Taking Back Our Stolen History
9/11 False Flag Attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon
9/11 False Flag Attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon
CIU BONO? (Latin for For Who’s Benefit?) – Who benefited the most from the 9/11 attacks? When police detectives try to solve a murder, among …

9/11 False Flag Attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon

CIU BONO? (Latin for For Who’s Benefit?) – Who benefited the most from the 9/11 attacks?

When police detectives try to solve a murder, among the first questions asked is: Who benefitted from the crime? In 9/11’s case, Middle Eastern Muslims did not benefit—the U.S. has been making war on them for 16 years. America did not benefit—we’re suffering the casualties and trillions in costs from the wars, as well as degradation of our liberties in the name of security. The only beneficiary was Israel—her enemies have been neutralized one by one, courtesy America, in fulfillment of the  Greater Israel plan, with Iran reputedly next on the hit list.

Forget so-called conspiracy theories. Instead look at reality. Dare ask yourself who actually seems to have benefited from the 9-11 calamity. In light of the debt ceiling debates and the continuous corrupt politics as usual of Washington D.C., it is time for the American people, and individual states of this federation, to look at a troubling set of facts. It seems there were “several” beneficiaries of 9-11 that don’t exactly fit the story line we were constantly fed by the propaganda machine and mainstream media as to how to connect the dots (which we were rhetorically asked to do).

Here is a list of peoples that benefited. Most of this list is factual. Some are more opinion but with strong support in reality-based argument:

  1. The New York Port Authority was having difficulty renting out space in the Twin Towers. More importantly there was a huge asbestos liability. Surprisingly these Towers were sold to a new owner Larry Silverstein just three months prior—who managed to get an insurance contract for a big payout if any of the Tower buildings got hit by an airplane. This is a fact.
  2. Our first international move was to bomb Afghanistan under the assumption that people there were involved. So the heroin industry of Afghanistan came back to life in a big way—that is international and local drug cartels rediscovered a gold mine of money supply. Bin Laden and the Taliban, because of their religious fanaticism, pretty much closed down the trade to a trickle. But after the bombing shake-up, people connected with the heroin trade in Central Asia reaped billion dollars rewards—including money-laundering groups of financiers—such as banksters, etc. (And this is pretty much all the U.S. military/ intelligence has really accomplished—despite all the rhetoric and high-sounding goals about exporting democracy.) This is fact and not fiction.
  3. Investors of profitable corporations connected to the military industrial complex made a killing (pun intended). Obviously war has been profitable for some industries for eons as we are told by most war historians profits are an inevitable consequence of war for merchants of death yet they say profit is “not” the driving force behind war. Think again. For our American culture, since at least the Vietnam War, it seems to have become the driving force. (What else does America still manufacture?) Prior to 9/11 there was little in the way of war material inventories being depleted. But soon after 9/11 this all changed. In fact some corporate stocks immediately went up in value—as did some military contracts. Note as well that after the cold war both the Pentagon and the Intelligence apparatus should have cut their budgets in half. (But then no one would have been promoted and the Pentagon would have lost some of its clout.) That did not happen. Rather the budgets doubled in size. How is that for financial austerity? This is fact and not fiction.
  4. Some powerful industry leaders and think tank politicos believed it was necessary for certain “companies” to “control” various strategic resources such as oil and gas. And not surprisingly the very countries in which we declared a war against terrorists are surprisingly the same countries that contain such resources—especially in the Middle East. Gas and oil reserves are coveted by every industrial civilization and every military as a necessity. For example, there was a plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to ship out from the Indian ocean—requiring stable societies that don’t sabotage pipelines. Nevertheless despite things not going as planned oil companies for whatever reason reaped huge profits. Fact and not fiction.
  5. Advocates, such as Paul Bremer, for extreme laissez faire economic policies, attempted to rewrite an Iraqi constitution to promote a free market system of neo-liberal economic principles to make it especially easy for foreign nations to own Iraq’s resources. And if you do your research you will come to learn that the U.S. did not have any gripes with Saddam Hussein until he kicked oil companies out of Iraq because they wanted to take the lion’s share of the profits. He nationalized oil. This is fact and not fiction.
  6. Israel benefited by having one of their neighboring enemies, namely Saddam Hussein and his standing army, weakened and preoccupied. It is not a coincidence that advocates and newspaper pundits most defensive about our invasion happen to be strong advocates of Israel’s right-wing will. Evidence clearly shows that some Israeli supporters were part of the culture of deception to take us to war with Iraq—as they are now working to take us to war with Iran with a similar pattern of phony intelligence. Equally it is a fact that whatever Middle East group harbors hostility toward Israel is now considered terrorist in nature to Americans. It is a fact that the Israeli lobby pushed hard for war with Iraq.
  7. Right-wing politicos, especially Christian and Judaic, who like to promote prejudice against anything Muslim and Arab benefited. Since 9-11 there has been a constant propaganda war against Muslims throughout Western countries. (This is not to argue that Americans should not be wary of foreign motives.) But the fact is that those who do not wish Muslims to have influence in this culture have clearly wages a major propaganda campaign for Westerners to fear and distrust a huge segment of the world’s population—as a “cultural clash” or clash of civilizations like the medieval era of The Crusades. This is to say that Israel’s enemies have become our enemies as “neocon” propaganda campaign harps on “Islamo-fascism,” “Islamo-extremism,” and “Islamo-fanaticism”. Meanwhile this event is used to further persuade Americans Israel is America’s “natural” ally and partner against the forces of evil. (Yet rightwing Israelis too are not willing to separate Church and State and so they discriminate against those not Jewish. Therefore they too do not share our democratic values of equality for “all” people—like many of the theocratic countries in the Middle East.) This is opinion but it still reflects reality.
  8. Politically motivated people with the desire to use “fear,” namely terrorism, as an excuse to curtail and destroy civil liberties and freedoms normally honored in democratic countries. We have become more a fascist state with Homeland Security surveillance. This curtailment is similar to those who continue to try to censor free speech—and make it more difficult to have the right to “associate” via technologies such as the Internet. Such mentality has allowed spying on citizens by “privatized” corporations not accountable to the tax paying public who pay organizations to secretly spy and keep records on its own citizenry. Obama and his team have done nothing to make real, substantive changes, and in fact have reinforced this tyranny. The curtailment of our freedoms is fact and not fiction.
  9. Some international political operatives willing to take American bribe money in exchange to playing and saying our tune have benefited, such as some political factions in the Middle East who equally play they game with our tax dollars—including journalists who will write and say whatever Uncle Sam wants as long as there is a brick of one hundred dollar bills as “disappeared” just like military contracts that did not get performed—but were still played. This could also include those creating phony websites to spew messages or take credit for events done by others.
  10. People with a desire to destroy the political strength and good will of the American people and government. Our country is no longer looked upon as a “positive” force for democracy. Further our economy has been severely damaged by corrupt forces willing to sacrifice real national security to greedy and self-interested ends. We are seen as the rogue state by too many. It doesn’t seem to bother some profiting that America goes broke invading foreign countries—irrespective of what the rest of the world thinks—and what could be a long term disaster—if not a World War 3. (It almost seems like a deliberate foil to destroy military preparedness and to weaken our security.) Furthermore, those who believe in a two class system benefited because the wealth investor class, including most of the Congress and Senate, are “not” sending their kids to die—rather they rely on a volunteer military of lower and middle class kids that can’t find jobs or have few prospects to go to school.
  11. Along with this financial bust is a drive to destroy liberal notions of any kind of welfare for the less fortunate—save welfare for corrupt corporations. While it is true that there is no free lunch (unless you live in the beltway) there is also way too much scorn for people who are not super-rich as deserving some kind of humanity. Perhaps Obama should have let the country default. Perhaps individual states “should” have given serious consideration to secede from the Union. It has become one massive failure anyway. This litany is as contentious as the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence written over two hundred years ago. And there is good reason to modify our current banking system and the Federal Reserve.

