9/11: Cover up of the Century

2006-08-26T19:28:00.000-07:00

US Policies they prefer you DIDNT know about.....

(Left: 2006 Official US conservative T-Shirt available on-line)

You would have to be leading a fairly isolated life to have failed to notice that IRAN has been in the headlines rather alot recently.

To be sure I`m no fan of Iran, the current leader makes some fairly dubious remarks about wiping out Israel and seems keen to persue nuclear development.

However as is too often the case the US media and the US administration likes to forget (and would like YOU to forget!) it`s own past role in shaping the difficulties we now face all over the globe. From Iraq to Iran and Al Quaeda; Britain and the USA have been the major players in shaping our current state of international affairs.

Indeed Britain nearly a century ago "made" Iraq the way its now, origionally just a collection of tribes (Shia, Sunni etc) Iraq was placed into the mould of a single entity by the British Empire. The civil war we are now witnessing is testamount to what can happen when tribal existence is meddled with irresponsibly and left to fester discarded afterwards.

So what does an Iranian Nuclear programme have in common with the Current US administration......Donald Rumsfeld knows the answer to that question but he`s kept that `under wraps` recently.

You see a certain D. Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defence in 1975

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

(sounding familiar yet) and recieved a memo from Henry Kissenger (then US Secretary of State) on April 22nd 1975 entitled:

"US-Iran Nuclear Co-Operation"

“The president has decided that…the US shall: Permit U.S. material to be fabricated into fuel in Iran for use in its own reactors and for pass-through to third countries with whom we have agreements” (document left)

In fact the United States Government has been selling Iran nuclear reactors and fissile material since 1957.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/programmes/globalsecurity/iranchronology.htm

So the next time president Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld appear on FOX or CNN proclaiming the Iran cannot possibly be permitted to have nuclear any capabilities just say the following:

"If Iran have still got the till reciepts we`ll take the reactors back!"

Its always nice to know WHERE these regemes GOT their nuclear capabilities from in the first place.

In response to the T-Shirt slogan, we don't need to:

"give them to em".

We ALREADY sold them the lot years ago!

Parallells with Iraq:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq32.pdf

“In a wide ranging two and a half hour…meeting Rumsfeld had…the two agreed the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests...Tariq also reviewed the status of Iraqi oil exports and plans for...construction of a new pipeline”

Mr Rumseld HAS been a well travelled chap!

What else had Rumsfeld been up to in Iraq?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq37.pdf

“The Iraqi leadership was extremely pleased with AMB Rumsfeld’s visit, Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person. Noting that he was a good listener and had presented the U.S. position in a convincing manner”

So what does all this have to do with 9/11? Well the answer to that is complex and has many facets. A part of the answer is in your Atlas, take a good look at Iran and the countries it rubs shoulders with.

Dont tell me you haven't begun to suspect........

Next post will explain exactly what the relavence of the whole middle east is to 9/11, Bush and the Project for a New American Century. The world today may seem crazy and chaotic, it is for most of us but some people know exactly whats going on and its just fine in their estimation.

Find out why later this week.

2006-08-26T09:47:00.000-07:00

Preliminary DATA on NIST report Analysis

All,
I make a point of trying to read ALL the official government sanctioned technical reports into the WTC failures.
I must admit that I have not yet suceeded in reading them all, having recently downloaded the FINAL NIST reports into the World Trade Centre building failures. The total size is over 1000 Megabytes of .pdf files. This will take me some weeks to read entirely but already I have made a discovery of note.

You see I dont know exactly what caused the towers to fall, one thing I DO know is that the official story is not shall we say overly convincing. One point often made by advocates of the governments version of events is as follows.

"There are photos of the Twin Towers sagging and buckling long before the collapses, this shows they were obviously GOING to fall"

However according to the Official NIST report entitled: NIST NCSTAR 1-3c "Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components" on page 118 the following was stated.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

"The distortion accompanied the collapse and did not precede it"
(see text at bottom of image below)

Thus we have proved the statement that the buildings were obviously showing signs of failure before collapse to be factually incorrect using nothing but the US Governments own sanctioned report.

A much more in depth analysis of this issue will be made by me in the next few days. In view of the gargantuan quantity of data I have to read, please be patient.

Also this is a preliminary finding so it is possible that I may be forced to "eat my hat" later if I find other contradictory evidence in the other reports.
However if I do that will beg the question of how the NIST reports could contradict themselves......we shall see.

2006-08-25T16:41:00.000-07:00

The ISID, the CIA, Pakistan and Mohammed Atta.

