Pentagon Attack on 911

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

A very important and revealing publication has come out recently regarding the Bush dynasty in America and its intimate connections to the Saudi Royal family. Here is the transcript of the author's interview with Democracy Now. I hope you find it interesting.

Armenian

************************************************** ****************

House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between The World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties

Download MP-3 of Interview: http://www.archive.org/download/dn20...318-1_64kb.mp3

We speak with Craig Unger, author of the new book, "House of Bush, House of Saud" that details the complex negotiations on war, oil, illegal arms deals and murky banking deals conducted between the Bushes and the Saudis - connecting a US presidential dynasty to a foreign power.

AMY GOODMAN: The long-term relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal family that dates back over two decades. And the subject of a new book by Craig Unger, which is called "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties." In it, Craig Unger writes that in order to understand this relationship, one would have to journey back to the time to the birth of Al-Qaeda. One would have to study the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's, the 1991 Gulf War, the Iraq War of 2003. One would have to try to deduce what had happened within the corporate suites of the oil barons, of Dallas and Houston, the executive offices of Carlyle Group. Finally, one would have to put all this information together to shape a continuum, a narrative in which the House of Bush and the House of Saud dominated the world stage together in one era after another. Having done so, one would have to come to a singular, inescapable conclusion, namely that horrifying as it sounds, the secret relationship between these two great families helped to trigger the age of terror and give rise to see the tragedy of 9-11. Powerful words, Craig Unger.

CRAIG UNGER: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about why you see this relationship as key to understanding 9-11?

CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, to me this has been sort of the elephant in the living room, a powerful piece of logic that's really in plain sight and has been ignored by most of the American press. And it goes something like this, that is without the Saudis, you really don't have 9-11. And we haven't focused on that. It's not just that 15 out of 19 of the hijackers were Saudis, that it was master minded by Osama bin Laden who, of course, is Saudi. If you look at the roots of Al-Qaeda, it was largely funded by Saudi Arabia and that includes members of the House of Saud, the Saudi merchant elite, great billionaire bankers who do lots of work with the United States, and have had relationships with the Bush family itself. So, that is one element. Two is that Saudi Arabia is supposedly our friend, our ally. And with friends like these, you’ve got to wonder who needs enemies? But the entire country, the entire United States has been sort of in bed with Saudi Arabia. Anyone who benefits from it, who's filled up their tank with a cheap gallon of oil, and this dates back to the 1940's when Franklin Roosevelt made an alliance with Saudi Arabia. The Bush family in particular, has played a huge, huge role in all of this. That is they've been the architects of the policy for the last generation. The elder George Bush, James Baker, of course, who was his close friend, ally and secretary of state, and the younger George Bush. They've been active in this, in the private sector and the public sector, back and forth as they've been in and out of power. So, the question arises, are they ultimately so compromised they can't really fight the war on terror? Shouldn't this be one of targets of the war on terror?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, one of things that surprised me is how you have been – we’ve discussed the flight of the Saudis out of the country before. We've interviewed Kevin Phillips here on his recent book. But you've managed to put together the entire story from the early days of the first Bush, Bush the father, through actually most amazing part of your book seemed to me the relationship between the two 2000 election and the Saudis and the Bush family. Could you talk a little bit -- for instance, you mentioned one guy, Sami al-Arian in Florida and his relationship with the Bush family. Could you talk about that?

