Are We Witnessing the Start of a Global Revolution?

 

Are We Witnessing the Start of a Global Revolution?

North Africa and the Global Political

For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive... The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination... The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening... That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing... The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches...

The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as well... Their potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious "tertiary level" educational institutions of developing countries. Depending on the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130 million "college" students. Typically originating from the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square. Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred...

[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.[1]

- Zbigniew Brzezinski

Former U.S. National Security Advisor

Co-Founder of the Trilateral Commission

Member, Board of Trustees, Center for Strategic and International Studies

An uprising in Tunisia led to the overthrow of the country’s 23-year long dictatorship of President Ben Ali. A new ‘transitional’ government was formed, but the protests continued demanding a totally new government without the relics of the previous tyranny. Protests in Algeria have continued for weeks, as rage mounts against rising food prices, corruption and state oppression. Protests in Jordan forced the King to call on the military to surround cities with tanks and set up checkpoints. Tens of thousands of protesters marched on Cairo demanding an end to the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. Thousands of activists, opposition leaders and students rallied in the capitol of Yemen against the corrupt dictatorship of President Saleh, in power since 1978. Saleh has been, with U.S. military assistance, attempting to crush a rebel movement in the north and a massive secessionist movement growing in the south, called the “Southern Movement.” Protests in Bolivia against rising food prices forced the populist government of Evo Morales to backtrack on plans to cut subsidies. Chile erupted in protests as demonstrators railed against rising fuel prices. Anti-government demonstrations broke out in Albania, resulting in the deaths of several protesters.

It seems as if the world is entering the beginnings of a new revolutionary era: the era of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’ While this ‘awakening’ is materializing in different regions, different nations and under different circumstances, it is being largely influenced by global conditions. The global domination by the major Western powers, principally the United States, over the past 65 years, and more broadly, centuries, is reaching a turning point. The people of the world are restless, resentful, and enraged. Change, it seems, is in the air. As the above quotes from Brzezinski indicate, this development on the world scene is the most radical and potentially dangerous threat to global power structures and empire. It is not a threat simply to the nations in which the protests arise or seek change, but perhaps to a greater degree, it is a threat to the imperial Western powers, international institutions, multinational corporations and banks that prop up, arm, support and profit from these oppressive regimes around the world. Thus, America and the West are faced with a monumental strategic challenge: what can be done to stem the Global Political Awakening? Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the chief architects of American foreign policy, and arguably one of the intellectual pioneers of the system of globalization. Thus, his warnings about the 'Global Political Awakening' are directly in reference to its nature as a threat to the prevailing global hierarchy. As such, we must view the 'Awakening' as the greatest hope for humanity. Certainly, there will be mainy failures, problems, and regressions; but the 'Awakening' has begun, it is underway, and it cannot be so easily co-opted or controlled as many might assume.
The reflex action of the imperial powers is to further arm and support the oppressive regimes, as well as the potential to organize a destabilization through covert operations or open warfare (as is being done in Yemen). The alterantive is to undertake a strategy of "democratization" in which Western NGOs, aid agencies and civil society organizations establish strong contacts and relationships with the domestic civil society in these regions and nations. The objective of this strategy is to organize, fund and help direct the domestic civil society to produce a democratic system made in the image of the West, and thus maintain continuity in the international hierarchy. Essentially, the project of "democratization" implies creating the outward visible constructs of a democratic state (multi-party elections, active civil society, "independent" media, etc) and yet maintain continuity in subservience to the World Bank, IMF, multinational corporations and Western powers.

It appears that both of these strategies are being simultaneously imposed in the Arab world: enforcing and supporting state oppression and building ties with civil society organizations. The problem for the West, however, is that they have not had the ability to yet establish strong and dependent ties with civil society groups in much of the region, as ironically, the oppressive regimes they propped up were and are unsurprisingly resistant to such measures. In this sense, we must not cast aside these protests and uprisings as being instigated by the West, but rather that they emerged organically, and the West is subsequently attempting to co-opt and control the emerging movements.
Part 1 of this essay focuses on the emergence of these protest movements and uprisings, placing it in the context of the Global Political Awakening. Part 2 will examine the West's strategy of "democratic imperialism" as a method of co-opting the 'Awakening' and installing "friendly" governments.

The Tunisian Spark

A July 2009 diplomatic cable from America’s Embassy in Tunisia reported that, “many Tunisians are frustrated by the lack of political freedom and angered by First Family corruption, high unemployment and regional inequities. Extremism poses a continuing threat,” and that, “the risks to the regime’s long-term stability are increasing.”[2]

On Friday, 14 January 2011, the U.S.-supported 23-year long dictatorship of Tunisian president Ben Ali ended. For several weeks prior to this, the Tunisian people had risen in protest against rising food prices, stoked on by an immense and growing dissatisfaction with the political repression, and prodded by the WikiLeaks cables confirming the popular Tunisian perception of gross corruption on the part of the ruling family. The spark, it seems, was when a 26-year old unemployed youth set himself on fire in protest on December 17.

With the wave of protests sparked by the death of the 26-year old who set himself on fire on December 17, the government of Tunisia responded by cracking down on the protesters. Estimates vary, but roughly 100 people were killed in the clashes. Half of Tunisia’s 10 million people are under the age of 25, meaning that they have never known a life in Tunisia outside of living under this one dictator. Since Independence from the French empire in 1956, Tunisia has had only two leaders: Habib Bourguiba and Ben Ali.[3] The Tunisian people were rising up against a great many things: an oppressive dictatorship which has employed extensive information and internet censorship, rising food prices and inflation, a corrupt ruling family, lack of jobs for the educated youth, and a general sense and experience of exploitation, subjugation and disrespect for human dignity.

Following the ouster of Ben Ali, Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi assumed presidential power and declared a “transitional government.” Yet, this just spurred more protests demanding his resignation and the resignation of the entire government. Significantly, the trade union movement had a large mobilizing role in the protests, with a lawyers union being particularly active during the initial protests.[4]

Protests in Tunisia
Social media and the Internet did play a large part in mobilizing people within Tunisia for the uprising, but it was ultimately the result of direct protests and action which led to the resignation of Ben Ali. Thus, referring to Tunisia as a “Twitter Revolution” is disingenuous.
Twitter, WikiLeaks, Facebook, Youtube, forums and blogs did have a part to play. They reflect the ability “to collectively transform the Arab information environment and shatter the ability of authoritarian regimes to control the flow of information, images, ideas and opinions.”[5] [Editors Note: The US based foundation Freedom House was involved in promoting and training some Middle East North Africa Facebook and Twitter bloggers (See also Freedom House), M. C.].
We must also keep in mind that social media has not only become an important source of mobilization of activism and information at the grassroots level, but it has also become an effective means for governments and various power structures to seek to manipulate the flow of information. This was evident in the 2009 protests in Iran, where social media became an important avenue through which the Western nations were able to advance their strategy of supporting the so-called 'Green Revolution' in destabilizing the Iranian government. Thus, social media has presented a new form of power, neither black nor white, in which it can be used to either advance the process of the 'Awakening' or control its direction.
Whereas America was publicly denouncing Iran for blocking (or attempting to block) social media in the summer of 2009, during the first several weeks of Tunisian protests (which were largely being ignored by Western media), America and the West were silent about censorship.[6] Steven Cook, writing for the elite U.S. think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, commented on the lack of attention being paid to the Tunisian protests in the early weeks of resistance prior to the resignation of Ben Ali. He explained that while many assume that the Arab “strongmen” regimes will simply maintain power as they always have, this could be mistaken. He stated that, “it may not be the last days of Ben Ali or Mubarak or any other Middle Eastern strongman, but there is clearly something going on in the region.” However, it was the end of Ben Ali, and indeed, “there is clearly something going on in the region.”[7]

France’s President Sarkozy has even had to admit that, “he had underestimated the anger of the Tunisian people and the protest movement that ousted President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.” During the first few weeks of protests in Tunisia, several French government officials were publicly supporting the dictatorship, with the French Foreign Minister saying that France would lend its police “knowhow” to help Ben Ali in maintaining order.[8]

Days before the ouster of Ben Ali, Hillary Clinton gave an interview in which she explained how America was worried “about the unrest and the instability,” and that, “we are not taking sides, but we are saying we hope that there can be a peaceful resolution. And I hope that the Tunisian Government can bring that about.” Clinton further lamented, “One of my biggest concerns in this entire region are the many young people without economic opportunities in their home countries.”[9] Her concern, of course, does not spur from any humanitarian considerations, but rather from inherent imperial considerations: it is simply harder to control a region of the world erupting in activism, uprisings and revolution.

The Spark Lights a Flame

Tunisia has raised the bar for the people across the Arab world to demand justice, democracy, accountability, economic stability, and freedom. Just as Tunisia’s protests were in full-swing, Algeria was experiencing mass protests, rising up largely as a result of the increasing international food prices, but also in reaction to many of the concerns of the Tunisian protesters, such as democratic accountability, corruption and freedom. A former Algerian diplomat told Al-Jazeera in early January that, “It is a revolt, and probably a revolution, of an oppressed people who have, for 50 years, been waiting for housing, employment, and a proper and decent life in a very rich country.”[10]

In mid-January, similar protests erupted in Jordan, as thousands took to the streets to protest against rising food prices and unemployment, chanting anti-government slogans. Jordan’s King Abdullah II had “set up a special task force in his palace that included military and intelligence officials to try to prevent the unrest from escalating further,” which had tanks surrounding major cities, with barriers and checkpoints established.[11]

In Yemen, the poorest nation in the Arab world, engulfed in a U.S. sponsored war against its own people, ruled by a dictator who has been in power since 1978, thousands of people protested against the government, demanding the dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down. In the capitol city of Sanaa, thousands of students, activists and opposition groups chanted slogans such as, “Get out get out, Ali. Join your friend Ben Ali.”[12] Yemen has been experiencing much turmoil in recent years, with a rebel movement in the North fighting against the government, formed in 2004; as well as a massive secessionist movement in the south, called the “Southern Movement,” fighting for liberation since 2007. As the Financial Times explained:

Many Yemen observers consider the anger and secessionist sentiment now erupting in the south to be a greater threat to the country’s stability than its better publicised struggle with al-Qaeda, and the deteriorating economy is making the tension worse.

Unemployment, particularly among the young, is soaring. Even the government statistics office in Aden puts it at nearly 40 per cent among men aged 20 to 24.[13]

Protest of the Southern Movement in Yemen
On January 21, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Albania, mobilized by the socialist opposition, ending with violent clashes between the police and protesters, leading to the deaths of three demonstrators. The protests have been sporadic in Albania since the widely contested 2009 elections, but took on new levels inspired by Tunisia.[14]

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom stressed concern over the revolutionary sentiments within the Arab world, saying that, “I fear that we now stand before a new and very critical phase in the Arab world.” He fears Tunisia would “set a precedent that could be repeated in other countries, possibly affecting directly the stability of our system.”[15] Israel’s leadership fears democracy in the Arab world, as they have a security alliance with the major Arab nations, who, along with Israel itself, are American proxy states in the region. Israel maintains civil – if not quiet – relationships with the Arab monarchs and dictators. While the Arab states publicly criticize Israel, behind closed doors they are forced to quietly accept Israel’s militarism and war-mongering, lest they stand up against the superpower, America. Yet, public opinion in the Arab world is extremely anti-Israel, anti-American and pro-Iran.

In July of 2010, the results of a major international poll were released regarding public opinion in the Arab world, polling from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. Among some of the notable findings: while Obama was well received upon entering the Presidency, with 51% expressing optimism about U.S. policy in the region in the Spring of 2009, by Summer 2010, 16% were expressing optimism. In 2009, 29% of those polled said a nuclear-armed Iran would be positive for the region; in 2010, that spiked to 57%, reflecting a very different stance from that of their governments.[16]

While America, Israel and the leaders of the Arab nations claim that Iran is the greatest threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, the Arab people do not agree. In an open question asking which two countries pose the greatest threat to the region, 88% responded with Israel, 77% with America, and 10% with Iran.[17]

At the Arab economic summit shortly following the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia, who was for the first time absent from the meetings, the Tunisian uprising hung heavy in the air. Arab League leader Amr Moussa said in his opening remarks at the summit, “The Tunisian revolution is not far from us,” and that, “the Arab citizen entered an unprecedented state of anger and frustration,” noting that "the Arab soul is broken by poverty, unemployment and general recession.” The significance of this ‘threat’ to the Arab leaders cannot be understated. Out of roughly 352 million Arabs, 190 million are under the age of 24, with nearly three-quarters of them unemployed. Often, “the education these young people receive doesn't do them any good because there are no jobs in the fields they trained for.”[18]

There was even an article in the Israeli intellectual newspaper, Ha’aretz, which posited that, “Israel may be on the eve of revolution.” Explaining, the author wrote that:

Israeli civil society organizations have amassed considerable power over the years; not only the so-called leftist organizations, but ones dealing with issues like poverty, workers' rights and violence against women and children. All of them were created in order to fill the gaps left by the state, which for its part was all too happy to continue walking away from problems that someone else was there to take on. The neglect is so great that Israel's third sector - NGOs, charities and volunteer organizations - is among the biggest in the world. As such, it has quite a bit of power.[19]

Now the Israeli Knesset and cabinet want that power back; yet, posits the author, they “have chosen to ignore the reasons these groups became powerful,” namely:

The source of their power is the vacuum, the criminal policies of Israel's governments over the last 40 years. The source of their power is a government that is evading its duties to care for all of its citizens and to end the occupation, and a Knesset that supports the government instead of putting it in its place.[20]

The Israeli Knesset opened investigations into the funding of Israeli human rights organizations in a political maneuver against them. However, as one article in Ha’aretz by an Israeli professor explained, these groups actually – inadvertently – play a role in “entrenching the occupation.” As the author explained:

Even if the leftist groups' intention is to ensure upholding Palestinian rights, though, the unintentional result of their activity is preserving the occupation. Moderating and restraining the army's activity gives it a more human and legal facade. Reducing the pressure of international organizations, alongside moderating the Palestinian population's resistance potential, enable the army to continue to maintain this control model over a prolonged period of time.[21]

Thus, if the Israeli Knesset succeeds in getting rid of these powerful NGOs, they sow the seeds for the pressure valve in the occupied territories to be removed. The potential for massive internal protests within Israel from the left, as well as the possibility of another Intifada – uprising – in the occupied territories themselves would seem dramatically increased. Israel and the West have expressed how much distaste they hold for democracy in the region. When Gaza held a democratic election in 2006 and elected Hamas, which was viewed as the ‘wrong’ choice by Israel and America, Israel imposed a ruthless blockade of Gaza. Richard Falk, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Inquiry Commission for the Palestinian territories, wrote an article for Al Jazeera in which he explained that the blockade:

unlawfully restricted to subsistence levels, or below, the flow of food, medicine, and fuel. This blockade continues to this day, leaving the entire Gazan population locked within the world's largest open-air prison, and victimized by one of the cruelest forms of belligerent occupation in the history of warfare.[22]

The situation in the occupied territories is made increasingly tense with the recent leaking of the “Palestinian Papers,” which consist of two decades of secret Israeli-Palestinian accords, revealing the weak negotiating position of the Palestinian Authority. The documents consist largely of major concessions the Palestinian Authority was willing to make “on the issues of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, territorial concessions, and the recognition of Israel.” Among the leaks, Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to concede nearly all of East Jerusalem to Israel. Further, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (favoured by Israel and America over Hamas), was personally informed by a senior Israeli official the night before Operation Cast Lead, the December 2008 and January 2009 Israeli assault on Gaza, resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 Palestinians: “Israeli and Palestinian officials reportedly discussed targeted assassinations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists in Gaza.”[23]

Hamas has subsequently called on Palestinian refugees to protest over the concessions regarding the ‘right of return’ for refugees, of which the negotiators conceded to allowing only 100,000 of 5 million to return to Israel.[24] A former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt lamented that, “The concern will be that this might cause further problems in moving forward.”[25] However, while being blamed for possibly preventing the “peace process” from moving forward, what the papers reveal is that the “peace process” itself is a joke. The Palestinian Authority’s power is derivative of the power Israel allows it to have, and was propped up as a method of dealing with an internal Palestinian elite, thus doing what all colonial powers have done. The papers, then, reveal how the so-called Palestinian ‘Authority’ does not truly speak or work for the interests of the Palestinian people. And while this certainly will divide the PA from Hamas, they were already deeply divided as it was. Certainly, this will pose problems for the “peace process,” but that’s assuming it is a ‘peaceful’ process in the first part.

Is Egypt on the Edge of Revolution?

