go Although it is believed that one of the hijackers on the Suncruz gambling boat was Mohammed Atta, the FBI took the ship’s video and did not disclose the suspects’ names. The FBI Hijacker Timeline does not show any hijackers being on a Suncruz boat on this date or even being in the Tampa area from where the boat departed.

[29] Context of ‘September 11-13, 2001: 9/11 Hijackers Leave a Clear Trail of Evidence’, Historycommons.org, http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101evidencetrail

[30] Prof. David Ray Griffin, “9/11 Contradictions: Mohamed Atta’s Mitsubishi and His Luggage”, Global Research, May 9, 2008, republished at http://www.infowars.com/911-contradictions-mohamed-atta%e2%80%99s-mitsubishi-and-his-luggage/

[31] Context of ‘After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Hijacker’s Passport Allegedly Found near the World Trade Center’, Historycommons.org, http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201passportfound#a091201passportfound

[32] The Able Danger Program, Historycommons.org http://historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=abledanger

[33] Daniel Hopsicker, “Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus (Video Documentary),” August 15, 2002. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6W4L-HK-Os

[34] Dr. Ashraf Ezzat, “9/11 Hijacker Mohamed Atta & the Unreported Story,” Veteranstoday.com, Sept. 10, 2010. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/09/10/911-hijacker-mohamed-atta-the-unreported-story/

[35] Hopsicker, “Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus.” A number of people interviewed by Hopsicker state that Atta was fluent in English despite allegedly never having lived in an English-speaking country. Hopsicker provides evidence that Atta attended a US military school in Montgomery, Alabama, and additional evidence uncovered by a military operation Able Danger indicated that Atta and several other hijackers may have spent time in the US before the FBI has them coming to the US.

[36] Robert Worth, “Lebanese in Shock Over Arrest of an Accused Spy,” New York Times, February 18, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/world/middleeast/19lebanon.html?_r=0 There was significant coverage of Ali and Yusef’s Israeli spy case in the Israeli and Lebanese press before the the Times article. Not only did Ali provide surveillance of Palestinian and Hezbollah targets for Israel, but he was also believed to be linked to the alleged Israeli assassination of Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyeh in February 2008. The following link provides several other articles regarding Ali Jarrah’s spying efforts: http://www.cedarsrevolution.net/jtphp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2371&Itemid=2

[37] Carol J. Williams, “Friends of Terror Suspect Say Allegations Make No Sense,” Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2001. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/23/news/mn-60481 Athough this article does not specifically state that Ziad and Ali Jarrah are cousins, other information in the article makes it apparent that they are, and that they’re from a close-knit family. Salim Jarrah is clearly Ziad’s cousin and is from the small Lebanon town of Marj/Maraj, the same town Ali and Yusef Jarrah are from. The article also suggests that Ziad’s father Samir Jarrah, and Salim’s father Nesim Jarrah, are the only two male siblings in Lebanon, indicating Nesim must be the father of Ali and Yusef. There’s no evidence to suggest that Ali and Yusef Jarrah are not the sons of Nesim Jarrah or brother of Salim Jarrah, and that Samir or Nesim have another brother in Marj. This article also points to many discrepancies of the character and events of Ziad Jarrah compared to the information provided by the US government.

[38] Paul Thompson, “The Two Ziad Jarrahs,” Historycommons.org, September 2002. http://historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayjarrah This article was written approximately one year after 9/11 and also points to the many discrepancies and contradictions around Ziad Zarrah timeline events and character. The article shows several instances where there was evidence of a similar looking Ziad Jarrah in two places at the same time. Thus, there was obviously an imposter Ziad Jarrah who appears to have been established as part of the 9/11 deep cover operation.

[39] The 9/11 Commission Report, Section 5.3, page 163 and Endnotes 77 to 79. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf All the radicalization information regarding Jarrah in the 9/11 Commission Report comes from a secret German Intelligence report dated July 2002. It appears that Jarrah’s radicalization information comes from various witnesses with the only noted source being Jarrah’s girlfriend, Aisel Senguen.

[40] The 9/11 Commission Report, “The Hamburg Contingent,” Section 5.3, page 166. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

[41] Per the 9/11 Commission Report, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad allegedly gets the green light from OBL to go ahead with the 9/11 operation in late 1998/early 1999 and planning for the operation began in earnest (Section 5.3, page 149-150). The sole evidence for this fact is the interrogation of KSM who is a known braggart and was allegedly waterboarded 183 times.

[42] FBI Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-01-of-02

[43] Mid-August 2001: 9/11 Hijacker Hanjour Rents Plane in Maryland; He is Still Not Skilled Enough to Fly Solo, Historycommons.org This timeline entry has references to several mainstream media sources. http://historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=hani+hanjour%2C+mid+august+2001%2C+fly+solo&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

[44] Per the FBI Hijacker Timeline, the alleged 9/11 hijackers booked their 9/11 flights between August 25 and 30, 2001. http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-01-of-02

[45] Anyone who has done any research on the WTC collapses knows that the facts and evidence for controlled demolition of all three WTC towers that collapsed in typical controlled demolition style on 9/11 is significantly stronger than the evidence (for collapse due to the plane impacts) provided by the government’s investigation (the NIST Investigation). Although controlled demolition is also the author’s opinion, the evidence for this is beyond the scope of this article.

[46] Sara Liebovich-Dar, “Up In Smoke,” Haaretz (Israel), November 21, 2001. http://www.iamthewitness.com/haaretzdaily-Up-in-smoke.html Larry Silverstein was the owner of all three WTC towers that collapsed in typical controlled demolition style on 9/11. Silverstein completed his purchase of WTC Towers 1 and 2 on July 24, 2001. He is close friends with several Israeli prime ministers and once offered ex-PM Ehud Barak a job as his representative in Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu would actually call Silverstein every Sunday afternoon. It made no difference what the subject was or where Netanyahu was, he would always call, Silverstein told an Israeli acquaintance, with their ties continuing after Netanyahu became prime minister. Many Israeli politicians are acquainted in one degree or another with Silverstein, who for 10 years tried to establish a “free-trade” zone in Negev, Israel, until the project fell apart in mid-2000. According to one Israeli official, “Silverstein presented a Zionist aspect” (to the development). Silverstein has various other ties to Israel as well, including being a fundraiser for and donor to Tel Aviv University and the Tel Aviv Development Foundation.

[47] Keith Maart, “The Five Celebrating Israelis: September 11th Foreknowledge and Possible Complicity Corroborated by Evidence from FBI Investigation and Other New Information,” December 28, 2013, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/ The subject is an in-depth investigative report on the Celebrating/Dancing Israelis and other Israeli groups. The report is extremely well referenced with 138 references/endnotes and over 170 direct references to an FBI investigation that are included in the body of the report (Note: references to the FBI investigation documents are noted by FBIR, followed by the section and page number (e.g., FBIR_S1PP5-8). Thus, the subject investigative report will be used as a reference for this article.

[48] Ibid., Section B3 – Incriminating Evidence Found in the CI’s Van Possibly Tying Them to the 9/11 Operation. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b3

[49] Ibid., Section B4, UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b4

[50] Ibid., Section B7 – Other Israeli Moving Companies in NY/NJ Area — Operational Responsibilities in 9/11 Attacks? http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b7

[51] Ibid., Section B4, UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b4

[52] Ibid., Section B9, FBI’s Nexus between the CIs and Israeli Art Students – Nationwide Israeli Operations on 9/11. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b9

[53] Marc Perelman, “Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth: Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage,” The Forward, March 15, 2002. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/israelis_9-11.htmlThe Forward of New York is a reputable newspaper and the oldest Jewish-American newspaper in the United States.

[54] David Johnston and James Risen, “After the Attacks: The Investigation; Bin Laden Tie Cited.” New York Times, September 13, 2001. www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us/after-the-attacks-the-investigation-bin-laden-tie-cited.html The Times specifically stated: “Separately, officials said a group of about five men [the CIs] were now under investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers.”

