JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State by Laurent Guyénot

[Altair]

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:

Introduction

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.

 

[Cosmos]

Thank you for opening this thread! I'm currently reading the book too and so far it promises to be another great book from Guyénot with quite a lot of information in it that I didn't know.

 

[Altair]

Part TWO 9/11 (continuation)



Michael Chertoff, son of a rabbi and of a Mossad pioneer, was heading the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in 2001. As such, he was responsible for the retention and destruction of all the material evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks, from the steel beams of the WTC to the video recordings at the Pentagon. He was also responsible for the quick repatriation of all Israeli spies, as well as the “dancing Israelis”(see below). In 2003, he was appointed to the newly created ministerial position of Secretary of Homeland Security, which allowed him to control dissenting citizens and restrain access to the evidence under the pretext of Sensitive Security Information.


Omer Marmari, Oded Ellner, and Yaron Shmuel, three of the five “dancing Israelis,” were invited on an Israeli TV talk show after their return home in November 2001. “Our purpose was simply to document the event,” ingenuously declared Ellner (middle), while implicitly denying any Mossad connection.[404]Yaron Shmuel (right) has a LinkedIn profile that boasts his “explosives” and “secret services” expertise and experience. His Facebook account mentions that he got married on September 11, 2002[405]—the first anniversary of the “Big Wedding,” as 9/11 has been code-named by the perpetrators (in a fake “Al Qaeda communication” intercepted in late summer of 2001 by Jordanian King Abdallah’s men)

What remains the most puzzling aspect of this whole story is the recklessly ostentatious behavior of these young Israelis undercover agents, high-fiving on top of their van. One possible explanation is suggested by their first being reported as being or looking Middle-Eastern. 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.”[ 409] It was this call that led to the interception of the van and the arrest of the five Israelis. Two hypotheses come to mind, here. Either they were indeed dressed up as Arab/ Palestinian/ Muslim, or the anonymous witness was an accomplice. The second hypothesis seems more likely for two reasons: first, neither the police nor the FBI report mention any Middle-Eastern clothes found in the van. Second, the anonymous caller falsely said that the van was heading toward Holland Tunnel, whereas it was intercepted on Lincoln Tunnel, only because the police decided to block all access between New York and New Jersey. In either case, there is the obvious intention to start a rumor that Arabs had been seen rejoicing at the attacks and behaving suspiciously. If police hadn’t spotted the van, the story may have circulated worldwide on mainstream TVs under the headline: “The Dancing Arabs.” After all, television news coverage didn’t refrain from the most blatant fakery by repeatedly showing on 9/ 11, to a wounded nation, images of Palestinians rejoicing over the 9/ 11 attack: Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of media studies at New York University, has shown that the footage was filmed during the funeral of nine people killed the day before by Israeli authorities.


Ehud Barak, former chief of the Israeli military Intelligence (Sayeret Matkal) was Prime Minister from July 1999 to March 2001. When replaced by Sharon, he took a job as advisor for Electronic Data Systems and for SCP Partners, a front company specialized in security, known as a front for Mossad. SCP Partners had an office in the town of Englewood, New Jersey, less than 7 miles from Urban Moving Systems. One hour after the explosion of the North Tower, Barak was on BBC World to point the finger at bin Laden as prime suspect, and to demand immediate retaliation against Afghanistan.

All the facts mentioned in the present chapter give new meaning to the words of Bob Graham, pseudo-whistleblower of the 9/ 11 Commission, in an interview with PBS in December 2002, that there was “evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.”[ 412] Graham, of course, was referring to Saudi Arabia. Why would the Saud family help Osama bin Laden after stripping him of his Saudi nationality and putting price on his head for his attacks on their soil? Graham’s response, given in July 2011, is “the threat of civil unrest against the monarchy, led by Al-Qaeda.”[ 413] This ridiculous theory (which Graham, lacking arguments, developed in a novel)[ 414] has only one purpose: to divert suspicion away from the only “foreign government” whose links with terrorist suspects are out in the open: Israel (an enemy of Saudi Arabia, as it happens). In asserting further that the Saudi connection was stifled because of the friendship between the Bushes and the Saudis, Graham and his neoconservative friends use George W. Bush as a fuse or a lightning rod. The strategy has worked, since the 9/ 11 Truth movement hardly breathes a word on Israel but pursues the Bush clan with hostility— exaggerating, for example, the part played in the WTC security (until 1998) by the company Securacom/ Stratesec, co-directed by the President’s brother Marvin Bush (until June 2000).[ 415] Here we see Machiavelli at work: accomplish your dirty ends (war in the Middle-East) through the actions of another, and then turn popular vengeance against him. When, under mounting pressure from public opinion, the mainstream media will be forced to abandon the official story, the protest movement will have been already well infiltrated, and the slogan “9/ 11 was an inside job” will have prepared the public to turn against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, while the neocons will remain legally untouchable. As for Israel’s implication, if it can no longer be hidden, it will be minimized according to Noam Chomsky’s good old sophistry: after all, Israel is only the 51st American State, controlled from Washington, so that, whatever evil Israel does, it can always claim that “America made me do it.”


Noam Chomsky, a militant Zionist in his youth, has been the most conspicuous spokesman of the the radical left for fourty years, ever since pseudo-trotskists like Irving Kristol moved to the other far end of the political spectrum. Chomsky has always been hostile to any questionning of the official 9/11 story—as well as, curiously, to the quest for truth on the Kennedy assassination (in 1993, he published Rethinking Camelotto defend the official story).[416]Howard Zinn has taken a similar view of 9/11, known as the “blowback theory”: the important question, for him, is not who did 9/11, but “why the Arab world hate us so much."

A very revealing effort to direct popular suspicion toward the WASP faction of Wall Street (symbolized by the name Rockefeller, as opposed, implicitly, to the name Rothschild associated to both Jewish finance and Zionism) has been made by film producer Aaron Russo who, six months before passing away from cancer in 2007, may have wanted to “do something for Israel,” as American influential Jews are constantly pressured to do. In an interview with Alex Jones of Infowars.com, he pretended to have been befriended by Nicholas Rockefeller (having only a photograph to substantiate his claim). Nick Rockefeller, Russo said, forwarned him of 9/ 11 eleven months in advance and explained it as part of the Wall Street elite’s plan for a New World Order based on worldwide enslavement. Nick Rockefeller is a very minor and and very distant member in the dynasty, already dead by the time of Russo’s interview. The probability that he would know such a secret, let alone share it with a Hollywood figure, is totally preposterous. Yet Russo’s claim has had tremendous success on the net, all the more so that his subsequent death by cancer can be claimed as assassination.[ 418] To the same kind of make-believe belongs the widespread fake quote of David Rockefeller, grandson of John D. Rockefeller, thanking the Washington Post, the New York Times and other publications for having “respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years” on the Trilateral Commission’s project for a “supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers.” More credible would be a descendant of Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild of the English Zionist Federation (who laid the first stone of the Jewish State through bargaining for the Balfour Declaration with the British Government)[ 419] congratulating the Sulzbergers and the Grahams (hereditary directors of the Times and Post respectively) for their discretion of forty years on the crimes and deceptions of Israel.

We should not, however, oversimplify the issue and seek to blame only Israel for 9/ 11. As said earlier, a complex operation like 9/ 11 necessarily involves a broad range of intertwined interests, and it is most likely that the Bushes, like many other key players within the deep state, are held hostages of the Israelis by their own involvement in the plot, and kept in line by both retribution and blackmail. The Bushes, perhaps only interested in invading Afghanistan at the start, may have found themselves forced into the invasion of Iraq that the first Bush had resisted in 1991...

But there may be another reason why the media chose to report the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust anyway. A number of scientists claim that nanothermite, an incendiary rather than an explosive, cannot by itself account for the force of the explosions in the Twin Towers. It may have been enough to “pull” WTC7, which has been classically destroyed from bottom to top with no horizontal projection and little dust produced, but it fails to explain the very different destruction of the Twin Towers, from top to bottom, and the pulverization into very fine dust of almost all their concrete— not to mention the eleven hundred bodies never recovered. Thermite also leaves unexplained the deep craters found in the basements of the towers. It doesn’t explain the temperatures of 600 to
1,500 ° F at Ground Zero for 6 months after 9/ 11. It doesn’t explain the high percentage of some residuals of nuclear fusion/ fission reactions in the rubble (barium, strontium, thorium, uranium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, chromium, tritium), and neither does thermite explain the high rate of rare cancers (thyroid cancer, leukemia, and multiple myeloma) among Ground Zero workers, typical of radiation exposure. For these reasons and more, a growing number of scientists are now rejecting the nanothermite thesis and believe that mini-neutron bombs (perhaps no bigger than apples) had been planted in the core columns of the buildings.


