Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Zelikow’s Key Role in 9/11 Cover-Up

By argonium79 on October 18, 2010

 

September 18, 2011 Posted by | Author: Atheo, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Did 9/11 Really Change Everything?

A State of Permanent War

By ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH | CounterPunch | September 15, 2011

The American people are told, again and again, that 9/11 “changed everything.” Is this really true?

The answer is both yes, and no.

Yes, because 9/11 prompted policies of regime change, preemptive strike, and humanitarian intervention, which, in turn, triggered the wars and military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya. At home, it provided justification for the institution of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, outsourcing of torture, restriction of personal/civil liberties and the ballooning of the Pentagon budget.

And no, because the militaristic policies and security measures that were thus put into effect in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks had been in the making for nearly a dozen years before the attacks took place.

There is overwhelming evidence that the US policies of preemptive strike and regime change started not with the collapse of the World Trade Center in 2001 but with the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Beneficiaries of war dividends, that is, the military-industrial-security complex, were alarmed by the demise of the Soviet Union, by the end of the “communist threat” as the ready-made justifier of continued escalation of the Pentagon budget, and by the demands for “peace dividends.” “What we were afraid of was people who would say . . . ‘Let’s bring all of the troops home, and let’s abandon our position in Europe,’” acknowledged Paul D. Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense under President Bush Sr. “It’s hard to imagine just how uncertain the world looked after the end of the Cold War.”

Not surprisingly, in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, and in the face of widespread demands for “peace dividends,” the powerful interests vested in the military-security capital moved swiftly to fend off such demands by successfully inventing all kinds of “new threats to the national interests of the United States.” Instead of the Soviet Union, the “menace of rogue states, global terrorism, and militant Islam” would have to do as new enemies. Having thus effectively substituted “new sources of threat” for the “communist threat” of the Cold War era, powerful beneficiaries of military spending (working through the Pentagon and a number of militaristic think tanks like the Project for the New American Century, Center for Security Policy, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and National Institute for Public Policy) managed not only to maintain but, in fact, expand the Pentagon budget beyond the Cold War years.

The 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, global terrorism, and US military aggressions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere in the Muslim-Arab world can be better understood against this background: the systemic or internal dynamics of the military-industrial-security complex as an existentially-driven juggernaut to war and militarism that, in the aftermath of the Cold War era, needed all kinds of enemies and boogiemen in order to justify its continued usurpation of the lion’s share of the public finance, or the US treasury.

Major post-Cold War US military strategies such as regime change were formulated not after the 9/11 attacks, or under President Bush Jr., but under President Bush Sr., that is, soon after the demise of the Soviet Union. The early 1990s Pentagon architects of those strategies included the then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, Paul D. Wolfowitz, then Undersecretary of Defense, Zalmay Khalilzad, then a Wolfowitz aide, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, then principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Strategy and Colin L. Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Most of what the Pentagon team crafted in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War was published as a government document under Cheney’s name as America’s “Defense Strategy for the 1990s”—the document also came to be known as Defense Planning Guidance.

Almost all of the Pentagon’s post-Cold War aggressive military strategies such as preemptive strike, expansion of NATO, regime change, nation building, or humanitarian intervention can be traced back to the notorious Defense Planning Guidance of the early 1990s. As James Mann (of the Center for Strategic & International Studies) put it, “What the Pentagon officials had succeeded in doing, within months of the Soviet collapse, was to lay out the intellectual blueprint for a new world dominated—then, now and in the future—by U.S. military power.”

Although President Clinton did not officially embrace Cheney’s Defense Planning Guidance, he did not disclaim it either. And while he slightly slowed down the growth in the pentagon budget, he too had his own share of military operations abroad—in Somalia, Iraq, Haiti, and various provinces of the former Yugoslavia. The Federation of American Scientists has recorded a list of US foreign military engagements in the 1990s which shows that in the first decade after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, that is, under Presidents Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, the United States engaged in 134 such operations. Here is a sample: Operation Eagle Eye (Kosovo), Operation Determined Effort (Bosnia-Herzegovina), Operation Quick Lift (Croatia), Operation Nomad Vigil (Albania), Operation Desert Thunder (Iraq), Operation Seva Verde (Columbia), Operation Constant Vigil (Bolivia), Operation Fundamental Response (Venezuela), Operation Infinite Reach (Sudan/Afghanistan), Operation Safe Border (Peru/Ecuador), Operation United Shield (Somalia), Operation Safe Haven/Safe Passage (Cuba), Operation Sea Signal (Haiti), Operation Safe Harbor (Haiti), Operation Desert Storm (Southwest Asia), and many more.

