9/11 Was an Israeli Job
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Laurent Guyénot • September 10, 2018Technical impossibilities
Thanks
to courageous investigators, many anomalies in the official explanation
of the events of 9/11 were posted on the Internet in the following
months, providing evidence that this was a false flag operation, and
that Osama bin Laden was innocent, as he repeatedly declared in the
Afghan and Pakistani press and on Al Jazeera.[1]
The proofs of this appalling fraud have been accumulating ever since,
and are now accessible to anyone willing to spend a few hours of
research on the Web.
(Although, while preparing this article, I noticed
that Google is now making access to that research more difficult than it
was five years ago, artificially prioritizing anti-conspiracy sites.)
For example, members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have demonstrated that it was impossible for plane crashes and jet fuel fires to trigger the collapse of the Twin Towers. Even Donald Trump understood this.
In fact, speaking of “collapse” is perhaps misleading: the towers
literally exploded, pulverizing concrete and projecting pieces of steel
beams weighing several hundred tons hundreds of meters laterally at high
speeds. The pyroclastic dust
that immediately flooded through the streets, not unlike the dust from a
volcano, indicates a high temperature mixture of hot gasses and
relatively dense solid particles, an impossible phenomenon in a simple
collapse. It is also impossible that WTC7,
another skyscraper (47 stories), which had not been hit by a plane,
collapsed into its own footprint at near free-fall speed, unless by
“controlled demolition.”
Testimonies of firefighters
recorded shortly after the events describe sequences of explosions just
before the “collapse”, well below the plane impact. The presence of
molten metal in the wreckage up to three weeks after the attack is
inexplicable except by the presence of incompletely burned explosives.
Firefighter Philip Ruvolo testified before Étienne Sauret’s camera for
his film Collateral Damages
(2011): “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel—molten steel
running down the channelways, like you were in a foundry—like lava.”
Aviation professionals
have also reported impossibilities in the behavior of the planes. The
charted speeds of the two aircraft hitting the Twin Towers, 443 mph and
542 mph, exclude these aircraft being Boeing 767s, because these speeds
are virtually impossible near ground level. In the unlikely event such
speeds could be attained without the aircraft falling apart, flying them
accurately into the towers was mission impossible, especially by the
amateur pilots blamed for the hijacking. Hosni Mubarak, a former pilot, said he could never do it. (He is not the only head of state to have voiced his doubts: Chavez and Ahmadinejad are among them.) Recall that neither of the black boxes of the jetliners was ever found, an incomprehensible situation.
And
of course, there are the obvious anomalies of Shanksville and Pentagon
crash sites: no plane or credible plane debris can be seen on any of the
numerous photos easily available.
Inside Job or Mossad Job?
Among
the growing number of Americans who disbelieve the official version of
the 9/11 attacks, two basic theories are in competition: I called them
“inside job” and “Mossad job”. The first one is the dominant thesis
within the so-called 9/11 Truth movement, and blames the American
government, or a faction within the American Deep State. The second one
claims that the masterminds were members of a powerful Israeli network
deeply infiltrated in all spheres of power within the US, including
media, government, military and secret services.
This
“Mossad job” thesis has been gaining ground since Alan Sabrosky, a
professor at the U.S. Army War College and the U.S. Military Academy,
published in July 2012 an article entitled “Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake”, where he voiced his conviction that September 11th was “a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation.”
We
can notice from the outset that incriminating Israelis or Arabs are both
“outside job” theories (in fact, they are mirror images of each other,
which is understandable in light of what Gilad Atzmon explains about
Jewish “projected guilt”).[2]
Before even looking at the evidence, “outside job” sounds more credible
that “inside job”. There is something monstrous in the idea that a
government can deceive and terrorize its own citizens by killing
thousands of them, just for starting a series of wars that are not even
in the nation’s interest. By comparison, a foreign power attacking the
U.S. under the false flag of a third power almost seems like fair play.
Indeed suspicion of Israel’s role should be natural to anyone aware of
the reputation of the Mossad as: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has
capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a
Palestinian/Arab act,” in the words of a report of the U.S. Army School
for Advanced Military Studies quoted by the Washington Times, September 10th, 2001 — the day before the attacks.
This
is an important point, because it raises the question of how and why the
9/11 Truth movement has been led to endorse massively the outrageous
“inside job” thesis without even considering the more likely thesis of
an attack by a foreign power acting under an Islamic false flag—and what
foreign power but Israel would do that?
Of
course, the two dissenting theses do not necessarily exclude each other;
at least, no one incriminating Israel denies that corrupted elements
from the American administration or deep state were involved. The “passionate attachment” between Israel and the U.S. has been going on for decades, and 9/11 is one of its monstruous offsprings.
I can think of no better symbol of that reality than the marriage of Ted and Barbara Olson.
Ted Oslon, after having defended Bush in the disputed 2000 election,
had been rewarded with the post of Solicitor General (he also defended
Dick Cheney when he refused to submit to Congress Enron-related
documents). Barbara was a famous CNN reporter, but before that, she was
born Barbara Kay Bracher of Jewish parents, educated at Yeshiva
University School of Law, and hired by the legal firm WilmerHale, of
which Jamie Gorelick, a future member of the 9/11 Commission, was also a
member, and whose clients include powerful Israeli firms like Amdocs, a
digital communication company charged with spying for Israel in the United States.
