Sept 11, 2001, the world changed, the freedoms we thought we had were curtailed and the kill and hate Muslims campaign began.

click arrow and listen

 

Michel Chossudovsky’s Presentation to the 9/11 Revisited conference in Malaysia

 YOU TUBE http://youtu.be/p5mlmc9fJyU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War Committed “in the Name of 9/11″ Initiating a Legal Procedure against the Perpetrators of 9/11 Michel Chossudovsky

* * *

 

 

International Conference on “9/11 Revisited – Seeking the Truth” Kuala Lumpur, November 2012

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history, a decisive watershed, a breaking point.

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.

September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. The post September 11, 2001 era is marked by the outright criminalization of the US State, including its judicial, foreign policy, national security and intelligence apparatus.

9/11 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.

A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.

9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the  inauguration of “Police State USA”.

In assessing the crimes associated with 9/11 in the context of a legal procedure, we must distinguish between those associated with the actual event, namely the loss of life and the destruction of property on 9/11, from the crimes committed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 “in the name of 9/11″.

The latter build upon the former. We are dealing with two related dimensions of criminality. The crimes committed “in the name of 9/11″ involving acts of war are far-reaching, resulting in the deaths of millions of people as well as the destruction of entire countries.

The 9/11 event in itself– which becomes symbolic– is used to justify the onslaught of the post 9/11 US-NATO military agenda, under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), not to mention the ushering in of the Homeland police state and the repeal of civil liberties.

The crimes committed in the name of 9/11 broadly consist in two intimately related processes:

1. The launching of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification to Wage a War of Conquest. This GWOT mandate was used to justify the 2001 and 2003 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The GWOT mandate has since extended its grip to a large number of countries in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where the US and its NATO allies are intervening selectively under a counterterrorism mandate.

2. The derogation of civil liberties and the instatement of an Orwellian police state apparatus within Western countries. In the US, the introduction of the PATRIOT legislation and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks set the stage for the subsequent restructuring of the judicial and law enforcement apparatus, culminating in the legalization of extrajudicial assassinations under an alleged counter-terrorism mandate.

The 9/11 attacks constitute what is referred to in intelligence parlance as a “massive casualty producing event” conducive to the deaths of civilians.

The dramatic loss of life on the morning of 9/11 resulting from an initial criminal act is used as a pretext and a justification to wage an all out war of retribution, in the name of 9/11 against the alleged perpetrators of  9/11, namely the “state sponsors of terrorism”, including Afghanistan, Iraq as well as Iran.

We are dealing with a diabolical and criminal project. The civilian deaths resulting from the 911 attacks are an instrument of war propaganda, applied to build a consensus in favor of an outright war of global domination.

The perpetrators of war propaganda are complicit in the conduct of extensive war crimes, in that they readily justify acts of war as counter-terrorism and/or humanitarian operations (R2P) launched to protect civilians. The “Just War” concept prevails: The killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq are “rightfully” undertaken in retribution for the deaths incurred on 9/11.

Evidence is fabricated to the effect that the “state sponsors of terrorism” had committed, on the morning of 9/11, an outright act of war against the United States.

Realities are turned upside down. The US and its allies are the victims of foreign aggression. America’s crimes of war in Afghanistan and Iraq are committed in the name of 9/11 under a counter terrorism mandate.

The 9/11 attacks are used to harness public opinion into supporting a war without borders. Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” are set in motion.

Chronology of Events

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an in-depth police investigation.

CIA Director George Tenet stated that same morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those [foreign governments] who harbor them”.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, without mentioning Afghanistan, pointed his finger at “state sponsorship,” implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, “I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution.”

That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.

The war cabinet had decided to launch an an illegal and criminal war on Afghanistan, based on essentially two interrelated concepts:

1. The 9/11 attacks although allegedly conducted by Al Qaeda were upheld as an all out military attack by a foreign power.

2. Afghanistan in allegedly supporting Al Qaeda, was responsible for an act of military aggression directed against the United States of America.

The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage war on Afghanistan on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”. Several prominent intellectuals made a case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. In taking on this stance they provided legitimacy to the conduct of war crimes. The “just cause” military doctrine was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11.

In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country in Central Asia of 30 million people.

The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America. The post 9/11 era was also characterised by the development of Islamophobia, including routine ethnic profiling directed against Muslims.

Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?

Is there any proof to the effect that Osama bin Laden, the bogeyman, coordinated the 9/11 attacks as claimed in the official 9/11 narrative?

According to CBS news (Dan Rather, January 28, 2002), “Enemy Number One” was admitted to the urology ward of a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan. Rawalpindi is the Headquarters of the Pakistani military including its intelligence apparatus. He could have been arrested at short notice which would have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as presidential speeches.

DAN RATHER. As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan. (transcript of CBS report.

