The "Israel did 9/11" Thread

[PatColo]

The Ugly Truth Podcast April 3, 2011



As with all criminal investigations, the first question begins with one word–WHO? Dr Ed Kendrik and Peter Ray from www.rediscover911.com join the program to discuss their work in putting a name and a face on those responsible for the worst terrorist attack in American history–ISRAEL.

Direct MP3 Download

[Horn]

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/201...-their-agenda/

Jesse Ventura's 9/11 theory: Dick Cheney "allowed it to happen to further their agenda"

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura was a guest on "Piers Morgan Tonight" this evening, and gave his theory on what happened on 9/11. "I believe Dick Cheney knew it," said Ventura. "It's not rational" countered Piers Morgan.

"They allowed it to happen to further their agenda in the Middle East," said Ventura – Piers described the theory as "madness."

[PatColo]

From last year, great article w/many footnoted sources. Jonathan Azaziah is routinely a guest on The Ugly Truth Podcast, just skim there for his name. Also check out Azaziah's other essays at his blog, MaskOfZion.


Friday, September 17, 2010
9/11: Israel's Grand Deception
by Jonathan Azaziah

[PatColo]

Monday, July 4, 2011

Two grassroots plans for 9/11 justice: Alan Sabrosky, Sen. Mike Gravel on KB Show Tuesday

[...]




Tuesday, July 5th, 9 - 11 a.m Pacific on NoLiesRadio.org (archived here a few hours after broadcast):

Two-hour commercial-free special: Alan Sabrosky and Sen. Mike Gravel propose grassroots plans for 9/11 justice.

First hour: Alan Sabrosky, author of the new article Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake, touts a grassroots outreach campaign targeting local veterans organizations. Details here. Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Ph.D. University of Michigan, is the former Director of Studies of the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College.

easier to read the following at the source - paste job lost paragraph breaks! - PC

Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake — Alan Sabrosky

- 29. Jun, 2011 in 9/11, Commentary/Analysis, Israel, Middle east, News/Politics, U.S. Foreign Policy, War, World, Zionism -
14
I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation. But Mossad did not do it alone.