On September 11, 2001, Barbara Olson alledgedly was on flight AA77,
from which she made two telephone calls to her husband. Her calls were
reported on CNN in the afternoon, and contributed to crystallize some
details of the official story, such as the “box cutters” used as only
weapons by the hijackers. Repeatedly invited on television shows after
9/11, Ted Olson frequently contradicted himself when questioned about
the calls from his wife. In a 2006 report, the FBI identified only one
call from Barbara Olson, and it was an unconnected call lasting 0
seconds. Like all other reported phone calls from desperate passengers
(including the famous “Hi, Mom. This is Mark Bingham”), Barbara’s call
was simply impossible, because the technology required to make
high-altitude phone calls was not developed until 2004.[3]
9/11
was made possible by an alliance between secret worshippers of Israel
and corrupted American elements. The question is: who, of the two, were
the masterminds of this incredibly daring and complex operation, and for
what “higher purpose”?
Another question is: why do those who keep repeating as a mantra “9/11 was an inside job” ignore
totally the compelling evidence pointing to Israel? In other words, to
what extent do they constitute a “controlled opposition” intended to
cover up for Israel? Asking this type of question does not mean
suspecting anyone who defends an erroneous or incomplete theory of being
a hypocrite. Most people defending one theory or the other do so
sincerely, based on the information to which they have access. I have
myself been a believer in the official theory for 7 years, and in the
“inside job” theory for 2 years, before progressively moving on to the
present argument from 2010. On the other hand, we can assume that those
who lead the public into error on a long term are not just mistaken but
lying. In any case, it is legitimate to investigate the background of
opinion makers, and when they are caught lying or distorting the truth,
we can speculate on their motivation. I will come back to this issue at
the end of the article.
The dancing Israelis
Researchers
who believe Israel orchestrated 9/11 cite the behavior of a group of
individuals who have come to be known as the “dancing Israelis” since
their arrest, though their aim was to pass as “dancing Arabs.” Dressed
in ostensibly “Middle Eastern” attire, they were seen by various
witnesses standing on the roof of a van parked in Jersey City, cheering
and taking photos of each other with the WTC in the background, at the
very moment the first plane hit the North Tower. The suspects then moved
their van to another parking spot in Jersey City, where other witnesses
saw them deliver the same ostentatious celebrations.
One anonymous call to the police in Jersey City, reported the same day by NBC News, mentioned
“a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there. They look like Palestinians and
going around a building. […] I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some
junk and he has those sheikh uniforms. […] He’s dressed like an Arab.”
The police soon issued the following BOLO alert (be-on-the-look-out) for
a “Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000
Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with ‘Urban Moving Systems’
sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of
first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center. Three individuals
with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent
explosion.”
By
chance, the van was intercepted around 4 pm, with five young men inside:
Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari.
Before any question was asked, the driver, Sivan Kurzberg, burst out:
“We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our
problems. The Palestinians are your problem”.The Kurzberg brothers were
formally identified as Mossad agents. All five officially worked for a
moving company (a classic cover for espionage) named Urban Moving
Systems, whose owner, Dominik Otto Suter, fled the country for Tel Aviv
on September 14.[4]
This event was first reported the day after the attacks by journalist Paulo Lima in the New Jersey newspaper The Bergen Record,
based on “sources close to the investigation” who were convinced of the
suspects’ foreknowledge of the morning’s attacks: “It looked like they
knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park”.The
579-page FBI report on the investigation
that followed (partially declassified in 2005) reveals several
important facts. First, once developed, the photos taken by the suspects
while watching the North Tower on fire confirm their attitudes of
celebration: “They smiled, they hugged each other and they appeared to
‘high five’ one another”. To explain their contentment, the suspects
said they were simply happy that, thanks to these terrorist attacks,
“the United States will take steps to stop terrorism in the world”. Yet
at this point, before the second tower was hit, most Americans believed
the crash was an accident. The five Israelis were found connected to
another company called Classic International Movers, which employed five
other Israelis arrested for their contacts with the nineteen presumed
suicide hijackers. In addition, one of the five suspects had called “an
individual in South America with authentic ties to Islamic militants in
the middle east”. Finally, the FBI report states that the “The vehicle
was also searched by a trained bomb-sniffing dog which yielded a
positive result for the presence of explosive traces”.
After
all this incriminating evidence comes the most puzzling passage of the
report: its conclusion that “the FBI no longer has any investigative
interests in the detainees and they should proceed with the appropriate
immigration proceedings”. In fact, a letter addressed to the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service, dated September 25, 2001, proves
that, less than two weeks after the events, the FBI federal headquarter
had already decided to close the investigation, asking that “The U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service should proceed with the
appropriate immigration proceedings”. The five “dancing Israelis”, also
known as “the high fivers”, were detained 71 days in a Brooklyn
prison, where they first refused, then failed, lie detector tests.
Finally, they were quietly returned to Israel under the minimal charge
of “visa violation.” Three of them were then invited on an Israeli TV
talk show in November 2001, where one of them ingenuously declared: “Our purpose was simply to document the event.”
