9/11 revisted by the mainstream

[jonnygemini]

kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

(KUTV) PROVO, Utah A BYU professor has developed a new theory about the terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001. He believes planes alone did not bring down the world trade center.

Both towers collapsed in place after the attacks, and later that day, 7 World Trade Center, which was never hit by a plane, fell in less than seven seconds.

BYU professor Steven E. Jones says that planes alone did not bring down the towers.

The images are seared into the minds of people across the globe. We saw the planes hit, the explosions and fire so hot, fortress towers could not stand. Jones says not so fast.

"They're sticking with this one hypothesis. Its almost like they have blinders on – and its got to be fires and damage,” says Jones.

Jones is a 20-year physics professor at BYU, who's penned an academic paper raising another hypothesis – explosives may have been pre-positioned in the buildings.

“Notice how it's straight down,” Jones says referring to the fall of one of the buildings.

Especially intriguing to Jones was the destruction of 7 World Trade Center, damaged and ablaze from tower debris but never hit by a plane.

"Symmetrically now, it doesn't topple over, as you might expect, from what we call the second law of thermodynamics. It comes straight down. This is the goal of prepositioned explosives in a controlled demolition,” says Jones.

If explosives detonated like this – if they did – it begs the question.

"Who set the explosives?” 2News reporter Brian Mullahy asked Jones.

"I try not to go there because we have to answer the first question first – the scientific issue first,” says Jones. "We need to consider all options for the collapse of these buildings. Let the chips fall where they may.”

Jones said that models conducted in tests since 9/11 have not been able to duplicate what happened to the buildings. He is not saying this is a proven theory, but rather a hypothesis. He wants a fresh new independent investigation.

[jonnygemini]

curtweldon.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=36857

Contact: John Tomaszewski [phone]
TRANSCRIPT: WELDON DISCUSSES RECENT DEVELOPMENTS WITH ABLE DANGER ON LOU DOBBS TONIGHT (CNN)


WASHINGTON, Nov 9 - Today, Congressman Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight (CNN) regarding his recent work on Able Danger - a Department of Defense planning effort to identify and target the linkages and relationships of Al-Qaeda worldwide. Below is a transcript of that interview.

[SEGMENT BEGINS]

DOBBS: New charges tonight. Charges of a massive cover-up by
members of our defense intelligence community. Congressman Curt
Weldon today called for a criminal investigation into what he
says, is the most important story of our lifetime.

Weldon says the army's intelligence unit known as Able Danger,
identified the ringleaders of the 9/11 attacks more than a year
before September 11, but those warnings were ignored by the
Pentagon.

Weldon says the defense intelligence agency is now trying to
smear the reputation of Able Danger member Lieutenant Colonel
Anthony Shaffer, for speaking out about the scandal.

In addition to identifying the ringleaders of the 9/11 attacks,
Congressman Weldon says Able Danger warned defense officials
about terrorist activity in the Port of Aden in Yemen, two weeks
before that bombing of the U.S. the bombs of the U.S.S. Cole in
2000.

He also blasted the 9/11 Commission, calling them a
disappointment and a failure for not including that information
about Able Danger in its final report.

I talked with 9/11 commission member and former senator Slade
Gorton three weeks ago. And I ask him why Able Danger was
omitted from the commission's report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SLADE GORTON, FORMER 9/11 COMMISSIONER: Well, Able Danger worked
out very interesting. It didn't identify Mohammed Atta a year
beforehand. Unfortunately, no one identified Mohammed Atta
beforehand. Able Danger was simply irrelevant to our report and
still is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: Congressman Weldon now joining me from Washington, in an
exclusive interview.

Congressman, it is good to see you. Simply irrelevant how Slade
Gorton describes Able Danger, what's your reaction?

REP. CURT WELDON (R), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Unbelievable.
Slade Gorton has never talked to any principle involved with
Able Danger. And how he can go off and profess to know something
about something that he's never talked to anyone about, is
beyond me.

Slade Gorton is into what the 9/11 commission is doing, Lou.
It's called c, y, a. Cover their butts, pretend it didn't
happen.

How can you say something is historically insignificant that
Louis Freeh just two weeks ago on national TV said Able Danger
information was the kind of intelligence that could have
prevented the hijackings.

That's Louis Freeh saying that two weeks ago. Able Danger was
briefed to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in January
of 2001. How could you call that historically insignificant?