With the accession of George W. Bush to the presidency, all the Pentagon contributors to the notorious 1992 Defense Planning Guidance also returned to positions of power in the government. Cheney of course became Vice President, Powell became Secretary of State, Wolfowitz moved into the number two position at the Pentagon, as Donald Rumsfeld’s deputy, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, became the Vice President’s chief of staff and national security adviser.

Although George W. Bush’s administration thus arrived in the White House with plans of “regime change” in the Arab-Muslim world, it could not carry out those plans without a pretext. The 9/11 attacks (regardless of who planned and carried them out) provided the needed pretext. The evidence thus clearly shows that, contrary to the claims of many critics, including some distinguished figures like Noam Chomsky, 9/11 served more as an excuse, or boogieman, than a “trap” laid by Osama bin Laden in order to bleed and disgrace the United States by prompting it to wage war and military aggression against the Arab-Muslim world.

The administration wasted no time manipulating the public’s fear of further terrorist attacks to rally support for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. As the administration was preparing for the invasion of Iraq in early 2003, it also dusted off the Pentagon’s 1992 Defense Planning Guidance and promoted it as the “Bush Doctrine” for the new, post-9/11 world. The post-9/11 version of Defense Planning Guidance retains—indeed, strengthens—all the major elements of the 1992 version, although at times it uses slightly modified terminology.

That the U.S. military response to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and its response to the collapse of the World Trade Center in 2001 were basically the same should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the dynamics and profit imperatives of the business of war: continued increase of the Pentagon budget and continued expansion of the sales markets for the war industry. The pretexts or tactics for pursuing higher war dividends may change (from the “threat of communism” to the “threat of rogue states, or global terrorism, or militant Islam”) but the objective or strategy remains the same—permanent war and, consequently, continuous escalation of the Pentagon budget and higher profits for the interests vested in military/security capital.

~

Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, author of The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007), teaches economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.

September 15, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Economics, False Flag Terrorism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

The “Critics” of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts | September 13, 2011

The short answer to the question in the title is no.

The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.

Let’s examine the case against “the truthers” presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.

But first let’s define who “the truthers” are.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of “9/11 conspiracy theorists”.

Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.

Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.

9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.

For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.

The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.

The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.

It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones.

It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.

It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.

The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists.

When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.

When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.

When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel–and their testimony is backed up with photographs–in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there.

When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.

When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.

It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.

That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.

What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says: “Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.)”

Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?

Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.

Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here.

Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”

Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.

Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.

Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.

Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because Dick Cheney’s agents–scores of them–methodically planted demolition charges.”

Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”

Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.

Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon–they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both–stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”

If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.

I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometime. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.

Cockburn’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.

Cockburn’s willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.

Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.

Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?

They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.

Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.

There is no 9/11 debate.

On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.

The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.

Source

September 14, 2011 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

John Gross denies existence of molten metal

John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report is quesitoned about the existance of molten steel at the WTC building, the collapse of Building 7, and also explains how the NIST report did not do any analysis concerning the physical collapse of all three buidlings. John Gross was asked to come speak at the University of Texas at Austin by the Phil. M. Ferguson fund.

September 12, 2011 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Turn off. Tune out. Unplug. Disbelieve.

By Greg Felton | September 10th, 2011

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

Winston Smith, Ministry of Truth, Oceania

And so it begins.

The compulsory veneration of the seminal event 10 years ago that gave us our national security state will dominate our media and be pounded into our consciousness. In newspapers, on TV and on radio we will be assaulted by endless replays of the World Trade Centre collapse, interviews with survivors or bereaved relatives, stories of pain and suffering, heroic portrayals of rescuers, and moralizing about the need to defend our freedoms.