CBS News footage of the Rawalpindi, Pakistan, hospital where bin Laden was allegedly treated the day before 9/11. [Source: CBS News]

The foregoing CBS report which is of utmost relevance indicates two obvious facts:

1. Osama bin Laden could not reasonably have coordinated the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed;

2. The hospital was under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts were known to both the Pakistani and US military.

U.S. military and intelligence advisers based in Rawalpindi. were working closely with their Pakistani counterparts. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed, at the time, that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden were unknown. According to
Rumsfeld: “Its like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.

Recovering from his hospital treatment in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, how could Osama have coordinated the 9/11 attacks?

How could Afghanistan be made responsible for these attacks by Al Qaeda? Bin Laden is a national of Saudi Arabia who, according to CBS News, was not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan at the time of the attacks.

September 12, 2001: The Invasion of Afghanistan: NATO’s Doctrine of Collective Security

The immediate response of the US and its NATO allies to the 9/11 attacks was to the declare a war of retribution against Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting “terror mastermind” Osama bin Laden, who at the time of the attacks was in Pakistan, protected by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus. In a bitter irony, the Pakistani government and military, which had facilitated bin Laden’s hospitalization in Rawalpindi on September 10, offered to assist the US in “going after bin Laden”. An agreement
to this effect was reached on September 12 in Washington between the head of Pakistan’s military Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmed and Secretary Colin Powell.

Parroting official statements, the Western media mantra on September 12, 2001 had already approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in Afghanistan. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: “When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.

By allegedly harboring bin Laden, the Afghan government was complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for having waged an act of war against the United States.

This decision was taken by the Bush-Cheney war cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption, “confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

On the following morning, September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan (taken by the war cabinet at 11pm on September 11), invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

Meanwhile, on two occasions in the course of September 2001, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels– offered to hand over Osama Bin laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by president Bush, on the grounds that America “does not negotiate with terrorists”.

The War on Afghanistan: First Stage of the “Global War on Terrorism”

The war on Afghanistan was launched 26 days later on the morning of October 7, 2001. The timing of this war begs the question: how long does it take to plan and implement a major theater war several thousand miles away.

Military analysts will confirm that a major theater war takes months and months, up to a year or more of advanced preparations. Confirmed by press reports, the war on Afghanistan was already in an advanced state of readiness
prior to September 11, 2001, which begs the question of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

In other words, the 9/11 attacks were used as a means to trigger a military agenda which was already on the drawing board of both the Pentagon and NATO.

The repeal of civil liberties in America was launched in parallel with the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. Immediately following 9/11, the PATRIOT legislation was adopted. The Homeland Security apparatus was launched, with a view to “protecting Americans against terrorists”. This post-911 legal and institutional framework had been carefully crafted prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty: NATO’s Legal Argument

In invoking Article 5 on the morning of September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council endorsed a criminal military agenda, in derogation of international law.

The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defense”.

On the morning of September 12, 2001, NATO’s North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, responded to the decision of the War Cabinet taken a few hours earlier at 11pm on 9/11, adopted the following resolution:

“if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against “The North Atlantic area”, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”.

In this regard, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates that if:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

An act of war by a foreign nation (Afghanistan) against a member of the Atlantic Alliance (the USA) was considered as an act of war against all members under NATO’s doctrine of collective security.

Under no stretch of the imagination, can the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon be categorized as an act of war by a foreign country. But nobody seemed to have raised this issue.

“Use of Armed Force” only “If It is Determined…”

There was an “if” in the September 12 resolution. Article 5 would apply only if it is determined that Afghanistan as a Nation State was complicit or behind the 9/11 attacks.

In practice, the “if” had already been waived prior to 9/11. The entire NATO arsenal was already on a war footing. In military terms, NATO and the US were already in an advanced state of readiness. Known to military analysts, but never revealed in the Western media, the implementation of a large scale theater war takes at least one year of advanced operational planning, prior to the launching of an invasion.

The use of article 5 of the Washington Treaty had in all likelihood been contemplated by military planners, as a pretext for waging war, prior to 9/11.

There was, however, no official declaration of war on September 12th. The Alliance waited until 3 days before the invasion to declare war on Afghanistan, an impoverished country which by no stretch of the imagination could have launched an attack against a member state of “The North Atlantic area”.

The September 12 resolution of the Atlantic Council required “determination” and corroborating evidence, that:

1) Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden with the support of a foreign power had ordered the “attack from abroad” on the United States of America; 2) The terrorist attacks of 9/11 constituted a bona fide military operation (under the provisions of Article 5) by an alleged foreign country (Afghanistan)

against a NATO member state, and consequently against all NATO member states under the doctrine of collective security:

“Article 5 and the case of the terrorist attacks against the United States: The United States has been the object of brutal terrorist attacks. It immediately consulted with the other members of the Alliance. The Alliance determined that the US had been the object of an armed attack. The Alliance therefore agreed that if it was determined that this attack was directed from abroad, it would be regarded as covered by Article 5. NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the
Alliance’s decision.

Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination has yet been made whether the attack against the United States was directed from abroad. If such a determination is made, each Ally will then consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be decided by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN Charter.

Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.

If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States. (Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by
taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances.

No collective action will be taken by NATO until further consultations are held and further decisions are made by the the North Atlantic Council.

The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report

The final decision to invoke Article 5 in relation to the 9/11 attacks came three weeks later upon the submission to the NATO Council of a mysterious classified report by a US State Department official named Frank Taylor. The
report was submitted to NATO on October 2nd, 5 days before the commencement of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.

Frank Taylor was working in the US State Department. He had been entrusted with the writing of a brief to establish whether the US “had been attacked from abroad”, pursuant to the North Atlantic Council’s resolution of September 12, 2001.

US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism Frank Taylor briefed the North Atlantic Council on October 2nd, five days before the commencement of the bombings.

On October 2nd he handed his brief to NATO “on the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks…. ” 

The classified report was not released to the media. And to this date, to our knowledge, it has remained classified.

NATO’s Secretary General Lord Robertson casually summarised the substance of the Frank Taylor report in a press release:  “This morning, the United States briefed the North Atlantic Council on the results of the investigation into who was responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks which took place on September 11.

The briefing was given by Ambassador Frank Taylor, the United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-terrorism.

This morning’s briefing follows those offered by United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and illustrates the commitment of the United States to maintain close cooperation with Allies.

Today’s was classified briefing and so I cannot give you all the details.

Briefings are also being given directly by the United States to the Allies in their capitals.

The briefing addressed the events of September 11 themselves, the results of the investigation so far, what is known about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organisation and their involvement in the attacks and in previous terrorist activity, and the links between al-Qaida and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The facts are clear and compelling. The information presented points conclusively to an al-Qaida role in the September 11 attacks.

We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were part of the world-wide terrorist network of al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and his key     lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.

On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined that the attack against the United States on September 11 was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington
Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

I want to reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism.” 

In other words, 2 days before the actual commencement of the bombing campaign on October 7, the North Atlantic Council decided, based on the information provided by Frank Taylor to the Council “that the attacks were directed from abroad” by Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, thereby requiring an action on the part of NATO under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty

NATO action under article 5, was outlined in an October 4 decision, 3 days before the commencement of the bombings.

Two days later, on 4 October, NATO agreed on eight measures in support the United States, which were tantamount to an illegal declaration of war on Afghanistan:

to enhance intelligence sharing and co-operation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it;

to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, [military] assistance to Allies and other states which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the
campaign against terrorism; to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory; to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism;

to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures;

that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; and that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.

Press reports of Frank Taylor’s brief to the NATO Council were scanty. The invocation of Article 5, five days before the bombings commenced, was barely mentioned. The media consensus was: “all roads lead to Bin Laden” as if bin Laden was a Nation State which had attacked America.

What stands out are outright lies and fabrications. Moreover, prior to October 2nd, NATO had no pretext under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty to intervene militarily in Afghanistan.

The pretext was provided by Frank Taylor’s classified report, which was not made public.

The two UN Security Council resolutions adopted in the course of September 2001, did not, under any circumstances, provide a justification for the invasion and illegal occupation of a UN member country of 28 million people. (see Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) Threats to international peace and security
caused by terrorist acts, Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts).

UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) called for prevention and suppression of terrorist
acts, as well suppression of the financing of terrorism:

“(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning,
preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is
brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against
them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in
domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the
seriousness of such terrorist acts;

…

“3. Calls upon all States to:

“(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational
information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or
networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or
sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and
the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist
groups;

“(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;

“(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts

“4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and
other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious
challenge and threat to international security; “5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (excerpts of UNSC Resolution 1373 .

Nowhere in this resolution is there any mention of military action against a UN member State.

The US led war on Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a pretext and a justification is illegal and criminal.

The US and NATO heads of state and heads of government from 2001 to the present are complicit in the launching of a criminal and illegal war.

The Big Lie: Al Qaeda Made in America

Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress, which the mainstream media chose to either dismiss or ignore. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.

Both the 9/11 Commission Report as well as the Western media have largely upheld the “outside enemy” mythology, heralding Al Qaeda as the “mastermind” organization behind the 9/11 attacks. The official 9/11 narrative has not only distorted the causes underling the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, it has also erased the historical record of US covert support to international terrorism, while creating the illusion that America and “Western Civilization” are threatened.

Without an “outside enemy”, there could be no “Global War on Terrorism”. The  entire national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.

After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive Al Qaeda “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.

This is why a legal procedure directed against the actual perpetrators of 9/11 is absolutely essential.

History of Al Qaeda

Important to the understanding of 9/11, US intelligence is the unspoken architect of “Islamic terrorism” going back to the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.

Bin Laden was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerrilla training camp. Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. With religious textbooks produced in Nebraska, the number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.

“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad.” 