[55] UK Channel 4 ran an 8-minute segment on the Celebrating Israelis around 2010. In an interview with an ex-Mossad agent, he states that UMS was an Israeli intelligence front company. The ex-Mossad agent’s interview starts around the 5:54 minute mark and the video was obtained on YouTube at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeD9XPn_lg4

[56] John Miller, Chris Isham, Glenn Silber, and Chris Viasto, “Were Israelis Detained on Sept 11 Spies?”, ABC News 20/20, June 21, 2002. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=123885&page=1

[57] Justin Raimondo, “I HAVE IN MY HANDS A LIST; New documentary evidence points to an Israeli connection to 9/11,” Antiwar.com, July 26, 2001. www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j072602.html

[58] The May 22, 2002 Post-9/11 Watch List Report can be found at Antiwar.com, which the FBI put under investigation for publishing the list online. Although the FBI investigated Antiwar.com in connection with its publishing the watch list, the FBI did not state why Dominik Suter and his wife appeared on the list. The FBI’s Post-9/11 Watch List can be found at the Antiwar.com website: www.antiwar.com/justin/CI-08-02.pdf.

[59] Keith Maart, Ibid, Conclusion, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/conclusion.htm

[60] Douglas Feiders, “Shipping Line Relocating Service from New Jersey to New York,” New York Daily News, November 27, 1996. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18910281.html The article states that Zim announced it would shift much of its business to Brooklyn from New Jersey, and that “Zim is transferring its North and South American freight traffic to the Red Hook Marine Terminal from Port Elizabeth.” Zim’s shipping partner, Pan American Lines, is at Red Hook Port at this time.

[61] David Rhode, “Shipping Deal Promises Jobs,” The New York Times, December 8, 1996. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/08/nyregion/shipping-deal-promises-jobs.html The article further notes that Zim and Pan American Shipping are consolidating their operations and that Zim plans to move 10,000 additional containers (per year) through the Red Hook terminal. The article also notes that New Jersey has 93% of the total NY/NJ port volume and that Red Hook Port operated at a $6.3 million loss in 1995 despite improved performance. The following April 2012 New York Times article notes that RHP handled 110,000 containers in 2011 compared with 3 million for the region’s other ports. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/deal-preserves-red-hook-ports-customs-inspections/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[62] Zim received up to $1.1 million in New York City tax credits over the 3-year contract term, contingent on the volume of containers Zim brings to RHP (see previous two Endnotes/articles). Zim and Pan American are not at RHP now as shown by the following East/Gulf Coast Overview garnered from the Port Authority Website: http://www.maersk-nam-marketing.com/advisories/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/East-Gulf-Ports-Overview-12_20_12.pdf. Zim’s original contract at RHP was from Nov. 1996 to 1999 and was renewed in 1999 (see Endnote 70). The renewal was probably for another 3-year period, and there is no evidence that Zim renewed beyond the likely Nov. 2002 contract expiration date.

[63] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B8, “Geographic and Timeline Nexus’ of CIs/Israeli Groups and Hijackers in NY/NJ Area”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b8 See “The Potential Brooklyn Connection” in the above Section B8 for further detail of the geographic connections between RHP, CIs, Moishes Moving, and the Red Hook area rental trucks at UMS after 9/11.

[64] FBI Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-01-of-02

[65] Ibid.

[66] Feiders, “Shipping Line Relocating Services from New Jersey to New York.” http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18910281.html

[67] New Jersey Department of Revenue, Business Entity Status Report Search for Urban Moving Systems, Inc., www.njportal.com/DOR/businessrecords/EntityDocs/BusinessStatCopies.aspx

[68] The 9/11 Commission Report (Section 5.3, page 166) states that Atta, Jarrah and Shehhi attended Osama Bin Laden’s Afghanistan training camp in Dec. 1999/Jan. 2000 where they met OBL for the first time. According to the report, “In retrospect, the speed with which Atta, Shehhi, Jarrah and Binalshibh became core members of the 9/11 plot — with Atta designated as its operational leader — is remarkable… Bin Laden and Atef wasted no time in assigning the Hamburg group to the most ambitious operation yet planned by al-Qaeda.” None of the above hijackers’ travels to Afghanistan, or to other countries allegedly traveled to in order to get to Afghanistan, are supported by the FBI Hijacker Timeline. Although there are heavy FBI redactions during this time period, there should be no logical reason for the FBI to redact it since it supports their statements.

[69] The 9/11 Commission Report’s evidence on Atta, Jarrah and Shehhi’s travel to Afghanistan appears to be based solely from the interrogation of Ramzi Binalshibh (see Section 5, Endnote 91). Binalshibh has exhibited significant mental disorders since his capture in 2002, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and his testimony should be questionable. The following two articles discusses some of Binalshibh mental disorders with the second article stating that two CIA officials said Binalshibh mental problems started almost immediately after his capture in 2002 and worsened over time. Adam Goldman, “Judge Orders Sanity Hearing for Accused Sept. 11 Plotter,” The Washington Post, December 19, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-orders-sanity-hearing-for-accused-sept-11-plotter/2013/12/19/001e7428-68c0-11e3-8b5b-a77187b716a3_story.html “911 Interrogation Tapes Found Under Desk,” MSNBC.com and NBC News, August 17, 2010. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38735351/ns/us_news-security/t/interrogation-tapes-found-under-desk/#.Uvk6T7CYaM9

[70] “Government Alert: Spitzer takes the early fund raising offensive, AG girding himself for a heavy weight campaign class with someone like Rudy,” Crain’s New York Business, April 23, 2001. The full article can be found at the following link, Endnote 4: http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2012/05/zim-israel-navigation-company.html Zim’s original contract at Red Hook Port was for the 3 years from November 1996 to November 1999 (see Endnote 60), and this article states that the contract was renewed. Although the renewal period is not stated in the article, it was probably for another 3 years. There is no evidence that the contract was extended beyond its first renewal period of November 2002.

[71] Christopher Dinsmore, “Firms Move to Norfolk Will Create 235 New Jobs, Shipping Company to Relocate Headquarters to Hampton Roads from New York City,” The Virginia Pilot, April 3, 2001. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-72716654.html

[72] Urban Moving Systems original address is 312 Pavonia Ave, Jersey City, NJ, which was owner Dominik Suter’s personal residence at the time. A UMS employee is cited for a traffic violation in October 1999, which is the first time the Weehawken, NJ, UMS address is known to have been used.

[73] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B9, “FBI’s Nexus between the CIs and Israeli Art Students — Nationwide Israeli Operations on 9/11”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b9 This information is also per the June 2001 DEA Memo relating to Israeli Art Students.

[74] Per the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI Hijacker Timeline, hijackers Mihdhar and Hazmi enter the USA in Los Angeles on Jan. 15, 2000.

[75] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B6, “The CIs’ Associations with Israeli Intelligence and Other US Intelligence Investigations”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b6

[76] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B9, “FBI’s Nexus between the CIs and Israeli Art Students — Nationwide Israeli Operations on 9/11”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b9 This information is also per the June 2001 DEA Memo relating to Israeli Art Students.