WTC6, an eight-story building that stood north of the North Tower and housed federal government agencies, was severely damaged on September 11, with two holes that extend the height of the building. The multicolored glass-like smooth bedrock in the deep crater at the center of the building is the signature of a fusion-fission reaction.

The use of such mini-nuclear bombs, or “micro-nukes,” is fully consistent with other evidence implicating Israel: contrary to the United States, Israel has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and its nuclear arsenal is not subject to inspection or control of any kind.[ 425] Moreover, this is not the only case where Israel is suspected to have used mini-neutron bombs in a false flag bombing. On October 12, 2003, an extremely powerful explosive device destroyed an Australian nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, killing 187 people and injuring more than 300 others.

The bombing, blamed on Islamists, stopped a movement of protest in Australia against the Iraq war. The device was planted in a monsoon drain approximately five feet under the road nearby. According to Australian investigator Joe Vialls, the force of the blast, which set some 27 buildings in the neighborhood on fire, is indicative of a micronuclear device. So is the fact that 30 people were totally vaporized by the explosion, while many around the blast received severe flash burns of a kind which Australian surgeons declared having “never seen before.” Vials concludes to the use of a plutonium fission bomb, which leaves behind only alpha radiations “invisible” to a standard Geiger counter. And he points the finger at Israeli secret services.

In the case of the WTC, just a few individuals working two or three days would have been needed to place easily disguised micro-nukes no bigger than apples within the buildings, every five to ten floors, and the same people could have detonated the explosive sequence. In contrast, to plan the demolition of the Twin Towers with nanothermite would have required hundreds of people, months of work and a lot of highly visible masonry work to reach the steel column. Professor Neils Harrit has actually estimated the amount of nanothermite needed to blow the Twin Towers between 29,000 and 144,000 metric tons. Just to unload the lowest estimate would have needed 1,500 tractor trailer loads with a crew working 24 hours a day for 300 days non-stop. That seems inconceivable for a foreign power. In fact, it is inconceivable altogether.

Yet the nanothermite theory remains the most widely accepted explanation for the destruction of the Twin Towers. This raises disturbing questions. Jim Fetzer, a Veteran in 9/ 11 research and founder of “Scholars for 9/ 11 Truth,” has been unfairly attacked or ostracized by influential 9/ 11 Truth groups since he has endorsed the mini-nuke theory and pointed the finger at Israel,[ 427] while Steven Jones, co-founder of the same organization, has received the broadest support after parting from Fetzer and founding the competing “Scholars for 9/ 11 Truth and Justice,” which support the nanothermite theory.

It is a fact, however, that Israel has a long history and grand expertise in false flag terror. A world history of false flag operations would need to dedicate at least half of its pages to modern Israel, a nation less than a century old. The pattern was formed even before the creation of the Jewish State, with the bombing of the King David Hotel, headquarter of the British authorities in Jerusalem: the morning of July 22, 1946, six terrorists of the Irgun (the terrorist militia commanded by Menachem Begin, future Prime Minister) dressed as Arabs entered the building, and around the central pillar placed 225 kg of explosives hidden in milk churns, while others spread explosives along the access roads to the hotel to prevent emergency aid. When a British officer manifested his suspicion a gunfight broke out and the Irgun members fled, but not before igniting the explosives. The explosion killed 91 people, mostly British, but also 15 Jews.

The strategy was repeated in Egypt during the summer of 1954, with Operation Susannah. The goal was to compromise the Brit’s withdrawal from the Suez Canal, demanded by Colonel Abdul Gamal Nasser with support from President Eisenhower. Egyptian Jews trained in Israel bombed several British targets, then placed the blame on the Muslim Brotherhood, so as to discredit Nasser in the eyes of the British and the Americans, and to generate antipathy against Egypt. The accidental detonation of an explosive device allowed the exposure of the conspiracy. The Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon was held responsible, even though he placed the blame on Colonel Benjamin Givli, Director of Military Intelligence (Aman). The scandal, known as the “Lavon Affair,” was largely overlooked in the Israeli and American media, and it was not until more than fifty years later in 2005, that the State of Israel publicly acknowledged its responsibility.

In 1986, Israel tried to make it seem that a series of terrorist orders were transmitted from Libya to various Libyan embassies around the world. According to former agent Victor Ostrovsky (By Way of Deception, 1990), the Mossad was using a special communication system named “Trojan Horse” hidden inside enemy territory by Mossad commandos. The system acted as a relay station for faked transmissions originating from an Israeli ship, immediately retransmitted on a radio frequency used by the Libyan state. As the Mossad had hoped, the NSA intercepted and deciphered the transmissions, which were then interpreted as evidence that the Libyans were supporting terrorism, evidence that the Mossad would reinforce by providing the U.S. more faked intelligence of their own. Israel’s strategy relied on Reagan’s promise for retaliation against any country caught in the act of supporting terrorism. As expected, the Americans fell into the trap, dragging with them their British and German NATO allies: April 14, 1986, 160 American aircrafts dropped over sixty tons of bombs on Libya, targeting mainly airports and military bases. Among the civilian casualties on the Libyan side was Gaddafi’s four-year-old adopted daughter.


Isser Harel, founder of Israeli secret services (Shaiin 1944, Shin Betin 1948, Mossad since 1963) predicted in 1980, in a conversation with the Christian Zionist Michael Evans, that Islamic terrorism would end up hitting America. “In Islamic theology, the phallic symbol is very important. Your biggest phallic symbol is New York City and your tallest building will be the phallic symbol they will hit.”[434] When repeating these words in 2004 (in an interview with Deborah Caldwell and in his book The American Prophecies: Terrorism and Mid-East Conflict Reveal a Nation’s Destiny),Evans hoped to pass Harel as a prophet. It seems more rational to conclude that 9/11 was an idea born thirty years earlier within the Israeli Deep State.

The manipulative capacity of the Mossad during that time can be further illustrated by two stories analyzed by Gordon Thomas in Gideon’s Spies: the Secret History of the Mossad (2009). On April 17, 1986, a young Irish woman named Ann-Marie Murphy boarded a flight from London to Tel Aviv, unknowingly carrying 1.5 pounds of Semtex. The man who had given her the bag was her fiancé, a Pakistani named Nezar Hindaoui, who was then arrested while trying to find refuge at the Syrian Embassy. He had himself been manipulated by the Mossad, who would achieve their desired result: the Thatcher government broke off diplomatic relations with Syria.[ 435] In January 1987, the Palestinian Ismail Sowan, a Mossad mole who had infiltrated the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) in London, was entrusted, by someone claiming to work for Sowan’s PLO superior, with two suitcases packed with weapons and explosives. Sowan immediately called his Mossad contact, who instructed him to take the next flight to Tel Aviv, only to fly him back to London the next day. What he didn’t know is that the Mossad simultaneously denounced him to Scotland Yard as a suspect in a potential Islamist attack in London. He was picked up on his return to Heathrow Airport and charged on the basis of the weapons found at his home. As a result, the Mossad found favor with the Thatcher government again.

A third story will make the pattern even clearer. After the attack of February 26, 1993, against the WTC, the FBI arrested the Palestinian Ahmed Ajaj and identified him as a terrorist linked to Hamas, but the Israeli newspaper Kol Ha’ir showed that Ajaj had never been involved with Hamas or the PLO. According to the journalist Robert Friedman, author of an article in The Village Voice (August 3, 1993), Ajaj was actually nothing more than a petty crook arrested in 1988 for forging currency, sentenced to two and a half years in prison and released a year later thanks to a deal made with the Mossad, for whom he would then infiltrate Palestinian groups. Upon his release, Ajaj underwent a classic sheep-dipping by being once again briefly imprisoned, this time under the fake charge of trying to smuggle weapons for the Fatah into the West Bank. We have, therefore, with the bombing of the WTC in 1993, a prototype and precedent for September 11th, in which is demonstrated the deep involvement of Israel in false flag terrorism.


