This book was published one year before his last one From Yahweh to Zion (2018, see corresponding thread here) and contains some interesting details about JFK assasination and 9/11 which weren't mentioned in From Yahweh to Zion as far as I can remember. As his other book this is well-researched IMO and contains tons of references. So here are some excerpts:
Dallas, November 22, 1963
In the Name of National Security
The CIA and the Bay of Pigs
The Northwoods pattern
False flag assassination
The Peace race
The Secret Wars of Vice-President Bush
Part TWO 9/ 11
To be continued.
This book is divided into two parts: the first deals with the underlying forces of the Cold War, the second with the driving forces of the War on Terror. The period investigated begins just before November 22, 1963 and peaks with September 11, 2001: these are the two deep events we explore because they weigh most heavily on the unfolding of American history. By “deep events” we mean events whose causality is mostly hidden, and whose functioning emerges only in traces. Their true nature is often different from or contrary to their purported meaning in the media spotlight. It can take fifty years— time for the guilty generation to disappear— for such deep events to gain sufficient transparency to render the “official story” unsustainable, depending on the pace of declassification of archives. The research on the Kennedy assassination is slowly emerging out of the “conspiracy theory” ghetto where it had been locked by institutional culture. The Dallas crime has now become a textbook case, and to anyone willing to take the time, it affords proof of the existence of the deep state, its vital link with war, and its ability to change history and shape public opinion. The main ambition of this book is to examine September 11th through the illuminating lens of November 22nd, highlight their structural similarities, examine how one made the other possible thirty-eight years later, and follow the underlying thread leading from the one to the other, in the hope of anticipating and circumventing future atrocities.
The links between the two cases are structural but also personal. They involve, among others, George H. W. Bush, who was secretly in the CIA and in Dallas on November 22, 1963, long before he became CIA director— then Vice-President, President, and finally a President’s father. Those who, like Bush Sr., still fight tooth and nail to defend the government’s thesis on Kennedy’s death are the same who seek to prevent the emergence of the truth about September 11th. Conversely, denouncing the internal plot of September 11th without elucidating the Kennedy assassination is a bit like telling the story of Noah’s Flood without mentioning Adam’s Fall.
My goal is brevity; I wanted to present the basic facts and get to the point, so as to make a clear case and give the non-specialist reader the best opportunity to understand what was, and is, a very long and complex history. This book is intended, therefore, not to demonstrate a thesis by accumulation of arguments, but rather to coherently assemble the most meaningful facts, those which give sufficient keys to this deep history; the idea is to paint the big picture from carefully selected elements.
Dallas, November 22, 1963
In 1968, Robert Kennedy, who under his brother’s government held the position of Attorney General, presented his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Those who still grieved for John Kennedy found hope in the prospect of seeing younger Bobby repossess the White House and, from there, reopen the investigation. Although he kept quiet on the subject, his close friends knew that such was his intention. On a campus in March 1968, Bobby announced, “The archives will be available at the appropriate time.”[ 9] Robert Kennedy was assassinated on June 6, 1968 in Los Angeles, just after winning the California presidential primary that made him the favorite for the Democratic nomination. Republican candidate Richard Nixon, who had been beaten by John Kennedy in 1960, would become President without having to face another Kennedy.
In the Name of National Security
The same Truman who baptized the world in nuclear fire is also responsible for the creation of the National Security State, whose birth certificate is the National Security Act of 1947 (amended in 1949). By this decree, the President wanted to surround himself with command structures adapted to the arising Cold War. First, Truman united the five military commands— Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Strategic Command, already co-housed in the Pentagon since 1943— into a permanent committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with an appointed Chairman, thereby giving the military greater influence on foreign policy...
All of the founding texts of the National Security State are characterized by an alarmist exaggeration of the ambitions and power of the Soviet military, which infused into the White House a permanent climate of imminent war. The supposed hegemonic policy of the USSR was the justification for the “Truman Doctrine,” which affirms the right for the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of any country, near or far, who by leaning slightly to the left could trigger a “domino effect” and cause the collapse on an entire region under communist influence. Informed by a quasi-theological and apocalyptic vision of the Cold War, the structures put in place by Truman would be, under the pretext of “national security,” a true imperial government, operating under guise to destabilize any insubordinate governments and to prop up dictators willing to remain under its tutelage...
To this monstrous military-industrial complex was added in 1958 the NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), whose civilian space program was merely a cover for its military purpose: the development of transcontinental rockets, with the vision of ultimately being able to launch nuclear missiles from orbital stations.
Among several scientists hired by the RAND was a brilliant mathematician by the name of John Nash, whose research on “non-cooperative equilibriums” would earn him the Nobel Prize in Economy in 1994. Nash’s game theory reinforced the cold warriors’ opinion that the worst mistake is to trust the enemy in any way, since the strategy of the game relies upon deception; the enemy must be assumed to be cunning and ruthless and will only be defeated by a higher degree of cunningness and ruthlessness. The irony is that John Nash (portrayed by Hollywood in A Beautiful Mind staring Russel Crowe in 2001) suffered from “paranoid schizophrenia” for which he was committed in mental hospital in 1958-59 and regularly thereafter. His vision of human relationships, which was transposed into a vision of international relationships by the RAND— the brain of the National Security State—, is typical of near-psychopaths with highly narcissistic or paranoid personalities.
The CIA and the Bay of Pigs
Designed to absolve the President of all illegal actions in the case of public disclosure, the principle of “plausible deniability” gives the CIA almost complete autonomy, since, in fact, it relieves it of the need to reveal its operations to the President, while still allowing for Presidential protection in the event of failure...