[77] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B8, “Geographic and Timeline Nexus’ of CIs/Israeli Groups and Hijackers in NY/NJ Area”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b8

[78] Zim had eleven self-operated offices in the US on 9/11 (also a “representative” office in three cities including 9/11 critical Boston, and it appears Zim opened a Tampa office, which had significant hijacker activity, after 9/11). The hijackers spent time in eight of these places (and as well as the locations below the hijackers also spent time in the New York, Miami and Norfolk areas). Following is a summary of Zim’s US offices and the hijacker activity in each. (The hijackers’ places and dates are from the FBI’s Hijacker Timeline, and the Zim USA office locations are from their website — see Endnote 2.)
Zim Atlanta Office:

  • 06/27/00: Ziad Jarrah flies from Frankfurt, Germany, to Atlanta (allegedly entering the US for first time). It appears he then goes on to the Venice, FL, area sometime after this date.
  • 10/07/00: Jarrah flies from Atlanta to Frankfurt and continues on to Dusseldorf, Germany. Jarrah’s reason for flying in and out of Atlanta is unknown, as he appears to spend most of the time after his arrival on 6/27/00 in the Venice, FL, and Southeast Florida areas.
  • 01/25/01 to 02/18/01: Atta and Shehhi stay in the Atlanta area in Norcross, Lawrenceville, Decatur and Stone Mountain, GA. They appear to take flying lessons in the area and then drive to Norfolk/Virginia Beach area on Feb 19, 2001 where Zim has an office.
  • 03/15/01 to 03/31/01: Jarrah stays at a hotel in Decatur, GA, until around the end of March, 2001.
  • 04/13/01: Jarrah flies from Dusseldorf to Atlanta. Not clear how long he stays in Atlanta and why. Zim Savanah Office (Savanah is approximately 250 miles southeast of Atlanta):
  • 11/03/00: Atta and Shehhi purchase jet fuel at airport in Brunswick, GA, approx. 75 miles south of Savannah. Zim Jacksonville Office:
  • 11/03/00: Atta and Shehhi purchase jet fuel at airport in Brunswick, GA, approx. 75 miles north of Jacksonville.
  • 01/26/01: Jarrah takes a flight from Jacksonville to Newark. Not known how long Jarrah was in Jacksonville before the flight or why he was in Jacksonville in the first place.
  • 02/25/01: Jarrah flies from Dusseldorf to Jacksonville on 2/25/01 and stays at a Ramada Inn (no city provided until 03/04/01, but appears to have been Jacksonville area). It is not known why Atta flies to and stays in Jacksonville.

Chicago Office:

  • 07/02/00: Shehhi flies from Chicago to Oklahoma City. It is not known how long Shehhi was in Chicago and why. Sheehi’s last location from the FBI Hijacker Timeline is in Brooklyn on June 25, 2000. Los Angeles Office:
  • 01/15/00: Hijackers N. Hazmi and Mihdhar enter the US and stay in Los Angeles area for several days before moving to the San Diego area.

[79] Although there is some question as to when the Hamburg cell got involved in the 9/11 plans, the 9/11 Commission Report alleges that four core members of the Hamburg cell (including pilot hijackers Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, Marwan Shehhi and Hani Hanjour) attended the al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in November/December 1999 and were chosen for the operation at that time by Osama bin Laden. They then went back to Hamburg in January 2000 and started preparing for the operation (9/11 Commission Report, Section 5.3 — The Hamburg Contingent). Atta had been living in Hamburg since around 1992 and both Jarrah and Shehhi allegedly moved to Hamburg in April 1996.

[80] Zim Integrated Shipping Services Website, www.zim.com/aboutus/pages/factsandfigures.aspx

[81] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B9, “FBI’s Nexus between the CIs and Israeli Art Students — Nationwide Israeli Operations on 9/11, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b9 This information came from the June 2001 DEA Memo relating to the Israeli Art Students. Per the DEA Memo (Sections 45, 51, and 129), at least 8 Israelis entered Dallas from Frankfurt, Germany in late March 2001. Frankfurt appears to be a connector city for Lufthansa Airlines flights from Hamburg to Dallas.

[82] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B3, “Incriminating Evidence Found in the CIs Van Possibly Tying Them to the 9/11 Operation”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b3

[83] Ibid.

[84] Ziad Jarrah travelled regularly to Europe in the 16 months before 9/11. Following is his international flight schedule from May 2000 to August 2001 per the FBI Hijacker Timeline:
05/16/00: Lebanon to Athens to Thessaloniki, Greece
05/22/00: Thessaloniki to Athens
05/23/00: Athens to Lebanon
06/27/00: Munich to Atlanta (Unknown how and when Jarrah got to Munich; possibly visited Dusseldorf.)
10/07/00: Atlanta to Frankfurt, Germany
10/14/00: Dusseldorf, Germany, to Paris, France
10/16/00: Paris to Dusseldorf
10/29/00: Dusseldorf to Hamburg to Tampa
12/26/00: Miami to Munich to Istanbul
12/27/00: Istanbul to Lebanon
01/04/01: Beirut to Athens to Dusseldorf
01/05/01: Dusseldorf to Newark
01/26/01: San Francisco to Newark to Dusseldorf
02/02/01: Jarrah visits family in Lebanon around this time
02/18/01: Jordan to London to Dusseldorf
02/25/01: Dusseldorf to Newark to Jacksonville
03/30/01: Atlanta to Amsterdam to Dusseldorf
04/13/01: Dusseldorf to Amsterdam to Atlanta
07/25/01: Miami to Newark to Dusseldorf
08/05/01: Dusseldorf to Newark to Miami

[85] See Endnote 23.

[86] “History of the Jews of Thessaloniki,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_of_Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki once had the largest Jewish population in Greece (93,000) and currently has the second largest behind Athens.

[87] Robert Worth, “Lebanese in Shock Over Arrest of an Accused Spy”, New York Times, February 18, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/world/middleeast/19lebanon.html?_r=0 This article notes that Ali Jarrah was debriefed by his Israeli handlers in Belgium, Italy, and Israel.

See also: “Lebanese Report: Mossad Spy Visited Israel”, Jerusalem Post, November 18, 2008. www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Lebanese-report-Mossad-spy-visited-Israel This article references a Lebanase al-Akhbar newspaper article that states Ali Jarrah would fly to another country such as Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Greece, where he would rendezvous with a Mossad agent and receive an Israeli ID card with which to travel to Israel.

[88] Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Security, “Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities,” June 2001, Page 1. Note: The DEA Memo can be found in Exhibit A of following link: www.antiwar.com/rep2/MemorandumtotheCommissionandSelectCommitteesbold.pdf

[89] FBI 9/11 Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-02-of-02/view

[90] FBI 9/11 Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-02-of-02/view

[91] April 23-June 29, 2001: 9/11 ‘Muscle’ Hijackers Arrive in US at This Time or Earlier,’ Historycommons.org. http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=muscle+hijackers%2C+arrive+in+US&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

[92] 9-11 Hijackers Passports were issued by the CIA – US Consulate Whistleblower Michael Springmann http://www.minds.com/blog/view/75437/9-11-hijackers-passports-were-issued-by-the-cia-us-consulate-whistleblower-michael-springmann

[93] FBI 9/11 Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-02-of-02/view

[94] FBI 9/11 Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-02-of-02/view

[95] Keith Maart, Section B4, UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b4

[96] Keith Maart, Ibid., Section B3, “Incriminating Evidence Found in the CIs Van Possibly Tying Them to the 9/11 Operation”, http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b3

[97] Keith Maart, Section B4, UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b4

[98] FBI 9/11 Hijacker Timeline, http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-02-of-02/view

[99] Keith Maart, Section B4, UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections. http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/section_b.htm#b4

[100] July 24, 2001 Port Authority Press Release: www.panynj.gov/press-room/press-item.cfm?headLine_id=81

[101] Peter Tirschwell, “Zim Opens New Headquarters,” The Journal of Commerce, October 18, 2001. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/journalofcommerce101801.html

February 28, 2014 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | Leave a comment

US court rejects lawsuit challenging NYPD’s spying on Muslims

Press TV – February 21, 2014

A federal court in the United States has rejected a civil rights lawsuit challenging the New York Police Department’s spying activities against Muslims.

On Thursday, the court in Newark in the state of New Jersey ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the NYPD’s intelligence unit had discriminated against Muslims by spying on mosques and other locations in New Jersey.

The 2012 lawsuit was the first to challenge the NYPD’s spying operations against Muslim groups and individuals in the US. It had accused the police of spying on Muslims at several mosques, restaurants and schools since 2002.

The plaintiffs “have not alleged facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that they were targeted solely because of their religion,” US District Judge William Martini wrote in the decision. “The more likely explanation for the surveillance was to locate budding terrorist conspiracies.”

“The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself,” the judge added.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the plaintiffs, warned that the ruling could give the green light to more spying on Muslims elsewhere in the US.

“In addition to willfully ignoring the harm that our innocent clients suffered from the NYPD’s illegal spying program, by upholding the NYPD’s blunderbuss Muslim surveillance practices, the court’s decision gives legal sanction to the targeted discrimination of Muslims anywhere and everywhere in this country, without limitation, for no other reason than their religion,” CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy said.