“The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings.  The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books.”

Under the Reagan administration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic “freedom fighters”. This endorsement has not in any way been modified.

In a twisted irony, throughout the post 911 era, US intelligence in liaison with Britain’s MI6, an Israel’s Mossad, continues to provide covert support to the radical Islamist organization allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda and its various affiliated groups including the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and factions within the Free Syria Army (FSA) are directly supported by the US and NATO.

In a bitter irony, the US and its allies claim to be waging a “war on terrorism” against the alleged architects of 9/11, while also using Al Qaeda operatives as their foot-soldiers.

Iraq: Alleged State Sponsor of the 9/11 Attacks

The formulation of a war of retribution conducted in the name of 9/11 was not limited to Afghanistan.

In the course of 2002, leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain. While Washington’s official position was that
Saddam Hussein was not behind the 9/11 attacks, insinuations abounded both in presidential speeches as well as in the Western media. According to Bush, in an October 2002 press conference:

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.  We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On
September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability — even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source [Iraq], that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, October
7, 2002)

Barely two weeks before the invasion of Iraq, September 11, 2001 was mentioned abundantly by president Bush. In the weeks leading up to the March invasion, 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was “personally involved” in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. 

Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United Nations Security Council, in February 2003, detailed “documentation” on a sinister relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was presented, focussing on his ability to produce deadly chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with the full support and endorsement of the secular Baathist regime. The implication of Colin’s Powell’s assertions, which were totally fabricated, was that Saddam Hussein and an Al Qaeda affiliated organization had joined hands in the production of WMD in Northern Iraq and that the Hussein government was a “state sponsor” of terrorism.

The main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of “terrorists opposed to
democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on television screens and news tabloids across the globe.

Iran: Condemned by a New York City Court for Supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11
Attacks

In the wake of the Iraq invasion, the same alleged “state sponsorship” of
terrorism accusations emerged in relation to Iran.

In December 2011, the Islamic Republic of Iran was condemned by a Manhattan
court, for its alleged role in supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.

The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role was launched in 2004, pursuant to a
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding an apparent link between Iran,
Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 9/11 Commission’s recommendation was
that this “apparent link” required “further investigation by the U.S.
government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241). (See Iran 911 Case ).

In the December 2011 court judgment (Havlish v. Iran) “U.S. District Judge
George B. Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly
supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible
for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in
the case”.

According to the plaintiffs attorneys “Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a
terror alliance in the early 1990s. Citing their national security and
intelligence experts, the attorneys explained “how the pragmatic terror leaders
overcame the Sunni-Shi’a divide in order to confront the U.S. (the “Great
Satan”) and Israel (the “Lesser Satan”)”. Iran and Hezbollah allegedly provided
“training to members of al Qaeda in, among other things, the use of explosives
to destroy large buildings.” (See Iran 911 Case ).

This judicial procedure is nothing more than another vicious weapon in the
fabricated “War on Terror” to be used against another Muslim country, with a
view to destabilizing Iran as well as justifying ongoing military threats. It
also says a lot more about the people behind the lawsuit than about the accused.
The expert witnesses who testified against Iran are very active in warmongering
neocon circles. They belong to a web of architects of the 21st century
Middle-Eastern wars, ranging from high profile propagandists to intelligence and
military officers, including former U.S. officials.

But what makes this case absurd is that in September 2011, a few months before
the judgment, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has questioned the
official 9/11 narrative, was accused by Al-Qaeda leaders of “spreading
conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks”. The semi-official media outlet of
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, insisted that al-Qaeda “had been behind the
attacks and criticised the Iranian president for discrediting the terrorist
group.” (See Julie Levesque, Iran Accused of being behind 9/11 Attacks. U.S.
Court Judgment, December 2011 (Havlish v. Iran), Global Research, May 11, 2012)

Al Qaeda: US-NATO Foot-soldiers

Ironically, while Washington accuses Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran of complicity in
the 9/11 attacks, the historical record and evidence indelibly point to the
“state sponsorship” of Al Qaeda by the CIA, MI6 and their intelligence
counterparts in Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Realities are turned upside down. Al Qaeda death squads have been recruited to
wage America’s humanitarian wars throughout the Middle East an d North Africa.

In Syria Al Qaeda units were recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command:

“Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to
enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim
world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels.”
(http://www.debka.com/article/21255/ Debkafile, August 31, 2011).

In Libya, jihadists from Afghanistan trained by the CIA were dispatched to fight
with the “pro-democracy” rebels under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic
Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj:

Western policy makers admit that NATO’s operations in Libya have played the
primary role in emboldening Al Qaeda’s AQIM faction (Al Qaeda in the Islamic
Maghreb). The Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution’s Bruce Riedel in his
article, “The New Al Qaeda Menace,” admits that AQIM is now heavily armed thanks
to NATO’s intervention in Libya, and that AQIM’s base in Mali, North Africa,
serves as a staging ground for terrorist activities across the region.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-and-natos-pan-arab-terrorist-blitzkrieg/

“Crimes against Civilization”

9/11 mythology has been the mainstay of war propaganda, which in itself
constitutes a criminal act under international law.