CRAIG UNGER: It is an extraordinary story that's largely untold. And it's interesting, only, I think, the right-wing press has been talking about this. And I saw a quote by David Frum, the Bush speech writer, who was very critical of his boss, President Bush, and said fortunately, we Republicans have enemies -- our rivals, the Democrats, are so crippled they won't discuss this politically. It goes back to the election of 2000, and one of the great untold stories is how the Bush administration had a secret strategy to win the Muslim-American vote. And I think very few people realize there are actually more Muslim-Americans than there are xxxs in the United States. There are roughly seven million. But they've almost never been approached as a block vote and, in fact, it's probably silly to regard them as a block vote. Muslims are not necessarily Arabs. Arabs are not necessarily Muslims. There are black Muslims who have no real allegiance to the Middle East particularly. It's much more religious and Wahhabism, and the militant Wahhabism is not really part of the entire Muslim-American community, except that the Saudis do play a huge role in funding that. Nevertheless, the Bush campaign aggressively went after this vote. And in Tampa, Florida, they began campaigning with Muslim leader, including this man you mentioned, Sami al-Arian, who was a professor at the University of South Florida. And it turns out he is now under indictment for alleged terrorist activities, for allegedly playing a key role as a leader in the Palestinian Islamic jihad, and funding suicide bombings that killed over 100 people in Israel, including two Americans.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is the connection to this story?

CRAIG UNGER: Well, what’s extraordinary is that Bush not only campaigned with him, and there’s a photo of them campaigning together in Tampa in my book "House of Bush, House of Saud," and they -- he actually invited him to the White House after the election. And I think a very strong case can be made that Bush would not be president today, not having done that. During the second presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush suddenly became this rabid civil libertarian, which is extraordinary given his past. And he said that he was against racial profiling of Arab-Americans, and this came out of the blue. No, such question had been asked, there had been questions about racism against African-Americans, but not about Arab-Americans. And these were sort of code words he uttered to win that vote. Immediately after he said that, during the debate, an Arab – a Muslim-American leader got 31 calls on his cell phone, and said we have to now endorse Bush. The endorsements poured in. Bush won the Muslim-American vote in Florida by more than 90%. This proved obviously a key factor in winning Florida, and more than provided the difference of the 500 votes by which he allegedly won Florida.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Craig Unger, his book is "House of Bush, House of Saud." You begin with the great escape.

CRAIG UNGER: Right. I think the extraordinary story, again, it’s not been widely told. It has been referred to fleetingly in the American press. And here you have two days after 9-11 -- I mean, this is the most horrifying atrocity in American history, the worst crime in American history, 3,000 people are killed. Prince Bandar, the Saudi-Arabian ambassador to the United States, who had been a close, close member for -- well, I think he is virtually a member of the Bush family. Barbara Bush, the former first lady, calls him Bandar Bush, allows him to be the only person who is allowed to smoke in her home. And he has been a close friend of former president Bush. If you look at his body language in photos of him and President Bush, this is not a guy standing in awe of the president of the United States. This is a guy who is visiting his friend’s son, and he’s sort of lounging on the arm of a big armchair as if -- I wish I could be that relaxed, you know? But -- so they were meeting by 9/13 at the White House having cigars on the balcony on September 13.

AMY GOODMAN: September 13, 2001.

CRAIG UNGER: Exactly. And suddenly, flights began going out. I talked to two people on a flight from Tampa to Lexington, and that included three Saudi Royals on it as passengers, and the flights began. I found eight airplanes stopping in at least 12 American cities. This was a massive operation. It required White House authorization. It went from Los Angeles to -- there was Dallas, Houston, Cleveland, Boston, Newark. I mean, it is interesting. Two planes actually took off from -- flights from within cities from which the hijacked planes -- the hijackings had originated. And the airport officials were just agog that this was happening.

AMY GOODMAN: This was at Logan and Boston?

CRAIG UNGER: Exactly. And Newark. And the flights went out. I was --

AMY GOODMAN: All private jet plane traffic was grounded at that point?

CRAIG UNGER: Right. In fact, three private planes were forced down on September 13. Now the entire process took about two weeks. But the point is that it originated at a time when it required White House approval. And I was able to talk to Richard Clark, the former counterterrorism czar who was in the Situation Room at the White House at that time. And he told me that, in fact, he had been involved in discussions about it and he had said it was ok, so long as everyone was vetted by the FBI. Well, the problem is they were not really vetted by the FBI. I mean, in the most common place murder investigation, you want to talk to friends and relatives of the perpetrator, even if they're innocent, and you want to have serious investigation. Well, here you have such a humongous crime -- and their passports were identified, they were ID'd. But in many cases -- in virtually all cases, there was no serious interrogation.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And who were some of the bin Laden family members that were here?