This is to say that the U.S. is being strangulated by corporate America and its finance sector. This is a form of slavery to be manipulated into doing things under false assumptions. Why the ultra rich became even more so, they “own” Congress with their bribery of lobby money and especially the Republican party—despite all the Tea Party advocates.

You may not like these realities. Few do. So go ahead and continue to shun all “theories” about 9-11 as mere skewed imagination. Because while it is true that 99.99% of the Government is innocent that doesn’t mean a relatively small, but high-ranking cabal, could not have been involved—especially given all the security transgressed and air force stand down that ensued.

Still it is easy to point fingers at identifiable groups of people as over-generalizations. Nevertheless many people looked the other way to not notice the dots the machine was drawing was itself tainted—which had its own wisdom of reticence. But where are we to go as a culture if we continue to play blind?

You can believe in fantasy as most people choose—because in the short term it feels easier. But it may turn out to be worse in the longer term with both parties being irremediably corrupt. More importantly to the sell out of our human rights to corporations with laws like Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission.

Good Luck to all people who think they know something because they have been conditioned to believe what they currently do. Yet ask yourself how many Muslims actually benefited? Then ask that irrespective of who did it, does it not seem that our culture has some issues to contend with and some bureaucracy to address besides the liberal agenda? If lawyers don’t start making more noise we could have some serious problems. (Source)

The purely ideological motive ascribed to the elusive Osama bin Laden contrasts with the very tangible and material benefits that flowed to individuals and organizations within the power structures of the United States. Indeed, the number of beneficiaries is so large that attempting to identify them may shed little light on how the crime was perpetrated. Determining who had the means to execute the attack is more likely to lead to the individuals who planned and executed the attack.