One of the inherent problems with the CIA was its leadership. Among its seven founding directors, only one was not a banker or lawyer on Wall Street. The head position was ultimately awarded to Allen Dulles, who with his brother John Foster, soon to be Secretary of State under Eisenhower, had worked for one of the largest law firms on Wall Street, Sullivan & Cromwell, before entering politics; hence the CIA was said to be directed from New York rather than Washington. In this context, national interest merged with the private interests of large industrial groups. Although created under the National Security Act in 1947, and thus dedicated to the struggle against the communist threat, the CIA would prioritize the interests of global financial stakeholders. Designed in theory to inform the President, in practice the CIA acted as a medium and means through which the financial class could steer U.S. foreign policy to its own profit.
The Northwoods pattern
Kennedy rejected the Northwoods plan. But a month later, on April 10, 1962, General Lemnitzer returned with a memorandum on behalf of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommending “a national policy of early military intervention in Cuba […] to overthrow the present communist regime.” The Joint Chiefs, states the document, “believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize communist opportunities for solicitation of UN action.” Kennedy responded by dismissing General Lemnitzer, sending him away as Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, and replacing him by Maxwell Taylor at the head of the Joint Chiefs.
As Richard Cottrell has shown in Gladio, NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe, Lemnitzer brought a curse on Europe, where his enthusiasm for “black warfare” was given free rein. It was Lemnitzer who launched the false flag terror campaign known as “Operation Gladio,” diverting the stay-behind cells of NATO from their original purpose— organizing and arming the resistance in case of Soviet invasion of Western Europe— to instead setting up assassinations and bomb attacks to be blamed on left-wing revolutionaries, in a “strategy of tension” meant to hinder the democratic progression of communism. In Italy, the NATO-sponsored Brigate Rosse (Red Brigades) bombed trains, buses and schools, and assassinated political leaders, such as former Prime Minister Aldo Moro, who had befriended the Communist Party. When a bomb killed 85 people and wounded 200 in the central station of Bologna on August 2, 1980, some officials started to distance themselves from this synthetic terror campaign, leading to public disclosure. In France, NATO cells under Lemnitzer’s command are responsible for most of the failed assassinations of De Gaulle, who had determined in 1960 to disengage France from NATO. “The penumbra of Lemnitzer’s madness clings to Europe like a nightmare,” writes Cottrell, who also suspects Lemnitzer of having planned the assassination of Kennedy.
The only encounter between Kennedy and Khrushchev, in Vienna two months after the Bay of Pigs failed invasion, was ice-cold. But Khrushchev changed his opinion on Kennedy after the happy ending of the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was despondent after the news of Kennedy’s death, the only time when his collaborators saw him cry, then withdraw into a shell for several days, according to what a high official of the Soviet Embassy in Washington told Pierre Salinger.
False flag assassination
There is a third hypothesis, which has been elaborated by Gary Wean, a detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department, in his book There’s a Fish in the Courthouse (1987). Relying on a well-informed source in Dallas (later identified as Republican Senator John Tower), Wean raises the possibility that the Dallas shooting had originally been planned by the CIA as a fake failed assassination, meant to spare Kennedy’s life but force him to retaliate against Castro, but that the operation had been hijacked by another faction who wanted Kennedy dead; this other faction could be Johnson and Hoover. Real snipers would have been added to the CIA’s staged assassination. Veteran JFK researcher Dick Russel has reached the same conclusion is his book The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992), after interviewing Cuban exiles who believe they had been used. This likely double-cross scenario is comparable to a drill exercise being diverted into a real attack.
The Peace race
For Kennedy, the nuclear weapon was the negation of all historical efforts to restrain war and spare civilians: this military abomination had to be eradicated. On the 25th of September 1961, after less than a year in power, he declared before the United Nations General Assembly: “Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us. […] It is therefore our intention to challenge the Soviet Union, not to an arms race, but to a peace race— to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament has been achieved.” The program he outlined did not stop at nuclear disarmament: “It would achieve under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force.”[ 133] It was the speech that would inspire Khrushchev’s first private letter to Kennedy— a letter of 26 pages...
In 1963, Kennedy vigorously engaged his country in the direction of disarmament. May 6, he addressed directive NSAM-239 entitled “U.S. Disarmament Proposals” to all government administrations, both military and civilian, inviting them to cooperate with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency created in 1961, by making proposals towards the goal of “general and complete disarmament.”
In that speech, Kennedy made public his intention to establish a direct communication line with Khrushchev, in order to avoid “dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of other’s actions which might occur at a time of crisis,” implicitly referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which Arthur Schlesinger has deemed “the most dangerous moment in all human history.”[ 135] He also announced his negotiations towards global disarmament, which would lead to the first treaty that limited nuclear testing: “While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both.”
To have his Test Ban Treaty accepted by a rather reluctant Congress, he launched an ambitious communication campaign and spoke directly to the nation on television on July 26, 1963, building the people’s awareness of the urgency of stopping an arm race that could lead to “a full-scale nuclear exchange” after which “the living would envy the dead”— a direct quote from Khrushchev.[ 137] The treaty, which prohibited nuclear testing in the atmosphere and under water, was signed in August 1963 by the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom. “No other single accomplishment in the White House ever gave Kennedy greater satisfaction,” according to Ted Sorensen, who helped craft the treaty...