One of the most shocking facts about the financial backers of the ringleader of the 9/11 Hijackers is that they are very close associates of the CIA and have been since the beginning of the Afghan/Soviet war.

To illustrate what’s really going on here we must make a quick journey back in time to about 1982. The mujahideen were despite some success being hammered by heavily armed Russian helicopter gunships. By 1985 Soviet HIND helicopters that were virtually invulnerable to small arms fire (AK47s) were wreaking havoc with rocket and cannon attacks on mujahideen camps throughout Afghanistan. (left HIND-D)

The Soviets might be on to a winning strategy which would have been utterly unacceptable to the USA as a Soviet occupation of Afghanistan would give the mighty Soviet Red Army a valuable staging base in the region which in the view of the Whitehouse placed too great a threat to US armed presence there and the assets it protected (massive oil supply).

So the Whitehouse set about a plan with the CIA to train and supply the Mujahideen with skills and equipment to destroy Soviet HIND Gunships (in fact the British were also involved as they supplied the UK made Javelin missile).

This took the form of organizing weapons dumps and training camps in a country near enough to allow reasonably controllable logistics but not inside Afghanistan as that could have provoked a conflict DIRECTLY between the two superpowers.

The choice was Pakistan, the ISID (Inter Services Intelligence Directorate) Pakistan’s secret services co-ordinated this exercise under the guidance of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency, US Secret Services). US made STINGER shoulder launched ground-to-air missiles were supplied in great number and stored in a massive secret arms dump in Pakistan where Mujahedeen would troop across the borders to be trained and armed. (above left: Afghan fighter tries a STINGER for size)

The mission was a huge success for the CIA, within months the Soviets were loosing Gunships at an alarming rate, by the end of the conflict they had lost around 270 aircraft. Forced to pull out in shame the CIA had been victorious, it had kept the Red Army out of spitting distance of the critical oil producing regions.

However the KGB were not going to roll over and die just at the drop of a hat. Just after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghan soil the huge CIA supplied munitions dump in Pakistan just blew up one day in a maelstrom of shrapnel that shook local towns. To top that off a jet carrying none other than the head of Pakistan and the US ambassador mysteriously crashed killing everyone on board. According to Richard A. Clark the Whitehouse’s chief counter-terror man this was clearly a parting gesture from the Soviets.

Throughout this whole operation from September 1986 to 1988 the CIA and ISID had been working very closely co-ordinating this whole clandestine supply and training mission in Pakistan. So it is important to understand that the CIA and ISID are long term bed-fellows.

“Pakistani military intelligence funded by the U.S. and Saudi Governments and “charitable” organizations, had turned groups of nineteenth-century Afghan tribesmen and several thousand Arab volunteers into a force that had crippled the mighty Red Army. The Stinger had been the final element they had needed”
- Against All Enemies, Richard A. Clarke, (pg50 para4).

Now armed with that knowledge we read with great concern in the New York Times 13th September 2001 that the HEAD of the ISID General Mahmoud Ahmad was on a visit to Washington on the morning of 911. According to the article he was in Washington from 4th until several days after 9/11.

WHY is that of great concern?

Well according to the Wall Street Journal on the 10th October 2001 an ISID agent called Saeed Sheikh wired $100,000 USD to none other than Mohammed Atta. The supposed ring leader of the hijackers. Not only that was alleged but that the orders had come from his superior officer; General Mahmoud Ahmad.

This story is corroborated by THE TIMES OF INDIA on 9th October 2001 in an article entitled “India Helped FBI trace ISI-Terrorist Links". Below:

"While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmoud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday [8 October], the day the US started bombing Afghanistan], the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday [October 9], that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud. Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.
A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani Army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan's ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition"
Times of India, 9th October 2001

The papers reported that Ahmad had been meeting with (among others) a certain George Tenet, the head of the CIA.

Why this never made it into the 9/11 Commission Report is anybodies guess.

Perhaps their almost incredibly offhand remark on Page 172 of the 9/11 Commission Report (see weblink provided in previous post):

"To date the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used to the 9/11 attacks, ultimately the question is of little practical significance"

In view of the calibre of the soures that state quite the contrary to the above I view this statement as nothing short of unbelievable.

I`m sure the reader may agree that further thoughts on the ISID and CIA are prudent.

2006-08-24T08:15:00.000-07:00

As previously promised a section of NEVER BEFORE RELEASED Pentagon data has been posted on YouTube today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F3TvRwh1x0

This animation created by the National Transportation & Safety Board, Washington DC was procured through a FOIA request by me.

Obviously the viewer should watch the clip for themselves however it is a fairly clear indication that "Incorrect" data is being passed out by the US Authorities.

Watch as the plane passes over the motorway where those lightposts were damaged. The Altimeter reads 180 feet.....

Now ground level at the Pentagon is about +40feet ASL (above sea level)

So for the plane in this Official Animation to have hit those poles they would need to be about 140 feet tall.

The Pentagon in 71 feet high, decide for yourselves if the light poles are twice the height of the Pentagon. Google `Image Search` will supply you with copious images to illustrate the proprtions.

So the CCTV images of a plane whizzing in at head height and the official recreation aledgedly using the black box data CANNOT both be correct.

I leave it up to the viewer to decide which.

2006-08-22T05:07:00.000-07:00

The 9/11 Commission Report: Absurdities

In my last blog we learned that far from having only very vague information on the 9/11 attacks the Government and Intelligence services in fact had clearcut data on probable targets, times and method of attack.

Now I will demonstrate several cast iron cases of utter lies published in the Official 9/11 Report.

note to reader: you will find this more powerfully compelling if you download the Commission Report as a PDF file free from here:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Dr David Ray Griffin has been over the report and reported his findings in the excellent "The 9.11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"
however I feel there are some points really worth looking at in more detail.

Firstly the mandate of the report was:

"provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11" (preface xvi).

Strangely enough the US definition of `fullest possible` seems to translate into anglo saxon as "narrowest possible". Allow me to illustrate this with some especially glaring examples.

First turn to page 341 para3:

"While we NOW know that al Qaeda was formed in 1988, at the end of the Soviet Occupation of Afganistan , the intelligence community did not describe this organization, at least in documents we have seen, until 1999."

This is in fact utter nonsense. Now they have given themselves a little get-ou-clause in:

"at least in documents WE have seen",

However this is not much of an insurance policy as they claim to have:

"reviewed more than 2.5 MILLION pages of documents...and interviewd...nearly every senior official from the current and previous administrations" (preface xv)

You see the problem is that I have a CIA document dates 1996 that elaborates at some length on Al-Quaeda, Bin Laden & their organizational links.

Whats more I found it in 15 minuites on Google search.

Its stored (and has been for some years) at the National Security Archives, George Washington State University. You may visit this document here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB55/ciaubl.pdf

Now one MUST speculate how a team of researchers that read 2.5 million documents and interviewed every relavent senior member of the government and Intelligence services DIDNT find or MENTION an OFFICIAL CIA report that had surely been seen and possibly even written by many senior CIA and government advisors.

Quite frankly its preposterous; it leaves us logically with the following explanations:

1: That part of the report was written and researched by a comission member who was staggeringly inept.
2: The commission had data witheld from it by an outside agency.
3: The commission member who wrote that part of the report was competant but had no intention of making a full public disclose of the facts.
4: The commussion member in question was instructed by a senior commission member not to include this document.

It is up to the reader to decide which of the above is most likely, I personally rule out No1: "One incompetant staff member" as the report would have been proof read and drafted many times by senior members before publishing. Any one of whom would surely have spotted such an error (if it had been their intention to provide a full account).

Now to progress to point two: Turn to page 342...

"Bin laden was mentioned in only two other sentences in the six-page report. The Al Qaeda organization was not mentioned. The 1997 estimate was the last national estimate on the terrorism danger completed before 9/11"
Once again this assertion is total idiocy of the highest order (see image left!)

Interested readers look at this weblink:
From here you will find National FBI Terrorism assessments dated annually from 1997 onwards....
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terroris.htm

Since the front cover is annotated
"Counter-Terrorism Threat Assessment..National Security Division"
I have great difficulty the Commission would NOT view this report as a "national estimate on terrorism danger".

The basic narrative of these pages in the report for those too buisy to download it and see yourselves is the general implication that the intelligence and government just didnt really know much about Al Quaeda or Bin Laden until it was too late.

As we all know it formed from the remnants of US trained Mujahideen so to suggest that the US were not keeping tabs on them is pushing the bounds of reality. The documents I show above support that statement.

The third and I have to admit already widely known error is the TOTAL LACK of ANY mention that WTC7 was even destroyed!

I urge you to download the Report pdf at the top and do a text search yourself. I have and it isnt there!
Only on pages 279 & 284 is there even a reference that WTC7 existed at all in two pictures. No mention anywhere is made of its demise that afternoon even though we KNOW it contained secret service offices!

