Votre télécran a sûrement dû vous le rappeler aujourd’hui, au cas où vous l’auriez oublié: nous sommes aujourd’hui le 11 septembre. Date à jamais maudite sur tous les télécrans. (Car autrement, on s’en ficherait bien de cette date-là, n’est-ce pas?)
Commémorations du 11 septembre:
Comment était votre minute de la haine?
Vous connaissez sûrement, dans votre famille ou votre entourage, des personnes qui souffrent encore du traumatisme médiatique lié au 11 septembre et aux alertes médiatiques récurrentes concernant des supposés complots terroristes des méchants musulmans. Vous savez très bien que ces gens se trompent d’ennemi.
Mais vous connaissez sûrement aussi des individus un peu zélés qui se prennent un peu trop souvent pour des ingénieurs experts en explosifs et qui perdent un temps fou à examiner en long et en large, sous tous les angles possibles, chacun des moindres détails techniques de la démolition des tours du WTC, du Pentagone, etc.
Il importe peu de savoir précisément quels moyens ont été utilisés pour faire tomber les tours, qui étaient les pirates de l’air, qui a peut-être manoeuvré les avions à distance, etc. Car le fait est que le 11 septembre a eu lieu et que les coupables désignés n’étaient pas du tout les vrais, les ultimes responsables et bénéficiaires du 11 septembre. On ne s’occupe plus de trouver le motif du crime et d’identifier le criminel, et pendant ce temps — un temps précieux que nous perdons — les coupables courent toujours! De la même manière, cela n’a aucune importance de savoir exactement combien de balles ont été utilisées pour tuer le président Kennedy et sous quel angle les balles l’ont atteint: le fait est qu’il a été tué et que les coupables courent toujours (en tout cas, ceux qui sont encore en vie), pendant que nous calculons des trajectoires de balles et que nous visionnons en boucle la vidéo du meurtre.
« Alors que les chercheurs se sont occupés de savoir comment l’assassinat a été fait, il n’y a eu presque aucune réflexion systématique pour savoir pourquoi le président Kennedy a été tué. »
— Vincent J. Salandria
While the researchers have preoccupied themselves with how the assassination was accomplished, there has been almost no systematic thinking on why President Kennedy was killed.
Ben Laden a soi-disant avoué être l’auteur des attentats du 11 septembre contre les deux tours de New York, alors que tous les services de renseignements des États-Unis et d’Europe … savent bien maintenant que ces attentats désastreux ont été planifiés et réalisés par la CIA étasunienne et le Mossad avec l’aide du monde sioniste, dans le but d’en faire porter le chapeau aux pays arabes afin d’inciter les puissances occidentales à prendre part en Irak … et en Afghanistan.
— L’ancien président italien Francesco Cossiga (2007), a avait sonné l’alarme sur l’opération Gladio, dans une entrevue pour le plus ancien et le plus lu des journaux d’Italie, le Corriere della Sera
All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized by the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.
- –– Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga (2007), who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, in an interview for the newspaper Corriere della Sera. (Source: American Free Press)
À propos du MOSSAD, le service israélien de renseignement, les officiers du SAMS disent: « Sournois. impitoyabe et rusé. Capable de commettre une attaque sur les forces américaines et de les déguiser en un acte commis par les Palestiniens/Arabes. »
— Extrait d’un rapport du Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) des États-Unis, cité par le Washington Times le 10 septembre 2001, la veille du 11 septembre.
Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: « Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act. »
— Excerpt from a paper by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), quoted by the Washington Times on Sept. 10, 2001, the day before 911 happened.
— Ron Dermer, consultant conseiller diplomatique du Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahou et candidat pour le poste d’ambassadeur israélien à Washington, dans un discours devant des dirigeants juifs américains le 17 avril 2013, deux jours après les attentats.
— Ron Dermer, diplomatic advisor consultant to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and candidate for the post of Israeli ambassador to Washington, in a speech to U.S. Jewish leaders on April 17, 2013, two days after the attacks.
—The U.S.Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies
Michael Collins Piper, FALSE FLAGS: Template for Terror
Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, « Conspiracy Theories », January 15, 2008 ; Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03 ;U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199 ; U of Chicago Law And Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387 – Download This Paper
L’objectif de l’attaque sioniste délibérée contre le USS Liberty était de provoquer une troisième guerre mondiale.
- QUE LE 11 SEPTEMBRE ÉTAIT UN FALSE FLAG;
- QU’ISRAEL RESTE LE PLUS GRAND BÉNÉFICIAIRE DE CES ATTAQUES;
- ET QUE LES ULTIMES RESPONSABLES COURENT TOUJOURS!
VIDEO – France24: L’Amérique est-t-elle islamophobe? Émission complète: 1re Partie – 2e partie Discussion avec Charles G. Cogan de l’université de Harvard qui affirme que Israel et la communauté juive américaine sont derrière la propagande anti-islam et anti-arabe aux États-Unis.
VIDEO – L’Amérique est-elle islamophobe sur Dailymotion (Émission presque complète, manque seulement les quatre premières minutes.)
Harvard alumni : Charles Cogan Associate at the John F. Kennedy School of Government
Qui est Charles G. Cogan (professeur à l’Université Harvard, ancien de la CIA responsable de la CIA à Paris)? Site web de Charles G. Cogan
a un passé surprenantMichael Collins Piper
American Free Press
Dans le numéro du 19 avril, American Free Press a mentionné le fait rarement rapporté selon quoi Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, le prétendu chef des opérations du réseau terroriste Al-Qaida, aurait dit à ses interrogateurs que les tours Sears à Chicago étaient visées elles aussi par d’Al-Qaïda — un fait très significatif à la lumière de la preuve que des opérateurs israéliens, lesquels ont été mis en garde à vue sur le sol américain à la suite des attentats terroristes du 11 septembre, avaient des bandes vidéos détaillées de la tour Sears. Cette semaine, l’American Free Press apporte la suite de ces détails peu connus de l’historique de Mohammed.
Deuxième d’une série
Il y a un détail à propos du présumé chef des opérations d’Al-Qaida Khalid Sheikh Mohammed qui, bien qu’il ait été rapporté dans les médias, ne reçoit jamais l’attention qui lui est dû: Mohammed est l’oncle de Ramzi Yousef, le présumé cerveau derrière le premier attentat terroriste de 1993 contre le World Trade Center (WTC) et qui a souvent été « lié » par certaines sources aux bombardements de l’édifice Murrah à Oklahoma City en 1995.
Une croyance largement répandue suggère que le neveu de Mohammed, Yousef, était en fait un agent secret des services de renseignement d’Al-Qaida, le Mossad. En outre, c’est un fait des plus inconfortables que Yousef a travaillé en étroite collaboration avec un agent confirmé du Mossad, Ahmad Ajaj, dans le premier attentat du World Trade Center.
Donc la question est de savoir si Mohammed, comme son neveu et collaborateur de longue date, a été effectivement un secret agent-double du Mossad opérant dans un réseau arabe et musulman. Voyons quelques faits.
Pendant des années, il y a eu beaucoup de questions sans réponse quant aux arrières-plans ethniques ou culturels de Yousef, sans pas parler de son identité. Il a été décrit de plusieurs manières comme un « Irakien » ou comme un ressortissant Koweïtien, ou comme un Baloutche du Pakistan.
À l’époque où Yousef prétendant être un Irakien, au cours de sa période d’opérateur à New York juste avant la première attaque du WTC, des Arabes se sont mis à en douter. Toutefois, pour ceux qui étaient désireux d’établir un lien entre Saddam Hussein et l’Irak avec les deux attentats contre le WTC et, comme certains le font encore aujourd’hui, à l’attentat d’Oklahoma City, la prétention de Yousef au patrimoine iraquien tombait bien.
Selon un rapport d’enquête d’Emily Fancher, de l’École Graduée de Journalisme de l’Université Columbia: « l’identité de Yousef n’a jamais été déterminée par le tribunal. » Donc la vérité est que pas même le gouvernement des États-Unis n’a pas déterminé — du moins officiellement — si Youssef est vraiment un Arabe ou un musulman ou d’un Baloutche.
Ce qui rend cette anomalie peu rapportée si intéressante est que l’évaluation anciennement secrète de la CIA, daté de mars 1979, des renseignements étrangers d’Israël et des services de sécurité, a signalé, candidement, que c’est une politique de longue date pour les renseignements israéliens de déguiser des Juifs en Arabes. Le rapport de la CIA affirme:
« L’un des objectifs des services de renseignement et de sécurité est que chaque agent de maîtrise l’arabe. Un cours intensifs de neuf mois de langue arabe est donné chaque année. . . aux étudiants. . . .
Comme formation additionnelle, ces officiers du Mossad travaillent dans les [terres arabes contrôlées par Israël] pendant deux ans pour renforcer leurs compétences linguistiques. . . .
Beaucoup d’Israéliens sont venus de pays arabes où ils sont nés et élevés et paraissent plus Arabes qu’Israéliens. . .
En forgeant des passeports et des documents d’identité des pays arabes et occidentaux et en fournissant des historiques et légendes raisonnables de couverture, le Mossad a envoyé avec succès, en Egypte et autres pays arabes, des Israéliens avec des papiers et des déguisements Arabes ou de citoyens de pays européens. . . .
Ces personnes sont également utiles pour leur capacité à passer complètement pour un citoyen de la nation en question.
Le talent israélien pour la contrefaçon ou la falsification des passeports et des documents supporte bien l’authenticité de l’agent.
Comme si cela ne suffisait pas à éveiller les soupçons, le 29 septembre 1998, le journaliste israélien Yossi Melman, écrivant pour le journal israélien Ha’aretz, a révélé:
« Des agents du Shin Bet, qui ont infiltré le secteur israélo-arabe dans les années 1950, allaient aussi loin que de marier des femmes musulmanes et avoir des enfants avec eux, dans le dessein de poursuivre leur mission sans éveiller de soupçons.«
Donc, la question demeure: les personnes connues sous le nom de Mohammed et Yousef sont-elles réellement ce qui elles prétendent, et sont-elles vraiment Arabes ou Baloutches ou Musulmanes?
Et si l’équipe oncle-et-neveu sont vraiment des Arabes et des musulmans, le fait que le neveu, Yousef, travaillait en étroite collaboration avec un agent confirmé des renseignements israéliens actif dans le premier attentat du WTC est encore digne d’intérêt en effet, surtout considérant que l’agent israélien en question était lui-même Arabe.
Voici les faits sur la connexion de Yousef au mossad relativement à la première tragédie du WTC, tel que révélés pour la première fois par Robert I. Friedman dans l’article du 3 août 1993, paru dans Village Voice, un hebdo indépendant newyorkais de gauche dont les rapports ont été référencés par l’American Free Press.
Friedman a rapporté que le copagnon de voyage et proche collaborateur de Yousef, Ajaj, un Palestinien de Cisjordanie de 27 ans détenu dans une prison fédérale pour complot visant à faire sauter le World Trade Center, pourrait avoir été une taupe du Mossad.
Ajaj a été arrêté à l’aéroport Kennedy le 1er septembre 1992, après être débarqué d’un vol international pakistanais de Peshawar portant sur lui un faux passeport suédois et des manuels de fabrication de bombes. Il a été mis en garde à vue et a par la suite plaidé coupable d’être entré au pays illégalement. Le compagnon de voyage d’Ajaj était Yousef.
Bien que le FBI ait identifié Aja comme un des hauts terroristes de l’Intifada ayant des liens avec le Hamas, l’organisation fondamentaliste islamique palestinienne, Kol Ha’ir, un hebdo hébreu respecté publié à Jérusalem, a indiqué qu’Ajaj n’a jamais été impliqué dans des activités de l’Intifada ou avec le Hamas ou même avec l’Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP).
Au lieu de cela, selon Kol Ha’ir, Ajaj était un petit escroc arrêté en 1988 pour avoir contrefait des dollars américains dans Jérusalem-Est. Ajaj a été reconnu coupable de contrefaçon et fut ensuite condamné à deux ans et demi de prison.
Selon Friedman, écrivant dans The Village Voice: « C’est au cours de son séjour en prison que le Mossad, la CIA en Israël, l’aurait apparemment recruté, affirment des sources de renseignements israéliens. À l’époque où il a été libéré après avoir purgé seulement un an, il avait apparemment subi une transformation radicale. «
Friedman a déclaré que Ajaj était soudainement devenu un fervent musulman et un fervent nationaliste pur et dur. Ensuite, Ajaj a été arrêté pour contrebande d’armes en Cisjordanie, supposément pour le Fatah, une sous-division de l’OLP.
Mais Friedman affirme que cela était en fait une mascarade. Les sources de Friedman dans les renseignements israéliens disent que l’arrestation et la déportation ultérieure d’Ajaj ont été « organisées par le Mossad pour établir ses qualifications en tant que militant de l’Intifada. Le Mossad aurait « chargé » Ajaj d’infiltrer des groupes palestiniens radicaux opérant en dehors d’Israël et de faire ensuite rapport à Tel Aviv. Les sources de renseignement israéliens disent qu’il n’est pas inhabituel pour le Mossad de recruter dans les rangs des criminels communs. »
Après sa déportation d’Israël, Ajaj s’est manifesté au Pakistan où il s’est retrouvé en compagnie des rebelles moudjahidines anti-Soviet en Afghanistan.
Cela rendrait encore plus crédible la possibilité qu’Ajaj ait travaillé pour le Mossad, ecar selon le numéro de septembre 1987 du Covert Action Information Bulletin, le financement et l’approvisionnement des moudjahidines n’était pas seulement « la deuxième plus importante opération » dans l’histoire de la CIA, mais c’était aussi, d’après l’ancien agent du Mossad Victor Ostrovsky (dans The Other Side of Deception), sous la supervision directe du Mossad.
Selon Ostrovsky: « c’était un pipeline complexe, car une grande partie des armes des moudjahidines ont été faites en Amérique et ont été fournies à la Fraternité musulmane directement par Israël, en utilisant comme transporteurs les Bédouins nomades qui parcouraient les zones démilitarisées dans le Sinaï. »
Après les aventures d’Ajaj avec les moudjahidines, il a resurgi à New York et visait à venir en aide aux membres d’une petite clique dite « radicale » entourant le Cheikh Abdel-Rahman, lequel a été accusé d’être le cerveau des attentats à la bombe de 1993 au WTC.