In the sixties, nuclear disarmament was an achievable goal, since only four countries had nuclear weapons. There was a historic opportunity, and Kennedy was determined not to let it pass. “I am haunted by the feeling that by 1970, unless we are successful, there may be ten nuclear powers instead of four, and by 1975, fifteen or twenty,” he said prophetically during his press conference on March 21, 1963.[ 143] Following the USA and USSR, all NATO countries and the communist bloc were making a first step towards nuclear disarmament. All countries but one: Israel. By the early 1950s, David Ben Gurion, both Prime Minister and Defense Minister, entrusted Shimon Peres to stir Israel toward the secret manufacture of atomic bombs, diverting from its pacific aim the cooperation program Atoms for Peace, launched naively by Eisenhower. Informed by the CIA in 1960 of the military aim pursued at the Dimona complex in the Negev desert, Kennedy would do his utmost to force Israel to renounce it. He asked Ben Gurion for regular inspections of Dimona, first verbally in New York in 1961 and later through more and more insistent letters. In the last letter dated June 15, 1963, Kennedy demanded Ben Gurion’s agreement for an immediate visit followed by regular visits every six months, otherwise “this Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized.”[ 144] The result was unexpected: Ben Gurion resigned June 16, thereby avoiding receiving the letter. As soon as the new Prime Minister Levi Eshkol took office, Kennedy sent him a similar letter, dated July 5, 1963, to no avail.
Kennedy’s death released the pressure on Israel, as Johnson chose to turn a blind eye. John McCone, CIA Director appointed by Kennedy, resigned in 1965 complaining about the lack of interest by Johnson on this subject. Under Johnson, Israel’s first nuclear bombs were made with material and expertise stolen from the U.S., as Seymour Hersh has documented in his best-selling book The Samson Option (1991). Zalman Shapiro, who was running a publicly owned nuclear fuel processing firm in Apollo, Pennsylvania, known as NUMEC (Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation), managed to smuggle hundreds of pounds of weapons-grade uranium to Israel, despite being on a CIA watch list. He was the son of an Orthodox rabbi from Lithuania, a member of the Zionist Organization of America, a partner with the Israeli government in some business ventures, and a frequent traveler to Israel.
Under Johnson, military aid to Israel reached $ 92 million in 1966, more than the total of all previous years combined. Johnson even allowed the delivery of Phantom missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Israel developed its first nuclear bomb in 1967, without ever giving public acknowledgement.
The Secret Wars of Vice-President Bush
George H. W. Bush can’t help laughing while mentioning the lone gunman theory of the Warren Commission, in his eulogy of Gerald Ford on the 2ndof January, 2007, as even the New York Times reporter mentioned in his transcript of the speech: “After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy (Bush laughed!), our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter.
Part TWO 9/ 11
In 1996, at the beginning of Clinton’s second term, a Republican think tank, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) would develop along the same lines of Brzezinski’s logic. Its founders, who adopted the label “neoconservatives,” intended to use the defeat of communism as a means to consolidate American hegemony and in so doing, prevent the emergence of a rival power. Their stated goal is to “extend the current Pax Americana,” which entails “a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges.”
Between 1992 and 1994, a parody of intellectual debate was acted in the press, opposing, on one side, Francis Fukuyama and his prophecy of the “End of History”—meaning “the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”—and, on the other side, Samuel Huntington and his vision of the “Clash of Civilizations.” The 9/11 attacks made Huntington look like a visionary, and allowed Bernard Lewis to hammer the message in his What Went Wrong? The Clash between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East (2003). Fukuyama and Huntingtonare both members of the Trilateral Commission (as is Brzezinski); Fukuyama is also a member of PNAC.
With the election in 2000 of George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush, two dozen PNAC neoconservatives were placed in key positions of foreign policy. The only thing still missing was a “new Pearl Harbor” to allow the full capacity of their power to be mobilized. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were exactly what the PNAC was waiting for...
Two hours after the towers collapsed, the Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, Lewis Paul Bremer, appeared on NBC, calm and assured, explaining: “Bin Laden was involved in the first attack on the WTC which had as its intention doing exactly what happened here, which is the collapse of those towers. He certainly has to be a prime suspect. But there are others in the Middle East, and there are at least two States, Iran and Iraq, which should at least remain on the list as essential suspects.”...
Was September 11 a new “Pearl Harbor”? In other words: Was Al-Qaeda allowed to destroy the World Trade Center (WTC) and kill thousands of innocent people, simply to justify a war? This is the “let-it-happen-on-purpose” (LIHOP) theory: overall relatively harmless because the willful ignorance of a threat can be easily disguised as negligence or incompetence, and doesn’t lead to court marshaling— as the Pearl Harbor case shows. It is questionable to what extent this argument is not a safeguard, a damage-control strategy to counter the much more devastating “made-it-happen-on-purpose” (MIHOP) thesis. According to the latter, bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are innocent of the September 11 attacks, which are the biggest false flag operation ever conducted. If the argument seems outrageously implausible to some, it is because of their ignorance of deep state politics, and its well-established legacy of false flag terror. By itself, Operation Northwoods proves that the National Security State is capable of such turpitude, in the absence of a moral President determined to resist it...
The man who could certainly give the reason for the collapse of Tower 7 is its owner Larry Silverstein, the real estate shark who also leased the Twin Towers from New York City in the spring of 2001. Interviewed for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds in September 2002, Silverstein said about Tower 7: “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”[ 238] Because it is impossible to “pull,” i.e. “implode” a skyscraper without weeks of preparation, Silverstein subsequently retracted, explaining that by “pull,” he meant “evacuate” the team of firefighters from it, as if that decision was his responsibility. It is important to know that just after acquiring the Twin Towers in the summer of 2001, Silverstein renegotiated the insurance contracts to cover them against terrorist attacks for the amount of $ 3.5 billion, and made sure that 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.[ 239] This was a good turn of fortune, given the additional fact that the Twin Towers had to be decontaminated for asbestos, a process which 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...
President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was an informed “9/11 truther,” and shared his opinion on September 12, 2006: “The hypothesis is not absurd [...] that those towers could have been dynamited. A building never collapses like that, unless it’s with an implosion. The hypothesis that is gaining strength [...] is that it was the same U.S. imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack or act against its own people and against citizens of all over the world. Why? To justify the aggressions that immediately were unleashed on Afghanistan, on Iraq.”
In a CNN interview on September 15, 2001, then again on BBCon September 19th, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak questioned the official U.S. explanation regarding 9/11. As a fighter pilot, he said in a later article, “I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, the size of a pencil.” Mubarak would soon pay the price.
This aspect of the case is crucial to understanding the unfolding of the attacks on September 11th. As explains Captain Eric May, a former intelligence officer in the U.S. Army, “the easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out.”[ 257] Once the exercise is fully developed, it will require nothing more but to change a single parameter to turn the operation from simulated to real. Those who plan and oversee the drill are not necessarily those who hijack it to turn it into real. Most participants in the 9/ 11 synthetic terror act, accustomed to obey military orders and the established “rules of the (war) game,” perform their appointed mission without knowing that the attack will turn out to be “real.” When they realize what they have been involved in, they simultaneously grasp the danger of raising objections; they themselves have been framed. As in the Kennedy assassination, military discipline is the key to ensuring the necessary silence of all unwilling, or unknowing participants...
It is also interesting to look at the preparation and eventual execution of the two “deep events”; doing so reveals a characteristic pattern and thereby allows for the development of a “theory of false flag operations,” and an increased ability to expose them. In both cases, for example, we note that the pseudo-culprit is identified almost instantaneously, along with the murder weapon. Oswald was arrested and accused in the hour that followed his alleged crime. Bin Laden was not arrested, but his name was plastered across TV screens everywhere by a slew of so-called terrorism experts in the hours following the collapse of the towers.[ 268] The aim is to quickly and efficiently cut off any alternative theory and inspire confidence in the veracity of the official narrative, marginalizing in advance all the skeptics. Official information, in this kind of event, circumvents public discussion and debate, preventing the people from collectively building hypothesis, interpretations, and meaning. Less than a week after September 11th, the Pakistani General Hamid Gul, a former ISI Director, keenly analyzed the technique: “Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center, CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.” Studies show that information received from an authority during a period of emotional shock— and thus rational vulnerability— is embedded into the memory of the trauma, in such a way that the distinction between facts and interpretation becomes impossible.
In any case, a patsy’s claims to innocence are barely a speed bump when up against the steamroller of an aligned media; bin Laden’s denial meant nothing. As for the suicide hijackers, they were dead by definition. Again, however, problems arose: a few days after the FBI identified the culprits (September 14th), seven of the nineteen hijackers came forward through various channels, proving that they were alive— in Morocco, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere— and consequently innocent.[ 273] The father of the supposed ringleader Mohamed Atta, a respected lawyer from Cairo, told the German magazine Bild am Sonntag in late 2002 that “[ his] son called [him] the day after the attacks, September 12,” and that he was hiding out of fear for his life.
As for bin Laden, it’s not until April 30, 2011, in the operation known as “Neptune’s Spear,” that he is supposed to have been eliminated by a SEAL commando, shot fatally in the head in his home in Abbottabad, Pakistan. His body, we were told, was dumped in the sea after identification. The only picture presented to the public was a vulgar photomontage, as the media quickly acknowledged. The farce would be funny if not for the tragic epilogue: Friday, August 5th, 2011 around 11 pm, a Chinook helicopter of the U.S. Army crashed in a province in central Afghanistan after being hit by two rocket-propelled grenades (RPG-7s) shot, we are told, by the Afghan resistance. The attack killed 38, including 30 members of Navy SEAL Team 6, the elite unit who had led Neptune’s Spear. And thus there will be less chance of contradiction to the official story of bin Laden’s death. Family members of the dead SEALs are now raising questions, however...
The Commission also threw a veil over one of the most disturbing facts around 9/ 11, which happened on the stock exchange: between the 6th and the 10th of September 2001, there were massive purchases of “put options,” twenty-five times higher than average, on American Airlines and United Airlines, whose shares fell 40% after the attacks, but also on companies housed in the WTC such as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Company. The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) concluded on October 15th that the gains had been in the hundreds of millions of dollars and could be the “largest insider trade ever committed.” The Commission rejected the hypothesis in a few lines: “further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/ 11. A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to Al-Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American [Airline] on September 10.” In other words: postulating that the culprit was Al-Qaeda, and noting that the investors in question did not have the Al-Qaeda profile, enabled the Commission to conclude implicitly that these suspicious transactions were just an unfortunate coincidence. The “institutional investor” in question was Alex Brown Inc., a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank whose former CEO and Chairman A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard (until 1998) had just become Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001...
Alain Chouet, director of French secret services (DGSE) from 2000 to 2002, denounced before the French Senate on January 29th, 2010 the “obsessive insistence of Westerners to invoke this mythical organization,” with the dual perverse effect of encouraging unrelated terrorists or merely two-bit criminals to claim allegiance to Al-Qaeda in an effort to be taken seriously, and encouraging Muslim regimes to describe their opponents as members of Al-Qaeda as a justification for repressing them, normally with the assistance of Westerners.
