Tag Archives: 9/11

U.S. Intelligence Agencies Mock America in 9/11 Trial

By Kevin Ryan
June 14, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

Last year, it was discovered that the FBI had attempted to infiltrate the legal defense team of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner. The defendant is charged, along with four others including Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the military trial was moved out for approximately one year to allow for an investigation into the FBI’s offense. Recently, Al-Jazeera reported that the trial has been moved out yet again because the Department of Justice team leading the investigation (of its own bureau) needs more time to complete its secret report. These delays highlight the absurdity of the case against these men and the contemptible abuse of justice that the military trial represents.

Apparently, it has been difficult for the Justice Department to explain why the FBI approached a member of defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s legal team to “create a relationship with him that he was forbidden from disclosing.” That explanation became more difficult when it was learned that another member of Bin al-Shibh’s defense team had been cooperating with the FBI since late 2013.

fbicia_300The FBI infiltration of the Bin Al-Shibh defense team is just the tip of this anti-justice iceberg, however. In February, it was revealed that a translator assigned to help defend the accused was a CIA operative. That’s one way to ensure that the official account of 9/11, created entirely through torture testimony and secret evidence provided by the CIA ad FBI, would not be contradicted by defendant testimony. More was needed, however, as previous disclosures showed that the CIA was controlling audio feeds from the courtroom, bugging the rooms where the accused met with their lawyers, and censoring the lawyers. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of confidential defense team emails were provided to the prosecutors.

The military trial of these men was never expected to bring justice. But the absurd actions taken by the CIA and FBI have made the whole thing seem ludicrous, mocking the U.S. justice system. Why would these measures be needed and tolerated if the defendants were actually involved in 9/11? The reasons include that:

  • The charges against the defendants were largely established based on torture testimony, the records of which were destroyed by the CIA. That was after the agency misled the 9/11 Commission about the existence of the records.
  • Bin al-Shibh and KSM were both originally identified by the first torture victim, Abu Zubaydah. However, the government now says that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda at all and therefore he could not have known what the government previously said he knew. In other words, the arrest and torture of Bin al-Shibh and KSM were initiated by way of a fictional account attributed to Zubaydah.
  • 9/11 Commission leader Lee Hamilton suddenly can’t recall anything about these torture victims or his use of their testimony (441 times) in the 9/11 Commission Report.
  • KSM’s behavior prior to 9/11 was reported to be very different from that of a Muslim. He enjoyed go-go dancers and drinking parties and was said to be dangerous to nothing but his own bank account. The playboy lifestyle of KSM was similar to that of alleged hijacker ringleader Mohamed Atta, who seemed to be protected by U.S. authorities and might have been an intelligence asset.
  • One of the defense team lawyers resigned from the Army in protest of what was happening. He accused the U.S. government of “stacking the deck against the defense” and conducting a “show trial.”

One reasonable explanation for why the CIA and FBI have gone to such great lengths to control this trial is that the agencies are trying to cover-up their own role in 9/11. Much has been learned that suggests the CIA and FBI were involved. For example:

Whatever the reason for the antics, the military trial of these men has become an absolute farce leading American society farther down a path of tyranny. It sets a precedent in which the CIA and FBI can be suspected of crimes against the nation and then charge others with those crimes using secret evidence. The accused can be held in seclusion for thirteen years until agents of the CIA and FBI insert themselves as defense team members, ensuring total control from start to end.

At the same time, the press never notices that such an obviously fake trial would not be needed if there were actually any legitimate evidence against the accused. All things considered, this trial is not only a travesty of justice, it makes a mockery of 9/11 and brings shame upon the American people.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Last year, it was discovered that the FBI had attempted to infiltrate the legal defense team of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner. The defendant is charged, along with four others including Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the military trial was moved out for approximately one year to allow for an investigation into the FBI’s offense. Recently, Al-Jazeera reported that the trial has been moved out yet again because the Department of Justice team leading the investigation (of its own bureau) needs more time to complete its secret report. These delays highlight the absurdity of the case against these men and the contemptible abuse of justice that the military trial represents.

Apparently, it has been difficult for the Justice Department to explain why the FBI approached a member of defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s legal team to “create a relationship with him that he was forbidden from disclosing.” That explanation became more difficult when it was learned that another member of Bin al-Shibh’s defense team had been cooperating with the FBI since late 2013.

fbicia_300The FBI infiltration of the Bin Al-Shibh defense team is just the tip of this anti-justice iceberg, however. In February, it was revealed that a translator assigned to help defend the accused was a CIA operative. That’s one way to ensure that the official account of 9/11, created entirely through torture testimony and secret evidence provided by the CIA ad FBI, would not be contradicted by defendant testimony. More was needed, however, as previous disclosures showed that the CIA was controlling audio feeds from the courtroom, bugging the rooms where the accused met with their lawyers, and censoring the lawyers. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of confidential defense team emails were provided to the prosecutors.

The military trial of these men was never expected to bring justice. But the absurd actions taken by the CIA and FBI have made the whole thing seem ludicrous, mocking the U.S. justice system. Why would these measures be needed and tolerated if the defendants were actually involved in 9/11? The reasons include that:

  • The charges against the defendants were largely established based on torture testimony, the records of which were destroyed by the CIA. That was after the agency misled the 9/11 Commission about the existence of the records.
  • Bin al-Shibh and KSM were both originally identified by the first torture victim, Abu Zubaydah. However, the government now says that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda at all and therefore he could not have known what the government previously said he knew. In other words, the arrest and torture of Bin al-Shibh and KSM were initiated by way of a fictional account attributed to Zubaydah.
  • 9/11 Commission leader Lee Hamilton suddenly can’t recall anything about these torture victims or his use of their testimony (441 times) in the 9/11 Commission Report.
  • KSM’s behavior prior to 9/11 was reported to be very different from that of a Muslim. He enjoyed go-go dancers and drinking parties and was said to be dangerous to nothing but his own bank account. The playboy lifestyle of KSM was similar to that of alleged hijacker ringleader Mohamed Atta, who seemed to be protected by U.S. authorities and might have been an intelligence asset.
  • One of the defense team lawyers resigned from the Army in protest of what was happening. He accused the U.S. government of “stacking the deck against the defense” and conducting a “show trial.”

One reasonable explanation for why the CIA and FBI have gone to such great lengths to control this trial is that the agencies are trying to cover-up their own role in 9/11. Much has been learned that suggests the CIA and FBI were involved. For example:

Whatever the reason for the antics, the military trial of these men has become an absolute farce leading American society farther down a path of tyranny. It sets a precedent in which the CIA and FBI can be suspected of crimes against the nation and then charge others with those crimes using secret evidence. The accused can be held in seclusion for thirteen years until agents of the CIA and FBI insert themselves as defense team members, ensuring total control from start to end.

At the same time, the press never notices that such an obviously fake trial would not be needed if there were actually any legitimate evidence against the accused. All things considered, this trial is not only a travesty of justice, it makes a mockery of 9/11 and brings shame upon the American people.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Last year, it was discovered that the FBI had attempted to infiltrate the legal defense team of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner. The defendant is charged, along with four others including Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the military trial was moved out for approximately one year to allow for an investigation into the FBI’s offense. Recently, Al-Jazeera reported that the trial has been moved out yet again because the Department of Justice team leading the investigation (of its own bureau) needs more time to complete its secret report. These delays highlight the absurdity of the case against these men and the contemptible abuse of justice that the military trial represents.

Apparently, it has been difficult for the Justice Department to explain why the FBI approached a member of defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s legal team to “create a relationship with him that he was forbidden from disclosing.” That explanation became more difficult when it was learned that another member of Bin al-Shibh’s defense team had been cooperating with the FBI since late 2013.

fbicia_300The FBI infiltration of the Bin Al-Shibh defense team is just the tip of this anti-justice iceberg, however. In February, it was revealed that a translator assigned to help defend the accused was a CIA operative. That’s one way to ensure that the official account of 9/11, created entirely through torture testimony and secret evidence provided by the CIA ad FBI, would not be contradicted by defendant testimony. More was needed, however, as previous disclosures showed that the CIA was controlling audio feeds from the courtroom, bugging the rooms where the accused met with their lawyers, and censoring the lawyers. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of confidential defense team emails were provided to the prosecutors.