Le 26 février 1993, le jour des attentats au WTC, Ajaj était « en sécurité » en prison purgeant une peine de six mois pour être entré illégalement au pays avec un faux passeport. Plus tard, ensuite, il a été inculpé pour conspiration dans l’attentat du WTC.
« Si Ajaj a été recruté par le Mossad [Friedman met l’accent], on ne sait pas s’il a continué à travailler pour l’agence d’espionnage israélien après avoir été expulsé. Une possibilité est, bien entendu, qu’en quittant Israël et en s’acocquinant aux musulmans radicaux à proximité du cheikh égyptien aveugle, sa loyauté ait changé de bord « , écrit Friedman.
« Un autre scénario est qu’il ait eu connaissance préalable des attentats du WTC, connaissance qu’il a partagé avec le Mossad, et que le Mossad, pour quelque raison que ce soit, ait gardé le secret pour lui seul. Si cela est vrai, les sources de renseignements américains spéculent que le Mossad pourrait avoir décidé de garder l’information pour eux de façon à ne pas compromettre son agent « , écrit Friedman.
Emily Fancher de l’Université Columbia a indiqué que Robert Precht, un avocat de la défense de l’un des co-accusés d’Ajaj dans le procès du WTC, a déclaré: « Nous avons estimé qu’il y avait des acteurs invisibles derrière cela. Ni les avocats de la défense, ni le gouvernement ne savait de qui il s’agissait. »
Ce n’est probablement pas un hasard, compte tenu du fait que lorsque Yousef a finalement été mis en garde à vue, selon l’agent des services secrets américains Brian Parr, « il était sympathique, il semblait détendu et il semblait avoir effectivement envie de nous parler. » C’est précisément ce que l’on pourrait attendre d’un agent israélien faisant son travail, diffusant la légende d’Al-Qaïda pour le bénéfice de ses commanditaires israéliens.
La possibilité d’une couverture (cover up) dans les hauts niveaux du FBI concernant l’implication israélienne dans le premier attentat au WTC doit être considérée d’autant plus que l’ancien chef de la Force Spéciale Conjointe contre le Terrorisme du FBI, qui a joué un rôle clé dans la première enquête du WTC, était Neil Herman.
Après avoir quitté le FBI, Herman a temporairement occupé le poste du défunt récent Suall Irwin, qui fut le directeur de longue date de la section « recherche des faits » pour la ligue anti-diffamation (Anti-Defamation League, ADL) du B’nai B’rith.
Élucidation complète de la responsabilité d’Israël et ses services secrets dans l’orchestration du 11 septembre et sa récupération géopolitico-médiatique (11 chapitres du livre FALSE FLAGS–Template for Terror de Michael Collins Piper.)
By Michael Collins Piper
September 14, 2013
Those who believe that Israel is behind the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria—hiding behind a “false flag” designed to implicate the Syrian government—have very good reason to believe in such a scenario.
In fact, as my book, Final Judgment, which documents the role of Israel’s Mossad in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, first pointed out at far back as 1994, the use of “false flags” by Israel’s Mossad to cover up its role in worldwide assassination conspiracies and other criminal activity had been utilized time and again: “Arabs,” “radical Muslims,” “the Mafia,” “right-wing extremists,” and even environmentalists, among others, have repeatedly taken the fall for crimes committed by the Mossad or carried out under its coordination.
The use of “false flag” operations by Israel and its Mossad has been documented repeatedly since the Jewish State first came into being.
What follows is an overview of some other notable instances in which Israel utilized “false flags” in its international criminal endeavors.
Perhaps the best-known instance in which Israel used a “false flag” to cover its own trail was in the infamous Lavon Affair in which, in July of 1954, there was a series of bombings in Cairo and Alexandria, Egypt. Among the targets were the libraries of the United States Information Service in both cities. In fact, the bombings were an operation by Israeli Military Intelligence who hoped both Egyptian President Nasser and the outside world would believe the attacks were carried out by militant Egyptian Muslim fundamentalists angry at Nasser’s friendly relations with the U.S. and Britain.
Israel’s ultimate purpose was to destabilize Nasser’s relationships with both the U.S. and Britain and compel the British to withdrawal from their bases on the Suez Canal (although, in fact, in the end, no British targets were bombed, the initial plan notwithstanding).
According to Colonel Benjamin Gibli, Israel’s chief of military intelligence and the senior army officer responsible for sending the final signal to Cairo to initiate the bombings, he had been given his orders by Defense Minister Pinchas Lavon whose instructions were as follows:
“[Our goal is] to break the West’s confidence in the existing [Egyptian] regime . . . The actions should cause arrests, demonstrations, and expressions of revenge. The Israeli origin should be totally covered while attention should be shifted to any other possible factor. The purpose is to prevent economic and military aid from the West to Egypt.”
The operatives placing the bombs were Egyptian Jews working for Israeli intelligence. However, Egyptian security uncovered the plot and eleven people were taken into custody. In the end, two were executed. The others were sentenced to long prison terms.
Ultimately Israel’s involvement in the affair became public and Israel was rocked in the wake of the scandal. Competing political elements in Israel used the scandal as a bludgeon against their opponents. But the truth about Israel’s use of a “false flag” had come to international attention and demonstrated how it was willing to needlessly endanger innocent lives as part of its strategy to expand its global influence.
To the degree that it is recognized for what it was—a “false flag” attack by Israel—the Lavon Affair is an acknowledged event in history, that has been documented even in multiple “mainstream” sources.
But the Lavon Affair was just one of many false flag operations by Israel, and over the years, in the pages of The Spotlight (forerunner of AMERICAN FREE PRESS) international correspondent Andrew St. George focused on a number of the more notorious incidents. Here are a few of them:
• A shadowy “right wing” group known as “Direct Action” was accused of the attack on Goldenberg’s Deli in Paris on August 9, 1982. Six people died and 22 were injured. The leader of “Direct Action” was one Jean-Marc Rouillan who had been operating in the Mediterranean under the cover name of “Sebas” and who had been repeatedly linked to the Mossad. All references to Rouillan’s Mossad links were deleted from the official reports issued at the time.
However, the Algerian national news service—which had ties to French intelligence—blamed the Mossad for Rouillan’s activities. Angry French intelligence officers were believed to have leaked this information to the Algerians. Several top French security officials quit in protest over this cover-up of Mossad complicity in Rouillan’s crimes. However, other Mossad false flag operations also took place on French soil.
• On October 3, 1980, a synagogue on Copernicus Street was bombed in Paris. Four bystanders were killed. Nine were injured. A worldwide media frenzy followed the incident. Reports held that “right wing extremists” were responsible. Yet, all of the “right wing extremists” who were questioned were released. In the upper echelons of French intelligence, the finger of suspicion was pointed at the Mossad.
• On April 6, 1979, the same Mossad terror unit suspected of the Copernicus carnage blew up the heavily guarded plant of CNIM industries in southeast France, where a consortium of French firms was building a nuclear reactor for Iraq. The Mossad salted the site of the bomb blast with “clues” followed up with anonymous phone calls to police suggesting the sabotage was the work of an environmentalist group.
• On June 28, 1978, Israeli agents exploded a bomb under a small passenger car in the Rue Saint Anne, killing Mohammed Boudia, an organizer for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Immediately afterward, Paris police received anonymous phone calls accusing Boudia of involvement in narcotics deals and attributing his murder to the Corsican Mafia. A thorough investigation subsequently established that Mossad special-action agents were responsible for the terrorist killing.
• In October, 1976, the same Mossad unit kidnapped two West German students—Brigette Schulz and Thomas Reuter—in Paris. Planted “clues” and anonymous phone calls made it appear that a Bavarian “neo-Nazi” group had executed the abduction. In fact, French intelligence established that the two victims had been flown to Israel, drugged, tortured, coerced into a false “confession of complicity” in PLO activities, and then anonymously incarcerated in an Israeli prison.
• In February 1977, a German-born, naturalized U.S. citizen named William Jahnke arrived in Paris for some secretive business meetings. He soon vanished. Paris police were anonymously informed Jahnke had been involved in a South Korean bribery affair and “eliminated” when the deal went sour. A special team from SDECE, the leading French intelligence agency, determined Jahnke had been “terminated” by the Mossad, which suspected him of selling secret information to the Libyans. The SDECE learned Jahnke had been “fingered” to the Mossad by his own former employer, the CIA.
• One of Israel’s most outrageous “false flag” operations involved a wild propaganda story aimed at discrediting Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi—one of Israel’s favorite enemies. In the early months of the administration of President Ronald Reagan, the American media began heavily promoting a story that a “Libyan hit squad” was in the United States for the express purpose of assassinating Reagan. This inflamed public sentiment against Libya and there were repeated calls for blood.
Suddenly, however, the “hit squad” stories vanished. In fact, it was ultimately discovered that the source of the story was one Manucher Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian SAVAK (secret police) agent with close ties to the Mossad. Even The Washington Post acknowledged that the CIA itself believed that Ghorbanifar was a liar who “had made up the hit-squad story in order to cause problems for one of Israel’s enemies.”
The Los Angeles Times itself had already blown the whistle on Israel’s scare stories. “Israeli intelligence, not the Reagan administration,” reported the Times, “was a major source of some of the most dramatic published reports about a Libyan assassination team allegedly sent to kill President Reagan and other top U.S. officials . . . Israel, which informed sources said has ‘wanted an excuse to go in and bash Libya for a long time,’ may be trying to build American public support for a strike against [Qaddafi], these sources said.”
In other words, Israel had promoted the former SAVAK agent to Washington as a reliable source. In fact, he was a Mossad disinformation operative waving a “false flag” to mislead America. This was yet another Israeli scheme to blame Libya for its own misdeeds, this time using one “false flag” (Iran’s SAVAK) to lay the blame on another “false flag” (Libya).
• Israel’s Mossad was almost certainly responsible for the bombing of the La Belle disco in West Berlin on April 5, 1986 in which an American serviceman died. Claims were made that there was “irrefutable” evidence the Libyans were responsible and President Reagan responded with an attack on Libya. However, intelligence insiders believed the Mossad concocted the “evidence” to “prove” Libyan responsibility. In the end, West Berlin police director Manfred Ganschow cleared the Libyans, saying, “This is a highly political case. Some of the evidence cited in Washington may not be evidence at all, merely assumptions supplied for political reasons.”
• On April 18, 1986, one Nezar Hindawi, a 32-year-old Jordanian was arrested in London after security guards found that one of the passengers boarding an Israeli plane bound for Jerusalem, Ann Murphy, 22, was carrying a square, flat sheet of plastic explosive in the double bottom of her carry-on bag. Miss Murphy told security men that the detonator (disguised as a calculator) had been given to her by her finance, Hindawi. He was charged with attempted sabotage and attempted murder.
Word was leaked that Hindawi had confessed and claimed that he had been hired by General Mohammed Al-Khouli, the intelligence director of the Syrian air force. Also implicated were others including the Syrian Ambassador in London. The French authorities warned the British Prime Minister there was more to the case—that is, Israeli involvement. This was later confirmed in reports by the Western press.
• In 1970, King Hussein of Jordan was provided with incriminating intelligence that suggested the PLO was plotting to murder him and seize power in his nation. Infuriated, Hussein mobilized his forces for what has become known as the ‘Black September’ purge of the PLO. Thousands of Palestinians living in Jordan were rounded up, some of the leaders were tortured, and in the end, masses of refugees were driven from Jordan to Lebanon.
New data, coming to light after the murder of two leading Mossad operatives in Cyprus suggested that the entire operation had been a Mossad covert action, led by one of its key operatives, Sylvia Roxburgh. She contrived an affair with King Hussein and served as the linchpin for a major Mossad coup designed to destabilize the Arabs.
• In 1982, just when the PLO had abandoned the use of terrorism, the Mossad spread disinformation about “terror attacks” on Israeli settlements along its northern border to justify a full-scale military invasion of Lebanon. Years later, even former Foreign Minister Abba Eban, admitted the reports of “PLO terrorism” had been contrived by the Mossad.
• It is also worth noting that the attempted assassination—in London—of Israel’s Ambassador to England, Shlomo Argov, was initially blamed upon the PLO and was cited by Israel as one excuse for its bloody 1982 incursion into Lebanon. In fact, the diplomat was one of Israel’s “doves” and inclined toward a friendly disposition of Israel’s conflict with the PLO and the least likely target of PLO wrath. What’s more, one of the suspects in the crime was found carrying a “hit list” which actually included the name of the head of the PLO office in London.
Thus, it appears that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Mossad—under another “false flag”—for two purposes: (a) elimination of a “peacenik” considered friendly toward the Palestinians; and (b) pinning yet another crime on the PLO.
These instances cited here are but a handful of Mossad-orchestrated “false flag” operations blamed on a wide variety of alleged “suspects.”
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.
FALSE FLAGS: Template for Terror, by Michael Collins Piper
“The Big Winner Today is Israel . . .”
Like millions of other Americans, my first reaction on the morning of September 11, 2001, upon learning of the events that were taking place in New York City and at the Pentagon—just a few miles from my home on Capitol Hill in Washington—was to “reach out and touch someone.” So I called my brother at his home in Pennsylvania—not far, in fact, from the location of where United Airlines Flight 93 was soon to come to an untidy end.
My sister-in-law answered the phone and I blurted out what was foremost in my mind. “Well,” I said, “they did it.”
At this juncture I was assuming that Arab or Muslim terrorists fed up with U.S. favoritism toward Israel were responsible for the attacks.
I was suggesting to my sister-in-law that it was essentially the fault of the Israelis—and their powerful lobby in America—that the tragedy had happened. Had it not been for U.S. policy, I was asserting implicitly, the attacks would never have taken place.
However, my sister-in-law didn’t read my comments that way.
She responded, laughing, and said, “Oh, you think the Jews did this?”
Knowing that, for many years, I had been considered a somewhat “notorious” critic of Israel and of the Jewish lobby in America, my sister-in-law was assuming, perhaps, the worst—or rather, the most likely.
And it was then that it hit me.
What my sister-in-law had presumed were my suspicions was precisely what I did believe, although, until that moment—surprisingly, in retrospect—I hadn’t realized it myself.
And I responded, “No, what I meant was that America’s all-out pro-Israel policies resulted in a backlash by the Arabs and that Arab terrorists did this. But”—I added—“the more I think about it, I do believe that Israel is behind this.
“They did this to turn America against the Arab world. This is precisely the kind of thing Israel would do,” I said. “And mark my words, there will be evidence that Israel was behind it, even if they cover it up, just as they did with the Kennedy assassination.”