We will have drummed into us, subtly and not so subtly, the official story of how the U.S. was attacked by Muslim terrorists, and why we citizens must, for our own safety, willingly accept sacrifices to our civil liberties, the evisceration of the rule of law, the deaths of our soldiers in needless aggressions, and the mutation of our civilian police from law enforcers to law breakers.

There will be no proper context, factual analysis or intelligent debate because the commemoration is designed to impose obedience to authority, not foster understanding. If this sounds too bizarre for words, it shouldn’t; history is full of events that become moralized and take on a life of their own. The WTC attack, like the Crucifixion and the Holocaust™, is just another moralized historical event around which a moral absolutism is built. That absolutism engenders its own political authority to propagate the core belief and coerce public obedience to it. Those who reject the manufactured reality to seek the truth, suffer ostracism, slander, torture or even death. Truth is the enemy of the state.

In each of these three examples, a prominent death has been exploited to coerce public obedience to a political authority. The Christian Church uses the icon of the crucified, and then risen, Jesus to compel Christians into self-identify with it accepting that Jesus died for them.

But why would Jesus go out of his way to be tortured and put to death in such a gruesome manner? That question cannot be discussed freely because it invites alternate theories about Jesus’ nature and motives, many of which are contained in the gnostic gospels.

Imposing belief in the literal truth of the Crucifixion and Resurrection had nothing to do with Jesus, but everything to do with the Church, whose political authority is based not on the history of Jesus but on the myth of Jesus. Since a myth cannot withstand scrutiny because it has no rational foundation, so the Church can only defend its power by waging war on free belief and massacring its critics, even heterodox Christians.

The Zionism Church (a.k.a. Israel and The Lobby) exploits Hitler’s persecution of Jews to sermonize about Jewish victimhood. The emotional blackmail of Jewish suffering includes the mantra of 6 million dead, gas chambers, Western guilt for not saving Jews, and the belief that Jews need a “homeland” to be free from persecution.

But are not Jews today persecuting Palestinians, and do not Palestinians deserve a homeland for the same reason? Can’t ask that question! If you doubt or in anyway weaken the canonical verities of the 6 million dead, the gas chambers, and the need for Israel you’re not only a heretic but an “anti-Semite,” and deserving of whatever persecution or violence that is inflicted on you. Israel is based on myths, not fact, and the fear of having those myths uncovered lies behind the Zionist persecution of free belief [or even examination] and Palestinian rights.

The Terrorism Church (a.k.a. Project for the New American Century) has exploited the WTC attack to instill in us the myth that Muslim terrorists flew hijacked aircraft into the WTC and Pentagon, killing thousands of innocent Americans. The need to defend the U.S. from subsequent attacks made necessary the USA PATRIOT Act, which superseded the Constitution, and gave us our security-obsessed state.

But if Muslims in aircraft did all that, what explains all those explosions in the buildings below the level of impact, and the inability of a steel-framed structure to withstand a simple fire the way WTC1 did on Feb. 14, 1975? For that matter why would Muslims commit an act of violence knowing full well what the retribution would be? Way out of bounds! Any question about what happened and who was responsible invites analyses of the official absurdity, which the public is supposed to accept as holy writ. We can’t have a police-state if we don’t fear Muslims, and if we don’t fear Muslims, we need to ask who else could have planned and carried out the attack. That leads us to Israeli involvement, which is verboten.

The ability to believe an absurdity is easy if you accept the given zero-sum frame of reference between good and evil. If the absurdity is presented as “good,” then criticisms can be neatly compartmentalized and dismissed as “evil.” When George W. Bush said the Muslims attacked because they hate American freedoms, he reduced these alleged hijackers to evil stereotypes.

When a person or cause is stigmatized as evil, defence becomes impossible. This is why otherwise intelligent people cry “conspiracy theory” when faced with facts about the absurdity of the WTC narrative. To listen to a dissenting opinion would amount to respecting the devil. To foster this image, these “churches” promote hatred of the “other”: Jews killed Jesus; Nazis killed Jews; and Muslims attacked the WTC. (Though Nazis did kill Jews, this good/evil dogma does not recognize the Zionist Jews who helped run the concentration camps and prop up the Nazi regime.)