The military trial of these men was never expected to bring justice. But the absurd actions taken by the CIA and FBI have made the whole thing seem ludicrous, mocking the U.S. justice system. Why would these measures be needed and tolerated if the defendants were actually involved in 9/11? The reasons include that:

  • The charges against the defendants were largely established based on torture testimony, the records of which were destroyed by the CIA. That was after the agency misled the 9/11 Commission about the existence of the records.
  • Bin al-Shibh and KSM were both originally identified by the first torture victim, Abu Zubaydah. However, the government now says that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda at all and therefore he could not have known what the government previously said he knew. In other words, the arrest and torture of Bin al-Shibh and KSM were initiated by way of a fictional account attributed to Zubaydah.
  • 9/11 Commission leader Lee Hamilton suddenly can’t recall anything about these torture victims or his use of their testimony (441 times) in the 9/11 Commission Report.
  • KSM’s behavior prior to 9/11 was reported to be very different from that of a Muslim. He enjoyed go-go dancers and drinking parties and was said to be dangerous to nothing but his own bank account. The playboy lifestyle of KSM was similar to that of alleged hijacker ringleader Mohamed Atta, who seemed to be protected by U.S. authorities and might have been an intelligence asset.
  • One of the defense team lawyers resigned from the Army in protest of what was happening. He accused the U.S. government of “stacking the deck against the defense” and conducting a “show trial.”

One reasonable explanation for why the CIA and FBI have gone to such great lengths to control this trial is that the agencies are trying to cover-up their own role in 9/11. Much has been learned that suggests the CIA and FBI were involved. For example:

Whatever the reason for the antics, the military trial of these men has become an absolute farce leading American society farther down a path of tyranny. It sets a precedent in which the CIA and FBI can be suspected of crimes against the nation and then charge others with those crimes using secret evidence. The accused can be held in seclusion for thirteen years until agents of the CIA and FBI insert themselves as defense team members, ensuring total control from start to end.

At the same time, the press never notices that such an obviously fake trial would not be needed if there were actually any legitimate evidence against the accused. All things considered, this trial is not only a travesty of justice, it makes a mockery of 9/11 and brings shame upon the American people.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Bush And Cheney Lied About Nukes, Al Qaeda In Iraq

According to Bush’s No. 1 Intel Briefer

By Charles Topher
Global Research, May 22, 2015
Addicting Info, 20 May 2015

 

It’s an all-too-repetitive argument about an extremely disturbing subject: Did a sitting United States President lie to the American people in order to take us to one of the most costly wars in history?

For the left the answer is and always has been clear; there’s credible evidence that the intel that sent us to Iraq to seek out weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda was flawed, but somehow we ended up there anyway, so someone had to have lied.

To the right, it was the faulty intel itself that sent us to Iraq; George W. Bush and his administration made decisions based on what they were told.

A new piece was introduced to the puzzle Tuesday night when Michael Morrell, once acting chief of the CIA and Bush’s intelligence briefer prior to the invasion, appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews. For the first time, the person that actually delivered that “flawed” intel directly to President Bush told exactly what went down, and it is absolutely infuriating.

Matthews asked Morel about a specific statement made by Dick Cheney in 2003:

“We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

Matthews asked the very straightforward question, “was that true?”, to which Morell answered, “No. That was not true.”

While Morell says the intelligence community was telling the administration that there was a good chance Saddam had chemical or biological weapons, it was the fear of the nuclear weapon coupled with the means to deliver it to the United States that was the breaking point for the American people.

As Matthews points out, “there’s no coming back from that.”

Other notable moments from the thirteen-minute segment include Morell admitting that the Bush Administration added Al Qaeda to the Iraq dialogue in order to “make a better case for war,” and that where the intelligence community was concerned, “when we were pushed on Iraq and Al Qaeda, we pushed back.”

It’s been known for quite some time that the administration was determined to go to Iraq even before 9-11, but to hear the man who actually briefed the President, whose job as he puts it is to “give him the best information possible and make sure he understands it,” openly admit that credible information was either skewed or ignored, and in some cases invented, is unfathomable.

Watch excerpts of Chris Matthews’ Hardball segment with Bush intelligence briefer Mike Morell:

HEAD of the FBI’s Anthrax Investigation Says the Whole Thing Was a SHAM

By WashingtonsBlog
April 17, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

Agent In Charge of Amerithrax Investigation Blows the Whistle

The FBI head of the agent in charge of the anthrax investigation – Richard Lambert – has just filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit calling the entire FBI investigation bullsh!t:

In the fall of 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, a series of anthrax mailings occurred which killed five Americans and sickened 17 others. Four anthrax-laden envelopes were recovered which were addressed to two news media outlets in New York City (the New York Post and Tom Brokaw at NBC) and two senators in Washington D.C. (Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle). The anthrax letters addressed to New York were mailed on September 18, 2001, just seven days after the 9/11 attacks. The letters addressed to the senators were mailed 21 days later on October 9, 2001. A fifth mailing of anthrax is believed to have been directed to American Media, Inc. (AMI) in Boca Raton, Florida based upon the death of one AMI employee from anthrax poisoning and heavy spore contamination in the building.

Executive management at FBI Headquarters assigned responsibility for the anthrax investigation (code named “AMERITHRAX”) to the Washington Field Office (WFO), dubbing it the single most important case in the FBI at that time. In October 2002, in the wake of surging media criticism, White House impatience with a seeming lack of investigative progress by WFO, and a concerned Congress that was considering revoking the FBI’s charter to investigate terrorism cases, Defendant FBI Director Mueller reassigned Plaintiff from the FBI’s San Diego Field Office to the Inspection Division at FBI Headquarters and placed Plaintiff in charge of the AMERITHRAX case as an “Inspector.” While leading the investigation for the next four years, Plaintiff’s efforts to advance the case met with intransigence from WFO’s executive management, apathy and error from the FBI Laboratory, politically motivated communication embargos from FBI Headquarters, and yet another preceding and equally erroneous legal opinion from Defendant Kelley – all of which greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation.

On July 6, 2006, Plaintiff provided a whistleblower report of mismanagement to the FBI’s Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303. Reports of mismanagement conveyed in writing and orally included: (a) WFO’s persistent understaffing of the AMERITHRAX investigation; (b) the threat of WFO’s Agent in charge to retaliate if Plaintiff disclosed the understaffing to FBI Headquarters; (c) WFO’s insistence on staffing the AMERITHRAX investigation principally with new Agents recently graduated from the FBI Academy resulting in an average investigative tenure of 18 months with 12 of 20 Agents assigned to the case having no prior investigative experience at all; (d) WFO’s eviction of the AMERITHRAX Task Force from the WFO building in downtown Washington and its relegation to Tysons Corner, Virginia to free up space for Attorney General Ashcroft’s new pornography squads; (e) FBI Director’s Mueller’s mandate to Plaintiff to “compartmentalize” the AMERITHRAX investigation by stove piping the flow of case information and walling off task force members from those aspects of the case not specifically assigned to them – a move intended to stem the tide of anonymous media leaks by government officials regarding details of the investigation. [Lambert complained about compartmentalizing and stovepiping of the investigation in a 2006 declaration.  See this, this and this]

This sequestration edict decimated morale and proved unnecessary in light of subsequent civil litigation which established that the media leaks were attributable to the United States Attorney for the District of the District of Columbia and to a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI’s National Press Office, not to investigators on the AMERITHRAX Task Force; (f) WFO’s diversion and transfer of two Ph.D. Microbiologist Special Agents from their key roles in the investigation to fill billets for an 18 month Arabic language training program in Israel; (g) the FBI Laboratory’s deliberate concealment from the Task Force of its discovery of human DNA on the anthrax-laden envelope addressed to Senator Leahy and the Lab’s initial refusal to perform comparison testing; (h) the FBI Laboratory’s refusal to provide timely and adequate scientific analyses and forensic examinations in support of the investigation; (i) Defendant Kelley’s erroneous and subsequently quashed legal opinion that regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) precluded the Task Force’s collection of evidence in overseas venues; (j) the FBI’s fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer; and, (k) the FBI’s subsequent efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence.

Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins’ guilt. These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions. Plaintiff further objected to the FBI’s ordering of Plaintiff not to speak with the staff of the CBS television news magazine 60 Minutes or investigative journalist David Willman, after both requested authorization to interview Plaintiff.

In April 2008, some of Plaintiff’s foregoing whistleblower reports were profiled on the CBS television show 60 Minutes. This 60 Minutes segment was critical of FBI executive management’s handling of the AMERITHRAX investigation, resulting in the agency’s embarrassment and the introduction of legislative bills calling for the establishment of congressional inquiries and special commissions to examine these issues – a level of scrutiny the FBI’s Ivins attribution could not withstand.

After leaving the AMERITHRAX investigation in 2006, Plaintiff continued to publicly opine that the quantum of circumstantial evidence against Bruce Ivins was not adequate to satisfy the proof-beyond-a-reasonable doubt threshold required to secure a criminal conviction in federal court. Plaintiff continued to advocate that while Bruce Ivins may have been the anthrax mailer, there is a wealth of exculpatory evidence to the contrary which the FBI continues to conceal from Congress and the American people.

Exonerating Evidence for Ivins

Agent Lambert won’t publicly disclose the exculpatory evidence against Ivins. As the New York Times reports:

[Lambert] declined to be specific, saying that most of the information was protected by the Privacy Act and was unlikely to become public unless Congress carried out its own inquiry.

But there is already plenty of exculpatory evidence which is already publicly available.

For example:

  • Handwriting analysis failed to link the anthrax letters to known Ivins writing samples
  • No textile fibers were found in Ivins’ office, residence or vehicles matching fibers found on the scotch tape used to seal the envelopes
  • No pens were found matching the ink used to address the envelopes
  • Samples of his hair failed to match hair follicles found inside the Princeton, N.J., mailbox used to mail the letters
  • No souvenirs of the crime, such as newspaper clippings, were found in his possession as commonly seen in serial murder cases
  • The FBI could not place Ivins at the crime scene with evidence, such as gas station or other receipts, at the time the letters were mailed in September and October 2001
  • Lab records show the number of late nights Ivins put in at the lab first spiked in August 2001, weeks before the 9/11 attacks

As noted above, the FBI didn’t want to test the DNA sample found on the anthrax letter to Senator Leahy.  In addition, McClatchy points out:

After locking in on Ivins in 2007, the bureau stopped searching for a match to a unique genetic bacterial strain scientists had found in the anthrax that was mailed to the Post and to NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, although a senior bureau official had characterized it as the hottest clue to date.

Anthrax vaccine expert Meryl Nass. M.D., notes:

The FBI’s alleged motive is bogus. In 2001, Bioport’s anthrax vaccine could not be (legally) relicensed due to potency failures, and its impending demise provided room for Ivins’ newer anthrax vaccines to fill the gap. Ivins had nothing to do with developing Bioport’s vaccine, although in addition to his duties working on newer vaccines, he was charged with assisting Bioport to get through licensure.

***

The FBI report claims the anthrax letters envelopes were sold in Frederick, Md. Later it admits that millions of indistinguishable envelopes were made, with sales in Maryland and Virginia.

***

FBI emphasizes Ivins’ access to a photocopy machine, but fails to mention it was not the machine from which the notes that accompanied the spores were printed.

FBI Fudged the Science

16 government labs had access to the same strain of anthrax as used in the anthrax letters.

The FBI admitted that up to 400 people had access to flask of anthrax in Dr. Ivins’ lab.  In other words, even if the killer anthrax came from there, 399 other people might have done it.

However, the FBI’s claim that the killer anthrax came from Ivins’ flask has fallen apart. Specifically, both the National Academy of Science and the Government Accountability Office – both extremely prestigious, nonpartisan agencies – found that FBI’s methodology and procedures for purportedly linking the anthrax flask maintained by Dr. Ivins with the anthrax letters was sloppy, inconclusive and full of holes.  They found that the alleged link wasn’t very strong … and that there was no firm link.  Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences found that the anthrax mailed to Congressmen and the media could have come from a different source altogether than the flask maintained by Ivins.

After all, the entire Ft. Detrick facility – where Ivins worked – only dealt with liquid anthrax.  But the killer anthrax was a hard-to-make dry powder for of anthrax. advance.  Ft. Detrick doesn’t produce dry forms; but government labs in Utah (Dugway) and Ohio (Batelle) do.

The anthrax in the letters was also incredibly finely ground; and the FBI’s explanation doesn’t pass the smell test.

Moreover, the killer anthrax in the letters had a very high-tech  anti-static coating so that the spores “floated off the glass slide and was lost” when scientists tried to examine them.  Specifically, the killer anthrax was coated with polyglass and each anthrax spore given an electrostatic charge, so that they would repel other spores and “float”.   In other words, this was very advanced bio-weapons technology.

Top anthrax experts like Richard Spertzel say that Ivins didn’t do it. Spertzel also says that only 4 or 5 people in the entire country knew how to make anthrax of the “quality” used in the letters, that Spertzel was one of them, and it would have taken him a year with a full lab and a staff of helpers to do it. As such, the FBI’s claim that Ivins did it alone working a few nights is ludicrous.

Moreover, the killer anthrax contained silicon … but the anthrax in Ivins’ flask did not.  The FBI claimed the silicon present in the anthrax letters was absorbed from its surroundings … but Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories completely debunked that theory. In other words, silicon was intentionally added to the killer anthrax to make it more potent. And Ivins and Ft. Detrick didn’t have that capability; but other government labs did.

Similarly, Sandia National Lab found the presence of iron and tin in the killer anthrax … but NOT in Ivins’ flask of anthrax.

Sandia also found that there was a strain of bacteria in one of the anthrax letters not present in Ivins’ flask.

The Anthrax Frame Up

Ivins wasn’t the first person framed for the anthrax attacks …

Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country. And see this.

People don’t remember now, but the Anthrax attacks were as important a “justification” for the Iraq war as 9/11.   And the anthrax letters pushed a terrified Congress into approving the Patriot Act without even reading it.

And – between the Al Qaeda/Iraq angle and Ivins – the FBI was convinced that another U.S. government scientist, Steven Hatfill, did it.  The government had to pay Hatfill $4.6 million to settle his lawsuit for being falsely accused.

Ivins’ Convenient Death

It is convenient for the FBI that Ivins died.

The Wall Street Journal points out:

No autopsy was performed [on Ivins], and there was no suicide note.

Indeed, one of Ivins’ colleagues at Ft. Deitrich thinks he was murdered.

Whether murder or suicide, Ivins’ death was very convenient for the FBI, as dead men can’t easily defend themselves.

Mainstream Media’s Schizophrenic Attitude Towards “Conspiracy Theories”

By Seppo Ilmarinen
Global Research, April 12, 2015
Sott

 

lemmingsLate February the Finnish publication Iltalehti published a sensational news headline about conspiracy theories:

Now it is proven: conspiracy theorists are fools living in a bubble

The internet is the information highway for both good and bad, because on the net all content is equal and trustworthy content competes for attention among all kinds of misinformationAmong other things, conspiracy theories and the peddling alternative media, are spread widely within the depths of the net.

Rumors, propaganda, and other net-loopers have become such a serious problem, that the World Economic Forumcommitted to monitoring the state of the world, named it as one of modern societies greatest threats alongside terrorism and cyber crime.