I will remember that conversation for the rest of my life.
But at the time—despite my knowledge of the corruption of the government and the media and of the mendacity and wickedness of Israel and its lobby in America—I never realized how absolutely right I would turn out to be.
So it was that I closed that prophetic conversation with my sister-in-law and—along with the rest of my colleagues at the Capitol Hill office of American Free Press—I was glued to television and radio for the rest of the afternoon—with an occasional glance at the Internet—watching . . . and waiting, wondering what was to come next. Certainly, the whole world was watching.
I heard local news reports about a car bomb exploding near the Pentagon. Now, today, the official story is that “it was only a rumor.”
And I heard the local news reports describing a fire at the Old Executive Office Building, next to the White House. Today, again, that’s just “another rumor.”
It seems that everything and anything that didn’t ultimately match the official version of events was a “rumor”—more often than not, they said, “a rumor from the Muslim world.”
What was not a rumor from the Muslim world, however, was an article lying on my desk that I had clipped from The Washington Times on September 10, just one day before.
The front page story in the Times revealed that top U.S. Army analysts believed that the Mossad was “ruthless and cunning, “a wildcard” that “has [the] capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”
The Times reported that this explosive and highly revealing assertion appeared in a 68-page paper prepared by sixty officers at the United States Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), a Fort Leavenworth-based training ground for up-and-coming Army officers. The Army paper called Israel’s armed forces a“500 pound gorilla” that is “known to disregard international law to accomplish [its] mission.”
The negative comments about Israel appeared in a SAMS paper putting forth a plan for enforcing an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord requiring an international peace-keeping force of some 20,000 troops stationed in Israel and in a newly-created Palestinian state.
That the SAMS proposal factored in the existence of a Palestinian state was actually an affront by the American Army officers to Israel, which has never fully accepted the idea of a Palestinian state.
In light of the suggestion by U.S. Army officers that Israel might attempt to disrupt U.S. and international peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East and disguise the crimes as those of Palestinian or Arab forces, the events of September 11, 2001—one day after The Washington Times reported this story—take on a new light.
With all of this mind, following my conversation with my sister-in-law, I pondered the possibility—in my mind, a likelihood—that the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were a false flag originating from Israel. And, like many people were doing, I turned to the Internet. I started doing Google searches pairing such terms as “Israel” and “terrorism” with key words connected to the events of that day.
And as a consequence, I stumbled upon an internet website (stratfor.com) that I’d never seen before but which, I soon realized, was produced by some influential people who had some influential followers. The website was the voice of one George Friedman, a former CIA analyst and a high-priced private consultant considered an “authority” on the subjects about which he and his colleagues—a bevy of former intelligence and diplomatic figures—aired their opinions on a steady basis.
What Friedman said on 9-11, only hours after the attack on the World Trade Center, provided an absolute underscoring of my own thesis that Israel was ultimately behind the events that had taken place that day. Friedman wrote in no uncertain terms:
The big winner today, intended or not, is the state of Israel. Israel has been under siege by suicide bombers for more than a year. It has responded by waging a systematic war against Palestinian command structures. The international community, particularly the United States, has pressured Israel heavily to stop its operations. The argument has been made that the threat of suicide bombings, though real, does not itself constitute a genuine threat to Israeli national security and should not trigger the kind of response Israel is making. Today’s events change all of this.
“The big winner” Friedman said, was Israel. The events of that day—still unfolding (including not far from me at the Pentagon)—changed everything vis-a-vis U.S. policy toward Israel, he said.
You can imagine my sense of vindication. Here was a Jewish supporter of Israel with substantial credentials in the world of intelligence essentially confirming the very suspicions I had outlined in my conversation with my perhaps a bit-incredulous sister-in-law hardly more than an hour or two before.
Friedman actually seemed to be gloating that now that Americans had been (conveniently, for Israel’s interests) victimized by terrorism, that: 1) Americans had now being galvanized against Israel’s enemies; 2)that the terrorist acts effectively put the United States in a position in which it could no longer criticize Israel; and that 3)Americans would be forced to be “dependent” on Israel (not vice versa):
First, the United States no longer can argue that Israel should endure the bombings. Moving forward, the domestic American political mood simply won’t tolerate such a stance.
Second, Israel now becomes, once again, an indispensable ally to the United States. The United States is obviously going to launch a massive covert and overt war against the international radical Islamic movement that is assumed to be behind this attack.
Not only does this align U.S. and Israeli interests but it also makes the United States dependent on the Israelis—whose intelligence capabilities in this area as well as covert operational capabilities are clearly going to be needed.
What Friedman did not explain was why Israel’s vaunted “intelligence capabilities” did not help stop prevent these acts of terrorism from happening in the first place.
In any event, Friedman stated that “There is no question, therefore, that the Israeli leadership is feeling relief.” He contended the alleged Muslim terrorists touted in the media as the likely 9-11 terrorists had calculated that their acts would split the Arab world and force Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to become more accommodating to Israel.
At the time Friedman wrote his remarkable analysis, there was officially “no evidence” as to who was actually behind the attacks—although the major media was already chanting that “the Muslims” (and even Osama bin Laden) were most likely to blame. However, Friedman was already speculating heavily, grinding the axe for not just Islamic terrorists, but for an Islamic state itself. He wrote:
The greatest question right now is this: Which Islamic state was involved in the attack? We suspect that there was such involvement. The sophistication required means of communication and transport available only to states. Afghanistan does not have the international facilities needed. We assume that Sudanese and Iraqi diplomatic communications and transport are both too closely monitored to be useful. If that is true, what other nation provided support facilities for this operation? Answering that question speaks to the future of the region.
Friedman candidly answered the question “Who benefits?” by saying it was Israel. But his question—“What other nation provided support facilities for this operation?” may have been, in the end—in light of what we now know of evidence pointing toward Israeli state sponsorship of the 9-11 tragedy—the most thought-provoking (if ironic) aspect of Friedman’s essay, however obviously unintentional it may have been.
So it was—very early on 9-11—that George Friedman was effectively putting in writing—although from an obviously different perspective from my own—the very reasoning that led to my “controversial” assumption as to what really lay behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
And needless to say, I made good use of Friedman’s remarks in the days ahead, as I plowed forward, along with my colleagues at American Free Press, in trying to bring the real truth about 9-11 to our readers.
And let it be stated without ambiguity: From the beginning, American Free Press (AFP) was the one national newspaper countering the 9-11 lies that were being foisted on the American people and daring to point the finger of blame in the direction of Israel.
The first issue of AFP published immediately after Sept. 11 (dated Sept. 24) went to the printer on Sept. 14.That issue made it clear our staff was already raising questions about what really happened.
The lead story, by Willis Carto, asked frankly: “Who benefits?” and pointed out that Israel—above all—stood to benefit as a consequence of the United States becoming more embroiled in the Middle East thanks to the likely reverberations from 9-11.
That issue of AFP also featured an article by yours truly, Michael Collins Piper, pointing out there was evidence pointing to Mossad involvement in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, noting this revelation had first appeared in an article in The Village Voice on August3, 1993 by respected Jewish-American investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman (not to be confused with George Friedman of stratfor.com).
After that first attack on the trade center, I had written an article for The Spotlight reflecting on Friedman’s report and yet both The Spotlight’s story (and Friedman’s original report) continued to be ignored, even by many so-called “conspiracy theorists.”
And in the wake of 9-11, even many in the “alternative media” who were raising questions about the 9-11 attacks preferred to avoid the possibility of Mossad involvement, studiously refusing to address what Friedman had revealed about the first WTC attack in 1993.
So—at the very outset—AFP broached the No. 1 taboo relating to 9-11, that even many 9-11 dissidents are still hesitant to mention today. AFP was indeed the one national media voice—perhaps the one international media voice—that said, from the beginning, that Israel was certainly the chief suspect in the 9-11 tragedy.
In fact, the second issue of AFP issued in the wake of 9-11 (dated Oct. 1but printed Sept. 21), featured the front page headline asking the question, “Did Israelis Have Foreknowledge?” That issue of AFP included an article (by yours truly) entitled “U.S. Army Officers Say: ‘Mossad May Blame Arabs, ’which focused on the aforementioned Sept.10 report (published in The Washington Times) describing the study from the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies which called the Mossad a “wild card” capable of committing a terrorist attack and blaming it on the Arabs.
My article tied the military’s assessment to George Friedman’s contention that “the big winner” on 9-11 was Israel. The article also reiterated Robert I. Friedman’s revelation of the Mossad link to the first World Trade Center attack that I had reported the week before in AFP.
The balance of my article provided an extended overview of the Mossad’s historic use of false flags in global terrorism—the details of which now appear in this present book in Chapter One.
Yes, I was piling it on—driving home the point that Americans needed to ponder the likelihood Israel had been involved in orchestrating 9-11. In fact, I was one of the first print journalists—if not the first and certainly the first with a wide-reaching audience—to focus on both Friedman’s revealing comments and the report from the local Washington Times on the U.S. Army’s concerns about the Mossad’s false flag trickery, both stories of critical importance that could have otherwise been lost in the massive avalanche of press frenzy following 9-11.
Later, as the media added garbage upon garbage onto its mound of “evidence” that “the Muslims” were not only responsible for 9-11 but also—horror of horrors—conveying the Hellish lie it was actually Israel behind the tragedy, one pro-Israel propagandist, Harold Brackman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, prepared a special report entitled 9/11 Digital Lies: A Survey of Online Apologists for Global Terrorism.
One bit of “evidence” of Muslim perfidy cited by Brackman was a quote attributed to Sheikh Muhammed Hussein Fadlullah of Hizbollah on Islam On Line on Sept. 15, 2001.The sheikh’s offending remark was that “Israel is the main beneficiary of this terrible tragedy.”
In fact, most of those who expressed outrage at the sheikh’s words probably had no idea the sheikh’s remarks precisely echoed what our respected former CIA official, George Friedman, a Jewish American, had said immediately after the 9-11 attacks.
And note, too, what former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said about what the 9-11 attacks meant for relations between the United States and Israel. The Sept. 12, 2001 issue of The New York Times quoted Netanyahu as saying frankly, “It’s very good,” then adding hurriedly, “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.”
In 2008 Netanyahu reaffirmed his view that Israel was indeed a beneficiary of 9-11.On April 16, 2008, the online edition of Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper reported that, speaking at Bar Ilan University, Netanyahu had said, “We are are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”
Ha’aretz cited the other prominent Israeli newspaper, Ma’ariv, as having said that Netanyahu had also added that those events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”
Perhaps not coincidentally, in the aftermath of the bombing at the Boston Marathon in early 2013, Ron Dermer a diplomatic advisor known to be especially close to Netanyahu—once again serving as prime minister—told Jewish leaders in New York that, just like the 9-11 attacks, the Boston bombing would increase American support for Israel. The April19, 2013 issue of Ha’aretz reported that Dermer said:
The bulk of the American people stand firmly with Israel and identify with Israel. If you can look, historically, there was a big change after 911, and I am sure that after the tragic bombing in Boston, people will identify more with Israel and its struggle against terrorism and we can maintain that support.
On that historic day—September 11,2001—I watched thousands of frightened federal workers streaming down Pennsylvania Avenue on Capitol Hill—right past the office of American Free Press—on foot and in their vehicles, fleeing Washington into the suburbs, not knowing whether further attacks lay ahead.
This was a chilling sight, made all the more unsettling because it was a bright, sunny, really beautiful day, one of the most gorgeous days we had all summer—hardly a day (one would think) that could mark the first day of the last days of mankind.
That evening, as the sun was going down and my colleague, Willis Carto, and I made our way back up Pennsylvania Avenue in the direction of the U.S. Capitol—then being said to have been one of the original terrorist targets—I surveyed the eerily empty street before us and I turned to Willis and commented, “Well, if there’s one thing for certain, it’s this: The world will never be the same again.”
Willis nodded and—with a notably somber look on his otherwise usually animated face—remarked quietly, “You can say that again.”
Today, many years later, I do know this much: What we have been told as to “what happened on 9-11” is anything but the truth. The American government and the mass media have been lying from day one about what happened. They lied about 9-11 just as they lied about the Oklahoma City bombing and the JFK assassination before it.
And I know why the U.S. government lied. And I do know who was ultimately responsible for each and every one of those tragedies. And it’s the 9-11 tragedy that we’ll be talking about in the pages ahead.
The Curtain of Deceit: A Fabric of Lies;
Blame Bush, the New World Order, the CIA,
But by No Means Blame Israel!
By way of being an essay on the parameters of popular discussion and so-called “independent” dissent on the official version of what really happened on September 11, 2001. Why many self-styled “9-11 truth seekers” fail to look at the big picture.
It is an article of faith among the vast majority of Americans—even many who have doubts about the “official” story of what really happened on September 11, 2001—that the 9-11 attacks were carried out by fanatic Muslims who were under, at the least, the spiritual discipline (if not the immediate guidance) of Osama bin Laden.
Although there are growing numbers who are beginning to believe that much evidence points toward the possible culpability of at least some American defense and intelligence personnel in having foreknowledge of—or involvement in—the 9-11 attacks (presumably in order to advance a covert agenda involving U.S. imperial ambitions—a point this study has no problem in accepting) the truth is that there is also a wide-ranging array of data indicating Israel’s Mossad not only had advance knowledge of the attacks and allowed them to proceed but, in fact, that Israeli intelligence directed and facilitated the 9-11 attacks.
Needless to say, this proposition is met with squeals of outrage—mostly from what Pat Buchanan referred to as Israel’s “Amen Corner” in this country—but in these pages we will present this thesis as a plausible alternative explanation of the events of 9-11.
All of this will be uncomfortable reading for those who rely on the so-called“mainstream” sources of “news,”but we hasten to point out, up front, that if it were discovered that Israel did have foreknowledge of—or direct involvement in—the events of 9-11, none of those news sources would ever rush forward with the evidence.
It is an indisputable fact—hysterical protests to the contrary—that the primary major news sources in America—both publications and broadcast outlets are—if not owned or controlled outright by Jewish families and interests sympathetic to Israel—otherwise dominated at the highest editorial levels by persons sympathetic to Israel or under the direction of those who are.This is not a “myth from the Muslim world.”
It’s a cold, hard fact, not honestly subject to dispute.