Without a convenient scapegoat for people to vent their hatred, and without the image of the state as society’s saviour, belief in the absurdity will collapse. It is here we see how official demonization of “terrorist” Muslims is similar to the daily “Two Minutes Hate” orgy in George Orwell’s 1984. The object of the hate is Emmanuel Goldstein, the number one “enemy of the people.” Goldstein was never proven to be a real person, but the daily hate hurled at his image reinforced public loyalty and dependence to the state security apparatus.

As you read this except from 1984, note how Orwell’s depiction of Goldstein as a contrived object of hatred closely resembles our depiction of Osama bin Laden:

Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even—so it was occasionally rumoured—in some hiding-place in Oceania itself…. What was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State.

As if on cue, Israel’s Canadian satrap Stephen Harper gave official sanction to hatred of Muslims in an interview with the CBC. After Sept. 11, 2001, he said the major threat to Canada was still “Islamicism”—a nonsense propaganda term meant to incite public hatred of Muslims and sympathy for the state. To emphasize the point, Harper claimed that Canada even had “homegrown” Islamic radicals, necessitating a return to arbitrary police-state powers to execute warrantless arrests and coerce testimony from witnesses. According to the CBC, neither the police or prosecutors had a reason to make use of these powers, but now we’re supposed to believe they do have a reason?

“WTC Victim–Hate Week” reaches its nauseating crescendo on Sunday, but unlike Oceania, Canada has no law to compel citizens to take part. It is therefore the duty of every rational human being not to participate in this orgy of fraud. Wherever you find yourself: Turn off. Tune out. Unplug. Disbelieve.

~

Greg Felton is an investigative journalist specializing in the Middle East, Canadian politics, the media, and language. He holds a Master’s Degree in political science from the University of British Columbia and speaks French, Russian, and Mandarin. He is author of The Host and The Parasite: How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America.

September 10, 2011 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Noam Chomsky Believes 9/11 Lies

September 9, 2011 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Texans sail 8,000 miles to hold memorial for American sailors killed by Israel

Council for the National Interest | September 7, 2011

A retired college professor who has sailed approximately 8,000 miles to the eastern Mediterranean has now arrived at his destination: the exact location where Israeli forces tried to sink a US Navy ship in 1967, killing or injuring over 200 American servicemen.

Larry Toenjes, 74 years old, is planning to hold a memorial service for those killed on board the ship, the USS Liberty. Israel shelled and torpedoed the ship, an electronics surveillance ship, in an attack that lasted as long as the attack on Pearl Harbor.

While Israel and its partisans have tried to claim that the attack was “a mistake,” a 2003 inquiry by an independent commission led by a retired four-star Navy Admiral, a Rear Admiral, and the highest ranking Medal of Honor recipient in the U.S., a Marine General, announced on Capitol Hill that all the evidence indicated that the attack had been intentional, had consisted of an act of war against the United States by Israel, and that a cover-up had been ordered by the White House.

In addition, the commission found that rescue flights had been recalled by President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. While almost no media covered the Capitol Hill briefing, a full record of its findings is in the Congressional Record and Stars and Stripes military newspaper. [more information on the incident]

Toenjes, who departed from Galveston, Texas, almost four months ago, is accompanied by Marine veteran Rusty Glenn, also from Texas, who joined him in Malta. While there has been concern that Israel might interfere with their voyage as it has other boats in the Mediterranean, ramming and hijacking some, so far Israel seems to be ignoring the voyage. Toenjes will remain 12 miles offshore, in international waters, where the attack took place.

In a column published by the Galveston News, Toenjes explained that he was undertaking the voyage for two primary purposes: to honor the men who died in service to their country and to try to draw attention to attempts by their surviving families and crew-mates to obtain the full government investigation that is legally required but that has been blocked by the powerful Israel Lobby.

Toenjes’ trip is being tracked on the website of the Council for the National Interest (CNI), which will stream live his memorial service later today, which will be carried by satellite phone to a radio program hosted by a Liberty survivor, Phil Tourney.

While the national media have ignored this voyage, Toenjes and Liberty survivors hope that the American public will learn about his undertaking by word of mouth, blogs, and social media.