Despite the near certainty that the vast majority of beneficiaries had no operational role in the attack, it is clear that many worked to facilitate it, aided its coverup, and actively exploited the reaction to it. Since many of these actions involved commission of crimes, their investigation and prosecution could be instrumental in unraveling the vast crime of 9/11.

Beneficiaries of the attack included the highest officials in the New York City and Federal governments, and corporations benefiting from policies enacted by those officials. Here are some additional beneficiaries (not listed above) of the 9/11 attacks:

  • George W. Bush enjoyed an immediate surge in popularity and the burying of investigative reports on electoral fraud by his brother Jeb’s Republican election machine in Florida. “United We Stand” slogans propagated across the nation as Bush boasted of “smoking out” the terrorists.
  • Rudolph Giuliani became an instant hero by immediately appearing for photo ops as the hands-on mayor at Ground Zero, and by taking command of the situation. He was exalted as Man of the Year by Time magazine while he managed the largest evidence destruction operation in history.
  • The new War on Terror would become the umbrella for whole new levels of pork, unaccountability, and corruption in the nexus of government and industry that would fight the war.
  • The weapons industries prepared for a new orgy of corporate welfare, as the Pentagon budget would be further bloated. Certainly we would need billion-dollar stealth bombers to smoke the elusive Osama bin Laden out of his cave.
  • Vice President Cheney’s company, Halliburton, would soon be getting fat no-bid contracts to rebuild the infrastructure that American bombs would destroy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • Larry Silverstein – is a Jewish American businessman from New York. Silverstein obtained a 99 year lease on the entire world trade center complex on 24 July, 2001. [3] The towers were in fact close to worthless (Silverstein paid a premium at $124 million), being filled with asbestos, [4] yet Silverstein “felt a compelling urge to own them”. Silverstein had breakfast in “Windows on the World” restaurant (located in North Tower 107th Floor) every morning. [5] but broke this routine on the morning of 11 September 2001. Silverstein’s two children, who also worked in the WTC, were also absent from work that day. Larry Silverstein was paid a little over $4.5 Billion in insurance money as a result of the destruction of the WTC complex. [6] Silverstein was on personal friendship terms with Zionist media-magnate Rupert Murdoch, former Israeli president Ariel Sharon, as well as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. Silverstein was such good friends with Netanyahu that, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz he would speak with him on the phone every Sunday. [7]
  • The Project for a New American Century got the new Pearl Harbor that it said would be needed to rapidly achieve its goals.

9/11 Promotions and Failures: Too many people gained from Failures

The 9/11 official story is a tale of outlandish incompetence. We are led to believe that Al Qaeda successfully evaded a multi-billion-dollar defense establishment including NORAD, standard FAA intercept procedures, US airbases,1 the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, international intelligence agencies and more, without any significant or effective resistance. While any serious investigation of the 9/11 attacks was blocked by President Bush and Dick Cheney for more than a year, a theory of systematic and incredible incompetence emerged: Al Qaeda got “lucky”. Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission criticized this notion:

“It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?”3

Former Senator Gary Hart observes that, “in terms of accountability, I think this is one of the great mysteries of the last three or four years. Three thousand Americans died three years ago, and no one lost his or her job over it. A president who says that he is a strong president, and those around him say he is, did not fire anyone. Either he was misled, in which case, somebody should have been fired. Or he misled us, in which case he should be fired.” Senator Charles Grassley similarly noted that “I can’t think of a single person being held accountable anywhere in government for what went on and what went wrong prior to Sept. 11. It seems that nobody in government makes any mistakes anymore.” According to testimony given to Congress these statements are accurate; not one single individual within the CIA, FBI, and NSA has been reprimanded, punished, or fired for the events of 9/11.6

How could this be possible? The 9/11 Commission admitted that its aim was “not… to assign individual blame.”7 Why not? Paul Craig Roberts notes that “the purpose of a government investigatory commission is to place blame where it does the least harm politically.”8 “In… blaming everybody a little, the Commission blames nobody,” observed Harper’s Magazine.9 But not only were no individuals seriously blamed, held accountable, or reprimanded for the 9/11 attacks, as 911truth.org observes, “officials who ‘failed’ (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.”10  A Justice Department official commented that the FBI, “basically promoted the exact same people who have presided over the… failure.”

Who was responsible for these “failures” and who got promoted?