Fiction prevails over reality. For propaganda to be effective, public opinion
must firmly endorse the official 9/11 narrative to the effect that Al Qaeda was
behind the attacks. A well organized structure of media disinformation is
required to reach this objective. Perpetuating the 9/11 Legend also requires
defying as well smearing the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Throughout the post 9/11 era, a panoply of Al Qaeda related events and
circumstances is presented to public opinion on a daily basis. These include
terrorist threats, warnings and attacks, police investigations, insurgencies and
counter-insurgencies, country-level regime change, social conflict, sectarian
violence, racism, religious divisions, Islamic thought, Western values, etc.

Muslims are presented as the perpetrators of the 9/11, thereby unleashing a
Worldwide demonization campaign.

In turn, 9/11, Al Qaeda – War on Terrorism rhetoric permeates political
discourse at all levels of government, including bipartisan debate on Capitol
Hill, in committees of the House and the Senate, at the British House of
Commons, and, lest we forget, at the United Nations Security Council. All these
various bodies are complicit in a criminal project.

September 11 and Al Qaeda concepts, repeated ad nauseam have potentially
traumatic impacts on the human mind and the ability of normal human beings to
analyze and comprehend the “real outside World” of war, politics and the
economic crisis.

What is at stake is human consciousness and comprehension based on concepts and
facts.

With September 11 there are no verifiable “facts” and “concepts”, because 9/11
as well as Al Qaeda have evolved into a media mythology, a legend, an invented
ideological construct, used as an unsubtle tool of war propaganda.

Al Qaeda constitutes a stylized, fake and almost folkloric abstraction of
terrorism, which permeates the inner consciousness of millions of people around
the World.

Reference to Al Qaeda has become a dogma, a belief, which most people espouse
unconditionally. According to the media, “Muslims were behind the attacks”,
thereby justifying a war of retribution against Muslim countries.

Racism and Islamophobia are an integral part of war propaganda.

Is this political indoctrination? Is it brain-washing? If so what is the
underlying objective?

People’s capacity to independently analyse World events, as well as address
causal relationships pertaining to politics and society, is significantly
impaired. That is the objective!

The routine use of 9/11 and Al Qaeda to generate blanket explanations of
complex political events is meant to create confusion.

It prevents people from thinking. It strikes at the core of human values. In a
sense, it destroys civilization.

All of these complex Al Qaeda related occurrences are explained by politicians,
the corporate media, Hollywood and the Washington think tanks under a single
blanket “bad guys” heading, in which Al Qaeda is casually and repeatedly
pinpointed as “the cause” of numerous terror events around the World.

The criminality underlying post 9/11 propaganda is of much broader nature,
affecting people’s mindsets, redefining fundamental social, political and
institutional relations.

“Crimes against Civilization” have been committed.

9/11 mythology precipitates the World into barbarity.

SOURCE:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-crimes-of-war-committed-in-th\
e-name-of-911/5311561

URL:

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/911_war_crimes_tribunal/2012/12/michel-chossudovsky\
s-presentation-to-the-911-revisited-conference-in-malaysia.html

CRIMES OF WAR COMMITTED “IN THE NAME OF 9/11: youtube, article by Michel
Chossudovsky

http://worldpeaceassociation.com/wordpress/2013/01/08/crimes-of-war-committed-in\
-the-name-of-911-michel-chossudovsky-initiating-a-legal-procedure-against-the-pe\
rpetrators-of-911-the-tragic-events-of-september-11-2001-consti/

Read more about 911, including review of overwhelming, verifiable evidence
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldPeaceAssociation/message/1852

 
FAKE VIDEO FOOTAGE IN US 911 TV COVERAGE  by Eliot Estep

Before I begin, I would just like to say that I mean no disrespect to any of the victims, families, and all those affected by the terrible events of 9/11. My intention has always been to find out the truth about what really happened, how, and, if possible, why. It is one of the most defining days in modern history and many of us remember it as if it were yesterday. I was 12 when it occurred and could not grasp the significance and impact that it would have on my life at the time. More than 5 years later, after watching a 9/11 documentary that raised several valid questions about the legitimacy of the official story, I began to research this event more thoroughly. This spawned my own awakening, as I realized that if the government and media could lie about an event so huge, there were probably many other things that were deliberately falsified and covered up. I still cannot say with certainty what happened that day, but by going through the following evidence, it is important to look at it as a possibility.

While the controlled demolition of the 3 WTC towers has been extensively covered and documented, [1] I would like to bring our attention to the 9/11 media coverage that was shown to us that day and following it. For the overwhelming majority of us, we watched the days events unfold on TV, and our perceptions and beliefs about this event are greatly affected by what we saw that day. More than 11 years later, we have now seen videos of planes hitting the WTC possibly hundreds of times in a highly dramatic and realistic fashion, so our collective belief that planes hit the towers runs deep.