The Israeli spy network
The
five “dancing Israelis,” the only suspects arrested on the very day of
the 9/11 attacks, were just the tip of an iceberg. In September 2001,
the federal police were busy dismantling the largest Israeli spy network
ever uncovered on American soil. In the summer preceding the attack,
the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) compiled a report which would be
revealed to the public by the Washington Post on November 23rd, 2001, followed by a Carl Cameron’s four-part documentary broadcast on Fox News from December 11th, 2001. On March 14th, 2002, an article in French newspaper Le Monde signed by Sylvain Cypel also referred to the report, shortly before the French magazine Intelligence Online made it fully accessible on the Internet.[5]It
said that 140 Israeli spies, aged between 20 and 30, had been arrested
since March 2001, while 60 more were arrested after September 11.
Generally posing as art students, they visited at least “36 sensitive
sites of the Department of Defense.” “A majority of those questioned
have stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal
intercept, or explosive ordnance units. Some have been linked to
high-ranking officials in the Israeli military. One was the son of a
two-star general, one served as the bodyguard to the head of the Israeli
Army, one served in a Patriot mission unit.” Another, Peer Segalovitz,
officer in the 605 Battalion of the Golan Heights, “acknowledged he
could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and anything else that he needed
to.”[6]
Of special interest is the mention that “the Hollywood, Florida, area seems to be a central point for these individuals.”[7]
More than 30 out of the 140 fake Israeli students identified before
9/11 lived in that city of 140,000 inhabitants. And this city also
happens to be the place where fifteen of the nineteen alleged 9/11
Islamist hijackers had regrouped (nine in Hollywood, six in the
vicinity), including four of the five supposed to have hijacked Flight
AA11. What was the relationship between the Israeli spies and the
Islamist terrorists? We were told by mainstream news
that the former were monitoring the latter, but failed to report
suspicious activities of these terrorists to American authorities. From
such a presentation, Israel comes out clean, since a spy agency cannot
be blamed for not sharing information with the country it is spying in.
At worst, the Israeli Intelligence can be accused of “letting it
happen”—a guarantee of impunity. In reality, the Israeli agents were
certainly not just monitoring the future “hijackers,” but financing and
manipulating them, before disposing of them. We know that Israeli Hanan
Serfaty, who rented two flats near Mohamed Atta, had handled at least
$100,000 in three months. And we also learned from the New York Times on February 19, 2009,
that Ali al-Jarrah, cousin of the alleged hijacker of Flight UA93 Ziad
al-Jarrah, had spent twenty-five years spying for the Mossad as an
undercover agent infiltrating the Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah.
Israeli
agents apparently appreciate operating under the cover of artists.
Shortly before September 11, a group of fourteen Jewish “artists” under
the name of Gelatin
installed themselves on the ninety-first floor of the north tower of
the World Trade Center. There, as a work of “street art,” they removed a
window and extended a wooden balcony. To understand what role this
piece of scaffolding may have played, it must be remembered that the
explosion supposedly resulting from the impact of the Boeing AA11 on the
North Tower took place between the ninety-second and the ninety-eighth
floors. With the only film of the impact on the North Tower being that
of the Naudet brothers, who are under suspicion for numerous reasons,
many researchers are convinced that no aircraft hit this tower, and that
the explosion simulating the impact was provoked by pre-planted
explosives inside the tower.
Floors
ninety-three to one hundred of the North Tower were occupied by Marsh
& McLennan, whose CEO was Jeffrey Greenberg, son of wealthy Zionist
(and financier of George W. Bush) Maurice Greenberg, who also happens to
be the owner of Kroll Inc., the firm in charge of security for the
entire World Trade Center complex on 9/11. The Greenbergs were also the
insurers of the Twin Towers and, on July 24, 2001, they took the
precaution of having the contract reinsured by competitors. In November
2000, the board of directors of Marsh & McLennan was joined by
(Lewis) Paul Bremer, the chairman of the National Commission on
Terrorism, who, on September 11, 2001, two hours only after the
pulverization of the North Tower, would appear on NBC to name bin Laden as prime suspect,
perfectly calm as 400 of his employees are missing (295 will finally be
declared dead). “It is the day that will change our lives,” he said.
“It is the day when the war that the terrorists declared on the US [. .
.] has been brought home to the US.” In 2003, Bremer would be appointed
administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to level
the Iraqi state to the ground and oversee the theft of almost a trillion
dollars intended for its reconstruction.
The super-sayanim
With
Goldberg and Bremer, we have reached the upper level of the conspiracy,
comprising a number of influential Jewish personalities, working inside
and outside the U.S. government — super-sayanim, so to speak.
The most representative of those outside government is Larry
Silverstein, the real estate shark who, with his partner Frank Lowy,
leased the Twin Towers from New York City in the spring of 2001. The
head of the New York Port Authority, who granted Silverstein and Lowy
the lease, was none other than Lewis Eisenberg, another member of the
United Jewish Appeal Federation and former vice-president of AIPAC. It
appeared that Silverstein had made a disastrous deal, because the Twin Towers had to be decontaminated for asbestos.
The decontamination process had been indefinitely postponed since the
1980s because of its cost, estimated at nearly $1 billion in 1989. In
2001, the New York Port Authority had been all too happy to shift
responsibility to Silverstein.
Immediately
after acquiring the Twin Towers, Silverstein renegotiated the insurance
contracts to cover terrorist attacks, doubling the coverage to $3.5
billion, and made sure he would retain the right to rebuild after such
an event. After the attacks, he took his insurers to court in order to
receive double compensation, claiming that the two planes were two
separate attacks. After a long legal battle, he pocketed $4.5 billion.