On the same token, there are naive folks who would rise up in their most righteous indignation and say,“Well, if Israel was involved in the 9-11 attacks, then our president,GeorgeW. Bush,would have said so.”
We think not. The truth is that if the Bush administration had brought forth such evidence, the president would have been shouted down. He would have been declared “an anti-Semitic hate-monger” and hounded out of office by an enraged media, probably declared incompetent by the Cabinet and removed through the mechanism of the 22nd Amendment which permits the Cabinet to remove a president from office if he is found incapable of holding the office.
So, in the wake of 9-11, Junior Bush chose what might be called the “path of least resistance” and opted instead to target Afghanistan, a longtime center of intrigue and the target of historic imperial design.
(Nor should we ignore the fact that this same administration was littered with pro-Israel operatives among the now-infamous “neo-conservative” network, a clique of intriguers who would have certainly undercut any serious attempt by real patriots inside the government to expose Israeli involvement in the 9-11 attacks.)
Ultimately, of course, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq came into the gun sights,although—as we now know too well—the pro-Zionist ideologues in the Bush administration were eager to include Iraq as a target immediately in the wake of the 9-11 attacks.
Now here’s where things get a bit tricky.
As we’ve noted, there are quite a few self-styled “independent researchers”who, to their credit, questioned the official version of 9-11.
However, there is one constant thread in much of their “research”: they studiously avoid mentioning the possibility of Israeli foreknowledge or involvement in the matter. Instead, they direct attention to CIA and FBI bungling and/or foreknowledge of possible terrorist attacks.
In their boldest ventures into discussion outside popular understanding of 9-11, these “researchers” focus on long-standing Bush family (and Bush circle) financial connections to Arab (usually Saudi) interests, as though that “proves” Junior Bush either had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks or that, in some way, the Bush family is culpable because some Arab princes in Riyadh may have been aware of what lay ahead.
But then, again, this is all based on a presumption—faulty, we shall see—that the responsibility for 9-11 did indeed lie in the laps of those stereotypical “rich Arabs”who have always been favorite villains in the Jewish-controlled mass media, including, especially, Hollywood.
(That’s the same Hollywood that Internet bigmouthAlex Jones once claimed was controlled by “the Arabs.” And that’s the same Alex Jones—whose rise to wide fame sponsored by Jewish-owned Sirius satellite network—who says“the NewWorld Order” was behind 9-11.And that’s the same Alex Jones who touted the idea there was a “Saudi connection” to the Boston Marathon bombing.Need we say more?)
Of course, the reasoning behind such prevarication regarding Bush family ties to the Arabs (and the implication that the Bushes and their Saudi friends were to blame for 9-11) is stilted in and of itself.
According to even the official version of events, Osama bin Laden, alleged 9-11 mastermind,was a maverick rebel who abandoned his ties to theWestern-oriented Arab leaders and broke away to lead an Islamic fundamentalist rebellion.
Those who“discover”Bush connections to theArab elite don’t seem to understand that this given fact doesn’t particularly gibe with their “independent” version of events.
However, because, again, these “dissenters” have fallen into the trap of avoiding even to dare mention possible Israeli involvement, they force themselves to shape their own “alternative” history of 9-11 to accommodate the thesis that “the Arabs did it” (on behalf of Bush!).
And since Bush and his family and their associates did have a historic—although largely little-known to the American public—involvement with the Saudi and Arabic elite, these researchers conclude this must somehow “prove” that Bush and the Arabs were in cahoots in bringing about the 9-11 attacks.
Now all of this does not mean that these researchers were not on the right track when they suggested there was more to bin Laden than meets the eye—that is, that bin Laden was initially a creature of the CIA (and of Bush-connected intelligence circles in the American elite). In fact, bin Laden did have a long-standing connection to the operations of the CIA in its Middle East intrigues in league with Israel’s Mossad.
But then, again, it is simply not “politically correct” to mention the misdeeds of Israel and the Mossad.And even those who do dare to mention that bin Laden and many of the Islamic fundamentalists in his sphere of influence who were involved in fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan did work directly with the Mossad are certain to be called . . .“anti-Semitic.” And today inAmerica, that—as my old friend, the late Dallas Texas Naylor would say—is “a very serious charge.
Two “independent researchers”who have a history (like many others) of looking the other way when it comes to Israel and 9-11 bear mentioning.They are John Judge and Michael Ruppert.
Judge, a longtime wader—not a swimmer—in the sea of conspiracy research (he never goes out too far, usually up to his knees, but no further) can scream“CIA” as loud as the little old lady sitting on her rocking chair on the veranda, but the word “Mossad” has never been a part of his vocabulary. For years he has assembled seminars on the JFK assassination—and more recently,on 9-11—but one will never find Judge daring to mention the Mossad, at least not in a negative sense.
Judge is not particularly reliable either. In the early 1990s he asserted that Mark Lane—the longtime critic of the CIA who was among the first to point the finger directly at the CIA in the assassination of President Kennedy—had always avoided mentioning CIA involvement in the assassination,despite the easily-documentable fact that as far back as August 7, 1970 Lane had written an article for The Los Angeles Free Press (LAFP) entitled “CIA Killed JFK to Keep War Going,” a point that Lane underscored in far greater detail in a full-length LAFP special report headlined “JFK Murder Solved: Killing Coordinated by CIA.”
So, as we said, Judge is not reliable, but he has acted as a skilled disinformation specialist and, for obvious reasons, has widely been suspected of being some sort of officially-sanctioned “gatekeeper” charged with the dubious responsibility of attacking serious critics of high-level misdeeds and muddying the waters of inquiry all the further.
The case of Ruppert, is a bit more complicated, but equally telling.
Although Ruppert’s endeavors contributed to the cause of independent research into the intrigues of the intelligence community, particularly some of the international drug-arms-and-money laundering escapades of the CIA (which, more often than not, have involved the Mossad, although the Mossad is seldom, if ever, mentioned in Ruppert’s rendering of events), Ruppert has demonstrated a remarkable capacity, obviously, to give the Mossad a “clear” as far as any criminal culpability is concerned.And so it was with his “investigation” into 9-11.
Note this:At a speech at Portland State University, Ruppert energetically denounced what he said were rumors being circulated by what he called the“right wing” that Israel was involved in 9-11.Ruppert said that was all a bunch of “bullpucky,” a choice term that may or not may be Yiddish in origin. (And I’m only being slightly facetious here.)
In the next breath, Ruppert praised Israel, saying the Israelis did have specific advance knowledge about the impending attacks and warned the United States to beware.God bless Israel!
Then Rupert cited a number of media reports that appeared just after 9-11. The Israelis—in Ruppert’s assessment, at that point—were essentially “the good guys”—a wonderful ally—whose warnings had been stupidly ignored (or perhaps deliberately suppressed) by bunglers or traitors—take your pick—in U.S. defense and intelligence.
As additional evidence of Israeli foreknowledge, Ruppert cited the fact that Israel’s Zim shipping company actually closed its office in the World Trade Center (WTC) one week before the attacks, losing money in the process by breaking its lease. Ruppert then mournfully raised the question as to why “our” government did not likewise warn Americans in theWTC about the impending tragedy.
While Ruppert’s allegation about Zim’s withdrawal from the WTC was quite correct—and reported early on by American Free Press (AFP), a newspaper Ruppert was careful never to mention since AFP is forthrightly critical of Israel—Ruppert seemed to miss the point that even raising the story about Zim was considered “beyond the pale” and “anti-Semitic” since—the official story goes—Israel had absolutely no foreknowledge of the impending attacks.
Although, initially,Ruppert wanted to place all of the blame for 9-11 on the Bush administration and absolve Israel of any blame whatsoever, he began to shift his own line somewhat by the time his book on 9-11, Crossing the Rubicon, was finally committed to print.
In that volume, Ruppert actually went so far as to finally suggest that Israel had indeed played a part in 9-11, but that it was acting as an agent of the United States ruling elite. Ruppert was essentially suggesting that Israel (however much it actually benefited from the consequences of 9-11) was, if anything, a secondary partner of the United States intriguers whom Ruppert charged were responsible for the tragedy.
Israel, as presented by Ruppert, was some sort of victim of U.S. intrigue, forced to act—perhaps against its will (poor little country)—as a pathetic tool of U.S. imperialism.
Ruppert went to great lengths in his book to assure his readers that he was “not anti-Semitic” and quite apologetically insisted that two of his chief allies in the preparation of his book were Jewish and therefore “proof” that he, Ruppert,was not anti-Semitic.
Yet, despite his protestations, Ruppert’s book hardly presented much of a case at all that Israel did have a part in the 9-11 attacks. In fact, the rather physically substantial book, if placed under an analytic magnifying glass, was largely devoted to peripheral issues and analysis that hardly shed any direct light on 9-11 itself.
Although the volume appeared to be quite an accomplishment if judged solely on its length, it is actually quite diversionary,with the ultimate effect of downplaying (really, negating) Israel’s role in 9-11.
Based on the theory that “Oil Not Israel”was the motivating cause behind alleged U.S. orchestration of the 9-11 attacks,when it is case of quite precisely the opposite, the patently obvious obfuscation on this particular question by Ruppert does direct attention to the fact that much of the material circulated about 9-11 has actually been quite a bit of misinformation and,more importantly, deliberate disinformation.
And all of this, once again,underscores the need for an all-out open, un-biased public inquiry into what really did happen.
In the end, Ruppert astounded many in the 9-11 research community by declaring the case “closed,” as though he alone had “found the answers” and that no more need be said about the matter. It is no wonder then that genuine truth seekers concluded that, from the beginning, Ruppert had been no more than another “infiltrator,” a “gatekeeper” whose primary motive was to bury the truth, rather than find it.
Now that all is said and done, however, Rupert has largely been eclipsed, even forgotten, but his initial influence in discussion of 9-11 was considerable and indeed destructive.
At this juncture it is appropriate to give credit where credit is due:
Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani of Wingtv.net were among the first to blow the whistle on Ruppert and show him for the diversionary force he proved to be.Although Thorn and Guliani took a lot of heat for daring to confront Rupert’s prevarications head on, they were very much vindicated and are now widely recognized for speaking truth to power in the course of their own effort to lay bare the real facts about 9-11.
Thorn’s own work, 9-11 Evil—issued under the auspices of American Free Press—bears the distinction of being the first in-print work of consequence to examine Israeli complicity in 9-11, later followed by his supplementary volume, Made in Israel: 9-11 and the Jewish Plot Against America.
There are other 9-11 researchers who don’t have the high profile of Michael Ruppert but it has become all too apparent that many of the so-called “independent” researchers are fearful of addressing the Israeli connection to 9-11, which, consequently, directs (or misdirects) what they will (or will not) say about 9-11.
All of this having been said, let us come to the key question . . .
Why would Israel have an interest in allowing the 9-11 attacks to happen or, in an even more sinister scenario which this book, False Flags puts forth, actually perpetrate the tragedy?
The answer is simple—so simple—that it might, quite ironically conversely, be “too big” for the average American to understand. Earlier we heard how former CIA analyst George Friedman had to say about why Israel was the immediate beneficiary of 9-11 and he was right. But there’s more to the story and it’s critical we examine it here and now.
The historical record shows that in the year preceding the 9-11 attacks, Israel was becoming a virtual world outcast—perhaps more than it had ever been—its heavy-handed crackdown on the Muslim and Christian Palestinians a phenomenal scandal that had resulted in global condemnation of Israel’s violence and brutality.
Thousands of people were marching in the United States—even in the United States, it might be stressed—and millions were marching around the globe, loudly and publicly and forcefully condemning Israel and vocally siding with the beleaguered Palestinians.
For the first time since Israel came into being in 1948, the tiny, yet powerful, nation was widely perceived as a villain and a perpetrator, rather than as a victim, by people outside the Arab world. Israel was under siege for its misdeeds and its very right to exist was being called into question. Increasing numbers of even Jewish voices were questioning the very viability of “the Zionist project,” and its future.
In addition, although American Christian fundamentalists remained steadfast supporters of the Jewish state, leaders of many mainstream Christian churches were beginning to rally behind the Palestinian cause.
The situation for Israel was bad indeed—climaxed, just prior to September 11, by the international conference on racism in Durban, South Africa. There, people from around the globe were saying that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians was hardly different from the accounts of Nazi Germany’s treatment of the European Jews.
It was a bitter pill to swallow for many Americans who, until then, had perceived Israel to be some sort of “special”nation loudly hailed for its bravery in the face of war, a little country that had “risen from the ashes of the Holocaust.”Even devotion to Israel on the part of America’s liberal community—which had historically been a foundation of intellectual support for Israel—was beginning to crack.
September 11, 2001 changed all that—almost instantaneously. The “news” that Islamic fundamentalists—and largely natives of America’s staunchest Arab ally, Saudi Arabia—were responsible for the slaughter of 3,000 Americans was equated by the media (with intense, over-the-top enthusiasm, it might be said) as a reflection of what “little Israel” had suffered for 50 years at the hands of those same Arabs.
However, the word “Israel” was seldom advanced in media commentary on that black day and in the weeks and months that followed, at least in the context of “why” American had been attacked on 9-11.
To his credit,Alexander Cockburn,writing in The Nation,was one commentator who bothered to mention that fact. The “attack on America”was presented as if it had happened in some unusual vacuum, as if U.S.Middle East policy was absolutely no part of the equation.
Instead, the media was quick to ask the question,“Why do they hate us?” and the answer was regularly supplied by such pro-Israel Jewish commentators as “terrorism expert” Stephen Emerson and famed “Orientalist” Bernard Lewis, most notable among those who arrogantly and condescendingly explained that “they hate us” because “they”were “jealous” and“envious”ofWestern civilization, that America is perceived as the pinnacle ofWestern civilization, that America’s “democracy” and “way of life” were painful realities for the backward, savage Arabs and Muslims who wanted to destroy it all.
The Arabs and the Muslims also hated Judaism and Christianity, they said, conveniently ignoring the fact that Muslims revere Christ and that there are many Arabs who are Christians and have been for 2,000 years.
Seldom was it mentioned that there was a widespread distaste within that Arab world, not for the American people or their way of life, but instead for U.S. government policies and a perception (an accurate one) that the pro-Israel lobby in the United States had an inordinate influence on both the Congress and the presidency, not to mention the mass media and other centers of power in American life.