February 20, 2014 Posted by | Civil Liberties, False Flag Terrorism, Islamophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Scrutinizing the Israeli role in 2001 anthrax attacks

By Brandon Martinez | February 16, 2014

In late September 2001, a couple of weeks after 9/11, the United States was struck with what the Bush regime dubbed a “second wave” of terrorism. Letters laced with deadly anthrax spores arrived in the mailboxes of prominent media figures and two American senators. Five people were killed and 17 others were infected.

A concerted effort was made by the Bush regime and the mainstream US media to present the anthrax attacks as the work of the same people who perpetrated 9/11. They were, in a sense, correct, but the people behind 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax fiasco were not members of al-Qaeda or adherents of the Islamic faith.

A very clear and discernible pattern of propaganda was foisted upon the American public following 9/11. Zionists from Israel and the US took a leading role in assigning responsibility for the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbour. Unsurprisingly, the Zionists immediately pointed fingers at all of their Middle Eastern rivals and adversaries, from resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to countries such as Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Israel’s enemies were being portrayed as America’s enemies too. Together, said the Zionists, Israel and America can defeat “the forces of darkness.” Israel’s crude campaign of innuendo and Orwellian projection manifested within a few hours of the 9/11 attacks. Israeli politicians Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres all made public statements calling on the US and other Western powers to initiate a global “war on terrorism,” a term coined by Likudniks in the 1980s.

Israel’s army intelligence service Aman and the former Mossad chief Rafi Eitan trumpeted brazen disinformation shortly following 9/11, alleging Iraqi involvement in the attacks. In August of 2001 the Mossad delivered a propagandistic “warning” to the CIA alleging al-Qaeda and Iraq were working together and were plotting terror attacks on major US landmarks. The neoconservatives, who are for all intents and purposes emissaries of the Israeli regime in the US, went straight to work in the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, the New York Times and other Zionist-controlled media outlets, attempting to portray Arabs and Muslims generally as the sponsors of 9/11 and the source of all terrorism in the world.

The same pattern of Zionist deception is apparent with the anthrax attacks. Israel’s partisans immediately mobilized a propaganda initiative to link Iraq and al-Qaeda to the anthrax mailings.

On various occasions [former US] president George W. Bush and vice president Dick Cheney told reporters that al-Qaeda was likely involved in the lethal mailings. The docile mainstream media unquestioningly repeated this unfounded assertion. A stunning piece of disinformation appeared in an Oct. 27, 2001, report in the London Times, alleging that an Iraqi official met with 9/11 patsy Mohamed Atta in the Czech Republic in April 2001. The report went on to suggest that during the rendezvous the Iraqi official gave Atta a flask of anthrax. The origin of this dubious claim was noted in the article: Israeli security sources. The chief of Czech foreign intelligence, Frantisek Bublan, later revealed that this supposed meeting never took place and was nothing more than a propaganda invention of interested parties. “Promoting a so-called ‘Prague connection’ between Atta and [the Iraqi official] al-Ani might have been a ploy by U.S. policymakers seeking justifications for a new military action against…Saddam Hussein,” Bublan told the Prague Post.

When the Iraq/al-Qaeda propaganda narrative fell apart, the FBI targeted two… within the US bio-weapons establishment: scientists Steven Hatfill and Bruce Ivins. The FBI began harassing Hatfill and publicly called him a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation.

Hatfill vehemently denied the charges and was eventually exonerated. He later sued the FBI and other US government agencies, winning a settlement of more than $5 million in damages. Like Hatfill, Ivins was an unlikely suspect for the anthrax attacks as well.

There was no evidence tying Ivins to the anthrax letters and he had no conceivable motive. The FBI launched an intense campaign of innuendo against Ivins in an effort to convict him in the court of public opinion. Ivins allegedly committed suicide while in a Maryland hospital just before he was set to be indicted and stand trial. How convenient.

Ivins worked at a US bio-weapons facility called USAMRIID in Fort Detrick, Maryland. This is where the FBI claims the anthrax used in the attacks originated. Since there is no evidence that Ivins was involved in the anthrax mailings, there is likewise no reason to believe the FBI’s claim that the anthrax spores used in the letters originated from that facility.

Another curious event took place during the anthrax affair that garnered little attention from the mainstream press for obvious reasons. An Arab-American scientist who worked at the same Fort Detrick facility as Ivins was the victim of an attempted frame-up. Shortly before the first known victim of the anthrax attacks was confirmed, an anonymous letter was mailed to the FBI that attempted to implicate Dr. Ayaad Assaad as a “potential biological terrorist.” The author of the letter claimed to have worked with Assaad previously and alleged that Assaad had a vendetta against the US government, urging the FBI to stop him. The letter prompted the FBI to investigate Assaad. The FBI questioned him in early October 2001 and quickly cleared him of any involvement with the anthrax attacks.

Strangely, the FBI seemed uninterested in finding out who sent the anonymous letter implicating Assaad, even though the contents and timing of the letter were amazingly conspicuous, coming just prior to a real bio-terrorist attack. Assaad suspected the letter-writer was involved in the anthrax mailings and opined that his Arab background made him the “perfect scapegoat.”

One possible source of the frame-up letter was a man named Dr. Philip Zack, a microbiologist and Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army. Zack worked at USAMRIID alongside Assaad in the early 1990s. Zack and other employees at the lab formed a clique called the “camel club” to bully Arab co-workers, particularly Assaad. One day in April 1991 Assaad found a poem in his mailbox written by Zack and other members of the “camel club” which mocked his Arabic heritage. Zack and several of his fellow anti-Arab racists voluntarily left the facility when Assaad informed his superiors of the harassment campaign.

In 1992, anthrax spores, Ebola virus and other deadly pathogens went missing from the Fort Detrick facility. An internal investigation discovered that someone was entering the lab late at night to conduct unauthorized research involving anthrax. The inquiry also revealed that Dr. Philip Zack made an unauthorized visit to the lab on Jan. 23, 1992, at a time when he was no longer working at the facility. Despite Zack’s suspicious past behaviour and harassment of Assaad, the FBI made no effort to pursue him as a suspect in the 2001 anthrax investigation.

A very revealing aspect of the whole affair was the fact that the anthrax-tainted letters were made to look like a Muslim who was angry at Israel and the United States authored them. “Death to Israel, Death to America, Allah is Great,” the letters read. Whoever was actually behind the anthrax mailings was evidently attempting to lead authorities to believe a Muslim or group of Muslims was responsible.

So where did the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks come from? Researcher Robert Pate posited a plausible theory in an essay entitled, “The Anthrax Mystery: Solved” In the paper, Pate suggests Israel is the most likely culprit. According to Pate’s research, Israel had the means, motive and opportunity to secure anthrax spores and deliver them to her targets without being detected. Pate demonstrates that Israel has had a sophisticated chemical and biological weapons program since its inception in 1948. Israel has produced biological agents including anthrax at the Israel Institute of Biological Research (IIBR) in Ness Ziona, located a few miles southeast of Tel Aviv.

“With the help of Jewish scientists from the former Soviet Union,” Pate opines, “Israel’s bio-weapons research has probably surpassed that of all other nations. The Soviet Union’s bio-weapons program had 32,000 scientists and staff working in 40 different research and production facilities. Two thousand of these scientists worked exclusively on the Soviet anthrax program. A significant number of these scientists may have immigrated to Israel and become employed in her bio-weapons programs.”

Pate cites a research paper by Dr. Avner Cohen titled “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control” which outlines Israel’s biological and chemical weapons capabilities. Anthrax is certainly in Israel’s biological arsenal. In the paper, Cohen also describes how Zionist militants poisoned Palestinian water supplies with deadly pathogens during the 1948 ‘Nakba,’ wherein Zionist gangs completely destroyed and depopulated more than 500 Arab villages in order to birth… [Israel entity] . Historical examples of Zionist biological warfare noted by Pate, in addition to Israel’s penchant for false flag terrorism against its “allies” such as the Lavon Affair and USS Liberty attack, lead him to believe that Israel was willing and able to commit a biological attack in the US – a classic false flag operation to frame her enemies for political gain.