Silverstein is a leading member of the United Jewish Appeal Federation
of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, the biggest fundraiser for Israel
(after the US government, which pays about $3 billion per year in aid to
Israel). Silverstein also maintained “close ties with Netanyahu,”
according to Haaretz (November 21, 2001):
“The two have been on friendly terms since Netanyahu’s stint as
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations. For years they kept in close
touch. Every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu would call
Silverstein.” Besides being a powerful man, Larry is a lucky man: as he explained in this interview, every morning of the week, he had breakfast at the Windows on the World on top of the North Tower, but on September 11th, he had an appointment with his dermatologist.
Accomplices
to the 9/11 false flag attack with strong Israeli connections should
also be tracked at the other end of the trajectory of the planes
reported to have crashed into the Twin Towers. Flights AA11 and UA175
took off from Logan Airport in Boston, which subcontracted their
security to International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), a firm based in Israel and headed by Menachem Atzmon, a treasurer of the Likud. So did Newark Airport where flight UA93 reportedly took off before crashing in Shanksville.
A
serious investigation would follow many other trails, such as the Odigo
instant messages received by employees at the WTC two hours before the
plane crashes, as reported by Haaretz on September 27th, 2001. The first plane hit the WTC at the precise time announced, “almost to the minute,”
admitted Alex Diamandis, vice-president of Odigo, headquartered in
Israel. Also disturbing is the behavior of the American branch of Zim Israel Navigational,
a maritime shipping giant 48% owned by the Jewish state (occasionally
used as a cover for the Israeli secret services), which moved its
offices from the WTC, along with its 200 employees, September 4th, 2001, one week before the attacks —“like an act of God, we moved”, said the CEO Shaul Cohen-Mintz when interviewed by USA Today, November 17th, 2001.
But
of course, none of these trails were ever pursued. That is because the
most powerful conspirators were at the highest level of the Justice
Department. Michael Chertoff was head of the Criminal Division of the
Department of Justice in 2001, and responsible, among many other things,
for securing the release of the Israeli agents arrested before and
after 9/11, including the “dancing Israelis.” In 2003, this son of a
rabbi and of a Mossad pioneer would be appointed Secretary of Homeland
Security, in charge of counter-terrorism on the American soil, which
allowed him to control dissenting citizens and restrain access to the
evidence under the pretext of Sensitive Security Information.
Another
chief of the cover-up was Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the
9/11 presidential Commission established in November 2002. Zelikow is a
self-styled specialist in the art of making “public myths” by
“‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance
and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation
passes from the scene” (Wikipedia). In December 1998, he co-signed an article for Foreign Affairs entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,”
in which he speculated on what would have happened if the 1993 WTC
bombing (already attributed to bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear
bomb: “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of
thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for
hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in
America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property
unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense
of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet
atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. … Like Pearl Harbor, the
event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The
United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil
liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of
suspects and use of deadly force.” This is the man who controlled the
governmental investigation on the 9/11 terror attacks. Thomas Kean and
Lee Hamilton, who nominally led the commission, revealed in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (2006),
that the commission “was set up to fail” from the beginning. Zelikow,
they claim, had already written a synopsis and a conclusion for the
final report before the first meeting. He controlled all the working
groups, prevented them from communicating with each other, and gave them
as sole mission to prove the official story; Team 1A, for example, was
tasked to “tell the story of Al-Qaeda’s most successful operation—the
9/11 attacks.”
A
tight control of mainstream media is perhaps the most delicate aspect of
the whole operation. I will not delve into that aspect, for we all know
what to expect from the MSM. For a groundbreaking argument on the
extent to which 9/11 was psy-op orchestrated by MSM, I recommend Ace Baker’s 2012 documentary 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera, chapters 6, 7 and 8.
Machiavellian meta-Zionists
If
we move up to the very highest level of the conspiracy, we find
ourselves in Tel Aviv. The preparation for 9/11 coincided with the
coming to power of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, followed by Ehud Barak in
July 1999, and Ariel Sharon in March 2001, who brought back Netanyahu
as minister of Foreign Affairs in 2002 (with Netanyahu again becoming
prime minister in 2009). It must be noted that both Netanyahu and Ehud
Barak were temporarily out of the Israeli government in September 2001,
just like Ben-Gurion at the time of Kennedy’s assassination (read my article on JFK).
A few months before 9/11, Barak, a former head of Israeli military
intelligence, was “recruited” as a consultant to a Mossad front company,
SCP Partner, specializing in security and located less than seven miles
from Urban Moving Systems.[8] One hour after the explosion of the North Tower, Barak was on BBC World
to point the finger at bin Laden (the first to do so), and concluded:
“It’s a time to launch an operational, complete war against terror.”
As for Netanyahu, we are not surprised to hear him boast, on CNN in 2006,
of having predicted in 1995 that, “if the West doesn’t wake up to the
suicidal nature of militant Islam, the next thing you will see is
militant Islam bringing down the World Trade Center.” Netanyahu is
exemplary of the ever closer “special relationship” between the US and
Israel, which started with Truman and blossomed under Johnson. Netanyahu
had lived, studied, and worked in the United States from 1960 to 1978,
between his 11th and his 27th year—except during
his military service—and again after the age of 33, when he was
appointed deputy ambassador to Washington and then permanent delegate to
the United Nations. Netanyahu appeared regularly on CNN in the early
1990s, contributing to the transformation of the world’s leading news
channel into a major Zionist propaganda tool. His political destiny was
largely planned and shaped in the United States, under the supervision
of those we now call neoconservatives, and the only thing that
distinguishes him from them is that, for public relations reasons, he
does not possess American nationality.