Lou, this is a cover-up. It's not a third-rate political
burglary. It's a cover-up of information on the largest attack
in the history of the country.

DOBBS: Congressman, you are calling for a criminal
investigation. Obviously, you're not going to receive a great
deal of cooperation from the leadership, the Republican
leadership in the House or the Senate.

You're a Republican, what kind of reaction are you getting as
you go one on one with your fellow Congressman?

WELDON: Lou, the members of Congress want the facts to come out,
both parties. I did a briefing this afternoon for members of
Congress, we had dozens of their members and their staff show
up.

And just within two hours Lou, today, I got 100 signatures. One
hundred signatures from Republicans and Democrats across the
country. Liberals and conservatives to Secretary Rumsfeld
demanding that we allow these Able Danger military officers to
testify in an open hearing.

The American people need to know the facts. They need to know
the truth. Three thousand people were killed, 17 sailors were
killed in the U.S.S Cole. The 9/11 commission did not do its
job. It's time to get the facts out to the American people.

DOBBS: Let me quote Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
Congressman. When asked about Able Danger, Donald Rumsfeld said,
quote, it's such an interesting story. Of course, it's something
that occurred well before this administration came in. Back in
the '90s, as I understand it, and it's an interesting story.

What's your response?

WELDON: Well, Donald Rumsfeld would not have been given the
detailed information about Able Danger because it ended at the
end of 2000, before he came into office.

However, Lou, we have to understand. There were people within
the Pentagon who stayed in place from the 1999/2000 period into
2001. In fact, they're still there today. They have a vested
interest in not having the story be told because some of them
are going to be embarrassed because the American people will see
we failed them in 1999 and 2000.

We failed them in 2001. We had information we should have acted
upon. It was denied from being transferred to the FBI and as
Louis Freeh said just two weeks ago, could have allowed us to
stop the hijackings from having ever occurred.

DOBBS: Louis Freeh, the former FBI director. At this point,
Congressman, where does the investigation go from here? The
people that are most critical to establishing what the unit,
Able Danger knew, and was capable of disseminating, relevant to
9/11, have been gagged by the Pentagon and cannot speak. What do
you do now?

WELDON: Well, we have a DOD, inspector general investigation
that actually commenced today. I met for an hour and a half with
four of their top leaders. They were requested by three separate
members of Congress, one senator and two House members.

They have commenced an internal investigation of the Defense
Intelligence Agency. In addition to that, I talked to the head
of the General Accounting Office and I have asked him to look at
a criminal investigation of what happened, and a deliberate
attempt to cover-up information.

The person who debriefed Scott Philpott, Lou, was a guy named
Dieter Snell. Dieter Snell worked for Jamie Gorelick. We have to
know whether or not there was a deliberate attempt by Dieter
Snell not to have the 9/11 commission members know the full
details of what Able Danger was doing. I can't answer that
question. An investigation needs to take place.

DOBBS: And Scott Philpott, of course, one of those who has been
gagged by the Pentagon in this case. Congressman Curt Weldon, we
thank you very much.

WELDON: My pleasure, Lou.

DOBBS: When we continue here, we'll have the very latest for you
on the terrorist attacks in Jordan.

And then, why the results of Election Day 2005 have left
President Bush and the Republican party with a difficult
challenge.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[SEGMENT ENDS]

###

[jonnygemini]

GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Nov 10, 2005, 06:19
Email this article
Printer friendly page

A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

GOP insiders who have seen the memo admit it’s a risky strategy and point out that such scenarios are “blue sky thinking” that often occurs in political planning sessions.

“The President’s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,” admits one aide. “Americans band together at a time of crisis.”

Other Republicans, however, worry that such a scenario carries high risk, pointing out that an attack might suggest the President has not done enough to protect the country.

“We also have to face the fact that many Americans no longer trust the President,” says a longtime GOP strategist. “That makes it harder for him to become a rallying point.”

The memo outlines other scenarios, including:

--Capture of Osama bin Laden (or proof that he is dead);

--A drastic turnaround in the economy;

--A "successful resolution" of the Iraq war.

GOP memos no longer talk of “victory” in Iraq but use the term “successful resolution.”

“A successful resolution would be us getting out intact and civil war not breaking out until after the midterm elections,” says one insider.

The memo circulates as Tuesday’s disastrous election defeats have left an already dysfunctional White House in chaos, West Wing insiders say, with shouting matches commonplace and the blame game escalating into open warfare.

