|Nasima H. Simjee, 38, New York, N.Y.|
|Rahma Salie, 28, Boston, Mass.*|
|Shabbir Ahmed, 47, New York, N.Y.*|
|Tariq Amanullah, 40, Metuchen, N.J.*|
|Why do we believe Zionists
are the masterminds
the September 11 attack?Let us count the reasons…
updated 13 April 2006
1) The Five Dancing Arabs
2) The Israeli spy ring
3) Larry Silverstein is a Zionist
4) Pentagon cannot account for $2.6 trillion
5) The 9/11 attack follows a pattern
6) Israelis are suspected of instigating fights even today in Iraq
7) The media is controlled by Zionists
8) Zionists have a world-wide network
9) Most of the 9/11 truth seekers are Zionists
10) Most people pushing UFOs are Zionists
11) AIPAC and Jack Abramoff
12) Goyim are the victims, not Zionists
More information on the Zionist connection in our interviews, such as this one with Christopher Bollyn:
Fishmonger’s Guide to 9/11
The FBI claimed they had no advanced warning of the attacks.
Within a few days they published a list of the nineteen hijackers complete with photos.
It turned out that five of them had been trained by the US military.
Three gave their permanent address as the US Naval Air Station at Pensacola, Florida.
Mohammed Atta, alleged ringleader, was described as fanatically religious.
He drank heavily, took cocaine, ate pork chops and lived with a prostitute.
She worked for a ‘lingerie model escort service’ called ‘Fantasies & Lace.’
Hani Hanjour was described as a hopeless pilot.
His application for a pilot’s licence was repeatedly rejected.
He performed an aerobatic manoeuvre on his approach to the Pentagon so skilled observers watching on radar thought it was a jet fighter.
Captain Russ Wittenburg, former United pilot, described the notion of this being done by an amateur as ‘simply ludicrous.’
In so doing, Hani Hanjour flew round the back into the only empty wing of the Pentagon.
And avoided killing Donald Rumsfeld.
On the night before the attack, the hijackers went to the Pink Pony lap dancing bar.
‘Wait ’till tomorrow,’ they told the bar tender. ‘America is going to see bloodshed!’
They left behind a business card and a copy of the Koran.
In Boston, three hijackers quibbled over the price of a hooker and decided it was too expensive.
Better to save for a rainy day.
No evidence has ever been published to prove that the nineteen hijackers were on the hijacked planes.
There are no Arab names on the flight manifests published by CNN.
At least six of them are still alive.
2. Planted Evidence
|The black boxes at the WTC were not recovered.Although a hijacker’s passport allegedly fell out of the plane, through the inferno, and landed undamaged in the street.(A spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board couldn’t recall a domestic case before 9/11 in which the black box recorders were not recovered.)
Two Arabs checked out of a motel and left behind a bag containing:
Boeing 757 manuals, FAA flight path maps for the East Coast, a flight map protractor, three Ju-Jitsu martial arts books.
Oh! and a box cutter.
At the airport Mohamed Atta checked in a bag containing his will. (Onto a plane he expected to crash.)
(They found it because his was the only bag not to make the flight.)
In Pennsylvania at the crash site of Flight 93 they found the hijacker’s bandana.
But no plane.
3. The Twin Towers
|Hydro-carbon fires are not hot enough to melt steel.That’s why you can boil an egg without injury.
That’s why you don’t buy a new poker every time you poke the fire.
That’s why cookers last for more than one meal.
That’s why multi-storey carparks are not death traps.
That’s why no steel-framed skyscraper in history has ever collapsed due to the action of fire.
Until 9/11 when it happened three times.
The Twin Towers which you saw a thousand times on CNN.
And Building 7 which they didn’t show. (It wasn’t hit by a plane.)
It was as if a plane had hit the Houses of Parliament and Number 10 Downing Street fell down.
The BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 half an hour before it happened.
Each collapse exhibited ten characteristic features of controlled demolition.
Including cutting the steel into neat 30 meter lengths that could be conveniently loaded onto trucks.
New York City Fire Department recorded oral testimonies of the firemen involved.
The administration of Mayor Bloomberg blocked publication of the recordings.