(for confirmation of the secret service offices see the book: "Against All Enemies by Richard A. Clarke" who was both Clinton and Bush`s Counter-Terrorism `czar`.)

So to carry on from the:
"we didnt know what was going to happen"
they now try to state
"well....we didnt even really know about Al Quaeda until a year or two ago". This has been shown above to be just plain wrong.

Watch out for the next blog which details the lies of what happened that day. This includes a NEWSFLASH of new data obtained exclusively by me under the freedom of information act from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

This PROVES conclusively that either the black box data or the CCTV of Flight 77 is FAKED.

2006-08-16T12:26:00.000-07:00

All,
Indeed one of the most clung-to safehavens for the neo-conservatives post 9/11 was the surprise nature of the attacks.

Naturally as Condoleezza Rice states just after the day:

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile"

Rice obviously hadn`t read a Federally commissioned report released 2 years prior entitled:

"THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM:
WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY?" September 1999
(left)

This report details the testimony of Ramzi Yousef who after capture had given details of his plan of attacking the United States.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House. Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this" (page 7)

So indeed one would wonder what Rice had been reading, especially as this testimony coming from a high profile captured Al Quaeda member would undoubtedly have made it into the texts of countless FBI and CIA reports.

Now indeed Bush and Rumsfeld stated that they admitted there was a warning of a possible attack but that since no exact information was available they were unable to construct a contingency plan.

Initially this sounds very reasonable, indeed it has to be appreciated that all intelligence agencies recieve a vast volume of information. Not all of which can be deemed useful. However even this sandpit of ignorance which the neo-cons plunged their heads enthusiastically into as soon as foreknowledge is mentioned turns out much like the 9/11 Commission Report to fall apart like wet tissue paper when examined in detail.

Exact information you say?

Well president Bush`s CIA briefing just 4 weeks before 9.11 was acually entitied:

"Bin Laden determined to strike US"

"His followers would follow the example of world trade center bomber Ramzi Yousef and bring the fighting to America"

“Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveilance of federal buildings in New York.”

This in itself would be a GLARING indication of almost exactly what would happen on the day. The briefing even mentions Bin Laden would likely emulate Ramzi Yousef who admitted to the US Authorities he wanted to crash planes into major US buildings. Not only that but that they knew New York itself was under watch by Al Quaeda.

Now the idea that they had no direct information starts to unravel at an alarming rate. This is even before one considers the Put Options placed on BOTH airlines to be involved in 9.11 and a large firm Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. occupying 22 floors of (you guessed it) the World Trade Center.

The press have noted that these trades were some of the largest ever seen of their type for those companies, the identities of the `investors` has not only never been made public but never even investigated.

The FBI has very clever software called PROMIS which monitors stockmarket activity, the FBI has been long aware as are all self respecting intelligence agencies that if large bets are placed on bad fortunes to come for a company, often those placing the bets are responsible or at least have been tipped off by those who were.

These bets were placed in the days leading up to the attacks (6th, 7th and 10th September)

This information gives TIME within a few days, LOCATION (New York a definite probability) and MODUS OPERANDI (hijackings & possible suicide use of).

The collation of the obove would be fairly obvious to even the most dim witted investigator; yet we are supposed to believe it was all such a surprise when just DAYS after massive trades betting on the downfall of American and United airlines planes started going off course and heading for New York.

The story does not hold up when placed next to the facts.

One also begins to smell a rat when looking at the other official government documentation on Terror and WMD (left) June 2000

Or also the front cover of FEMAs report on WMD incidents (June 1999 Below left )

Clearly if one seriously expects to believe Rice`s and other similar statements from panicking officials it would imply that none of the current US Administration actually read ANY of the official documentation supplied on the `greatest threat of our time`, the terrorist.

This appears especially preposterous when one sees that much of what they had to say was evident on the FRONT COVER, requiring the reader not even to turn a page.

So what does the intelligent citizen deduce from these facts?

That somehow FEMA was part of a plot and knew WTC was to be attacked?

Hardly, indeed such an observation is childish at best; especially noting that the WTC was bombed before in 1993.

No, what one decuces from this is simply that various government bodies were well aware that the WTC complex was (as the picture incinuates)target No1 in the cross hairs of any terrorist....

In view of this we must take some time to consider why senior government officials attempt to deny the obvious; and what implications this may have as to why then do people still chose to believe ANYTHING they say at all?

This denial of facts and hiding of documents is about to be covered in detail; see my latest blog which should be up by 23rd Aug 06.