“What’s
a neocon?” once asked Bush 43 to his father Bush 41, after more than
three years in the White House. “Do you want names, or a description?”
answered 41. “Description.” “Well,” said 41, “I’ll give it to you in one
word: Israel.”[9]
That anecdote, quoted by Andrew Cockburn, sums it up. The
neoconservative movement was born in the editorial office of the monthly
magazine Commentary, which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record
in 1945 as the press organ of the American Jewish Committee. “If there
is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay
sole claim, neoconservatism is it,” wrote Gal Beckerman in the Jewish Daily Forward, January
6, 2006. “It is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism
was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the
intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.”
The
founding fathers of neoconservatism (Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol,
Donald Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Adam Shulsky) were self-proclaimed
disciples of Leo Strauss, a German Jewish immigrant teaching at the
University of Chicago. Strauss can be characterized as a meta-Zionist in
the sense that, while an ardent supporter of the State of Israel, he
rejected the idea that Israel as a nation should be contained within
borders; Israel must retain her specificity, which is to be everywhere,
he said in essence in his 1962 lecture “Why We Remain Jews.” Strauss would also approve of being called a Machiavellian, for in his Thoughts on Machiavelli, he
praised the “the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his
vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech” (p. 13). Machiavelli’s
model of a prince was Cesar Borgia, the tyrant who after having
appointed the cruel Ramiro d’Orco to subdue the province of Romania, had
him executed with utter cruelty, thus reaping the people’s gratitude
after having diverted their hatred onto another. Machiavelli, writes
Strauss, “is a patriot of a particular kind: He is more concerned with
the salvation of his fatherland than with the salvation of his soul” (p.
10). And that happens to be exactly what Jewishness is all about,
according to Jewish thinkers such as Harry Waton: “The Jews that have a
deeper understanding of Judaism know that the only immortality there is
for the Jew is the immortality in the Jewish people” (read more here). As a matter of fact, in the Jewish World Review of June 7, 1999, Michael Ledeen, a neocon and founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
(JINSA), assumed that Machiavelli must have been a “secret Jew,” since
“if you listen to his political philosophy you will hear Jewish music.”
The
neoconservatives of the first generation originally positioned
themselves on the far left. Irving Kristol, one of the main editors of Commentary,
had long claimed to be a Trotskyist. It was soon after the 1967
successful annexation of Arab territories by Israel that the Straussians
experienced their conversion to right-wing militarism, to which they
owe their new name. Norman Podhoretz, editor-in-chief from 1960 to 1995,
turned from anti-war activist to defense budget booster in the early
70s. He gave the following explanation in 1979: “American support for
Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international
affairs—from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind
of isolationist mood [. . .] that now looked as though it might soon
prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.” (Breaking Ranks, p.
336). Leading the U.S. into war for the benefit of Israel is the
essence of the Machiavellian crypto-Zionists known deceptively as
neoconservatives.
The Project for a new (((American))) Century
The
story of how the neoconservatives reached the position of influence
they held under George W. Bush is a complicated one, which I can only
outline. They entered the state apparatus for the first time in the
baggage of Rumsfeld and Cheney, during president Ford’s cabinet
reshuffle known as the “Halloween Massacre,” following Nixon’s
resignation. When the Cold War calmed down after America evacuated its
troops from Vietnam in 1973, and the CIA produced reassuring analyses of
the USSR’s military capabilities and ambitions, Rumsfeld (as Secretary
of Defense) and Cheney (as Chief of Staff) persuaded Ford to appoint an
independent committee, known as Team B, to revise upward the CIA
estimates of the Soviet threat, and reactivate a war attitude in public
opinion, Congress, and Administration. Team B was chaired by Richard
Pipes and co-chaired by Paul Wolfowitz, both introduced by Richard
Perle.
During
the Democratic parenthesis of the Carter presidency (1976–80), the
neoconservatives worked at unifying the largest number of Jews around
their policies, by founding the Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs (JINSA), which became the second-most powerful pro-Israel lobby
after AIPAC. According to its “mission statement”,
it is “dedicated to educating Congressional, military and civilian
national security decision-makers on American defense and strategic
interests, primarily in the Middle East, the cornerstone of which is a
robust U.S.-Israeli security cooperation.” In 1980, the neocons were
rewarded by Ronald Reagan for their support by a dozen posts in national
security and foreign policy: Richard Perle and Douglas Feith to the
Department of Defense; Richard Pipes at the National Security Council;
Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Michael Ledeen in the State
Department. They helped Reagan escalate the Cold War, showering billions
of dollars on the military-industrial complex.
The long term planning of 9/11 probably started then. Isser Harel, founder of Israeli secret services (Shai in 1944, Shin Bet
in 1948, Mossad until 1963) is reported as prophesizing in 1980, in an
interview with Christian Zionist Michael Evans, that Islamic terrorism
would end up hitting America in their “phallic symbol”: “Your biggest
phallic symbol is New York City and your tallest building will be the
phallic symbol they will hit”.[10]
(A whole article would be needed to document and explain the revival of
the Jewish gift of apocalyptic prophecy in recent decades.)
In
1996, during the Clinton years, the neoconservatives threw all their
weight into their ultimate think tank, the Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), directed by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC
recommended taking advantage of the defeat of communism to reinforce
American hegemony by preventing the emergence of any rival. Their Statement of Principles vowed to extend the current Pax Americana,
which entailed “a military that is strong and ready to meet both
present and future challenges.” In its September 2000 report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses,
PNAC anticipated that US forces must become “able to rapidly deploy and
win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.” This required a profound
transformation, including the development of “a new family of nuclear
weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements.”
Unfortunately, according to the authors of the report, “the process of
transformation […] is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic
and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” It is certainly no
coincidence that the three-hour-long blockbuster Pearl Harbor was released in the summer 2001, conveniently entrenching the “New Pearl Harbor” meme into the minds of millions.
PNAC’s
architects played the American hegemony card by draping themselves in
the super-patriotic discourse of America’s civilizing mission. But their
duplicity is exposed in a document brought to public knowledge in 2008:
a report published in 1996 by the Israeli think tank Institute for
Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, written
specifically for the new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
The team responsible for the report was led by Richard Perle, and
included Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who figured the same year
among the signatories of PNAC. As its title suggests, the Clean Break
report invited Netanyahu to break with the Oslo Accords of 1993, which
officially committed Israel to the return of the territories it occupied
illegally since 1967. The new prime minister should instead “engage
every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism” and reaffirm Israel’s right
to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
In
November 2000, Bush Jr. was elected under conditions that raised
protests of electoral fraud. Dick Cheney, who had directed his campaign,
named himself vice-president and introduced two dozens neoconservatives
in foreign policy key positions. The State Department was entrusted to
Colin Powell, but he was surrounded with neocon aides such as David
Wurmser. As National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, a specialist of
Russia with no expertise in the Middle East, was entirely dependent on
her neocon adviser Philip Zelikow. William Luti and Elliott Abrams, and
later Eliot Cohen, were also tasked with steering Rice. But it was
mainly from within the Defense Department under Donald Rumsfeld that the
most influential neocons were able to fashion US foreign and military
policy. Richard Perle occupied the crucial position of director of the
Defense Policy Board, responsible for defining military strategy, while
Paul Wolfowitz became the “soul of the Pentagon” as deputy secretary
with Douglas Feith as under secretary.
The Hanukkah miracle to start WWIV
After
eight months in the presidency, Bush was confronted with the
“catastrophic event,” the “new Pearl Harbor” that PNAC had wished for a
year earlier. 9/11 was a real “Hanukkah miracle” for Israel, commented Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy and Israeli National Security Council chairman Uzi Dayan. Netanyahu rejoiced: “It’s very good
[…] it will generate immediate sympathy […], strengthen the bond
between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many
decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive
hemorrhaging of terror.” On September 21, he published an op-ed in the New York Post
entitled “Today, We Are All Americans,” in which he delivered his
favorite propaganda line: “For the bin Ladens of the world, Israel is
merely a sideshow. America is the target.” Three days later the New Republic
responded with a headline on behalf of the Americans: “We are all
Israelis now.” Americans experienced 9/11 as an act of hatred from the
Arab world, and they felt an immediate sympathy for Israel, which the
neoconservatives relentlessly exploited. One of the aims was to
encourage Americans to view Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians as
part of the global fight against Islamic terrorism.
It
was a great success. In the years preceding September 11, Israel’s
reputation had bottomed out; condemnations had been raining from around
the world for its policy of apartheid and colonization, and its
systematic war against Palestinian command structures. Increasing
numbers of American voices questioned the merits of the special
relationship between the United States and Israel. From the day of the
attacks, it was all over. As Americans now intended to fight Arab
terrorists to the death, they would stop demanding from Israel more
reasonable, proportionate retaliation against Palestinian suicide
bombers and rockets.
Instead,
the president’s speeches (written by neocon David Frum) characterized
the 9/11 attacks as the trigger for a world war of a new type, one
fought against an invisible enemy scattered throughout the Middle East.
First, vengeance must come not only against bin Laden, but also against
the state harboring him: “We will make no distinction between those who
committed these acts and those who harbor them” (Sept. 11). Second, the
war extends to the world: “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but
it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of
global reach has been found, stopped and defeated” (Sept. 20). Third,
any country that does not support Washington will be treated as an
enemy: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (Sept.
20).