“This place is like a high-school football locker room after the team lost the big game,” grumbles one Bush administration aide. “Everybody’s pissed and pointing the finger at blame at everybody else.”

Republican gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey deepened rifts between the Bush administration and Republicans who find the President radioactive. Arguments over whether or not the President should make a last-minute appearance in Virginia to try and help the sagging campaign fortunes of GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore raged until the minute Bush arrived at the rally in Richmond Monday night.

“Cooler heads tried to prevail,” one aide says. “Most knew an appearance by the President would hurt Kilgore rather than help him but (Karl) Rove rammed it through, convincing Bush that he had enough popularity left to make a difference.”

Bush didn’t have any popularity left. Overnight tracking polls showed Kilgore dropped three percentage points after the President’s appearance and Democrat Tim Kaine won on Tuesday.

Conservative Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum told radio talk show host Don Imus Wednesday that he does not want the President's help and will stay away from a Bush rally in his state on Friday.

The losses in Virginia and New Jersey, coupled with a resounding defeat of ballot initiatives backed by GOP governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California have set off alarm klaxons throughout the demoralized Republican party. Pollsters privately tell GOP leaders that unless they stop the slide they could easily lose control of the House in the 2006 midterm elections and may lose the Senate as well.

“In 30 years of sampling public opinion, I’ve never seen such a freefall in public support,” admits one GOP pollster.

Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the usual tricks tried by Republicans no longer work.

"None of their old tricks worked," he says.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) admits the GOP is a party mired in its rural base in a country that's becoming less and less rural.

"You play to your rural base, you pay a price," he says. "Our issues blew up in our face."

As Republican political strategists scramble to find a message – any message – that will ring true with voters, GOP leaders in Congress admit privately that control of their party by right-wing extremists makes their recovery all but impossible.

“We’ve made our bed with these people,” admits an aide to House Speaker Denny Hastert. “Now it’s the morning after and the hangover hurts like hell.”

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue

[jonnygemini]

UTAH Large Mainstream Newspaper now sharing the evidence of 9-11 demolition -- University Professor´s study!

9/11 EVIDENCE NOW IN UTAH MAINSTREAM

NOVEMBER 11, 2005. On 9/11/01, when I wrote my first article on the WTC/Pentagon attacks, I stated that the explosions were the first things to analyze.

That was because I had already written a short book, in 1995, about the Oklahoma bombing. It was clear to me then that the truck bomb was a diversion. After consulting with several experts, I (and many others) saw that no bomb exploding out of a truck parked at the curb in front of the Murrah Building could have caused the profile of damage the building sustained.

There had to have been bombs previously placed on columns inside the building.

Of course, this completely chewed up the official scenario about what had happened on April 19, 1995.

So when I saw what happened to the WTC and the Pentagon, I automatically said, look at the explosions, look at the way the buildings react to the plane collisions.

I called one of the experts I had consulted on the Oklahoma case, and he said, "No, no. This one is different. There is no hidden situation here. It´s exactly what you saw on TV."

He seemed to be too sure. He seemed to be too fast.

As we all know, since 9/11 there have been thousands of articles on the Internet about the way the buildings came down, about the "melting of the steel," about the obvious lies contained in the official scenario.

This information has reached millions and millions of people all over the world, and it has been dismissed as lunacy by arrogant major media outlets.

Here is a piece from the Deseret News dated yesterday. What struck me about it was the nearly matter-of-fact tone. This is a Utah paper that has been around a long time. The reporter, Elaine Jarvik, doesn´t spend time trashing the source, a BYU professor. She doesn´t scoff at him, doesn´t bring in a parade of so-called experts to debunk his conclusions about the explosions on 9/11.

I know. The Deseret News is not The NY Times. But still. This is interesting. It reveals that counter-theories about 9/11 have already been reaching lots and lots of people, and so the newspaper didn´t feel it had to load up and fire major barrages at the BYU professor right from the start.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

...professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC By Elaine Jarvik Deseret Morning News

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

In fact, it´s likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.

In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones´ article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says. Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.

As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don´t usually go there. There´s no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."

Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says.

The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can´t be backed up by either testing or history, he says.

Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not ´junk science.´ "

In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it´s very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when ´toppling over´ falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The ´symmetry data´ emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an ´inside´ job."

• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says. Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."

Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.

Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.

end Deseret article

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

[jonnygemini]

A couple of weeks ago a Physics professor at Brigham Young University authored a paper proving the quite obvious fact that the World Trade Center was destroyed via a controlled demolition.