So while these Zionist propagandists were busy telling us that “they hate us” because of—well, almost everything—the media and the experts were careful to avoid mentioning one very real reason that could have instigated the very type of attack that Americans experienced on September 11. And this itself is quite revealing, for it demonstrates that carefully-crafted curtain of deceit,drawn together from a fabric of lies, that surrounded the 9-11 attacks from the beginning.
While it was certainly true that Muslim fundamentalists could have been motivated to attack the United States because of its policies favoring Israel . . . that possible motivation was never mentioned. The whole issue of U.S. Middle East policy was suppressed.
And while, admittedly, the word “never” is a strong and definitive word, it is indeed largely correct. It was decided—virtually ruled—early on that “the Muslims did it” and they did it because “they hate us” and the reason they hate us is . . .well, certainly nothing to do with Israel, for God’s sake!Why that’s ridiculous—just not true. Or so “they” said.
All of this is particularly interesting, though, in that, in almost the same breath, media commentators were crowing that the 9-11 attacks demonstrated the need for the United States to further align itself with Israel, that Israel and the United States were now as one, that, as one pro-Israel commentator put it so insistently:“We are all Israelis now.”
Naturally, the idea that Israel was the prime mover behind 9-11—although still not so widely known within the general public—has created much distress for Israel and its supporters.One advocate for Israel, a Canadian Jewish writer of conservative bent, Jonathan Kay, has written an entire book declaiming against those known as the “9-11 truthers.”
Although Kay condemns any and all dissent against the official rendition of 9-11, he reserves special ire for those who suggest Israel was behind that tragedy. But what is especially revealing is that Kay openly acknowledges—even celebrates—the role 9-11 played in firmly bringing the United States into the Zionist camp. In his book, Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground,Kay writes:
If the Holocaust and the reaction of the Jewish state jointly marked the first great turning point in the modern history of anti-Semitism, 9-11 marked the second.
Following the attacks, supporters of Israel spoke of a silver lining.The war against militant Islam suddenly was a global one. Now, the whole world would see and understand the sort of nihilistic hatred that Israelis confronted every day.
. . . America’s fight became Israel’s fight. Over the last decade, a period during which Republicans and Democrats [had] fought over every other subject imaginable, support for Israel [remained] one of the few issues to attract virtually unanimous bipartisan support.
Among war hawks on the Right, in particular, the sudden identification of militant Islam as America’s greatest enemy capped a startling transformation in the perception of the American Jewish community [by the Right].
Whereas Jews might once have threatened the American Right in their roles as communists, anarchists, trade unionists, civil rights leaders, and Ivy League intellectuals, no Jew could ever be an Islamist. Just the opposite:
The Jew was the perfect anti-Islamist, whose zeal and reliability in the war on terrorism was hard-wired into his political DNA thanks to six decades of Israeli warfare against Islamic terrorists in the Middle East. [Kay’s emphasis.]
For the first time in the history of Western civilization, the Jew’s “foreignness”and mixed loyalties—to the United States, Israel, world Jewry—became a source of respect and trust rather than suspicion.
Kay finally lays it all on the line: The ultimate result of 9-11 . . .
The September 11 attacks changed America in a thousand different ways. Perhaps the most ironic, given the terrorists’ intensely anti-Semitic ideology, was that it cemented the long process leading to Jews’ full-fledged ascension into the American establishment.
In fact—as we shall see—there is good reason to believe that Israel did play the central role in bringing about the awful events of that terrible day. Let us then proceed and demonstrate a likely scenario as to how Israel once again utilized its tried-and-true tactic of employing “false flags” in orchestrating the events of 9-11.
CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX . . .
Onward Christian Soldiers!
What Really Happened on 9-11:
Israel’s Most Spectacular False Flag Triumph
A pivotal aspect of Israel’s method of operation in utilizing “false flags”—as demonstrated in the JFK assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing—was the careful attachment (call it an “overlay”) of Israel’s conspiratorial aims onto the framework of existing political, military, intelligence and other structures of social interaction already in place in the United States, those elements necessary for not only implementing Israel’s criminal terrorist agenda, but also (obviously) to ultimately shift the blame for the crimes elsewhere.
And that is precisely what Israel’s “template for terror” has been all about: Israel has mustered its own considerable resources—finance, media power, wide-ranging covert capabilities—and then set them in place to manipulate ongoing events and operations being conducted quite independently by otherwise loyal Americans and direct those activities toward fulfilling Israel’s agenda.
This is precisely what happened on 9-11. Israel’s manipulation and deployment of “bin Laden Arabs” (as false flags) was carried out in a template for terror that used as its foundation the very American national security and defense structure that was designed to prevent the very type of attacks that took place on September 11, 2001.
And that, it might be said, was the unnatural “beauty”—the genius—of what Israel did that day. We have to give credit where credit is due.
Throughout their history—going back to the days of the Old Testament—the Jewish people have shown a mad brilliance when dealing with their foes, both real and perceived. And 9-11 may well be their masterwork. (And let it be their last.)
Now since 9-11 there has been—as in the JFK assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing—a wide array of questions that have been raised about the specific events surrounding the actual events of what took place on 9-11. Untold numbers of books, Internet websites, monographs, videos and other media have gone to great lengths to prove (and, I think, adequately document beyond question) that the 9-11 story told by the U.S. government and its friends in Israel and in the Jewish-controlled mass media in the West is a pack of lies.
Many of these efforts deserve great credit for their accomplishments. Others are confusing and often internally contradictory, sometimes ill-thought-out slap-dash productions that are sometimes almost unintentionally comic in nature. Likewise, many of these books and other materials often contain very valuable data that is otherwise interspersed with disinformation and misinformation. How much of that combination is deliberate or simply mistaken is anyone’s guess.
And then, of course, there are those 9-11 truthers who just simply avoid mentioning the possibility of Israeli involvement at all. Notable among them is Professor David Ray Griffin of Claremont University whose work on 9-11 is, otherwise, quite lucid and instructive.
Former senior CIA official Bill Christison said that Professor Griffin’s book, Debunking 9-11 Debunking, was “a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.”
And that pretty much sums up the official version of 9-11 itself: a monstrous series of lies. Only a person with a naive faith in “our government” would accept the lies of 9-11. And if truth be told, multiple polls taken over an extended period of time indicate that many Americans have serious doubts about what really happened that day—and why. But the thesis that Israel was the key player behind 9-11 has not yet fully seeped into the American awareness—and we certainly understand what that happens to be the case.
But people do understand that a wide variety of evidence come from notably disparate sources—including unchallenged experts in the respective fields—indicates, among other things:
•That the alleged 9-11 hijackers (whose actual identities still remain in doubt) had neither the skill to carry out some of the aerobatic maneuvers demonstrated that day and that, even further, it seems as if the planes themselves were taken over—from elsewhere—by remote control and, by this means, were made to hit their targets on 9-11.
• That the official rendition of how the World Trade Center towers collapsed is clearly untenable—scientifically impossible. There were clearly bombs or other explosives inside the ill-fated landmark towers and the popular perception that the collapse of the structures was reminiscent of a controlled demolition correctly reflected, in fact, what did happen to those buildings.
•That United Flight 93—the plane lost over Pennsylvania—was not brought down by a struggle between heroic passengers and the hijackers but was, instead, shot down by the U.S. military.
• That it was not American Flight 77 which struck the Pentagon on 9-11, but that some other unidentified flying object (generally assumed by 9-11 skeptics to have been a missile) was, in fact, the cause of the damage to America’s military command center in Washington.
Naturally, all of these specific matters are—and have been—open to relentless debate.
As many readers may (or may not) know, there are even some 9-11 skeptics who make the serious claim that there were “no hijackers” involved in the events of that day.
Others claim that there not even any actual planes involved (even in the events at the World Trade Center).
And yet others claim that nuclear bombs brought down the trade towers, while others insist the towers were crippled and destroyed by powerful particle beam weapons which seem right out of science fiction but which are a reality.
In the end, however—and note this carefully:
None of this ultimately counts in understanding the actual and specific manner in which Israel utilized its tried-and-true false flag tactic, its proven template for terror, in carrying off the 9-11 tragedy.
While all of these debates about how the trade towers were brought down—and whether Building 7 was imploded, for example—are fascinating and provide 9-11 truthers a lot of interesting discussion (and entertaining reading for those interested in the topic of conspiracy theories) they are debates that distract from the big picture.
And that big picture is that, in the end, Israel was the mastermind behind 9-11, the tragedy that laid the path for the War on Terror—the latest in so many Jewish wars of survival that have plagued mankind throughout history. And even today, the consequences of 9-11 still place America (and the world) on the precipice of global disaster.
It will be a bitter pill to swallow for those who delight in inspecting and micro-analyzing and pursuing to the end the questions of whether or not a plane or a drone or a missile hit the Pentagon or what super-secret scientific process was used to topple the trade towers, but (in the context of the events of 9-11) we cannot help recall what Vincent Salandria and Richard Sprague said in reference to the JFK assassination, remarks we cited at the very outset of this volume; to wit:
While the [JFK assassination] researchers have involved themselves in consuming preoccupation with the micro-analytic searching for facts of how the assassination was accomplished, there has been almost no systematic thinking on why President Kennedy was killed.
And Sprague said:
As incredible as it may seem . . . the identities of the actual Dealey Plaza team, including shooters, radio communications men, coordinators, and others, do not really matter in the overall conspiracy and especially in the cover-ups. The murder was a carefully orchestrated intelligence operation . . . .
Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire any shots that day. Once one moves beyond the stage of thinking that Oswald did the shooting, the questions about who was shooting become secondary to the questions about who planned and commanded the execution and why they did so. [Sprague’s emphasis.]
The bottom line of the Kennedy assassination was the JFK was killed. That was the intent of the plotters. The bottom line of the Oklahoma bombing was the destruction of the Murrah Building. And the bottom line of 9-11 was mass murder on a grand scale in multiple cities.
In each of these instances, Israel stood to benefit. It didn’t matter what means were used, how many assassins or hijackers or bombers were deployed. It didn’t make any difference, ultimately, in achieving Israel’s final goal of shaping American policy for its own ends.
That is why the relentless debate over the specific forensics of 9-11 is a needless and distracting enterprise.
We KNOW that the official version of 9-11 is a lie and for those who aren’t afraid of facing it (or saying it) we KNOW that Israel was the prime player behind the 9-11 tragedy.
We KNOW that Israel used bin Laden and fundamentalist Muslims as the false flags in 9-11.
And we KNOW that Israel had a very specific template for terror in place when they carried off 9-11.
And this is what it was . . .
In the JFK assassination, Israel either set up a “dummy assassination attempt” against JFK and made it into “the real thing” or otherwise manipulated an already existing such operation (put in place by elements in the CIA) and utilized it for its own ends.
To say precisely what happened would be speculative, but we know the basic parameters.
In the Oklahoma bombing, a similar template was utilized.
There, it seems, some sort of surveillance-and-sting operation aimed at domestic American “right wing” dissidents—whether militia or white separatists or a combination thereof—was either set up or otherwise coopted and made into a full-fledged bombing that resulted in mass destruction.
Again, to say precisely what happened would be speculative, but we know the basic parameters.
In both instances, chosen patsies were already in place and there were also people and circles within various intelligence agencies that were either outright traitors, working on behalf of Israel, or who were otherwise unwittingly manipulated in order to carry out the various processes that facilitated these crimes.
In the case of 9-11, Israel “piggybacked” atop ongoing U.S. national defense systems designed to simulate and respond to air attacks and even including—the evidence now indicates—attacks on American landmarks and installations conducted by suicide aircraft.
Meanwhile, of course, Arab Islamic fundamentalist patsies—perhaps even directed or actually even led by Israeli Jews posing as Arabs (the mysterious “mista’arvim” described earlier)—were acting out their role as the 9-11 hijackers.
Their “hijacking” operation had been set in motion not by bin Laden but by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who—the evidence suggests—was a longtime Israeli asset inside the Islamic fundamentalist movement.
The Israelis knew that, on 9-11, the United States defense apparatus was engaged in these training exercises and saw this as a perfect opportunity to spring the 9-11 trap on the American people. They knew that the American defense apparatus would be caught unaware and that unusual activity among a number of aircraft on the East Coast would, at least initially, be perceived to be part of the exercise.
Noting that U.S. air defenses were effectively paralyzed for an hour and forty-five minutes on 9-11—in comparison with an average intercept time of 15-20 minutes at most both before and after 9-11—one 9-11 researcher, Webster Griffin Tarpley, has summarized the matter:
Recent progress in 9-11 research has focused on the role of war games, military exercises, and terror drills in hiding and facilitating the terror actions of 9-11. So far we know of 14 separate exercises on or related to 9-11. Some were used to suppress air defenses by moving fighter planes to northern Canada and Alaska, far from the 9-11 targets. Others paralyzed air defense by inserting false radar blips onto the radar screens of defense personnel, and with commercial and military aircraft which reported themselves as hijacked.
Tarpley—among others—has concluded that rogue American military officers in NORAD and a number of civilian intriguers inside the Federal Aviation Administration were undoubtedly cognizant of the bigger conspiracy. But it should be noted, for the record, that Tarpley does not point the finger so directly at Israel as we do here.
Kristen Breitweiser, one of the more prominent and perceptive of the widely-publicized 9-11 widows made this critical point, appearing on Phil Donahue’s television show:
I don’t understand how a plane could hit our Defense Department . . . an hour after the first plane hit the first tower. I don’t understand how that is possible. I’m a reasonable person.
But when you look at the fact that we spend half a trillion dollars on national defense and you’re telling me that a plane is able to hit our Pentagon . . . an hour after the first tower is hit?
There are procedures and protocols in place in this nation that are to be followed . . . and they were not followed on September 11.
All of this happened not because a small group of Islamic fundamentalists (who obviously had no access to high-level inside knowledge of American defense operations) were able to somehow break through a sudden lapse in the security apparatus, but, instead, because Israel’s intelligence service (with its wide-ranging contacts—and spies—inside the American defense establishment) were able to glean this data.
In his 2004 book, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies, James Bamford described the set-up of the pivotal North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the relevant security exercises in place in these brief terms:
September 11, 2001 was the fourth day of a week-long exercise code-named “Vigilant Guardian.” It was designed to create a fictional crisis affecting the United States and text the network of radar watch stations around the country. Like a rerun of an old movie, the scenario involved Russian bombers flying over the North Police in attack formation.