Below is an earlier report broadcast by Press TV:

FAQ on Israeli assault on the Liberty

September 7, 2011 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Satire: Experts’ stunning confession proves controlled demolition NOT responsible for 9/11 WTC destruction

By Carmen Yarrusso | Intrepid Report | September 6, 2011

Nobody can deny the neat collapse of three World Trade Center buildings into their footprints at nearly free-fall speeds looks exactly like so-called “controlled demolition.” And yes, high-rise fires (many bigger, more intense, and longer lasting than those at the WTC) had never come close to bringing down a modern steel-framed building until it happened THREE times in one day on 9/11. But just because something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, tastes like a duck, and wears a tee shirt that reads: I’M A DUCK, YOU IDIOT!!!!, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a duck.

Thirty courageous experts from the handful of elite companies that implode modern steel-framed buildings have released a stunning joint confession that strongly disputes the claim that controlled demolition was used to destroy the three WTC buildings. They call themselves Licensed Implosion Authorities Renouncing Stupidity (LIARS).

Here’s the LIARS press release:

We, the Licensed Implosion Authorities Renouncing Stupidity (LIARS), are patriotic Americans who come forward on this solemn tenth anniversary of the 9/11 disaster to emphatically refute the absurd notion that controlled demolition brought down the WTC buildings. We’re well aware the information we’re exposing guarantees we’ll be condemned and ostracized by the controlled demolition industry; in fact, our lives may be in danger. But America needs to know the truth.

The sad truth is this: the few elite companies that implode large steel-framed buildings are guilty of massive fraud. The typical months of preparation, the careful placing of thousands of explosives, and the meticulous timing of explosions are COMPLETELY unnecessary. Consider the following facts from Controlled Demolition, Inc.’s website describing the tallest building ever imploded using controlled demolition, Detroit’s 439 ft J. L. Hudson Department Store:

  • a 21-man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four more months to complete the implosion design
  • the steel support columns weighed over 500 lb/ft, with up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs
  • each column was analyzed to determine the actual load it carried and then cutting torches were used to carefully scarf-off the steel plates in order to use smaller charges to cut the remaining steel
  • the steel support columns were severed using a complex delay system to keep hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the building’s 420 ft by 220 ft footprint
  • a 12-person crew took 24 days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on support columns on 9 levels. 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electrical delay elements were used for the implosion initiation system using 2,728 lb of explosives

Demolition company insiders have long known that all this elaborate preparation is just for show to inflate their profits. They’ve always claimed it’s necessary to carefully sever ALL the main support columns at the lower levels to get the structure to fall straight into its footprint.

The American people must be told there’s absolutely no need to weaken the support columns at the lower levels. In fact, there’s no need to do ANYTHING AT ALL to the lower floors of a modern steel-framed building. Just randomly sever several support columns on a few floors near the TOP of the structure, ignite a few small short-lived oil fires to weaken a few horizontal supports, and watch the building quickly fall straight into its footprint.

It doesn’t matter much which few floors near the top or which support columns are chosen. The South tower had support columns randomly severed between floors 78 to 84 and the North tower had support columns randomly severed between floors 94 to 98. The lower 80 or 90 floors of these buildings were UNTOUCHED by explosives or cutting torches. Yet both buildings fell neatly into their footprints.

WTC Building 7 illustrates the fraud perpetrated by our industry even more dramatically than the collapse of the twin towers. Being only 47 stories, it didn’t even require severing of a few support columns. All it needed was some relatively small isolated fires to bring it straight down into its footprint.

The American people should ask themselves this: If this very simple, somewhat random method of imploding tall buildings isn’t reliable, how can you explain that it worked perfectly THREE TIMES on the same day?

We could have been using these simple techniques for all buildings imploded over the years. This for-profit fraud by our industry has wasted millions in demolition costs and, worse yet, caused the vast majority of Americans to erroneously believe it takes months of preparation and meticulously placed and timed explosives (especially on lower floors) to neatly collapse a steel-framed building into its footprint.

The 9/11 disaster certainly looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, tastes like a duck, and wears a tee shirt that reads: I’M A DUCK, YOU IDIOT!!!!, but trust us, the LIARS, it’s not a duck.