CRAIG UNGER: Well, what I was able to do for the first time was to obtain passenger lists for four of those flights. And the most astonishing name I found was a man named Prince Ahmed bin Salman, who is a very high ranking member of the royal family. A Saudi billionaire again. He was in Lexington, Kentucky. And he was best known to Americans as the owner of the Kentucky Derby winner, War Emblem. He was a great horse race owner.

AMY GOODMAN: War Emblem?

CRAIG UNGER: War Emblem, and he also owned Point Given, which won two legs of the Triple Crown the previous year. His horses won a total of four legs of the Triple Crown, and he was at the Yearling Sales in Lexington, Kentucky, and said he was very upset by 9-11. On September 12, he bought $1.2 million worth of horses. I don't know how upset he really was. And on September 13, that flight landed in Lexington, Kentucky from Tampa, and a couple of days later, flights took off and took him from Lexington to London.

AMY GOODMAN: Only one newspaper in Tampa reported that these flights had taken off. Even the old – was it an FBI-guy, a police guy who was sent to protect these people never believed they would get off the ground.

CRAIG UNGER: Right. That's right. The former FBI-men who were escorts said they went to the airport because they were being paid to do it.

AMY GOODMAN: Who were they paid by?

CRAIG UNGER: By the Saudis. And this one Tampa paper did an excellent job of reporting it, the Tampa Tribune. But not a single paper in the United States picked up on it. I eventually did a story in "Vanity Fair" that became part --

AMY GOODMAN: Was there a record at the airport that these planes had taken off, a ledger?

CRAIG UNGER: It was actually not terribly difficult to pin down. Again, the Tampa Tribune had done a very good job. I retraced the steps. I mean, essentially they printed the names, people were on the records. I got them from information. It doesn't take a genius to do this.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Craig Unger, author of "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties.” We'll come back with him, and talk about issues like what did global PR-firm Burson-Marsteller do to help the Saudis deal with the fallout of 9-11? Stay with us.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You talk in the book, obviously about the relationship over many years between the Bin Laden's and the Bush family and the Saudis in general. But clearly the Clinton Administration also, in many ways, had to deal with the Saudis and, to a certain degree, the Bin Laden family. You talk about the transition period also between -- as President Bush came in and Sandy Berger and the other Clinton officials briefed them on the war on terrorism and how they responded. Can you talk about that a little bit?

[...]

Source: http://www.democracynow.org/article....4/03/18/157206

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

This film is quite interesting to say the least -

ZEITGEIST:

Part-II: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...90539111319889

Part-III: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...51819335380093

[Virgil]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Watch the entire clip, Galloway on Oil-for-food Accusations:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wj0m0dSUPR8

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

The 911 Mystery Plane

Unidentified Aircraft over Washington DC on the morning of September 11, 2001

CNN Video Report: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video...ef=videosearch

On September 11 2001, as the eyes of the nation were focused on the gruesome events at the World Trade Center, the networks interrupted their coverage in New York with a breaking story from Washington. A large plane had just been sighted over the White House. Exactly when it first appeared is not certain, but the reports aired at about the time of the pentagon strike, or just before. Witnesses who saw the mystery plane say it circled over Washington. CNN's Senior White House correspondent John King saw it while standing in Lafayette Park, directly across from the White House. King reported live that "about 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky."[1]

USAF E-4B National Airborne Operations Center for US President and Chief of Staff

Kate Snow, another CNN correspondent, was standing two blocks from the Capitol when she saw the plane. Snow mentioned it on-air, adding that a security guard told her it was responsible for the decision to evacuate the seat of government.[2] In his book Against All Enemies, counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clark mentions that the decision to evacuate the White House was made after a warning from the Secret Service about the approach of an unidentified aircraft.[3] Was this the mystery plane? ABC, NBC and FOX News picked up the story on 9/11. CNN actually filmed the mysterious plane as it flew over the Capitol, but, unfortunately, it was too far away to identify.