Founded by a Masonic cult and firmly affixed to the federal teat, the BYU administration has posted a nastygram to the tenured professor on the website for its engineering school:

"Fulton College Response to Professor Steven Jones’s Statements Regarding Collapse of World Trade Center
Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions.

The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.

[jonnygemini]

via:www.total411.info/2006/01/easter-eggs-in-alleged-wtc-videos.html

Students of the fakery behind the Apollo moon landings know that many of the errors in the official photos are so blatant that they could only have been put in there on purpose -- likely by people who don't like what they're doing but are in over their head. It seems the same thing may be the case with some of the alleged videos of planes impacting the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001.

"Easter egg" is the term for a hidden feature on a DVD or video game. Can you spot the "easter eggs" in the 9/11 videos?

Found on the LetsRoll911.org forums :

"Just like POW's try to communicate hidden messages during forced interviews--blinking eyes in Morse code, stating their commanding officer's name which is actually a well know baseball player, etc..., feel very strongly that the unwilling participants of 9/11 could have left messages for us--and ldeliberately leave us clues.

The Easter eggs--deliberate mistakes--if they are deliberate--of 9/11 are important, and point us in a direction the makers want us to go.

# Easter Egg #1



The woman in the hole waving could be an "Easter Egg", as the two elongated holes of each tower were virtually an identical match, and judging they holes were blocked in several places with no sign of any aircraft, it is likely that the waving woman is waving at researchers. (We weren't shown those close ups of the holes for some time--maybe even a couple of days later--long enough to put on finishing touches.) What we saw on 9/11 was distant and the holes pretty obscured by smoke.--certainly nothing where you could see the complete outline of an aircraft. The woman in the hole could have been saying "look closely here...what do you see wrong...see the holes don't go thru the wall?"

# Easter Egg #2

When you look at the famous CNN/Newsday movie clip:
911inplanesite.com/media/flight175anomalies.wmv
at normal speed it looks very credible, very aceptable. But when it is slowed down and examined things change.

We see this abnormality which was called a pod, but I think our film editor put it in as an "Easter egg". He may probably be dead but he's talking to us--we're just too dumb to realize it. He knew sooner or later somebody would start taking a closer look. He put on the "egg" under the plane. This egg we called a "pod"--but it was put there to get our attention--and he even made it grow to doubly get our attention.

He's saying: "Look here! This is not the right plane--look at the explosion near the nose--look at the impact--where is the debris from the plane? This is aluminum hitting concrete and steel--it should have crumpled and splintered like a toy plane--but there's not a single piece of debris. I think he deliberately left the plane intact to show us it wasn't real.

# Easter Egg #3

But the best Easter Egg of all is this one, where the film editor went out of his way to tell us who did it....

This approach of '#175' ducking behind the tower to hide the impact, is fake, probably done in advance on a rear projector, then slipped in during the tape-delay, and then played over and over that first day to effect "imprinting" on our minds, to fool us into thinking we saw the impact "Live" when we had not. .. And this particular clip was retired, I suspect because it could not bear up to close scrutiny.

But the beauty of this Easter Egg, was the film editor deliberately used a silouette of the wrong plane--so we would know sooner or later it was not the right airliner--not a 757. But this silouette has a "hump" over the cockpit. And what silouette did he use? (Are you ready??) He used the silouette of AIR FORCE ONE!

Notice hump:
no good--no perspective, flat color, duplicate frames...

Note the hump on Air Force One:

[jonnygemini]

Top Russian General: 9/11 'a set-up'

From: VoltaireNet.org

"General Leonid Ivashov was the Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the September 11, 2001, attacks took place. This military man, who lived the events from the inside, offers an analysis which is very different to that of his American colleagues. As he did during the Axis for Peace 2005 conference, he now explains that international terrorism does not exist and that the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them. He affirms that, instead of faking a "world war on terror", the best way to reduce that kind of attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens.
[...]
Today’s international terrorism is a phenomenon that combines the use of terror by state and non-state political structures as a means to attain their political objectives through people’s intimidation, psychological and social destabilization, the elimination of resistance from power organizations and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries’ policies and the behavior of people.


Ivashov & Tarpley


Terrorism is the weapon used in a new type of war. At the same time, international terrorism, in complicity with the media, becomes the manager of global processes. It is precisely the symbiosis between media and terror, which allows modifying international politics and the exiting reality.