This Iltalehti article refers to an article written in English on Vice Motherboard that itself refers to the Italian study at PLOS One.

Iltalehti’s first comment suggests that only the content of mainstream media represents absolutely trustworthy information, while again alternative media’s “conspiracy theories” are rumor, propaganda and misinformation. Conspiracies are something like mystical fairy tales, believed only by mentally unstable persons. This kind of black-and-white thinking is typical of the authoritarian personality type, who relates to social authorities in the same naive way small children relate to their own parents.

The second comment is very worrisome. It was not long ago when the attitude towards conspiracy theories was mainly mocking. Now they are perceived as a national threat and they are compared to terrorism and Nazism: France has already set a dangerous precedent by beginning to block web sites which in the opinion of the government, publish conspiracy theories and other “dangerous thoughts”.Arthur Schopenhauer stated that truth goes through three phases: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. It seems we are in stage two at the moment.

The Iltalehti news story further commented on this Italian research, in which alternative media was assessed for its “conspiracy theory” behaviors on social media:

The result was not flattering from the conspiracy theorists’ point of view. Italians said that of the conspiracy site visitors over 90 percent like, comment, and spread only alternative media contents, and nothing else. According to the researchers, conspiracy theorists live in their own bubble and almost never interact with content outside of their own circle.

It is difficult to make far-reaching conclusions from a research based on Facebook Likes and comments. The research monitored only numbers but not the content. The research included a similar isolated group, which followed science news and commented a little bit more on alternative news than vice versa. Still, because the content was not examined, this group’s interaction could have mainly been conspiracy theory “debunking.” If they had bothered to assess – or been capable of assessing – the content, they’d have quickly realized their proposition was a farce. ‘Alternative’ articles are substantially based on the content published in mainstream articles plus other details left out that provide all-important context. In other words, alternative content serves to reveal that it is the mainstream articles that are encased within a closed-loop of information, or, to use their term, ‘in a bubble’.

Which of us is not healthy?

As a matter of fact, Verkkomedia referred to an earlier study, (for reference, the English article it referred to is at New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile.) in which the content of discussions was compared. The interactions between conspiracist and conventional commenters were evaluated:

According to the researchers’ data, comments that doubt official truths were noticeably more common: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” Among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

The anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed greater anger than conspiracy commenters. Conventional commenters were “significantly more hostile than pro-conspiracy commenters”. The researchers also point out evidence of intellectuals’ hostility towards pro-conspiracy explanations, by labeling conspiracy theorists as paranoid or mentally ill in some manner.

In contrast to the commenters who support the official truths, commenters who support conspiracy theories do not promote their own nor a specific theory for an event, but rather demonstrate that the official account is false. Anti-conspiracy commenters instead bring forward more of their own explanations rather than argue against conspiracy explanations. In the light of this research, the stereotype of a hostile fanatic stuck to his own truth more accurately describes believers in official truths than conspiracy theorists.

On this basis, we can conclude that a critically thinking “conspiracy theorist” must be psychologically healthier than authoritarian people. Perhaps the most typical example of a discussion wherein the differences between the comments by conspiracists and conventionalists are evident, are the problems associated with the WTC attack, where the official narrative is actually quite a high-flying conspiracy theory. As the research demonstrated, most of the opinions that favor the official narrative rely upon aggressive ad hominem arguments, rather than analyzing the evidence itself and understanding the big picture.

What Is the Main Use of the Term Conspiracy? 

What is meant exactly by a ‘conspiracy theorist’? Mainstream media has built a straw man, in which all exceptional understandings of the truth are merged together: if, for example, you doubt the official story about John F. Kennedy’s assassination (like 61% of Americans do), then you also believe that Bill Clinton is an alien, man has not walked on the moon, Elvis lives, and the holocaust did not happen. It goes without saying that seeing a “conspiracy” in every happening without critical thinking and evaluation is just as stupid as a naive and uncritical attitude towards all official information.

In practice, anyone who suspects or begins to speculate about the course of events without absolute certainty is a ‘conspiracy theorist’.For example police investigators who looks into a person’s death are ‘conspiracy theorists’. They must weigh the different options between unintentional injury and intentional homicide.

Did you not ever as a child experience a sudden strange doubt on Christmas eve, when your father always had to go to the store/neighbor’s/cellar just before Santa Claus arrived? If so, then you were also a conspiracy theorist! So it is that some people, even as adults, still believe in the limitless benevolence of authorities, much like a small child believes in Santa Claus.

One function of the conspiracy term is for mainstream media to limit the contents of public discussion: there are known borders that cannot be crossed, unless one wishes to attain the status of persona non grata. The term is used by those in power to denigrate critical people. Notice the schizophrenic way the media deals with conspiracies related to Russia and Putin, where we see all kinds of false rumors and conspiracy theories being spread without restraint. The year-long hardcore anti-Putin campaign in the mainstream media recently culminated in my country with hysteria that it is ‘to be invaded next’. Was this inspired just by incredible stupidity, or was this completely intentional propaganda? Such a question isn’t even on the radar for authoritarian followers and mainstream media lackeys. They are so hopelessly inured to the system that their minds are, in effect, minds given to them by ‘The Authorities’.

Conspiracies are Inherent to the Social System 

Many of society’s structures are by nature prone to conspiracies: there is a clear hierarchy in which the flow of information is restricted. Historian Richard M. Dolan commented in his book UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973:

[Conspiracy Theory.] The very label serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue. The United States comprises large organizations – corporations, bureaucracies, “interest groups,” and the like – which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. “Conspiracy,” in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.

Dolan continues:

Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America’s military and intelligence community in the past half-century hasoccurred in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.

During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents.

Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Commander of the Special Forces and Air Force Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty highlighted the role of intelligence services in the book The Secret Team:

The most remarkable development in the management of America’s relations with other countries during the quarter-century since the end of World War II has been the assumption of more and more control over military, financial and diplomatic operations at home and abroad by men whose activities are secret, whose budget is secret, whose very identities as often as not are 
secret – in short, by a Secret Team whose actions only those implicated in them are in a position to monitor and to understand.

Also John F. Kennedy stated in 1961, in the speech, ‘The President and The Press’, about this conspiracy:

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

In other words, the world is full of a variety of interconnected networked organizations that are able to operate in absolute secrecy, and are not accountable to anyone, and what’s more; everyone implicitly agrees to this state of affairs. Worldwide, large corporations make decisions behind closed doors, politicians and lobbyists negotiate contracts hidden from the public, intelligent agencies cover their operations under the veil of ‘plausible deniability’, and all of these players are in constant interaction with each other, to some degree or another. Sometimes the borders between organized crime and official authority disappear and it becomes impossible to tell where official policies begin and organized crime ends. The higher up the hierarchy individuals and groups are, the more freedom they have to exceed the limits of legality and act with impunity. 

A Few Examples of Actual Conspiracies

Here are a few examples from recent history of intelligence services’ covert operations and projects that have been on the dark side of both morality and legality:

  • Operation Ajax: Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown by the CIA and MI6 in 1953. Mossadegh had begun to nationalize Iran’s oil reserves, which endangered Western oil companies’ position in the region. The operation was done purely for geopolitical reasons. An illegal coup d’etat was carried out within an independent country for its resources and for weakening its political position. Does this sound familiar?
  • Project MK-ULTRA: The CIA’s secret program was designed to investigate hypnosis, interrogation and brainwashing techniques. The program began in the early 1950′s, it was officially discontinued in the late 1960′s. Among other things, the subjects were drugged and given electric shocks along with repeated suggestions, which sought to break down one’s personalty and then build it again. Subjects were selected without their consent, and they were held in isolation for months. Does this sound familiar?
  • Operation Northwoods: This 1962 plan of the CIA remained secret until 1997. Its purpose was to shift public opinion of the nation to support an occupation of Cuba. Blowing up of US planes was one method among others that were planned. President Kennedy prevented the realization of this plan in the end. The purpose of the operation was to perform a terrorist strike under a false flag so another nation could be blamed. Does this sound familiar?
  • Operation Gladio: After World War II the Allies set up secret stay behind-troops in Europe in case of Soviet occupation. In 1990 Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti admitted the existence of the secret armies, which led to revelations in other countries. The troops had been used in making bombings, assassinations, coups, torture, and propaganda. The extreme right was harnessed to commit terrorist attacks which were blamed on the extreme left. This aided in vectoring the general opinion to perceiving different groups as a threat while maintaining their own dominance within these countries. Does this sound familiar?