Unrest is even spreading to Egypt, personal playground of U.S.-supported and armed dictator, Hosni Mubarak, in power since 1981. Egypt is the main U.S. ally in North Africa, and has for centuries been one of the most important imperial jewels first for the Ottomans, then the British, and later for the Americans. With a population of 80 million, 60% of which are under the age of 30, who make up 90% of Egypt’s unemployed, the conditions are ripe for a repeat in Egypt of what happened in Tunisia.[26]

On January 25, 2011, Egypt experienced its “day of wrath,” in which tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets to protest against rising food prices, corruption, and the oppression of living under a 30-year dictatorship. The demonstrations were organized through the use of social media such as Twitter and Facebook. When the protests emerged, the government closed access to these social media sites, just as the Tunisian government did in the early days of the protests that led to the collapse of the dictatorship. As one commentator wrote in the Guardian:

Egypt is not Tunisia. It’s much bigger. Eighty million people, compared with 10 million. Geographically, politically, strategically, it's in a different league – the Arab world's natural leader and its most populous nation. But many of the grievances on the street are the same. Tunis and Cairo differ only in size. If Egypt explodes, the explosion will be much bigger, too.[27]

In Egypt, “an ad hoc coalition of students, unemployed youths, industrial workers, intellectuals, football fans and women, connected by social media such as Twitter and Facebook, instigated a series of fast-moving, rapidly shifting demos across half a dozen or more Egyptian cities.” The police responded with violence, and three protesters were killed. With tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, Egypt saw the largest protests in decades, if not under the entire 30-year reign of President Mubarak. Is Egypt on the verge of revolution? It seems too soon to tell. Egypt, it must be remembered, is the second major recipient of U.S. military assistance in the world (following Israel), and thus, its police state and military apparatus are far more advanced and secure than Tunisia’s. Clearly, however, something is stirring. As Hilary Clinton said on the night of the protests, “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”[28] In other words: “We continue to support tyranny and dictatorship over democracy and liberation.” So what else is new?

Egyptian Protest, 25 January 2011
According to some estimates, as many as 50,000 protesters turned out in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and other Egyptian cities.[29] The protests were met with the usual brutality: beating protesters, firing tear gas and using water cannons to attempt to disperse the protesters. As images and videos started emerging out of Egypt, “television footage showed demonstrators chasing police down side streets. One protester climbed into a fire engine and drove it away.”[30] Late on the night of the protests, rumours and unconfirmed reports were spreading that the first lady of Egypt, Suzanne Mubarak, may have fled Egypt to London, following on the heels of rumours that Mubarak’s son, and presumed successor, had also fled to London.[31]

Are We Headed for a Global Revolution?

During the first phase of the global economic crisis in December of 2008, the IMF warned governments of the prospect of “violent unrest on the streets.” The head of the IMF warned that, “violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to benefit everyone rather than a small elite.”[32]

In January of 2009, Obama’s then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the greatest threat to the National Security of the U.S. was not terrorism, but the global economic crisis:

I’d like to begin with the global economic crisis, because it already looms as the most serious one in decades, if not in centuries ... Economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they are prolonged for a one- or two-year period... And instability can loosen the fragile hold that many developing countries have on law and order, which can spill out in dangerous ways into the international community.[33]

In 2007, a British Defence Ministry report was released assessing global trends in the world over the next 30 years. In assessing “Global Inequality”, the report stated that over the next 30 years:

[T]he gap between rich and poor will probably increase and absolute poverty will remain a global challenge... Disparities in wealth and advantage will therefore become more obvious, with their associated grievances and resentments, even among the growing numbers of people who are likely to be materially more prosperous than their parents and grandparents. Absolute poverty and comparative disadvantage will fuel perceptions of injustice among those whose expectations are not met, increasing tension and instability, both within and between societies and resulting in expressions of violence such as disorder, criminality, terrorism and insurgency. They may also lead to the resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies, possibly linked to religious, anarchist or nihilist movements, but also to populism and the revival of Marxism.[34]

Further, the report warned of the dangers to the established powers of a revolution emerging from the disgruntled middle classes:

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.[35]

We have now reached the point where the global economic crisis has continued beyond the two-year mark. The social repercussions are starting to be felt – globally – as a result of the crisis and the coordinated responses to it. Since the global economic crisis hit the ‘Third World’ the hardest, the social and political ramifications will be felt there first. In the context of the current record-breaking hikes in the cost of food, food riots will spread around the world as they did in 2007 and 2008, just prior to the outbreak of the economic crisis. This time, however, things are much worse economically, much more desperate socially, and much more oppressive politically.

This rising discontent will spread from the developing world to the comfort of our own homes in the West. Once the harsh realization sets in that the economy is not in ‘recovery,’ but rather in a Depression, and once our governments in the West continue on their path of closing down the democratic façade and continue dismantling rights and freedoms, increasing surveillance and ‘control,’ while pushing increasingly militaristic and war-mongering foreign policies around the world (mostly in an effort to quell or crush the global awakening being experienced around the world), we in the West will come to realize that ‘We are all Tunisians.’

In 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr., said in his famous speech “Beyond Vietnam”:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.[36]

This was Part 1 of "North Africa and the Global Political Awakening," focusing on the emergence of the protest movements primarily in North Africa and the Arab world, but placing it in the context of a wider 'Global Awakening.'
Part 2 will focus on the West's reaction to the 'Awakening' in this region; namely, the two-pronged strategy of supporting oppressive regimes while promoting "democratization" in a grand new project of "democratic imperialism."

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at Globalresearch.ca. He is currently working on a forthcoming book on 'Global Government'.
Notes

[1] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html; “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President,” International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009); The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign. The American Interest Magazine, Autumn 2005: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=56; The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Speech at the Carnegie Council: March 25, 2004: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4424.html; America’s Geopolitical Dilemmas. Speech at the Canadian International Council and Montreal Council on Foreign Relations: April 23, 2010: http://www.onlinecic.org/resourcece/multimedia/americasgeopoliticaldilemmas

[2] Embassy Tunis, TROUBLED TUNISIA: WHAT SHOULD WE DO?, WikiLeaks Cables, 17 July 2009: http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/07/09TUNIS492.html

[3] Mona Eltahawy, Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution, The Washington Post, 15 January 2011: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011405084.html

[4] Eileen Byrne, Protesters make the case for peaceful change, The Financial Times, 15 January 2011: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82293e38-20ae-11e0-a877-00144feab49a.html#axzz1C08RDtxu

Are We Witnessing the Start of a Global Revolution?

10 Things That Would Be Different If The Federal Reserve Had Never Been Created

 

10 Things That Would Be Different If The Federal Reserve Had Never Been Created

The vast majority of Americans, including many of those who believe that they are "educated" about the Federal Reserve, do not really understand how the Federal Reserve really makes money for the international banking elite.  Many of those opposed to the Federal Reserve will point to the record $80.9 billion in profits that the Federal Reserve made last year as evidence that they are robbing the American people blind.  But then those defending the Federal Reserve will point out that the Fed returned $78.4 billion to the U.S. Treasury.  As a result, the Fed only made a couple billion dollars last year.  Pretty harmless, eh?  Well, actually no.  You see, the money that the Federal Reserve directly makes is not the issue.  Rather, the "magic" of the Federal Reserve system is that it took the power of money creation away from the U.S. government and gave it to the bankers.  Now, the only way that the U.S. government can inject more money into the economy is by going into more debt.  But when new government debt is created, the amount of money to pay the interest on that debt is not also created.  In this way, it was intended by the international bankers that U.S. government debt would expand indefinitely and the U.S. money supply would also expand indefinitely.  In the process, the international bankers would become insanely wealthy by lending money to the U.S. government.

Every single year, hundreds of billions of dollars in profits are made lending money to the U.S. government.

But why in the world should the U.S. government be going into debt to anyone?

Why can't the U.S. government just print more money whenever it wants?

Well, that is not the way our system works.  The U.S. government has given the power of money creation over to a consortium of international private bankers.

Not only is this unconstitutional, but it is also one of the greatest ripoffs in human history.

In 1922, Henry Ford wrote the following....

"The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few."

It is important to try to understand how the international banking elite became so fabulously wealthy.  One of the primary ways that this was accomplished was by gaining control over the issuance of national currencies and by trapping large national governments in colossal debt spirals.

The U.S. national debt problem simply cannot be fixed under the current system.  U.S. government debt has been mathematically designed to expand forever.  It is a trap from which there is no escape.

Many liberals won't listen

10 Things That Would Be Different If The Federal Reserve Had Never Been Created

9/11 AN INSIDE JOB AND ITS RIPPLE EFFECT

 

North Tower Half-Way Through Destruction

Nearly Simultaneous Shots of the North Tower From Different Vantagepoints

Both of these photographs were taken about 8.5 seconds into the destruction of the North Tower.
The photograph on the left was taken about from the northeast and the photograph on the right was taken from the north. Close examination reveals that features in the rapidly evolving dust cloud are remarkably similar, meaning the photos must have been taken very close to the same time, certainly within a fraction of a second. Comparing features is tricky because of the different vantage points. Some that are easy to compare are: the shape of the end of the leftmost dust flow; the split tube shaped dust flow near the right side of the facing wall in the smaller photo and further left in the larger photo; and details in the the leftward facing plume rising above the main dust flows resembling a dragon head.

Director William Lewis takes the audience on a behind-the-scenes tour of the largest attack in United States history while at the same time exposing the falsehoods of the official account using live video feed and photographs shot on the morning of September 11, 2001. Pilots, military personnel, and 9-11 researchers share their professional analysis and assist in frame-by-frame digital examinations of some of the most talked about footage ever uncovered from national news programs. Also includes an eye-opening examination of the Flight Data Recorder recovered from the Flight #77 Pentagon strike. A study of media reaction and coverage of September 11 is also presented.

Background Attack Aftermath Evidence Misinformation Analysis Memorial

The photo on the left is from the book Painful

Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet fuel explodes, when one would have thought that, insofar as most of its fuel is stored in its wings, they should have exploded on entry—which is comparable to the failure of the 757 at the Pentagon to have its fuel explode when its wings hit those lampposts. And while some have sought to support the claim that this was a real 767 based upon the engine found at Church & Murray, those who were fabricating evidence in this case did not get it right:  the engine component did not come from a 767 and, if this FOX News footage is authentic, appears to be a plant, as another of Jack’s studies reveals: Flight 93: On-Site Evidence Just as America Airlines planes were supposed to be Boeing 767s, both of these United planes were supposed to be Boeing 757s. A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved. “This is the most eerie thing”, the coroner observed at the scene. “I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.”

Flight 175: On-Site Evidence The footage of the South Tower hit exemplifies several anomalies, including a Boeing 767 flying at an impossible speed, an impossible entry into the building (in violation of Newton’s laws), and even passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air—which is impossible, unless this 500,000 ton, steel and concrete building posed no more resistance to its trajectory in flight than air.  Some have claimed that this was a “special plane” that could fly faster than a standard Boeing 767, but no real plane could violate Newton’s laws.  The structure of the building, moreover, meant that it actually intersected with eight different floors as follows: Each of those floors consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the steel support columns. They were filled with 4-8” of concrete (deeper in the v-shaped grooves) and posed enormous horizontal resistance. (Imagine what would happen to a plane encountering one of them suspended in space!) The windows were 18” wide and the support columns one meter apart, while there were no windows between floors, which means far less than 50% if the plane should have entered via them. But as Jack White has shown here, that is not what the videos display:

Chatter: Obama Sought Arrest of Bush and Cheney for 9/11 Treason 66 JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) Threat: Obama, Biden and Family to be Killed By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor By 2006, rogue groups in the military, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, top Republican members of Congress, the Israeli lobby and most of the National Security Council had decided that Bush was a weakling, his brain addled from years of drugs, alcohol and the continual mumbling he referred to as “praying.”  Attempts to bring about the scheduled invasion of Iran, set in motion by General Petraeus in 2005, had failed.  The coup attempt staged by the Air Force at Minot AFB, the seizure of a load of H bombs had been caught, those involved “accidented” and the Air Force, from then on no longer given any direct nuclear authority. Two elections had been rigged to get Bush into office.  9/11, years in the planning, complex demolitions, radio controlled aircraft, SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) weapons developments, our biggest weapons secrets, were used on to flatten the twin towers of the World Trade Center. This could all have happened years before if the removal of Clinton had been allowed to succeed, attempts to tie him to CIA drug running and then the “Lewinsiki affair.”  As early as 1981, the elder Bush tried it too, 69 days into the Reagan presidency, John Hinckley, a mind control (MK Ultra) asset of the Bush CIA had tried to murder Reagan. Soon after his election, President Obama was warned that if he did what he knew he must, jail at least 200 traitors, members of Congress, at least 3 Supreme Court justices and top officials of the White House and Pentagon, he would never have a presidency. Obama in the Hot Seat The economy had been gutted and he was told the CIA and military would kill his entire family if he interfered in their drug cartel, which controlled not only Afghanistan, a war he had to keep going forever, but Mexico as well, a border that would be kept open at all costs. What had happened was simple.  The CIA had always been in the drug business, long before Oliver North and Iran Contra, long before George H.W. Bush and the ‘Golden Triangle.’  The games Wall Street and the banksters were allowed to play, emptying the markets, collapsing the banks, gutting the dollar, few in the CIA or military understood them though they stole trillions.  The CIA and military and key leaders of congress saw the easy money, drug money, rendition flights filled with heroin, trucks filled with ecstasy and cocaine flowing in from Mexico while the infrastructure of gangs, starting with Arizona and New Mexico, California had long become ‘other than America,” would quickly spread across the United States, buying up local governments in communities from South Carolina to Maine to Idaho. All that was needed was an open border, the money was there to buy that easily, the CIA’s cover to move drugs and money around the world under the guise of the “Global War on Terror” and the war in Afghanistan that President Obama had sworn to end, to go on forever.  Fighting for What? - and for Whom? Opium fields would give way to heroin processing, a private air force of Defense Department and CIA contractors to move the product and a sea of diplomats and members of congress to move the money, using their immunity and the ability to transfer billions using paper financial instruments. Standby Letters of Credit, that went from Dubai to Zurich inside a wallet like a wrapped condom. What his advisors told him, some at least, is that unless President Obama were to press criminal charges against those tied to 9/11, not just torture and rendition, not falsified intelligence or election rigging, we mean exactly what is said, 9/11 itself, where the FBI had half its evidence, and, at the same time, remove all “Dominionist traitors” (their terminology), those working with General Jerry Boykin and Vice President Cheney, including the contractors of Blackwater, Xe, Dyncorp and other companies, it would be impossible to function as a free nation. They still held more than one nuclear weapon stolen during the Minot/Barksdale episode and at least two more from the South African stocks that Israel held, initially we have found, on Northern Cyprus, in partnership with members of Turkey’s armed forces. MINOT-BARKSDALE, THE FORGOTTEN MUTINY In August 2007, at least 6 nuclear warheads were stolen from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. The moment they were loaded, they disappeared from America’s nuclear inventory, “location unknown,” something that is not supposed to happen. There is no possible “misinterpretation” of orders, no mistake, no “wrong label” issue. These weapons were stolen, pure and simple. Discussions of individual commanders having authority to deploy weapons, stories of accidents, confusion or political alignments within the Air Force are “red herrings.” Nothing is more controlled, more secure, more restricted, more classified, more protected than the nuclear arsenal of the United States. However, on that fateful day in 2007, a half dozen or more, hydrogen bombs, were plucked out of a secure bunker with no paperwork, no orders, nothing. This is the military. People are jailed for losing flashlight batteries. They were loaded into the weapons bay of a B-52 long range bomber for transport to places unknown, for purposes unknown. The plane had no orders, was part of no mission, operated under no legal command structure, in fact, the moment the weapons were loaded, was no longer an American plane at all. A mission, even under the most innocent possible circumstances, that would have required the knowledge of the President and his staff, certainly the Joint Chiefs of Staff and likely the National Security Council as well, seems to have authorized itself, out of “thin air.” Though the plane later landed at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, there is no evidence supporting this as the intended destination, far from it. The theft, hijacking, you pick the term, these are the best two so far, happened outside the command authority of the United States government, contravening all protocols for the storage, handling and deployment of nuclear weapons. The incident was also a violation of treaties requiring America to safeguard her stockpile of nuclear weapons, not just from environmental disasters but, as with this incident, from a mutiny by members of the military and civilian branches of our government, acting outside authority, acting as civilians, an act of piracy, mutiny, an act of insurrection. All the things Israel warns America about every day, radical groups in Iran and Pakistan getting control of nukes really happened, but not with Muslim radicals and not in the Middle East, it happened here at home. The radicals were Christians, of a sort at least, possibly intent on Armageddon, maybe planning to sell the weapons to Iran or North Korea or, more likely, tucking them away for “a rainy day.” The Minot-Barksdale “incident” demonstrated, not only that a secret government exists but it is capable of waging, not only foreign policy but of mounting a credible thermonuclear threat to the world. A “NOT SO COINCIDENTAL” COINCIDENCE When a planeload of nuclear weapons is hijacked by an extremist organization tied to the highest levels of power in America, we might ask, why then? What was going on in America in August 2007? Did something happen then? Why were 6 nuclear weapons stolen at the exact same time America suffered the largest financial collapse, became the victim of the largest financial crime in world history? Is this a coincidence? We know these things for sure: •This was the 11th hour, the last minutes of the 11th hour, the last chance to begin a war with Iran. Iraq had been temporarily “stabilized” by massive bribes paid out under General Petraeus’ “Sunni Awakening” program, a ‘band-aid’ fix that would soon come apart, Afghanistan had become a hopeless quagmire and the public had turned on President Bush, giving him the lowest approval ratings of all time, leaving his presidency failed and discredited. •What had begun as a minor mortgage crisis had revealed a deeper disease, the “toxic derivatives” schemes that would collapse America’s entire financial system. Only 5% of the mismanaged funds were mortgage related, 95% was a massive Ponzi scheme by “banks” that had taken to creating wealth out of thin air, underwriting the entire American economy, bond and stock markets, corporate earnings, pension plans, all backed by nothing at all. The money most American’s thought they had wasn’t even the “counterfeit” trash spewed by the Federal Reserve. It was, in fact, imaginary, soon to be gone, “poof!” How could 6 nuclear weapons, providing this was the only theft, something we may never learn, be used to cover the crimes of America’s entire financial community? What use of weapons of mass destruction would have changed the public’s perception, a public increasingly suspicious of the other great coincidence of all time, 9/11? Were weapons to be taken outside the country to attack others or to be brought back, a container in a seaport, a vending machine in a stadium, atop a missile, brought home? For years, the front men for the secret government, the ones easily recognized, had done little but prepare America for such an eventuality. With $12 trillion dollars “missing,” would the incineration of an American city be enough? Why Did We Accept a 9-11 Rigged Inquiry The real threats were dramatic.  The transition team for Obama had more than enough evidence from “friendly” members of the 9/11 Commission.  The world then, even without the “slam dunk” proof that Building 7 and the Pentagon missile attack have provided was simple enough.  NORAD was on stand down. Our satellite based air defense system, no, it hadn’t been “radar’ as claimed for over 20 years, had been disabled or its data destroyed.  It sees all planes, flying, landing, who is in planes, how hot the engines are, can even pick up irregular handling and course issues not tied to turbulence. Our real system has nothing to do with RADAR or what is seen on TV, this is fiction.  Our real defenses are space based, can defend against, not only planes but cruise type missiles launched from submarines and even multiple warheads using sophisticated deception technology on ballistic missiles. If an American Airlines pilot swerves lighting a cigarette in the cockpit while flying from Louisville to Wheeling, NORAD knows it, maybe even what brand. The cover story given now, the recent leaks, just prior to the 9/11 10th anniversary are telling.  Former CIA director and Defense Secretary Gates is now describing the enmity between Obama, Biden and Netanyahu.  We now understand why millions in Zionist money, the Koch brothers cabal and the Mossad have been working so hard with neocons to brand Obama a socialist, a Muslim and even foreign born. The Koch Brothers Then the Koch brother hired “storytellers” to invent tales of Obama and the Chicago “Gay bathhouse scene,” stories carried by assets seldom exposed by anything this outlandish, folks usually used for “phony leaks” from imaginary “intelligence sources.” This is, if anything, the most outrageous act thus far and every attempt was made to sell it. When Obama, who had no private military capability of his own, no “hit squads” such as the GOP has with Blackwater, the threats against his family were real. He could in no way retaliate or he and those close to him would suffer the same fate as John Wheeler III, victim of a street crime or Wisconsin Senator Paul Wellstone, who, with his entire family, were murdered in a staged plane crash. With GOP/Pentagon/CIA rogue muscle to rent, the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, “clean coal” and nuclear power could suddely order “hits” like on the Sopranos, could and, were we to look more carefully, do. If 3000 people could be murdered on 9/11 without the blink of an eye, the daughter of a president could be given cancer just as easily. 9-11 Satellite View - All Planes Can be Seen The holes in 9/11, not just the ‘no plane hit the Pentagon’ issue but how planes disappeared from radar and nobody noticed, the failure to address that is epic.  Planes weren’t on radar, not for security. They were watched by satellite, optical, synthetic aperature radar and infrared censors, dozens of satellites whose algorithms  watched them land, watched them unload, perhaps watched them replaced or simply repackaged for sale to Taiwan, a ‘rumor’ much less rumor than fact. Those same satellites may well have watched the deaths of passengers, poison gas, pistol executions, bodies trucked to incinerators nearby.  Too graphic for you? If a plane hit the Pentagon, satellite footage showing every inch of its travel in resolution capable of counting the rivets exists as does synthetic aperture radar capable of telling you what kind of wrist watch each passenger wore. What do you think we spend our billions on? 911 Comission Perjury Went Unpunished - Why? Remember, many years ago, when Gorbachev was nearly over thrown but the CIA gave him no warning.  Remember him saying, “The CIA can read license plates in Moscow and they couldn’t see armoured divisions closing in on the capitol?” This was decades ago. If you find Obama a disappointment perhaps you might remember, a few months ago, when he spoke of how difficult he found ‘asserting control’ over the Washington bureaucracy he inherited. We, years ago, remember Mrs. Clinton telling us of a great conspiracy against the presidency. We were advised by TV talking heads to take these pronouncements as conspiracy theory. These were blisters, those little areas where pus comes to the surface and the rot inside begins to seep out. In a statement a year ago, CIA director Leon Panetta stated, almost cryptically, that “no one had heard anything from Osama bin Laden since late 2001.” Similarly, Panetta and Gates over the past 2 years have declare the real strength of Al Qaeda, an organization many claim to be totally bogus in the first place, is down to “a dozen or less.” YouTube - Veterans Today - What we have seen is the rise of a political movement meant to restore constitutional authority, authority that ended under Bush, authority Obama has proven too fearful to oppose, a movement that, instead, enslaved itself to, not only continuing the abuses of authority it said it opposed but set about dismembering the checks and balances the Obama administration put in place to stop economic piracy has had occurred during the Bush regime. These are, perhaps, the only signs of there having been an Obama presidency at all, this and the hatred Israeli extremists have for President Obama whose public pronouncements of love for Israel put his own loyalty in question by many. Joint Special Operations Command What still exists is JSOC, an extra governmental organization of contractors, professional military free of command structure, of “freebooters” in uniform operating illegally inside the United States and around the world, accused of war crimes by dozens of nations. Because of JSOC and its sister groups in the CIA and Homeland Security, few members of the Bush administration can travel outside the US at all.  In fact, former President Bush has barely escaped war crimes arrests in both Switzerland and Canada. Still, the billions flow, the heroin drowns the world, the cartels infiltrate every American town, our standard of living plummets and government is increasingly incomprehensible, or would be except for the occasional epithet such as this.   I. Introduction: II. Natural Skepticism III. Reframing the Story IV. Background and Motive V. Historical Precedent VI. Government Complicity and Intelligence Breakdowns VII. WTC Building 7 VIII. The Twin Towers IX. Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives X. Underground Explosions XI. Evidence Destroyed XII. Military Response XIII. AA Flight 77 XIV. Hani Hanjour and Flight 77's Unexplained Expert Maneuvers XV. Video Evidence at the Pentagon XVI. The Pentagon XVII. Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists XVIII. Flight 93 XIX. Bin Laden 'Confession' Tapes XX. Too Grand a Conspiracy? XXI. The Media, Official Investigations, Debunkers, and other Misinformation XXII. Conclusion XXIII. Links XXIV. Charlatans and Scoundrels XXV. What can be done? Home Evidence World Trade Center destroyed evidence aircraft structural steel missing evidence bodies building contents gold asbestos surviving evidence photographs jet impacts fires destruction dust clouds Building 7 WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 Ground Zero surroundings construction videos timelines seismic records persisting heat molten iron forensic metallurgy orange spout dust analysis thermitic residues active thermitics gas emissions eyewitness accounts oral histories firefighter audiotape demolition admission tower blueprints structural electrical Pentagon missing evidence Pentagon footage surviving evidence photographs CCTV video eyewitness accounts Eric Bart compilation anonymous compilation large jetliner moment of impact explosives other aircraft approach details flights destroyed evidence missing evidence airport video phone calls call detail cell phone calls black boxes flight data voice data air controllers bodies surviving evidence passenger lists photographs eyewitness accounts Flight 93 transcript NTSB Reports Search Essays Reviews Talks Interviews FAQs Materials Papers Resources Site Guide 9/11 Commission Omissions Top 40 reasons to doubt the official story of September 11th, 2001 Questions Why were 29 pages of the 9/11 committee report personally censored at the request of President Bush? Where are the “black boxes” from Flight 11 and Flight 175? Where are the “voice recorders” from Flight 11 and Flight 175? Why can’t we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175? Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the doomed flights? Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they taken, and who ordered it done? Why were the serial numbers on the aircraft parts at the crash sites not traced to the aircraft of American Flight 11, United Flight 175, American Flight 77 and American Flight 93, respectively, as is customary in accident investigations? The unanswered questions of 911 Justice What’s to be done? Justice for 911 Conspirators References Aftermath Bush: “9-11 provides great opportunities for us.” … Where “us” are the neocons and their Project for a New American Century. It would have been more convenient if there were a direct link between 9-11 and Iraq, but once Americans were motivated for revenge by the 9-11 incident, it took only an excuse to invade Iraq. If nuclear weapons in the region were the excuse, the U.S. should have invaded Israel, Pakistan or India. Bogus WMD threats did not push the polls high enough to motivate Congress, but saving Iraqis from the dictator who held the country together with brute force did. The neocons got their invasion to destabilize the Middle East, and defense contractors got a new lease on life. The quote by Randolph Bourne, “War is the health of the State,” should be amended to: “War is the health of the State, its military, its contractors and their weapons merchants.” Then there is the long relationship between the Bush family and the Saudis in general and the bin Laden family in particular. I would not be surprised that Osama agreed to be get the flight crews, and be the patsy in exchange for a high ranking position in the Saudi government when it is handed to the bin Ladins after the U.S. consolidates its power in the Middle East. In the mean time the CIA helps their previous and perhaps current employee, Osama avoid capture by the U.S. military. From ideology to stocks and contracts, many more Americans benefited and continue to benefit from 9-11 than the number who died in it. 2001 September 27 – There were no Arabs on the passenger list of Flight 77, yet the FBI published photographs of the alleged hijackers, a month before the autopsies were done on 11/16/01. 2001 September 12 – Hijacker’s Passport “Found” Near WTC and the black box of Flight 93 was allegedly found 25 feet under the ground in Pennsylvania, and still worked, but the black boxes of Flights 11, 175 and 77 were allegedly not found. 2001 September 23 through 2002 June 15 – OSHA asbestos monitoring. 2001 October 7 – Afghanistan added to the global empire. Bush emphasized that the action represented just one front in an ongoing U.S. effort against terror networks. “Today, we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader.” 2002 July 17 – “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan, but for what happened on September 11.” — Tony Blair [Guardian] 2002 September 18 – Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. 2002 December 27 - False Flag 12 profit: The new deal on the Central Asia Gas Pipeline was signed on by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Signing the agreement was made possible by the invasion of Afghanistan by United States military forces a year prior, which overthrew the Taliban government controlling most of Afghanistan. 2003 March 20 – Iraq added to the global empire. 2003 March 23 – The Carlyle Group – ‘Ex-presidents club’ gets fat on conflict; Meet the Carlyle Group; The Carlyle Group: Bush and Bin Laden in Business. 2004 January 13 – Iraq invasion and occupation result in the Abu Ghraib scandal. 2004 August 24 – ‘Iraq was awash in cash. We played football with bricks of $100 bills’. ‘Staggering Amount’ of Cash Missing In Iraq. 2004 November 12 – UL Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study – “The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.” – Kevin Ryan. Letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle. 2001 December 13 – Fake bin Laden video released. PBS bin Laden videos. 2004 October 14 – Original Flight77.info FOIA request for Double Tree Inn security video. 2005 January 12 – Supervisor of 9-11 investigation and head of the Homeland Security Department Michael Chertoff suspected of helping terrorists. 2005 March 8 – Flight77.info (Plaintiff, Scott Bingham) filed the first ever FOIA lawsuit to obtain government confiscated video related to Flight 77 on 9/11. 2005 April 6 – Afghanistan: Defense Minister Reiterates Desire For ‘Enduring Arrangements’ With U.S. 2005 April 30 – Custer Battles – U.S. contracting firm accused of bilking millions and running wild in Iraq. 2005 May 24 – “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” – George Bush; other quotes. 2005 – Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of feasibility study designed by British company Penspen for the Central Asia Gas Pipeline project. 2005 July 7 – London Train and Bus bombings duplicate exercise reminiscent of 9-11. 2005 August 25 – William Rodriguez, a 9-11 Survivor validates multiple explosions throughout WTC 1. 2005 September 11 – NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Damand and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components. [Note how merely attempts to rationalize the government scenario promulgated minutes after the destruction of WTC 1 and 2. The contribution of the core to structural integrity and various other evidence is ignored.] 2005 September 11 – Bombs Inside WTC, Fire Officer Says Firemen, Cops Know Truth. 2006 February 13 – Custer Battles – Contractor Fraud Trial To Begin Tomorrow 2006 February 16 – Raytheon Connection to 9-11 2006 December - False Flag 12 profit: Larry Silverstein is awarded $5.5 to 7 billion in insurance payments for a tidy profit of at least $5.486 billion thanks to the efforts of Michael Mukasey. 2006 December 18 – Key 9-11 Facts And Assumptions Challenged By Prof. David Ray Griffin Video – 9-11: Myth Or Reality? 9-11 Fact Sheet. 2007 February 8 – Ground Zero EMT speaks, “There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I’ve never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings – anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions – the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions – they happened, 2007 March 21 – Bush Paves the Way for Martial Law and Dictatorship. 2007 April 27 – White House and Pentagon officials, and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, were determined to attack Iraq from the first days of the Bush administration, long before the Sept. 11 attacks, and repeatedly stretched available intelligence to build support for the war, according to CIA director George Tenet in his book, “At the Center of the Storm,” saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States. “There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion. “Cheney and Rumsfeld inserted ‘crap’ into public justifications for war.” A speech by Cheney “went well beyond what our analysis could support.” The speech charged, among other things, that Saddam had restarted his nuclear program and would “acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon … perhaps within a year.” Caught off-guard by the remarks, which had not been cleared by the CIA, Tenet says he considered confronting the vice president on the subject but did not. 2007 April 28 – The Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Senator Durbin says he knew that the American public was being misled into the Iraq war but remained silent because he was sworn to secrecy as a member of the intelligence committee. 2007 May 31? – DoubleTree Inn surveillance video released, but does not include crash. 2007 June 27 – Taxpayers Lose, Halliburton Gains 2007 September 23 &endash; Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. 9/11 Commission Omissions Top 40 reasons to doubt the official story of September 11th, 2001 ae911truth uploaded a new video (1 day ago) Niels Harrit - Kemiker, danske undertekster AE911Truths eksklusive interview! Kemiker Niels Harrit, en af de videnskabsmænd der fandt termit i støvet fra World Trade Center, diskuterer termit...   more AE911Truths eksklusive interview! Kemiker Niels Harrit, en af de videnskabsmænd der fandt termit i støvet fra World Trade Center, diskuterer termit, nanotermit, sprængstoffer og antændelsesmidler. Dette interview er med en ekspert i verdensklasse, og kan også ses i Architect's and Engineer's kommende, hårdtslående dokumentar: "9/11: Eksplosive beviser - Eksperterne taler ud". Læs Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" af Niels Harrit m.fl.   less ae911truth uploaded a new video (1 day ago) Steven Jones - Físico,legendas em português Físico Steven Jones - um dos cientistas que encontraram thermite na poeira do World Trade Center discute a fundo seu processo de descoberta usando o ...   more Físico Steven Jones - um dos cientistas que encontraram thermite na poeira do World Trade Center discute a fundo seu processo de descoberta usando o método científico. A cadeia de custódia da poeira do WTC e nanothermite são discutidos a fundo. Essa entrevista é uma filmagem crua de um dos especialistas mundiais que apareceram no vindouro documentário do Arquitetos e Engenheiros "911: Evidência Explosiva - Especialistas falam"   less ae911truth uploaded a new video (2 days ago) Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth at the National... Richard Gage presents opening statements and takes questions from reporters and others. Includes a surprise appearance by noted author, Dick Gregor...   more Richard Gage presents opening statements and takes questions from reporters and others. Includes a surprise appearance by noted author, Dick Gregory. Richard Gage and a panel of professional architects and engineers debunk key arguments put forward by prominent 9/11 conspiracy "debunkers".   less 1 videos KMPH with Richard Gage AIA 3 months ago more info 0BF4DBB463F71888 1 videos Geraldo Changes His Mind on AE911Truth 3 months ago more info 891B0945A34D98F7 6 videos San Francisco Press Conference 1 month ago more info 3BB13DDB392A9C66 1 videos 9/11: Blueprint For Truth Trailer 3 months ago more info 9D0AD4128345447F 1 videos Blueprint For Truth (10 min. version) 3 months ago more info 1F1D256253433E82 3 videos 9/11: Blueprint For Truth (30 minute version) 3 months ago more info 621A4B03C1169C78 16 videos Blueprint for Truth (2 hour version) Analysis New York City collapsing buildings other high-rise fires other collapses WTC 1, 2 collapses design parameters role of fires fire severity effects on steel collapse features explosive events demolition squibs frame shattering concrete pulverization dust volume steel shredding symmetry mushrooming speed of fall demolition proofs speed of fall volume of dust breakup of top collapse theories column failure theory truss theory demolition theories basement bombs nuclear devices directed energy radiant projectiles distributed explosives thermobarics thermite simulations Building 7 collapse rate of fall controlled demolition WTC 6, 5 holes Pentagon assault location Pentagon videos witnesses forensics impact damage damage pattern aircraft debris shockwave jetliner approach theories Eastman Bart attack from the air NORAD stand-down flight mysteries phone calls theories suicide pilots home run system flight program bumble planes Flight 93 shoot-down Won-Young Kim follow-up attacks anthrax perpetrators intent minimized fatalities maximized shock conspiracy Attack Scenario 404 whistleblowers official actions evidence destruction investigation prevention 9-11 anomalies top anomalies historical precedents sections Attack & Cover-Up Means & Motive Info Warfare contents Info Warfare Trojan horses dissembling websites hoax-promoting videos dissembling books legal subterfuge parade of errors phantom planes Webfairy's Whatzit pod-planes North Tower hit South Tower hit bumble planes Flight 93 Pentagon attack 757 maneuvers eyewitnesses no debris crash debris small impact hole missing wings turbofans 101 standing columns punchout obstacles small plane Boeing 737 Flyover WTC demolition seismic spikes pre-impact explosions collapse times diminishing fires Building 6 explosion basement bombs spire to dust WTC 2 powerdown mini nukes pull it vast conspiracy divide and conquer left gatekeepers Holocaust denial the Big Tent intimidation propaganda hit parade conspiracy theory Denmark shell game     The unanswered questions of 911 9/11 mythbusting Free-fall fallacies Molten myths Steel temperature truth Fireproof? WTC 7 myths More on WTC 7 The Pentagon strike More on AA77 The collapse Seismic sham False quotes Explosions within? "Look, Ma! No jets!" "Oomph!" Lying videos Lying books Nazi liars     Funding BS

The planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28 September 2005, which raises the questions, “How can planes that were not in the air have crashed on 9/11?” and “How can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?”  We have studies (3) by Elias Davidsson demonstrating that the government has never been able to prove that any of the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes and research (4) by A.K. Dewdney and by David Ray Griffin demonstrating that the purported phone calls from those planes were faked.  And (5), as Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed, although there are millions of uniquely identifiable components of those four planes, the government has yet to produce even one.  My purpose here is not to persuade anyone to believe the 9/11 planes were phantom flights on 9/11, but simply to lay out some of the evidence that supports that conclusion, even though I myself was initially unwilling to take it seriously. Flights 11 and 77: The BTS Tables The first to notice that American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11 was the brilliant Australian jazz musician, Gerard Holmgren, who was interviewed by David West on 27 June 2005.  Others, such as Nick Kollerstrom, “9 Keys to 9/11″, have also reported the same difficulty with the government’s official account.  If AA Flight 11 did not even take off from Boston’s Logan Airport on the morning of 9/11, then it cannot possibly have hit the North Tower around the 96th floor at 0846 hours and thereby brought about the death of its 92 passengers.  And if AA Flight 77 did not take off from Dulles International on the morning of 9/11, then it, also, cannot have crashed into the Pentagon at 0940 hours and thereby brought about the death of its 64 passengers.  Yet that is what the data that Holmgren discovered in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows to have been the case.  In his new book, 9/11: ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC (2011), Edward Hendrie has published the data tables for both of these alleged flights, where it turns out that the BTS subsequently revised their tables with partial data in order to cover up their absence.  For Flight 77, for example: The tables for AA Flight 77 can be found in Hendrie’s book on pages 9 and 11, while similar tables for AA Flight 11 can be found on pages 8 and 10.  The case against the use of planes becomes even more powerful when we realized that, as David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), explains, Waleed al-Shehri, whom the government claims was aboard AA Flight 11, was interviewed after 9/11 by a London-based newspaper and spoke with the US Embassy in Morocco on 22 September, which would have been remarkable for someone who had died when the plane he allegedly helped to hijacked hit the North Tower.  And the same is true of Ahmed al-Nami and Saeed al-Ghamdi, both alleged to have been aboard Flight 93 and were interviewed by multiple sources, while the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., reported that three other alleged hijackers, Mohand al-Shehri, Salem al-Hazmi, and Abdulzaiz al-Omairi, were all alive and well and living in Saudia Arabia (page 19).  Salem al-Hazmi was supposed to have been aboard AA Flight 77 and al-Nami to have piloted AA Flight 11 (page 20), which reinforces the BTS data. Flight 11: On-Site Evidence If AA Flight 77 was not even in the air on 9/11, then we should expect to find indications of  one or another kind of video fakery in the evidence.  As the term should be properly understood, “video fakery” encompasses any use of video to convey a false impression to mislead a target audience.  Although Hollywood specializes in the presentation of impossible events, its films do not generally qualify as “video fakery”, insofar as they are not intended to mislead their audience.  The situation on 9/11, however, appears to qualify. Remarkably enough, Jules Naudet, a French filmmaker, just happened to be in the vicinity doing a modest documentary about New York Firemen out looking for a “gas leak”. Indeed, as Leslie Raphael has explained and Jerry Mazza has confirmed, that a cameraman should have been in precisely the right position to film this event depended upon a rather large number of conditions—either as a matter of coincidence, as the government would have us believe, or by design. If this occurred by chance, its improbability is astonishingly small. An odd flash occurs just as the flying object makes contact with the building, which may have been the trigger for a prearranged explosion to create a pattern of damage to the side of the building, which turns out to have anomalies of its own. Both AA Flight 11 and United Flight 175, which is alleged to have hit the South Tower, were Boeing 767s, while AA Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were both Boeing 757s. While individual images are too blurry and indistinct even to be identifiable as a commercial carrier, much less as a Boeing 767, a time-sequence of the image in motion as it approaches the tower—which was prepared by Rosalee Grable—reveals that it does not bear even a faint resemblance.  She has speculated that it might be an arrangement of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). And when you compare the pattern at the time of impact with what we see subsequently, there does not seem to be lot of room for doubt that they do not appear to be the same. How can four impact points–which suggest that it may be four UAVs–that constitute an extended “Z” have been turned into an impression in the side of the building that has now become an elongated “V”?  That video fakery was involved here appears to be difficult to deny. Defenders of the 'official story' like to point out to the skeptics of 9/11 that Osama Bin Laden was caught on video proudly confessing to the crime in front of a group of his peers. The now famous 'confession' video was released in December of 2001 by the Department of Defense under growing international pressure to provide definitive proof tying Bin Laden to 9/11. And the defenders of the government's narrative present this oft-broadcast video as tidy proof of that narrative's validity. But as with so much of the 'evidence' covered at length in this paper, this 'definitive' proof is riddled with conflicting facts, quantum leaps in judgment, and, ultimately, inadvertent support not for the official story, but for the very skepticism about 9/11 that the 'proof' was meant to quell. First of all, Bin Laden's initial reaction to 9/11 was not to take credit for the crime at all. In fact, he continually denied any involvement in 9/11 up until the 'confession' video was mysteriously presented. Almost no one in the U.S. has read Bin Laden's first statement in response to 9/11, which so conflicts the later 'confession'. Here it is, from September 17, 2001: "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations." We've been asked to accept without question his other statements of 'confession'. So how do we make sense of the above statement? Or how do we make sense of his second public statement in regards to 9/11, given on October 16, 2001: So many 9/11 witnesses or people who would seem to have knowledge of the cover up have been mysteriously dying. This all can't be a coincidence.   "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle." These comments obviously do not prove that Bin Laden did not orchestrate 9/11. But they do raise a crucial question. Why would a man spend six weeks denying a crime, then suddenly flip-flop 180 degrees and happily start taking responsibility for the originally denied crime? Most people - including scientists, CIA analysts, FBI, and other independent investigators, etc. - who have a working familiarity with the 'confession' video, know the answer to this question. And that is that the man in the video making the 'confession' is almost certainly not Osama Bin Laden, and the tape is a fake. The man shown in the video, though bearded, Arabic, and of darkish complexion, is much heavier than all known photos and videos of the actual Bin Laden. The man in the video is seen writing something down with his right hand. Bin Laden is well-known to be left-handed. And there are scores of other reasons to question the validity of the tape. In fact, "the FBI's page on bin Laden as a 'Most Wanted Terrorist' does not list him as wanted for 9/11, and when asked why, a FBI spokesman said, 'because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11'." (Debunking 9/11 Debunking, pg. 21, David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2007.) For a detailed analysis on the bin Laden tapes, click here or here. But even if we take the hypothesis, for the moment, that the tape is real, then the government would suddenly find itself subject to an even more damning series of questions than if the tape was a fake. Because according to a recent investigation by journalist Ed Haas, the Bin Laden 'confession' video was not, as originally reported, acquired in November 2001. It was acquired in late September 2001, before the invasion of Afghanistan commenced. And if this is true, George W. Bush and Tony Blair could find themselves in deep, deep trouble. Because if this September timeline of receiving the tape is true, based on well-established precedents of international law, Bush and Blair are subject to execution for crimes against humanity. This is not hyperbole. At the Nuremberg Trials after WW II, the Nazi leaders who were found guilty and later hung for their crimes were not tried for genocide. No one in the world ever stood trial for genocide until 1996. They were simply tried and executed for starting 'wars of aggression'. And this is problematic for Bush and Blair. Because in late September 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan had not yet begun. Only the drumb-beats of war had begun, and capturing Osama Bin Laden was Bush and Blair's given pretext for this potential war. So in response and in an effort to avoid armed hostilities with the two most powerful nations on earth, the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan responded by saying if proof of Bin Laden's connection to 9/11 could be provided, they would turn him over to the Americans. And if, as Ed Haas so clearly details in his above report, the 'confession' video was acquired not in late November, but in late September, then this establishes outright that Bush and Blair had the unequivocal proof of Bin Laden's connection to 9/11 before the invasion of Afghanistan, meaning the war and all its destruction and death could have been avoided. But as most scholars now agree, capturing Osama Bin Laden was never the actual reason the U.S. and Britain invaded Afghanistan. Gaining strategic and territorial access to the huge reserves of natural gas and energy in the Central Asian countries of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, etc., then linking a pipeline from those reserves through business friendly Pakistan to the Indian sub-continent, and through the twisted arm of Iran and annexed Iraq to connect with the Persian Gulf to the west in order to prop up certain allies of multi-national corporations competing on the 'free' and 'open' market - that was the point of the invasion of Afghanistan, and later Iraq. (Here's a map, connect the dots). And by any reasonable definition or interpretation of international law, these are not viable excuses to justify war. They are crimes against humanity, and wars of aggression. The very same laws officially violated by Nazi war criminals. Declaring the killing of Osama bin Laden “a good day for America,” President Barack Obama said Monday the world was safer without the al-Qaida terrorist and mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. His administration used DNA testing to help confirm that American forces in Pakistan had in fact killed bin Laden, as U.S. officials sought to erase all doubt about the stunning news. A U.S. official says Osama bin Laden went down firing at the Navy SEALs who stormed his compound. “Today we are reminded that as a nation there is nothing we can’t do,” Obama said of the news bound to lift his political standing and help define his presidency. He hailed the pride of those who broke out in overnight celebrations as word spread around the globe. An elite crew of American forces killed bin Laden during a daring raid on Monday, capping the world’s most intense manhunt, a search that spanned nearly a decade. (AP) 1 The hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is pictured after his death by US Special Forces in a ground operation in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011. Pakistan said that the killing of Osama bin Laden in a US operation was a "major setback" for terrorist organisations and a "major victory" in the country's fight against militancy. (FAROOQ NAEEM/AFP/Getty Images) # 2 Jim Schweizer, assistant to the director of Fort Snelling National Cemetery, straightens flowers at the grave of Thomas Burnett, Monday May 2, 2011 in Bloomington, Minn. Burnett died Sept, 11, 2001 along with 39 other passengers and crew when Flight 93 was hijacked and crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pa., while flying to San Francisco from Newark, N.J. Osama bin Laden, the face of global terrorism and architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was killed in a firefight with elite American forces in Pakistan on Monday, then quickly buried at sea in a stunning finale to a furtive decade on the run. (AP Photo/The Star Tribine, Richard Sennott) # 3 A map and photographs, part of a Pentagon briefing, showing pre and post contruction of the compound said to be where Osama bin Laden was killed, in Abbottabad, Pakistan, released Monday, May 2, 2011. President Obama announced Sunday night that bin Laden had been killed in a U.S. operaion. (Dept. of Defense via the New York Times) # 4 Afghan President Hamid Karzai (C) is flanked by vice presidents Mohammad Qasim Fahim (L) and Mohammed Karim Khalili (R) as he addresses media representatives at The Presidential Palace in Kabul on May 2, 2011. Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that the killing of Osama Bin Laden in neighbouring Pakistan proved Kabul's long-standing position that the war on terror was not rooted in Afghanistan. (SHAH MARAI/AFP/Getty Images) # 5 People walk past newspapers informing on the death of Osama bin Laden on display at a newsstand in Rio de Janeiro on May 2, 2011. US Navy SEALs led the commando operation in Pakistan that ended the life of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden with a bullet to the head, a US official told AFP. DNA tests have confirmed that Osama bin Laden is dead, a senior US official said Monday, a day after a daring raid by US special forces on his compound in Pakistan. (VANDERLEI ALMEIDA/AFP/Getty Images) # 6 Pakistani soldiers stand guard on top of a building at the hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after his death by US Special Forces in a ground operation in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011. Pakistan said that the killing of Osama bin Laden in a US operation was a "major setback" for terrorist organisations and a "major victory" in the country's fight against militancy. (AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images) # 7 Pakistani army soldiers move pieces of a crashed helicopter near the hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after a ground operation by US Special Forces in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011. Pakistan said that the killing of Osama bin Laden in a US operation was a "major setback" for terrorist organisations and a "major victory" in the country's fight against militancy. (FAROOQ NAEEM/AFP/Getty Images) # 8 Policemen walk in front of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2011 in a measure of stepped up security following the death of Osama bin Laden last night. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was shot dead deep inside Pakistan in a night-time helicopter raid by US covert forces, ending a decade-long manhunt for the mastermind of the September 11 attacks. "Justice has been done," President Barack Obama declared in a dramatic televised address late Sunday, sparking raucous celebrations across the United States, after an operation that officials said lasted less than 40 minutes. (JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images) # 9 Pakistani soldiers stand guard outside a building at the hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after his death by US Special Forces in a ground operation in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011. Pakistan said that the killing of Osama bin Laden in a US operation was a "major setback" for terrorist organisations and a "major victory" in the country's fight against militancy. (AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images) # 10 US Marines of Regiment Combat Team 1 (RCT 1) watch TV as President Barack Obama announces the death of Osama Bin Laden, at Camp Dwyer in Helman Province, on May 2, 2011. US President Barack Obama said on May 1, 2011 that justice had been done after the September 11, 2001 attacks with the death of Osama bin Laden, but warned that Al-Qaeda will still try to attack the US. (BAY ISMOYO/AFP/Getty Images) # 11 Pakistani soldiers stand guard near a building the hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after his death by US Special Forces in a ground operation in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011. Pakistan said that the killing of Osama bin Laden in a US operation was a "major setback" for terrorist organisations and a "major victory" in the country's fight against militancy. (AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images) # 12 A crashed military helicopter is seen near the hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after a ground operation by US Special Forces in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011. Pakistan said that the killing of Osama bin Laden in a US operation was a "major setback" for terrorist organisations and a "major victory" in the country's fight against militancy. (STR/AFP/Getty Images) # 13 Supporters of hardline pro-Taliban party Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Nazaryati (JUI-N) shout anti-US slogans during a protest in Quetta on May 2, 2011 after the killing of Osama Bin Laden by US Special Forces in a ground operation in Pakistan's hill station of Abbottabad. Pakistan said that the killing of Osama bin Laden in a US operation was a "major setback" for terrorist organisations and a "major victory" in the country's fight against militancy. (BANARAS KHAN/AFP/Getty Images) # 14 Joyce and Russell Mercer, parents of New York Firefighter Scott Mercer who lost his life on 9/11, sit before a news conference concerning the death of Osama Bin Laden at the law offices of Norman Siegel May 2, 2011 in New York City. U.S. President Barack Obama announced last night that the United States had killed the most-wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden in an operation led by U.S. Special Forces at a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. (Photo by Daniel Barry/Getty Images) # 15 [iptc:caption] # 16 [iptc:caption] # 17 A Metro Transit Police Officer walks with a K9 along the platform of the Chinatown metro station May 2, 2011 in Washington, DC. The DC area and other places around the nation have stepped up security after it was announced that Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the September 11th terror attacks, was killed in a firefight with United States forces in Pakistan. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images) # 18 U.S. President Barack Obama stands after making a televised statement at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Monday, May 1, 2011. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has been killed in a U.S. operation, Obama said. Photographer: Brendan Smialowski/Pool via Bloomberg # 19 [iptc:caption] # 20 Kevin Van Orden, whose brother is in the U.S. Army, celebrates outside the World Trade Center site after the death of accused 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden was announced May 2, 2011 in New York City. Bin Laden was killed in an operation by U.S. Navy Seals in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images) # 21 U.S. Marine Staff Sgt. Mark Gamache walks up to pay his respects to victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks, at the 911 Pentagon Memorial on May 2, 2011, in Arlington, Virginia. Last night President Barack Obama announced the death of Osama Bin Laden during a special force led operation that killed Osama Bin Laden in a house outside Islamabad in Pakistan. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) # 22 People react near the White House after President Barack Obama announced that Osama bin Laden was killed, in Washington, May 1, 2011. President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the most devastating attack on American soil in modern times and the most hunted man in the world, was killed in a firefight with United States forces in Pakistan on Sunday. (Doug Mills/The New York Times) # 23 Afghan men working at a TV shop hug each other while watching the news of the death of accused 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden was announced on the TV May 2, 2011 in Kabul, Afghanistan. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in an operation by U.S. Navy Seals in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. (Photo by Paula Bronstein/Getty Images) # 24 People react outside the White House after President Barack Obama announced that Osama bin Laden was killed, in Washington, May 1, 2011. President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the most devastating attack on American soil in modern times and the most hunted man in the world, was killed in a firefight with United States forces in Pakistan on Sunday. (Doug Mills/The New York Times) # 25 People gather at ground zero in the hours after President Barack Obama announced that Osama bin Laden was killed, in New York, on May 2, 2011. President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the most devastating attack on American soil in modern times and the most hunted man in the world, was killed in a firefight with United States forces in Pakistan on Sunday. (Joshua Bright/The New York Times) # 26 A man holds up a scoreboard displaying Obama - one, Osama - nil, as thousands of people celebrate in the streets at Ground Zero, the site of the World Trade Centre, waving American flags and honking horns to celebrate the death of al Qaeda founder and leader Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011 in New York City. President Barack Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden during an address to the nation from the White House in Washington. The mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks was killed in an American military operation at a compound in Pakistan. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) # 27 Thousands of people celebrate in the streets at Ground Zero, the site of the World Trade Centre, waving American flags and honking horns to celebrate the death of al Qaeda founder and leader Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011 in New York City. President Barack Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden during an address to the nation from the White House in Washington. The mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks was killed in an American military operation at a compound in Pakistan. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) # 28 People gather at ground zero in the hours after President Barack Obama announced that Osama bin Laden was killed, in New York, on May 2, 2011. President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the most devastating attack on American soil in modern times and the most hunted man in the world, was killed in a firefight with United States forces in Pakistan on Sunday. (Joshua Bright/The New York Times) # 29 Firefighters react in Times Square after President Barack Obama announced that the United States has the body of Osama bin Laden, in New York, May 1, 2011. Bin Laden, the mastermind of the most devastating attack on American soil in modern times and the most hunted man in the world, was killed in a firefight with United States forces in Pakistan on Sunday, President Obama announced. (Michael Appleton/The New York Times) # 30 University of Tennessee students, from left, Josh Hixson, Will Batey and Colin Marcum, cheer as a Knoxville Fire Department fire truck honks its horn while driving down Volunteer Boulevard on campus Sunday, May 1, 2011, in Knoxville, Tenn. The students were in the process of painting "The Rock" with anti-Osama bin Laden sentiments while the KFD unit was responding to a tree fire on fraternity row after President Obama's announcement that the terror leader had been killed in Pakistan. (AP Photo/The Knoxville News Sentinel, Adam Brimer) # 31 People gather at the White House chanting 'U.S.A.' as President Barack Obama announces the death of Osama bin Laden during a late evening statement to the press, Sunday, May 1, 2011 in Washington, D.C. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT) # 32 People react in Times Square after President Barack Obama announced that the United States has the body of Osama bin Laden, in New York, May 1, 2011. President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight during an operation he ordered inside Pakistan, ending a 10-year manhunt.(Michael Appleton/The New York Times) # 33 David Huber and Nicole Lozare of Arlington, Virginia, pay their respect to victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the early morning of May 2, 2011, after President Barack Obama has announced the death of Osama Bin Laden, at the Pentagon Memorial outside the Department of Defense (Pentagon) in Arlington, Virginia. A special force led operation has killed Osama Bin Laden in a house outside Islamabad in Pakistan and his body is in U.S.'s custody. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) # 34 FDNY firefighter Aaron Clark looks on from atop a firetruck as people celebrate in Times Square after the death of accused 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden was announced by U.S. President Barack Obama May 2, 2011 in New York City. A special force led operation has killed Osama Bin Laden in a house outside Islamabad in Pakistan and his body is in U.S.'s custody. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images) # 35 Afghans watch television coverage announcing the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at a Restaurant on May 2, 2011 in Kabul, Afghanistan. Bin Laden has been killed near Islamabad, Pakistan almost a decade after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and his body is in possession of the United States. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images) # 36 In this photo provided by ISAF Regional Command (South)/U.S. Air Force, members of the U.S. military watch a television broadcast of U.S. President Barack Obama announcing the death of Osama Bin Laden Kandahar Airfield May 2, 2011 Kandahar, Afghanistan. Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, near Islamabad, Pakistan, then buried at sea, almost a decade after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. September 11, 2001. (Photo by U.S. Stephen D. Schester/U.S. Air Force via Getty Images) # 37 President Barack Obama leaves the East Room of the White House after announcing that the United States has the body of Osama bin Laden, in Washington, May 1, 2011. Obama alerted the nation and world on Sunday night, almost ten years after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. (Doug Mills/The New York Times) # All of us - individuals and nations - have fictitious myths that we create, believe, and weave our identities into. We have all invented some aspect of ourselves, or the world, that we desperately want to believe, often despite ample evidence pointing to the absurdity and falseness of the created myth. This myth creation is some kind of defensive mechanism, used to evoke a sense of security in an insecure world, utilized to invoke a sense of personal worth in an often brutal and uncaring world. And while the psychology behind this myth making is an interesting and worthy topic for another essay, the principal subject of this paper is the fact that we have dramatically animated and amplified one of these myths. And it has metastasized into an out of control force that is wreaking havoc in our own country, and across the globe. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, something tragic and terrible took place in New York City, Washington D.C., and rural Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, the actual facts, context, and details of what it was that truly took place that day have been swallowed by the force and momentum of what is now perhaps the largest American myth that exists; i.e. the story that 19 Arab hijackers, under the exclusive direction of Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and fueled by a religiously driven fundamental hatred and jealousy of American values, blind-sided and plunged an unforeseen dagger into the heart of American democracy, freedom, and innocence. What follows in this essay is not a promotion, nor a defense, of any kind of 'conspiracy theory' regarding the events of September 11, 2001. It is, instead, a presentation of facts, inconsistencies, and disturbing questions uncovered in 2 years of persistent and continuous research that will reveal the absurdity of a myth that is too self-delusional not to expose. It will reveal how the hard facts before, during, and after that now infamous day stand in stark opposition to the 'official' story and myth of 9/11 that has been spun and created by certain elements within the U.S. government. And it will consider why the easily revealed facts exposing U.S. government complicity in the mass-murder of thousands of its citizens have been comprehensively ignored by the American public, and wholly uninvestigated by the American media. That this hard truth may be difficult to swallow, in light of the 9/11 myth that has grown so immense around that day, bears no significance upon its efficacy and validity.     Background The September 11th Targets, and Their Defense The targets of the September 11th attacks aside from the four jetliners, were some of the most famous and unique buildings in the world: The World Trade Center towers The Pentagon These were only the focal points of the attack. The real target of the attack appears to have been something much broader and far-reaching than mere buildings, and even the thousands of innocent victims in the buildings and airplanes. Whatever the motives of the perpetrators of the attack, lower Manhattan, a section of the Pentagon, and four jetliners were the immediate physical targets. The World Trade Center was a collection of seven buildings in lower Manhattan, including the famous Twin Towers, which were once the world's tallest buildings. By the end of September 11th, 2001, all seven buildings were either leveled or severely damaged and gutted, including Building 7, which was on a separate block. The Pentagon is the administrative heart of the U.S. military establishment and the largest office building in the world. On September 11th, one of 10 sections was damaged in the attack. The cities and military installations in the United States are normally defended from airborne attack of any type by NORAD, which monitors all air traffic in North America in real time, and rapidly dispatches interceptors whenever there is a flight emergency. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon would normally be two of the best defended buildings in the world. Military officer’s 9/11 case against Bush officials to be heard April 5   Exit hole inside the third ring of the Pentagon 4/28 UPDATE: Bush court dismisses 9/11 suit against Bush officials, orders sanctions From info provided by Center for 9/11 Justice A Top Secret Military Specialist, who was injured in the Pentagon explosion on September 11, 2001 and who sued Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force General Richard Myers for conspiracy, terrorism, constitutional violations, and for personal injuries, will have her case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Connecticut) on April 5. April Gallop saw disturbing things up close that have not been reported in the media, advises her attorney, William Veale.  An independent judicial hearing of that and other evidence will allow review of the official explanation of the events on 9/11, which numerous experts claim to be impossible according to the laws of physics. On March 15th, 2010, the lower court dismissed with prejudice the case of Gallop v. Cheney, et. al., ruling that the Complaint was frivolous and based on “cynical delusion and fantasy.” Judge Denny Chin refused to consider any other claims, including those backed by testimony of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission about former vice president Dick Cheney’s stand down order. Gallop appealed the decision. On the morning of September 11, 2001, she was ordered by her supervisor to go directly to work at the Pentagon, before dropping off her ten-week-old son Elisha at day care. Amazingly, the infant was given immediate security clearance upon arrival. The instant Gallop turned on her computer an enormous explosion blew her out of her chair, knocking her momentarily unconscious. Escaping through the hole reportedly made by Flight 77, she saw no signs of an aircraft – no seats, luggage, metal, or human remains.  Her watch (and other clocks nearby) had stopped at 9:30-9:31 a.m., seven minutes before the Pentagon was allegedly struck (at 9:38 a.m.). The 9/11 Commission reported that “by no later than 9:18 a.m., FAA centers in Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Washington were aware that Flight 77 was missing and that two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center.” Why then were there no anti-aircraft defenses, Gallop asks, or alarm warnings inside the Pentagon? Gallop was briefed by officials not to tell her story in public; she also received an email from a Fox News reporter who had been told by the Pentagon not to interview her. Gallop now believes that officials within the Bush Administration conspired to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and WTC 7 – the third building brought down at 5:20 p.m. that day – with pre-placed explosives detonated after the planes hit. Gallop’s case relies on virtually all forms of evidence admissible in court, but significantly, on published scientific evidence that residues of these explosives were found in the rubble after the attacks.  In its totality the proffered case establishes that the government hypothesis – that the buildings collapsed due to fire in combination with the airplane impacts – is scientifically untenable. In addition, Ms. Gallop will, through photographic and other physical evidence, as well as the testimony of a multitude of military and civilian survivors, demonstrate the impossibility of her having lived through the attack on the Pentagon if it had taken place as the government and the defendants claim. A December 2010 poll conducted by the prestigious Emnid Institute, and reported in the German magazine “Welt der Wunder,” revealed that 89.5% of German respondents do not believe the official story of 9/11. German Federal Judge, Deiter Dieseroth, stated in December 2009 that: “No independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks.” The stakes in this case are epic, including the possibility of an overwhelming transformation of the world’s understanding of history, not to mention American citizens’ relationship with their government. The case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers will be heard on Tuesday, April 5 at 11 a.m. at the Federal Courthouse at 141 Church Street in New Haven, Connecticut. Documents related to the case can be found here. Click here if you wish to support the legal efforts of this lawsuit. Also see this 2008 interview: In 2009, the federal district court judge who heard April Gallop’s very strong lawsuit against Cheney (et al) received a request from the defendants to dismiss the case. This is normal; every sued person wants to get rid of a case. When the judge got that request from Cheney, he granted it. This, too, is normal for judges. In fact when the defendant is a powerful corporation or a government official it is ‘very, very normal’ for the case to be dismissed. Of course it should not be normal. The judge should earn his pay and live up to the public trust by ruling according to law. If a case gets dismissed, a plaintiff can appeal to the Circuit Court, and that is likely to be his/her last chance. Should the appeals court agree with the district judge’s decision, in federal suits, that is almost always the last stop. Although a citizen has the right to ask for Supreme Court review, the Supreme Court usually declines the request. A case such as this one, which claims that Cheney arranged the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, is virtually guaranteed to die on the vine. Apparently this is how our system blocks the ordinary person from rolling back the control of the unacknowledged power holders. To put it another way, American courts, like courts in Colombia, Denmark, and almost everywhere else, are tools of the powerful. Possibly we could say they are tools of criminals – not counting smalltime criminals. The conclusion to be drawn is that if your leaders want to bomb your building with you in it (as they did with April Gallop and her infant son), they can do so. Only ‘rule of law’ would stop these leaders, and they appear to be satisfied that the rule of law is no longer in effect. This means we are all in the greatest possible danger, does it not? So it will behoove citizens to get up of their respective duffs and deal with the case at hand. You can easily do so because this case is unbelievably sloppy. Even if you have never read a case dismissal before, you will perceive that this one must surely be ‘off.’ You will need to act fast, because the case has already been in the Circuit Court, in Connecticut, for three weeks today, and a ruling can come down soon. If you value your life, you will try to stop that ruling from being an affirmation of the dismissal. Once the dismissal happens, Gallop’s case, with its amazing insights into 9/11, will be legally barred from being adjudicated. It will be like Jim Garrison’s JFK case. “So near and yet so far.…” The following is an outline of the legal basis on which the defendants (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, and ten John Doe’s) asked for a dismissal. These six ‘reasons to dismiss,’ conjured up by the US Attorneys, are the ones that the judge accepted, that is, Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court for Southern District of New York. Note: the capital letters below do not indicate shouting – cases are always written this way. If anything, the defendants must be hoping their ‘reasons’ will stay hush-hush. Please don’t let that happen! It is truly up to you now. Why waste time marching in 9/11 protests? Better to shout, shout, and shout about this case. If you let the Constitution slip away, do you think you will ever be able to get it back? Not a snowball’s chance in hell. Reasons for Dismissal of Gallop v Cheney: I. PLAINTIFFS CANNOT CURE THEIR DEFICIENT COMPLAINT WITH AFFIDAVITS [Note: plaintiffs had recently tendered sworn statements – i.e., affidavits, from two men who have published a lot of evidence about the fakery of 9/11, namely theologian Ray Griffin and physics professor Steven Jones.] II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO ALLEGE A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM III. PLAINTIFFS’ CONSPIRACY CLAIM IS INSUFFICIENT. IV. APRIL GALLOP’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY AND BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF INTRAMILITARY IMMUNITY V. ALL OF APRIL GALLOP’S CLAIMS ARE BARRED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL VI. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS AND MAY BE DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON ALONE. [Note: the two plaintiffs are April Gallop and her son Elisha. He was a baby, visiting the Pentagon, on 9/11]. Now for the defendant’s explanations as to why each of the above six reasons should legally hold. Judge Chin agreed with all of these. The original text is being paraphrased, except where quote marks are shown. The “Comments” are mine (MM): I. These affidavits only contain “conclusory statements and personal opinions without evidentiary support.” Comment: It is true, per common law and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that an affidavit should state facts not opinions. But both men, Griffin and Jones, reference their well-known books that contain much evidence. Expert opinion is, of course, an admissible form of evidence at trial. II. “Plaintiffs concede that their complaint is alleged ‘without reference to any binding or even analogous precedent.’” Comment: How could a person get access to ‘precedent’ of government officials blowing up their employees’ work station during business hours? It just doesn’t happen that often. “Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs have failed to allege that defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights” in regard to the complaint that Cheney blew up that particular part of the Pentagon “in order to destroy certain financial records.” Comment: While the Constitution’s Article I, section 9 does mumble something about Congress’s duty to publish receipts of all public expenditures, I agree that there is no express constitutional right not to have financial records bombed, vaporized, etc. “Factual allegations contained in the complaint, must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Comment: The ‘relief’ Gallop is looking for is medical care for injuries to her son’s head. As for the ‘speculative level,’ plaintiffs’ allegations include testimony that Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta provided to the 9/11 commission. Mineta said a young man in the White House kept coming into the room to tell Cheney how close the plane was getting, and asked if orders NOT to shoot had been changed. Cheney replied in the negative. So, it’s a Cabinet member’s word against that of a vice president. III. “The conspiracy claim should be dismissed ... because plaintiffs have provided no factual basis to support a meeting of the minds” -- per the rule that you need to show that the conspirators actually met and talked about the planned crime. “Furthermore, whether the claim is brought under the Federal Torts Compensation Act or Bivens, plaintiffs have provided only conjecture as to any conspiracy, admitting in their complaint that they ‘do not know with certainty the outlines of the plot at its initiation.’” Comment: If Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers didn’t meet, but used the Defense Department’s BCI (brain-computer interface) to exchange thoughts, would that meet the ‘meeting of the minds’ test for conspirators’ get-together? IV. “Plaintiffs assert that under the doctrine of equitable tolling, the statute [of limitations] was triggered when April Gallop ‘was able to reasonably perceive and believe in an inside job.’ According to plaintiffs, ‘the period never ran, or was repeatedly extended by additional acts of concealment in furtherance of the conspiracy.’ Plaintiffs fail to provide any evidential support for these supposed acts of concealment, instead referring to an unspecified speech by defendant Cheney.. ..[T]he purpose of the time-bar… is to preclude the resuscitation of stale claims.” Comment: The issue is hardly stale, as the terrorist event of 9/11 is called upon constantly to support new legislation and new foreign policy actions. It may even ‘bring on’ World War III. “As alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint, April Gallop was a career member of the United States Army and reported to work at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11. [Hence] the doctrine of intramilitary immunity would bar plaintiff April Gallop’s constitutional claims in any event.... [T]he FTCA does not permit military personnel to sue the United States government for compensation for injuries that “arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.” Comment: I agree that Gallop, as a soldier, would be barred from suing ‘the government’ -- but she is suing Cheney and Rumsfeld in their personal capacities. I presume she feels that whatever the defendants did that day was done as interlopers not as authorized officials. V. Gallop already sued Riggs Bank, so the issue must now be ‘judicially estopped.’ “Plaintiffs also assert that the ‘inconsistency’ [that might arise between two judgments] does not threaten the judicial system, as articulated in Bates v. Long Island (identifying the two objectives that protect the judicial system to be to “preserve the sanctity of the oath by demanding absolute truth and consistency in all sworn positions” and to “protect judicial integrity by avoiding the risk of inconsistent results in two proceedings”). Quite to the contrary, April Gallop’s complaint in the current action, if allowed to persist, threatens the sanctity of the judicial system in light of the inconsistent claims she asserted, and which were adopted by the Court, in the Riggs case.” Comment: It’s nice to see a mention of ‘absolute truth.’ VI. “As explained in defendant’s brief, the Court may in its discretion dismiss the complaint in its entirety as frivolous. In recent years, courts have repeatedly dismissed cases based on delusional conspiracy theories concerning the events of September 11, 2001… In this case, plaintiffs allege, despite substantial public evidence to the contrary, that no airliner hit the Pentagon, but that the damage to the facility on September 11, 2001 was the result of a government conspiracy “to bring about an unprecedented, horrifying and frightening catastrophe of terrorism inside the United States, which would give rise to a powerful reaction of fear and anger in the public.” Comment: Such ‘false flag’ actions were standard office procedure throughout the twentieth century. Is it possible that judges don’t know that? “CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons and those stated in defendants’ memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss, defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss the complaint in its entirety. July 24, 2009. Respectfully submitted, LEV L. DASSIN Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and HEATHER K. McSHAIN Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, New York, New York 10007.” Comment: this motion in support of Cheney and Rumsfeld appears to me to be an inside job. On April 4, 2011, in New Haven, Connecticut, three judges of the Second Circuit sat to hear the appeal in Cheney v Gallop. It was soon announced in the press (of course I mean the alternative press; big media are keeping a lid on the existence of Ms Gallop) that one of the judges is Judge Walker, a first cousin of former President Bush. This fact should be ignored. It is such an egregious breach of ethics that it almost certainly has occurred for purposes of ‘rubbing it in’ to the public (as in “See? See what we can do to you?”) Best to pay it no mind. Judge Walker is oath-bound to handle the case as he would for complete strangers. The best use that can be made of this case – and I urge full frontal plagiarism of my comments above – would be to share it with persons who, after a decade, still go for the Arab-hijacker version of 9/11. Just ask them, “Do you think Ms Gallop is entitled to her day in court?” 1861-1941 – The first Five U.S. False Flag Episodes and Other Ignoble Acts Search on the date range to find the references available at uschronology.com. Some of these False Flag events demonstrate that a large number of government officials in multiple countries who share a belief or follow orders have cooperated in successfully secret conspiracies. Search on the date range to find the references available at uschronology.com. Thirty cases from the Korean War to Irag were examined by John Quigley in “The Ruses for War: American Interventionism Since World War II.” 1861 January 6 – New York Mayor Fernando Wood proposes secession from the united States to the City Council to transform New York City into a massive free-trade zone without protective Whig/Republican tariffs. Mercantilist are firmly in control of the Whig Party and its President, Lincoln. The southern states are angry with the federal government, not the northern states. 1861 January 9 – South Carolina supplies Ft. Sumpter with food and water on the condition that no Union naval vessels try to land at the fort. The South Carolina Militia fires on the USS Star of the West attempting to re-supply the Army of the federal garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor with two hundred fresh soldiers and additional armaments with which to enforce duties borne mostly by the southern States whose slave owners bought English products to repay the loan of slaves by the English East Indian Trading Company. 1861 January 21 – Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis delivers his farewell address to the Senate: “I feel no hostility to you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent towards those whom you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceful relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country.” 1861 March 2 – As feared, President Buchanan signs the Morrill Tariff Act, placing tariff duties on imported raw materials, purchased primarily by the northern States of 5 to 10%, and duties on imported manufactured goods, purchased primarily by the southern States, of 25 to 30%. In a last ditch effort to restore the Union before relinquishing Congress to the Republicans the following December, the Democratic 37th Congress proposes a 13th amendment (the Corwin Amendment), which would require any future amendments on the subject of slavery be unanimous: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws [statutes] of said State.” It is hoped that the Confederate States will ratify this amendment thereby peacefully rejoin the Union, but at the price of the highest tariffs in U.S. history. The message was clear to the southern Senators as they exited the Senate. 1861 March 11 – The Confederate Constitutional Convention frames its version of the federal Constitution for the seceded States clarifying what they feel were the ambiguities and shortcomings of the Constitution for the united States: references to the “general welfare” from the federal Constitution, Preamble and Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 are eliminated; a line-item veto for the Confederate President is clarified; the Confederate Post Office must not be subsidized by taxes but operate on its own revenues; Confederate subsidies to facilitate commerce are prohibited; Confederate import tariffs designed to benefit domestic industries are prohibited; unrelated riders to Confederate appropriations legislation are prohibited. 1861 April 6 – False Flag 1: Secretary of State William H. Seward covertly assures Confederate Commissioner and former constitutionalist Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the federal United States John A. Campbell that Fort Sumter will be evacuated. Realizing that he has been lied to by the united States government, Democratic Governor Francis W. Pickens of the Independent Republic of South Carolina orders the Militia to fire on Fort Sumter before a flotilla sent by Republican President Lincoln arrives to enforce the Morrill Tariff Act. On 1861 July 3 President Lincoln confides to Republican Senator Orville H. Browning of Illinois, “[T]he plan succeeded. They [the rebels] attacked Sumter — it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could.” 1846 May 11 – False Flag 2: After his offer to forgive $4.5 million owed to U.S. citizens in exchange for Mexico’s California and New Mexico territories was rejected, President James K. Polk orders U.S. troops into disputed territory on the Texas-Mexican border to provoke a Mexican response. In a message to Congress President James K. Polk falsely stated that Mexico had “invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil” to initiate the Mexican-American War, and seize the territories by force. 1898 February 15 – False Flag 3: The explosion and sinking of the battleship U.S.S. Maine in Havana, Cuba harbor is used to initiate the Spanish-American War thanks in large part to the propaganda issued by the Hearst media. “We could not leave them to themselves — they were unfit for self-government — and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was … there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them.” – William McKinley – (1843-1901) 25th US President – Source: 1899, on the Filipinos, following the U.S. invasion of the Philippines in 1898. During the invasion and occupation, U.S. forces killed an estimated 200,000 Filipino civilians. Address to the Methodist Episcopal Church; cited in Olcott, The Life of William McKinley (1916), v. 2, p. 110; estimate of civilian casualties from U.S. Library of Congress, “The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War,” 1998. 1903 January 21 – Establish a standing army to fight foreign wars: The unconstitutional Militia Act of 1903 abolishes State funding of the Militias, which are replaced with the National Guard, and armed by the federal government, which reserves the right to recall its armaments at any time. 1913 February 25 – Enable politics of envy and demand for more government: Despite evidence to the contrary, Lame Duck Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox declares that the 16th Amendment (eliminates proportionality requirement for taxation) received the required ratification by three-fourths of the State legislatures, destroying the balance between taxation and representation in the House of Representatives. The only States to properly ratify the 16th amendment were North Dakota, Tennessee, Arizona and New Mexico. 1913 May 31 – Enable unlimited government spending: Despite evidence to the contrary, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan declares that the 17th amendment (popular election of United States Senators) received the required ratification by three-fourths of the State legislatures. Although unanimous ratification is required on amendments affecting State suffrage in the Senate, as per Article V. This fraud ends the most important feature of federalism — the State’s check on the United States government — by concentrating unwarranted power in the Federal government in the District of Columbia. 1913 October 3 – Enable unlimited government spending: Unconstitutional Underwood Tariff Act of 1913 creates a Direct tax on personal incomes (profits) of United States citizens, under the guise of an Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 Indirect tax. 1913 December 23 – Enable unlimited government spending: President Wilson signs the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act of 1913 with which Congress has shirked in its Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 requirement to regulate the value of money and unlawfully transfers the issuing of credit to an elitist monopoly: the Federal Reserve System. 1914 September 2 – False Flag 3 profit: Congress creates the Bureau of War Insurance to compensate shipping companies that have suffered losses during the Great War (World War I) – War Risk Insurance Act of 1914, 38 Public Statutes at Large 711, 712 (1914). 1913 March 26 – False Flag 4 preparation: By arming merchant ships and ording them to ram U-boats, Britain forced Geramany to stop allowing vessels to abandon ship, and sink them without warning. In the diplomatic wrangling over the German submarine campaign in 1915- 1916, the United States Government persistently failed to acknowledge the validity of the German point that it was not reasonable to expect a submarine to endanger herself by giving warning to a merchantman that was likely to be armed and under orders to ram any U-boat encountered. 1915 May 7 – False Flag 4: A submarine of the German Imperial Navy sinks the Royal Mail Ship (R.M.S.) Lusitania, killing 124 U.S. citizens, and motivating the hitherto isolationist Americans to war, despite the fact that its passengers were warned in U.S. newspaper ads bought by Germany not to board the ship. The American and British manifests of this “armed merchant cruiser” (Lloyd’s Registry) were falsified, claiming that it had no armaments, when in fact it was carrying tons of munitions. On 2/28/009, a History Channel ocean treasure hunter episode revealed the stacks of the Lusitania were repainted to match her sister ship, the Mauretania an armed merchant vessel, and the white letters on the hull spelling “Lusitania” were painted black to match the hull. The Germans bought ads warning the passengers not to sail on the Lusitania, because the Germans knew it was caring ammunition bound for England, and threatened to sink it. What puzzled historians is the Germans, knowing that the sinking of the Lusitania would likely bring the U.S. into the war against them, still sank the ship. Now we know. The German submarine captain mistook the Lusitania for the Mauretania as intended by President Wilson to motivate Americans to war. 1917 June 4 – False Flag 4 result: Congress declares war on Germany “Whereas the Imperial German Government have committed repeated acts of war against the … United States of American … a state of war exists between the United States and the Imperial German government.” The antagonists were prepared to renegotiate boundaries as they had done to end so many of their past European wars, but U.S. entry into the war against Germany extended WW I and its devastation, and resulted in the Versailles Treaty, which economically suffocated Germany, and paved the way for Hitler and WW II. 1917 June 21 – Enable unlimited government spending: While the Army and Navy of the United States are in France “making the world safe for democracy,” Congress passes the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act of 1917, requiring that all commercial banks in the nation deposit their gold (lawful Money) with the Federal Reserve System (central bank). 1927 February 27 – Enable unlimited government spending: Congress passes the Federal Reserve Act of 1927, indefinitely extending the charter of the Federal Reserve System. 1920s – Enable Roaring 20s: With easy credit the Federal Reserve floods the economy with so much unneeded money that much of it is invested in the stock market or used to expand farms and other speculative acts. 1929 – Cause Recession: The Federal Reserve Board of Directors suddenly reduces credit to end the speculation, causing investors, farmers and others to withdraw their savings from banks that were authorized to loan more than they had (fractional reserve banking), so the banks ran out of money and many lost everything. 1930 June 16 – Cause Depression: With the nation’s economy barely in recovery, President Hoover signs the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, raising tariffs 46%. This provoked a worldwide trade war resulting in an almost complete cessation in foreign trade, thus turning the Panic of 1929 into the worldwide Great Depression. 1933 March 6 – Defraud Americans and extend depression: Franklin Roosevelt issues Proclamation 2039 (Bank Holiday) under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended–”[T]he President … may prohibit … by means of licenses, or otherwise … the export [or] hoarding of gold or silver [C]oin.” — all (commercial) banks are to suspend business operations for three business days, and cease redeeming legal tender Federal Reserve Notes (Bills of Credit) for gold Coin (lawful Money). The Trading with the Enemy Act was thought to have been automatically repealed with the ratification of the 1921 peace treaty with Germany, but Roosevelt found an appointee-candidate who rendered a legal opinion that the act might still be used. Every act of FDR hobbled free market recovery, extended the depression, increased the debt, and eventually bankrupted the U.S. FDR then used trade restrictions to goad Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor (False Flag 5), so he could incite Americans to enter WW II, and extend his presidency as a “war president”. 1940 October 7 – False Flag 5 preparation: Lieutenant commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the naval intelligence Far East desk, responds to the inquiry of Franklin Roosevelt, Esq. on how to provoke war with the empire of Japan: Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore. Make an arrangement with Holland [Nederland] for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies [now Indonesia]. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chaing Kai-shek. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient. Keep the main strength of the US [f]leet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil. Completely embargo all trade with Japan in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire. 1940 October 8 – False Flag 5 preparation: Commander-in-chief the Navy, Vice-admiral James O. Richardson warns Franklin Roosevelt that he is placing the pacific fleet in unnecessary danger: “[S]enior officers of the [n]avy do not have the trust and confidence in the civilian leadership of this country [nation] that is essential for the successful prosecution of a war in the Pacific.” Four months later Richardson was relieved of his command (CINCUS) when it was split into the pacific and Atlantic fleets. CINCPACFLEET had been initially offered to rear admiral (two stars) Chester Nimitz — bypassing several vice admirals (three stars) with greater standing — who turned it down, citing a “lack of seniority.” The post was then given to another junior admiral, rear admiral Husband E. Kimmel, who is immediately promoted to admiral (four stars). Speculation is that the real reason Nimitz turned down the job is that he believed the Japanese would attack Hawaii, and the commander of CINCPACFLEET would be blamed for being ill prepared. One month after the Japanese did attack, Kimmel was demoted and relieved of his command, and Nimitz named to replace him. 1941 January 6 – False Flag 5 preparation: Acting Japanese Consul-General for Honolulu, Hawaii, Otojiro Okuda transmits to the Japanese Foreign Ministry a coded response of an inquiry into the number of warships in Pearl Harbor. Although the report is decoded for the White House, Franklin Roosevelt does not inform admiral Kimmel, commander-in-chief of the pacific fleet or admiral Harold “Betty” Stark, chief of naval operations. Throughout the rest of the year, the same “J” code is used to relay reports to the Foreign Ministry of increasing sensitivity, involving bombing approaches to anchored vessels and recommendations for a sneak attack. Still Kimmel and Stark were never notified. 1941 January 27 – False Flag 5 preparation: Ambassador to the Empire of Japan, Joseph Grew sends a message to the Department of State, “The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor with all their strength.” 1941 February 10 – False Flag 5 preparation: Franklin Roosevelt, orders Action D, directing the navy of the United States to conduct “Pop-up” cruises off the coast of Japan as a provocation to war. “I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs [sic] guessing. I don’t mind losing one or two cruisers. But I don’t want to lose five or six.” 1941 June 23 – False Flag 5 preparation: The day after fascist Germany invaded the communist Soviet Union, Special Advisor to the President, Harold Ickes, writes a memo to Franklin Roosevelt: “There might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia.” 1941 July 5 – False Flag 5 preparation: Franklin Roosevelt orders the Panama Canal closed to the civilian Merchant Marine Fleet of the empire of Japan, forcing Japanese cargo carriers to make a seven-thousand mile detour around South America. This places Japanese commerce at a competitive disadvantage and forces Japan to use more of its limited petroleum. 1941 July 19 – False Flag 5 preparation: Director of the war plans division of the navy department, Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner, submits a confidential report to chief of naval operations, Admiral Harold “Betty” Stark entitled “The Possible Effects of an Embargo” in which he stated, “An embargo would probably result in a fairly early attack by Japan on Malaya and the Netherlands East Indies, and possibly would involve the United States in early war in the Pacific.” He recommended that “trade with Japan not be embargoed at this time.” 1941 July 24 – False Flag 5 preparation: Franklin Roosevelt issues the empire of Japan an ultimatum to leave Vietnam (French Indochina). 1941 July 26 – False Flag 5 preparation: Franklin Roosevelt issues Executive Order 8832 under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 that freezes all Japanese assets United States, which is an act of war. Since the United States had been the primary source of petroleum to the Empire of Japan, it is expected that the Japanese will run out of this vital fuel by 1943. This forces Japan to search for an alternate source of fossil fuel in the Dutch East Indies, and to protect that supply preparations must be made for war against the United States. 1941 August 28 – False Flag 5 preparation: Franklin Roosevelt rejects a proposal from Prime Minister Prince Fumimaro Konoye of the Empire of Japan to meet face to face, and attempt to peacefully resolve their differences. 1941 September 4 – False Flag 5: The ostensibly neutral USS Greer stalks the a belligerent German U-boat for three hours while radioing its position to the British Royal Navy. When it become apparent the Royal Navy would not arrive in time, the Greer shells the submarine — an act of war. Franklin Roosevelt reports to the nation that the submarine fired first in an unprovoked attack. Lieutenant Commander Station HYPO, Pearl Harbor, Joseph John Rochefort decodes a message indicating that three days previous the civilian Merchant Marine Fleet of the Empire of Japan has left China and been militarized. This report is officially ignored by Franklin Roosevelt. 1941 October 10 – False Flag 5 preparation: President Roosevelt in a message to Congress urges the repeal of Section 6 of the Neutrality Act which would allow the arming of U.S. merchant ships against “the modern pirates of the sea”, the U-boats. 1941 October 16 – False Flag 5 preparation: After a meeting with Franklin Roosevelt, Secretary of war, Henry Stimson writes in his diary, “We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move.” 1941 October 18 -False Flag 5 preparation: Secretary of the interior, Harold Ickes: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan. … To insure a successful Japanese attack — one that would enrage America into joining the war — it is vital to keep Kimmel and General Short out of the intelligence loop.” 1941 November 5 – False Flag 5 preparation: United States military intelligence code breakers intercept a communication to the Japanese Embassy in the District of Columbia that November 25th is to be the deadline for reaching a peaceful settlement to the dispute with the U.S. over the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Japanese occupation of French Indochina. All communications to the Japanese embassy were decoded and translated within 24 hours of their being intercepted by military and naval intelligence. 