[Radar specialists in NORAD’s Rome, New York-based Operations Command Center of “Huntress Control”—the Air National Guard’s Northeast Air Defense Sector] were responsible for monitoring more than half a million square miles of airspace, from the Montana-North Dakota border to the coast of Maine down through South Carolina. Included were the skies over New York City and Washington, D.C.
Should a crisis develop, the radar specialists could pick up a phone and alert fighter pilots at National Guard units at Burlington, Vermont; Atlantic City, New Jersey, Cape Cod Massachusetts; and Duluth, Minnesota.
In addition, aside from these NORAD exercises, a similar National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11, in the Department of Defense/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) which is in charge of spy satellites. The NRO exercise was scheduled to simulate the crash of a small aircraft into one of the agency’s headquarters towers and test the response of employees thereto.
While no actual plane was to be involved in the exercise, an NRO officer said (after 9-11) that: « It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility. As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise.” So while it may indeed have appeared to be a “coincidence” to the unknowing, it was a coincidence intended by America’s “ally,” Israel.
And as far as NORAD’s response, in dealing with its own specific exercise in place, the aforementioned Bamford revealed that—initially—Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins (the airborne control and warning officer on duty at the Rome center) thought that the first report of a possible hijacking was “part of the exercise.” Her reaction was in response to the first report of a hijacked plane coming from a Boston military liaison with the Federal Aviation Administration who urged NORAD be notified.
Major General Larry Arnold commander of the Continental United States NORAD Region, testified before the 9-11 Commission:
[We] were in the middle of a NORAD exercise at that particular time. Which means, that basically our entire staff was focused on being able to do the air operations center mission, which was our job to do.
We had just come out of a video teleconference with the NORAD staff and with our folks at that particular time when I was handed note that we had a possible hijacking in Boston Center. . . . I immediately went downstairs and picked up the phone, asking on the way to my staff, is this part of the exercise? Because quite honestly and frankly, we do do hijacking scenarios as we go through these exercises from time-to-time.
But I realized that it was not – that this was real-life.
Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), Mission Crew Commander (MCC) Major Kevin Nasypany told Vanity Fair: « When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was ‘Somebody started the exercise early. . . . I actually said out loud, ‘The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour.' »
But the hijackings were “for real” and Israel had expertly manipulated the American defense apparatus from within to facilitate them.
Meanwhile, on the public stage, so to speak, the hijackers—including perhaps a few Israeli mista’arvim (Jews posing as Arabs) willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good—were playing their roles.
However, it is entirely possible—even likely—that some of the hijackers had no idea that they were not engaging in a conventional hijacking and that their planes would actually be crashed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and other landmarks.
And in that regard, there is a wide body of opinion—and scientific reality to verify the possibility—that it is likely that the internal flying mechanisms of at least some of the 9-11 airliners were commandeered via remote control (from the ground) and steered toward disaster and that the hijackers on the planes had no means to stop it.
That is, while those hijackers may have believed that they were going to land the planes at some location and then presumably make demands upon the American government—a typical scenario in a conventional hijacking—they had no idea that the planes, in fact, would be taken over by remote control from elsewhere and caused to crash.
We can’t pretend to know the motivations of each and every one of the individuals who were on those planes in the role of “hijacker,” and nor do we even really know who they were in the first place, the official version of events notwithstanding.
And in this regard, it should be noted for the record, that there is yet another odd twist to the matter of the hijackers: the strong likelihood that at least a number of the alleged hijackers had actually received training (including flight training) on American military bases.
This little known point has been made by a wide variety of sources, even including elements in the mainstream media and yes—although many are loathe to mention it—this matter also involves both Israel and simulation exercises involving hijackings. (Akin again to the “dummy assassination” in Dallas and the “sting-gone-wrong” in Oklahoma City).
In perhaps his only passing reference to a role by Israel in 9-11, Michael Ruppert asserted in his book Crossing the Rubicon:
. . .The so-called hijackers who had received this training were probably part of an ultra-secret U.S. military and intelligence joint operation “Opposition Force,” or OPFOR, which routinely played bad guys in hijack exercises around the world and inside the U.S. . . . It is possible—even likely—that this hijack OPFOR was a joint U.S-Israeli operation. Sources [told Ruppert] that exercises like this were also probably used by U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies to test airline security around the world and especially in the Middle East.
Ruppert pointed out that over many years he had met multiple former U.S. Special operations personnel “who performed these kinds of missions,” which, he said, included “driving a pick truck or a fake utility truck to test defenses at nuclear reactors, or posing as small boaters attempting to penetrate the security at submarine bases.”
So what role at least some of the alleged hijackers were playing (or thought they were playing) on 9-11 is anyone’s guess.
Did some of them actually believe that they were actually working on behalf of a joint U.S.-Israeli hijacking exercise, only to find out that they were, in the end, slated to be patsies?
We can only imagine how some of them might have reacted when they realized—as many have suggested—that the planes they hijacked had actually been taken over by remote control and then delivered to a fiery crash into the trade towers.
And, again, for the record, all we know is the purported identities of those accused of having been involved in the events of 9-11, although we also know that some of those people are very much still alive.
And the very fact that some of these purported hijackers—whom we are now led to believe had multiple connections to “terrorism”—made it onto the planes in the first place is probably no coincidence. We know an Israeli company, ICTS, was providing security at the Boston airport from which two of the 9-11 flights originated. And either directly or through subsidiaries, ICTS was operating security at the airports in Washington and Newark where the other 9-11 flights originated.
One could easily surmise that the hijackers were thus permitted to gain entry to those departing aircraft precisely because the Israelis wanted those individuals aboard those planes. And in light of what did happen on 9-11 we have a pretty good idea as to why the Israelis wanted those individuals—the false flag patsies—aboard those planes.
Israel’s “control” of the 9-11 hijackers can be traced to multiple means, all or some which could have been utilized to one degree or another (and considering the fact that there were said to have been nineteen “hijackers” on 9-11, the options, naturally, can vary.
But what follows is probably about as precise a summary as possible of the means by which Israel orchestrated the presence of the purported hijackers onto the aircraft that became the weapons of 9-11.
Ultimately, the orders for the 9-11 conspiracy came from Israel. The orders were passed down and carried out through Israeli assets inside Islamic fundamentalist circles. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, discussed in some detail earlier, seems the likely conduit and was indeed the 9-11 “mastermind”—but working for Israel, nor working for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Whether Mohammed is actually Jewish is a very real question, but, in the end it doesn’t really matter, for whatever his ethnic origins the evidence strongly suggests that Mohammed and his partner-in-crime, his nephew Ramzi Yousef, were longtime assets of Israeli intelligence.
It has long been known—among Muslim and Arab communities in The Washington, DC area—that one of the individuals who was involved in providing false identification papers for a number of the 9-11 hijackers (when they were in the Maryland-Virginia area) has been a longtime asset of Israeli intelligence, despite his Arab background.
So it was Israeli intelligence that had a direct hand in assisting at least several of the 9-11 hijackers in the months preceding 9-11, whether or not those purported hijackers actually knew it or not. Those hijackers, in fact, may well have been “sincere” Islamic fundamentalists who had been selected (by Israel) to be among the patsies and, as a consequence, making it possible for them to travel on 9-11 was critical to bringing all of the pieces of Israel’s 9-11 conspiracy into place.
And it is a fact that the prosecution of another of the individuals—an American woman—involved in facilitating the forged papers for those hijackers was brushed under the rug.
Clearly, it was determined too much inquiry into the matter might start uncovering things that the Israelis (and their collaborators in high places in the United States government) would prefer under wraps.
Some of the hijackers could very well have been Israeli Jews—the previously-described mista’arvim—posing as Arabs, knowing that they were on a suicide mission (although this possibility is least likely).
At any rate, mista’arvim undoubtedly played a part in manipulating some of the now-infamous “19 hijackers” into the roles that they ultimately were said to have played on 9-11,whether any mista’arvim were actually on any of the ill-fated 9-11 flights or not.
Some of the hijackers could very well have been—as outlined earlier—Arabs who had been trained by the United States (and Israel) for participation in hijacking exercises and participated in the events of 9-11, not knowing what was actually intended.
The Israelis could have manipulated these Arabs into involvement in 9-11 even without the knowledge of the United States defense and intelligence apparatus, and, at the same time, leading those Arabs to believe that they were, in fact, working under U.S. government auspices in some sort of hijacking exercise.
And while my report for American Free Press—speculating on the likely role of Israeli Jews posing as Arabs being involved in 9-11—first appeared in 2001, a more detailed exposition of this thesis appeared elsewhere, a decade later, in early 2011.
The author, Washington journalist Wayne Madsen—who is as fervent in his opposition to Nazism as he is in exposing the intrigues of Israel—is no “Nazi sympathizer” by any means. Madsen reported that he had received details of a Feb. 2002 British intelligence memorandum (suppressed by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair) which flat asserted that Israel had, in fact, set up and manipulated the hijackers involved in 9-11. The relevant portion of Madsen’s report follows:
A Mossad unit consisting of six Egyptian- and Yemeni-born Jews infiltrated « Al-Qaeda » cells in Hamburg (the Atta-Mamoun Darkanzali cell), south Florida, and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates in the months before 9/11.The Mossad not only infiltrated cells but began to run them and give them specific orders that would eventually culminate in their being on board four regularly-scheduled flights originating in Boston, Washington Dulles, and Newark, New Jersey on 9/11.
The Mossad infiltration team comprised six Israelis, comprising two cells of three agents, who all received special training at a Mossad base in the Negev Desert in their future control and handling of the « Al-Qaeda » cells.
One Mossad cell traveled to Amsterdam where they submitted to the operational control of the Mossad’s Europe Station, which operates from the El Al complex at Schiphol International Airport. The three-man Mossad unit then traveled to Hamburg where it made contact with Mohammed Atta, who believed they were sent by Osama bin Laden. In fact, they were sent by Ephraim Halevy, the chief of Mossad.
The second three-man Mossad team flew to New York and then to southern Florida where they began to direct the « Al-Qaeda » cells operating from Hollywood, Miami, Vero Beach, Delray Beach, and West Palm Beach.
Israeli « art students, » already under investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration for casing the offices and homes of federal law enforcement officers, had been living among and conducting surveillance of the activities, including flight school training, of the future Arab « hijacker » cells, particularly in Hollywood and Vero Beach.
In August 2001, the first Mossad team flew with Atta and other Hamburg « Al-Qaeda » members to Boston. . . .
The two Mossad teams sent regular coded reports on the progress of the 9/11 operation to Tel Aviv via the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC.
So what Madsen claimed—but which has largely been ignored by many in the 9-11 truth movement—fits all that we know about the method of operation used by Israel, both in terms of its use of mista’arvim and the infiltration of Islamic fundamentalist circles and underscores much of what I’ve written in American Free Press and reiterated to a certain degree in the pages of this volume.
And although readers of my work might be inclined, as Jewish sources do, to dismiss me as an “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist”—an apparently negative appellation I cheerfully acknowledge for its basic accuracy—such a description is hard to apply to Wayne Madsen.
As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, the Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation—a distinguished resume by any estimation!
Interestingly, Madsen also contended in that report that Egyptian and Yemeni-born Jewish Mossad agents had infiltrated the Muslim Brotherhood in the United Arab Emirates and had helped expedite Israeli funding for activities to be attributed to Al-Qaeda.
Earlier, according to Madsen, John O’Neill—who had been the FBI’s chief counter-terrorism agent investigating Al-Qaeda—had become aware of the Israeli funding mechanisms and “It was no mistake,” editorialized Madsen, “that O’Neill was given the job as director of security for the World Trade Center on the eve of the attack. O’Neill perished in the collapse of the complex.”
Whatever the circumstances of O’Neill’s death, what we do know is that prior to 9-11 there were a number of people in the United States intelligence and law enforcement apparatus—particularly in the FBI—who stumbled upon disturbing information relating to possible terrorist activities by “Arabs” and “Islamic extremists” and that, when they sought to investigate further, they found their efforts were frustrated.
After 9-11 the efforts of such individuals as FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley in Minneapolis, Kenneth Williams, the senior special agent from an FBI terrorism task force in Phoenix, Chicago-based FBI Special Agent Robert Wright and others came to public attention.
But the fact that their warnings about possible terrorist activity and/or connections by some of those whose names were linked to 9-11 was largely dismissed as a yet another unfortunate bureaucratic blunder, a terrible snafu, just so typical of “our” government today.
“Wasn’t it a tragedy,” they said, “that people didn’t pay attention to what Colleen Rowley and others had to say? That might have stopped 9-11 from happening. More government incompetence. ”
Our contention here is that the efforts of these FBI agents were suppressed not because of bureaucratic bungling or incompetence but precisely because there was absolute knowledge—at higher levels—that the future hijackers were, in fact, under the control and direction of Israeli intelligence (and/or perceived to be likewise under the control and direction of American intelligence) and that this is why their activities were allowed to continue and why the FBI agents’ warnings were deliberately ignored and suppressed.
It is doubtful that even most (if any) of those people at the higher (even the highest) levels had any idea that an event like 9-11 was slated to happen. They were simply aware that “this is an Israeli operation” or “this is a joint U.S.-Israeli operation,” so therefore, “let it alone.”
These people believed that the activities facilitating the 9-11 conspiracy, moving it along through its course of planning and development, were actually anti-terrorist monitoring operations being conducted by “our ally”—Israel—as part of its vaunted infiltration and manipulation of Islamic fundamentalist forces (details of which we’ve already delved into in the pages of this volume).
It was a perfect cover for Israel’s historic false flag template for terror—and one that was carefully crafted to prevent persons holding high-level security clearances from going public with any knowledge that they did have about the operations.
And this brings us to Able Danger.
A joint project of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Special Forces Command, Able Danger was a highly-classified counter-terrorism operation that was the one U.S. government surveillance operation that almost certainly picked up on the Israeli-controlled “Al-Qaeda” operation—the 9-11 conspiracy.
Sidelined four months before 9-11 by the Bush administration—and this action most assuredly involved high-level forces loyal to (or otherwise compromised by) Israeli intelligence—Able Danger had already been substantially eviscerated as far back as mid-2000 when—under the direction of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command—vast amounts of computerized data compiled by Able Danger were destroyed.
According to some accounts, the amount of material eliminated was equal to the modern-day holdings of the Library of Congress.
After 9-11, Army Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, the Defense Intelligence Agency’s liaison to Able Danger, brought Able Danger’s existence to the public and suffered widespread repudiation for having done so, particularly in response to his claims that the dismantling of Able Danger had played a part in essentially allowing 9-11 to happen.