One major failure was the fact that none of aircraft involved in the attacks were intercepted, despite routine procedure. On 9/11, according to Laura Brown of the FAA, “Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD [meaning the NMCC in the Department of Defense], the Secret Service… The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD… The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest.”12

Aside from this statement, it was standard protocol to intercept off-course and/or non-responsive aircraft:

  • “Consider that an aircraft emergency exists … when: …There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any …aircraft.”13 —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)
  • “If … you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.”14 —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)

Given this standard protocol and Laura Brown’s statement, why were no planes intercepted? The Pentagon gave three significantly different and contradictory explanations before the final version given to the 9/11 Commission.15 NORAD’s final version blamed the FAA for untimely notification.16 However, this was contradicted by Laura Brown’s statement and contrary to standard FAA procedure, as noted above. Members of the 9/11 Commission reported that, “suspicion of [Pentagon] wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.” Not only this, Senator Mark Dayton claimed that NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people.”

Despite these statements, Nick Levis observed that “[the] official investigation of the September 11th events has failed to explain or even to ask why the top officials in the U.S. military chain of command were missing in action during the attacks.”19 What happened? Promotions.

Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11 — Promoted

Who was in charge at the Pentagon? Richard Myers, who gave several contradictory accounts of his actions on 9/11,21 was promoted as a new Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on August 24, 2001 by President Bush.22 As Jim Hoffman notes, “General Richard Myers was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11th… As Acting Chairman, Myers was the highest-ranking military official, and the principal military advisor to the President.”23 On 9/11, Myers was in charge because Chairman Henry Shelton24 was out of the country.25 Amazingly, just three days after 9/11, following NORAD’s stunning failure to intercept any of the planes on 9/11, he was promoted from Vice-Chairman to Chairman, replacing Henry Shelton.26 A few months after this second promotion, Myers curiously said that “the goal has never been to get Bin Laden.”

Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11 — Promoted

On a day in which routine procedures should have prevented 9/11 from even happening, the attacks were mirrored in military drills.28 NORAD commander-in-Chief Ralph Eberhart29 was asked by the 9/11 Commission if these war games “helped” response to the 9/11 attacks and responded nonsensically, “sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews—they have to be airborne in 15 minutes and that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.” This was clearly a false statement since none of the planes were intercepted during the attacks. In fact, there is very strong evidence that these drills coordinated by Dick Cheney hindered the response since they moved air defenses away from New York and Washington,30 added “injects” to radar screens, and created general confusion.31 From Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney

“One exercise titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE pulled Air Force fighters up into Canada simulating a Russian air attack, so there were very few fighters remaining on the east coast to respond. All of this paralyzed Air Force response ensuring that fighter jocks couldn’t stop 9/11.”

Mike Kelly, “NORAD confirmed two mock drills on September 11,” NJ.com, December 5, 2003.

“NORAD confirmed it had only eight fighters on the East Coast for emergency scrambles on September 11. Throughout Canada and the United States, including Alaska, NORAD had 20 fighters on alert — armed, fueled up, and ready to fly in minutes.”

Like Richard Myers, Eberhart was promoted32 shortly after 9/11; “nominated by President Bush to command the… U.S. Northern Command,”33 a new creation of the Department of Defense which Eberhart said was “needed” after the attacks.

“In the wake of the largest failure of the U.S. military to defend the civilian population in the country’s history, there were no repercussions for people responsible for air defense. There was no serious investigation of the inexplicable failure to follow standard operating procedure and scramble interceptors promptly once each of the four jetliners started going off course. To the contrary, the people in charge of defending us were rewarded. General Myers, who was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11th, was quickly confirmed as Chairman just two days later. General Ralph Eberhart, Commander in Chief of NORAD at the time of the attack, was promoted to head the new “Northern Command” a year after the attack.”

He was also awarded a Meritorious Service Cross by the Governor General of Canada:

On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Meritorious Service Cross presented to General Ralph Edward Eberhart, November 5, 2004: “A Meritorious Service Cross… [for] his leadership, astute initiative and clear direction ensured the appropriate decisions were made during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.”

The lack of response to the off-course aircraft could be clearly seen in the case of the Pentagon strike. Over an hour into the attacks, Norman Mineta reported that a plane was flying towards the Pentagon while tracked from a NORAD-equipped bunker where Dick Cheney was in charge. When an aide periodically reported the incoming aircraft’s distance from the Pentagon, he finally asked Dick Cheney “Do the orders still stand?” Cheney responded angrily, “of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?” This embarrassing testimony, completely left out of the 9/11 Commission report, strongly suggested that the hijacked aircraft were deliberately allowed to hit their targets without response. Despite knowledge of this aircraft by the FAA, Dick Cheney, and NORAD with its superior radar capability, no obvious action was taken to intercept or shoot down the planes. Instead, while NORAD was nowhere to be seen, a C-130 cargo plane was sent by civilian air traffic controllers to intercept and observe the incoming aircraft from Andrews Air Force Base. This base was 10 miles away from the Pentagon and had fighter jets available on 9/11. Why weren’t fighter jets scrambled to intercept the incoming plane and defend the Pentagon? Were civilian air traffic controllers left in charge of defense and intercepting planes on 9/11 in place of NORAD’s responsibility? Why wasn’t the Pentagon evacuated when the White House was evacuated? Why was Ralph Eberhart promoted? (source)

Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director — Promoted

Captain Charles J Leidig was asked by Brigadier General Montague Winfield the day before 9/11 to take over his responsibilities. Leidig “assumed duties as the Deputy for Command Center Operations in the J3 Directorate of the Joint Staff… responsible for the maintenance, operation, and training of watch teams for the National Military Command Center (NMCC).” In testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, Leidig explained that “the Command Center then became a focal point for coordinating information flow… I convened a conference called a Significant Event Conference. And what that does is that brings leadership and combatant commanders into the conference to start discussing what actions should be taken or might be taken… I… [controlled] the conference that gets all these folks on the phone.” Leidig was not reprimanded and was later promoted in 2004 to Admiral. (source)

Brigadier General Montague Winfield — Promoted

Brigadier General Montague Winfield was in charge of the National Military Command Center (NMCC). But as Nick Levis observes, “Montague Winfield was originally scheduled to be at his command post on morning of Sept. 11. But on Sept. 10, he arranged for his deputy to relieve him the next morning at exactly 8:30 a.m. This turned out to be just eight minutes before the military was alerted to the diversion of the first flight.” Winfield’s absence was significant because the NMCC was responsible for coordinating information on the 9/11 attack. In May of 2003, he was promoted to the two-star rank of major general. (source)

Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11—Promoted

9/11 was Ben Sliney’s first day on the job as National Operations Manager, described as “the chess master of the air traffic system.” He successfully accomplished the landing of all commercials aircraft—an unprecedented event carried out “flawlessly”. David Ray Griffin observes, “[is] it plausible that FAA personnel, on the same day that they carried out an unprecedented task so flawlessly, would have failed so miserably with a task that they, decade after decade, had been performing routinely?” While the 9/11 commission attempts to shift the blame away from NORAD to the FAA by completely omitting Laura Brown’s statement and other evidence from their final report, the interception of aircraft was a routine protocol as noted previously. Perhaps it was a bad day to start his job, but Sliney was not reprimanded and was later promoted. (source)

Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney’s task force on problems of national preparedness — Promoted

Admiral Steven Abbot was appointed by Dick Cheney to lead the domestic terrorism task force in June 2001. After 9/11, Abbot was promoted to become deputy director of the office of Homeland Security headed by Tom Ridge in October 2001.

Marion (Spike) Bowman, blocked FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 9/11 — Promoted

FBI director Robert Mueller awarded Bowman with a presidential citation and cash bonus of about 25 percent of his salary. Bowman, who was head of the FBI’s National Security Law Unit, was given an award for “exceptional performance” after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report claimed that his unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false.” As well, Bowman’s unit “blocked an urgent request by FBI agents to begin searching for Khalid Almihdhar after his name was put on a watch list.” (source)

Pasquale D’Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York — Promoted

Pasquale D’Amuro, was the FBI’s counterterrorism chief on 9/11 in New York City, and was promoted to the top counterterrorism post after the attack.

Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit—Promoted

According to FBI Agent Harry Samit, he “wrote FBI headquarters about 70 memos about Moussaoui’s likely terrorist plans between his arrest on Aug. 16 and Sept. 11, all to no avail.” He was warned by his supervisor Michael Maltbie that pursuing this could be “bad for his career”, and that he should not pursue this to “preserve the existence of his advancement potential” in the FBI. Instead of being reprimanded, Michael Maltbie was promoted to the Joint Terrorism Task Force at the FBI’s Cleveland office after 9/11. (source)

David Frasca, head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit—not fired

It has been observed that when it came to the success of the 9/11 attacks, “most roads lead to counterterror chief’ David Frasca”, head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit. Interestingly, he came into the job a week before 9/11 and was not fired for his performance after the 9/11 attacks. Paul Thompson observes that, “The Phoenix memo, which was addressed to Frasca, was received by his unit and warned that al-Qaeda terrorists could be using flight schools inside the US… Two weeks later Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested while training to fly a 747, but Frasca’s unit was unhelpful when local FBI agents wanted to search his belongings—a step that could have prevented 9/11.” Time Magazine reported that, “The Phoenix memo was buried; the Moussaoui warrant request was denied.” The New York Times indicates that Frasca, “[threw] up roadblocks” even after 9/11 in the Moussaoui investigation.