1941 November 11 – False Flag 5 preparation: United States military intelligence code breakers intercept a communication to the Japanese Embassy in the District of Columbia stating that “The situation is nearing a climax, and the time is getting short.” 1941 November 14 - False Flag 5 preparation: In reply to commander-in-chief of the pacific fleet, Husband E, Kimmel’s inquiry as to what preparations he is to make if the Empire of Japan attacks the United Kingdom’s colonies in East Asia, chief of naval operations admiral Harold “Betty” Stark finally replies, “Just what we will do in the Far East remains to be seen.” 1941 November 15 – False Flag 5 preparation: In a confidential press briefing with the New York Times, New York Herald-Tribune, Time, Newsweek, the Associated Press, United Press International and International News Service, Army Chief of staff General George C. Marshall says, “The United States is on the brink of war with the Japanese …. We know what they know and they don’t know we know it.” Marshall predicts that war will break out in “the first ten days of December.” Although Marshall shared what he knew with the national media, commander-in-chief of the pacific fleet, admiral Husband E. Kimmel and commander of the army in Hawaii, lieutenant general Walter Short did not know what Marshall knew. And Marshall knew that they did not know. 1941 November 16 – False Flag 5 preparation: The USS Kearney is sunk by a German U-boat. Georgia Representative Edward E. Cox, says of the incident, “[I]t is probably the incident for which we have been waiting.” John T. Flynn, Chairman of the New York Chapter of the America First Committee, expresses outrage at the temerity of the actions of Franklin Roosevelt: “Is anyone surprised that an American ship has been fired on by a German U-boat? Do Americans think that our war vessels can hunt the ships of any nation and escape attack? American war vessels, under orders from the war-like [secretary of the navy, Frank] Knox, are hunting down German submarines in the combat waters off Iceland without authority of Congress or the American people. … They [Roosevelt and Knox] are praying for the sinking of American vessels with the American [United States] flag on them in order to arouse the American people to a war fever. The American people must realize what is being done — that they are the victims of a conspiracy to hurry them into this war. 1941 November 16 – False Flag 5 preparation: United States military intelligence code breakers intercept a communication to the Japanese Embassy in the District of Columbia stating that “The deadline absolutely cannot be changed,” the dispatch said. “After that, things are automatically going to happen.” 1941 November 23 – False Flag 5 preparation: Commander-in-chief of the pacific fleet Admiral Husband E, Kimmel orders his fleet to conduct round the clock patrols of the waters north of Hawaii, judging that would be the most likely avenue of approach were the Empire of Japan to attack the United States. The next day Franklin Roosevelt issues the “Vacant Sea” order, ordering Kimmel to recall his ships from the North Pacific and search only to the south. Two weeks later the Japanese attack came from the very area Kimmel had attempted to monitor. The “Vacant Sea” order was issued about one hour after the Pearl Harbor strike force commanded by Admiral Chuichi Nagumo left port. 1941 November 25 – False Flag 5 preparation: Franklin Roosevelt announces at a Cabinet meeting that the United States would be at war in the with the Empire of Japan in a few days. Lieutenant Commander Station HYPO, Pearl Harbor, Joseph John Rochefort informs commander-in-chief of the pacific fleet, admiral Husband E. Kimmel that he has confirmed that a fleet of submarines had left the Empire of Japan and is heading directly towards Hawaiian waters. Kimmel, who understands the conventional naval wisdom: “If you detect submarines, then look for carriers,” realizes his ability to react is seriously handicapped by the “Vacant Sea” order of Franklin Roosevelt. The Signal Intelligence Service intercepts a coded transmission from the Japanese Foreign Ministry to their Embassy in the District of Columbia, extending the deadline for the commencement of hostilities from November 25 to November 29, when “things are automatically going to happen.” 1941 November 26 – False Flag 5 preparation: Navy code breaker intercept a communication from Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet, indicating that Pearl Harbor had been targeted: “The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.” Secretary of state Cordell Hull meets secretly with freelance newspaper writer Joseph Leib, and shows Leib several intercepts of Japanese intelligence messages concerning Pearl Harbor, indicating the planned attack, and that President Franklin Roosevelt plans to let it happen. Hull asks Leib to corroborate the story — keeping his name out of it — but yet hoping to somehow prevent the “sneak attack.” Leib was not able to find a single news bureau that would run the story, but was able to run it on the foreign cable service of the United Press, where only one newspaper published any portion of it. 1941 November 28 – False Flag 5 preparation: Chief of naval operations, Admiral Harold “Betty” Stark orders commander-in-chief of the pacific fleet admiral Husband E. Kimmel to maintain a defensive posture. “Negotiations with Japan appear to be terminated. … the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act.” The day before army chief of staff general George C. Marshal sent a similar message to commander of the Army in Hawaii, lieutenant general Walter Short 1941 November 29 – False Flag 5 preparation: The Signal Intelligence Service intercepts a communication to the Japanese Embassy in the District of Columbia stating that the decision to go to war has been made but “do not … give the impression that negotiations are broken off.” 1941 December 6 – False Flag 5 preparation: At 3:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, officer-in-charge of Station US of the navy, commander Laurence Safford begins decoding a 14-part message, transmitted from the Japanese Foreign Ministry to their embassy in the District of Columbia. At 9:30 that night, Safford presents them to Franklin Roosevelt, who upon reading the passage that states, “The Japanese government cannot tolerate the perpetuation of such a situation [United States support of China in the Second Sino-Japanese War] since it directly runs counter to Japan’s fundamental policy to enable all nations to each enjoy its proper place in the world,” says, “This means war.” When a presidential advisor suggests a preemptive strike, Roosevelt immediately dismisses it saying, “No we can’t do that. We are democracy and a peaceful people. … But we have a good record.” 1941 December 7 – False Flag 5: Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Harold “Betty” Stark arrives at his office at 9:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, where he is shown the last part of the intercepted, fourteen-part message from the Japanese Foreign Ministry to the Japanese Embassy. The message states that the “message” (Japanese declaration of war against the United States) is to be delivered to Cordell Hull, secretary of state by 1:00 PM EST (8:00 AM Hawaii time). Afterward, all cryptographic materials in the embassy were to be destroyed. At the suggestion of a junior officer that Stark alert commander in chief of the pacific fleet, Vice Admiral Husband E. Kimmel that this probably means war is imminent, Stark does nothing. Three and a half-hours later, the Axis war (World War II) becomes a world war with the Japanese attack upon the British colony of Singapore. Pearl Harbor is also attacked. 15% of 101 warships are either temporarily or permanently disabled. 96 army planes and 92 navy and marine corps planes are lost. In addition the material damage, there are 2,897 killed (similar to 9/11), 879 wounded, and 26 missing. In the next few days, Japanese forces seize 1,951 prisoners of war — many of whom died in captivity — on the Federal enclaves of the Guam and Wake islands. Years later, Stark said that his actions on this date had been determined by “higher authority” — Secretary of War, Frank Knox, and Franklin Roosevelt. 1941 December 8 – False Flag 5 continued: President Franklin Roosevelt condemns the “deliberate [and] unprovoked attack … on Pearl Harbor” in his war message to the 14th Congress. Two days later, congress declares war on Japan. Also on the day after naval forces of the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the coast guard ship Leonard Wood is attacked seven thousand miles away from U.S. territorial waters in the British colony of Singapore, further demonstrating the unlawful actions of the Roosevelt administration in its efforts to goad Japan to attack. 1941 December 11 – False Flag 5 result: Dictator of Germany, Adolf Hitler declares war on the United States. In his war message to the Reichstag, Hitler blames Franklin Roosevelt for “incit[ing the] war, then falsif[ying] the causes”. “Roosevelt has been guilty of … [i]llegal seizure of ships and other property of German … nationals … and looting of those being … interned. Roosevelt … ordered the American Navy to attack everywhere ships under German … flags, and to sink them. …” Hitler goes on to accuse Roosevelt of making “profits out of inflation,” and creating the crises to cover his own failures for “not succeed[ing] in bringing about even the slightest improvement in his own country [nation]. …” At the end of 1941 unemployment in the United States is at 5.6 million, 9.9% of the national labor force; virtually unchanged from the end of 1930 when it stood at 4.3 million and 8.7%. Director of Communications, Rear admiral Leigh Noyes orders all existing diplomatic naval documents relating to the attack on Pearl Harbor be sealed for the next 54-years. Noyes also gives the order to “Destroy all notes or anything in writing.” 1942 March 27 – Enable extortion of businesses by congressmen and unlimited government spending: While the army and navy of the United States are in Asia, Europe and the Pacific “for a world in which this [n]ation … will be safe for our children,” congress passes the War Powers Act of 1942, giving the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to suspend contracts, regulations or licenses; and permitting the Federal Reserve System to directly purchase United States Treasury obligations, making the FRS a printing press to finance huge deficits of the Federal government. As a result of this act, the annual budget deficit for 1943 was nearly half the entire Gross National Product. 1942 February 1 – Respect for Constitution – Regarding proposed internment of United States citizens of Japanese ancestry, Assistant Secretary of War, John J. McCloy tells attorney general, Francis Biddle, “[T]he constitution is just a scrap of paper to me.” 1942 October 21 – Enable unlimited government spending: The 13th congress passes the Internal Revenue Act of 1942, asking United States citizens to volunteer for the “Victory Tax,” a temporary, three-percent payroll-income tax withholding, which “shall not apply with respect to any taxable year commencing after the cessation of hostilities in the present war”; and transforming the Tax Board of Appeals into the United States Tax Court — another administrative law court without Trial by Jury — with the additional powers of reviewing its own decisions on appeal. Although the Axis War (World War II) ended less than three years later with the surrender of the Empire of Japan, the temporary “Victory Tax” remains in effect — more than half a century later. Subsequently: Like the 9/11 Commission, the Roberts Commission covered up the causes for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The culpable supreme court of the United States ruled that extra-constitutional Executive Agreements negotiated with foreign nations by the President in secret have the same force as ratified treaties. The President ordered over 100,000 United States citizens into concentration camps. Periodical publications disagreeing with the government were deemed seditious, and denied mailing privileges. Wage and price controls were first enacted. Federal income tax withholding started. The supreme court determined that the power of congress to regulate interstate commerce extended to production, and consumption by the same person. The President seized control of nearly all goods and services in the nation. The President required the Social Security Number to be used for identification purposes. 1960-2001 – The next five U.S. False Flag Episodes and Other Ignoble Acts 1960 – The World Trade Center (WTC) was initiated by a Lower Manhattan Association created and chaired by David Rockefeller, who had the original idea of building the Center with strong backing from the then New York governor, his brother, Nelson Rockefeller. 1962 March 13 – Almost False Flag 6: “Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving [Chief of Staff] Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war involved the bombing of Florida facilities, simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil to incite Americans to invade Cuba. The main proposal was presented in a document entitled “Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)” is a collection of draft memoranda written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. (The parenthetical “TS” in the title of the document is an acronym for “Top Secret.”) The document was presented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. The approved paragraph described destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of “college students off on a holiday”. These potential false flag were avoided by removing their Pentagon advocates, but Operation Northwoods demonstrates that the federal government is happy to delude We the People to advance their objectives. 1966 August 5 -The World Trade Center (WTC) Height: 1,368 and 1,362 feet (417 and 415 meters) Owners: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Architect: Minoru Yamasaki, Emery Roth and Sons consulting Engineer: John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson Ground Breaking: August 5, 1966 Opened: 1970-73; April 4, 1973 ribbon cutting Note the conventional construction of the massive steel core. “Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor. The outer box, measuring 208 feet by 208 feet (63×63 m), was made up of 14-inch (36-cm) wide steel columns, 59 per building face, spaced just over 3 feet (1 m) apart. …. The columns were covered with aluminum, giving the towers a distinctive silver color. The inner box at the core of each tower measured about 135 feet by 85 feet (41×26 m). Its 47 heavy steel columns surrounded a large open area.   We’re here to inform you that we have uncovered evidence that the official investigations into what happened to the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 were deeply flawed, or worse.  The scientific forensic facts we have discovered have very troubling implications. For example, a technologically advanced, highly energetic material has been discovered in World Trade Center dust from the 9/11 catastrophe. This follows the discovery, by the United States Geological Survey and others, of high concentrations of unusual previously molten iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. These microspheres can only have been formed during the destruction of the World Trade Center at temperatures far higher than can be explained by the jet fuel and office fires. Those fires, we are told by engineers employed by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, were allegedly the cause of the World Trade Center’s destruction. The discovery of this advanced energetic material, in the form of red/gray chips distributed throughout the dust, both explains the iron-rich microspheres and confirms the inadequacy of the official account of what happened that tragic day. Even before the microspheres and red/gray chips had been identified and brought to our attention, we were deeply concerned about other aspects of the destruction of these iconic buildings, and how they were investigated. More than two dozen firefighters, engineers, and other witnesses reported seeing substantial quantities of molten iron or steel, flowing like lava in the debris under all three World Trade Center high-rises. Office fires and jet fuel cannot possibly reach the temperatures necessary to liquefy iron or steel.  A mixture called thermite, consisting of pulverized iron oxide and aluminum, CAN generate temperatures above 4000°F — far more than is needed to melt iron or steel, which melts at about 2750°F. The energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark)  was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics. It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11. They have no reason to be in this dust. Given all the horrific costs in human lives, lost civil liberties, and trillions of tax dollars spent in response to the official account of 9/11, there can be no more urgent need than for our country and the world to find out who put those materials in the World Trade Center – and why. This need makes it all the more disturbing that top engineers in charge of the government’s investigation would avoid dealing straightforwardly with ALL the evidence that AE911Truth and others have repeatedly brought to their attention, much of which has been available in the public record since the beginning. John Gross, NIST co-project leader, has denied the existence of – or even any Bush Insider: '911 Was An Inside Job' Saturday, June 25, 2011 10:20 Morgan O. Reynolds was a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001–2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an inside job, and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. They stopped their analysis of the towers’ complete and highly energetic destruction at the very point when the destruction began. And they have dismissed or avoided serious analysis of the additional evidence with which we are concerned, such as: 1.  Both Twin Towers were completely dismembered and destroyed in just 10 to 14 seconds – which occurs at near free-fall acceleration. For this to happen, all 47 of their massive core columns as well as a large fraction of their external columns would have to be compromised with explosives beforehand. 2.  More than 100 first responders reported hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light at the onset of destruction.  Light flashes indicate explosive detonations.  These witnesses are documented in NYC’s “Oral Histories” by City Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen 3.  Multi-ton steel perimeter wall sections were ejected laterally at 60 mph to a distance of 600 ft.  That speed and distance indicates that a high-pressure explosion initiated the ejection. 4.  90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking was pulverized in mid-air, again indicating explosions. 5.  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building which was not hit by an aircraft, fell at free-fall acceleration for more than 100 feet – a significant fact that NIST’s Shyam Sunder was forced to admit after being presented with our research. Yet NIST has failed to review or acknowledge the obvious implications of this fact, which is that the columns must have been explosively severed within fractions of a second of each other. 6.   The complete destruction and dismemberment of Building 7, collapsing in just 6 ½ seconds—which is near freefall acceleration—through the path of what was greatest resistance, symmetrically vertical, including 2 ½ seconds of pure free-fall (zero resistance), is an occurrence only possible with expertly-placed explosives. There are other falsehoods and omissions in NIST’s official report: 1.   NIST overstated the severity and duration of the fires in all three skyscrapers, apparently in order to more credibly attribute the destruction to the fires, yet without exaggerating them enough to account for molten iron or steel. 2.   NIST and FEMA did not follow the National Fire Protection Association’s standard procedures for fire and explosion investigations and test building debris for explosive residues. 3.   NIST did not test for explosives when explosive demolition was the most likely hypothesis. 4.   NIST’s animated computer model of Building 7’s destruction, showing the outer walls crumpling inward like a piece of foil, bears no resemblance to the actual collapse as seen in the videos. 5.   NIST claims that the falling section of each of the Twin Towers, above the jetliner impact zones, crushed the much larger and more massive intact lower section. But [in the case of the North tower,] video analysis reveals clearly that the upper [section] disintegrated in waves of explosions prior to any crushing of the lower [section]. This indicates that the top sections could not have been the cause of the destruction of the lower [section]. 6.   NIST’s technical analysis into the twin towers’ collapses stops at the “initiation of collapse.” There is no technical analysis of the structural behavior of the building during the collapse itself. In response to our Request for Correction on this matter, NIST acknowledged that they were “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” In short, NIST’s official technical explanation is fraudulent and inconsistent with the basic laws of physics.  By contrast, the hypothesis of controlled demolition is consistent with all of the available technical evidence. This week, here in Washington, DC, we personally delivered our DVD “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The SF Press Conference Edition,” which included highlights of the forensic evidence, into the hands of staffers for the science advisors of every elected representative on Capitol Hill.  In addition, we have sat down with over a dozen of them and presented in detail the overwhelming evidence of explosive controlled demolition.  We have personally invited over 400 of them to today’s event.  How many Congressional science advisors are here today?  [None]. I urge you to go to our website AE911Truth.org for more information, including comments by our members on the problems with the official investigation.  