In other words, Shaffer said that because Able Danger had been shut down, this crippled any serious effort to monitor the activities of those who were involved in the very operations that were underway and which resulted in the tragedy that we recall today as 9-11.
Responding to revelations from Shaffer and other Able Danger whistleblowers who came forth in response to Shaffer’s public allegations, then-Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa) issued a press statement on August 12, 2005 describing Able Danger
The task assigned to Able Danger was to identify and target Al-Qaeda on a global basis and, through the use of cutting edge technology (data-mining, massive parallel processing, neural networking and human factors analysis) and enhanced visualization and display tools, present options for leaders (national command authority) to manipulate, degrade or destroy the global Al-Qaeda infrastructure.
Naturally, of course, Shaffer never suggested that Able Danger had uncovered any behind-the-scenes Israeli connections to the “Al-Qaeda” terrorists. Whether he knew (or suspected) this to be the case is another question altogether, and it’s highly unlikely that Shaffer would have gone public with any such suspicions under any circumstances.
However, the truth is Able Danger’s capacity to monitor the activities of longtime Mossad asset Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the 9-11 patsies—being handled “on the ground” by mista’arvim Jews, posing as Arabs—would have certainly provided a virtually indisputable and all-too-clear overview of the patterns and connections of the Israeli sources of funding and intelligence that helped facilitate the 9-11 attacks.
And that’s why it was so vital that the reality of what Able Danger represented be thoroughly repudiated and publicly discredited. A serious analysis of Able Danger’s data would have pointed directly at Israel and the Mossad for its central role in directing the 9-11 conspiracy.
To no one’s surprise, the 9-11 Commission was careful to do its utmost to undercut Shaffer and Weldon and others who were raising questions about Able Danger. In his aforementioned press statement, Weldon described the 9-11 Commission’s prevarications:
The 9/11 Commission has released multiple statements over the past week, each of which has significantly changed —from initially denying ever being briefed to acknowledging being briefed on both operation Able Danger and [alleged “lead hijacker”] Mohammed Atta.
The information was omitted primarily because they found it to be suspect despite having been briefed on it two times by two different military officers on active duty. Additionally, the 9/11 Commission also received documents from the Department of Defense on Able Danger.
Despite their varied statements, two critical questions remain unanswered.
1)Why did the Department of Defense fail to pass critical information obtained through Able Danger to the FBI between the summer and fall of 2000?
2) Why did the 9/11 Commission staff fail to properly follow-up on the three separate occasions when they received information on Able Danger and Mohammed Atta?
These were all good questions and good concerns and Weldon was right to ask them.
If—however unlikely, of course—bin Laden Arabs in the Al-Qaeda network had been responsible for 9-11, as the official story went (and still goes), the fact that Able Danger and its intelligence capacities had been sidelined, its data ditched into oblivion, and its very existence and value being essentially denied is certainly a curious matter, by the estimation of any honest observer. And rightly so.
And that’s why a lot of good people among the American public—who believed 9-11 was the consequence of a gigantic behind-the-scenes intelligence bungle—a la the “sting gone wrong” cover story in Oklahoma City—were demanding the U.S. government account for the Able Danger controversy and the questions that arose.
But the fact remains that nobody (at least publicly, of course) seemed to consider the possibility—the likelihood—that we’ve outlined here: that Able Danger’s data would ultimately have implicated Israel as the real “mastermind” behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Now Congressman Weldon declared that he would “continue to push for a full accounting of the historical record so that we may preclude these types of failures from happening again.” But any possibility of Weldon pursuing that agenda came to an effective end when he was defeated for re-election in 2006.Having come under fire in the media—quite conveniently—for alleged corruption involving his ties to defense contractors, the conservative Republican was forced out of office.
Whether the scandals surrounding Weldon were contrived for that purpose and directly attributable to concerns about his focus on Able Danger and its ramifications—that is, the potential danger of exposing Israel’s behind-the-scenes role in 9-11—can only be speculated upon.
And it should be noted that, for the most part, Weldon’s own political inclinations would not suggest he was inclined to pursue an agenda that would be injurious to Israel. Quite the contrary. Weldon was closely intertwined with many of the infamous “high priests of war”—pro-Israel neo-conservative elements in official Washington—a grand list of sordid intriguers whose names are familiar to those versed in the machinations that led to American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Jewish-inspired “War on Terror.” And after leaving office, Weldon even published a book claiming Iran was conspiring to attack America.
On the other hand, on two matters, in particular, Weldon may have engaged in activities that impinged upon Israel’s particular interests.
In one instance he took a quite independent stand from the Bush administration’s aggressive stance toward North Korean nuclear weapons. In fact—although many people are unaware of this—it has long been an article of faith among pro-Israel zealots that North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is a threat to Israel, a point that is not widely discussed in the major media, although commonly referenced in pro-Israel journals and in the opinion columns of Jewish community newspapers.
And in another respect—a strange twist—Weldon had, even while in Congress, forged an unusually close relationship with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi—never, to say the least, a favorite of Israel—and members of his family.
Shortly before the so-called “Arab spring” revolution (orchestrated by the United States and Israel) that resulted in his brutal murder, Gaddafi had actually taken to the floor of the United Nations and echoed the thesis of my book, Final Judgment: That Israel had been behind the assassination of President Kennedy as a consequence of JFK’s opposition to Israel’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons.
In fact, right after Final Judgment was published, the Libyan Embassy in New York purchased three copies of the book and shortly thereafter I was invited to address the topic of the book at the Second Green Dialogue for an Alternative World Order held in Tripoli, Libya by the Jamahir Society for Philosophy and Culture which was primarily sponsored by the Gaddafi government.
Unfortunately, because of restrictions against travel to Libya (imposed upon Americans by the pressure of the Israeli lobby), I felt it best not to attend and risk prosecution. However, the organizers asked me to submit a written statement which was read aloud to the participants who had come from all over the globe. In the aftermath I received letters from people as far away as Malta, Ghana and Guyana who were profoundly surprised to learn there are a few Americans unafraid to raise questions about the U.S. relationship with Israel.
In any case, after leaving Congress, Curt Weldon continued his close association with the Libyans, even to the point of becoming the first non-Libyan member of the Gaddafi Foundation. So the fact that Weldon was on such intimate terms with a “controversial” Arab leader who had actually accused Israel of involvement in the JFK assassination is an interesting point, whatever the case.
The bottom line is that it is hard to say precisely what motivated Weldon’s vocal public interest in pursuing the matter of Able Danger.
Weldon’s seemingly contradictory stands (as outlined above) make it impossible to divine exactly where the congressman was coming from, but, in the end, it may simply be that Weldon was sincerely concerned that hard-line Islamic fundamentalists (plotting against America) had been under surveillance and that for seemingly inexplicable reasons, their activities (being monitored by Able Danger) had been effectively disregarded.
And it should probably be mentioned that, in many respects, Muammar Gaddafi—although the Muslim leader of an Islamic state—was never, in fact, a favorite either of Israel or of the hard-line Islamic fundamentalists (whom he had suppressed during his years in power).
So, in that sense, Weldon’s kinship with Gaddafi (and Weldon’s concerns about Islamic fundamentalist terror networks) were not necessarily mutually exclusive as some less nuanced observers might perceive.
While outlining these matters regarding Weldon’s involvement in bringing Able Danger to a greater public attention that it would have otherwise received, there were moments when I felt—for the sake of the readers—that much of this might be perceived to be a distraction or perhaps too much of a digression from the specific topic at hand.
However, I think the case of Weldon demonstrates that sometimes there is much more to some matters than meets the eye and that, contradictions notwithstanding, sometimes we can find someone engaged in an activity motivated by hidden factors not so easily defined.
Is it possible that Curt Weldon did, in fact, realize or learn (through some means) that Israel was indeed the driving force behind 9-11 and that he was utilizing his campaign to bring focus upon Able Danger to bring that matter into public discussion, if only through what might be described as “the back door”?
What we do know is that while the Jewish-controlled media did Mention Able Danger, it was only in the context of furthering the official cover story that “bin Laden Arabs” were behind 9-11.And that perhaps through some unfortunate slip-up, the evidence that would have prevented the tragedy had somehow been lost in the netherworld of the American intelligence bureaucracy.
So there we have it. This was the template—the tried-and-true Israeli method of operation of false flag terrorism—designed to orchestrate the 9-11 attack on America to be blamed on Islamic terrorists. To summarize:
It was all really quite so simple in many respects and perhaps not so complicated as a lot of 9-11 truthers—even those who concur that Israel was involved—would have us believe.
Utilizing its long-time assets inside Islamic fundamentalist circles peripherally or even directly “linked” to Osama bin Laden—with the now-notorious Khalid Shaikh Mohammed at the pinnacle—Israel’s Mossad dispatched mista’arvim Jews (posing as Arabs) into key command posts, manipulating genuine do-or-die Islamic fundamentalists into a hijacking scheme keyed to take place precisely at the time when the United States defense and intelligence command was engaging in widespread hijacking drills and related exercises involving the use of airliners for the purpose of terrorism.
To what extent there was deliberate treason by American conspirators (in the military or otherwise) will never be precisely known, but, unfortunately, it seems likely that there were indeed treasonous actions by Americans that were taken on 9-11 that facilitated the conspiracy.
Whether those who engaged in those acts of treason did so out of loyalty to Israel for religious or ethnic reasons, whether they were American Jews or even Christian fundamentalist supporters of Israel, or perhaps even individuals who were compromised through blackmail or extortion or otherwise simply bought-and-paid for is yet another matter for speculation.
In the meantime, through whatever covert means, the Israelis were able to use their considerable resources to assure that any existing American intelligence monitoring of Islamic fundamentalist networks—namely Able Danger, for one known example (and there were probably others that we do not know about) was sidelined or otherwise altered and distorted so as to cover up Israel’s behind-the-scenes role.
On 9-11 the events we now recall—to the extent we really know what did happen (and even all of that is subject to debate—did indeed take place. In the end it doesn’t matter whether particle beam weapons or mini-nuclear weapons or other exotic scientific technology was used to bring down the trade towers, for example.
The bottom line is that the 9-11 tragedy did take place and it was utilized, quite successfully, by Israel and its allies in the Jewish-controlled media (with the willing assent of the American government under George W. Bush) to bring about a new paradigm in global affairs. Nothing would ever be the same again.
Even the Bush administration’s official document, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued in 2002, said flatly: “The events of September 11, 2001 opened vast, new opportunities.”
What opportunities they were!
The long-awaited “Clash of Civilizations”—feverishly enunciated by Zionist theoreticians—was now underway.
America was pushed into an un-ending “War on Terror”—one Jewish strategist, Norman Podhoretz, enthusiastically called it “World War IV”—and the United States became the driving force, the banker and the military might—behind a new imperialism, the framework for a would-be Jewish Imperium (a global planetary regime) often referred to as “the New World Order.”
The ancient dream of Jewish rabbis—laid forth in the Talmud—of an ultimate Jewish rule over the peoples of the world came ever closer to being realized and that, from the beginning, was precisely the intent of Israel in making 9-11 happen.
The New Enemy to be vanquished was Islam and Americans were manipulated by the Jewish-controlled media—in the name of “patriotism” and “Americanism” and “fighting terrorism,” and “homeland security”—to combat this dangerous enemy.
It was “Onward Christian Soldiers” once again.
In the JFK assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing, Israel’s fine hand was always visible, although not in ways that many even more perceptive individuals might immediately see. But what we do know, as we’ve seen in these pages, is that the parallels between the mechanism used by Israel in these crimes—and later in 9-11—are all too clear when we push aside the distractions (deliberate and otherwise).
After my book on the JFK assassination (and Israel’s involvement therein) was first published, one reader wrote me a remarkable letter in which he asserted:
You have been the chronicler of a great episode in Jewish history, the writer of an important book, a modern sort of Bible. You have shown—in their eyes—that their Mossad was justified in executing President Kennedy, especially as you paired it with the heroism of Esther. One nation’s assassins are another nation’s saviors. What is foreign policy to one nation may be warfare to another, and all’s fair in war.
Israel’s 9-11 attack on America—like the JFK assassination and the Oklahoma bombing—was an act of war that needs retribution.
Here’s the never-before-explained “template for terror” first used in the JFK asssassination and later in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9-11 tragedy that followed . . .
Sandy Hook and Boston are the latest manifestations of this pernicious evil . . .
In the works for over a decade, this is the one book that points the definitive finger of blame at the singular force behind the major terrorist conspiracies that have rocked America in modern times . . .
Don’t let them confuse you as they did with 9-11, the OKC bombing, and the JFK assassination . . .
Immediately after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy a few honest investigators began digging into what really happened on Nov. 22, 1963. In the years that followed, there was a deliberate attempt by the controlled Media Monopoly to smear the honest researchers at the same time a flood of misinformation and disinformation about the assassination was deliberately injected into the public domain. All sorts of misleading “theories” and phony “research” muddied the waters, redirecting attention away from WHO was responsible and into focusing instead into endless competing and distracting arguments about HOW the assassination was carried out.
As a consequence, truth seekers got bogged down in complicated discussions about how many shots were fired, where those shots hit JFK and how many assassins were involved.
The same type of thing happened after the Oklahoma City bombing and then with 9-11 and it even took place during the past year in the wake of the tragedies at Sandy Hook and Boston.
There has been a plethora of theories relating largely to inconsequential details about how these conspiracies were orchestrated and the consequence has been that much of the independent research has become bogged down in forensic and scientific debate (much of it actually ill-founded). The result is that even many Americans who suspect there’s something wrong with the U.S. government’s “official” versions of “what happened” in these cases begin to reject the idea that real conspiracies were behind these events. The truth seekers are dismissed as “nuts.” Finally: the one full-length book that cuts to the chase and says WHO orchestrated these events and explains the “template for terror” and the insidious propaganda measures used to CONFUSE good Americans from ever seeing the truth. You’ll be astounded at what you learn . . .
The “Template for Terror” Used Again and Again to Wage War on America!
FALSE FLAGS ties together the greatest conspiracies of our time in a way that will astound you: This book not only outlines the covert model utilized by the criminals responsible but also dissects the propaganda they used to confuse us . . .
JFKMost independent JFK researchers will ONLY say: “LBJ did it” or “the Mafia did it” and some will even insist that “the Nazis killed John F. Kennedy.” FALSE FLAGS says otherwise . . .