On March 17, 1992, the bombing of Israel’s Embassy in Buenos Aires killed 29 and wounded 242. It was immediately blamed on Hezbollah using a truck bomb. But the judge in charge concluded that the explosives had been placed inside the building, and revealed pressures and false testimonies from American Jews and Israelis in order to contradict him. When the Argentine Supreme Court confirmed his thesis, Israeli diplomats accused all of the judges of anti-Semitism. On July 18, 1994, a new bomb killed 85 and wounded 300 in another Jewish center in Buenos Aires, the AMIA (Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina). Again, the judges complained of pressures and false testimonies from the Jewish community, and expressed the same suspicions of an Israeli false flag terror attack meant to damage the blooming economic relationship between Iran and Argentina.

On October 12, 2000, in the final weeks of Clinton’s presidency, the destroyer USS Cole en route to the Persian Gulf, was ordered from its homeport of Norfolk to refuel in the port of Aden in Yemen— a rather unusual procedure since these destroyers are generally supplied by a Navy tanker at sea. The captain of the ship expressed his surprise and concern: the USS Cole had recently filled up at the entrance of the Suez Canal, not to mention the fact that Yemen is a hostile zone. The USS Cole was in a docking maneuver when it was approached by a garbage disposal dinghy, which then exploded against the hull, killing 17 sailors and wounding 50. The two “suicide bombers” driving the dinghy also perished. The attack was immediately blamed on Al-Qaeda, even though bin Laden did not take responsibility and the Taliban denied that he could have been involved. The accusation gave the United States a pretext to force the Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to cooperate in the fight against anti-imperialist Islamism, by closing three paramilitary camps on its territory. What’s more, a few weeks before the elections, the attack would become the “October Surprise” that brought Bush to power.

John O’Neill was put in charge of the investigation. An experienced counter-terrorism specialist at the FBI for twenty years, he had already investigated the WTC bombing in 1993. His team came to suspect that Israel had fired a missile from a submarine: the hole in the USS Cole was indeed indicative of that type of munitions and inexplicable by the explosion of one dinghy. O’Neill and his team suffered the hostility of the U.S. Ambassador Barbara Bodine and were forbidden to dive to fully inspect the damage. Finally, taking advantage of their trip home for Thanksgiving, Bodine refused them reentry to Yemen. The crew of the USS Cole was forbidden to speak about the attack except to Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). In July 2001, O’Neill resigned from the FBI. He was then hired as head of security at the WTC, by Kroll Associates’ managing director Jerome Hauer; September 11 was his first day on the job. His remains were recovered from the World Trade Center site on September 28 and identified by Hauer. As for Barbara Bodine, in 2003 she would join the corrupt team of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad, under Lewis Paul Bremer.

To conclude, it cannot be disputed that Israel is the master deceiver on the international stage, and has a long experience of false flag operations. That is consistent with the Machiavellian principles guiding its leaders, openly advertised by Obadiah Shoher in Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict (2006). Of course, the U.S. National Security State is also used to fabricating false pretexts for imperialistic wars, and Operation Northwoods proves that it is capable of false flag terror attacks not unlike 9/ 11, in the absence of a moral President determined to stand in the way. In 2005, Jason Bermas and Dylan Avery made the Northwoods project the opening argument of their Loose Change film, which did more than anything to stir the 9/ 11 Truth movement toward the drone hypothesis and the culpability of the U.S. military industrial complex. The timeliness of the Northwoods revelation in James Bamford’s Body of Secret four months before 9/ 11, and its immediate coverage by ABC News, actually raise disturbing questions. Random House informs us that, to write his book, Bamford— an ex-Navy employee gone into journalism after Watergate, just like Bob Woodward— was granted, “unprecedented access to Crypto City (the NSA campus in Ft. Meade, MD), senior NSA officials, and thousands of NSA documents,” by none other than NSA director Michael Hayden.[ 444] In view of the fact that Hayden, after moving to the CIA, has retired as a principal at the Chertoff Group, the security consultancy founded by Michael Chertoff, there is a good possibility that the Northwoods revelation was calculated to predispose truth seekers toward the hypothesis of a U.S. rather than Israeli false flag operation.[ 445] There are even some who believe that the document is a forgery, pointing out a few anachronistic British colloquialisms.[ 446] After all, the National Security Archive team of scholars and activists had never heard of Operation Northwoods until Bamford provided them with the memo. And, when asked about it by David Talbot, Robert McNamara, the supposed recipient of this outrageous memo, declared: “I have absolutely zero recollection of it.”

In April 2003, only weeks after the Anglo-American attack of Iraq, the House of Representatives introduced the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which grants power to President Bush to act against Syria in order to force it to “halt support for terrorism,” “cease the development and production of biological and chemical weapons,” and make peace with Israel.[ 448] A war against Syria is secretly planned in the Pentagon for 2004, while, under the auspices of the National Endowment for Democracy, a puppet government in exile is created, the Syrian Democratic Coalition. Thanks to French President Jacques Chirac, who has close ties in Lebanon, the war is temporarily avoided by the UN Resolution 1559 (adopted on September 2, 2004), which demands simultaneous withdrawal of Israel and Syria from Lebanon. But on February 2, 2005, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a leading figure of Lebanon and a personal friend of Chirac, is torn apart in his car by an explosion. The assassination is immediately blamed on Syrian leader Bachar el-Assad, but the Commissioner of the UN investigation, Detlev Mehlis, is soon forced to resign after his accusation of Syria is proven biased and ill-founded. In May 2006 it is the turn of Mahmoud Al-Majzoub, a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, to fall victim of an explosion in South-Lebanon. The involvement of an Israeli terrorist network is, this time, clearly established, when a former Lebanese officer named Mahmoud Radeh confesses working for the Mossad since 1994. The Lebanese investigation revealed that “the network members have followed training sessions inside and outside Israel,” and that the Mossad provided them “with secret and sophisticated communication and surveillance equipment, along with precise maps of the targeted places and other locations in Lebanon.” Suspicion arises that Israel is also behind Hariri’s assassination, as well as fourteen other bomb attacks designed to rekindle the civil war between Maronites, Sunnis and Shiites, and hostility between Lebanon and Syria.

This is the moment Israel chose to invade Lebanon, after Netanyahu’s meeting with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld on June 18, 2006, and under the pretext of trying to liberate two Israeli soldiers captured in Lebanon on July 12. Lasting thirty-four days, the war transforms South-Lebanon into a field of ruins, and causes the temporary exodus of one million people. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking at a press conference on July 21, welcomes here “the birth pangs of a new Middle East.” But the Israeli army (Tsahal) is ultimately unable to stand its ground and must retreat before Hezbollah resistance. This setback provokes a severe political crisis in Israel. From then on, the Jewish State will make sure to use U.S. and NATO forces to fight its own imperialistic wars.


On the 1stof February 2007, in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Brzezinski denounced the Iraq war as “a historic, strategic, and moral calamity […] driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris.” As a veteran of deep politics, he can see what is coming next: “some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.” Correctly seeing a war against Iran as part of a Zionist agenda, Brzezinski has recently warned the Obama administration against following Israel “like a stupid mule.” This dramatic backtracking by a major imperialist ideologist serves to demonstrate the loss of control by the U.S. of its own foreign and military policies.



Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel. Despite generous offers from Israel, most of these 30,000 Iranian Jews have refused to emigrate and remain loyal to their country. This fact does not fit with the repeated accusation that the Iranian government is consumed by anti-Semitism, and “preparing another Holocaust of the Jewish state,” as written in Israeli newspaper Haaretz (November 14, 2006)

Zionism has outlived Nazism because, after the war, it was able to shamelessly capitalize on the terrible persecution of Jews in Europe, and usurp the representation of the Jewish community.[ 483] To do that, it had to erase the memory of its active cooperation with the Nazi regime throughout the 30s, which have been thoroughly documented by Jewish anti-Zionist authors Ralph Schoenman (The Hidden History of Zionism, 1988) and Lenni Brenner (Zionism in the Age of Dictators, 1983; 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, 2002). The Zionists supported Hitler’s racial laws forbidding mixed marriages, while the Nazi saw the massive immigration of Jews from Germany to Palestine as the best “solution to the Jewish question.”

Because Zionism is the founding ideology of a “Jewish State” which treats its non-Jews as second-rate citizens and forbids interracial marriages, the General Assembly of the United Nations has declared in 1975 “that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” (Resolution 3379, revoked in 1991). Israel is an apartheid state like South Africa was until 1990, and it is no surprise that the two countries had established close economic and military ties (in violation of UN anti-apartheid sanctions); their cooperation included research on “ethno-specific” bacteriological weapons, meant to contaminate selectively undesirable populations, under Project Coast in South Africa (headed by the infamous Dr Wouter Basson), and the Institute of Biological Research in Israel (a department of the Ministry of Defense). Israel pursued this secret research at least until the end of the 1990s, while sending out worldwide disinformation on the imaginary danger of Saddam Hussein’s chemical and bacteriological weapons.

Will the “New World Order” finally prove to be the Empire of Zion? Let us recall that, long before being hailed by President Bush senior, the phrase had been coined in 1957 by geopolitician Robert Strausz-Hupé, in the first issue of his review Orbis, to define the agenda of his Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), one of the early crucibles of neo-conservatism. Strausz-Hupé identifies the coming New World Order as “the American universal empire,” destined to “to bury the Nation-States”: “The American empire and mankind will not be opposites but merely two names for the universal order under peace and happiness. Novus orbis terrarum (New World Order).”[ 494] Strausz-Hupé’s pupil Henry Kissinger may have given the appearance of following this vision. But not Daniel Pipes, ultra-Zionist son of neocon Richard Pipes, whom Strausz-Hupé named editor in chief of Orbis in 1986, and head of the Middle East Forum (MEF, originally a branch of FPRI) in 1990.[ 495] Has the disciple betrayed the master? It rather seems that the Americans have been fooled into thinking this New World Order would be American: it will be Israelo-American.

Americans had not been told either that the price for this New World Order would be a New World War. But that, too, was part of the Zionist program from the start, for it is the preliminary nightmare of the Biblical dream. The prophet Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord would fight “all nations” allied against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception of Jerusalem, who “shall remain aloft upon its site” (14: 10). Zechariah seems to have envisioned what God could do with nuclear weapons: “And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will smite all the peoples that waged war against Jerusalem: their flesh shall rot while they are still on their feet, their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths” (14: 12). It is only after the carnage that the world will finally find peace, providing their worship of “the Lord Almighty”: “Then everyone that survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of booths. And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain upon them...” (14: 16-17).

Is it possible that such a biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and the militarism of Likud, be quietly animating a determined and organized ultra-Zionist clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11, 2001 a Pentagon general showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists “that describes how we’re gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran.”[ 496] Is it just a coincidence that the motif of the “Seven Nations” doomed by God form part of the biblical myths instilled in Israeli schoolchildren? According to Deuteronomy, Yahweh says that he will deliver to Israel “seven nations greater and mightier than [it],” adding: “you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them…” (7: 1-2).

Conclusion

On the 22nd of November 1963, American democracy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, by a demon calling itself National Security, who took possession of its body. Since then, that animated corpse roams the earth, sowing deception and terror everywhere, with only the appearance of humanity. Soon it became possessed by another demon, the Machiavellian soul of a paranoid petty state, which now controls its nerve system and its heavily armed limbs; the U.S. Deep State has become virtually an extension of Israel’s fanatic, rightist Likud party. We have tried to tell, in as few words as we possibly could, this unfinished macabre tragedy. Let’s now return to the opening scene, and look back to the genesis of this “special relationship” (“ eternal,” keep repeating U.S. presidents since Reagan), and from which many observers fear the U.S. may never recover.

Harry Truman, father of the monstrous CIA and first nuclear mass murderer, was also the U.S. president who recognized the State of Israel ten minutes after its proclamation, on May 15, 1948. “Truman’s historic act of recognition will remain forever inscribed in golden letters in the 4000-year history of the Jewish people,” the Israeli ambassador would proclaim soon afterward. Truman shed tears, it’s been said, when in Washington in 1949 the Chief Rabbi of Israel told him: “God put you in your mother’s womb so you would be the instrument to bring the rebirth of Israel after two thousand years.”

In 1960, presidential candidate John Kennedy himself received an offer of financial aid from the Israeli lobby, represented by Abraham Feinberg. He summed it up to his friend and journalist Charles Bartlett: “We know your campaign is in trouble. We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us have control of your Middle East policy”; Bartlett recalls that Kennedy was deeply upset and swore that, “if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it.”[ 501] From 1962 to 1963, he submitted seven bills in an effort to reform the Congressional campaign finance system; all of them were defeated by the influential groups they sought to curtail. Meanwhile, with the support of the Attorney General Robert Kennedy, Senator William Fulbright, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, conducted an audit regarding “an increasing number of incidents involving attempts by foreign governments, or their agents, to influence the conduct of American foreign policy by techniques outside normal diplomatic channels.”[ 502] The Committee insisted that by virtue of its funding coming in through the State of Israel, the American Zionist Council be registered as a “foreign agent” and therefore subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. The investigation would be brought to a halt by the Kennedy assassination and the replacement of his brother by Nicholas Katzenbach as Attorney General. The American Zionist Council escaped foreign agent status by renaming itself the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Fulbright drew the conclusion on CBS (April 15, 1973): “Israel controls the U.S. Senate. […] The great majority of the Senate of the U.S.— somewhere around 80 percent— are completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants, Israel gets.”

In an early chapter of this book, we have learned how Kennedy, being determined to prevent Israel from completing its nuclear weapons program, had firmly warned Prime Ministers David Ben Gurion and Levi Eshkol that, without immediate international inspection of the Dimona complex, “This [U.S.] Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized.” Kennedy’s death freed Israel from these pressures and restrictions. Instead, within ten years, without hindrance or control, in total illegality and impunity, Israel would build up enough nuclear bombs to start implementing its own aggressive brand of nuclear deterrence, known as “the Samson Option”: the paranoid threat of reducing the Middle East and Europe to ashes rather than let the Jews be the victims of a new “Holocaust”— by which is meant any military defeat of Israel. This is exactly how Golda Meir blackmailed Nixon into sending military support to save Israel from an inevitable defeat by Egypt and Syria in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, as journalist Seymour Hersh has documented.

Kennedy was also committed to the right of return for the nearly 800,000 Palestinian refugees expelled from their neighborhoods and villages in 1947-48, that is, for the implementation of 1948 UN Resolution 194. Former Undersecretary of State George Ball notes in his book, The Passionate Attachment (1992), that “In the fall of 1962, Ben-Gurion conveyed his own views in a letter to the Israeli ambassador in Washington, intended to be circulated among Jewish American leaders, in which he stated: ‘Israel will regard this plan as a more serious danger to her existence than all the threats of the Arab dictators and Kings, than all the Arab armies, than all of Nasser’s missiles and his Soviet MIGs. […] Israel will fight against this implementation down to the last man.’”[ 506] On November 20, 1963, Kennedy’s delegation to the United Nations was calling again Israel to implement Resolution 194. Kennedy never read the outraged reactions in the London Jewish Chronicle of November 22: “Prime Minister Levi Eshkol summoned the U.S. ambassador […] and told him that Israel was ‘shocked’ by the pro-Arab attitude adopted by the U.S. delegation.” Golda Meir, for her part, “expressed Israel’s ‘astonishment and anger’ at the attitude of the U.S.”

No wonder the coming to power of Johnson was greeted with relief in Tel Aviv, as evidenced in the Israeli newspaper Yedio Ahoronot: “There is no doubt that, with the accession of Lyndon Johnson, we shall have more opportunity to approach the President directly if we should feel that U.S. policy militates against our vital interests.”[ 508] By contrast, the mourning was deep in the Arab world, where the portrait of Kennedy graced many homes. With his disappearance from the world stage, said Nasser, “De Gaulle is the only Western State leader on whose friendship the Arabs can now depend.”[ 509] Kennedy had reduced financial aid to Israel, and sent grain to Egypt under the Food for Peace program. In 1965, Johnson would cut aid to Egypt and multiply aid to Israel, which went from $ 40 million to $ 71 million, reaching $ 130 million the following year. Under Johnson more than 70% of U.S. aid to Israel financed the purchase of military equipment. Conversely, by denying Egypt and Algeria U.S. aid, Johnson forced them to turn to the USSR in their effort to keep up with Israel’s militarization.

In 1956, Americans under Eisenhower had opposed the invasion of the Suez Canal by Israel, France and Britain. In contrast, in June 1967, Johnson would give Israel a green light for its “preemptive” war against Egypt, waged under a false pretext for the purpose of territorial expansion, as is now well documented.[ 510] In a letter dated June 3rd, Johnson assured Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol: “I want to protect the territorial integrity of Israel […] and will provide as effective American support as possible to preserve the peace and freedom of your nation and of the area.”[ 511] Two days earlier, in a Washington meeting on May 30th, the CIA provided Mossad chief Meir Amit photos taken from satellites and spy planes, which enabled Israel to precisely locate the Egyptian armaments and destroy them within six days. That was the beginning of a longstanding cooperation between CIA and Mossad, under the supervision of James Jesus Angleton, the “Israel Office” man in Langley.

In view of the tremendous advantages that Israel has reaped from John Kennedy’s assassination, should we consider Israel’s guilt in the assassination as a reasonable hypothesis? Some authors have done so, most notably Michael Collins Piper in Final Judgment (1993). The case rests in part on the mysterious personality of James Jesus Angleton, who rendered great services to Israel as chief of CIA’s Israel Office from 1954 to 1974, and was actively involved in covering up the JFK assassination, including by stealing the diary of his sister-in-law Mary Pinchot after her death.[ 514] The case against Israel rests more strongly still on Jack Ruby, the man who killed the man who killed (allegedly) Kennedy, after having introduced himself in the Dallas Police station as a translator for Israeli reporters. As Collins Piper makes abundantly clear, the common wisdom that connects Ruby to the “Mafia” is misleading: rather, Jacob Rubenstein, as his real name was, was closely associated to a Jewish international crime syndicate led by Meyer Suchowljansky, alias Lansky, a generous contributor to the Zionist cause who would flee to Israel in 1970. This “Yiddish Connection” or “Kosher Nostra,” as it is sometimes referred to, included the famous Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel (romanticized by Hollywood in 1991, played by Warren Beatty), one of the leaders of Murder Incorporated. Ruby was a close friend of Siegel’s successor as Lansky’s West Coast Henchman, Mickey Cohen, who claims in his memoirs to have been “engrossed with Israel” and boasts of his financial contributions and arms smuggling in favor of the cause. Ruby himself, after having travelled to Israel in 1955, became involved in an international arms smuggling operation from Dallas, that involved a Mossad agent (Texas being then a major center of fundraising and arms smuggling on behalf of the Zionist cause). Gary Wean, a detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department, reveals in his book There’s a Fish in the Courthouse (1987) that Cohen had frequent contacts with Menachem Begin. Incidentally, Wean also believes that Cohen, who specialized in sexually compromising Hollywood stars for the purpose of blackmail, was responsible for arranging John Kennedy’s encounter with Marilyn Monroe, from whom he would then try to extract information regarding Kennedy’s intention on Israel.

As told earlier (end of chapter 7), Gary Wean raised the possibility, based on Senator John Tower’s testimony, that the Dallas coup was “a double-cross of fantastic dimensions,” in which a failed assassination attempt staged by the CIA had been transformed into a successful one by another force. According to Piper, Frank Sturgis, who reportedly boasted of the Dallas assassination, is the likely mole who introduced the real snipers into the CIA’s staged assassination— a bit like when actor Brandon Lee was killed on set by a gun that should have been loaded with a blank cartridge, to borrow Nick Kollerstrom’s metaphor.[ 516] Besides being involved with the Cuban exiles, Sturgis is known to have served in the Hagannah in 1948 and to have kept intimate ties with Israeli intelligence. This double-cross scenario is comparable to a drill exercise being diverted into a real attack, as 9/ 11 was in part.

Among the likely sayanim who orchestrated the Warren Commission cover-up Piper mentions Arlen Specter, assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, who came up with the “single bullet theory” and stubbornly defended it against common sense (sticking to it in his 2000 book, Passion for Truth). As wrote journalist Jefferson Morley: “Specter’s theory remains the keystone on which the edifice of Oswald’s sole guilt rests.”[ 518] At his death in 2012, Specter, the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, was officially mourned by the Israeli government as “an unswerving defender of the Jewish State,” and by AIPAC, as “a leading architect of the congressional bond between our country and Israel,” while the Committee to Free Jonathan Pollard reminded that he was “among the first to join the call for Pollard's release.”

All this and a few other things— such as Yitzhak Rabin’s presence in Dallas “hours before” Kennedy’s death (a “mere coincidence” revealed by his wife in her biography)[ 520]— may not seem enough to implicate Israel in Kennedy’s assassination, unless we are ready to consider as Israel’s tools not only Ruby, Sturgis and maybe Angleton, but Lyndon Johnson himself. It is hardly remembered today that during the Suez Crisis in 1957, Johnson wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles urging the Eisenhower Administration not to support UN sanctions aimed at forcing Israel to retreat. Johnson’s letter (which, as the Senate Majority Leader, he got endorsed by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee) appeared in the New York Times on February 20, 1957.[ 521] Johnson’s passionate attachment to Israel is an ancient story: he is hailed by some in the Israeli fan club as a “righteous gentile” for having facilitated the illegal immigration in Texas of German Jews in 1938.[ 522] Johnson himself attributed his philo-Semitism to a family heritage, in remembrance of his grandfather’s advice to “Take care of the Jews, God’s chosen people. Consider them your friends and help them any way you can.”[ 523] As Johnson’s wife Lady Bird would later testify, “Jews have been woven into the warp and woof of all his years.” And is not Johnson the only American President ever to have inaugurated a synagogue— in Austin, a month after becoming President?[ 524] Some authors have therefore speculated that Lyndon, son of Samuel and Rebekah, belonged to a lineage of Crypto-Jews or Conversos. Originating from Spain and Portugal where they had been forced to baptize, then cruelly persecuted by the infamous Inquisition, Conversos or Marranos were numerous in Texas; most had kept their Christian cover under Mexican rule, where the Inquisition was still tracking them until the middle of the 18th century, and some families maintained some form of attachment to Judaism well into the 20th century.[ 525] Such speculation, however, add little to our subject: Johnson’s friendship with Jews, whatever its origin, does not constitute evidence of his collusion with Israeli elements in Kennedy’s assassination.

A clue, however, can be found in Ruby’s own words regarding his role in the Dallas coup. Questioned by the Warren Commission, Ruby insisted to be taken to Washington, since, he said, “I am the only one that can bring out the truth to our President.” “If you don’t take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen.” Ruby did not detail this “tragic thing,” but made it clear that it had to do with the fate of the Jewish people: “there will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don’t take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don’t suffer because of what I have done.” He feared that his act would be used “to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith,” but added that “maybe something can be saved […], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me.”[ 526] Ruby seems to have wanted to send a message to Johnson, through the Commission members, a message containing a warning that he may spill the beans about Israel’s involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor. That impression gets reinforced when we compare the respect he shows Johnson, referred to as “our President, who believes in righteousness and justice,” to the accusation he would make in 1967 against that same Johnson, whom he would now call “a Nazi in the worst order” in a handwritten letter.[ 527] Ruby’s violent resentment suggests a sense of betrayal; perhaps Ruby was hoping that Johnson would get him out of jail...

Ruby’s statement to the Warren Commission was obtained from an unknown source and published by journalist Dorothy Kilgallen in the New York Journal American, August 18-20, 1964. Kilgallen also interviewed Jack Ruby during his court case and boasted afterwards of being about to “break the real story” and publish “the biggest scoop of the century.” She was found dead by an overdose of barbiturate and alcohol on November 8, 1965. Her last published line said about the Kennedy assassination: “That story isn’t going to die as long as there’s a real reporter alive, and there are a lot of them alive.”[ 529] There has been indeed many reporters investigating Kennedy’s assassination, but none has paid sufficient attention to Ruby, his Israeli connections, and his bizarre statements about “his people” or people “of the Jewish faith.” Even his real name has been lost in footnotes. That is remarkable, if we pose for a moment and think about it: shouldn’t the search for Kennedy’s assassin begin with investigating the known assassin of his presumed assassin, that is, the man who made sure the patsy played fully his role? Logic has it that Ruby acted on behalf of Kennedy’s real assassin, and that by following his trail, we could get to the heart of the plot. In fact, before dying, Ruby repeatedly told his defense lawyer William Kunstler that he killed Oswald “for the Jews,” repeating on several occasions: “I did this that they wouldn’t implicate Jews.” During Kunstler’s last visit Ruby handed him a note in which he reiterated that his motive was to “protect American Jews from a pogrom that could occur because of anger over the assassination.”[ 530] He must have been out of his mind.


Those who find offensive any suspicions of Israel in the assassination of an American president, should be reminded of the editorial published in The Atlanta Jewish Timesby its owner and editor in chief Andrew Adler, January 13, 2012, under the heading “What would you do?” Adler calls on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current Vice-President to take his place and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

All of the above elements may still fall short of prosecuting Israel in John Kennedy’s assassination. But there are also suspicions of Israel’s guilt in the assassination of John Kennedy’s brother Robert on June 6, 1968. How else can we explain the fact that the hypnotized patsy accused of the crime was, this time, a Palestinian young man allegedly motivated by hatred of Israel? Pages in Sirhan Sirhan’s diary (of which he would claim no memory) were filled with repetitive expressions of anger at RFK for his promise to sell military armament to Israel, if elected: “RFK must die, RFK must be killed.” The assassination of Robert Kennedy is therefore remembered in “superficial history” (as opposed to “deep history”) as the first act of international terrorism carried out on American soil and motivated by the Palestinians’ hatred for Israel. Once we recognize it as a false flag scenario, Robert’s assassination bears the stamp of Israel.

Could Robert’s assassination have something to do with the attack on the USS Liberty by the Israeli army a year earlier, almost to the day, and with Johnson’s willingness to cover it up? The question will probably remain forever unanswered, but what we know of Johnson’s unbridled psychopathy makes it conceivable that he bargained the impunity of Israel for the near sinking of the USS Liberty in exchange for the murder of his mortal enemy. What we know of Johnson’s key role in linking the destinies of Israel and the U.S. makes it even possible that the deal was only part of a secret pact.

There may be, after all, some mundane truth behind the mystical rumor (widespread on Zionist blogs) of a “curse” brought upon the Kennedys by patriarch Joe Kennedy’s anti-Semitism.[ 532] Ten years after John Kennedy Jr’s tragic death on July 16, 1999 (his private plane exploded in mid-air, seconds after he had announced that he was preparing to land at an airport near Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts), Israel’s prominent journalist Barry Chamish wrote: “Yes, I’m sure he was murdered. And yes, the Israeli political establishment had a motive for involvement. The latest Kennedy to die violently was the only American editor to expose (in the March 1997 issue of his magazine George) the conspiracy behind Rabin’s assassination. And he had every intention of continuing his exposes’ until he got to the bottom of the matter. We don’t know what drove him to stand alone in seeking the truth, but it may have had much to do with the information contained within Michael Piper’s (2004) book the Final Judgment.”

The assassination of Robert Kennedy bears some resemblance with the assassination of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia on March 25, 1975. Faisal, who was much loved for having modernized his country and saved it from bankruptcy and corruption, was assassinated by his nephew Faisal bin Musaid, a psychologically disturbed young man addicted to LSD, who had just come back from California via Beirut, where he had received psychiatric treatment. He was quickly beheaded before explaining his motivation. King Faisal had been the first and the last Saudi King to really support the Palestinian cause and the Pan-Arabic project. He had provoked the first oil crisis in the attempt to change U.S. pro-Israel foreign policy.

Ultimately, there is an undeniable causal link between the assassination of John F. Kennedy and September 11th: the conditions for the second would not have materialized if President Kennedy had survived and continued his policy. The Cold War could not have been exploited for Israel’s purely nationalist ends, and imperialist militarism would likely have been restrained. The main perpetrators of the Kennedy assassination and September 11th are not the same; but it is likely that the involvement of George Bush Sr. in the Dallas crime, however limited, created the conditions for a complex blackmail of his son and family, forcing George Bush Jr. to take the brunt of the responsibility for the September 11th plot and to pursue a pro-Israeli policy of which his father disapproved. The Bush clan was beaten at their own game, albeit by players of a higher league.

From the point of view of social psychology, there are also reasons to believe that the handling and cover-up of September 11th could not have taken place without the mechanisms of propaganda designed to keep the truth about November 22nd hidden. To use a psychoanalytic concept, the Kennedy lie constitutes a kind of “crypt,” a dark and repressed secret working deep within America’s unconscious that made, and makes it vulnerable to other lies. Every lie told creates a further predisposition to lie, not least due to all the lies required to keep the first one from exposure, and the crypt deepens as each lie is buried into another. Conversely, the unveiling of a lie threatens to unveil other lies. That is why we still see a fierce desire to perpetuate the lie about the death of Kennedy, which if once ever fully exposed would inevitably lead to the unearthing of the truths about September 11th.

There are structural parallels between the two cases. The role of the Vice-President is one: Johnson and Cheney were both key players in conspiracies. Though Kennedy had to be murdered for Johnson to take his place, Bush didn’t have to die to let Cheney rule: he was merely a dummy from the beginning. Another parallel is the role played by a foreign power. Even if we exonerate Israel from any direct involvement in Kennedy’s assassination, it can still be regarded as a partially aborted false flag terror operation involving three powers: a foreign government “F” (the anti-Castro Cubans in exile) organizes an attack against its powerful ally (the United States) under the false flag of a enemy power “E” (the Castro government), in hopes of duping the United States to fight E in its place. From this point of view, the Kennedy assassination is the blueprint for September 11th, a much more successful operation whose triangular structure is even more clearly marked: “F” is this time Israel, and the enemy “E” to be fought includes all of Israel’s hostile neighbors. In both cases, the project was developed through a close relationship between the secret services of the United States and its ally: in the 1960s, Cuban exiles had woven a fine relationship with the CIA, and beginning with the Johnson Presidency, the Mossad has done much, if not more, of the same.

But the disease is not only institutional. Though it’s said that the fish rots from the head, to a large extent, a democracy gets the leaders it deserves. The Americans’ submissiveness to Israeli propaganda is rooted in a civilizational affinity of the two peoples; that is to say in their national mythologies. Is not American patriotism rooted in the myth of the puritan “pilgrim fathers” fleeing religious persecution and settling in a new “promised land” like a new “chosen people”? Lyndon Johnson once summarized it well when, speaking before a Jewish audience, he compared “the Jewish pioneers building a home in the desert” to his own ancestors colonizing the New World.[ 538] What he emphasized, perhaps unintentionally, is the equivalence between the Zionist lie of “a land without a people for a people without a land,” which has been used by every denier of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and the Americans’ denial of their own genocidal history. Are not the Palestinians Israel’s Indians? This shared denial rooted in the national unconscious is accompanied by the same arrogant belief in divine election, summarized in American mythology by Manifest Destiny, so eloquently expressed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1912: “We are chosen and prominently chosen to show the way to the nations of the world how they shall walk in the path of liberty.”[ 539] Such ideas are potentially paranoid, for placing oneself above common humanity easily leads to seeing others as less than human.

 

[Voyageur]

The manipulative capacity of the Mossad during that time can be further illustrated by two stories analyzed by Gordon Thomas in Gideon’s Spies: the Secret History of the Mossad (2009).

Atzmon posted a video interview (I did not see it posted here and yet it might be somewhere) with Gordon Thomas regarding his book on Maxwell (2009). Thomas mentions that Maxwell was named and known as the King of Bulgaria in his day. So, just listened to it - there was much about the Maxwell Israeli 'Promise' computer software systems and its 'trapdoor' installed in many countries (exposed out of Montreal by the sounds of it). There was help given to Maxwell to provide the software right into Los Alamos (Israeli had now created a window into Los Alamos) helped by Sen. John Tower (Texas) - who later died in a plane crash. A later FBI (William Webster) investigation was then blocked by the White House - Casey/Weinberger etc.

Thomas states that Maxwell was an Israel 'first and last' type of guy, and yet at some point he fell in love with himself (narcissus), which put into question the deals that were being made through Russia (Maxwell was importing computers and systems there while also bringing Jews out of Russia - around 30,000 relocated to Israel).

Something not well understood at this point is that Thomas alleges that Maxwell was approached by an individual in the KGB to help overthrow/assassinate Mikhail Gorbachev, and Maxwell brought it to the Israeli Mossad who, Thomas claims, Maxwell had then underestimated Israel who became frightened of entering into this plot for various reasons. Maxwell was promised something like 15% (his going rate for deals while in the Russian State) for helping to execute a plan with work that would allow him to manage the Russian national debt.

The banking community (before he ran out of money) were throwing him buckets of money that he had to managed around 300 million of interest a year. Maxwell had around four hundred companies at one point. However, Maxwell goes to Mossad in desperation as his funds are running out; he threatened them, Thomas claims, and is sanctioned by decision to be taken out via an elaborate plan using a secrete Mossad team (the team is called 'a Kidon-unite' a term for bayonet), the only "full-time" assassination team in intelligence. Thomas said Mossad looked at assassination accident plans (such as a mishaps with an elevator or crash of one of his aircraft), and at sea became the adopted plan. The Mossad lures Maxwell from Gibraltar to the Canary Islands on his boat on the pretext that it's okay, we will tell you what we are going to do when you get here (regarding the debt that they at first denied him rescue). They threw a net over the whole area of sea and gave him instructions to rendezvous with them early in the morning and to be on the boat deck while another boat comes along side to meet him. The Kidon team used a nerve agent to paralyze him, and then took him overboard and drowned him. The data came out after during autopsy (the nerve agent) and other.

As time goes by it seems as if Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was just the tip of the iceberg. America has been riddled and infiltrated by Israeli spies at the highest possible level for decades. You must listen to this interview with Gordon Thomas:

 

[Yupo]

There is a video of all this, about 3 hours long on youtube. Goes into a great deal of detail tying the very many loose ends together in the JFK murder (they switched the bodies, using a surgically modified look a like). Also goes into detail about the help Hitler had from his supposed enemies. Covers a lot of ground. It might be censored soon. It's been flagged as inappropriate and offensive to some viewers.
_

 

[kinyash]

There is a video of all this, about 3 hours long on youtube. Goes into a great deal of detail tying the very many loose ends together in the JFK murder (they switched the bodies, using a surgically modified look a like). Also goes into detail about the help Hitler had from his supposed enemies. Covers a lot of ground. It might be censored soon. It's been flagged as inappropriate and offensive to some viewers.
_

Watched the movie.........WOW!

 

[Yupo]

Watched the movie.........WOW!

I put off watching it, expecting it to be the usual stuff, but it isn't. Seems very well researched. Unusual level of detail in explanation of events. Probably the most accurate presentation on these subjects I've ever seen. If not, please correct me. Seems like this is the kind of information that can change the world, if people will be open enough to look at it.

 

[Voyageur]

There is a video of all this, about 3 hours long on youtube...Covers a lot of ground. It might be censored soon. It's been flagged as inappropriate and offensive to some viewers.

Fwiw, my 2 cents on this film:

- It knits together what has been in circulation elsewhere while focusing on the usual characters (part truth to be sure, however...).
- His thoughts were that the JFK event is 100% CIA/Mafia. He had some interesting thoughts while avoiding other thoughts.
- The film from start to finish excludes - almost redirects the viewer away from certain groups, such as Mossad or other things that Laurent Guyénot points to (as do others).
- Cabal's related to Israel were whitewashed from any real mention, plainly redirected away from.
- The 911 bit was sparse and focused on the American cabal only - with many actors.
- There was focus on methods to redirect (CIA etc.) in terms of books, internet and media, which indeed happens, however he brings up situations were CIA's involvement includes using (in the case of YouTube) similar focuses that say "Banned' soon or other hooks to watch it now, and then, as you said of this three hour film "It might be censored soon. It's been flagged as inappropriate and offensive to some viewers." while providing an alternative hosting place for his film 'if' something happens.
- Was thinking, is this a trend or what, using creepy devil illustrations placed strategically in films. Personally it seems off-putting, and many use it to amplify their message.
- At the end the 'historian' doubles down on 'please join us now at Revolutions R'US' (whatever the name was) - and whatever that means.

Overall (and let's face it there are things he is saying that have some background, although not original) his film left me with it's just too slick and focused, like here it all is so don't look at anything else, and 'banned soon' so get it while you can and in the meantime we need a revolution, so get onboard, and people know how that goes. There were all sorts of off things, imo, concerning this film that mimicked what he was warning against. There was indeed a hook in this film, at least for a bit, until what he was not saying and how he was saying it became apparent.

There is also not throwing out everything said, just being careful. Thus his film reminded me of what the C's point out, such as 'be careful what you let into your field'.

 

[Adobe]

Yupo, thanks for posting the video, it was a good refresher film, and I picked up some things I didn’t know. In addition, I agree with Voyageur’s Summation. The hook. The silent parts. And, the hurry up and sign in on our webpage for the revolution. Yieks!

A couple of thoughts:

In the film the Elites motivation is that they were scared to death of communism, yet today (the same power Elites) seem to be pushing us, and according to some always have be pushing us into communism. So, what gives? Communism for us, and freedom for them, or is the communism scare both imagined, and real just a ruse?

Diana West author of “American Betrayal” runs the idea that Senator Joe McCarthy (with Bobby Kennedy at his side btw) was right, and we should have listened to him.

Now that Jordan Peterson, and others have made the rounds and shed light on these ideologies taking root in the colleges, universities, Hollywood, and the MSM, in the 60s, then maybe McCarthy was onto something in the 50s. Yet….

I can go two directions with that.

• McCarthy was on to something, and left hung out to dry.
• McCarthy was a red herring, used to make the idea of rooting out the commies, as a repugnant, and embarrassing thing to be involved with. Thus (after McCarthy) shame on you if you criticize the communists, postmodernist, Hollywood, and so on.

 

[Voyageur]

There is also not throwing out everything said, just being careful.

Was thinking on this film again. The first parts provide the characters that most all know (less some others), and then it brings one to the main part that he spends a great deal of time on, both sides of that November day in Dallas in 1963.

There is so much detail in this sad Dallas period leading up to, and after, that it does not need repeating. There are good articles on SOTT and the forum, and of course many books of varying theories. To give this film, particularily this event its dues (at least around what a lot of it was about), the film offers some unique add on set-ups to that Dallas day, however you first need to accept the premise he lays out, and he offers up individuals, many are known.

His set up expands the field of CIA/Mafia, bringing in new gunman (there were seven and then eight I think), and provides locations for them while analysing the data from that day - each of their shots or roles (and what was found and seen). He is telling an expanded version of some other's with a slightly different angle, and he points out testimonials that this person saw this gunman in this window and another gunman in that window. Some were up on roofs. There is the grassy knoll, downplayed, and if following it makes some sense as it has occupied thinking for all these decades, a decoy. The most interesting, osit, was the gunman in the drain sewer adjacent to the road - here there is JFK's stopping limousine, the motorcycle cop, the demarcation on the curb as signal, and a shot that looks to make some sense as a backup when the others did not work (a last chance position).

This set up, as told, resembles a shooting gallery of complications.

Taking a step back, most agree the scene was managed, and only the arrangements/positions/gunmen are different. In this he presents this arrangement. However the goal in so much that has been presented seems to suggest that who is involved and who can't be mentioned are factors. Who is mentioned favors the singular CIA/Mafia cabal (and not just with this film). And indeed you can't separate elements of either, nor elements of who pulled some strings for the set-up that day. You can look to who is not being mentioned, and that favors what this thread started out to say.

Of the film (although mentioned) it stays away from Bobby's assassination, as there is no expanded reference to that day and what seems to have happened. See Evidence of Revision for a good look.

In the aftermath, the film offers up strange on-flight (aboard Air Force II) body switching of Officer J. D. Tippit, who oddly enough resembles, to some extent, JFK. The mortician/plastic surgeon was CIA and he disapered with his family later like a ghost.

The gunmen in the plaza seemed to all get taken out over the years.

There is much more not said above in the film about events around the plaza, yet that looks ever so briefly, if not remebered accurately, at some of it.

So, in sum after spending decades here and there looking at this, the geometry changes, the shooters change as do the string pullers, yet there are some fundamentals that exist and are constant. There is a lot of deflection and a great deal of muddy water. Don't think I can ever know, and that's the point of operations like this, to sow enough confusion.

Lastly, thanks Yupo for offering it up to have another look at this period. Others may well have seen much more not said here.

 

[Michael B-C]

Was thinking on this film again. The first parts provide the characters that most all know (less some others), and then it brings one to the main part that he spends a great deal of time on, both sides of that November day in Dallas in 1963.

There is so much detail in this sad Dallas period leading up to, and after, that it does not need repeating. There are good articles on SOTT and the forum, and of course many books of varying theories. To give this film, particularily this event its dues (at least around what a lot of it was about), the film offers some unique add on set-ups to that Dallas day, however you first need to accept the premise he lays out, and he offers up individuals, many are known.