But what if what we saw on TV is not what actually happened? Is it possible that the TV footage was manipulated to make it look like the Twin Towers were hit by planes? Could image-layering, computer-generated imagery, and other professional editing techniques have been employed to create this illusion? What if the towers were really hit by cruise missiles or drone planes instead? While this may sound far-fetched at first, reviewing the footage again for yourself in this pivotal video will reveal to you that this is almost certainly the case.

September Clues is a documentary by video/audio engineer Simon Shack that thoroughly examines the 9/11 television coverage from all major media outlets, including the “amateur footage” released afterwards. Using in-depth comparative analysis of both video and audio of the most pertinent footage, the film conclusively demonstrates that the footage of the planes is not authentic and was actually fabricated. The planes are nothing more than digital superimpositions complete with sound effects and an attempt at “movie-like” realism. The so-called “amateur footage” released afterwards are digital forgeries made by media and video professionals which are supposed to convince us that a real variety of genuine footage exists of this event. This is something that really must be seen and felt for yourself to be truly understood.

“When criminals have unlimited access to instruments of mass persuasion, solid proof of their crimes are hard to expose. On September 11, 2001, almost all pieces of evidence were quickly removed. In fact, all but ONE. It is spread all over America on tapes recorded by American families and verifiable on official TV archives: the 9/11 Television Coverage.” – Simon Shack, creator of September Clues.
Flight175By watching just the first 5-10 minutes (Part A) of this video, you will begin to notice some disturbing trends that continue to present themselves throughout the TV coverage. For example, you will see the infamous “nose in-nose out” shot, where the plane is shown to emerge through the other side of the building with its nose perfectly intact. Immediately after this occurs, the picture is blacked out in an attempt to hide this digital mistake. This was one of the first shots of the second plane hitting the tower from FOX’s Chopper 8, although it was not given virtually any attention afterwards for obvious reasons. All the other live angles are covered, including the coverage shown internationally.

Here are just a few of many disturbing anomalies including:

* In the CNN footage, the news anchors do not even mention seeing a plane after it was first shown quickly crashing into the second tower at 9:03 AM.

* 17 of the “firsthand witnesses” who claimed to see the first and second planes worked directly for news media or are the spouses of media employees. September Clues covers this revealing phenomenon in detail.

* Reporter Don Dahler of ABC reports hearing a missile and “not an airplane”, while Dick Oliver of FOX reports that several witnesses “thought they saw a missile.” They are both quickly corrected by the news anchors and this idea is never given airtime again.

* The vast majority of civilian witnesses report seeing a “small plane” and there does not seem to be any kind of consensus as to what type, size, or color it actually was.

* Depending on the footage, different flight paths are shown, which is highly contradictory. One angle shows the plane dive-bombing into the tower, which is an impossible maneuver for a Boeing 767 that is claimed to have been approaching at 590 MPH near sea level.

* There appears to be a 17-second delay between the actual attacks and the screening of the footage, and all major news networks had some kind of audible “trigger” which occurred precisely 17 seconds before the explosions in the second tower occurred.

* The audio is faked and varies widely depending on which clip you see, particularly in the “amateur footage.” For example, one sample of a woman screaming is found both on the amateur film and TV coverage in an identical match.

* Several “slips of the tongue” occur regarding missiles throughout the day and later on: from CNN anchor Vince Cellini, Donald Rumsfeld, and 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer, who mentions a missile hitting the Pentagon before quickly correcting himself.

* Many more technical issues regarding the footage, including the backgrounds used actually being digital composites, as well as the use of actors to provide false testimonials about “what they saw” following the event.

agmmissile

The usage of missiles on 9/11 is actually not such a hard phenomenon to comprehend. Shack believes JASSM AGM-158 cruise missiles could have been used, which look eerily like a plane indeed. [2] Logically, it makes far more sense than the official story of 19 Arab hijackers being able to foil the most advanced air defence systems on the planet — 4 times in one day. It would be much more feasible to simulate or falsify the appearance of planes crashing into the towers digitally than actually having it happen. After all, why do we believe that planes hit the towers in the first place? Because we saw them on TV or on some kind of digital medium at some point, over and over again until it sank in as being real. It is quite possibly the biggest lie and psychological warfare operation in modern human history, being a truly collective event that has had such a profound impact on the direction we have taken globally over the last decade.

Regarding the Pentagon, it is well known that a Boeing 767 cannot fit into a 16-foot wide hole that pierced through all five layers of the building. The hole is nowhere near big enough and there are no plane pieces near the crash site. Even CNN’s initial reporter on the scene Jamie McIntyre states (at 18:36) that there is “no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.” Therefore, it is much more plausible and likely that a missile was used in this case, and most likely with the Twin Towers as well. Of course, the government later claimed to have identified all the bodies of the victims on these non-existent planes. This alone raises massive implications about the simulation of victim deaths which must be considered. The wreckage in Shanksville, PA is similar, with nothing more than a large crater in the ground with not a single piece of plane debris in sight. Again, all the victims were “confirmed and identified.” Are we really expected to believe that planes crashed here? This defies all logic and physics.