Apparently, the FBI was so “incompetent”, that some of the alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant without intervention. The Able Danger program similarly identified some of the alleged hijackers. Not only this, some of the alleged hijackers trained on US military airbases. Despite this, the hijackers themselves were widely described as “incompetent”, and several were reported to be “alive” after the attack. (source)

FBI: “Incompetent” then Suddenly “Competent” after the Attack?

Immediately following the attacks, the FBI suddenly changed from being “incompetent” to very competent. Family member Kristen Breitweiser in testimony to the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry asked, “[how] did the FBI know exactly where to go only a few hours after the attacks? How did they know which neighborhoods, which flight schools and which restaurants to investigate so soon in the case? …How are complete biographies of the terrorists, and their accomplices, created in such short time? Did our intelligence agencies already have open files on these men? Were they already investigating them?” Most of the hijackers were identified within hours of the attacks. While the attack at the Pentagon was not prevented despite observations of an incoming aircraft on radar, videos of the Pentagon strike were confiscated from multiple locations by the FBI minutes after it happened. (source)

Failures Promoted, Whistleblowers Silenced?

While not one single individual was reprimanded for the 9/11 “failures”, many whistleblowers were punished for speaking out. Coleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Kevin Ryan, and many others were silenced, fired, punished, and ignored for speaking out about what happened behind the scenes before and after the 9/11 attacks. As well, many credible professionals, scientists, professors, and others have expressed their doubts about the 9/11 “official story”. The mainstream media has been curiously silent about these facts.

The US Government Knew the Date, Method, and Targets of the 9/11 Attack

Family member Patty Casazza explained that, “The Government knew… other than the exact moment… they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come… And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission. And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, ‘What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.’ And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication… They knew the targets.”

THE PATSIES

1) Osama Bin Ladin – Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department’s translation of it is fraudulent.

Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)? Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?

The terror network associated with Osama, known as the “base” (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

Osama Bin Laden denies any involvement in 9/11. We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.

The authenticity of this interview, which is available in recognized electronic news archives, is confirmed.

Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Bin Laden’s statements in this interview are markedly different from those made in the alleged Osama video tapes.

In this interview, Osama bin Laden exhibits an understanding of US foreign policy. He expresses his views regarding the loss of life on 9/11. He also makes statements as to who, in his opinion, might be the likely perpetrator of the September 11 attacks.

This is an important text which has not been brought to the attention of Western public opinion.

We have highlighted key sections of this interview. It is our hope that the text of this interview, published barely a week before the onset of the war on Afghanistan, will contribute to a better understanding of the history of Al Qaeda, the role of Osama bin Laden and the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Why wasn’t bin Laden wanted by the FBI for 9/11 since he was supposedly the mastermind behind al-Qaeda and the attacks that day? FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

Read more about the Osama bin Laden myth HERE…

2) The Hijackers – The attack scenario was irrational on the part of the alleged hijackers, and its execution is incomprehensible in light of their behavior. There is little or no credible evidence that Arab hijackers were involved in the September 11th attack, except in the takeover of Flight 93.

  • Attack Plan
    By flying from remote airports and going far out of their way, the attack planners exposed their plan to almost certain ruin, had the air defense system operated normally.

    • The originating airport for Flights 11 and 175 was Boston Logan instead of any of several airports near New York City. This created about 40 minutes of exposure to interception for each flight.
    • Flight 77 flew to the Midwest before turning around to return to Washington D.C.. It was airborne an hour and 23 minutes before allegedly attacking the Pentagon. That would provide ample opportunity for interception even if the air defense system were mostly disabled.
    • Flight 93 flew to the Midwest before turning around to fly toward Washington D.C. Had it reached the capital, it would have been airborne for more than an hour and a half. The odds of escaping interception with that plan would be infinitesimal under standard operating procedures.
  • Behavior of Villains
    The behavior of the alleged hijackers preceding the attack is inconsistent with skill and discipline needed to have a hope of pulling off such an attack.

    • Mohammed Atta allegedly barely caught Flight 11, a key flight in the event that he was supposedly planning for years.
    • The alleged hijackers partied at topless bars and drank alcohol, despite being portrayed as fundamentalist Muslims, for whom such behavior would be surprising, to say the least. 9
  • Evidence Void
    There is no hard evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of the doomed flights, and substantial evidence that some weren’t involved.

    • No video of any of the 19 hijackers at any of the three originating airports of the four flights has been made public, except for a video allegedly showing hijackers of Flight 77.
    • At least six of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive since the attack.
    • None of the four flight crews radioed Air Traffic Control about hijackings in progress.
    • None of the four flight crews punched in the four-digit hijacking code. 10
    • No public evidence indicates that the remains of any of the hijackers was identified at any of the crash sites.
    • None of the contents of any of the black boxes were made public for more than four years.
    • The only 4-1/2 minutes of the phone call from Flight 11 Attendant Betty Ong made public describes a stabbing but does not provide any details indicating that Arab hijackers were on board.
  • Phenomenal Success
    The success with which hijackers allegedly took over four jets with knives and then piloted the jets to small targets is simply miraculous.