In an article in the Wall Street Journal
dated November 20, 2001, the neoconservative Eliot Cohen dubbed the war
against terrorism as “World War IV,” a framing soon echoed by other
American Zionists (the odd choice of the name WWIV rather than WWIII
comes, I suspect, from the neocons’ ethnocentric worldview, in which
every world war is a step toward Greater Israel; since one major step
was accomplished in 1967, the Cold War counts as WW3). In September
2004, at a conference in Washington entitled “World War IV: Why We
Fight, Whom We Fight, How We Fight,” Cohen said: “The enemy in this war
is not ‘terrorism’ […] but militant Islam.” Like the Cold War, the
imminent world war, according to Cohen’s vision, has ideological roots,
will have global implications, and will last a long time, involving a
whole range of conflicts. The self-fulfilling prophecy of a new World
War centered in the Middle East has also been popularized by Norman
Podhoretz, in “How to Win World War IV” (Commentary, February
2002), followed by a second article in, “World War IV: How It Started,
What It Means, and Why We Have to Win,” (September 2004), and finally a
book titled World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (2007).[11]
The hijacked conspiracy and the controlled opposition
In
the case of 9/11 as in the case of Kennedy, controlled opposition
operates on many levels, and many honest scholars now realize that the
9/11 Truth movement itself is partly channeled by individuals and groups
secretly aiming at drawing suspicions away from Israel. Such is
certainly the case of the three young Jews (Avery, Rowe, and Bermas) who
directed the film Loose Change (2005), the most widely watched
9/11 conspiracy film since its first version in 2005. They hitched their
whole thesis on a comparison with the never carried-out false flag
project Operation Northwoods (timely revealed to the public in May 2001
in James Bamford’s book Body of Secrets,
written with the support of former NSA director Michael Hayden, now
working for Michael Chertoff), but they failed to mention the attack on
the USS Liberty, a well-documented false flag attack by Israel on its
U.S. ally. They did not breathe a word about the neoconservatives’
loyalty to Israel, and treat anyone who cited the Israeli role in 9/11
as anti-Semitic. The same can be said of Bermas’s more recent film Invisible Empire (2010),
also produced by Alex Jones: a compilation of anti-imperialist clichés
focusing on the Bushs and the Rockefellers, without a single hint of the
(((Others))).
It is interesting to note that the 9/11 scenario put forward by Loose Change had actually been prewritten by Hollywood: on the 4th of March, 2001, Fox TV broadcast the first episode of the series The Lone Gunmen, watched
by 13 million Americans. The plot is about computer hackers working for
a secret cabal within the U.S. government, who hijack a jet by remote
control with the intent to crash it into one of the Twin Towers, while
making it appear to have been hijacked by Islamic terrorists. At the
last seconds, the pilots manage to regain control of the plane. The
purpose of the failed operation was to trigger a world war under the
pretext of fighting terrorism. Truthers of the “inside job” school fancy
that this episode must have been written by some whistleblower inside
Fox. Unlikely!
There
is, of course, some truth in the “inside job” theory, as I said at the
beginning. Israel (in the wider sense) would not be able to pull such an
operation and get away with it, without complicity at the highest level
of U.S. government. How does that work? Pretty much like for the Kennedy assassination,
if you consider that the country was then ruled by its vice-president
Dick Cheney, the president being a mere dummy (see Lou Dubose and Jake
Bernstein, Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, Random House, 2006). In my book JFK-9/11,
I have proposed a plausible scenario of how Israel had in fact hijacked
a smaller false flag attack on the Pentagon fabricated by the American
Deep State, for the limited purpose of justifying the overthrow of the
Talibans in Afghanistan, a goal fully supported by such “Great Gamers”
as Zbigniew Brzezinski, but which didn’t in itself interest the neocons.
What
the neocons wanted was a new war against Iraq and then a general
conflagration in the Middle East leading to the crumbling of all the
enemies of Israel, with Syria and Iran high on the list. So they outbid
everyone and gave the operation the scale they wanted with the help of
their New York super-sayan Silvertein. George W. Bush, Colin
Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and other goyim who had been kept out of the
loop, finding themselves embroiled in geopolitical machinations of
global scope, could merely try to save face. On September 19 and 20,
Richard Perle’s Defense Policy Board met in the company of Paul
Wolfowitz and Bernard Lewis (inventor of the self-fulfilling prophecy of
the “clash of civilizations”) but in the absence of Powell and Rice.
They prepared a letter to Bush, written on PNAC letterhead, to remind
him of his historic mission: “Even if evidence does not link Iraq
directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of
terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove
Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort
will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on
international terrorism.”[12]
This was an ultimatum. Bush was certainly aware of the leverage that
the neocons had acquired over the major print and television media. He
was obliged, under penalty of ending in the proverbial trash bin of
history, to endorse the invasion of Iraq that his father had refused the
Zionists ten years earlier.
As
for Brzezinski and other genuine U.S. imperialists, their support for
the invasion of Afghanistan made their timid protests against the Iraq
war ineffective. It was a little late in February 2007 when Brzezinski
denounced before the Senate “a historical, strategic and moral calamity
[…] driven by Manichaean impulses and imperial hubris.” In 2012 he
declared, regarding the risk of conflagration with Iran, that Obama
should stop following Israel like a “stupid mule.” He soon disappeared from the MSM, as a useful idiot no longer useful.
The
“half truth” of the exclusively “inside job” theory, which denounces
9/11 as a false flag operation perpetrated by the American state on its
own citizens, functions like a secondary false flag hiding the real
masters of the operation, who are in fact agents in the service of a
foreign nation. One of the aims of this inside-jobish controlled
opposition is to force American officials to maintain the “bin Laden did
it” masquerade, knowing that tearing apart the fake Islamic flag would
only reveal the U.S. flag, not the Israeli flag. No longer controlling
the media, they would not have the means to raise this second veil to
expose Israel. Any effort to get at the truth would be political
suicide. Everyone understands what is at stake: if one day, under
mounting pressure from public opinion or for some other strategic
reason, the mainstream media abandons the official bin Laden story, the
well-rehearsed slogan “9/11 was an inside job” will have prepared
Americans to turn against their own government, while the neocon
Zionists will remain untouchable (Machiavelli’s method: make another
accomplish your dirty ends, then turn popular vengeance against him).