While it may be hard to accept at first, it is almost certain that no commercial airplanes were involved in the attacks of 9/11. The “highly-realistic” image we have of a plane crashing into the towers is nothing more than cartoon physics when you really look at it. The clear absence of a plane can be seen in this short unedited video clip that gives you an idea of what really happened.

HEZ15It is difficult to accept because many of us cannot fathom the implication that specific elements of the media and government would actually go to such lengths to stage an operation like this. My response to that is that they can and they will continue to. By studying the underlying agenda of the power elite and those who manage societies, 9/11 was most certainly a pivotal event to advance their agenda and vastly expedite their processes of increasing wars and restricting liberties across the globe. It is likely that the operation itself was highly compartmentalized, where everyone participating was informed strictly in a “need-to-know” capacity only. It is probable that only as many people as needed were used (my guess is less than 100), with the threats and reinforcements of murder, bribery, blackmail, and coercion being implemented to ensure silence among those who really know what happened.

Untold amounts of death, misery, and suffering continues to occur worldwide as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, it is imperative that we remember that the main weapon used on that day was the *television* — not the fanatical acts of 19 Arab hijackers (many of whom are still reportedly alive). [3] All it takes to simulate and falsify the plane crashing into the building is some video-editing skills. Watch how easily it can be done.

This is the real 9/11 truth. What the vast majority of all 9/11 truth documentaries and researchers don’t cover is the television fakery that was used to sell this version of events to the world. In fact, it is likely that some of the most popular 9/11 documentaries like Loose Change are actually covertly-funded controlled opposition [4] that deliberately spread the false idea that planes hit the towers, meanwhile covering other anomalies such as the Pentagon missile and controlled demolition of the three buildings with seeming veracity. Several of these groups have actually banned the discussion of “no-plane theories” outright, refusing to even consider that media fakery has been used in any way. This is highly revealing of the integrity of some of the influential figures and leaders in the “truth movements,” which often have underlying agendas that are not so readily perceivable upon first glance.

It is not widely known that the use of all electronics was severely disrupted in New York City on the morning of 9/11. Many clocks in the city stopped working precisely at 8:45AM. Cell phones, video cameras, NYFD firefighter radios, the WTC internal communication system, and the Port Authority’s equipment were all either malfunctioning or blacked out entirely. [5] The possibility of directed EMP/HERF energy currents being used as a means to maintain total visual control of the scene must be considered in this case. This would be done to ensure that genuine footage of what actually happened to the towers is minimized or prevented entirely from emerging publicly.

FLIPapostol_faustino_smallFLIPcirri_robert_small

Another highly disturbing trend that Shack has uncovered in his research involves the photo forgery regarding the 9/11 victims. By visiting the official 9/11 memorial websites, it has been shown that a large amount of victims have had their photos duplicated and edited to appear as distinctly unique images. [6] The reason for these digital forgeries is unknown but reveals the possibility that computer-assisted false identities may have been used to simulate some of the victim deaths. Additionally, there are huge discrepancies in the death tolls among the memorials, ranging in a difference of several hundred people. This raises the important implication that 3000 people may not have actually been killed on 9/11, whereas the actual number is most likely far, far less. Please watch the following video to see this for yourself.

Potential Fake Photos of Victims – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZEuj1VPv0

I am almost certain that if we were shown the 9/11 TV coverage again today as it was played out in 2001 on live TV, we would have no doubt that those planes were faked. Back then, we were not used to such widespread exposure to highly dramatic and ultra-realistic footage that is so common now in movies and TV shows. Our perceptions have now changed drastically, but the majority of us still believe that planes hit the towers. I encourage you to watch September Clues or to visit the official 9/11 TV archive [7] and verify this critical issue for yourself.

If fabricated television and video footage can fool almost the entire world, then what else are we being lied to about? This is something worth considering as we continue to awaken and perceive major world events with more clarity and objectivity than ever before. While it is not known exactly what transpired on 9/11, the truth about what did NOT happen is becoming clearer and clearer by the day. We must understand that television is still being used as a weapon of mass distraction to keep us thinking and conforming within acceptable bounds of consciousness. It’s time to turn it off and to reclaim our minds and critical thinking capacities to their fullest extent!

As we continue to empower ourselves with our own ever-evolving truths and understandings about the world, keeping an open and discerning mind when confronted with new and challenging information remains vital. When we see things for what they really are, we can begin to detach from all the drama and get back to the root issues at hand, such as the knowing that peace and a sustainable paradigm are not possible when war is used as a means to “solve conflicts.” Only by addressing our most pressing issues at their core can we begin to see tangible, positive change finally emerge on a personal, communal, and global scale.