As Jason Burke explains in Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam (2007), the myth of Al-Qaeda was first created in January 2001 during the trial of four men suspected in the bombings against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. It was then that the FBI adopted, for the legal requirements of the charge, the idea of an organization structured under the orders of bin Laden, which was arbitrarily given the name “al Qaeda” (an Arabic word meaning “the list” or “the database,” and referring to a list of all the would-be jihadists who had passed through bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan, first set up with CIA support during the Soviet War). The idea that such a “list” constituted an organization was drawn solely from the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl, a former associate of bin Laden who had robbed him and who received 100,000 dollars from the U.S. government in exchange for his testimony. Created as a legitimatization for anti-terrorist actions, both at home and abroad, the concept evoked by the term “Al-Qaeda” has now become so broad and misconstrued that it ceases to designate any actually existing terrorist organization...
The idea of a conspiracy emanating from inside the Bush administration, which is the common wisdom of the 9/ 11 Truth movement, faces a major contradiction: if the responsibility of Osama bin Laden is a prefabricated lie, so are the elements that are potentially embarrassing for the Saudi state, and indirectly for the Bush family. The involvement of the Bush clan in the planning of the September 11th scheme (and not only in its cover-up) is plausible, but the choice of bin Laden as a patsy does not seem very wise, especially if the objective was to divert suspicion away from the Bush family. This paradox can be resolved if we consider that a complex operation like 9/ 11, designed to change dramatically the course of world history, necessarily involves several powerful networks, whose long-range interests do not necessarily coincide, and who hold each other hostage after the operation.
On the 4thof March, 2001, Fox TV broadcast the first episode of the series The Lone Gunmen, watched by 13 million Americans. Computer hackers working for a secret cabal within the government hijack a jet by remotecontrol 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 pretense of fighting terrorism. Could this be another kind of psychological “vaccine,” meant to denigrate in advance conspiracy theories as inspired by fiction? At the same time, it conditioned in advance the 9/11 Truth movement toward the hypothesis of the remote controlled planes...
On their comeback under Bush Jr.’ s presidency, Cheney and Rumsfeld took on powers that would prove decisive for their control of the September 11th operation. May 8, 2001, President Bush announced the creation of the Office of National Preparedness (ONP), subject to FEMA but placed directly under the control of the Vice-President, who thereby became responsible for coordinating the government’s response to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Then by an order issued on June 1, 2001 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCSI 3610.01A), the responsibility for ordering the destruction of a hijacked and/ or menacing airplane was given solely to the Secretary of Defense. As a result, on September 11, 2001, the Rumsfeld-Cheney tandem alone had the power to hinder any intervention against the attacks, real of fictitious.
Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation from 2001 to 2006, was with Dick Cheney and his deputy at the PEOC (White House bunker) at 9:20 am. He gave this testimony before the 9/11 Commission, on the 23rdof May, 2003: “During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice-President, ‘The plane is 50 miles out.’ ‘The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to ‘the plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the Vice-President, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice-President turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’” Could Cheney’s order be anything else than a stand-down order?
The Pentagon is not only the nerve center of the deep state; it is also the marketplace of the military-industrial complex. September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld publicly announced that $ 2.3 trillion were missing from the accounts of the Department of Defense, and later an additional $ 1.1 trillion was declared unaccounted for: just for comparison, this is more than one thousand times the colossal losses of Enron, which triggered a chain of bankruptcies that same year. The mystery of these trillions that just evaporated into thin air is an issue that had to be resolved by financial analysts at Resource Services Washington (RSW). Unfortunately, their offices were destroyed by “Al-Qaeda” the morning following Rumsfeld’s public announcement, which then became quickly buried under more pressing news. If we are to believe the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB), the hijackers or Flight AA77, rather than hitting the Command Center on the eastern side of the Pentagon (where the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs had their offices), accomplished an impossible downward spiral at 180 ° which lasted three minutes, 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: “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.”
Although virtually omnipresent in the Bush administration, the neoconservatives are, in fact, the main instigators of the soft “conspiracy theory” on 9/ 11, which admits responsibility of Al-Qaeda but focuses its accusations on the connections between Bush, the Saudis and bin Laden.
Given the undisputed fact that the intelligence suggesting Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was nothing but a lie manufactured by the neoconservatives and sold to the American people by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, what was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq? The consensual answer seems to be: Big Oil. Noam Chomsky dismisses even the need to argue: “Of course it was Iraq’s energy resources. It’s not even a question.”[ 329] As a sign of the times, he has been joined by Alan Greenspan, director of the Federal Reserve, who likewise concedes “what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil” (The Age of Turbulence, 2007). Chomsky and Greenspan are, of course, believers in the official bin Laden explanation of 9/ 11, and detractors of the 9/ 11 Truth movement. Yet most 9/ 11 truthers agree with them on that crucial question of motive. Strangely, they also claim it to be self-evident, rather than demonstrated through serious investigation: “I personally believe that there is a deep relationship between the events of 9/ 11 and peak oil, but it’s not something I can prove,” admits Richard Heinberg, a specialist in energy depletion, in the documentary Oil, Smoke and Mirrors.
The problem is that there is no indication whatsoever that the oil lobby had encouraged the military intervention in Iraq. What oil companies had asked, rather, was the lifting of sanctions that prohibited them from dealing with Saddam’s Iraq— the same as they are now asking for Iran. Indeed, as James Petras has shown in Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (2008), “‘ Big Oil’ not only did not promote the invasion, but has failed to secure a single oil field, despite the presence of 160,000 US troops, 127,000 Pentagon/ State Department paid mercenaries and a corrupt puppet régime.”[ 331] When in 2009 the licenses for exploitation were auctioned, it was Russia and China who grabbed the lion’s share, with even France’s company Total coming ahead of U.S. companies.
Proponents of the oil thesis like to foreground Halliburton, which has doubled its income in becoming the largest private contractor working for U.S. forces in Iraq. They rightly accuse Dick Cheney of having personally gained $ 50 million in promoting Halliburton, after having served as its CEO from 1995 to 2000. However, Halliburton and Cheney’s personal gains in Iraq have little to do with a national strategy for control of natural resources. Furthermore, Halliburton is not a petroleum company, but rather a civil engineering company that provides services to oil companies, as well as to armies. Besides, in the 1990s, even Halliburton (then under Cheney’s leadership) had called for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq, Iran and Libya, and had even been charged a $ 3.8 million fine for having bypassed said sanctions. Yes, Dick Cheney has blood on his bank account— and he is not alone— but the United States of America as a whole won nothing in the war in Iraq, which cost the American people a whopping $ 3 trillion, according to lowest estimates (Joseph Stieglitz, The Three Trillion Dollar War, 2008).[ 333] As for the Bushes, renowned oil sharks, there is no indication that they stood to make personal financial gain, not to mention the fact that the aggressiveness of neoconservative rhetoric against Saudi Arabia has hurt their interests.
No, the oil does not explain the war in Iraq, nor does it explain the war in Afghanistan, nor does it explain the planned war against Iran. And it certainly does not explain the extraordinary discipline of corporate medias in their support of the government 9/ 11 myth.
The neoconservative movement, which is a radical (rather than “conservative”) Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee, which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Jewish Daily Forward wrote in a January 6, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neo-conservatism is it. It’s a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neo-conservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.” The neoconservative apologist Murray Friedman explains the Jewish dominance within his movement by the inherent benevolence of Judaism, “the idea that Jews have been put on earth to make it a better, perhaps even a holy, place”
Just as we speak of the “Christian Right” as a political force in the United States, we could also therefore speak of the neoconservatives as representing the “Jewish Right.” However, this characterization is problematic for three reasons. First, the neoconservatives are a relatively small group, although they have acquired considerable authority in Jewish representative organizations— which are so numerous that their activities need to be coordinated by a Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, with a current list of 51 members. The neoconservatives compensate for their small number by multiplying their Committees, Projects, and other think tanks, which gives them a kind of ubiquity; in 2003, New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman could say of only twenty-five influential neocons: “if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.”[ 335]
Second, the neoconservatives of the first generation mostly came from the left, even the extreme Trotskyist left for some luminaries like Irving Kristol, one of the main editors of Commentary. During the late 1960s the Commentary editorial staff began to break with the liberal, pacifist left, which they suddenly deemed decadent. Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary from 1960 until his retirement in 1995, was an anti-Vietnam War activist until 1967, but then in the 70s became a fervent advocate of an increased defense budget, bringing the journal along in his wake. In the 1980s, he opposed the policy of détente in his book The Present Danger. In the 1990s, he calls for the invasion of Iraq, and then again in the early 2000s. In 2007, while his son John Podhoretz was taking over as editor of Commentary, he asserted once again the urgency of a U.S. military attack, this time against Iran. Third, unlike evangelical Christians who openly proclaim their unifying religious principles, neoconservatives do not display their Judaism. Whether they’d been Marxists or not, they appear mostly non-religious (although quite a few are sons or grandsons of rabbis, and at least one, Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim, is an ordained rabbi). Their unifying ideology is mostly borrowed from Leo Strauss, so much so that they are sometimes referred to as “the Straussians”;
The thinking of Leo Strauss is difficult to capture, and certainly beyond the purview of this work. Strauss is often elliptic because he believes that truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds (religion is for the rest). For this reason, Strauss rarely speaks in his own name, but rather expressed himself as a commentator on classical authors, such as Plato or Thomas Hobbes. Moreover, much like his disciple Allan Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind, 1988), he is careful to adorn his most radical ideas with humanist catchphrases, which often seem to contradict the core message. Despite the apparent difficulty, three basic ideas can easily be extracted from his political philosophy, which parallel those of Schmitt.
For Machiavelli, nations, not men, can aspire to immortality. But for the neocons, one nation only is truly eternal: Israel. Neo-conservatism can best be understood as a modern Jewish development of Machiavelli’s political thought. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not Judaism as a religious tradition, but rather Judaism as a political project— i.e. Zionism— by Machiavellian means. Some neocons, in fact, believe Machiavellism to be akin to Judaism...
If one is entitled to consider the neoconservatives as Zionists, it is especially in noting that their foreign policy has always coincided perfectly with the interests of Israel (as they see them). For the last seventy years, Israel’s interest has been understood as dependent on two things: the immigration of Eastern Jews, and the financial support of the Jews of the West (American and, to a lesser extent, European). Until 1967, the national interest pushed Israel toward the Soviet Union, while the support of American Jews remained quiet. The socialist and collectivist orientation of the Labor Party in power naturally inclined them in this direction, but Israel’s good relations with the USSR were primarily due to the fact that the mass immigration of Jews was only possible through the good will of the Kremlin.
The Six Day War was a decisive turning point: in 1967, Moscow protested against Israel’s annexation of new territories, broke diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv and stopped the emigration of its Jewish citizens, which had accelerated in the previous month. It is from this date that Commentary became, in the words of Benjamin Balint, “The Contentious Magazine that Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative Right” (subtitle of his 2010 book Running “Commentary”). The neoconservatives realized that, from that point, Israel’s survival— and its territorial expansion— depended on the support and protection of another super-power, the U.S. military, and concomitantly that Israel’s need for Jewish immigrants could only be fulfilled by the fall of communism. These two objectives converged in the deepening of the military power of the United States.
In the late 60s, the neoconservatives joined the militarist fringe of the Democratic Party, headed by Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, a supporter of the Vietnam War who would challenge McGovern in the 1972 primaries. Richard Perle, parliamentary assistant to Jackson, wrote the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which made food aid to the Soviet Union conditional upon the free emigration of Jews. It was also within the office of Scoop Jackson that an alliance between the neoconservatives and the Rumsfeld-Cheney tandem would be forged, an alliance which proved its toxicity when Rumsfeld and Cheney, once in the White House, allowed Perle to place his protégés Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pipes in Team B— whose report would be published in Commentary. During the Carter period, neoconservatives allied with evangelical Christians, viscerally anti-communist and generally well disposed towards Israel, which they see as a divine miracle foreshadowing the return of Christ...
With the end of the Cold War, the national interest of Israel changed once again. Their primary objective became not the fall of communism, but rather the weakening of Israel’s enemies. Thus the neoconservatives underwent their second conversion, from anti-communism to islamophobia. To foster their new agenda, they created new think tanks such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) led by Richard Perle, the Middle East Forum led by Daniel Pipes (son of Richard), the Center for Security Policy (CSP) founded by Frank Gaffney, and the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
After eight years of Clinton, the neocons finally had their revenge by having a second George Bush, son of the first, cornered into a second Iraq war in 2003. In 2008 their hold on him was such that they could convince him of launching a new ”Surge” of 20,000 men despite strong public opposition, but with the support of their pro-Surge group Freedom’s Watch, whose membership was, as the Jewish Telegraph Agency remarked, “almost all Jewish.”[ 353] Thomas Neumann, Executive Director of the JINSA, could then describe Bush junior’s administration as “the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman.”
To spread their war agenda, neoconservatives could rely of Rupert Murdoch’s powerful News Corporation, which owned 175 written publications selling more than 40 millions newspapers each week, and 35 TV channels reaching 110 million viewers on four continents.In 2003, all of them were in favor of attacking Iraq. Murdoch is a friend of Ariel Sharon and a loyal supporter of the Likud party. He is also close to Tony Blair, who is the godfather of one of his children.
These two forces— the crypto-Zionists inside the government and the pro-Israel lobby outside— sometimes act in criminal complicity, as illustrated by the charge against Larry Franklin in 2005; as a member of the Office of Special Plans working under Douglas Feith, he passed classified defense documents to two AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, who in turn transmitted them to a senior official in Israel. Franklin was sentenced to thirteen years in prison (later reduced to ten years of house-arrest), while Rosen and Weissman were acquitted.[ 356] Most neoconservatives are active members of the second most powerful pro-Israel lobby, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), of which Dick Cheney and Ahmed Chalibi are also members, among others responsible for instigating the Iraq invasion...
Passing off a threat against Israel as though it were a threat against the United States is a trick to which Netanyahu had no need to be converted; he has been employing it since the 1980s to rally Americans alongside Israel in the “international war on terrorism,” a concept which he can claim to have invented in his books International Terrorism: Challenge and Response (1982) and Terrorism: How the West can Win (1986). In An End to Evil (2003)...
In addition, it is necessary that the Americans believe that these enemies hate America for what it claims to represent (i.e. democracy, freedom, etc.), not because of its support for Israel. The signatories of the PNAC letter to President Bush on April 3, 2002 (including William Kristol, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, Robert Kagan, and James Woolsey) go as far as claiming that the Arab world hates Israel because it is a friend of the United States, rather than the reverse: “No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an ‘Axis of Evil.’ Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles— American principles— in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred.”
It is well known that America had no enemies in the Middle East before its covenant with Israel in the late 60s. On September 21, 2001, the New York Post published an opinion by Netanyahu propagating the same historical falsification, under the headline “Today we are all Americans”: “For the bin Laden’s of the world, Israel is merely a sideshow. America is the target.”[ 377] Three days later The New Republic responded with a headline on behalf of the Americans: “We are all Israelis now.” The post-9/ 11 propaganda has created an artificially fusional relationship. Wrongly, Americans have understood September 11th as an expression of hatred towards them from the Arab world and have thus experienced immediate sympathy for Israel, an emotional link neoconservatives exploit without limit...
One of the goals is to encourage Americans to view Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians as part of the global fight against Islamic terrorism. As Robert Jensen sums it up in the documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land directed by Sut Jhally and Bathsheba Ratzkoff (2004): “Since the Sept 11th attack on the US, Israel’s PR strategy has been to frame all Palestinian action, violent or not, as terrorism. To the extent that they can do that, they’ve repackaged an illegal military occupation as part of America’s war on terror.”
On December 4, 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon justified his brutality against the population of Gaza by claiming that Al-Qaeda had established a base there; but then in a press conference on December 6th, Nabil Shaath and Rashid Abu Shbak, respectively Planning and International Cooperation Minister and head of the Preventive Security Apparatus, provided evidence, in the form of telephone records, e-mails originating from Israel, and bank statements, that the Israeli secret services had themselves tried to create fake Al-Qaeda cells in the Gaza Strip, and recruited Palestinians under the name of bin Laden. The recruits had received money as well as (defective) weapons and, after five months of indoctrination, were instructed to claim a future attack in Israel on behalf of “the Al-Qaeda group of Gaza.” Israeli services had intended, it seems, to mount an attack (whether real or false) against their own people and do so under the name of Al-Qaeda, as a new pretext for aggression against the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip.
Such Machiavellian strategy is not directed at Palestine only. In 2006, the Lebanese army discovered several networks of Arab mercenaries sponsored by the Mossad to plan assassinations and bomb attacks in Syria.