Carmen Yarrusso lives on a river in a small town in New Hampshire. He often writes about uncomfortable truths.

September 6, 2011 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | Leave a comment

Architects & Engineers – Solving the Mystery of WTC 7

ae911truth on August 16, 2011

September 4, 2011 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

The Legend of 9/11 — 10 Years On


by Anthony Lawson

This video concentrates on the two major 9/11 issues: The Unidentified Planes and The Controlled Demolitions. Nothing else. It does not mention the NORAD stand–down; the don’t-fly and don’t-go-to-work warnings or the Dancing Israelis or any of the other anomalies and suspicious happenings. The alleged amateur suicide pilots are not mentioned, either, for obvious reasons, and I do not know what happened to the allegedly hijacked planes or their alleged passengers and crews.

It is my contention that the 9/11 Truth Movement has got to concentrate on the most blatant and provable lies in the official story, and stop trying to be an amateur Police Precinct or a citizen’s District Attorney’s Office. The Movement must bring pressure to bear in the authorities for a new enquiry, so that the police, the FBI, the NTSB and all of the other law enforcement and investigative agencies can do what should have been done 10 years ago: Find out who was responsible for the crime of the attacks on 9/11 and bring them to justice.

While I was thinking about a video for the 10th anniversary of 9/11, an English artist named David Borrington got in touch, and asked if I would write and record some voice commentaries to be included in a set of prints that he was making for the same occasion. When I saw his strangely haunting artwork, I decided to incorporate David’s images into my video. So, my sincere thanks go to David Borrington, whose website is http://www.davidborrington.com

I would also like to recommend that anyone who is interested in the research done on the Murray Street engine take a look at Christopher King’s excellent web page:
http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king/2009/09/murray-street-engine.html

Music: Adagietto – 4th Movement from Gustav Mahler’s Symphony No.5

September 2, 2011 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

COINTELPRO is alive and well

WUFYS | August 30, 2011

A recent Mother Jones article discusses how FBI personnel justify their six-figure salaries by continually hatching fake terrorist plots and sending victims to prison. When there is no crime, the FBI creates fake crime via incitement and entrapment.

The Mother Jones article cites some interesting figures.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the FBI’s victims were civil rights groups and anti-war demonstrators (COINTELPRO).

In the 1980s the victims came from the “war on drugs.”

In the 1990s the target became the Militia movement.

Since 9-11 the victims have been Muslims.

This FBI scam now consumes $3.3 billion tax dollars per year.

The article says the FBI had 1,500 informants in 1975. By 1980 it was 2,800. By 1981 it was 6,000. Today there are 15,000 officially listed in the FBI’s records, plus 45,000 not officially listed.

All are tasked with infiltrating Muslim communities in the United States, and inciting them to commit terrorist acts with fake bombs.

Some informants are coerced. If they help hatch terrorist plots, they can avoid prison or deportation. Typically the FBI scans the ICE database, looking for people who might have immigration problems. Patsies are sent to infiltrate Muslim communities and anti-war groups to look for other people who have immigration problems, or extramarital affairs, or anything else the FBI can use to blackmail its victims into joining a fake terrorist plot. Informants also look for desperate, homeless people who might be allured by a fake offer of cash.

An imam, for example, will know about everyone who regularly visits a mosque. Two Islamic religious leaders, Foad Farahi in Miami and Sheikh Tarek Saleh in New York City, are currently fighting deportation proceedings that began after they refused to become FBI patsies.

Once you become a coerced patsy, you are a slave for life. If you refuse to keep submitting, the FBI will send you to prison and tell all inmates that you are a snitch.

Some informants are not coerced. They are ex-felons and con men paid up to $100,000 per FBI assignment. Some informants are simply losers who fancy themselves living a James Bond life.

The Mother Jones article examined FBI scams that resulted in prosecutions against 158 defendants, of which 49 defendants participated in plots led by an FBI agent provocateur. Almost all of the high-profile domestic terror plots since the 9-11 scam were FBI entrapment scams.