For more information, I highly recommend a visit to SeptemberClues.info to read important articles about what may have really happened on 9/11, including:

* Deconstructing 9/11

* Who Did 9/11?

* The Memorial Scams

* Obstacles to the Truth

* FAQ: what about the planes and passengers?

* FAQ: The eyewitnesses?

* FAQ: All the other video footage?

Thank you for reading this far and for giving this important issue your consideration. I believe it to be vital in our collective awakening process. May all the victims and those affected by this tragic event be forever blessed and remembered. Your service to humanity and all of life will not be forgotten! May the truth be revealed for all to know and see.

Sincerely and with love,
Eliot

**********

Update regarding the planes and passengers:
To explain what has happened to the planes and the passengers, research and investigation has been conducted using the available and relevant official data. However, the results are not what you may think. There are no records of AA Flights 11 and 77 ever existing. As of 2005, United Flight 93 and 175 were both still listed as valid and operational aircraft in the FAA registry. Therefore, it is far more likely that many of the ‘victims’ themselves never existed, with their deaths most certainly being simulated primarily through digital means. While it is hard to swallow at first, please keep an open mind when reading these responses and articles. The bottom line is that we’re all after the truth here, no matter how ugly or unbelievable it may appear at first.

I will cite Simon Shack’s answers to these questions, for his research far outweighs mine in this area:

“ALLEGED FLIGHTS

The 4 purported hijacked flights have grave problems as far as their authenticity is concerned: A long list of documentation (or plain lack of it) reveals inconsistent NTSB, BTS and FAA data. The 2 American Airlines flights lacked records of required airport log data such as taxi-off and wheels-off times. The 2 United Airlines flights were not deregistered until October 2005, as of official FAA records. Both should have been listed, by law, as ‘destroyed’. Shortly thereafter, the FAA rectified this ‘oversight’ in a peculiar manner : in place of ‘destroyed’, the wording used was ‘cancelled’. This evidence has not been challenged, to this day, by any of those air-regulating agencies nor by the airlines themselves.

ALLEGED PASSENGERS

Since no evidence has been forthcoming of the very existence of the 4 ‘hijacked’ airplanes, the question of the passengers allegedly on board of them should be moot. However, multiple and repeated people-searches have attempted to backtrack and contact the alleged families of those passengers – to no avail. Thus, the prevailing indications of those longstanding investigations suggest that none of these people have ever existed. Moreover, the stories created around the alleged passengers simply do not stand up to scrutiny. As for the cell phone calls that they allegedly placed to their loved ones, they have by now been established as a technical impossibility.”

See these other very revealing articles on the usage of fake planes and passengers:

Exchange of letters between Elias Davidsson and American Airlines –http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2329&Itemid=107

Participants in the Cover-Up of 9/11: The Case of American and United Airlines – by Elias Davidsson –http://www.septemberclues.info/case_of_airlines.htm

Evidence that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 Did Not Exist on September 11, 2001 – by Peter Meyer –http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm

An Interview with Gerard Holmgren – by David West, June 27, 2005 –http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren_interview.htm

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

Sources:

[1] Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

[2] AGM-158 JASSM Cruise Missile – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJi2K8mKTRM

[3] “Hijack ‘suspects’ alive and well” – BBC News, September 23, 2001 – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

[4] “Loose Change: The Financiers/Webmasters Exposed” – http://www.septemberclues.info/loose_change.htm

[5] “Visual Control of 9/11” – http://septemberclues.info/visual_control.htm

[6] “The 9/11 Memorial Scams” – http://septemberclues.info/vicsims_photo-analyses.htm

[7] September 11 Television Archive – http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

[8] 9-11 Truth is Limited Hangout – ‘September Clues’ – http://www.henrymakow.com/september_clues.html

Eliot Estep: We are all divine beings of love at our core! I AM a genuine truth-seeker dedicated to living a life of joy, peace, and abundance. I value integrity, freedom, and creative self-expression above all. It is a privilege to be here during this time of great change. Let us prepare. Main areas of research: conspiracies, global affairs, extraterrestrials, spiritual advancement + Sun: ♏ + Moon: ♎

emelberg .

Comments:
…”Just before the announcement at 9 am, Bush Sr. ordered the demolition of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers to stop the international banking computers on Floors 1and 2 in the North Tower from initiating the new U.S. Treasury Bank system.
Kirk Hemelberg .

…” to cover-up their crime”?

9-11 WTC Biggest Gold Heist in History: $300 Billion in Bars
“Loose Change” documents “False Flag” 9-11 attack on America

Kirk Hemelberg http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded…#!

Dan Shellenbarger Know how long it take to prep a building for demolition? 13 hrs

Dan Shellenbarger look at the credit card recits for nyc befor 911,, you will find the demolition expers right there in town,, there you go case closed.