  • Several of the listed hijackers received training at US military facilities prior to 9/11.

3) Iraq – The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.).

EVIDENCE: FORENSIC AND SCIENTIFIC

More at AE911Truth…

AFTERMATH

1) Poisoning New York – The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to nearly 10,000 known cancer cases.

2) 9/11 has been “the justification and starting point” for all manner of destruction, loss, crime, and horror. Without 9/11, there would have been no “Patriot Act,” no abuse of FISA and stripping away of privacy rights, no Military Commissions Act of 2006 with its setting aside of Habeas Corpus, no implementation of Northcom and deployment of our own military forces on domestic American soil (for use against who, you might ask?), and no trashing of Bill of Rights and Constitutional guarantees, no programmatic and precedent-setting weakening and eliminating of right and guarantees so that the very concepts of “citizenship” and “freedom” have been emptied out to the point where setting up concentration camps inside the U.S. is now legal and not a one of us would have any recourse whatsoever if it were decided that we should be thrown into a cell in one of them and forgotten forever.

Without 9/11, there would never have been any fake and opportunistic “Global War on Terror,” would never have been Guantanamo as we know it now, never have been official programs of torture or fake demonizing of Islam in order to justify wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, or to justify overt plans for the murder of U.S. citizens living in places like, say, Yemen.

There’s more, much more. The complete list of atrocities, crimes, and inhumanities triggered by or justified by 9/11 could fill whole chapters, even books. By using 9/11 as propaganda—by using it as trigger, excuse, justification, or catalyst—the U.S. has betrayed itself, its principles, and its people, and has made itself the world’s most dangerous enemy of all mankind and also of Earth herself.

WHISTLEBLOWERS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30RF0V8gkcg

A prime example of a non-insider whistleblower would be Kevin Ryan, the chemistry laboratory manager for the environmental testing division of Underwriters’ Laboratories (UL), who began to investigate 9/11 and publicly ask questions about UL’s testing of the structural assemblies used to construct the World Trade Center towers as well as UL’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). UL fired Ryan in 2004.

In his groundbreaking 2006 research paper entitled “Where Are The 9/11 Whistleblowers?,” 9/11 researcher Gregg Roberts addresses the subject in painstaking detail. At one key point, Roberts notes that “physics trumps armchair psychology.” That is, the evidence—not an assumed theory about the power of the whistleblower—is what determines whether 9/11 involved more than what officials are telling us. However, for the sake of those who adhere to the baseless 9/11 whistleblower theory, let’s examine the alleged power of the 9/11 whistleblower by first defining “whistleblower”. . . and then adapting that definition to the 9/11 context.

Merriam-Webster online defines “whistleblower” as “one who reveals something covert or who informs against another.” An example would be the 40 whistle-blowing technical experts who present evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center in AE911Truth’s powerful documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out. In addition, we could include the eyewitnesses, government officials, and litigants listed in James Corbett’s report, “A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers” shown above.

Another definition of “whistleblower,” provided by FindLaw, is “an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency and who is commonly vested by statute with rights and remedies for retaliation.”

The broad definition of the term “whistleblower” would include technical professionals like Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, part of the team of scientists who identified thermitic material throughout the WTC dust.

A prime example of a person meeting this definition of a non-insider whistleblower would be Kevin Ryan, (WATCH VIDEO) the chemistry laboratory manager for the environmental testing division of Underwriters’ Laboratories (UL), who began to investigate 9/11 and publicly ask questions about UL’s testing of the structural assemblies used to construct the World Trade Center towers as well as UL’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). UL fired Ryan in 2004.

Like Ryan, former JP Morgan IT consultant Indira Singh suffered persecution when she investigated the money trail behind 9/11 and brought her concerns to her superiors.

Kurt Sonnenfeld was one of four FEMA photographers who were given exclusive access to Ground Zero following the September 11 Attacks in New York in 2001. After gradually coming to doubt the official narrative, his wife was killed, his residence raided and he was charged with murder, a charge at first dismissed but later brought back. By this time, he had been granted refugee status in Argentina.