The sighting of a large white plane above the White House and Capitol on September 11, 2001 was very strange, because the airspace over Washington is probably the most restricted on the planet. At the time, the World Trade Center in New York was in flames. Hundreds of people had already perished. Multiple hijackings were known to be in progress. The only planes that should have been in the skies over Washington were fighters for the purpose of protecting the nation's capital. Yet, as we know, the city was undefendedxxxtotally exposed. Scrambled F-16 fighters from Langley AFB, located near Norfolk, Virginia, failed to establish a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over Washington until shortly before 10 AMxxxmuch too late. And subsequently, as we also know, the 911 Commission absolved the Joint Chiefs of all responsibility. The 9/11 panel put the blame for the security breach squarely on the FAA for failing to notify NORAD of the hijackings. Incidentally, the pentagon has also dismissed the news reports cited above. To this day the US military claims that it knows nothing about a large plane circling over Washington on 9/11. So, what is going on, here? Did a large unidentified plane circle over Washington, or not? And if so, what does it mean?

[...]

The plane is a modified Boeing 747-200. Notice the white color, the US flag painted on the vertical stabilizer (i.e, the tail), and the blue stripe and insignia on the fuselage. The clincher, however, is the "bump" directly behind the bulging 747 xxxxpit. It is clearly discernible in both photos. No other plane has this piggy-backed appendage. It is unique to the E-4B, and is integral to the plane's military role as an airborne command center. The appendage contains a communication satellite dish and perhaps other advanced electronic hardware. In fact, this is the same plane that Linda Brookhart photographed outside the White House. Although her vantage point was not idealxxxLinda was standing in the street looking almost straight up when she snapped the shotxxxnonetheless, a careful inspection shows that the plane in her photo is an E-4B. Notice, the aircraft has four engines and all of the characteristics of a Boeing 747. In addition to the white color, which is also a match, there is another crucial detail that positively identifies the airplane. Notice the tiny blue spot near the rear of the aircraft. Several close-ups of an E-4B clearly show that this blue spot is simply the place where the blue stripes painted on the fuselage come together at the rear of the aircraft.

This is the only place on the 747 fuselage where the E-4B's otherwise conspicuous blue stripes are visible, from beneath. No other airplane has this combination of features. Linda explained to me that at the time of the evacuation she believed the White House was the target of the attack. She snapped the picture before the towering plume of smoke became visible at the pentagon, which suggests that the E-4B was already circling at the time of the pentagon strike. Linda later contacted the FBI about her photograph. After she developed the film an agent came by her office to pick up a copy. But she never heard back. Nor did the 9/11 Commission ask her to testify. In fact, they never even contacted her.[8]

No Ordinary Plane

Again, I must emphasize: this is no ordinary plane. The E-4B's official designation is the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP), pronounced "knee-cap." But the aircraft is more commonly known as the "doomsday plane," because its premier function is to serve as a flying command, control and communications (C3) center in the event of a national emergencyxxxor nuclear war. When the president travels on Air Force One, an E-4B usually follows behind the presidential entourage. Unlike Air Force One, however, the E-4B can be refueled in midair and so has considerably greater range. For this reason, when the president goes abroad on long trips he occasionally flies on an E-4B to save travel time. The plane also doubles as a mobile office for the Secretary of Defense. Recently, for example, when the newly appointed Defense Secretary Robert Gates traveled to London for talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair, he rode on an E-4B. According to various reports, his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, often used the plane, and much preferred it.

A recent article in the Air Force Civil Engineer describes the E-4B as "a truly amazing" aircraft, and provides more details about its impressive specs.[9] The $250 million dollar aircraft has all of the advanced electronics needed for world-wide communication. If Air Force One can be accurately described as a flying White House, then, the E-4B is a substitute pentagon. The plane's electronics cover the full radio spectrum, from extremely low frequency (ELF) to high frequency (UHF). Which enables the E-4B to communicate with all US military commands, world-wide, including tactical and strategic forces, naval ships, planes, nuclear-armed missiles, even submarines. In short, the E-4B is a fully equipped communications platform and can serve as an airborne command center for all US military forces in a national crisis. The plane carries its own electrical-generating plant to power its electronic hardware, which is also shielded against the damaging electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects generated by nuclear explosions. Even the plane's white color is a design featurexxxnot simply cosmetic. Its purpose is to help the E-4B survive in a nuclear battlefield by reflecting heat away from the plane.