“A motive for the anthrax attacks would be to blame Arab terrorists or a ‘rogue nation’ for this atrocity and to help launch the United States into war against Israel’s enemies,” writes Pate. “[Israel’s motive] in launching the anthrax attacks would be to bring America into war against Iraq and to remove that country as a potential threat to…[Israel].” As noted earlier, Israeli intelligence contrived a false story to implicate Muslims where they claimed to have observed a meeting between an Iraqi official and alleged al-Qaeda ringleader Mohamed Atta in the Czech Republic in which an exchange of anthrax is said to have occurred. If Israel had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks, then why did they propagate lies with the intent to implicate Iraq and al-Qaeda? American authorities admit that no Muslim or Arab was involved in the anthrax mailings, so who else but Israel and corrupted Americans in the Bush administration could have been behind this obvious false flag?

It can be said without doubt that some members of the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks. Press reports revealed that White House officials including Bush and Cheney went on a steady regimen of the drug known as Cipro, a powerful antibiotic effective against anthrax infection, weeks before the anthrax-trained letters were first discovered.

The theory that Israel and its accomplices in the Bush administration launched a biological false flag operation as a “second phase” of the overarching 9/11 deception is well within the realm of possibilities regarding 2001’s anthrax attacks in the US. It is certainly far more plausible than the FBI’s flimsy and still-unproven case against Bruce Ivins who conveniently died before any evidence could be aired in the courts.

But it would be foolish to place any hope on President Obama — a committed servant of the Israeli-American empire — to launch a new, independent investigation into any of these troubling matters.

February 16, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

American Anthrax

Media Roots presents American Anthrax, a documentary comprised of news footage that establishes, by history’s own narration, how everything you’ve been told about the Anthrax Attacks is a lie. Conceptualized, edited and produced by Robbie Martin, co-host of Media Roots Radio.

September 11, 2001, shook the United States to the core, a country that had been nearly untouchable since its democratic inception. However, immediately following this horrific tragedy, another equally as impactful ‘terrorist attack’ occurred when weaponized anthrax was sent to multiple Congressman and journalists through the U.S. Postal Service.

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were both one-time events that happened in two prominent cities. Unlike 9/11, the Anthrax Attacks localized terrorism and spread fear to every corner of American life, where the simple act of getting your mail could prove to be fatal. Five people died as a result of breathing in the deadly anthrax spores, including postal workers and one NY Post reporter. Countless others were infected.

The Bush administration initially tried to link this ‘second wave of terrorism’ to al-Qaeda with zero proof. Once that talking point out-lived its usefulness, the official narrative began leaning towards Saddam Hussein and his mythological biological weapons program.
Establishment propagandists like John Mccaine and ABC news reporters intentionally spread disinformation to plant the seed in the public mind that the anthrax came from Iraq, which eventually lead to Colin Powell’s infamous 2003 WMD speech at the UN. All the while, the U.S. government was fully aware that the anthrax did not come from an external source, because the strain showed tell-tale signs of being a specific anthrax strain that was weaponized and manufactured by the U.S. military.

Regardless, the idea of the Anthrax Attacks being executed by an external terrorist organization remained conventional wisdom the public was conditioned into believing in the aftermath of 9/11. Eventually, two men were accused of being the perpetrators behind the attacks, yet no charges were ever brought to either of them. The first accused individual, Steven Hatfill, ended up being rewarded a multimillion dollar settlement from the government for being wrongly accused before any evidence was presented against him. The subsequent accused individual, Bruce Ivins, allegedly committed suicide while the FBI was trying to break him into confessing.

Ultimately, the FBI asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to verify its evidence pointing to Ivins as the main suspect. Instead, the NAS concluded that the DNA in the anthrax sent in the mail was in fact not a match to the anthrax Ivins worked with. Before the National Academy of Sciences finished their independent investigation, the FBI rushed its preestablished conclusions about Ivins’s guilt to the press, and the case was closed. To this day, the FBI has never commented on the many glaring contradictions in the official government narrative about the Anthrax Attacks.

Follow Robbie at @fluorescentgrey

http://www.mediaroots.org

February 1, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Memo: Government ‘Minders’ at 9/11 Commission Interviews ‘Intimidated’ Witnesses

History Commons | April 27, 2009

A recently released 9/11 Commission memo highlights the role of government “minders” who accompanied witnesses interviewed by the commission. It was added to the National Archives’ files at the start of the year and discovered there by History Commons contributor paxvector.
The memo, entitled “Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses,” complains that:

  • Minders “answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses;”
  • Minders acted as “monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.” The staff thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution;” and
  • Minders “positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions.”

The memo was drafted by three staffers on the commission’s Team 2, which reviewed the overall structure of the US intelligence community. One of the drafters was Kevin Scheid, a senior staffer who led the team. His co-writers were Lorry Fenner, an air force intelligence officer, and lawyer Gordon Lederman. The complaint was sent to the commission’s counsels, Daniel Marcus and Steve Dunne, in October 2003, about halfway through the commission’s 19-month life.

According to the memo, some minders merely policed prior agreements between the commission and their parent agency about what the commission could ask witnesses, and others were simply there to make a list of documents the commission might want based on a witness’ testimony. However, some minders saw their role differently.

Intimidation through Physical Positioning

The three staffers argued minders should not answer questions for witnesses because they needed to understand not how the intelligence community was supposed to function, but “how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality.” However: “When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have preempted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses’ view of their roles and responsibilities.”

The memo also describes the minders’ conduct in detail: “… [M]inders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses.”

The staffers also worried about minders taking “verbatim notes of witnesses’ statements,” as they thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution.” They believed that “the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses.”

Another problem with the verbatim notetaking was that it “facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission’s lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.”

Proposals

In response to this, the three staffers proposed not that minders be banned from interviews, but a set of rules governing minders’ conduct. For example, minders were to keep a “low profile,” sit out of witnesses’ sight, not take verbatim notes and not answer any questions directed at the witnesses.

Perhaps the most remarkable proposal is that the number of minders be limited to one per witness. The memo indicates that where an interviewee had served in multiple agencies, more than one minder would accompany the witness. The memo therefore requests, “Only one minder may attend an interview even if the witness served in multiple agencies,” meaning a witness would at least not be outnumbered by his minders.

False Statement by Chairman Kean

Commission Chairman Tom Kean, a Republican, first raised the issue of minders in a press briefing in early July 2003 . He said, “I think the commission feels unanimously that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency. You might get less testimony than you would.”

He was asked about the minders again on September 23 at another press briefing. Instead of saying the minders represented “intimidation,” he commented: “Talking to staff, what they have told me is that as they’ve done these interviews, that the interviewees are encouragingly frank; that they by and large have not seemed to be intimidated in any way in their answers. … I’m glad to hear that it’s — from the staff that they don’t feel it’s inhibiting the process of the interviews.”

The commission’s Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, commented, “it is our feeling that thus far, the minders have not been an impediment, in almost all cases.” He added that there were “one or two instances where the question has arisen,” but, “neither are we aware at this point that the presence of a minder has substantially impeded our inquiry. And nor have we run into a situation where we think a witness has refrained from speaking their minds.”

However, the Team 2 memo, sent a mere nine days after Kean and Hamilton’s remarks, shows Kean’s statements to have been untrue. The memo even referenced “Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses” in the title, contained unusually strong language and was co-drafted by a leader of one of the commission’s teams.

Nevertheless, it is unclear whether Kean and Hamilton made the false statements knowingly. One of the criticisms at the commission was that the ten commissioners were cut off from the body of the staff, and all information that flowed from the staff to the commissioners went through the commission’s executive director, Philip Zelikow.

Author Philip Shenon, who wrote a history of the commission, found that at the start of the commission’s work Zelikow drafted a welcome memo containing ground rules for staffers, such as not talking to journalists. One of the rules was that the staff should not talk freely to the commissioners. If a staffer were contacted by a commissioner, he should not deal with the commissioner himself, but contact Zelikow or his deputy, who would then “be sure that the appropriate members of the commission’s staff are responsive.”