The list is very long and we would run out of room very quickly if we tried to go through every one. You can read more about known conspiracies – that is, conspiracies that are recognised as such by ‘conventionalists’ – in this article.

Formal and Informal Culture

Richard Dolan talks about ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ culture in his book. Sometimes topics that were previously taboo become part of ‘formal’ culture. For example, today, according to the official culture promulgated in many Western countries, saturated fat causes heart disease, whereas in Sweden, it does not. The conventional history of the First World War says that it was Germany’s fault, but it has now been established through excellent research – though not yet incorporated into formal culture – that a secret Anglo-American elite plotted the ‘war to end all wars’.

For the moment, according to the official culture, conspiracies are acceptable only as historical curiosities. They just do not happen today, except in the case of Russia, North Korea, the vast majority of South American or Middle Eastern countries, which conspire from time to time to thwart Western interests! So again, paradoxically, it is considered to be a given that, in the event of conflict, these countries’ governments are always the lying party, and only a ‘conspiracy theorist’, or a very naive person, believes otherwise. Further, according to the official culture, conspiracies in the West today are possible, or perhaps probable, at the individual level (murders or other crimes), and to some extent in companies, but definitely not among those who have real political influence.

So, as an example, when we observe the largest Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, which, like major newspapers in many Western countries, acts much like a guardian of the formal culture, we see that it sums up this idea well: If you see it likely that the oil price collapse is the result of commercial warfare against Russia, then you also belong in the same category as those who believe that Ville Niinistö [Finnish Green League Party politician] is to blame for climate change, or that Sarah Palin developed the Internet to destroy the human race. Thus the paper’s leading intellectuals – the guardians of official culture in Finland – have spoken.

Sott Editors recommend to all readers that you continually exercise and maintain your most important attribute: thinking. Be critical of both mainstream media as well as alternative media. It is worthwhile to still remember which of these two forums hold more power over public opinion and therefore take this fact into consideration.

Whenever we move into political issues, is it not so that the mainstream media becomes extremely one-sided and prejudiced? When do we ever read from the pages of any country’s major newspaper, like Finland’s Helsinki Sanomat, about the history of Operation Gladio? When does any major newspaper offer analyses of the Western countries’ illegal coups? Spying on their own citizens? Assassinations? Torture? How about an examination of the post-Second World War military operations conducted by the United States that have killed an estimated 20-30 million people?

Do we even hear the very recent plea for help from Eastern Ukraine: how drunk Kiev soldiers drove an armored vehicle over a mother and her two daughters, after which Kiev suppressed the protests and riots wherein the residents demanded justice?

Don’t hold your breath waiting for official recognition; be the media you wish to see in the world!

U.S. Government Tracked Billions of American Phone Calls BEFORE 9/11

By WashingtonsBlog
April 8, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

Mass Surveillance Started Before 9/11

USA Today reports:

The U.S. government started keeping secret records of Americans’ international telephone calls nearly a decade before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, harvesting billions of calls in a program that provided a blueprint for the far broader National Security Agency surveillance that followed.

For more than two decades, the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls from the USA to as many as 116 countries linked to drug trafficking, current and former officials involved with the operation said.

***

The similarities between the NSA program and the DEA operation established a decade earlier are striking – too much so to have been a coincidence, people familiar with the programs said. Former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker said, “It’s very hard to see (the DEA operation) as anything other than the precursor” to the NSA’s terrorist surveillance.

Both operations relied on an expansive interpretation of the word “relevant,” for example — one that allowed the government to collect vast amounts of information on the premise that some tiny fraction of it would be useful to investigators. Both used similar internal safeguards, requiring analysts to certify that they had “reasonable articulable suspicion” – a comparatively low legal threshold – that a phone number was linked to a drug or intelligence case before they could query the records.

“The foundation of the NSA program was a mirror image of what we were doing,” said a former Justice Department official who helped oversee the surveillance. That official said he and others briefed NSA lawyers several times on the particulars of their surveillance program. Two former DEA officials also said the NSA had been briefed on the operation. The NSA declined to comment.

This is not the only time that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been at the center of U.S. spying. Edward Snowden revealed that the DEA “laundered” information gained through mass surveillance by the NSA … and then forwarded it to other government agencies to use to prosecute Americans … while lying about the source of the information.

In fact, widespread spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here, here, here, here and here).

And the government tapped the 9/11 hijackers’ phones, and heard the 9/11 hijackers’ plans from their own mouths.

Indeed, the entire “war on terror” started prior to 9/11.

Al Saud’s connections to Al-Qaeda and the “War on Terror”

By Shazad Ali
April 1, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

saudi-al-qaeda-investmentThe United States investigation into the 9/11 attacks has once again come under the geopolitical microscope after former Al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui’s damning testimony.

The so-called ‘20th hijacker’, in his recent testimony in a lawsuit alleging Saudi involvement in the attacks, has accused members of the Saudi royal family of funding Al Qaeda to carry out the catastrophic New York and Washington attacks.

Among the most influential Saudi royal family members accused by Moussaoui of funding the terror attacks are Prince Turki al-Faisal, then the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who served as Saudi ambassador to the US, and Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor. The three princes have deep ties with the US and Prince Bandar is even known as ‘Bandar Bush’ for being close to Bush family and the ‘toast of Washington’.

The former Al Qaeda operative, serving life sentence in a US prison, claims he even discussed a plan with a diplomat in the Saudi embassy in Washington to shoot down Air Force One with Bill and Hillary Clinton on board. Saudi Arabia has rubbished these claims, saying “Moussaoui is a deranged criminal with no credibility.”

This is not the first time the Saudi royal family has been under the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. Not only the families of the 9/11 victims, but the US lawmakers have also accused Saudi royal family of having tacit alliance with Al Qaeda and being involved in attacks.

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, wants the 28 pages of Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks declassified only to ‘demystify’ the notion of a Saudi conspiracy.

But Democrat Stephen Lynch, who has read the classified pages in 2002, former Democrat Senator Bob Graham, a leader of the congressional inquiry and chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee, and John Lehman, a 9/11 commission member, want the suppressed pages disclosed on moral grounds and in public interest. Graham sees “a direct line between some of the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia.”

Prince Bandar is believed to be one of the beneficiaries of £40 billion Al-Yamamah deal with largest British military conglomerate, BAE Systems. The deal was made by the Margaret Thatcher’s government with Saudi Arabia in 1985.

According to Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), Prince Bandar is believed to have received millions of dollars into his Riggs Bank account in Washington in corrupt commissions from ostensibly oil-for-arms barter deal.

However, EIR alleges, hundreds of billions of dollars were squirreled away in offshore bank accounts. These slush funds, according to EIR, have been bankrolling terrorism since then. Some of the money was funnelled to at least two of the 9/11 hijackers – Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi – from Prince Bandar’s account.

BBC investigations also revealed that £120 million was sent by BAE Systems to two accounts of Saudi embassy in Washington. But Prince Bandar, who has denied being involved in corruption, was withdrawing the money for his personal use which was actually meant for the Saudi government.

Ironically, British Prime Minister Tony Blair asked the British Attorney General, Sir Peter Goldsmith, to close the Serious Fraud Office probe into the scandal in 2006. Blair had intervened saying it would lead to “the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship and the loss of thousands of British jobs.”