The E-4B carries a crew of 64, but can accommodate an additional 50 passengers, for a total of 114. The large 747 fuselage includes command and work areas, conference and briefing rooms, as well as an operations center or battle station. In addition the plane reportedly has a rest area, bunks for sleeping, even a galley stocked with a week of provisions. The Air Force has four E-4Bs, and they are normally assigned to Offutt AFB, near Omaha, Nebraska. Offutt is the home of STRATCOM, i.e., the Strategic Command (formerly the Strategic Air Command).

Practicing Armageddon

According to one report, on September 11, 2001 three of the E-4Bs were participating in a live command-level exercise known as Global Guardian.[10] The exercise is an annual event, and is staged to test the readiness of the US military's command and control procedures involved in waging thermonuclear war. The 2001 exercise started the week before September 11 under the directorship of Admiral Richard Mies, commander-in-chief of STRATCOM. According to various reports, the drill was in "full swing" at the time of the 9/11 attack. Numerous other military commands were also involved, including NORAD. While few details have been released, we know that in previous years the US Space Command, the Air Combat Command, and the US Atlantic and Pacific Fleets were also involved.[11]

Starting in the 1990s, Global Guardian included pre-planned mock attacks upon the military's computer and information systems. For example, during the 1998 exercise "terrorists" attempted to disrupt STRATCOM's internal communications by hacking into its computers, and also by tying up its phone/FAX lines with phony messages.[12] Evidently, these "terrorist attacks" were at least partly successful, although the details have not been released. In recent years, the military has incorporated similar "attacks" into Global Guardian exercises. However, it is not known if these were a part of the 2001 drill. We do know that at the time of the 9/11 attack one of the E-4Bs was en route to Offutt AFB with a high-level military advisory panel on board, including its chairman, retired Lt. General Brent Scowcroft, evidently for the purpose of observing the exercise. The role of this panel, known as the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (FIAB), is to monitor US intelligence agencies. As we know, STRATCOM abruptly terminated the 2001 exercise at 9:03 AM, when Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.[13] However, the E-4Bs remained aloft.[14]

In previous years the military always staged Global Guardian in October or November; and the 2001 exercise was likewise originally scheduled for October, according to various reports.[15] Curiously, however, for reasons never disclosed, the Joint Chiefs changed the plan and conducted the 2001 exercise during the week of September 11. The following year the date reverted back. The 2002 Global Guardian came off in October, as in previous years, and this has continued to be the case.[16]

All of which raises disturbing questions. Why did the Joint Chiefs change the date of Global Guardian in 2001? Even more importantly, why was the world's most sophisticated electronics warfare plane circling over Washington at the time of the September 11 attack? Recently, when the investigator who contacted me filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning the presence of the E-4B over Washington on 9/11, the FAA responded that it "had no knowledge" of such a plane. My contact also shared the basic information presented in this article with his Congressman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and requested that he look into the matter. Schiff then made a formal inquiry through official channels, but was told that the Air Force knows nothing. Obviously, the pentagon is lying. If the E-4B was on a legitimate mission on September 11, why does the military deny its presence? Why would they do this? When people lie it is generally because they have something to hide. Is the US military any different?