9-11 Most independent 9-11 researchers will ONLY say: “Bush and the CIA did it” or “Bush knew it was coming and let it happen” or “Bush bungled and then covered it up.” None of this is true. FALSE FLAGS shows WHO did it and precisely HOW they did it . . . Forget about all of the distractions and misdirections that have been frustrating serious 9-11 research for years!
OKC Most Oklahoma researchers will ONLY say: “The FBI did it” or “the BATF did it.” Some will say it was a “sting gone bad” and some claim “Tim McVeigh was working with the Arabs.” Here’s what REALLY happened . . .
SANDY HOOK AND BOSTON… All new material you’ve NEVER heard about until now. The shocking story of how high-level “Crisis Management” experts manipulated public opinion. And the secret con- nection between 9-11 and Sandy Hook. You’ll never guess what it is.
FALSE FLAGS—Thirty fascinating fact-filled chapters—328 pages total.
You probably didn’t know it, but it was Michael Collins Piper, the author of FALSE FLAGS, who first introduced the concept of “false flag” operations into wide popular parlance in his 1994 underground best-seller, FINAL JUDGMENT. Prior to that, the concept of “false flag” operations was little-noted. Since the release of FINAL JUDGMENT—and then, especially in the wake of 9-11—thousands of other writers have followed Piper’s path and now the term “false flag” is widely linked to 9-11, but few have been willing to follow the right direction in exploring the origins of the false flag trickery in the 9-11 attack on America. FALSE FLAGS may well be the final judgment on the 9-11 tragedy . . .
WARNING: THIS BOOK IS NO REHASH OF ALL OF THOSE CONSPIRACY THEORIES YOU’VE HEARD BEFORE!
Serious truth-seekers are bogged down and confused by all of the competing theories about 9-11, the Oklahoma bombing and the JFK assassina- tion. FALSE FLAGS takes note of many heretofore suppressed facts ignored by many researchers and explains the “who” and the “why” and the “how” and unveils—for the first time ever—the extraordinary (but lit- tle-understood) framework used repeatedly on American soil by the modern-day grand wizards of terror . . . THIS IS THE ONE BOOK THAT EXPLAINS HOW SANDY HOOK AND BOSTON FIT INTO THE BIG PICTURE . . . AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE FUTURE. You need this book to be prepared for what lies ahead . . .
FALSE FLAGS – TEMPLATE FOR TERROR: An analytical Critique of the Covert Model Utilized by the Conspirators Who Orchestrated 9-11, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the JFK Assassination, Sandy Hook and Boston
by Michael Collins Piper
TABLE OF CONTENTS
What this book is about………………………………………………………………..13
Yes, American Leaders Pondered Staging False Flag Attacks on American Citizens……………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
What We “Know”About Terrorism And Why (and How) We Know About It……………………………………………………………………………………………………23
A Bad Habit : Israel’s Use of “False Flags” in Global Terrorism……………………………………………………………………………………..27
How Could Anyone Come Up With the Theory of Mossad Involvement in the JFK Assassination?……………………………………………………………………35
JFK’s Secret War With Israel Over Nuclear Weapons……………………………………………………………………………………44
The Myth of Dallas: The “Ring Wing” False Flag in the JFK Conspiracy………………………………………………………………………………………57
The Man in the Middle: E. Howard Hunt and the JFK Assassination…………………………………………………………………………………..64
The “Dummy” Assassination: E. Howard Hunt and the Events in Dallas……………………………………………………………………………………………….79
The Trumped-Up Story of E. Howard Hunt’s So-Called “Deathbed Confession”……………………………………………………………………………………..95
The Mossad’s “Explanation” of “What Really Happened” in Dallas…………………………………………………………………………………………… 110
False Flag Number One: The Manipulation of Lee Harvey Oswald From New Orleans to Dallas………………………………………………………………………………114
“Our New Backers Are the Jews—As Soon as They Take Care of JFK”……………………………………………………………………………………………….124
Yes, the Mossad Was Behind the Oklahoma City Bombing…………………………………………………………………………………………129
Andreas Strassmeir: The Mossad’s Man in Place in the Oklahoma Bombing……………………………………………………………………………………………137
Timothy McVeigh and the Anti-Defamation League: Long-Time Mossad Monitoring of the “Patsy”…………………………………………………………………….145
“The Arabs Did It”: Zionist Propaganda and Oklahoma City…………………150
A Familiar Template for Terror and A Scenario That Does Make Sense………………………………………………………………………………………………155
Chapter Sixteen: September 11, 2001:
“The Big Winner Today is Israel”…………………………………………………………163
Blame Everybody but Israel………………………………………………………………..170
The Mossad Link(s) to the First WTC Attack (in 1993)…………………………179
The Dancing Israelis Who Celebrated on 9-11……………………………………186
The Israelis Who Were (or Were Not) There……………………………………….199
Israel’s Capacity to Monitor Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda…………………………..202
A “September Surprise” for George W. Bush?………………………………….209
Were Those Hijackers Really Arabs or Were They Really Israeli “Mista’Arvim”?…………………………………………………………………………………218
Israel’s Covert Manipulation of Muslim Extremists: Toward Understanding Israel’s Role in 9-11………………………………………………………………………..230
Israel’s Agents Inside Al-Qaeda: A Critical Element of the Template for Terror on 9-11…………………………………………………………………………………238
Onward Christian Soldiers : What Really Happened on 9-11………………..250
Two Simple Words……………………………………………………………………………269
9-11 and the New Internet Paradigm…………………………………………………..272
The Crisis Management Conspiracy:
The High-Level Experiment in False Flag Crowd Psychology Utilized at Sandy Hook and Boston…………………………………………………………………….279
Who “The Crisis Actors” Really Are:
How Truth Seekers Were Manipulated Into Ignoring Genuine False Flag Terrorism…………………………………………………………………………………………306
Conclusion: It’s Time to Take “The Stand”………………………………………….320
Author : Piper Michael Collins
Title : False flags Template for terror
Year : 2013
An analytical critique of the covert model utilized by the conspirators who orchestred 9-11, the Oklahoma bombing, the JFK assassination, Sandy Hook and Boston. The « how » and « why » as never explained before… Michael Collins Piper’s controversial writing have been translated into multiple languages and distributed all over the world. False Flags may well be his most extraordinary work yet – a final judgement on the reality of modern terrorism… …
So you think you know that Arabs did 9/11? You saw it on TV and read it in the newspapers, so it must be true, right? Actually, there is overwhelming proof from multiple, corroborating lines of evidence that the operation was conceived and orchestrated by a group of fanatical Jewish terrorists.The following facts are all derived from mainstream news outlets and organizations such as The New York Times, The New York Observer, the Daily News (New York), CNN, Silverstein Properties, The Washington Times, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Arutz Sheva, Ynetnews.com, Jweekly.com, Netanyahu.org, The Times (London, original), The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, The Seattle Times, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Mercury (Pottstown, PA), The Miami Herald, The Chicago Sun-Times, Fox News, Asia Times Online, System Planning Corporation, the Mineta Transportation Institute / Norman Mineta, the Eisenhower Research Project, the Belfer Center, the United Nations, the DoD and the FBI. Links to the actual sources and screenshots of particularly relevant news reports are available at the Further reading references at the bottom of this page. (Read the rest…)
Despite a plethora of never-before-heard news developments at this year’s commemorative conference, some 9-11 truthers still can’t escape the dreaded Nazi complex. Webster Tarpley, a huge admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, proclaimed that even in 2013, Nazism acts as a “fifth column.”
Truth Won’t Be Silenced
by Victor Thorn, for American Free Press (Issue 39, 2013)
Quatre jours avant le 11 septembre, c’était la conférence de l’Onu à Durban, qui avait cloué Israël au pilori pour le traitement des Palestiniens. Après le 11 septembre, le monde entier devait choisir son camp: « ou bien vous êtes avec nous ou bien vous êtes contre nous ».
World Conference against Racism 2001
The 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR), also known as Durban I, was held at the Durban International Convention Centre in Durban, South Africa, under UN auspices, from 31 August to 8 September 2001.
The conference dealt with several controversial issues, including compensation for slavery and the actions of Israel. The language of the final Declaration and Programme of Action produced by the conference was strongly disputed in these areas, both in the preparatory meetings in the months that preceded the conference and during the conference itself.
Two delegations, the United States and Israel, withdrew from the conference over objections to a draft document equating Zionism with racism. The final Declaration and Programme of Action did not contain the text that the U.S. and Israel had objected to, that text having been voted out by delegates in the days after the U.S. and Israel withdrew.
In parallel to the conference, a separately held NGO Forum also produced a Declaration and Programme of its own, that was not an official Conference document, which contained language relating to Israel that the WCAR had voted to exclude from its Declaration, and which was criticized by then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and many others.
The NGO Forum ended in discord. Mary Robinson lost the support of the United States in her office of High Commissioner, and many of the potential political aftereffects of the conference were annulled by the September 11, 2001 attacks. The attacks took place just three days after the conference ended, entirely eclipsing it in the news, and significantly affecting international relations and politics. The conference was followed by the 2009 Durban II conference in Geneva, which was boycotted by ten western countries. A commemorative Durban III conference scheduled to take place in 2011 in New York has also drawn significant criticism and will be boycotted by the UK, US, Canada and Israel.(…)
Draft text prior to the conference
During preparatory meetings in Geneva, text that linked Zionism to racism was placed in brackets, with the expectation that it would be replaced by text that referred to violations of the rights of Palestinians. The U.S. had already threatened to boycott the conference should the conference draft documents include text that could be in any way interpreted as linking Zionism to racism. Mary Robinson had also said that regional political conflicts should not be imposed upon the agenda of the conference. The Australian, the Canadian, and some European delegations shared the U.S. view.
The Arab position was stated by the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa: « Israel’s racist actions against the Palestinian people have to be dealt with in an international conference that aims to eradicate racism. Arab countries are not expecting the Durban conference to be a venue for dealing with the Arab- Israeli peace process, but they certainly expect that the Israeli racist practices against the Palestinian people will not be overlooked. »
The Arab delegates were not insistent upon language that specifically equated Zionism with racism. It had been suggested that they were trying to revive United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (issued 1975, annulled 1991) which stated that « Zionism is a form of racism. ». Their position was that they were, rather, trying to underline that the actions being committed by Israel against Palestinians were racist.
This stance was in part influenced by the U.S. threat of boycott, which would have made it impractical to insist upon harsh language condemning Israel or equating the suffering of the Palestinians with that of holocaust victims. According to one Arab diplomat, no Arab state except for Syria had insisted upon any language linking Israel to racist practices.
At the start of the Geneva meeting, text had been presented that comprised six bracketed paragraphs dealing with « Zionist racist practices », including an appeal for Israel « to revise its legislation based on racial or religious discrimination such as the law of return and all the policies of an occupying power which prevent the Palestinian refugees and displaced persons from returning to their homes and properties », and a suggestion for the need « to bring the foreign occupation of Jerusalem by Israel together with all its racist practices to an end ».
By the end of the meeting, all of this text had either been removed or toned down. One such phrase removed was a mention of « holocausts » suffered by other peoples, which had been seen as an affront to the memory of the Jewish victims of the Nazi holocaust. South African diplomats had already told Arab and Muslim countries that they would have to offer text that could describe the current situation without using such language as « ethnic cleansing practices against Palestinians ».
Nonetheless, the United States, objecting to the remaining text, decided to send a low-level delegation, headed by Ambassador Michael Southwick, to the Conference, rather than have United States Secretary of State Colin Powell attend himself. German officials criticized this decision, and the United States Congressional Black Caucus urged him to attend. The Anti-Defamation League urged him to stay away.
Withdrawal by U.S. and Israel
On September 3rd, 2001, after four days of deadlocked negotiations that did not reach agreement on language, the United States and Israeli delegations withdrew from the conference. Both United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel Shimon Peres stated that this was done with regret. This decision was criticized by several people, including Jesse Jackson and President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki, both of whom stated their opinions that it had been a mistake by the United States to send a low-level delegation to the conference in the first place, and Amnesty International, which stated that the U.S. was « letting down victims of racism ». Jackson had been involved in earlier attempts to create compromise language.
The low-level U.S. delegation had kept a low profile throughout conference proceedings until that point, with delegates working quietly in sub-committee meetings, without (unlike in earlier conferences) giving news briefings or off the record statements to journalists, to change the text of the draft declaration, to make it less forceful and less specific against Israel, and to bring it into line with U.S. foreign policy goals with respect to the International Criminal Court (see United States and the International Criminal Court) by removing language that strengthened the ICC.
The draft documents had stated « deep concern » at the « increase of racist practices of Zionism and anti-Semitism » and talked of the emergence of « movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority ». Alternative proposals, which the U.S. had supported, from Norway, acting as a mediator, and Canada were rejected by Israel.
Despite Colin Powell’s denunciation of the « hateful language » that « singles out only one country in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse » in the draft text and U.S. delegate Tom Lantos‘s statement that the conference had been « wrecked by Arab and Islamic extremists », some saw the U.S. delegation’s withdrawal as not being entirely related to the language on Israel, but attributed it also, in part, to a reluctance on the part of the U.S. to address the issue of slavery.
The withdrawal of, the U.S. and Israel was taken as a warning by many delegates that there was a strong possibility of Canada and the E.U. states withdrawing as well if no compromise was reached. Several reports had the Europeans staying on solely in order to help South Africa salvage the Conference. After the withdrawal, senior conference officials became highly involved in the rewriting of the Declaration — something that critics maintained they should have also been doing before that point.
(…)AftermathThe Conference was largely overshadowed in the news and in international affairs by the September 11, 2001 attacks, which occurred 3 days after the Conference ended.(…)NGO repudiations of the NGO Forum’s Declaration
The Institute for Global Jewish Affairs was founded, in part, as a response to the perceived Anti-Semitism of the Durban conference. Bernard-Henri Lévy credits the conference with being one of the inspirations for his book, Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism.
En association avec B’nai Brith Canada, le Jewish Tribune se porte à la défense de Pamela Geller et de son combat contre l’Islam, blâme la police pour l’annulation de son cirque de haine commandité par la LDJ dans une synagogue de Toronto, Canada
La piste israélienne n’est plus ignorée dans les ouvrages de référence sur JFK, panique des néocons dans les médias (National Review, Washington Free Beacon) – Extrait de la fin du livre « The Letters of John F. Kennedy »