The British prime minister ordered the closure of the investigation soon after Swiss authorities agreed to provide confidential information about one of the key Swiss-based slush funds, through which the money was believed to have been channeled to fund terror operations.

The newly-crowned Saudi king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has also been accused of supporting Al Qaeda and other extremist organisations in the lawsuit filed by families of 9/11 victims. He is also known for being close to kingdom’s Wahhabi clerical establishment.

Saudi Arabia has also been funding seminaries in Pakistan. The Saudi government has put the onus on the Pakistani foreign ministry, saying it funded seminaries, mosques and charities after ministry’s approval. Saudi Arabia is in a tight spot as, interestingly, Pakistani foreign office has refuted the claims, clarifying that it has no role in approval of financial assistance to seminaries and private individuals.

The question is: why Saudi Arabia funded these seminaries. This question is pertinent for Pakistan had health, education and several other cash-strapped sectors that needed financial assistance badly. Instead, Saudi government chose to fund seminaries.

Even if the Saudi government did not provide funding to Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission report has not ruled out the possibility that some charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to Al Qaeda. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton in a leaked cable has vehemently said that donors in Saudi Arabia have been the major source of funding for terrorist groups worldwide.

But there is a strange paradox – while Saudi Arabia is being accused of supporting terrorists clandestinely, the kingdom is one of the major US allies in its ‘war on terror’.

In this context, Moussaoui’s statement seems to be the key to understanding this conundrum. Saudi Arabia may consider Moussaoui as a “deranged criminal”, but 46-yeard-old French citizen, who was diagnosed with delusional paranoid schizophrenia, was declared medically fit to stand trial in 2006. The former Al Qaeda operative has described Saudi government as a two-headed snake, saying House of Saud cannot survive without appeasing the extremist Wahhabi religious establishment.

Saudi royals fear an Al Qaeda backlash against it for being a US ally. For this, they need protection, but as they fear dissidents among the ranks of the Saudi army, the royal family doesn’t trust its army. Instead, it is guarded by the US military and its intelligence.

It is the US military-industrial complex that is involved here. Saudis acquire US weapons to buy the allegiance and security, although these weapons either gather rust in warehouses or are used by US mercenaries. US dependence on Saudi oil has also played a major role in the alliance. Then there is Iranian‘Shia threat’ to Saudi Arabia. This Saudi concern dovetails with the US interest.

Even if Saudis are not directly involved in funding terrorists, at least money is being transferred from private Saudi organisations to extremists. Isn’t it complicity or incompetence of the Saudi intelligence that it has failed to locate and stop the source of funding to these terrorist groups? However, it is not difficult to fathom why the US doesn’t swing its truncheon to tame Saudi Arabia as it does elsewhere – Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now in Syria. And this soft stance for Riyadh is despite the fact that 15 out of 19 Sept 11 hijackers were Saudis.

The US must realise that although breaking up this unholy alliance with Saudi Arabia might hurt America’s pocketbook, it would still survive. If one takes into consideration lofty American ideals and Saudi Arabia’s despotic regime, this marriage of convenience is surely a moral blemish. Like it must end US-Israel nexus, Washington must break up the alliance with Riyadh as well.

The US military interventions and support for totalitarian regimes, especially in the Muslim countries, will only result in more anti-America sentiment. It will not only make Americans a target of terrorism but will fuel international terrorism.

George W. Bush refused to make public those 28 pages and now President Barack Obama has reneged on his promise of revealing the secret content of the report to safeguard ‘national interests’. The US government has recently officially conceded CIA’s involvement in torturing suspected terrorists. Now it is time those redacted 28 pageswere declassified, especially when the Saudis have also called for declassifying them. On the other hand, Britain must re-open the probe into Al-Yamamah scam.

Moussaoui’s allegations and voices from different quarters indicating Saudi involvement in funding terror may be dismissed as ‘conspiracy theory’ for challenging the political consensus is a conspiracy theory in the Western world. But only declassifying the 28 pages and a fair and thorough investigation into Al-Yamamah deal will not only put to rest these ‘conspiracy theories’, if they really are, but will also help to kill the fire-breathing chimera of international terrorism.

Shazad Ali, a researcher and analyst that specializes in the Middle East studies, exlusively for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.  

 

Rumsfeldt’s Missing Trillions, Stavridis and Unconventional War

By Christof Lehmann
March 24, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

EUCOM ImageSeptember 10, 2001. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeldt stated that 2.3 trillion dollars from the Pentagon’s annual budget could not be accounted for. September 11, 2001, the Pentagon’s accounting office and the Naval Command Center were targeted, allegedly by a plane. Survivors would report about explosions inside the Pentagon prior to the alleged plane impact. During a 2012 Forestall Lecture , Admiral James G. Stavridis noted that he was working as a newly selected 1-star accounting officer at the Pentagon and that he was lucky to have survived. By 2009 Stavridis would have been promoted to the rank of Admiral and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Responsible for NATO’s 2011 military operations in Libya, Stavridis would describe NATO’s intervention in Libya as “a teachable moment and model for future interventions”.

On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeldt declared a war on waste, stressing that 2.3 trillion dollar from the Pentagon’s annual budget could not be accounted for. CBS quoted Rumsfeld as saying that money wasted by the military poses a serious threat “In fact, it could be said it’s a matter of life and death”. Rumsfeldt would proceed, promising change as of September 11.

Indeed, change came on September 11; For many of those who were working at the Pentagon it would literally become a change that cost their lives while it turned into a life or death situation for survivors who were working in the offices which were targeted on September 11.

One of these survivors is April Gallop. April Gallop would testify under oath in a two-hour-long, video-taped interview with Barbara Honegger who has conducted an in-depth investigation into the events at the Pentagon on September 11.

April Gallop would state that a violent explosion near her desk in Wedge Two or Corridor Five, more than 100 ft north from the official narratives alleged plane impact point stopped her watch at 9:30.

April Gallop saw no debris from an aircraft, no seats, no luggage, no passenger’ bodies, nor did she observe any jet fuel. Her watch is kept at a safe location. Gallop would state the she saw fires coming out of computers. Barbara Honegger reports that other eyewitnesses, including Tracy Webb experienced such computer fires at the E Ring of Corridor Four. Ms. April Gallop is in contact with several other survivors who can corroborate her experience but who would need to be guaranteed protection before they could come forward. The alleged plane impact happened at least eight minutes after massive explosions inside the Pentagon. Another clock from the Pentagon that is kept at the Smithsonian as well as photographic evidence prove that other clocks stopped due to explosions before the alleged plane impact. Barbara Honegger’s research would show that “something” struck the Pentagon from the outside too. That object, however, was not a jetliner and struck some 150 meters from the alleged jetliner impact site.

Donald Rumsfeldt’s war on waste would turn into the Global War on Terror and lead to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Information about the missing 2.3 trillion dollar was destroyed on September 11.

In 2012 NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), Admiral James G. Stavridis would hold the Forestal Lecture at the Naval Academy. Stavridis would talk about service selection and about the development of warfare throughout the 20th century. Stavridis would point out that both WW I and WW II as well as the Cold War were wars of walls pointing at the Maginot Line, the Iron Curtain, the Bamboo Curtain, the Berlin Wall. Stavridis would stress that it took “a shocking lesson”, the events on September 11, 2001, to prove that walls don’t provide security in a modern world.

Stavridis would point at a wide-screen image of the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed on September 11, 2001, stating that he was working as a newly-selected one-star officer who was “working in the Navy budget world” at the Pentagon.

Pointing at the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed on September 11, 2001 he stated “obviously, I am lucky to be able to be speaking to you here today”. An attempt to reach out to the now retired Admiral James G. Stavridis, who is working as Dean of the Fletcher School at Tuffs University remained unanswered.