This rule was rescinded after complaints from some of the commissioners, including former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. Nevertheless, Zelikow’s control of information continued. When the commission’s counterterrorism team found a draft of the final report to be overly deferential to the FBI, they did not launch a formal objection to the draft’s language through the commission’s bureaucracy, but a female staffer cornered Gorelick “where Zelikow would not see it”–in the ladies room.

January 27, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli militarism predicated on 9/11 deception

By Brandon Martinez | Press TV | January 26, 2014

No more than an hour after the World Trade Center Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, Israel’s leaders initiated a coordinated campaign to blame their enemies for the attacks.

Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister, appeared live in studio at the [state-run] BBC on 9/11, wherein he described his desire for the United States and other major powers to lead a global campaign of annihilation against the Arab/Muslim world. “[T]his is the time to deploy a globally concerted effort led by the United States, UK, Europe and Russia, against all sources of terror,” the Israeli war criminal stated. Dubbing this campaign a “global war on terror,” Barak continued: “It’s a time to launch an operational, complete war against terror even if it takes certain pains from the routine activities of our normal society.” “Bin Laden sits in Afghanistan… Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea… these kinds of states should be treated as ‘rogue states,’” said Barak, in a call for the US to take pre-emptive actions against countries that Israel views as impediments to its domination of the Middle East.

Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister on 9/11, duplicated Barak’s war cry against the Muslim world. “[The] war against terror is an international war,” Sharon said at a press conference in Israel shortly after the disaster, describing an impending global conflict as “a war of a coalition of the free world against all the terror groups and against whoever believes they can pose a threat to freedom.” The Israeli politician Shimon Peres forwarded an identical sentiment as his Likudnik compatriots. “The war against terror is an international war,” he said, adding: “This is a war between the good and the bad.” “The fight against terrorism,” Peres proclaimed, “is an international struggle of the free world against the forces of darkness who seek to destroy our liberty and our way of life.”

Later on the day, Ehud Barak and the Israel-first champion Richard Perle appeared on a [state-run] BBC program where they outlined what amounted to a Zionist war plan of quick, successive offensives against all of Israel’s enemies. Barak pointed fingers at Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad as “rogue actors” that need to be dealt with. Richard Perle emphasized the need to deal with the “states that sponsor terrorism,” and not just disparate groups of armed rebels who reside in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. The following day Benjamin Netanyahu added the Palestinian Authority to the list of enemies.

Nine days after the attacks Netanyahu expanded his list of foes that would be prime targets in the Zionist-devised “war on terror.” At a speech before the US House of Representatives’ Government Reform Committee on September 20, Netanyahu suggested that US vengeance in the face of 9/11 terrorism should be visited upon “Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, and several other Arab regimes, such as the Sudan.” Netanyahu also named “Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Hizbullah and others in Syrian-controlled Lebanon, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the recently mobilized Fatah and Tanzim factions in the Palestinian territories, and sundry other terror organizations based in such capitals as Damascus, Baghdad, and Khartoum” as legitimate targets. Netanyahu’s diatribe was no less than a declaration of war against the entire Arab/Muslim world with few exceptions.

The revealing statements of these Zionist warmongers were consistent with a broader Israeli strategy outlined by Benjamin Netanyahu and his Zionist associates in the 1980s. In 1979 and 1984 Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders organized two conferences to discuss terrorism under the auspices of the Jonathan Institute. The purpose of the two events was to seduce Western military, intelligence and political figures to join Israel’s crusade against the Muslim world, deceptively disguising their imperialist agenda as a “war against terrorism.” The second conference in 1984 produced a book edited by Netanyahu entitled Terrorism: How the West Can Win. “The two conferences organized by the Jonathan Institute, in Jerusalem in July 1979 and in Washington, D.C., in June 1984, were major events and highly effective for Israeli and Western propaganda,” wrote Edward S. Herman and Gerry O’Sullivan in their book The “Terrorism” Industry: The Experts and Institutions That Shape Our View of Terror.

It did not take long for Israeli leaders to inform us of how beneficial the 9/11 attacks were for Israel’s anti-Arab/Muslim agenda. On Sept. 12, 2001, the New York Times quoted a jubilant Benjamin Netanyahu. In reference to the 9/11 attacks, Netanyahu said: “It’s very good. … Well it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel].” “[The September 11 attack will] strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror,” he said. The Israeli public, the New York Times reported, “took cold comfort in concluding that Americans now share more of their fears.” The article further reported that Israel’s political and military leaders were content the attacks “would awaken the United States to the threat of global terrorism” and have the effect of lessening American government pressure on Israel, giving the regime in Tel Aviv a free hand to suppress the Palestinians.

Netanyahu reiterated this sentiment in 2008 when he told an Israeli university audience that “We [Israel] are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” adding that the atrocity “swung American public opinion in our favor.” Ariel Sharon and his inner circle of Likudniks and Mossadniks came to a similar conclusion, announcing that the 9/11 attacks were nothing less than a “Hanukkah miracle” of good fortune for Israel. “The Israeli political-security establishment is coming to the conclusion that the terror attacks on September 11 were a kind of ‘Hanukkah miracle’ for Israel, coming just as Israel was under increasing international pressure because of the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians,” reported Israel’s Haaretz newspaper. Aluf Benn, writing for Haaretz, further observed:

“Osama bin Laden’s September 11 attacks placed Israel firmly on the right side of the strategic map with the U.S., and put the Arab world at a disadvantage as it now faces its own difficult decisions about its future. That’s the impression left by the speeches given by Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy and National Security Council chairman Maj. Gen. Uzi Dayan, at this week’s Herzliya conference on national security.”

Ami Ayalon, a former chief of Israel’s internal security service Shin Bet, confirmed that Israel’s leadership was overjoyed. “Since September 11, our leaders have been euphoric,” Ayalon told France’s Le Monde newspaper. “With no more international pressures on Israel, they think, the way is open.” An Israeli professor named Ehud Sprinzak told the UK’s Telegraph newspaper: “From the perspective of the Jews, [the September 11 attack] is the most important public relations act ever committed in our favour.” Within hours of the event, pro-Israel analyst George Friedman, the director of Stratfor, announced that the “big winner” of the day was Israel. “The big winner today, intended or not, is… Israel,” wrote Friedman on his website, speculating that “The United States is obviously going to launch a massive covert and overt war against the international radical Islamic movement that is assumed to be behind this attack.” Friedman explained that the tragedy would have the effect of aligning “U.S. and Israeli interests [and it will also make] the United States dependent on the Israelis.” Friedman concluded: “The Israeli leadership is feeling relief. Given that pressures for Israel to restrain operations against the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian groups will decline dramatically.”

Surprisingly, Efraim Halevy, the director of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency on 9/11, also admitted that Israel benefitted exponentially from the attacks. In an interview on The Standard, a Canadian current affairs television program, Halevy was asked about the theories that Israel’s Mossad was involved in 9/11 for political gain. “Obviously Israel benefited,” Halevy capitulated. Predictably the Israeli spymaster denied any involvement, leading us to believe that 9/11 working out to Israel’s advantage is purely coincidental.

Coincidentally, one day before 9/11 the Washington Times reported on a 68-page study released by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), which contained some telling revelations about Israeli conduct. The study was geared towards devising a plan to enforce a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord. Acknowledging Israel’s penchant for ruthlessness and deception, the paper’s authors described the Israeli Army as a “500-pound gorilla … well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank.” Israel is “known to disregard international law to accomplish mission” the authors added. In their assessment of the Mossad, the group of US Army strategists said the Israeli agency is a “wildcard” that is “ruthless and cunning” and has the “capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

Israel’s long history of false-flag terrorism includes events like the King David Hotel bombing in 1946, wherein Zionist terrorists from the Irgun militia (which later became the Likud Party) detonated bombs in the Jerusalem hotel to spur the British into relinquishing their control of Palestine. Ninety-one people died in the bombing. The Lavon Affair of 1954 saw Zionist terrorists explode firebombs in British and American-owned buildings in Egypt with the intention of having the attacks blamed on Muslims. Then there was the USS Liberty assault in 1967, where Israel deliberately attacked a US surveillance ship during the Six-Day War, killing 34 American servicemen. And those are just a few of the more well-known false-flag terror operations of… [Israel] against its perceived “allies.”