Catch-22: The Need for a New Investigation

Although Linda Brookhart's photo provides sufficient detail to positively ID the mystery plane, the short segment from the Discovery Channel docudrama is extremely important corroborating evidence. For which reason, myself and others have been working diligently to learn more about it. The E-4B footage occurs in the Discovery film in the context of the evacuation of the White House and Capitol building on 9/11. This definitely places it in Washington on the day of the attack. However, we still don't know who filmed it. Nor does the footage include any visual evidence linking it to Washington. According to the credits for The Flight that Fought Back, a London-based company named Brook Lapping produced the docudrama for the Discovery Channel. When I contacted Brook Lapping I was told they used the E-4B footage under license from FOX News, which holds the copyright. Brook Lapping also informed me they could provide no further assistance in the matter. After numerous phone calls I was led to a company called ITN Source, which handles all of FOX's licensing contracts. A cordial individual at their Burbank office assisted me. However, a search failed to locate the short segment in the FOX News archive, at which point I was informed that there was nothing more they could do. My repeated attempts to contact the FOX legal department were also fruitless. FOX never responded to my queries. Thus, my investigation reached a blind alley. Evidently the same thing has happened to others. According to Linda Brookhart, "Every time someone has tried to research this plane it becomes a dead end."[17] Shades of Catch-22

All of this underscores the urgent need for a new 9/11 investigation: It must be nonpartisan, independent, adequately funded, and empowered with the authority to subpoena witnesses. Representatives of FOX News must be brought before a genuine panel and made to testify under oath about the whereabouts of this important evidence; and why it was made to go bye-bye. Without a true investigation, we will probably never learn the truth about September 11.

Source: http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

An excellent documentary by Alex Jones outlining the criminal activities of western governments. Regardless of political convictions I think everyone should see this film. These types of documentaries should be a prerequisite to any discussion regarding these topics:

TerrorStorm: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...63607579389947

Note: The short segment about the USS Liberty was quite interesting. According to the assessment here, the US had made a covert deal with Israel to sink the US Navy ship in question and then blame it on Egypt so that the US could join in on the conquest of the Suez canal along with Israeli forces. I did not know that the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel forces was stopped only after a Soviet spy ship appeared in the vicinity.

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

An excellent film narrated by Barrie Zwicker. You will do yourselves a great favor by investing seventy minutes of your time to view this video.

The Great Conspiracy: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...13972926262623

Reichstag 2001

Author Barrie Zwicker is among a growing number who believe a sinister conspiracy brought down the Twin Towers

By Matthew Singer

As the fifth anniversary of 9/11 draws near, recent polls indicate that a growing number of Americans believe they have not been told the full truth behind the events of that terrible day. In other words, more and more people are coming around to the conclusion Canadian journalist and media critic Barrie Zwicker reached within hours of the collapse of the World Trade Center: Forces within the United States government manufactured the attacks as a means of justifying war plans abroad and instituting draconian domestic policies at home. Outrageous? Possibly. But Zwicker is not a lone conspiracy theorist shouting rhetoric from a street corner. He is part of a widening group of well-educated individuals, collectively known as the 9/11 Truth Movement, which, through exhaustive independent research, has determined that the official story of what happened on Sept. 11 is more far-fetched than any of the so-called “alternative versions.” Zwicker is the author of the recently published “Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11.” — Matthew Singer

Pasadena Weekly: What, in essence, is "the truth" behind the events of Sept. 11, 2001, as you see it?

Barrie Zwicker: Any fair-minded person who puts aside politics, ideology, fear and presuppositions, who simply examines the evidence dispassionately, cannot escape the conclusion that the White House engineered 9/11 by neutralizing the [United States Air Force] and bringing down the WTC towers (and WTC 7) through controlled demolition made to look like collapse from aircraft hits and fire (except that the sudden collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 pm on 9/11 took place without the building having been hit by an aircraft or even been seriously damaged by the events of earlier that day, and only two small fires were seen in the building).

Were you immediately suspicious of the media's portrayal of the tragedy or did your doubts develop in the aftermath of that day?

With me, it was immediate. I have had a lifelong interest in aviation. On the morning of 9/11 I was jumping up and down in front of my TV set cheering the US Air Force into action. "C'mon," I shouted, "let's get going." Passenger aircraft were loose all over hell's half-acre, heading for Washington, DC, and goodness knows where. I knew jet interceptors are scrambled in minutes. After about an hour, the penny dropped. "This is impossible," I said. "This is a Reichstag fire 2001."