Stavridis would be an important witness. It would also be interesting to know whether Stavridis was working at the Army Offices in the E Ring of the Pentagon or whether he was working at the Naval Command Center (NCC) in the D and C Rings. The NCC was the only Navy office that was targeted with explosives on September 11, 2001.

Where was he and what was he working at during the days prior to September 11 and on September 11. How did the newly-selected one-star officer rise to the rank of Admiral and NATO SACEUR by 2009?

As NATO SACEUR, Stavridis would be in charge of NATO’s operations in Libya in 2011.

In November 2010 the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, would publish Training Circular TC 18-01 entitled “Special Forces Unconventional Warfare”. The TC 18-01 was published for use by U.S. Special Forces as well as by “contractors”. The circular contains a destruction notice stating “Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document”. The document is “releasable to students from foreign countries on a case-by case basis only”.

The document states that the United States, for the foreseeable future, would primarily be engaged in unconventional warfare. The document contains a structured approach to the subversion of targeted nation States, beginning with an assessment of a feasible and cooperative opposition, the creation of events to polarize society, the establishment of armed groups and their development into a fighting force that is capable of fighting a civil war or unconventional war under U.S. supervision to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals.

The TC 18-01 contains a de-facto blueprint for the United States’ and NATO’s involvement in Libya and Syria under the command of NATO SACEUR Stavridis. The TC 18-01 also represents a precise blueprint of the ongoing war in Iraq and the “crisis” in Ukraine. Sadly, it was impossible to reach out to James G. Stavridis via the Fletcher School at Tuffs University.

Ivo H. Daalder and James G. Stavridis would co-author an article entitled “NATO’s Victory in Libya. The Right Way to Run an Intervention”. The article about NATO, overstepping the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) was published in Foreign Affairs, March/April 2012, pp 2 – 7. During NATO’s 25th Summit in Chicago in 2012, NATO would adopt the premises of this article as part of NATO’s strategic doctrine.

Besides questions about his experience during the days up to and on September 11, 2001, it would be interesting to ask James G. Stavridis if he still stands by the words he wrote in that article. That is, that “Libya was a teachable moment and model for future interventions”. Arguably, 2.3 trillion dollar are a seizable start-up budget for wars which have to be waged “off the books”.

Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/03/24/rumsfeldt-s-missing-trillions-stavridis-and-unconventional-war/

Eight Great Reads at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

By Kevin Ryan
March 23, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

This summer will mark the ninth anniversary of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. In that time, my co-editors and I have published over 150 peer-reviewed articles and letters addressing various aspects of the 9/11 crimes. Although it can be hard, thankless work, the job of co-editor has also been rewarding and I’ve learned a great deal.

Journalof911StudiesThrough publishing articles in mainstream journals, I’ve learned that our peer-review process is at least as rigorous as that of others. At our Journal, submissions often fail to pass the editor’s initial assessment and are never reviewed. Of the remainder, dozens have failed to make it through the peer-review process to become published. It’s a disappointment when that happens but it’s important that whatever we publish lives up to certain standards. The end result is a treasure trove of reliable research, freely available on the web.

For example, here are six articles and two letters that should be widely read.

Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11, by Joseph P. Firmage

This short article was published in August 2006. It presents a comparison of competing theories for what happened on 9/11 with respect to known facts. The comparison clearly shows that the “create a new reality” theory, in which U.S. officials were involved in the attacks, is by far more sensible than other possibilities.

118 Witnesses: The Firefighter’s Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers, by Graeme MacQueen

This highly influential article focuses on eyewitness testimonies to the World Trade Center (WTC) destruction. The testimonies were collected by New York City officials after 9/11 and then kept secret for nearly four years. Professor MacQueen delves into these explosive eyewitness accounts in a way that makes clear why officials did not want the public to see them.

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction, by Steven E. Jones, et.al

This lucid article from January 2008 was a breakthrough in 9/11 research. Establishing the WTC thermite theory on a firm grounding of experimental evidence, it set the stage for a series of scientific articles that were published in multiple journals. In the future, this breakthrough article may be seen as one of the greatest contributions to forensic science.

Obstacles to Persuasion: Lessons from the Classroom, by Mark Vorobej

This December 2008 article is from a professor of philosophy who examined the responses of university students as they were exposed to alternative explanations for 9/11. In a five-week segment of his course on Argumentation Theory, Professor Vorobej was able to lead his students to objectively examine 9/11 from different perspectives while fostering further, constructive debate.

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy, by Anonymous and F. Legge

In March 2010, we published this examination of the scientific principle of falsifiability in light of U.S. government reports on the WTC destruction. This often-overlooked article is well constructed and provides detail on why the official reports failed to meet some of the most critical requirements of the scientific method.

Letter on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, by Lorie Van Auken

A series of nine letters was published on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. The letters came from leading researchers, activists, and legal experts around the world. Perhaps the most compelling contribution was that of Lorie Van Auken, whose husband Kenneth was killed in the north tower on 9/11.

Letter to the Royal Society from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, from the Board of Directors, AE911Truth

In June 2012, we published a letter that was sent from the board of directors of AE911Truth to Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society in England. The letter emphasized how the official account for what happened at the WTC was in direct contradiction to the laws of motion described by one of the Royal Society’s most famous members—Sir Isaac Newton.

The “Strategy of Tension” in the Cold War Period, by Daniele Ganser

In May 2014, Swiss historian Daniele Ganser contributed this updated version of a previously published article. Dr. Ganser’s article provides important historical perspective for considering what happened on 9/11. His conclusion, based on historical fact, is that objections to U.S. government or military involvement in 9/11 are based on unsupportable, a priori arguments.

These eight papers are just a sampling of the wide-range of peer-reviewed research and commentary available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. If you want to learn more about that fateful day through an evidence-based approach, the Journal is a great resource. For anyone interested in contributing, we continue to seek out new perspectives that have not yet been expressed. Guidelines for submission are published at the website.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Canada’s “Security Certificates” and the “War on Terror”. “The Secret Trial 5″: Five Muslim Men Detained Without Being Charged

How did five men spend nearly 30 years in prison combined, without ever being charged with a crime?

By Global Research
March 22, 2015
Global Research

 

harkatdec10-620Imagine spending years in prison without being charged with a crime or knowing exactly what you’re accused of.

A film about the human impact of the “War on Terror,” The Secret Trial 5 is a sobering examination of the Canadian government’s use of security certificates, a tool that allows for indefinite detention without charges, based on evidence not revealed to the accused or their lawyers.

Over the last decade, this rare and highly controversial device has been used to detain five Muslim men for nearly 30 years combined. To date, none have been charged with a crime or seen the evidence against them. Through the experience of the detainees and their families, the film raises poignant questions about the balance between security and liberty.

 

CROSS CANADA TOUR

After an extremely successful festival run, which saw them capture the 2014 Magnus Isacsson Award, as well as a jury nod in the Emerging Filmmaker category at Hot Docs, the team behind The Secret Trial 5 is embarking on a cross-country screening tour. The timing of this tour could not be better, as the debate on the balance between human rights and national security is currently underway in Ottawa.

With an aim to inform the debate around Bill C-51, and to ensure the potential human impact of its measures remains a key part of the dialogue, the filmmakers will engage in discussions and Q&A after every screening. As the film travels from the East to West coast, they hope to generate
a wave of dialogue in communities across Canada, as well as online.

Upcoming Tour Dates:

Sunday March 22  – Winnipeg        

Bandwidth Theatre (585 Ellice Ave.) – Screenings at 3:30pm, 7:30pm

Tuesday March 24 – Surrey

KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY (12666 72 Ave) Screening at 7:00 pm

Wednesday March 25 – Vancouver

Vancity Theatre (1181 Seymour St) Screening at 6:30 pm

More details at http://secrettrial5.com/

The World if Gore Had Won

By Gordon Duff
March 16, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

BushGoreIn 1990, a plan to take down America was hatched in a Jerusalem bar. American counter-intelligence, Hanke, Higgins and others, had been following the progress of the group. Two nations were in their sights, the US and the Soviet Union. The group planned on starting a nuclear war, one they would be able to control the outcome of, with the US being the loser.