Did Israel pull off its grandest deception of all on 9/11? A clue into the whole matter was revealed by the Telegraph newspaper, which reported that in August of 2001 Israel’s Mossad warned the CIA that terror attacks on major US landmarks were imminent. The Mossad’s warning was unspecific as to where and how the attacks would occur, but related that a cell of 200 terrorists were present on American soil and were planning a major operation. The Israelis linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told their American counterparts there were “strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement.”

Even the Bush administration admits that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, so Israel’s attempt to link Iraq to the plot in their dubious “warning” is telling. Immediately after 9/11, Israel and its neocon partisans in the US initiated an intense campaign of innuendo to connect Iraq, as well as Arabs and Muslims generally, to the attacks. Aman, Israel’s military intelligence service, quickly disseminated disinformation asserting Iraq was involved in 9/11. Rafi Eitan, a veteran Israeli intelligence chief, duplicated Aman’s anti-Iraqi propaganda when he publicly proclaimed that Saddam Hussein was the “mastermind” of the attacks. Jewish neocons in Washington also spread the Israeli-contrived myth of Iraqi involvement with a determined passion. This deceitful Zionist campaign of disinformation was so intensive that polls later showed a large percentage of the naive American public believed Saddam Hussein and Iraq were involved in 9/11.

The Mossad’s August 2001 warning is evidence of manipulation on the part of the Israelis, considering that 200 suspicious individuals did happen to be in the United States in the months leading up 9/11, but they were not Arabs or Muslims. In December of 2001 Fox News aired a four part series detailing a “secretive and sprawling investigation” into Israeli espionage in the US. Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron reported that 200 Israelis had been arrested shortly before and after 9/11 in connection with the inquiry into the attacks. Some of the Israeli suspects, reported Cameron, belonged to electronic surveillance intercept and explosive ordinance units in the Israeli military. In the first part of the video series Cameron said: “A highly placed investigator said there are ‘tie-ins.’ But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’”

The first and only people arrested on the very day of September 11, 2001, were not Arabs or Muslims with links to al-Qaeda or Iraq, but were Israelis with ties to the Mossad. Five Israelis were witnessed video taping the plane impacts into the WTC. A witness named Maria saw three of the Israelis on top of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment in New Jersey. Minutes after the first plane hit the tower she saw them celebrating, laughing and shouting with joy and mockery, as well as taking pictures of themselves smiling with the burning towers in the backdrop. Alarmed by what she saw, Maria called the police who later pulled over the five Israelis and arrested them. The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, informed the police: “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

The Jewish daily newspaper, The Forward, confirmed that two of the five Israelis were Mossad agents whose names appeared in a national intelligence database. They worked for a New Jersey-based moving company called Urban Moving Systems whose Israeli owner, Dominik Suter, abruptly and suspiciously fled the US back to Israel days after 9/11, leaving his moving business in complete shambles. Journalist Christopher Ketcham revealed that Urban Moving Systems was a front for Israeli intelligence.

It is inconceivable that the five dancing Israelis didn’t know exactly what was going to happen on 9/11. Some reports suggested the Israelis had set up their cameras to film the attack prior to the first plane crash. The former CIA officer Robert Baer said they were in place to film before either plane hit the WTC. If that is so, then the Israelis must have had intimate prior knowledge of the time, place and nature of the attacks. It is indisputable that the five Israelis were indeed celebrating before the second plane hit the south tower. Most people thought the initial plane strike was just a terrible accident, but somehow the five Israelis knew it was a terrorist attack immediately.

While in custody the Israelis admitted they were happy because the attacks would benefit Israel. One of them reportedly said, “The United States will [now] take steps to stop terrorism in the world.” Another remarked: “Israel now has hope that the world will now understand us.” How did they know the attacks would benefit Israel unless they also knew beforehand who would be blamed for them? How would they have known any of this unless Israel was directly involved in bringing about this event and having it blamed on the designated patsies? All of the Israeli suspects, including the five dancing Israelis, were eventually released back to Israel due to Zionist pressure from the highest levels of the White House and Department of Justice.

Much like the Zionist-led campaign of innuendo against Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks, the allegations of Osama bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11 are likewise built upon an edifice of falsehood. Bin Laden’s name was continuously invoked by the talking heads of the mainstream media, but no evidence was proffered to support the notion that he planned or was in any way involved in the attacks. In 2006, the FBI admitted that the Bureau had no evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11. “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11,” the FBI’s Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb told journalist Ed Haas.

Former Pakistani spy chief Hamid Gul explained that the media’s obsession with blaming bin Laden was a pre-planned deception. In a September 2001 interview Gul told the Washington Times: “Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.” When asked who he believed sponsored the attacks, Gul replied: “Mossad and its accomplices.”

Veteran CIA officer Milt Bearden echoed a similar sentiment, telling CBS’s Dan Rather: “This was a tremendously sophisticated operation against the United States — more sophisticated than anybody would have ascribed to Osama bin Laden.” “Now I would go so far as to say that this group who was responsible for [the attacks], if they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden out there they’d invent one because he’s a terrific diversion for the rest of the world,” Bearden said.

Despite popular belief bin Laden did not “take credit” for the attacks.

The US invasion of Afghanistan, which was predicated on the unproven assertion that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda committed 9/11, was thus an illegitimate act of naked aggression. Further proof that the Bush regime had no evidence linking al-Qaeda to 9/11 was its refusal to provide the Taliban with the evidence. In October 2001, the Taliban offered the Bush regime a conditional agreement in which the Taliban would surrender bin Laden to a third party country if the US halted its bombing campaign against Afghanistan. All that the Taliban asked for was evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the crimes of 9/11 and upon receiving it they would immediately hand him over. The Bush regime angrily rejected the offer and continued its merciless offensive against the downtrodden country. “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know [bin Laden’s] guilty,” Bush said.

Niaz Naik, a former top Pakistani diplomat, revealed that the US invasion of Afghanistan was pre-arranged. Naik told the [state-run] BBC’s George Arney that US officials informed him of their war plans against Afghanistan months prior to the invasion. “The US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban even before last week’s [9/11] attacks,” he told [the state-run] BBC News. Naik asserted that the objective of the US invasion was not to capture bin Laden but rather to eliminate the Taliban. He explained that the US would not drop its war plans against Afghanistan “even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.”

NBC News confirmed Naik’s claims in a May 2002 report headlined “U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida: White House given plan days before Sept. 11.” The report detailed the contents of a formal National Security Presidential Directive, which “amounted to a game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth.” The plan is said to have “dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan.” The security directive, reported NBC News, “outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks.” The NBC report talked about the “striking parallels” between the Bush regime’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan after 9/11 and the one laid out in the pre-9/11 security directive: “[T]he security directive included efforts to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.” The NBC report concluded: “The couching of the plans as a formal security directive is significant […] because it indicates that the United States intended a full-scale assault on al-Qaida even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred.” Bush was supposed to sign off on this aggressive plan two days before 9/11, but it is unlikely public opinion would have supported such a scenario prior to the attacks.

The evidence presented herein is by no means comprehensive. It is but a small fraction of the available evidence showcasing direct Israeli participation, if not orchestration, of 9/11 to bring about a “war of civilizations” between the West and Islamic world. In September of 2000 the neoconservative group called the Project for the New American Century spoke of a “new pearl harbour” that was needed to facilitate their militarist war plans. Shortly after 9/11, that same group — which was headed by Jewish neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan — called on President Bush to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq in order to protect Israel. Regime change in Iraq was described as an “important Israeli strategic objective” in a 1996 Israeli strategy paper written by leading Jewish neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who all became high-ranking officials in the Bush administration in 2003, leading the drive for a war against Iraq alongside the Israel-first champion Paul Wolfowitz.