by Dr. Alan Sabrosky / My Catbird Seat


Many years ago I read a fascinating discussion of the “tactics of mistake.” This essentially entailed using a target’s prejudices and preconceptions to mislead them as to the origin and intent of the attack, entrapping them in a tactical situation that later worked to the attacker’s strategic advantage.
This is what unfolded in the 9/11 attacks that led us into the matrix of wars and conflicts, present (Afghanistan and Iraq), planned (Iran and Syria) and projected (Jordan and Egypt), that benefit Israel and no other country — although I concede that many private contractors and politicians are doing very well for themselves out of the death and misery of others.
I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation. But Mossad did not do it alone. They needed local help within America (and perhaps elsewhere) and they had it, principally from some alumni of PNAC (the misnamed Project for a New American Century) and their affiliates within and outside of the US Government (USG), who in the 9/11 attacks got the “catalytic event” they needed and craved to take the US to war on Israel’s behalf, only eight months after coming into office.
Genesis of the Deception
That was not how it seemed at first, of course. Lists of names and associations of the alleged hijackers quickly surfaced in official US accounts and mainstream media (MSM) reports, pointing to Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda group, then largely in Afghanistan. Bin Laden denied responsibility, saying in effect that while he thanked Allah that the attacks had occurred, he had not done it, but the US demanded that the Taliban governing Afghanistan turn him over to the US. The Taliban response was reasonable: “Show us the evidence he did it and we’ll give him to you.” But the US brushed it off and attacked. Why? Because it had no convincing evidence, and never would — even on the eve of his public death in 2011, the FBI did not include 9/11 on his internet-based “Most Wanted” charge sheet.
As the war in Afghanistan for very dubious reasons extended into a war in Iraq for even more specious ones, the essential USG view of 9/11 became embedded in the public ethos. The 9/11 Commission Report, despite being handicapped when it was prepared and later revealed to have been deeply flawed, still appeared as the basic reference work on the attacks. Details may have been compromised, but the prevailing view was that 19 Arab hijackers had flown four planes into three buildings and one crash site, and that was the end of it. This was the position taken by the Bush Administration in 2001, and reaffirmed a decade later by the Obama Administration. Politicians of every stripe, most pundits and rafts of Protestant pastors (mainly evangelical) added their endorsements.
Neither I nor most Americans had any particular reason to doubt the veracity of these claims, then or later. Nonetheless, I had strong suspicions that something was very wrong with the official US account of the tragedy only weeks after the incident, while responding to a request from a local journalist for background information. Too much made no sense whatsoever: warnings after the fact when there should have been no warnings, bizarre misbehavior by the alleged hijackers that ran counter to both the mission and their faith, skills required that far exceeded any skills the named hijackers themselves could ever have possessed for the mission, and especially the total absence of any recognition for what they had done from anyone except their supposed victims – something without precedent for actions of the sort that supposedly happened on 9/11. These and similar discontinuities reinforced my suspicion that something in the entire exercise was rotten to the core.
Potentially far more significant than individual musings was the gradual appearance of dissent that eventually crystallized in the so-called “9/11 Truth” movement, which rapidly proliferated into scores of major and many minor organizations and websites dissecting the attacks, the Commission report, the motivations and agendas of assorted elected and appointed officials, and alternatives to the orthodox view. But “9/11 Truthers” have been doing their version of the Maoist “Hundred Flowers” Campaign, throwing out so many different assessments of so many different aspects of so many different issues that the core message has been lost. Nor is it a matter of too little evidence invalidating the USG position on 9/11 being available, but too much to permit a clear focus on what happened (so many trees no one can really see the forest).
Mind you, it isn’t that what has been presented is irrelevant or even necessarily wrong, although some pretty bizarre theses have been tossed around along with a good deal of thoughtful and balanced work. A substantial segment also have resisted closure under any circumstances – especially when Israel came into the equation in any way – thus keeping the rhetorical pot boiling inconclusively, more than a few for reasons that could not withstand close scrutiny as to their affiliation and motivation.
Critiquing the 9/11 Critique
The real difficulty with much, but not all, of the effort to critique and question the official US position on 9/11 is that the “9/11 Truth” proponents have been unable to communicate their concerns – much less any conclusions – to the general public in any significant way. So much of the discussion is only partially comprehensible to some within the movement, largely unknown to the general US public, and so complicated in all its dimensions to those who do become aware of it that they fail to follow up on the arguments. It is as if critics of the official position on 9/11 have been attempting to try the case in court before they have even gotten an indictment – the analytical equivalent of putting the argumentative cart before the public horse of the need to rethink the issue, thereby creating an evidentiary Gordian Knot of sorts.
This analogy has long struck me as an appropriate way of rethinking our approach to the 9/11 controversy. It is not that the issue isn’t complex – it is, in ever so many ways, and that complexity would have to be addressed at some point, but there is no need to confuse the public with its complexity at the very beginning.
Remember that at least in the US, the evidence and voting requirements are very different in a grand jury which can issue an indictment, than they are in a petit jury that actually tries the case. The latter needs proof of guilt; but the former only needs sufficient indication that a specific crime may have been committed, and that the accused may have done it. That is where we need to go, and where I will take this argument: to focus on those essentials necessary for an indictment in a way that will be understandable and credible to a reasonably intelligent person without requiring them to have the skills of (e.g.) a civil engineer or an aviator.
Peeling Away the Layered Details
There are so many flaws in the official US Government’s position on 9/11 that it is sometimes difficult to know just where to start. For example, the miraculous survival of a passport, used to identify one of the hijackers, which somehow worked its way through the aircraft’s impact, explosion, fire, and an 800-plus foot free-fall to be found by a well-dressed man and given to a New York City police detective at the base of the twin towers is a standout. The superstar-like ability of named pilots to go from the controls of a single-engine propeller-driven light plane to the cockpit of a passenger airliner and do anything except put it into the ground within a minute of turning off the autopilot is another – who would ever have thought that the Microsoft Flight Simulator program was so superlative? And the explanations given for the multiple failures of NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) to have fighters on all four planes within minutes of their straying off course are individually dubious and collectively preposterous – only in Hollywood would they have any credence, perhaps because that is where they originated.
The debate on these and many other points, and the implications thereof, has been extensive and sometimes ferocious, even if not particularly effective. What is not open to debate, however, is that WTC-7 — the third tower to collapse that day, and the only one not hit by a plane — absolutely was brought down by a controlled demolition, as anyone not trying to shield the attackers knows from a real-time video of its collapse. That is, WTC-7 went straight down into its own footprint in seconds without any visible catastrophic external trauma, which means only some catastrophic internal trauma could have brought it down. And if it had been wired for a controlled demolition, then so were the other towers (WTC-1 and WTC-2) that collapsed. That gives the plane impacts a gruesome cosmetic role, designed explicitly to conceal the true cause of the collapse of the buildings, while shocking the public into something akin to numbness.





cont...

Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake — Alan Sabrosky

[mamboni]

Thanks PatColo! You are truly indefatiguable in the battle for the truth over lies. And some day, probably many years from now, truth will triumph over lies, as it always eventually does, and the name PatColo will be inducted into the Pantheon of the Faithful who protected and preserved the flame of truth through the long dark days.

[mamboni]

New Information

The Explosions in the World Trade Center Buildings, started, before the planes HIT, according to U.S. Geological Data.


We still have our own problems, that will NOT go away, about our supposed "best friend and Middle East Ally", ISRAEL, who did plan and execute 9/11/01, murdered 3,000 Americans, and we are still paying for it.


Here is some new material on the 9/11/01 attacks, that many may have not seen or heard about, that is truly incriminating for Israel. After all Israel controlled ALL WORLD TRADE CENTER Buildings as well as access to them:


From: Jim Fetzer

Questions about 9/11 Jim Fetzer

As a former Marine Corps officer (1962-66), who spent his 35-year career offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning to college students, it troubles me when my government appears to be lying to the American people. On this 4th of July, therefore, I want to share with you some of the questions that have arisen in my mind about the events of 9/11, which have been used to justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at enormous cost in lives lost and resources expended. I don’t claim to have all of the answers, but here are some of my questions—seven for the 4th of July!

(1) The early explosions
In their study, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”, Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong (one an engineer, one a numerical analyst) present evidence that there were enormous explosions in the subbasements of both of the Twin Towers prior to the impacts of any planes on those buildings. They used extremely reliable data from a geological laboratory run by Columbia University and radar and FAA data to come to the conclusion that those explosions occurred 14 and 17 seconds before those planes hit the towers:


My first question, therefore, is how were those 19 Islamic terrorists able to arrange these explosions, which drained the water from sprinkler systems that would have otherwise extinguished the rather modest office fires that remained after the jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs? I have given this a lot of thought and I can’t figure out how they did that.

[PatColo]

thanks for the kudos 2 posts up Mambo, quite the turn of phrase.

New Information
From: Jim Fetzer

Questions about 9/11 Jim Fetzer

I still don't trust Fetzer. It seems he went through a sort of rehab/reinvention of his former discredited "truther" image, even pointing the finger at the perps of 911 - the zionists. He was for a time on the "development group" of this otherwise very credible ZIHOP 911 Truth site:
http://rediscover911.com/
... but I notice Fetzer is no longer displayed in that list (top right). His 2009 article- Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’? - still appears at the site.

Fetzer is still peddling "no planes at WTC/ video fakery" which insults the intelligence of real truthers & noobs alike-- the exact point of such a ploy- sow division in the movement and turn away noobs before they get around to reviewing any of the real issues.

Fetzer was on Kevin Barrett's radio show recently, MP3 here: 06/27/2011 Monday - 1st Hour: With Jim Fetzer. 2nd Hour: With Stephen Lendman.
Barrett gives him general respect but also asks good questions about the problems with Fetzers "no planes @ WTC" noise.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Jim Fetzer, Stephen Lendman on TJ Radio Monday


Truth Jihad Radio Mon. 6/27/11, 1-3 pm Central, American Freedom Radio(archived here.) Call-in number: (402) 237-2525 or post your questions to my Facebook page.

First hour: Jim Fetzer explains his latest article "9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = An Inside Job." I don't understand the relationship between the seismic proof (Ross and Furlong's study showing that the first explosion in the North Tower happened 14-17 seconds before the plane impacts) and the video fakery issue. But apparently Jim does...

Note: Dr. James Fetzer will be speaking on July 20 at the University of Minnesota-Duluth campus in Bohannon Hall Room 90 starting at 7 pm, with doors opening at 6 pm. That hall seats 350 people. Jim's talk is titled: "Were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq justified by the events of 9/11/01?"

[PatColo]

the wealth of ZIHOP info at http://rediscover911.com/ is certainly worth a review.

This short <3 min MP3 clip is from an NPR radio show discussing 911 CTs, with host, guest & caller all playing the "deeply offended" card at the idea of the tribe's involvement in 911.

A spokesperson for Jewish people explains that the Jews (international bankers?) are deeply offended by any inferences that they had anything to do with causing 9-11: Jews are offended by inferences that Jews had anything to do with 9-11. National Public Radio (NPR) has been complicit in the cover-up of 9-11 evidence and has actively worked to avoid 9-11 information on their website and in their “investigative news” pieces.

The guest even throws out the limited hangout suggestion that the "anti-Semite's" assertions re the tribe's involvement consists merely of the zio's having co-opted and led scary moozlemismist patsies...

also liked this pic I see at the site:

[PatColo]

Dr. Alan Sabrosky: Israel behind 9/11, Part II

[PatColo]

Chris Bollyn finished writing his book a couple months ago, & he posted these remarks to his blog at that time, Final Chapters of Solving 9/11 Published
(wait for above page to load, it's slow)

here's link to the full book, which he makes free online,
The Book - Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World