This plot failed but it wouldn’t be their last.

Lieberman, the Chosen Person

Classified investigation notes tied to the Abel Danger investigation of nuclear weapons theft, Israeli espionage and, eventually, the 9/11 attack open a new look at this time period, 1990 – 2015. Though it is popularly assumed that 9/11 was planned by Bush and Cheney, investigative notes reveal that Al Gore was the intended winner of the 2000 election. Gore was intended to win but not to serve as president.

His nominated vice presidential candidate, Senator Joe Lieberman, was, according to investigators, to assume the presidency after the long planned 9/11 attack. There are two versions of this scenario, one that cites Gore as a “scapegoat” that would be forced to resign, another where “President Gore” would be assassinated by Iranian agents on 9/11.

The event itself was to include not only the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, making billions for its owners in insurance claims, but to crash the US banking system along with the bond and equity markets as well, opening an opportunity for not just massive profit taking but virtual control of the US when trading was restored.

Explosive laden vans driven by contracted Egyptian, Saudi and Israeli operatives, long affiliated with the CIA, were to destroy fiber optic pathways on the George Washington Bridge, Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, estimated to keep America’s markets including the Federal Reserve and SWIFT system offline for up to 3 months.

Additionally, the secret NSA/FBI intercept site at Fort Lee, adjacent to the George Washington Bridge, would be taken offline. All American counter-intelligence functions would, at that moment, simply cease.

The end result would be astoundingly worse than the Bush – Cheney disaster, which in itself was 8 years of financial looting, illegal war and police state oppression. This is what was envisioned:

  • Lieberman would assume the presidency either on 9/11 itself upon the death of President Gore or soon thereafter based on a carefully orchestrated campaign to force Gore’s resignation
  • Iran was to be blamed for 9/11 and an immediate war would commence
  • Senator John McCain would be nominated as the new Vice President.
  • The crash of the financial markets would disrupt electric utilities, transportation including food processing and distribution and gasoline supplies, disrupting many governmental functions as well
  • The Department of Homeland Security would be created with immediate powers of martial law in order to deal with riots caused by a freezing and starving population, a population ready to go to war with “no questions asked”

Fink’s Bar

Much of the following scenario was outlined initially in 1990 in a discussion at Fink’s Bar in Jerusalem. At the head of the table was Netanyahu. The group at the table had just stolen 5 American KG 84 cryptographic devices with the help of Canadians serving with the UNTSO on the Golan Heights, giving this Israeli led cabal real-time access to all US State Department, Naval and NATO communications.

President Bush (41) learned of the penetration during the First Gulf War, taking note that America was left defenseless in case of a nuclear attack. The US pulled out of Iraq earlier than planned, leaving Saddam in place. Were Saddam removed and the US to have occupied Iraq, this was to have been the foundation for orchestrating the political confrontation that was to escalate, with careful guidance in both Washington and Moscow, into a nuclear war.

This vulnerability, combined with the spying of Hansen, Pollard, both working for Israel, and others protected more successfully by the AIPAC lobby, made 9/11 possible, by making sure America’s enemies had daily access to decryption keys.

In 2001, one of the espionage suspects would assume a cabinet post, one would become the president’s chief counter-terrorism advisor and the other special envoy to Afghanistan. Their close cohorts continue to this day to control the New York field office of the FBI. Others continue to control the NSA and Homeland Security. We call them “the usual suspects.”

It Begins

Many maintain a view of history where the stolen election of 2000 and the mysterious and controversial incidents of 9/11/2001 changed history. Two illegal wars, suspension of civil rights, torture and secret prisons along with new and equally illegal Kafkaesque bureaucracies are all cited as things that would never have happened had Gore been allowed to take office when elected.

Keeping Americans save has involved tapping phones, peeking in windows and militarizing police forces to fight a citizens insurgency.

Even dissent has been corporatized with anti-government spokesmen such as Alex Jones and others finding current levels of tyranny woefully inadequate and inefficient, seeking the “Gazan model” under Israeli occupation as a template for America.

Suppressed “Almost History”

However, recently discovered intelligence files covering the era tell a very different story. We will examine what we have learned and, just perhaps, take a look at a world we were never allowed to see. During our research, we have met several who are silenced by court order, some by threat and others we would question, like John Wheeler III, Roland Carnaby and John O’Neill, conveniently dead.

The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were more than controversial. In each case, exit polling, known to be accurate to well within 1% showed nearly landslide victories for both Gore and, in 2004, John Kerry. In 2000, on election day, Bush was 12 points behind in the polls.

Conspiracy theorists had long assumed that the Bush presidency was the result of a deal struck between Rothschild bankers, Likudists in Israel seeking a Middle East war and Wall Street “pump and dump” investment fraudsters. To a large extent, history has proven them right, particularly considering revelations, not accepted by all, that 9/11 was most certainly an “inside job.”

Sources at the highest levels of both political parties and security services tell a different story. They say the 2000 election was a “fluke” and that it was never imagined that the American public would have stood still when the Supreme Court suspending the election, on a 5/4 vote decided by Justice Clarence Thomas, careless, corrupt and utterly unqualified.

In 2000, the US Supreme Court, in a clearly unconstitutional move, blocked election counts and nominated a president, something purely out of their jurisdiction. In 2004, the election was also rigged, voting machine hacks, voter intimidation, polling stations closed or choked off, computerized voting counts run through CIA contractor Diebold, all done to protect a burgeoning heroin processing industry being built in Afghanistan.

What was kept from the world through controlled news is that the vast majority of Americans, many of whom never vote, considered these elections a coup d’ etat and still do to this day.

The 2014 congressional elections were similarly rigged with 37% of voters electing gambling boss Sheldon Adelson’s personal roster of “mob owned” candidates, the gang who invited Netanyahu to the US against administration wishes.

America’s Power Centers

There were two centers of power in America during the last quarter of the 20th century, Chicago and New York. Each was ruled by a criminal group, part of an “octopus,” an international conspiracy that Dr. Preston James has named the Secret Shadow Government or “SSG.”

Both groups have roots in the gangs of the Prohibition Era in the United States, an era lasting from 1919 to 1933, a time when state and local governments, previously controlled by rail and banking conglomerates, fell under the control of organized crime.

These criminal organizations that spread across the United States began grooming politicians for higher office, eventually taking control of, in many cases, not only the congress but the White House as well. The 1948 presidential election was seen as a fight between anti-mob former New York District Attorney Thomas Dewey and the representative of the “Boss Pendergast” mob in Kansas City, Harry Truman.

The Kennedy family, powerful in its own right, was partnered with the Bronfman’s of Canada and the Bush family were lifelong partners of the Meyer Lansky “Murder Incorporated” mob. Prescott Bush Sr. and George Herbert Walker channeled Rothschild cash into Hitler through Brown Brothers Harriman, a Wall Street Bank while his namesake, Prescott Bush Jr. partnered with Israeli Victor Bout and Saudi Adnan Khashoggi to sell nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, Brazil, North Korea and Taiwan decades later.

The Bush/Bout cartel maintains a stockpile of nuclear weapons for “shadow government” use as seen during the Beirut Marine Barracks, Oklahoma City, the Khobar Towers, 9/11 and Bali attacks. There have been nearly 50 acts of nuclear terrorism since 1945 according to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) sources.

Did Bush Shoot Kennedy?

President George H.W. Bush, identified as a CIA non-official cover agent by then FBI director Hoover, supposedly running “Zapata Oil,” whose service boats took part in the Bay of Pigs invasion, was arrested at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 as a suspect, a possible shooter, in the Kennedy assassination. He was released and the arrest expunged but arresting officer R.E. Vaughn recounted the story several times.

One of the first acts of the Clinton administration was to declassify documents proving Bush was in Dallas on the day of the killing, something Bush denied repeatedly.

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.