FBI agents provocateur record all their conversations with their patsies. Then the FBI edits the conversations so they appear more damning in court. When entire sections of dialogue vanish, the FBI claims that “technical problems” caused it. Besides, evidence is not needed when you are charged with terrorism. And since jury candidates are screened so that only morons remain, federal prosecutors enjoy a 99% conviction rate.

Two thirds of all patsies don’t go that far. They plead guilty, because the FBI threatens them. “If you force us to take you to trial, your sentence will be far worse.”

In most cases involving coerced patsies, the FBI eventually breaks its promise, and sends them to prison after all. Many patsies are poor and unemployed. Some have mental health issues. All coerced patsies are used and destroyed.

Essentially the FBI trolls the masses, selects victims from the herd, and publicly crucifies them.

In this way the FBI claims victories in the “war on terror,” so FBI personnel can keep their cushy, high-paying jobs.

Read more at:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/fbi-terrorist-informants

August 31, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Islamophobia | Leave a comment

Request for correction to BBC NEWS

9/11 Blogger – 08/31/2011

To: the editor of BBC NEWS Magazine online.

This letter is a request for correction regarding mistakes found in article “9/11 conspiracy theories” published August 29, 2011.

1. On point 1, quote: “the transponder, which provides the exact location of the plane, was turned off or changed”

Airplane transponder is a machine that provides ground control with some data originating from the plane, such as the altitude of the plane, its name, its bearing and other data. It doesn’t provide horizontal (map) location of the plane, which can be read by primary radar data, which originates from ground radar installations and will continue to function whatever happens to the plane transponder.

Your assertion is wrong, so you’re requested to correct and clarify it.

2. On point 2, quote: “Controlled demolition is always carried out from the bottom floors up”

As you can see in the destruction of 12-14 rue parant – glacis – Belfort on February 21, 2008 (link) controlled demolition can start from the middle floors downward.

Your assertion is wrong, so you’re requested to substitute the word “always” with “usually”.

3. Also on point 2, quote: “No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges despite the extensive hand searches”

As clearly stated by NIST in their official website FAQ (point 12), quote: [Question] “Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) “slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.”
[Answer] “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”

Your assertion is false and misleading, so you’re requested to inform the reader that NIST admits it never looked for explosives/incendiaries residues during their official investigation (US congress H.R. 4687 gives mandate to NIST and NIST alone to investigate the collapse and provide an official explanation on the collapses causes and dynamics).

4. On point 4, quote: “the military never gave orders to the air force to shoot the commercial airliner down.”

As clearly stated in 9/11 Commission Report page 40-41 in the chapter titled “United 93 and the shootdown order”, quote: “The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President”
You may remind that in the United States the President is also the commander in chief of the military.

Also, in the same page we have, quote: “At approximately 10:30, the shelter started receiving reports of another hijacked plane, this time only 5 to 10 miles out. Believing they had only a minute or two, the Vice President again communicated the authorization to ‘engage’ or ‘take out’ the aircraft.”

Your assertion is two times false, so you’re requested to correct and clarify it.

5. Point 5, quote: “Some scientists, who are sceptical of the official account, have examined four dust samples from Ground Zero and claim to have found thermitic material which reacts violently when heated up”

The scientific study you refer to is “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, published by The Open Chemical Physics Journal. It is a peer-reviewed paper, which to date (August 29, 2011) has never been challenged by another peer-reviewed study or publication, as such the information within is considered scienfically correct until such a confutation appears.

So it’s not a mere claim by some sceptical scientists, but science’ position on the issue.

Your assertion is misleading, so you’re requested to provide credit to the study as a peer-reviewed scientific study.

6. Also on point 5, quote: “Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the “thermitic material” the sceptical scientists found in the dust – it is just a type of primer paint”.

The study itself poses the same question and scientifically refutes it – you may look in the document itself, point 7 “Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?” to learn the reasons why the material cannot be any type of primer paint.

Your assertion is refuted by an unchallenged, peer-reviewed scientific study, and as such you must inform the readers your opinion is not scientifically based.

I hope to see the corrections soon, in a much needed confirmation that journalism has no master but truth.

Sincerely
Riccardo Pizzirani – Sertes

August 31, 2011 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »