The spinning of the smoking guns: More pre-9/11 US intelligence connections to al-Qaeda exposed and spun

Check your partisan beliefs at the door. This article holds Bush, Clinton and Washington bureaucrats accountable for 9/11. Read it in it's entirety.

The spinning of the smoking guns
More pre-9/11 US intelligence connections to al-Qaeda exposed and spun

By Larry Chin | August 24 2005

In recent weeks, two "revelations" of pre-9/11 US military-intelligence relationships with al-Qaeda "terrorists" and Osama bin Laden are being used as cannon fodder in an intensifying power struggle between rival political factions vying to seize the "war on terrorism" agenda for their own, and deepen the cover-up of 9/11.
The furor over new stories involving alleged 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and US-bin Laden go-between Tarik Hamdi pits spinmasters against other spinmasters—Kean 9/11 Commission supporters versus hawkish Bush-linked 9/11 Commission attackers, neocons versus neoliberals, and intelligence and law enforcement agencies are at each other's throats again over "intelligence failures."

While the spin has dwelled exclusively around "anti-terrorism" and various red herrings, and the supposed frustration over the tracking and arrest of al-Qaeda members, the true evidence trail continues to be purposely ignored. This trail leads directly to high-level US government officials and US intelligence agencies themselves (and US intelligence branches such as Pakistan's ISI), for their nurturing, guiding and placement of "Islamic terrorist" intelligence assets (including Atta, Hamdi, bin Laden and al-Qaeda), and US complicity in 9/11.

Osama's US Contact

Newly unsealed court papers charge that Tarik A. Hamdi, an Iraqi-born American citizen and a former resident of Herndon, Virginia (a suburb of Washington, DC, and a hotbed of intelligence-connected groups), and a direct and key American contact for Osama bin Laden, is now a member of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry in Ankara, Turkey.

According to the affadavit from Customs Agent David Kane, and facts confirmed by US authorities (including the FBI), Hamdi supplied a satellite telephone battery to bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan in 1998.

Hamdi, former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, and Pakistani journalist (and ISI "favorite") Rahimullah Yusufszai were among the few go-betweens with bin Laden who set up interviews with bin Laden for American journalists, such as John Miller (now a Commanding Officer in the Los Angeles Police Department's Counter-Terrorism Bureau). During this period, Cannistraro, Miller and Yusufszai worked for ABC News. Hamdi also had a working relationship with recently deceased ABC anchorman Peter Jennings, who tapped Hamdi as a Middle East expert more than once.

As noted by Chaim Kupferberg, "Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, provided covert aid to the Afghani mujahadeen in the late 80s, as well as supervised CIA operations with the contras. He was also a point man in the notoriously circumspect investigation at Lockerbie."

Hamdi has also been indicted on fraud and immigration charges. Federal agents have also held Hamdi under scrutiny since 2002 for his involvement with the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) think tank in northern Virginia, and ties to other alleged members of al-Qaeda. The IIIT itself has been suspected of ties to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Interestingly, the IIIT is one of many Saudi/Islamic fronts under investigation (see "Role of Charities and NGOs In the Financing of Terrorist Activities"), but also deeply connected to the Republican Party apparatus and Bush/Rove, via Grover Norquist.

The relationship Hamdi enjoyed with ABC, Miller, and Cannistraro leads to deeper issues that go to the heart of the 9/11 operation, as detailed by Kupferberg in "The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11".

Kupferberg points out that " . . . if the bin Laden threat was, pre-9/11, a close-knit propaganda campaign, one would expect to find the same names showing up repeatedly in combination with one another." Among the short list of "same names" who managed the flow of available information on bin Laden, we find Miller and Cannistraro.

Specifically regarding ABC and bin Laden, Kupferberg said:

" . . . it is my contention that al-Qaida and bin Laden are elaborate 'legends' set up to promote a plausibly sophisticated and ferocious enemy to stand against American interests. I am not, however, implying that bin Laden himself is a total fabrication. Rather, it is my contention that confederates, believing themselves to act on behalf of bin Laden, are being set up in a 'false flag operation' to perform operations as their controllers see fit.

"If [9/11] were an 'inside job,' the first thing to do was to look at who conveyed specific information on bin Laden before—and I stress, before—9/11, for they were most likely involved wittingly or not with those who masterminded it.

"Yusufszai . . . moonlighted as an ABC News producer, charged with guiding ABC News correspondent John Miller through the Afghani marshes to bin Laden's cave—one of the very few American journalists to be accorded such an honour (and also, as it happens, a good friend of bin Laden arch-foe John O'Neill . . . )

"Yusufszai's ABC colleague, John Miller, mused about running into his buddy John O'Neill in Yemen while reporting on the U.S.S. Cole bombing the year before.

"Miller, one of the very few Americans who can give a first-hand account of bin Laden, bumps into his friend, bin Laden's chief investigator, while both are investigating a bombing in Yemen that will later be tagged onto bin Laden—and only a year before O'Neill dies at the hands of . . . allegedly . . . bin Laden.

" . . . Vincent Cannistraro, the ABC News analyst who also escorted John Miller to his bin Laden interview, as well as provided running commentary in the days immediately following 9/11. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, provided covert aid to the Afghani mujahadeen in the late 80s, as well as supervised CIA operations with the contras. He was also a point man in the notoriously circumspect investigation at Lockerbie. In the above noted [Washington Post reporter Vernon] Loeb and [Washington Post's Walter] Pincus article—in which bin Laden is quoted from the ABC News Miller and Yusufszai interview—Cannistraro weighs in with his assessment of the embassy bombings: 'I believe Osama bin Laden is the sponsor of this operation, and I think all of the indications are pointing that way.'"

As the man who "had contacts with the contacts" and helped Cannistraro lead Miller to bin Laden, Hamdi is at the center of the network that created the al-Qaeda "terror" legend. And that may be the tip of the iceberg. Over the past decade, Hamdi has served Anglo-American intelligence interests. He has gone from being a key bin Laden go-between, to becoming an official in the new Iraqi government, right under the nose of the authorities of several nations, including the CIA, the FBI, US law enforcement, the State Department, and the US occupation in Baghdad.

At the time of this writing, no information is available to explain how Hamdi secured his Iraqi government post. Cannistraro remains in contact with Hamdi, and believes that Hamdi is being unfairly harassed by federal authorities who, he believes, have failed to make their case.

Able Danger/Mohammed Atta: How Many Ways Can You Spell and Spin, "Foreknowledge?"

Over the past month, Washington political circles and major media organs (Washington Post, the New York Times, etc.) have been galvanized over what appears to be a new claim that yet another US intelligence unit "knew."

Army intelligence officer Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and Congressman Curt Weldon (R-Pa), have gone public with the charge that a Special Operations Command data mining program run by a secret US intelligence unit, code named Able Danger, had identified alleged 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and three other al-Qaeda operatives operating in the United States, as early as 1999.

The Able Danger team, with whom Shaffer worked as a liason, claims it sought but failed to persuade the Defense Department and the Tampa, Florida-based Special Operations Command to share this information, that the unit believes could have stopped 9/11, with the FBI. They further charge that this information was rejected by the 9/11 Commission, even after repeated overtures from both Weldon and Shaffer, which included meetings with commission members and document exchanges.

The 9/11 Commission has defended itself, claiming that the charges of Shaffer and Weldon are unreliable. In a statement, Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton stated that the Able Danger program was not "historically significant, set against the larger context of US policy and intelligence efforts." Shaffer considers this charge absurd: Able Danger was created specifically to target al-Qaeda.

As this controversy continues to unfold, it would seem that Shaffer/Able Danger thoroughly vindicates what legions of critics of the official version of 9/11 have been documenting and exposing for the past four years. In "9/11 Commission told of Atta cover-up", Patrick Martin of the World Socialist Website wrote that the Shaffer statements "shatter the official story of the September 11 attacks, as devised by the Bush administration, endorsed by the entire Washington political establishment, and parroted obediently by the media.

"It is now clear that those who have rejected [the official account of 9/11] have been proven right," writes Martin. "The future hijackers were detected by US government agencies, including the CIA and military intelligence, yet nothing was done either to arrest them or disrupt their activities . . . There is only one politically serious explanation of this now-indisputable fact: powerful forces within the US military/intelligence complex wanted a terrorist incident on US soil in order to create the needed shift in public opinion required to embark on a long-planned campaign of military intervention in Central Asia and the Middle East."

From a deeper perspective, however, the new Atta/Able Danger information is not a "revelation." In fact, it is old news, and an original 9/11 red herring, warmed over. In short, it shows that a US intelligence unit "knew, and were prevented from acting on what they knew" and perhaps "stopping 9/11." While the newly disclosed source—Able Danger and the DIA—is relevant and interesting for many reasons, as is the timing and political game unfolding, nothing has been added to the actual Atta evidence. More importantly, the al-Qaeda's network's connection to US military-intelligence, the evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation, is not addressed at all. Atta and company are assumed foreign terrorists responsible for attacking America, fully consistent with the core of the official and original 9/11 lie.

Able Danger/Atta adds little to what independent researchers and analysts Center for Research on Globalization/Global Outlook, From The Wilderness, Online Journal, and Center for Cooperative Research to name just a handful) already know:

-We know that the "Islamic terrorism" is a creation and tool of Anglo-American geostrategy, created by the US government in the 1970s, fully utilized during the Clinton administration, and nurtured from the Reagan-Bush administrations to the present Bush administrations.

-We know who Osama bin Laden is (or was). In Crossing The Rubicon, Mike Ruppert noted:

"The Washington Post explicitly suggested that the real relationship between the United States government [USG] and Osama bin Laden may be quite the opposite of what it seems. 'As early as March 1996, the government of Sudan offered to extradite bin Laden to the United States. US officials turned down the offer, perhaps preferring to use him 'as a combatant in an underground war.'" In other words, as a US government agent. In a footnote, Ruppert analyzes the above passage, and cuts to the core of 9/11, and the deception that the world has faced for the past four years:

"If this means that OBL is to be 'used as a combatant' on the USG side, it strongly suggests that he is a willing participant in such an effort and that his CIA affiliation from the Mujahadeen war of the 1980s has persisted. If the same locution means that OBL is to be 'used' as a combatant on the anti-USG terrorist side of the supposed war on terror, it strongly suggests that the USG is engaged in the business of supplying itself with enemies. That practice is called 'false flag' operation, and 9/11 is the greatest exemplar in history."

-We know that al-Qaeda is connected to the ISI, which, in turn is a virtual branch of the CIA, and involved in US covert operations.

-We know that numerous intelligence agencies had monitored, penetrated, and guided al-Qaeda assets. Notwithstanding the denials of Washington's law enforcement and intelligence agencies, al-Qaeda and its operatives were under scrutiny years before 9/11, and completely penetrated.

-According to Ruppert, who exhaustively broke down this penetration over several chapters of his book, Crossing the Rubicon, "based on what is known about successful intelligence penetrations for years prior to the attacks of 9/11, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda could not have sneezed without the CIA or the NSA knowing about it."

-We know that it is standard intelligence procedure to create intelligence legends and multiple layers of plausible deniability around their operatives.

-We know who, and what, Atta was. Investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker exposed the backgrounds and movements of the Atta cell and the "hijackers" prior to 9/11. Members of the Atta cell received military training, and had connections to intelligence and intelligence-connected Floridians with direct Bush family ties.

-We know that various US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, agents, and officers had information—and were systematically blocked from reporting the information and acting on it by gatekeepers of the 9/11 false flag operation.

-We know that Atta received funding from the ISI for 9/11, and that then-ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad wired $100,000 directly to Atta, and met with Washington lawmakers on the morning of 9/11 (including the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Porter Goss).

-We know that there were and are 9/11 gatekeepers in the government, the FBI, the CIA, and all over the world.

-We know that 9/11 was not an "intelligence failure," but an "intelligence success" that included the use of guided al-Qaeda assets, and "hijacker" intelligence legends.

-We know that the Kean 9/11 Commission has been a massive cover-up, from its inception to the very end.

What is somewhat "revelatory" is how US intelligence and law enforcement agents, and politicians, seem to be stumbling over themselves to blow the whistle now, four years after the fact, and they are being (selectively) permitted to do so. As Martin points out: "That a serving intelligence of Shaffer's rank should come forward publicly is a sign of intense and deepening crisis within the US intelligence apparatus . . . Within military/intelligence circles, the knives are out."

Similarly, we see the new parameters of media treatment of the "war on terrorism" and Bush. Damning evidence that would have been blocked from public dissemination immediately following 9/11 (through various forms of censorship and intimidation) is now permissible mainstream news fodder.

What this suggests is that the Bush regime has lost its grip over the "management" of the 9/11 legend. Indeed, this administration is losing the war it created, in all of the most important ways.

Worse, as Martin writes, "the 9/11 Commission report is now discredited as a bipartisan cover-up, in which Democrats and Republicans joined forces to protect the key institutions of the state." This is forcing competing elite factions of various agendas into a new struggle put the "war on terrorism" and the 9/11 story "back on track," lest Anglo-American geostrategy lose its central pretext.

Right-Wing Distortion

Patrick Martin astutely points out, "The representatives of the extreme right—Fox, the Murdoch press, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk radio hosts, and an array of bloggers—have made more noise about Able Danger, but only on the service of a political diversion. They have sought to use Shaffer's account to indict the Clinton administration and shift responsibility for the 9/11 security failure from Bush to his Democratic predecessor." While Republicans involved with the Kean Commission, such as Phil Zelikow, have gotten a free pass from the right wing, Democrats have been smeared, from Jamie Gorelick, to former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who was accused of stealing 9/11-related documents (he was later cleared over this still-questionable activity).

Congressman Curt Weldon, who has been spearheading the Able Danger case in Washington, is pushing a right-wing agenda. Weldon, the number one critic of the 9/11 Commission, has a reputation as a loose cannon. His book Countdown to Terror not only pushes for more aggressive anti-terrorism, but also goes after Iran (Iran-as-terrorist, Iran-targeting-nuclear-facilities, etc.). Weldon has been criticized by Dana Priest of the Washington Post, and the New York Times. The bottom line: Weldon's bias and goals must be questioned.

A more disgusting example can be seen in Iran-Contra thug-turned-media pundit Oliver North's leap on to the Able Danger bandwagon. North, one of the most shameless political criminals in modern history, is predictably carrying water for his old narco-trafficking war criminal-infested Iran-Contra network, and still playing and profiting from post 9/11 war and covert operations. Lest anyone forget who North is:

CIA IG Report, Volume II

Contra-Intelligence on Oliver North (by Federal Drug Agent Celerino Castillo)

Iran-Contra connections to 9/11

Bush-Bin Laden connections

Oliver North in Fallujah

"Torture Inc.:Oliver North Joins the Party"

Thorough Indictment of US Government in 9/11 Attacks

Let me first say that I consider myself a conservative libertarian. I did not vote for Bush or Kerry. I will never vote for the "lesser of 2 evils." I don't support socialized healthcare, nor do I support social security for reasons too lengthy to get into.

I'd like to say I support capital punishment but the fact is, it costs more tax payer money on average to execute someone through the judicial system than it does to feed, clothe and shelter them for the rest of their lives. Strange but true.

These issues are all important but the immediate, all encompassing issue I want to talk about is 9/11 and the war on terror.

I would like to open this dialouge with a quote from the film Matrix but what notions I suggest you entertain in the following paragraphs are anything but fantasy. I take this deadly serious, as should every American.

“You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes” -Morpheus

Another interesting quote is from Adolph Hitler himself.

What I propose, is that a small faction of powerful men in the US government knew of the terrorist events of 9/11 in advance and deliberately dismantled security procedures that would have prevented them so that they could use the fear and anger later to be associated with the events, as political license to do whatever they wanted in the world, domestically and internationally.

If such a notion makes your blood boil, I suggest you take a deep breath before you read what I am about to present to you.

First of all, you have to understand that such acts are nothing new. They even have a word for it:

Hegelian Dialectic, or Problem-Reaction-Solution

Nazi archives now conclusively show, Hitler had his own troops burn down Germany's Reichstag Parliament building on 1/30, 1933. He then blamed this terrorist act on Poland and began grandstanding in the charred wreckage of the building.

In the wake of this event, he formed the the "Enabling Act", which gave the state, “for the protection of the German people”, the power to restrict demonstrations, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the sanctity of the home, security of mail and telephone, and authorized the confiscation of literature considered to be dangerous to the state. It gave police the authority to invade homes without warrants and wire tap phones indiscriminately.

I suggest you read the "Enabling Act" and then read the "Patriot Act" and tell me where you think they got the inspiration for the "Patriot Act". For me to even scratch the surface of the plethora of unanswered questions rearding September 11th, I could spend days citing government documents, the testimony of goverment officials themselves, mainstream media coverage, and the offical record, then point out where all of these sources have contradicted themselves and tried to rationalize their absurdity in doing so.

Here are but a few things about 9/11 that I for one, find deeply disturbing.

-In the weeks and months before 9/11, the North American Aeorspace Defense Command(NORAD) was running drills to prepare for hijacked airliners being flown into buildings. One of these drills was underway on the morning of 9/11 just as that very same scenario was taking place in real time. Coincidence? I think not.

So if they did know about the attacks in advance, why would they schedule the drills to take place at the same time as the real attacks?

Answer: As a smokescreen.

If the people at NORAD mistook the real thing for a drill, they wouldn't scramble fighter jets and the errant planes would be allowed to hit their targets just as they did. It's interesting to note that 9/11 was the first time in NORAD's 50 year history that it took the military longer than 20 minutes to scramble fighter jets. According to federal regulations, fighter aircraft must engage all errant planes within 20 minutes of their violation of unauthorized airspace. On 9/11, some of these planes were off course for over an hour and a half and thus were allowed to hit their tartgets. You don't believe this is true? It was right here in USA Today.

-This photo, which was archived on the Pentagon's own website in the year 2000, clearly shows a scaled down model of the pentagon w/ crashed jet wreckage burning in it's courtyard, emergency vehicles all around, yet Bush's cabinet stated over and over, that they had never envisioned a terrorist plan to fly hijacked jets into buildings.

-How is it that when famous golfer Payne Stewart flying on his private plane in 1995, deviated from his flight plan and was engaged by four F-16s in less than 10 minutes yet on September 11th, 4 planes turned off their transponders within a span of 5 minutes of each other and none were engaged by fighter aircraft. It is standard procedure that they be engaged in less than 20minutes. That procedure had been executed according to the official procedure over 100 times in NORAD's 46 year history, yet failed miserably 4 times on 9/11.

-How is it that Building number 7 fell at approximately 5:30pm that evening when it was not hit by a plane nor did it sustain collateral damage from the falling towers(each tower fell within a 70ft radius)? Building7 was a 49 story FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency) command bunker "overengineered to withstand complete infrastructure breakdown". It had it's own air supply, was fireproof, and contained the offices of customs, secret service, CIA, the Department of Defense and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

-The sharton hotel, a much smaller building positioned right up against WTC tower 2 was buried in tower 2's rubble and had fires raging on many of it's floors, yet it never fell.

-To this day, FEMA states that building number 7 fell from fire damage, which was the 3rd and only time in world history(all on that day) that steel structured buildings have fallen from fire damage. Not even in 1949, when a B-2 bomber wrecked into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building, causing fires to rage through several floors, did the building come down.

-This is contrary to what Larry Silverstein said on the PBS documentary "Rebuilding America", in which he stated, "There was such a great loss of life that day, so we decided to just go ahead and "pull it" and "We got the word to pull it, and then stood back and watched the building(World Trade Center 7) come down.

-The head engineer of the World Trade Center, Minoru Yamasaki, even said that they designed the towers to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts.

-What about the seismograph readings from surrounding universities which recorded multiple explosions?

-Larry Silverstein, lease holder of World Trade Center building7, bought the entire complex just a few months before the attacks and took out a 3 billion dollar insurance policy, which he is soon to receive in full.

-How could a demoltion team defy all logic in the midst of such pandemonium and coordinate a demoltion, planting hundreds of charges to bring the building down only a matter of hours after the attacks? Did the demolition team get hit up on their pagers and decide to come to work only hours after the attacks and in the midst of such confusion(People didn't even know the status of the surrounding structures, whether there was bombs in the buildings or more attacks coming).

-It's ludicrous to believe that bombs were in the building right? I mean, how would they be able to sneak in explosive devices with the level of security on that building? Well guess who was running security on the world trade center? Marvin Bush, our current president's youngest brother.

-Just days before 9/11, bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the world trade center, electronic security, including cameras were shut down, and government contractors were in and out of the building, allegedly working on the elevator shafts(perfect place to hide explosive charges?).

-What is to be said of all of the live footage on September 11th, when anchors described secondary explosions going off as you heard the crowd react in gasps of shock? or senior fighterfighter Lou Cacchioli's testimony that a bomb went off on their 2nd trip up? Are we to disregard our own eyes and ears and the testimony of witnessess who were there yet buy the official government story, which tries to rationalize the absurd events that occured that day?

-On June 1st, 2001, The Pentagon's shootdown protocol for hijacked aircraft was radically altered, removing the authority from generals and field officers and giving it exclusively to Donald Rumsfeld.

-Why did Jeb Bush request executive police state powers on September 7th and conveiniently invoke them 4 days later on September 11th? It was archived on Florida State's own website.

-Mahoud Ahmed, head of Pakistani's ISI inteligence agency was meeting w/ George Tenet, and the heads of the house and Senate inteligence community, Porter Goss(R) and Bob Grahm(D) on the morning of 9/11. It later came out that he had previously wired $100,000.00 to Mohammed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the 9/11 attacks. What was the terror attack money man doing eating breakfast w/ US inteligence in New York as planes slammed into buildings?

What was George Bush Sr. doing w/ Shafig Bin Laden on the morning of 9/11?

-Why do none of the publicly released passenger lists from any of the 4 hijacked planes on 9/11 have the alleged hijackers names on them, much less any arab names at all?

-There's been several stories in the press in the past couple years about how technology will soon be available that will allow you to execute cell phone calls during commerical aircraft flights. Well what about all of the alleged phone calls made to 911 dispatchers and family members from passengers of the hijacked jets on 9/11? A study was done in 2003, which proves that such calls would have been virtually impossible.

-It's been widely reported(everywhere but the US), that at least 9 of the alleged 9/11 hijackers are alive and well, not because they survived the impacts, but because they were never on the planes! Here is just one of those reports.

-What about David Schippers, the man who prosecuted Clinton in his impeachment proceedings? He has filed suit against John Ashcroft and the Dept. of Justice, saying he represents agents who were taken off cases that were yielding important leads. Schippers says that he had knowledge of the attacks months in advance and desparately tried to get a hold of Ashcroft or anyone who would listen in the Justice Dept but they would not return his calls.

-Stanley Hilton, another conservative, was formerly chiefs of staff under Bob Dole. He's filed a suit against Bush on behalf of the 9/11 victim's families, saying he has evidence that Bush was directly involved in 9/11. How come the mainstream media has not reported on these pending cases? Haven't we heard enough about Michael Jackson and Robert Blake?

-Here is an entire archive of links to hundreds of different news sources, which document the anamalous, still unexplained events of 9/11. I hope that you will examine the information herein.

There are at least 3 public documents that should dispell any notion that people in our government do not have the power or motive to orchestrate such an attack or to stand down as it unfolds.

The 1st document was written and signed by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol, and Jeb Bush, all of which are in the Bush administration except for George's little brother Jeb.

"Rebuilding America's Defenses", posted on their own website, was written in 1996 and stated: A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” and that..

The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.

Okay, they need a "new Pearl Harbor" to push their agenda through? Can you say 9/11?

The 2nd document is an official government document released through an FOIA(Freedom of Information Act Request). Thought to be nothing but a "conspiracy theory" for years, the document was released in 1994 and showed that Lyman Lemnitzer, Chiefs of Staff under John F. Kennedy, drew up a plan in 1962 to commit terrorist acts against America disguised as an attack by Cuba so that they could "preemptively strike", remember that word "pre-emptive strike"?(it was popularized by Bush before the new war in Iraq), Cuba during the Cuban Missle Crisis. Oh yeah, they planned on wrecking commerical airliners into buildings, shooting down John Glenn's space shuttle upon reentry into Earth's atmosphere and attack civilians in Florida, all under the guise of Communist Cuba. The "Northwoods Document", also known as "Operation Northwoods", was signed by all members of the joint chiefs of staff but was turned down by Kennedy, thank God. Don't believe it? See it for yourself.

The 3rd document is FM(Field Manual)30-31 B from the Pentagon, which describes how the US Government, working with British Inteligence(MI5)and NATO in the 50s and 60s, bombed locations all over Europe to blame it on "leftist subversives" and uproot foreign governments.

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has 'closed', the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. AND I AM CAESAR." --Julius Caesar

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." --Hermann Goering

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

9/11 insurance Fraud

Allianz Group is the insurance company that stands to pay 3 billion dollars to Larry Silverstein, lease holder of the world trade center since building number 7 fell at approximately 5:30PM on 9/11/01. There's only one problem. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, says the building fell from fire damage, yet Larry Silverstein came right out on a PBS documentary "America Rebuilds" and said that they "pulled" building number 7, an industry term meaning controlled demolition. If Silverstein collects the policy on the basis that the building fell from fire damage, he will have commited insurance fraud.

A shareholder recently contacted Allianz's board of directors regarding this fraud and is pushing for an investigation.

I'm just trying to get the word out that one shareholder hasn't much power but tens of thousands of shareholders or potential shareholders have the authority to hire and fire the board of directors who in turn hire and fire the CEO and CFO as well as other key positions within the company since shareholders of publicly traded companies recieve ballots by mail to vote on the board of directors. If the board of directors at Allianz Group feel their jobs are on the line, they might be more inclined to investigate this fraud.

Why is all of this relevant to exposing the truth behind what really happened on 9/11? Because it takes days, if not weeks to plant demolition charges, and building number 7 crumbled at 5:30PM on 9/11, only hours after towers 1 and 2 fell. Building number 7 is a 49 story building that was "overengineered for total infrastructure breakdown". It was fireproof, had it's own air and water supplies and was a doomsday command center for FEMA and Rudy Guiliani.

Not coincidentally, the New York offices of the DOD(Department of Defense), CIA, Customs, SEC(Securities and Exchange Commission), and Secret Service were all in building 7.

Before 9/11, a steel structured building had never fallen from fire damage. They rationalize that since jumbo jets struck the towers, that their structural integrity was compromised, allowing the fires to finish the job. However, the engineers of the World Trade Center, cheifly Minuro Yamasaki, said they engineered the towers to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts.

There is no reason the buildings would have crumbled to little more than soot without demolition charges in the buildings. Building 7 was not even struck by a plane, nor was it in the debris field of towers 1 and 2. Even had it been, it was the most structurally sound building in the complex and should have sustained heavy damage.

Even the Sheraton Hotel next to tower 2 had the building fall directly on top of it and had fires raging throughout, but never fell. If a real investigation into what happened to building 7 of the world trade center is done, I'm confident it could expose the whole shotty operation.

Listen to how Larry Silverstein uses the phrase "pull it" to mean controlled demoltion. How can we be sure he is referring to controlled demoltion?

Not only because Silverstein uses the phrase "pull it", not "pull" or "pull out", but because engineers at other points in the video use the term "pull it" over and over again to mean controlled demolition.

A couple of examples:

"We had to be careful how we pulled building 6"

"We're getting ready to pull building 6"

Listen to the context they use the phrase in and there can be no question. There are several video segments from "America Rebuilds" in the below link.

I strongly urge shareholders of Allianz Group, as well as non shareholders to contact Allianz's investor relations department. It is their job to deal with disgruntled shareholders and as far they are concerned, anyone contacting their office is a shareholder.

Phone: (781) 575-4328
Email: investor.relations@allianz.com

For more evidence that world trade center building 7 was a controlled demoltion, read my previous post "Thorough Indictment of US Government in the 9/11 Attacks".