The New York Times filed under the Freedom of Information Act and in 2005 the tapes were released.
At least 40 firemen described hearing explosions in the Towers.
Many of them used the phrase ‘controlled demolition’ to describe what they had seen/heard.
Analysis of the steel was rendered impossible because it was all shipped off to scrap yards in the Far East.
The core of the towers was composed of 47 massive steel columns, like the bone in a joint of ham.
They should have been left standing like the spindle of an old fashioned record player.
The official 9/11 Commission report pretended the core of the Towers was hollow.
And didn’t even mention Building 7.
The Towers fell in around ten seconds, which is virtual free-fall. That’s ten floors per second.
Mayor Giuliani told the Commission he was warned the Towers were going to fall.
They didn’t ask.
This was an event that had never been seen on earth before. It was deemed impossible.
No one warned the firemen.
The company handling security at the WTC was called Stratesec. One of its principals was Marvin Bush, George Bush’s brother.
They also handled security for United Airlines, and Dulles Airport from which American Airlines flight 77 was hijacked.
|The first thing everybody said was, ‘Where’s the plane?’ There was no wreckage.Apparently the inferno was so intense it ‘vaporised’ the fuselage and engines.
But, judging from photos, left office furniture unharmed.
Even more puzzling, the passenger DNA survived the steel-evaporating conflagration.
A Psychiatrist, Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D. filed for the autopsy reports under the Freedom of Information Act.
He found no Arab DNA among the passengers.
CCTV footage from gas station cameras overlooking the Pentagon was confiscated by the FBI the same afternoon and has never been released.
5. My Pet Goat
|Dick Cheney was physically picked up and manhandled to safety by the Secret Service detail. This is standard procedure.But President Bush was allowed to spend another half an hour reading about a Pet Goat at a Florida elementary school.
He said he didn’t want to alarm the kids.
But quite happy to make them a target for a terrorist attack by remaining.
His duty was clear: to ask questions, place calls, convene meetings, demand information, contact his staff and issue orders. In short, to take command.
He did nothing.
At the time they did not know how many planes had been hijacked.
His Secret Service detail should have automatically assumed he was a target and whisked him away.
Why didn’t they?
Either they knew he wasn’t a target.
Or maybe he was.
|Numerous cases appeared in the immediate aftermath suggestive of massive fraudulent insider trading on Wall Street.So-called ‘Put’ options on the stock of United, American Airlines, Boeing and others indicated some investors had foreknowledge of the attacks.
Estimates of the amount of profit are as high as 15 billion dollars.
The 9/11 Commission said it certainly looked like foreknowledge.
But the trades had been made by US-based investors with no links to Al Qaeda.
Therefore it wasn’t.
(Although they did have links to the CIA)
Then there were five Arabs reported by residents of New Jersey on the morning of 9/11 filming the attack and dancing with joy.
They were arrested.
It turned out they were Israelis with links to MOSSAD.
So they couldn’t have had foreknowledge either.
7. Osama bin Laden
|The Bush family and the bin Ladens are friends and long-standing business associates.Before 9/11 the FBI were told to ‘back off’ investigating the bin Laden family for terror links.
On the morning of 9/11 George H Bush was hosting a meeting in Washington of the Carlyle Group.
Guest of honour was Osama bin Laden’s brother Shafig bin Laden.
The Carlyle Group is a consortium of defence contractors that became enormously enriched by the ‘War on Terror.’
So the hunt for bin Laden has made the bin Laden family rich. (And the Bush family.)
The US has gone out of its way not to capture Osama bin Laden.
Before 9/11 they rejected offers to extradite him made by Sudan.
In October 2001 the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden for trial provided proof of his connection to the attack could be provided.
One month before 9/11 he received medical treatment at a US hospital in Dubai.
He received visits from the local CIA station chief.
The Daily Telegraph described the famous battle of Tora Bora as a grand charade designed to let Osama bin Laden escape.
One US official even warned of ‘a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance bin Laden was captured.’
On 20 September 2001, the FBI organised an airlift of 26 members of the bin Laden family out of the country.
The FBI questioned some of them and asked them if they had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11.
They said no.
If the President knew about this, it is a disgrace.
If he didn’t, it is a disgrace.
Of course he knew.
Who else would have dared authorise an airlift of the bin Laden family out of the country nine days after 9/11?
Osama bin Laden was the reason given for the invasion of Afghanistan.
He is not listed as wanted in connection with 9/11 on the FBI ‘most wanted’ web page.
(Although wanted for other terrorist attacks.)
The FBI spokesman said: ‘The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11′.
8. The FBI
|Numerous members of the US intelligence community stumbled on details of the plot.Their investigations were repeatedly blocked from higher up.
In desperation they approached former US attorney David Schippers.
He tried repeatedly to warn the current Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Ashcroft did not return his calls.
Two days after the attacks, Schippers publicly stated that agents knew a month before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden was planning a massive attack in lower Manhattan in early September using hijacked planes. They also knew the source of the funding.
One former FBI agent said: ‘It’s terrible to think this, but this must have been allowed to happen as part of some other agenda.’
|The Times of India reported that the Pakistan Intelligence agency, the ISI, had funded the attack to the tune of $100,000(The ISI is widely regarded as a client of the CIA.)
Chief of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad, wired this money via an intermediary to the ringleader of the hijackers Mohamed Atta.
When he found out about this, head of the CIA George Tenet ordered that General Ahmad be given breakfast at the Capitol.
General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in Washington a few days before 9/11.
He met with Tenet, and officials in the Pentagon, the National Security Council and the State Department.
They discussed Pakistan’s forthcoming role as a major ally in the US ‘War on Terror’.
Which a fortune teller had told him was about to start.
Some estimates suggest that as much as $325,000 may have come from the ISI.
That is certainly a major role in the ‘War on Terror.’
The 9/11 Commission found ‘the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks…of little practical importance.’
(Normally in contract killings the paymaster is regarded as guilty as the killer.)
Shortly after his role in this became known, General Mahmoud Ahmad was forced to retire under pressure from the US.
So that he could be questioned about his role in funding the attacks?
No, so that he couldn’t.
10. Missing Pentagon Trillions
|Donald Rumsfeld had an embarrassing announcement to make.The Pentagon had somehow ‘lost’( i.e could not account for) $2.3 trillion.
That is $8,000 for every man woman and child in the US.
Heads would roll.
How come you never read about it?
He made the announcement on 10 September.
It was almost as if he knew!
11. NORAD Stand down
|If standard operating procedures had been followed that day, the attacks could have been thwarted.SOPs require fighters to be automatically scrambled.
It happens about a hundred times a year.
It never happened on 9/11.
Andrews Air Force base is ten miles from Washington and has squadrons of fighters capable of speeds in excess of 1500mph.
They arrived over Washington after the Pentagon was struck, two hours after the first hijacking.
Senator Dayton described it as “the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence that I’ve ever, under those extreme circumstances, witnessed in the public sector.”
But it was more than mere incompetence. That’s what they want you to think.
No one has been reprimanded.
|The US intelligence community received detailed, specific warnings about the time, place and nature of the attacks from the intelligence agencies of: UK, Germany, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia and……the Taliban.
On August 6, 2001 President Bush received a memo entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.’
It mentioned hijacked airliners.
He was so shocked he took the rest of the day off and went fishing.
Attorney General Ashcroft stopped using commercial jets and started flying by private jet.
At the G8 Summit in Genoa they closed the airspace above the town.
Bush later said nobody in ‘government…could envision flying airplanes into buildings.’
The night before 9/11 Bush had anti-aircraft missiles on the roof of his Florida hotel.
Just a lucky guess.
13. The New Pearl Harbour
|They had a plan for global US military and geo-strategic dominance outlined in the document ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses.’It was written by the neo-cons Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Rumsfeld etc.
It called for American ground troops in Iraq.
‘The need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.’
i.e. Getting rid of him would be nice but is of secondary importance to getting American bases in the region.
It called for military ‘full spectrum dominance’ over land, sea, air and also space.
A revolution in military affairs.
But they foresaw a problem. The space project alone would cost a trillion dollars.
The American people don’t like war.
They would never buy into the plan.
The document argued that the required transformation would take years in the absence of,
A ‘catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbour.’
President Bush wrote in his diary on the evening of 9/11 that the new Pearl Harbour had taken place.
(President Bush keeps a diary? Yes I find this one hard to believe too but it is widely quoted.)
|Although both invasions were depicted as response to the attacks of 9/11, the plans were on the President’s desk long before.Plans to attack Iraq were drawn up almost as soon as Bush first stepped into the White House.
Months before 9/11 Dick Cheney had drawn up a secret list of foreign suitors to share Iraq’s oil fields.
|The world’s last great untapped reserve of oil is in the Caspian Sea basin.Big Oil wanted to bring it to the sea via a pipeline across Afghanistan.
So they courted the Taliban.
Once the Taliban took over, they would help build the pipeline.
There will be ‘pipelines, en emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law’ said a US diplomat.
And added, ‘We can live with that.’
As recently as 1999, U.S. taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official.
In July 2001 the relationship went sour.
The Taliban was told ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.’
They weren’t joking.
A former Pakistani Foreign Secretary was told military action against Afghanistan would begin by October 2001.
An Israeli newspaper pointed out that the US bases in Afghanistan directly followed the route of the pipeline.
|Attacking yourself and blaming it on the other guy is a time-honoured tactic.Megalomaniacs, demagogues and the criminally insane just love it.
Nero blamed the Christians for burning Rome.
Hitler set fire to his own parliament and blamed the communists.
It even looks like poor old Guy Fawkes might have been a patsy.
More recently, the Gulf of Tonkin incident which launched the Vietnam war was faked.
And remember the first Gulf War?
Remember the weeping nurse who told Congress how the Iraqi soldiers had thown babies onto the floor and stolen the incubators?
She was the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter.
Coached on how to cry convincingly by PR firm Hill & Knowlton.
That’s how much contempt these people have for you and me.
Listen. You can hear them laughing.
‘Those schmucks fell for the old stolen incubator routine!’
And then there was Operations Northwoods.
This was a plan hatched by the Pentagon in 1961 to fake a Cuban attack on America.
It included staged attacks in American cities, plans to sink an American warship, and a ploy to shoot down an American airplane and blame it on the Cubans.
All the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on it. They loved it.
It was rejected by President Kennedy.
The question is, if Bush had been around then, what would he have done?
|9/11 Synthetic Terror, by Webster Tarpley ; The War on Freedom, by Nafeez Ahmed ; The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, by David Ray Griffin|
06:20:02 am, Categories: Voices, 796 words
Times corrects a minor error, ignores the big one
Reviewing the London-based anti-Iraq War play Fallujah, New York Times reporter Jane Perlez wrote (5/29/07), “The denunciations of the United States are severe, particularly in the scenes that deal with the use of napalm in Fallujah, an allegation made by left-wing critics of the war but never substantiated.”
She followed that complaint by reporting that the play’s writer and director, Jonathan Holmes, “makes no pretense of objectivity,” paraphrasing him as saying that he “strove for authority more than authenticity.”
Unfortunately for the Times, which does make a pretense of objectivity, the U.S. government did use the modern equivalent of napalm in Iraq. In a 2003 interview in the San Diego Union-Tribune (8/5/03), Marine Col. James Alles described the use of Mark 77 firebombs on targets in Iraq, saying, “We napalmed both those approaches.”
While the Pentagon makes a distinction between the Mark 77 and napalm–the chemical formulation is slightly different, being based on kerosene rather than gasoline–it acknowledged to the Union-Tribune that the new weapon is routinely referred to as napalm because “its effect upon the target is remarkably similar.””You can call it something other than napalm, but it’s napalm,” military analyst John Pike told the paper. In a column that appeared before his play premiered (London Guardian, 4/4/07), Fallujah playwright and director Jonathan Holmes referred to it as a “napalm derivative.”
But the major controversy over the use of incendiary weapons in Fallujah involved not napalm but white phosphorus. As with napalm, U.S. officials initially denied that white phosphorus had been used as a weapon there. In London, U.S. Ambassador Robert Tuttle told the Independent (11/15/05) that “U.S. forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons,” only “as obscurants or smoke screens and for target marking.”
After it was discovered that the military journal Field Artillery (3-4/05) had quoted veterans of the Fallujah campaign boasting that white phosphorus was such “an effective and versatile munition” that they “saved our WP for lethal missions,” however, the U.S. government was forced to backtrack. “Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants,” Col. Barry Venable told the BBC (11/15/05).
As Seth Ackerman documented (Extra!, 3-4/06), the New York Times had accepted the initial denials of the use of white phosphorus as a weapon. An article about U.S. intelligence monitoring the foreign press (11/13/05) cited such claims as examples of the flimsy anti-American charges in the overseas media, noting that “the mainstream American news media” had “largely ignored the claim,” since its “reporters had witnessed the fighting [in Fallujah] and apparently seen no evidence” of white phosphorus weaponry.After the Pentagon admitted using white phosphorus, however, the Times ran a strong editorial (11/29/05) calling for a ban on its use. “All of us, including Americans, are safer in a world in which certain forms of conduct are regarded as too inhumane even for war. That is why…the United States should stop using white phosphorus.”
Independent correspondent Dahr Jamail, whose reporting from Fallujah inspired one of the play’s characters, wrote to the New York Times to take issue with Perlez’s dismissal of the play’s references to napalm. Jamail pointed out that the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah was an “‘allegation’…confirmed by the Pentagon itself nearly one year after it was initially reported by myself, as well as other outlets in the Middle East.”
Jamail also noted out that Perlez had incorrectly described him as Canadian, when he is actually a U.S. citizen. The Times ran a correction (6/7/07) on the nationality mistake, but declined to correct the more serious error of dismissing the U.S.’s incendiary weapons attacks as an “allegation” that was “never substantiated.”If Perlez meant to say that the U.S. military had only confirmed the use of a napalm-like weapon elsewhere in Iraq, not in Fallujah, while the only incendiary weapon admitted to have been used in Fallujah was white phosphorus, then that’s a very slender technicality with which to call into question the “objectivity” and “authenticity” of a playwright.
It was good of the Times, in its November 2005 editorial, to condemn the use of inhumane weapons that burn their victims alive. But it’s too bad that its reporter didn’t recall that editorial when presenting the use of similar weaponry as an unsubstantiated left-wing charge.
And it’s especially unfortunate that, even when this lapse was pointed out to the paper, it couldn’t bring itself to correct the record, choosing to be fastidious only when it comes to secondary details like nationality.
Please contact the New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt and ask him to make sure that the Times sets the record straight on the use of incendiary weapons in Iraq.
Public Editor Clark Hoyt
|Nadja Dizdarevic, wife of Guantánamo detainee Boudella al-Hajj, attends the workshop
© Boban Stojanovic
Young, energetic, and campaigning for human rights in the Balkans. Men and women who recently attended an activism workshop organized by Amnesty International in Ljubljana, Slovenia, had these three characteristics in common.
The objective of the meeting was to encourage and support activism in the Balkans against human rights abuses committed in the name of counter-terrorism. Some twenty attendees came from Albania; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Croatia; Macedonia; Serbia, including Kosovo; and Slovenia.
The activists were particularly inspired to campaign against detentions in Guantánamo – part of Amnesty International’s global campaign against abuses in the US-led “war on terror”.
They were also motivated by violations carried out closer to home. Balkan governments have been directly and indirectly involved in the transfer of terrorist suspects to secret detention centres as well as rendition flights. These cases include six Bosnian Algerians who were illegally transferred, despite a court ruling, to the US detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Nadja Dizdarevic, wife of Guantánamo detainee Boudella al-Hajj, also attended the workshop and spoke about her experience campaigning for the rights of Guantánamo detainees.
Activists at the workshop (click on the image to see more photos on Flickr)
© Boban Stojanovic
These young activists now form part of the world wide movement to Close Guantanamo. Since the workshop they have begun to organize Guantánamo campaigning activities in their own countries. Amnesty International will be working with them in the future to organize coordinated activities in the region and in the world.