Barry Jennings was an important eyewitness to the events of 9/11. At the time, he was the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. Together with Michael Hess, the New York City Corporation Counsel (an associate of Rudy Giuliani), he was rescued from WTC Building 7 before it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. On several occasions, Jennings stated that an explosion trapped them in WTC Building 7 (before the collapses of WTC 1 & 2) and that explosions occurred throughout the building until they were saved after attracting the attention of a team of firefighters through a broken 8th floor window. Jennings reportedly died in 2008, in highly suspicious circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YhJcl0PO3U

Dr. Cate Jenkins joined the EPA as an Environmental Scientist in December 1979. Beginning shortly after 9/11, and continuing for years afterward, Dr. Jenkins attempted to bring the EPA’s faulty and fraudulent air quality testing practices to the attention of anyone who would listen. For her efforts, she endured a years-long legal battle with her own agency. This is her story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1CewEYLqjw

Neither of the above definitions fits the context of the claim that since there have been no 9/11 whistleblowers to date, the official story of 9/11 must be true. There is, however, an online definition of “whistleblower” from TheFreeDictionary that is readily adaptable: “One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.” Regarding the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, we can narrow this definition to say, “A potential 9/11 whistleblower would be someone who was (wittingly or unwittingly) part of the organized effort to destroy the Twin Towers and Building 7 via controlled demolition, and who is willing to reveal what he or she knows about that event to the public or the authorities.” In short, a classic “insider.” This is the type of whistleblower to whom proponents of the theory are referring.

Former UL chemistry lab manager Kevin Ryan was fired after challenging his employer’s role in NIST’s WTC investigation.

Note that this definition implies that a potential 9/11 whistleblower has the power to actually inform the public through, for example, the mainstream mass media. But who would have the stature to command the mainstream media (which had already censored AE911Truth and others who attempted to publicize the WTC evidence) and somehow prompt them to accurately publish the inside story on what actually happened? Most likely, it would be only senior members of the 9/11 operation’s chain of command—the very people who would have been actively engaged in planning, execution, and/or cover-up at the highest level.

How likely would it be for any one of them to have a change of heart and openly confess to participating in the mass murder of 3,000 people and creating a treasonous pretense to draw America and other nations into two major wars?

For someone below the upper echelon to come forward, the problem would be, “To whom do I turn?” Since, as mentioned, the mainstream media were nothing short of complicit in propagating the official myth about what happened on 9/11, an underling blowing the whistle on his or her fellow 9/11 co-conspirators via the media would hardly be likely.

For a moment, put yourself in the position of a potential 9/11 insider. Let’s say you have your own Facebook or Blogspot page or an account at YouTube, and you want to tell the world how and when the explosives were rigged in Building 7. Who would protect you and your family from retaliation if you went public? Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, if there were—as the evidence clearly shows—a concerted effort to rig the New York City towers for controlled demolition, what we are talking about here is pre-meditated mass murder. Would the murderers who committed that atrocity leave you in peace after you came forward to blow the whistle on them? Highly unlikely. What would inspire you to come forward, at a minimum, would be assurance that you and your family would not be harmed.

Nevertheless, let us say that you are that potential 9/11 whistleblower who feels that you must step up. Why? Perhaps you helped install electronics needed to detonate the explosives at Building 7, while being told that all you were doing was installing a high-tech alarm system or some other harmless device. Having learned what you were really part of has made you determined to bring your 9/11 insider knowledge to light. You know that the media would be of no assistance and you wonder, “Where else might I turn?” At this point (or maybe at the outset), you would consider contacting someone in a position of authority, someone who could protect you from retaliation. But who? How about—

If Bradley Manning is facing decades in prison for exposing alleged war crimes, what would a 9/11 insider face for exposing the crime of the century?

So, in summary, there is nobody in a position of authority to whom you, as a 9/11 insider, could turn and simultaneously insure the safety of your family and yourself.

How about  Wikileaks, the not-for-profit media organization, whose alleged goal is to bring important news and information to the public? Whatever you believe regarding Wikileaks’ real motivations, you could not find a more unreceptive audience than founder Julian Assange, who is “constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11.”

Dealing with Assange could be dangerous as well. Let’s assume you could get Wikileaks to accept that your insider testimony conclusively proves how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down via controlled demolition and who was involved. What kind of treatment might you expect? A hero’s welcome, perhaps? Well, let’s consider the case of Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, who has acknowledged releasing classified military data, including the so-called “Collateral Murder” video that shows the killing of unarmed civilians and two Reuters journalists by a US Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He is also accused of sharing the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and a series of embarrassing US diplomatic cables. These documents were published by WikiLeaks. As of this writing, prosecutors seek to lock Manning away for life for “aiding the enemy,” even though chat logs attributed to Manning by the FBI clearly show his intent was only to inform the public and promote “discussion, debates, and reforms.”

As a 9/11 whistleblower, would you be encouraged to bring your story to Wikileaks, given Assange’s position on 9/11 and the experiences of Bradley Manning?

So, why have so few 9/11 insiders blown the whistle? In short, no effective way to reach the public, no one in a position of authority to turn to, and no assurance of adequate protection from retaliation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOBwfEWXxPY

Continued on next page…

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12