His set up expands the field of CIA/Mafia, bringing in new gunman (there were seven and then eight I think), and provides locations for them while analysing the data from that day - each of their shots or roles (and what was found and seen). He is telling an expanded version of some other's with a slightly different angle, and he points out testimonials that this person saw this gunman in this window and another gunman in that window. Some were up on roofs. There is the grassy knoll, downplayed, and if following it makes some sense as it has occupied thinking for all these decades, a decoy. The most interesting, osit, was the gunman in the drain sewer adjacent to the road - here there is JFK's stopping limousine, the motorcycle cop, the demarcation on the curb as signal, and a shot that looks to make some sense as a backup when the others did not work (a last chance position).

This set up, as told, resembles a shooting gallery of complications.

Taking a step back, most agree the scene was managed, and only the arrangements/positions/gunmen are different. In this he presents this arrangement. However the goal in so much that has been presented seems to suggest that who is involved and who can't be mentioned are factors. Who is mentioned favors the singular CIA/Mafia cabal (and not just with this film). And indeed you can't separate elements of either, nor elements of who pulled some strings for the set-up that day. You can look to who is not being mentioned, and that favors what this thread started out to say.

Of the film (although mentioned) it stays away from Bobby's assassination, as there is no expanded reference to that day and what seems to have happened. See Evidence of Revision for a good look.

In the aftermath, the film offers up strange on-flight (aboard Air Force II) body switching of Officer J. D. Tippit, who oddly enough resembles, to some extent, JFK. The mortician/plastic surgeon was CIA and he disapered with his family later like a ghost.

The gunmen in the plaza seemed to all get taken out over the years.

There is much more not said above in the film about events around the plaza, yet that looks ever so briefly, if not remebered accurately, at some of it.

So, in sum after spending decades here and there looking at this, the geometry changes, the shooters change as do the string pullers, yet there are some fundamentals that exist and are constant. There is a lot of deflection and a great deal of muddy water. Don't think I can ever know, and that's the point of operations like this, to sow enough confusion.

Lastly, thanks Yupo for offering it up to have another look at this period. Others may well have seen much more not said here.

Hi Voyageur. I think you've noted both the strengths and weaknesses of the film. To my mind in particular he falls for the mafia/CIA links that are part of the never ending web of deceitful trails that were deliberately planted as part of the long term management of the truth from day one. If everyone is involved then no one is responsible (Plausible Deniability). Part of the plan was to have so many trails, so many links, so many partial involvements (to the level required) that mud and sludge was all that was left behind with as many traps and dead end paths as possible to ensure the interested would get tied up in contradictory knots. This why its actually as close to a paranormal 'Trickster' process as human agents can create.

A couple of points. To my mind the single best evidential based investigation (in fact one could argue the only real 'inside' investigation ever done based on personal access to as much 'genuine' evidence as can be said to still exist in the upper layers of the cover up system) was done by naval officer Douglas Horne when he was included in the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board set up post Oliver Stone's JFK film and the results of which he published in 5 highly illuminating volumes entitled 'Inside the ARRB'. In a nutshell he is the only open minded and committed investigator to have ever gained access to the inside and to actually forensically examine documents held by the state as well as interview all the then living key witnesses etc. Having read all 5 volumes (a mammoth task which I will some day try and distill on the forum) two big issues emerge :

1. The autopsy is the absolute smoking gun. This is real evidence. In immense forensic detail he categorically proves not only the fraud of the original process, its cover up and the perpetrators but also that there was a secret per-autopsy operation undertaken at the same location that attempted to cover up the evidence of multiple gun shot wounds to JFK's body and head. This evidence corroborates the 2 caskets story (which he again goes into in great forensic detail) but dismantles any idea of there being 2 bodies. One casket was empty the other had JFK and in the confusion enabled a brief window for the autopsy doctors to undertake their nefarious botch job on him. This may dovetail with the possibility that some kind of attempt to do the same was first done on the plane on its way from Dallas (which failed so requiring them to step in again once the plane landed) but pretty much destroys the possibility that Tippet's body was involved .

2. The Zapruder film is a fraud. This is perhaps the most important piece of evidence because of the fact it is so relied upon by so many as the proof of so much but which in fact creates a whole bunch of false assumptions. The facts of its creation from the original over the course of the weekend at a secret CIA photo lab is laid out in immense technical and witness detail and its undeniable. Most importantly they doctored and removed from the original (1) the slow down/near stopping of the car at the point of the final head shots (2) the multiple shots - including from behind - (he thins there were 3+ to the head) that are not recorded in the total sum including to JFK's head from several locations at the same time (3) the involvement of the secret service in the car especially the driver William Greer who 'may' have pulled a weapon and 'may' have used it... but this is very much open, but not his direct involvement in the lining up of JFK for execution. All this has been removed from the film along with other evidence (including the false turn/stop at the top of Main and Elm which disrupted the motorcycles that were meant to surround the limousine as it traveled down).

His conclusions - which go into immense Geo-political detail as well as evidence from the day - are that it was accomplished my multiple parties at the higher echelons of the international deep state and executed via sleeper cells within cells (the CIA, Military & Naval Intelligence, Secret Service and FBI were all unwittingly 'used') who were mobilized - on a need to know basis - with most likely James Jesus Angleton the lynch pin king co-coordinator (as we now know on behalf of his 'Zionist' buddies). This in very much in line with Peter Dale Scott's brilliant work on the matter.

The books are the closest thing to solid evidence you will ever find. They perpetrators came from the shadows and withdrew back to the same after leaving a labyrinthine maze of incongruities and double bluffs behind them. The rest is silence I'm afraid - as was always the plan from day one.

Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK: Volume 1

 

[Michael B-C]

One other matter he reveals is the way in which Bobby Kennedy was hoodwinked into believing he had been personally responsible for unleashing the Cuban hit squad they convinced him had been involved (to cut a long story short Bobby had been secretly paying the exiles off to leave US soil and set up in Latin America and the powers that be convinced him that they used these funds instead to go on and to kill his brother!) and how this led him to becoming impotent and ineffectual during the key early days/years and in particular assist them in dismembering key evidence to do with the body, including JFK's brain. It would appear when he realised he had been dupped that the fateful decision to stand for president was made and thereby give him teh power to undo the damage by gaining office and reopening the investigation - which of course sealed his fate. Evil beyond words.

 

[Voyageur]

Part of the plan was to have so many trails, so many links, so many partial involvements (to the level required) that mud and sludge was all that was left behind with as many traps and dead end paths as possible to ensure the interested would get tied up in contradictory knots.

Yes, that is how it appears. Played over and over again in other strategies - to make convoluted while stirring the pot some more.

The autopsy is the absolute smoking gun

I've not followed so many stories about this, yet it seemed off in that film above.

The Zapruder film is a fraud.

Something about it is off indeed, osit.

As related, catching the below was interesting, yet don't think people will ever know, and that's the point with your first quote above.

A Chiropractor Looks at the Zapruder Film

This coming Tuesday, November 22, will be the 48th anniversary of the murder of President Kennedy. I hope that a lot will be said and written about it. And to the Occupy folks in Dallas, I really think they should move their occupation over to...

www.sott.net

His conclusions - which go into immense Geo-political detail...

Yup, with the exception of some of the threads Guyénot is pulling at. Now I don't doubt there were hired guns and some insiders who helped, were manipulated or even blackmailed (LBJ fits in there somewhere), as Mr. Conolly lays out. Now Conolly also makes some interesting historical (and probably pretty accurate) points going back in time, yet this ship of lies that has shaped our times seems to have been steered clear by Conolly of the elephants in the room, so to speak.

Here is an add-on by Guyénot posted recently (January 27, 2020). Have a read on 'James Forrestal’s strange death' looked at by Laurent in context to JFK's latter assassination:

For this reason, Forrestal’s assassination by the Zionists becomes a precedent that makes JFK’s assassination by the same collective entity more plausible. If Israel can kill a former U.S. Defense Secretary on American soil in 1949 and get away with it with government and media complicity, then why not a sitting President fifteen years later? If the truth on Forrestal had been known by 1963, it is unlikely that Israel could have killed two Kennedys with impunity.

In sum, and going back to your first comment that "part of the plan was to have so many trails, so many links, so many partial involvements..." that we can go around for ever and never resolve, which relate to the vast number of waypoint's they dropped for people to follow...

 

[Debra]

" [...]virtually UNKOWN JFK Speech to Canadians and Americans alike.
After winning his presidency his first visit was to Ottawa Canada, he made an address to Canadian Parliament on the 17th of May 1961."

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

A very moving recording and a great find. Thank you Debra.