In this context, if we analyze what happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States, we can arrive at the following conclusions:

1. The organizers of those attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order and who had the means necessary to finance the operation. The political conception of this action matured there where tensions emerged in the administration of financial and other types of resources. We have to look for the reasons of the attacks in the coincidence of interests of the big capital at global and transnational levels, in the circles that were not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization process or its direction.
Unlike traditional wars, whose conception is determined by generals and politicians, the oligarchs and politicians submitted to the former were the ones who did it this time.

2. Only secret services and their current chiefs – or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations – have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. Generally, secret services create, finance and control extremist organizations. Without the support of secret services, these organizations cannot exist – let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside countries so well protected. Planning and carrying out an operation on this scale is extremely complex.

3. Osama bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders. Thus, a team of professionals had to be created and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.
The September 11 operation modified the course of events in the world in the direction chosen by transnational mafias and international oligarchs; that is, those who hope to control the planet’s natural resources, the world information network and the financial flows. This operation also favored the US economic and political elite that also seeks world dominance.

[jonnygemini]

via: Wayne Madsen Report

February 8, 2006 -- WMR previously reported on the activities of a group of some 120 Israeli "art students" in the United States prior to the 9-11 attacks. At least a year before the attacks, the art students caught the attention of agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), who prepared a lengthy report of their activities in June 2001. The DEA report specifically concluded that the Israelis may have had "ties to an Islamic fundamentalist group.” That group turned out to be Al Qaeda. The DEA report was supplemented by reports from agents of the Marshal's Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and local police departments.

WMR's report on the suspicious activities of Israeli art students and movers concludes that these individuals were involved in surveillance of the 9-11 hijackers in locations such as Hollywood, Florida; Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas; Venice, Florida; Laurel, Maryland; San Diego, California; and Jersey City and Paterson, New Jersey.

Israeli intelligence veteran confirms that Israeli art students who shadowed 9-11 hijackers were part of a major Mossad intelligence operation

WMR can now report that a long-serving member of the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, has confirmed that the Israeli art students were, in fact, part of a major Israeli intelligence operation and that they were conducting surveillance of the activities of the 9-11 hijackers. They also worked with the Israeli Urban Moving System employees in New Jersey who were seen in at least two Jersey City locations -- Liberty State Park and The Doric apartment building -- celebrating the impact of the first plane into the World Trade Center.

The Israelis at Liberty State Park were dressed in Arab-style clothing when they were witnessed celebrating the first attack. The FBI later confiscated a videotape they filmed of the first attack. All the Israeli art students and movers who were detained, arrested, or jailed were freed and allowed to return to Israel. The Israeli movers in New Jersey were freed after intense pressure was brought on the Bush administration by former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. After the news of the Israeli art students and their intelligence ring was reported by the AP and other media outlets, including Fox News, the Israeli embassy in Washington and The Washington Post called the story an "urban myth." It is also of note that John Miller, the ABC News reporter who covered the Israeli movers story for 20/20 and concluded that the movers were not involved in the 9-11 attacks, is now the spokesman for the FBI. WMR can also report that there are a number of FBI agents, some veterans of the New York-New Jersey Joint Terrorism Task Force, who know about the Israeli role in surveillance of the 9-11 hijackers but have been "gagged" by senior levels of the FBI not to talk about what they know.

[jonnygemini]

Colbert exposes Richard Clarke as false opposition

(Total911.info) -- Check out this VIDEO
www.total911.info/colbertclarke.htm
from the Colbert Report in December. Proving that Comedy Central is the leader in cable news, Colbert takes mere seconds in dismantling the notion that Richard Clarke is anything other than another establishment hack. Clarke of course, is a darling of the left gatekeepers, vaguely criticizing the Bush Administration on "terror" but maintaining the fiction of Al-CIAdaAl-Qaeda as a real and significant threat.



Here's our partial transcript:

"STEPHEN COLBERT: I've got a theory about you, sir. You were the counterterrorism czar. . . then you had a very public "falling out" with the White House, then they "criticized you" and "impugned your character" and now you're a "public gadfly" of the Administration... Isn't this just deep cover? Isn't this sort of black ops stuff? Aren't you just red herring out there to try to smoke out America's enemies now?

FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM CZAR RICHARD CLARKE: Well, if I were, you just destroyed it.

COLBERT: I tell you what. If you are -- deny it!

CLARKE: It's not true.

COLBERT: Loud and clear.