Not that Israel has the monopoly of such stratagem. Articles in The New York Times and other outlets have revealed that the FBI hatches their own terrorist plots only to heroically prevent them at the last minute. The method goes like this: FBI agents infiltrate Muslim communities in order to find potential terrorists, encourage them, provide them with a target and the weapons or explosives, only to bust them on the verge of committing their misdeed, thus saving a grateful nation from a plot they had manufactured. The method allows the possibility to alternate successful and thwarted acts of terrorism, thus maintaining the citizens in a state of fear while strengthening their trust in their National Security State.
The massive forewarning of Israelis is one of the most embarrassing aspects of 9/ 11. On September 27, 2001, the Washington Post reported that, “officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks.” The first plane hit the WTC “almost to the minute,” confirmed Alex Diamandis, Vice-President of Odigo.[ 387] Odigo, headquartered in Israel, became part of Converse, an Israeli company which, according to investigator Carl Cameron, not only manages “just about every aspect of the US telephone system [together with Amdocs, also Israeli],” but also “provides the wiretapping equipment and software for US law enforcement agencies,” and, to add suspicion, “works closely with the Israeli government.”[ 388] The Odigo anomaly must be put in perspective with another puzzling but little known aspect of 9/ 11. The day after the attacks, a Jerusalem Post headline read “Thousands of Israelis missing near WTC, Pentagon” and the accompanying story stated that, according to Israel’s Foreign Ministry figures, 4,000 Israelis working at the WTC were missing. The Israeli death toll was expected to be in the hundreds at least, and when George Bush announced before Congress on September 20th, that 130 Israelis had died in the WTC, that seemed proportionally a low number. And yet, it turned out to be grossly inflated: in the final reckoning, only one Israeli had actually died in the World Trade Center, the New York Times revealed on September 22.
Jonathan Jay Pollard, analyst in the Navy, was arrested in 1985 and sentenced to life imprisonment for spying for Israel. Among thousands of top-secret documents that he passed to Israel were the worldwide code systems of the NSA, which Israel probably sold to the USSR in exchange for letting a million Jews emigrate for Palestine. In 1998, Netanyahu officially admitted that Pollard had been recruited by LEKEM, the Israeli spy project tasked with building a nuclear bomb, and simultaneously granted him Israeli citizenship...
Few people know, for example, that at the time of the attacks, the American federal police were busy dismantling the largest Israeli spy network ever caught on U.S. soil. In March 2001, the National Counterintelligence Center (NCIC) posted this message on its website: “In the past six weeks, employees in federal office buildings located throughout the United States have reported suspicious activities connected with individuals representing themselves as foreign [Israeli] students selling or delivering artwork.” The NCIC states that, “these individuals have also gone to the private residences of senior federal officials under the guise of selling art.”...
The report concluded, “the nature of the individuals’ conducts […] leads us to believe the incidents may well be an organized intelligence gathering activity.”[ 395] However, the nature of the intelligence gathered remains mysterious. It could well be that espionage was not their primary mission, when one considers the training received by some in the Israeli army, according to the DEA report: “A majority of those questioned has 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.”[ 396] It may be that this espionage activity— as ostentatious as it was unproductive— was really a secondary cover behind their primary cover as “art students”; the hypothesis is that their ostensible cover as art students was intended less to deceive than to draw attention to their more discreet, yet equally fake, cover as spies.
But why would these Israeli agents need to hang out as spies? One possible answer is suggested by a crucial detail mentioned in the DEA report: “The Hollywood, Florida, area seems to be a central point for these individuals.”[ 397] Precisely, out of the 140 fake Israeli students identified before the attacks, more than thirty lived in or near the city of Hollywood, Florida (140,000 inhabitants), exactly where fifteen of the nineteen alleged Islamist hijackers had regrouped (nine in Hollywood, six in the vicinity). One of the “art students” arrested, Hanan Serfaty, was renting two Hollywood apartments, respectively close to the apartment and to the P.O. Box of Mohamed Atta. What was the nature of the relation between the Israeli spies and the Islamist terrorists? Simple: the former were monitoring the latter. Such is, at least, the explanation relayed by the mainstream media. Listen, for example, to the March 5, 2002 newscast on national channel France 2, introducing the revelations of Intelligence Online: “… this espionage affair, which sows confusion: an Israeli network has been dismantled in the United States, particularly in Florida: one of its missions may have been to track the men of Al-Qaeda (this was before September 11th). Some sources go even further: they indicate that the Mossad would not have made available all the information in its possession.”[ 398] From such presentation, Israel comes out only slightly tainted, since a spy agency cannot be blamed for not sharing information with the country it is spying in. At most Israel can be accused of “letting it happen”— a guarantee of impunity. Such damage control trick may be the real purpose served by the Israelis’ spying activity; it was an alibi forged in advance. They were really Israeli false flag terror experts posturing as Israeli spies (and pretending to be Israeli art students, since a spy, by definition, must have a cover). In reality, these two hundred or more Israeli agents were not spying on the alleged terrorists, but manipulating them, funding them, and ultimately disappearing them— while laying around a few of their passports and other belongings in the rubble of 9/ 11. The connection between these patsy terrorists and Israeli secret services is thus very similar to the connection between Oswald and the CIA. The hypothesis that the Mossad was manipulating nineteen Arabs, leading them to believe they were hired as agents while they were being prepared for sacrifice, is supported by the lavish lifestyle of these pseudo-terrorists, unexplainable without secret funding.
The hypothesis that the terrorists were not monitored, but manipulated and prepared as scapegoat by the Mossad, becomes even more credible when we read in the New York Times on February 19th, 2009, that Ali al-Jarrah, cousin of the alleged hijacker of Flight UA93 Ziad al-Jarrah, had spent 25 years spying for the Mossad as an undercover agent infiltrating the Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah since 1983. He is currently in prison in Lebanon...
To be continued.