At this point, we are calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to ask a federal grand jury to investigate those responsible for the NIST report, including Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder and Co-Project Leader John Gross. We’d like any and all reporters who will be covering this story to know that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are here to give you any technical support you need. Finally, I’d like to thank the thousands of scientists, senior level members of the military, intelligence and other government officials, pilots and aviation professionals, firefighters, scholars and university professionals, 9/11 survivors and their family members and concerned citizens here and around the world for their continuing support. We also want to thank our growing family of more than three hundred sustaining financial supporters.  We could not do this without you. Now, I will answer any quick questions you may have. Keep in mind that most of your questions will probably be answered during the Mock Debate – which will be starting in just a minute.  Also, more detailed information is available in our DVD, 9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The Architecture of Destruction, which is available on our website AE911Truth.org. Shredding of Steel Twin Towers' Steel Frames Ripped to Small Pieces   This section of a larger photograph of the North Tower's destruction shows metal objects -- steel column sections and aluminum cladding -- being propelled away from the Tower. A feature of the collapses that is less obvious than the symmetrically mushrooming tops or the vast clouds of concrete dust is their effect on the towers' steel frames. The only large remnants of the towers standing after the collapses were base sections of the perimeter walls extending upward several stories. Some of these sections were about 200 feet wide by 80 feet tall. Virtually all of the remaining steel was broken up into small pieces: There were no remnants of the core structures that rose much above the rubble piles. Most of the perimeter walls above the standing bases were broken up into the three-floor by three-column prefabricated sections, and many of those sections were ripped apart at the welds. There were no large sections of the corrugated pans underlaying the floor slabs or the trussing beneath them. If it were possible for the towers to have collapsed of their own weight, they would have exhibited a pattern of destruction very different from this. What would the collapse look like if all structure throughout a tower suddenly lost 95 percent of its strength, leaving the building too weak to support gravity loads? The core columns, being thicker than perimeter columns, and abundantly cross-braced, would have deflected falling rubble, and would have out-survived the perimeter walls. The accumulation of forces as the collapse progressed would have damaged portions of the outer wall closer to the ground more than higher portions, despite the thicker gauge of the steel lower in the tower. The rubble pile would have contained a stack of floor platters, since gravity would have pancaked, not shredded, them. Misinformation Maintaining the Official Story in the Face of Glaring Contradictions Ensuring the success of the official story of 9/11/01 despite the long sequence of highly improbable events it supposes required that people not pay too much attention to the details. This would be ensured by the "shock and awe" of the attack itself combined with an intense propaganda campaign to sell the official story. Ironically, the vast majority of those who created and promoted that propaganda probably did so innocently, never questioning the official version of events. The idea that the entire attack was an inside job was simply too unthinkable for most Americans to consider. The use of disinformation and diversion to manipulate public opinion is a highly developed art. It is well understood not only by psychological operations experts in the national security establishment, but also by marketing and public relations wizards. With the engineering of public reaction to September 11, disinformation has been used with a sophistication and depth that is historically unprecedented. A key tool in this modern form of psychological warfare is the "meme" -- an idea that acts like an infectious agent to spread itself through a population. Through careful construction of memes, the perpetrators could depend on others to unwittingly promote their cover story and conceal the truth. Their disinformation strategy was twofold. First, they would sell the official story to the masses through the compliant mass media, relying on people's desire to believe the official story. Second, they would seed specious ideas in the community of "9/11 skeptics" in order to distract and discredit them. The Official Story of September 11, and Its Apologists On the day of the attack, details about the alleged perpetrators emerged with a rapidity that is remarkable given the assertions by high-ranking administration officials that no one had ever considered that an attacker could fly planes into buildings. Within hours the identities of several of the alleged hijackers were known, and Osama bin Laden was being presented as the prime suspect. Within three days the FBI published the identities of all the alleged hijackers. It was being presented as an open-and-shut case. Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent. The mass media were consistent in avoiding asking the most obvious questions. Why did the air defense network fail to respond? Why did Flight 77 target the recently-fortified, mostly empty portion of the Pentagon? Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible? The media shirked their public service obligation of acting as watchdogs of the government, and instead became cheerleaders for the administration's war plans for central Asia. The vast body of print reportage about September 11 attack is notable for an abundance of contradictions. The timelines in the Complete 9-11 Timeline series reveal numerous inconsistencies, such as between reported times of events. These discrepancies, combined with the lack of evidence, discourage investigation of facts of the attack. Meanwhile, the impending attack on Afghanistan, the alleged Islam-terror link, and "homeland security" got the attention. This section examines just a few of the elements of the official story of September 11 with a skeptical view and attention to contradictions. Red Flags: People are able to accept theories blessed by government and mainstream media, despite inconsistencies and long series of improbable coincidences. Cover Stories: The top four in command of our defense go about routine appointments for an hour as the attack unfolds. Experts on Parade: Experts "explain" the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. Disinformation Targeting the Skeptics Disinformation aimed at skeptics of the official story is more subtle than the simple promotion of that story to the masses. It may consist of ideas with no basis in evidence packaged as shocking new findings that supposedly prove the involvement of insiders. Its effect is to discredit the larger body of 9/11 research through guilt by association with its sensational and unscientific approach. An example is the idea that Twin Towers were not hit by Flights 11 or 175 but rather by completely different objects, such as military planes with missile-firing pods. Since 9-11 Research does not provide analysis of such disinformation, we recommend the disinformation section of 911review.com. The Means for Executing the 9/11 Attack The Means for Executing the 9/11 Attack The success of the 9/11/01 attack depended on each of the following five events happening as planned: Four jetliners were taken over with no effective resistance. Three of the four jetliners were flown into small targets, with the Pentagon strike involving extreme aerobatic maneuvers. The air defense network froze for over an hour while the attack unfolded. The towers self-destructed in a manner never before seen in any structure. According to the official story, bin Laden got lucky in each case. The hijackers enjoyed phenomenal success in taking over each of the four planes, despite at least one Vietnam-era fighter pilot being among all four of the cockpit crews. The hijackers displayed miraculous skill in flying jetliners into small targets despite the fact than none had ever flown a jet. The Air Force and Air National Guard failed to put up any defense against the jetliners-turned-missiles, despite ample warning times and response options. The Very Lucky Hijackers Statistically speaking, the probability of the alleged perpetrators enjoying such a run of luck is vanishingly small. The probability that a mission would succeed can be calculated by estimating the probabilities of achieving each individual task required to fulfill the mission, and then multiplying those probabilities together. (This method of computing probabilities assumes that the individual events are causally independent. Since the success of each task was not strictly independent, the following computation is not statistically rigorous, but is provided only to illustrate a point.) The following table lists estimates of probabilities for each of several tasks critical to the success of the mission. In all cases we chose much higher probabilities than the facts would warrant, in order to give the official story the benefit of the doubt. task probability hijacking Flight 11 1/2 hijacking Flight 175 1/3 hijacking Flight 77 1/4 hijacking Flight 93 1/4 evasion of intercepts by Flight 11 1/2 evasion of intercepts by Flight 175 1/3 evasion of intercepts by Flight 77 1/8 evasion of intercepts by Flight 93 1/8 hitting the North Tower 1/2 hitting the South Tower 1/2 hitting the Pentagon 1/4 Assuming these individual probabilities, the aggregate probability for success in the attack would be: 1/2 * 1/3 * 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 1/8 * 1/8 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/4 = 1/589824 This computation ignores the many other improbable events that worked in favor of the attackers, such as the unprecedented (alleged) crumbling of the steel-framed skyscrapers of the World Trade Center. The Well-Planned Attack The hijacker theory is not only a conspiracy theory, because it involves teams of hijackers working with remarkable coordination given their limited communication infrastructure, it is also a coincidence theory, because the success of the operation was possible only through a long run of coincidences. Contrast the official theory with one that the attack was planned and executed by those with the means to infallibly take over jetliners and accurately pilot them into small targets, while preventing interceptions by the armed services. Such a theory is also a conspiracy theory, but it is not a coincidence theory, because the long string of "lucky" events was actually the product of careful planning by people in positions to make things happen. Contrary to typical assumptions, a conspiracy involving insiders may have been executed by fewer people than the villains in the officially accepted conspiracy theory. e x c e r p t title: Attack Scenario 404 authors: 9-11 Research How the Attack Might Have Been Engineered The case that the 9/11/01 attack was an inside job can be made quite apart from any specific theory as to how it was accomplished, by simply demonstrating that only insiders had the means and opportunity to execute key elements of the attack. The true nature of such an operation is undoubtedly hidden behind layer upon layer of cover story, and its details may never be discovered. Speculative theories of the operation, while not verifiable, nonetheless can be useful in answering important questions about the attack, such as how many people it required. Attack Scenario 404 is such a theory. It shows that although the attack employed a variety of sophisticated communications and weapons technologies, all of these technologies were available "off-the-shelf", having been developed by secret programs ostensibly for other purposes. Specific tasks required to fulfill the mission were outsourced to companies providing strict confidentiality and working on a need-to-know basis. ...   Distributed Explosives Theories that Distributed High Explosives Destroyed the Twin Towers Of the types of Twin Tower demolition theories, the most widely embraced are ones describing the detonation of numerous explosive charges hidden in locations from the top to the bottom of the Towers. The explosives would be used to shatter the steel structure, much like conventional demolitions, but the timing of detonations would be made to start near the crash zones and move downward, to simulate a progressive collapse. Perhaps the first person to clearly articulate the distributed explosives theory was Eric Hufschmid, in his book Painful Questions. 1 He describes how packages containing high explosives such as RDX could have been hidden in the Towers. Each package would contain a detonator controlled by a radio receiver, allowing it to be individually detonated by remote control, perhaps from a control center in Building 7. Conventional Demolitions Conventional demolitions employ numerous explosive charges, placed adjacent to all the vertical support structures of the building and on multiple levels, starting at the ground. Careful timing of the detonations is essential to achieving vertical collapse of the building into its footprint. Typically, charges on the interior columns at ground level are detonated first, causing the central portion of the building to begin to collapse, pulling the perimeter of the building inward. Detonations then proceed outward, destroying perimeter columns after inner columns, and upward, destroying sections of columns just as they reach the ground. The net effect is a vertical collapse in which the building implodes, falling into a rubble pile almost entirely within the building's footprint. Most conventional demolitions use detonation cords to set off the explosive charges. However, equipment currently on the market, such as the HiEx TeleBlaster, allows the detonation of charges without the use of cords or wires. 2 Such wireless equipment allows demolitions to be set up in a much less intrusive manner than was previously possible. Twin Towers' Demolition The Twin Towers' demolition, if achieved through distributed explosive charges, was engineered in a decidedly different manner from conventional demolitions to make it consistent with the story that the Towers collapsed as a result of the jet impacts and fires. The main differences were: Explosions started at the impact zone and proceeded down the intact portion of the Tower and up the overhanging portion, instead of starting at ground level. Much more powerful explosives were used than in a conventional demolition. In the South Tower demolition, the overhanging portion was allowed to tip for a few seconds before the larger explosions commenced. The Twin Tower demolitions resembled conventional demolitions in that the Towers fell with dead-centered vertical symmetry; but differed in that material was ejected horizontally in all directions, resulting in rubble piles several times the diameter of the Towers' footprints. The Twin Towers exploded rather than imploded. The Twin Towers were also demolished at a more rapid rate than is the case in conventional demolitions. When buildings are demolished from the ground up, gravity is typically relied upon to do most of the work once several floors have been demolished, and the upper portion of the building is falling with considerable kinetic energy. The tapping of that energy to break up the structure slows the fall. In the case of the Twin Towers, it appeared that the explosive events were progressing down the Towers' intact portions at a rate only slightly slower than free-fall. Disaster Engineering One might ask questions about two features of the demolition, both of which would seem to detract from the realism of simulated gravity-driven collapses. Why would the perpetrators use much greater quantities of explosives than in a conventional demolition? Why would they destroy the Towers at such a rapid rate? The answer to the first question probably has to do with economics. The use of less explosives would fail to break up the Towers' structures as thoroughly. Since the destruction started a thousand feet aloft, large falling pieces could have been deflected hundreds of feet when they hit other objects near the ground. Had not the Towers' perimeter walls been so thoroughly shredded, they might have fallen away in large sections, pivoting large distances from the Towers. The result could have been more damage to buildings outside the World Trade Center complex than occurred. While the high explosives threw pieces of the perimeter wall as much as 500 feet laterally, their distribution was more predictable and their sizes were smaller and less likely to do serious damage than might have happened with less powerful explosives. The answer to the second question probably has to do with hiding obvious evidence of explosions. Increasingly powerful explosions occurred as the destruction progressed down the Towers, perhaps to ensure the thorough destruction of the stronger structures lower in the Towers. If the rate at which the explosives were detonated was not fast enough to stay ahead of the falling rubble, the perpetrators ran the risk that the rubble would fall away from the moving zone of destruction, revealing large obvious explosions at the top of the exposed structures. Contrary Evidence The distributed explosives theory can easily explain the gross features of the collapses from the top-to-bottom destruction to the pulverization of the Towers' materials. However, there are a number of more subtle features of the collapses that do not appear to be consistent with this theory, at least in its simplest form. The following collapse features suggest that the demolition of the Towers was accomplished using technologies other than just distributed conventional explosives. In contrast, many of the same features do appear to be consistent with the thermobarics theory, and the final one suggests the thermite theory. Absence of high blast pressures in collapse onsets Careful study of photographs and videos of both collapses shows that the perimeter walls do not immediately blow out in the way one would expect if explosives adjacent ot the perimeter columns were used to destroy them. Rather, the walls telescope as they disappear into the burgeoning dust clouds, to partially reappear seconds later as fragments outracing the dust cloud. Rapid degradation of structure Features of the onset of both collapses indicate that structures around and above the crash zones lost almost all their strength. In the South Tower, the top not only tips, it bends: The outer wall exhibits a peculiar curve extending about 15 floors above the crash zone. Similarly, in the North Tower, the top begins to telescope straight down with no evidence of bucking in the perimeter columns. In both cases the structure's strength seems to disappear even before any of the explosive features appear. Uniformity of pulverization Photographs and reports from Ground Zero indicate that the vast majority of the estimated 90,000 tons of concrete in each Tower was turned to fine dust, not a mixture of dust and gravel or larger chunks. Since blast pressures from explosive charges fall off with the square of the distance from the source, achieving such thorough pulverization with distributed explosives would seem to have required a huge number of individual packages being placed throughout the building. Vaporization of people Over 1000 victims were never identified despite over a year of efforts to identify victims from even the smallest fragments using DNA. Explosive charges would be unlikely to so thoroughly degrade the remains of so many people. Persistence of core structures In both collapses, a large section of the core structure extending up over 600 feet remains standing for a few seconds and then collapses. The persistent remnant of the North Tower is very narrow and delicate. It is difficult to imagine how such structures could have survived the blast pressures generated by demolition waves of explosive charges, only to themselves collapse a few seconds later. Rapid oxidation and intergranular melting of steel pieces The limited metallurgical examination of some of the few pieces of structural steel that escaped the blast furnaces shows very peculiar features, such as rapid oxidation turning inch-thick steel into paper-thin scrolled pieces, cavitation giving steel the appearance of Swiss cheese, and intragranular melting. These suggest a more exotic process of destruction than mere explosives.

False Flag attacks reflect the reality that for governments to go to war they must have some measure of support from their home constituencies. This need has grown with the spread of voting as the primary means of choosing public officials. False flag attacks are violent acts manipulated by agencies planning to go to war on targeted groups. The goal is to make the violent episodes look like acts of murder and mayhem perpetrated by the targeted groups when the violence is, in fact, the covert creation of the agency doing the targeting. False flag attacks are designed to deprive targeted groups of public sympathy in the home population of the belligerent power. They are designed as illusions to trick home populations into viewing their own governments’ acts of aggression as acts of self-defense. Well-known false flag attacks include the sinking of the Maine in the prelude to the Spanish-American War, the Reichstag Fire blamed by Hitler’s Nazi regime on a Jewish communist man, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident prior to the heightening of the US military intervention in Vietnam. This film goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present. This film exposes how every major war in US history was based on a complete fraud with video of insiders themselves admitting it. The film provides solid evidence for the true reasons behind the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, whose unfolding is described in chilling detail in a document called “Project for the New American Century”, published in the year 2,000, that seems to have served as the actual blueprint for such dramatic events.