The neoconservative movement, which is widely held to be responsible for hijacking the Bush administration and pushing America into the disastrous wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, is at its core a Jewish-Zionist cabal. The movement was, since its inception… [was] led by Zionist inclinations. “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it,” writes Gal Beckerman in an article for the Jewish Forward newspaper. “As a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of [some] Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.”

Not shy about their central role in shaping US foreign policy towards the Middle East, several of the leading neocons boasted about their takeover of the Bush administration. In a [state-run] BBC documentary titled “The War Party,” Richard Perle acknowledged that “the President of the United States on issue after issue has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives.” “George Bush’s current foreign policy is basically a neoconservative foreign policy,” gloated PNAC founder William Kristol. Meyrav Wurmser, the wife of neocon David Wurmser, admitted that the neocons are driven by Zionist ideology: “Yes, many of us [neocons] are Jewish… Most of us, all of us in fact, are pro-Israel.” “The war in Iraq,” wrote Israeli journalist Ari Shavit in a 2003 article that appeared in Haaretz, “was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”

Through deception and subterfuge, Israel and its agents in the US conspired to engineer an endless civilizational conflict between the West and the Arab/Muslim world, for the benefit of Zionism and its expansionist objectives. Corrupted Americans assisted this diabolical scheme and will forever bear the shame of aiding and abetting evil.

Brandon Martinez is a freelance writer and journalist from Canada whose area of expertise is foreign policy, international affairs and 20th and 21st century history. His writing is focused on issues such as Zionism, Israel-Palestine, American and Canadian foreign policy, war, terrorism and deception in media and politics. Readers can contact him at martinezperspective@hotmail.com.

January 26, 2014 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Embarrassing NIST: They Left Out Critical Structural Features of WTC7

By Andrew Mills | RINF Alternative News | January 17, 2014

On December 12, 2013, well known attorney, Dr. William Pepper, sent a letter to the U. S. Department of Commerce Inspector General on behalf of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. The letter concerned certain structural feature omissions found in early 2012 in the drawings on which the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) based their conclusions in their 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) on 9/11. (NIST is one of the agencies under the Department of Commerce.) Dr. Pepper’s letter asked that that the Inspector General investigate and have NIST correct the Report.

As most Americans know, a third building (WTC7) of the WorldTradeCenter complex of buildings collapsed on the same day as the twin towers.  WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that housed offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, as well as the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s OperationsCenter. It collapsed at around 5 pm on 9/11. No airplane crashed into it and it experienced only minor fires before it collapsed. It fell straight down, right into its own footprint, and the speed of fall was very close to gravitational free fall.  Many people at the time remarked that its collapse closely resembled the collapse of buildings due to intentional demolition.

Of those Americans who know that Building 7 collapsed on 9/11, very few are aware that the government through NIST actually investigated the causes of the building’s collapse. The report by NIST was released to the public in August 2008, nearly seven years after the attacks. The drawings upon which the report was based were released only in 2011 in response to a FOIA request.   At the time of the release of the report, many professional engineers and architects had serious misgivings about the report as it basically contended that for the first time in history, the symmetrical, complete collapse of a large, fire protected, steel framed building was said to be fire induced.

As noted in Dr. Pepper’s letter, since the release of the drawings, structural engineers have spent considerable time comparing these drawings to the descriptions of the collapse model provided in the report. Their findings revealed that critical structural features in Building 7 were inexplicably missing from consideration in the Report. These critical features included stiffeners, that provided critical girder support, as well as lateral support beams which supported a beam which allegedly buckled. Only through the omission of any discussion about the stiffeners and the lateral support beams is NIST’s probable collapse sequence possible. It is the unanimous opinion of these structural engineers that with the inclusion of these critical features, NIST’s probable collapse sequence must be ruled out.

As Dr. Pepper’s letter notes, the group of architects and engineers unanimously believe that the NIST Report’s conclusion of collapse due to fire could not have been justified if the stiffeners and the lateral support beams were not omitted. The credibility of NIST and the Department of Commerce requires that they open an investigation into the potential negligence and/or misconduct by the lead investigators of NIST’s Building 7 investigation and that NIST be directed to produce a corrected analysis and report on the collapse of Building 7, this time, by fully taking into account the presence of the stiffeners and the lateral support beams.

After the discovery of these omissions, the group of architects and engineers who discovered them pressed NIST for over a year to get an answer to the question as to why these critical features were omitted from the Report’s discussion and analysis. But they were greeted with silence until October 25, 2013 when a NIST public relations official finally acknowledged that the stiffeners had been omitted, but incredibly, from an engineering standpoint, said they were not necessary to consider.

With the submittal of Dr. Pepper’s letter, which was accompanied by a detailed engineering analysis, NIST has never before been challenged this way, with their own data and information that they themselves have released. They appear to be caught between a rock and a hard place. At the very least they should be forced to release their WTC 7 collapse modeling data. They have not responded to the letter as of yet.

But this is court-room level evidence of impropriety involving the preparation of the WTC 7 report, and will clearly be an embarrassment to NIST. It shows that the demand for a new WTC 7 investigation by those skeptical of the Report’s conclusions was in order all along. Even if nothing else is re-investigated about 9/11, the collapse of Building 7 richly deserves a thorough investigation .

Here is a link to Dr. Pepper’s letter to the Department of Commerce Inspector General:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

Andrew Mills is a groundwater hydrologist employed in an engineering consulting company. He and his wife have six children and 18 grandchildren. He was active in the civil rights movement in the 1950′s and 1960′s.

January 18, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

MIT study of Ghouta chemical attack challenges US intelligence

RT | January 16, 2014

A new MIT report is challenging the US claim that Assad forces used chemical weapons in an attack last August, highlighting that the range of the improvised rocket was way too short to have been launched from government controlled areas.

In the report titled “Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence,” Richard Lloyd, a former UN weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), examined the delivery rocket’s design and calculated possible trajectories based on the payload of the cargo.

The authors concluded that sarin gas “could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the ‘heart’, or from the Eastern edge, of the Syrian government controlled area shown in the intelligence map published by the White House on August 30, 2013.”

Based on mathematical calculations, Lloyd and Postol estimate the rocket with such aerodynamics could not travel more than 2 kilometers. To illustrate their conclusion, the authors included the original White House map that depicted areas under Assad control and those held by the opposition. Based on the firing range and troop locations on August 21, the authors conclude that all possible launching points within the 2 km radius were in rebel-held areas.


“This mistaken intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action based on false intelligence. A proper vetting of the fact that the munition was of such short range would have led to a completely different assessment of the situation from the gathered data,” the report states.

The authors emphasize that the UN independent assessment of the range of the chemical munition is in “exact agreement” with their findings.

The report goes on to challenge the US Secretary of State’s key assessments of the chemical attack that he presented to the American people on August 30th and to the Foreign Relations Committee on September 3rd in an effort to muster a military attack on Syria.

“My view when I started this process was that it couldn’t be anything but the Syrian government behind the attack. But now I’m not sure of anything. The administration narrative was not even close to reality. Our intelligence cannot possibly be correct,” Postol told McClatchy news.


“The Syrian rebels most definitely have the ability to make these weapons,” he said. “I think they might have more ability than the Syrian government.”

It also remains a mystery why the particular type of rocket that was used in the attack was not declared by the Syrian government as part of its chemical weapons arsenal when it agreed to destroy its chemical weapons and their delivery methods. OPCW inspectors charged with implementing the agreement also did not discover such a rocket in possession of government forces.

Syria agreed to the destruction of its chemical weapons through a deal brokered by Russia and the US after a sarin gas attack on August 21. Western nations blamed the deadly attack on President Bashar Assad’s forces, while Damascus accused the rebels for the incident. The UN fact-finding mission had no mandate to find out who carried out the attack.

Under the UN-backed plan, all of the country’s declared 1,290 tons of toxic agents should be destroyed by June 30. Initially, the first batch of the most dangerous materials was to be moved out of Syria on December 31.

However, the deadline was missed because of the ongoing war in Syria and technical issues. It was only on January 7 that “priority chemical materials” left the Syrian port of Latakia on a Danish ship for international waters.

January 16, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment