Tuesday, 12 September 2017

Should the 9/11 anniversary be called False Flag Day?


16 years since the 9/11 false flag



Do you remember this photograph? In the United States, people have taken pains to banish it from the record of September 11, 2001. The story behind it, though, and the search for the man pictured in it, are our most intimate connection to the horror of that day.

Krieger: We Need To Admit The Government Story About 9/11 Is Bullshit



Unless we come to terms with 9/11 and the obvious fact that the official government story is a ridiculous fairytale, it’ll be hard for our nation to move forward in an intelligent, courageous and ethical manner.

Many of the most destructive trends which have defined our post September 11, 2001 environment, such as a loss of civil liberties and endless barbaric wars of aggression abroad, have been directly related to our false understanding of that awful terrorist attack.
As I’ve always maintained, I have no idea what really went down on that day, I just know that the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies are not being honest.
Although it’s been a long time coming, we’re finally uncovering some kernels of truth about the attack and the role Saudi Arabia played in carrying them out. Much of this progress has been driven by family members of those who died, some of whom are suing the Saudis for their role in that despicable slaughter of civilians.
I’ve written about these lawsuits on several occasions, but here’s an updated summary from Common Dreams, published two days ago:
As our summer draws to a close and ushers in a cool and rainy September, there is a solemn chill in the air marking the approaching anniversary of the infamous attacks on the World Trade Center that took place September 11th, 2001 – nearly sixteen years ago. The memories are still fresh for the survivors and the family members of victims who are to this day living with their losses while continuing to fight for accountability through both the military court in Guantanamo, where individuals involved in the attacks have been tried or are still facing painstakingly slow trials. This upcoming sixteenth anniversary of 9/11 will be the first time since the attacks that the families now have another legal recourse for seeking accountability not only from individuals but from a nation involved in the attack: Saudi Arabia.

Introduced in the Senate on September 16th, 2015, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) removed a major roadblock to justice by opening the way for private US citizens to file suit against the Saudi government, which was previously protected by the blanket immunity given to foreign governments. There is much that we do not yet know about what went on behind closed doors with regard to the orchestration of the 9/11 attacks, but the declassification of the portion of the 2002 Congressional Joint Inquiry known as the 28 pages on July 15th, 2016, after 14 years of secrecy, offered the preliminary hope of some much-needed answers. Of the 19 total hijackers who carried out the attacks, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, and evidence contained within the 28 pages pointed to financial connections between these individuals and members of the Saudi government.

Curiously, however, Saudi Arabia’s suspected culpability in the attacks has not been reflected in US response. From the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan to President Trump’s attempted travel ban affecting a list of seven Muslim-majority countries—from which Saudi Arabia is notably absent, it would appear that our government’s enthusiasm for retaliation against “Islamic terror” has a blind spot in the shape of the US alliance with Saudi Arabia.

Getting at the truth of the extent to which the Saudi government sponsored and aided in the attacks is a vital step towards justice and closure for families that, until JASTA, had the power of foreign sovereign immunity standing in its way. Despite fierce oppositionfrom Saudi lobbyists and a presidential veto that argued that it would invite similar lawsuits against the United States government from victims of US war crimes, JASTA was successfully passed into law on September 28th, 2016. Only two days later, the first lawsuit under this new act went forward. DeSimone v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, filed by the widow of US Navy Commander Patrick Dunn, set the precedent for many other lawsuits of its kind to follow.

While some JASTA lawsuits came from single individuals or families as in the case of DeSimone v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, others were filed in the form of consolidated complaints with hundreds of plaintiffs issuing shared demands. Ashton et al v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the largest class action lawsuits of this kind, sporting the names of over 800 family members and 1500 survivors. Filed March 20th, 2017, the lawsuit as of the time of this publication is contending with a motion filed by Saudi Arabia to dismiss it from the court. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have until October 2nd to submit documents opposing the motion.
Evidence of at least some Saudi complicity in the attacks is pretty much undeniable at this point, and if you missed it the first time, I suggest you read my summary of what we learned in the infamous “28 Pages.” 
But now we have even more information. A lot more. For instance, take a look at some of what the New York Post reported over the weekend:
Fresh evidence submitted in a major 9/11 lawsuit moving forward against the Saudi Arabian government reveals its embassy in Washington may have funded a “dry run” for the hijackings carried out by two Saudi employees, further reinforcing the claim that employees and agents of the kingdom directed and aided the 9/11 hijackers and plotters.

Two years before the airliner attacks, the Saudi Embassy paid for two Saudi nationals, living undercover in the US as students, to fly from Phoenix to Washington “in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the terrorist attacks 16 years ago.

The court filing provides new details that paint “a pattern of both financial and operational support” for the 9/11 conspiracy from official Saudi sources, lawyers for the plaintiffs say. In fact, the Saudi government may have been involved in underwriting the attacks from the earliest stages — including testing cockpit security.

“We’ve long asserted that there were longstanding and close relationships between al Qaeda and the religious components of the Saudi government,” said Sean Carter, the lead attorney for the 9/11 plaintiffs. “This is further evidence of that.”

Citing FBI documents, the complaint alleges that the Saudi students — Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi — were in fact members of “the Kingdom’s network of agents in the US,” and participated in the terrorist conspiracy.

They had trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan at the same time some of the hijackers were there. And while living in Arizona, they had regular contacts with a Saudi hijacker pilot and a senior al Qaeda leader from Saudi now incarcerated at Gitmo. At least one tried to re-enter the US a month before the attacks as a possible muscle hijacker but was denied admission because he appeared on a terrorist watch list.

Qudhaeein and Shalawi both worked for and received money from the Saudi government, with Qudhaeein employed at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Shalawi was also “a longtime employee of the Saudi government.” The pair were in “frequent contact” with Saudi officials while in the US, according to the filings.

During a November 1999 America West flight to Washington, Qudhaeein and Shalawi are reported to have tried multiple times to gain access to the cockpit of the plane in an attempt to test flight-deck security in advance of the hijackings.

“After they boarded the plane in Phoenix, they began asking the flight attendants technical questions about the flight that the flight attendants found suspicious,” according to a summary of the FBI case files.

“When the plane was in flight, al-Qudhaeein asked where the bathroom was; one of the flight attendants pointed him to the back of the plane,” it added. “Nevertheless, al-Qudhaeein went to the front of the plane and attempted on two occasions to enter the cockpit.”

The pilots were so spooked by the Saudi passengers and their aggressive behavior that they made an emergency landing in Ohio. On the ground there, police handcuffed them and took them into custody. Though the FBI later questioned them, it decided not to pursue prosecution.

But after the FBI discovered that a suspect in a counterterrorism investigation in Phoenix was driving Shalawi’s car, the bureau opened a counterterrorism case on Shalawi. Then, in November 2000, the FBI received reporting that Shalawi trained at terrorist camps in Afghanistan and had received explosives training to perform attacks on American targets. The bureau also suspected Qudhaeein was a Saudi intelligence agent, based on his frequent contact with Saudi officials.

More, investigators learned that the two Saudis traveled to Washington to attend a symposium hosted by the Saudi Embassy in collaboration with the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, which was chaired by the Saudi ambassador. Before being shut down for terrorist ties, IIASA employed the late al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki as a lecturer. Awlaki ministered to some of the hijackers and helped them obtain housing and IDs.

The FBI also confirmed that Qudhaeein’s and Shalawi’s airline tickets for the pre-9/11 dry run were paid for by the Saudi Embassy.

“The dry run reveals more of the fingerprints of the Saudi government,” said Kristen Breitweiser, one of the New York plaintiffs, whose husband perished at the World Trade Center.

Carter said in an interview that the allegations that the Saudi Embassy sponsored a pre-9/11 dry run — along with charges of other Saudi involvement in the 9/11 plot, from California to Florida — are based on “nearly 5,000 pages of evidence submitted of record and incorporated by reference into the complaint.”

They include “every FBI report that we have been able to obtain,” though hundreds of thousands of pages of government documents related to Saudi terror funding remain secret.
As I tweeted yesterday:

I suggest we remember 9/11 by never forgetting how frequently and pathologically our government lies to us.

Finally, let me end this post by sharing a video put together by James Corbett, which has attained nearly 3 million views.



Why Did World Trade Center Building 7 Fall? New Study Claims Gov’t Story False

A two-year study has determined the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by office fires. This undermines a critical component of the “official story,” but in the age of President Trump will the painstaking investigation make a difference?

by Derrick Broze

A hoto of World Trade Center 7 taken a few days after the September, 11th 2001 attacks on New York City.
11 September, 2017
Last Wednesday, Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska Fairbanks presented the findings and conclusion of his team’s two-year engineering study evaluating whether fire caused the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001.
Many “9/11 Truth” researchers focus on the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) as the smoking gun evidence that Americans were lied to about the attacks. WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the collapse was caused by office fires leading to thermal expansion of the building’s supportive columns and girders.
Dr. Hulsey’s presentation, “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, September 2017 Progress Report”, detailed how his team eliminated fire as the cause of the collapse of the 47-storey building. Hulsey explained that NIST’s report on the collapse found fires on floors 7 through 9, 11 through 14, 19, 22, 29, and 30. However, there is no evidence of fire below floor 7, Hulsey said.


You have to ask yourself lots of questions … Where is the combustibility in this building? … Did WTC7 collapse because of fires?” Hulsey asked during his presentation. “Our study shows that it did not collapse because of fires.” This revelation matches what Hulsey told MintPress News in September 2016, when his team’s preliminary finding was “that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building,” adding “additional calculations are further substantiating the finding.”
Dr. Hulsey and his team developed an AutoCAD drawing that they then used to create a virtual geography of the building. The research team first partnered with the non-profit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in May of 2015 to study of the collapse of WTC7. They did not release their final report in April 2017 as originally planned, but Hulsey said a draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period. “I am still examining the progressive collapse. We thought we would be complete by the time announced but it is taking longer than I expected,” Hulsey told MintPress. “I simply am not going to release it until I am sure we are totally correct.”
A final report will be published in early 2018 and submitted to peer-reviewed journals. “It is my plan to provide the opportunity for public and technical input, a form of review and peer review,” Dr. Hulsey stated. “I will have it reviewed during this time frame. Once we have gone through that preliminary review; I will submit the findings to peer-reviewed journals for publication.”

The Bobby McIlvaine Act

Today, on the 16th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the organization funding Hulsey’s study, held a press conference discussing the conclusions of the study and the introduction of the “Bobby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act.” The Bobby McIlvaine Act is draft legislation that would impanel a select committee in either chamber of Congress to reinvestigate the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. The act is named after Bobby McIlvaine, who was tragically killed at the age of 26 while entering the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, spoke today about the Bobby McIlvaine Act at the National Press Club in Washington. “The Bobby McIlvaine Act will, for the first time, put in Congress’ hands the resolution which will cause an investigation of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers’ destruction,” Gage told Mint Press. “We are putting Congress on notice and hopefully this act will be successfully legislated into law.”
Following the press conference, Mr. Gage and Bob McIlvaine, Bobby McIlvaine’s father, began the process of distributing informational packets related to the Bobby McIlvaine Act to every member of Congress. The next stage in their campaign will involve attempting to organize a bipartisan group of sponsors to introduce the resolution by September 11, 2018. Mr. McIlvaine has been independently investigating the 9/11 attacks since his son’s death and calling attention to what he says are discrepancies in the government’s narrative of the events of that day. McIlvaine has been an outspoken leader in the so-called “9/11 Truth” movement, advocating for a new investigation since the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.\
The 9/11 Truth movement includes victims, their families, and experts in a range of fields who are skeptical of the government’s official line on 9/11. Some of the groups include Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth & Unity, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, and other local activist groups and individuals from around the globe. It’s a loose-knit movement without an official position, and the opinions, theories and ideas held among its members sometimes conflict with one another. However, those working within the broader movement are bound by the belief that the official narrative promoted by the U.S. government is full of holes.

9/11 Truth in the Donald Trump era

The election of Donald Trump brought fear and paranoia to some of the American population, and hope and elation to another segment of the nation. Elements of the 9/11 Truth movement believed Trump might support their cause for a new investigation.  Although Trump never officially discussed his interest in a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, he did make vague references to the “secret papers” and to the Saudi government’s possible role in funding the 9/11 attacks. During a campaign event Trumpcalled out former president George W. Bush for the Iraq war and referenced “very secret” papers involving the Saudi government and 9/11, elaborating:
It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center; we went after Iraq, we decimated the country. Iran’s taking over, okay. But it wasn’t the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, ‘cause they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out.”
The “secret papers” Trump referred to are the now-declassified 28-pages of the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”  Although the final report amounts to over 800 pages, the 28 pages were classified by former President George W. Bush shortly after the report was released in 2002. The papers detail the story of Saudi nationals suspected of being Saudi intelligence agents involved in the terror attacks. In July 2016, after nearly 15 years of secrecy and resistance from the Bush and Obama administrations, the report was released to the public and the family members of the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.
While campaigning for the presidency, Trump also gave an interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” stating that the release of the pages would be “very profound” and relate to Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attacks.
That’s very serious stuff,” Trump said. “It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are. You’re going to see some very revealing things released in those papers.”
Trump also flirted with the 9/11 Truth movement when he criticized former President Obama for his veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, which unanimously passed the House and the Senate in 2016 after a hard-fought battle by the families of the victims of 9/11. The law, passed over Obama’s veto, has now opened the door for lawsuits from the victims of 9/11 and their families against Saudi Arabia to inspect the Kingdom’s possible role in 9/11. Trump called Obama’s veto “shameful” and  “one of the low points of his presidency.”
It is these comments that caused some “9/11 truthers” — including some family members of 9/11 victims — to believe a Donald Trump presidency might lead to a new investigation into the terror attacks. The 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism — the organization largely responsible for pushing JASTA — sent a letter to President Trump asking him to clarify his position on Saudi Arabia and its role in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. “This letter is inspired by news reports that today you met with Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al Saud,” reads the letter from Terry Strada, a widow and the national chair for the 9/11 Families & Survivors. Strada’s letter continues:
As you know, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a defendant in our lawsuit because of the involvement of its agents in supporting the 9/11 hijackers, and for support that flowed to al-Qaeda through institutions the Kingdom established and funded to spread a radical form of Islam that lies at the root of both al-Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS. Despite mounting evidence, the Saudis have refused to accept accountability for their actions and the injury they have caused across the globe.”
Since becoming president, Donald Trump has shown little interest in carrying his “you may find it’s the Saudis” campaign rhetoric any further. Instead, he has signed an arms deals worth more than $100 billion with the Saudi Kingdom and has continued to offer support for their bombing campaign in Yemen. Trump has not taken any steps towards calling for an investigation into the 9/11 attacks or Saudi Arabia’s possible role. He has remained silent on the controversial topic. The upcoming release of Dr. Hulsey’s study on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 may force Trump to publicly address the situation.
Terry Strada, whose husband Tom Strada died in the twin towers, is skeptical of the importance of Dr. Hulsey’s study. “It doesn’t matter to me what happened to Building 7. I know what happened to the Twin Towers and I know how my husband was murdered. I know who worked with al-Qaeda. That’s all I care about,” Mrs. Strada explained to MintPress News via phone. “It’s a very separate incident. I don’t see how anything that happened to Building 7 has to do with the Twin Towers.”
Despite her skepticism towards the study, Strada is still calling on President Trump to address the concerns of the 9/11 families:
We would like to see some action. We would like to sit down and meet with him, have him hear our side. We know he hears it from the Saudi’s all the time. We want our chance.”
Top photo | A photo of World Trade Center 7 taken a few days after the September, 11th 2001 attacks on New York City.

Here is part one of a series of four parts in a confrontation between the dreadful Kim Hill of Radio NZ and Rchard Gage. It was enough to raise my interest high enough to go to the presentation

No comments:

Post a Comment