You call 9/11 a “false flag operation.” What does that mean?

The definition I use in my book is that it is an event, usually shocking and often involving considerable loss of life, staged by a government to make it look as if the nation involved is being attacked by a chosen enemy.

President Bush is known for making a lot of decisions without consideration for any kind of mandate from the public. If he wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, couldn’t and wouldn’t he have done so without manufacturing an event the size of 9/11?

It's much harder, especially when you suffer low popularity and trust to begin with, to simply talk a nation into war than to have a massive emotion-packed false flag op to drive public opinion. A small event would not have sufficed to accomplish the multiple aims of the neo-cons: massive resource theft, several dirty expensive wars, ballooning billions to the arms and surveillance industries, reduction of civil liberties. The neo-cons had to produce, as the [Project for a New American Century] document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," of September 2002 put it, a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" on the scale of a new Pearl Harbor. We're talking changing history here; a few lies by a known liar just aren't going to cut it.

What is your opinion of some of the more fantastic theories that have been put forth regarding 9/11 (i.e., that a missile hit the Pentagon, that the planes that hit the WTC buildings were unmanned drones, etc.)? Do they help or hurt people like yourself, who take a more journalistic approach?

No theory is fantastic if it squares with the available evidence. Theorizing is a logical and necessary process for discovering truth. Most people who reject conspiracy theories believe the most fantastic one of all: The official 9/11 story of hard-drinking Muslim terrorists, terrorists who could not rent a Cessna but piloted giant airliners with pinpoint accuracy, whose passports were found intact in burning rubble, etc. — in other words, a conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it. Remember the line from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's “The Sign of Four”: "Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

In your book, you criticize "leftist gatekeepers" such as Noam Chomsky as much as the neo-cons. What role are they playing in the alleged 9/11 cover-up?

I agree with progressive filmmaker Roy Harvey of Snowshoe Films who said, "The greatest single obstacle to the spread of 9/11 truth is the left media." In Chapter 5 of my book I provide 15,000 words of evidence (plus two pages of footnotes) showing left media have proved to be de facto censors of 9/11 truth as much as the mainstream corporate media. They have thereby prevented many thinking, concerned citizens from taking earlier and/or effective action to expose the Achilles heel of 9/11. You'd expect this of the corporate mainstream, not of the alternative left. The implications are very dark. We need to face them.

Do you take offense at the term “conspiracy theorist?”

I welcome being called a conspiracy theorist as this exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the person applying it and provides me with an opportunity to point out that intellectual bankruptcy.

Could you foresee what you see as the truth about 9/11 being revealed at any point in the future?

Yes. When? Either it breaks out in a politically significant way in, say, five years at the absolute limit, or I fear — and I am not alone — that the forces behind 9/11 will have declared martial law or worse. My friend Elias Davidson of Reykjavik, Iceland, one of those profiled in the book, says it as well as anyone: "Either those who conceived, planned, organized, perpetrated and covered up the crime will be brought to justice and a new mass movement for real democracy will emerge, or 9/11 will remain underexposed, those who conspired in 9/11 and its cover-up will feel confident to set up national security states in which no true opposition will be permitted, and human rights and democracy will wither for a long time."

Source: http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/articl...25&IssueNum=36

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

ITALIAN SAYS 9-11 SOLVED

It’s common knowledge, he reveals, CIA, Mossad behind terror attacks

By the Staff of American Free Press

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera: “All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”

Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992. Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and ’80s. Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they termed “false flag” operations—terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition. In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcherWebster Tarpley saying “The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and
flight security personnel.” Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America’s propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.

Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...solved118.html

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Another excellent documentary film concerning the event of September 11, 2001.

911 Ripple Effect: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=2

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

On the morning of September 11, 2001 there was extensive news coverage regarding "multiple bomb explosions" within the World Trade Center. What were they? Who placed them?

9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT...eature=related

[Sip]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

I love how it is so difficult for some to accept that a building can sometimes crash down to the ground when a 767 hits it full blast.