And God knows what will happen, if the government has not by then
succeeded in disarming its citizens through Sandy Hook-type psy-ops.
Government officials have little choice but to stick to the Al-Qaeda
story, at least for the next fifty years.
After reaching this conclusion in JFK-9/11, I had the satisfaction of finding that Victor Thorn, in a book that had eluded me (Made in Israel: 9-11 and the Jewish Plot Against America, Sisyphus Press, 2011), had already expressed it in harsher terms: “In essence, the ‘9-11 truth movement’ was created prior to
Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli
complicity. By 2002–2003, ‘truthers’ began appearing at rallies holding
placards that read ‘9-11 was an inside job.’ Initially, these signs
provided hope for those who didn’t believe the government and mainstream
media’s absurd cover stories. But then an awful realization emerged:
The slogan ‘9-11 was an inside job’ was quite possibly the greatest
example of Israeli propaganda ever devised. […] The mantra, ‘9-11 was an
inside job’ is only partially true and is inherently damaging to the
‘truth movement’ because it shifts all attention away from Israel’s
traitorous assault against America. […] Leaders of these fake 9-11
groups know the truth about Israel’s 9-11 barbarity. Their willingness
to perpetuate or cover it up ultimately makes them as guilty and vile as
those who launched the attacks. There are no degrees of separation in
this matter. It’s a black-and-white issue. Tell the entire truth about
Israel’s Murder, Inc. cabal, or sleep in the same infected bed as these
murdering dogs lie in. […] Faux conspiratologists complain about the
government and news sources not telling the truth, yet they’ve erected
an utter blackout on data regarding Israel and 9-11.”
The missing .3 trillion
Some
readers will complain that I am making a very complex operation appear
too simple. I plead guilty: I have merely tried here to outline the case
against Israel in the short scope of an article. But I am fully aware
that creating Greater Israel through a world war fought by the U.S.
might not have been the only consideration in the preparation of 9/11.
Many private interests had to be involved. Yet I believe none of them
interfered with Israel’s plan, and most of them supported it.
There is, for example, the missing gold in the WTC basement
: $200 million were recovered from the estimated $1 billion stored: who
took the rest? But that is nothing compared to the $2.3 trillion that
were missing from the accounts of the Department of Defense for the year
2000, in addition to $1.1 trillion missing for 1999, according to a
televised declaration made on September 10th, 2001, the day
before the attacks, by Donald Rumsfeld. Just for comparison, this is
more than one thousand times the colossal losses of Enron, which
triggered a chain of bankruptcies that same year. All this money
evaporated into thin air under the watch of William Cohen, Defense
Secretary during Bill Clinton’s second term. In 2001, the man who was
tasked to help track down the missing trillions was Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) Dov Zakheim, a member of PNAC and an ordained
rabbi. Practically, the mystery had to be resolved by financial analysts
at Resource Services Washington (RSW). Unfortunately, their offices
were destroyed by “al-Qaeda” the following morning. The “hijackers” or
Flight AA77, rather than hitting the command center on the eastern side
of the Pentagon, chose to attempt a theoretically impossible downward
spiral at 180 degrees in order to hit the west side of the building
precisely at the location of the accounting offices. The 34 experts at
RSW perished in their offices, together with 12 other financial
analysts, as is noted in the biography of the team leader Robert Russell
for the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial:
“The weekend before his death, his entire office attended a crab feast
at the Russell home. They were celebrating the end of the fiscal-year
budget completion. Tragically, every person that attended that party was
involved in the Pentagon explosion, and are currently missing”.
By
an incredible coincidence, one of the financial experts trying to make
sense of the Pentagon financial loss, Bryan Jack, was reported to have
died at the precise location of his office, not because he was working
there that day, but because he was on a business trip on Flight AA77. In
the words of the Washington Post database:
“Bryan C. Jack was responsible for crunching America’s defense budget.
He was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77, bound for official
business in California when his plane struck the Pentagon, where, on any
other day, Jack would have been at work at his computer”. Yahweh must
have a sense of chutzpah!
Laurent Guyénot is the author of JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State, Progressive Press, 2014, and From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018. (or $30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556).
Footnotes
[1] Philippe Broussard, “En dépit des déclarations américaines, les indices menant à Ben Laden restent minces,” Le Monde, September 25, 2001.
[2] Gilad Atzmon, Being in Time: a Post-Political Manifesto, Interlink Publishing, 2017 , p. 142.
[3] David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions, Arris Books, 2008, pp. 170-182; Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA, Progressive Press, 2008, pp. 321-324.
[4] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, pp. 278–280.
[5] It is quoted here from Bollyn’s book and from Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, iUniverse, 2003.
[6] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, p. 159.
[7] Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, iUniverse, 2003, p. 3.
[8] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World, 2012 , pp. 278-280.
[9] Quoted by Andrew Cockburn, who claims to have heard the anecdote from “friends of the family”, in Rumsfeld: His Rise, His fall, and Catastrophic Legacy, Scribner, 2011, p. 219.
[10] Michael Evans told of this prophecy in an interview with Deborath Calwell and in his book The American Prophecies, Terrorism and Mid-East Conflict Reveal a Nation’s Destiny), quoted in Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, p. 71.
[11] Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, Enigma Edition, 2008, p. 193.
[12] Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, Enigma Edition, 2008, p. 144.
No comments:
Post a Comment