Court Filings Assert Iran Had Link to 9/11 Attacks

[seemslikeadream]

Court Filings Assert Iran Had Link to 9/11 Attacks
By BENJAMIN WEISER and SCOTT SHANE
Published: May 19, 2011

Two defectors from Iran’s intelligence service have testified that Iranian officials had “foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks,” according to a court filing Thursday in a federal lawsuit in Manhattan that seeks damages for Iran’s “direct support for, and sponsorship of, the most deadly act of terrorism in American history.”

Imad Mugniyah, the Hezbollah leader killed in 2008, also was accused of a role in 9/11.

One of the defectors also claimed that Iran was involved in planning the attacks, the filing said. The defectors’ identities and testimony were not revealed in the filing but were being submitted to a judge under seal, said lawyers who brought the original suit against Iran on behalf of families of dozens of 9/11 victims.

The suit’s allegation that Iran had foreknowledge of the attacks is hard to assess fully, given that the defectors’ testimony is being filed under seal.

The suit contends that Iran and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant organization with close ties to Tehran, helped Al Qaeda in planning the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and in facilitating the hijackers’ training and travel. After the attacks, the suit contends, Iran and Hezbollah helped Qaeda operatives escape, providing some with a safe haven in Iran.

The question of an Iranian connection to 9/11 was raised by the national 9/11 commission and has long been debated. Al Qaeda, which adheres to a radical Sunni theology, routinely denounces the Shiite sect that holds power in Iran, and the terrorist network’s branch in Iraq has often made Shiites targets of bombings. But intelligence officials have long believed there has been limited, wary cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iran against the United States as a common enemy.

The lawsuit also names as defendants Iranian officials and ministries, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, among others. The families’ lawyers have asked for a default judgment against the defendants, which have not mounted a defense. Even if there were such a judgment, legal experts say it would not be easy to collect monetary damages.

In their court papers, the lawyers assert that Imad Mugniyah, as the military chief of Hezbollah, was a terrorist agent for Iran, and that he traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2000 to help with preparations for the 9/11 attacks.

Mr. Mugniyah, who was killed in 2008, had been accused by American officials of planning a series of major terrorist attacks and kidnappings, including the 1983 bombings of the United States Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon.

The 9/11 commission report said there was “strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.” The report also said there was circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of the hijackers into Iran in November 2000.

But the commission said that it had “found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack,” and that the “topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.”

Thomas E. Mellon Jr., a lawyer for the families, said the suit, first brought in Washington in 2002 and later moved to Manhattan, sought to do that investigation.

Ellen Saracini, whose husband, the United Airlines pilot Victor J. Saracini, was killed when his plane was hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center, said she became involved with the suit because she wanted answers. “We now know,” she said, “who assisted Al Qaeda — Iran did — and we want our American justice system to find Iran accountable.”

The lawyers’ filing included reports of 10 specialists on Iran and terrorism, including former 9/11 commission staff members and ex-C.I.A. officers. “These experts make it clear that 9/11 depended upon Iranian assistance to Al Qaeda in acquiring clean passports and visas to enter the United States,” Mr. Mellon said.

But the expert reports do not in most cases seem to go as far as the defectors in contending Iran had foreknowledge of the attacks.

The filing says the defectors worked in Iran’s Ministry of Information and Security “in positions that gave them access to sensitive information regarding Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism.” It says they have reason to fear for the safety of themselves and their families “should their identities and the content of their testimony be revealed publicly.”

[Nordic]

the emanuel goldstein is dead. long live the new emannuel goldtein.

what a freakin joke.

[undead]

This is just in time for the War Against Everyone Including Ourselves law that was just passed, isn't it? I guess this is the standard of justification for new wars, a sealed envelope. And then afterwards when people start asking about it they open the envelope and it turns out that the "defectors" were really "impostors" like that "Taliban leader" they were "negotiating" with in Afghanistan.

[8bitagent]

Gee that's funny...

- Israel had direct foreknowledge of 9/11
- OBL vehemently denies involvement
- Iran aggressively goes after al Qaeda

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34440,00.html

Even the official narrative admits Iran and al Qaeda are mortal enemies, with Zawahiri claiming 9/11 conspiracy theories are Iranian propaganda. And then there is the issue of
the CIA financing al Qaeda linked groups in Baluchistan province to strike targets in Iran

[Nordic]

Just stumbled across this writer at http://sabbah.biz/mt/

Maidhc Ó Cathail

Good stuff: http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/author/maidhc-cathail/

I like to check stuff out here: http://alethonews.wordpress.com/

Where today they're featuring this:

Who’s Afraid of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? which is here:

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/04 ... -theories/

Which was originally published at Sabbah.biz, written by Maidhc O' Cathail.

Whenever someone insists too strongly about something not being true, we tend to suspect that maybe it is. In their denials of involvement in 9/11, do Israel’s apologists “protest too much”?

While it would take a small book to adequately document the Israeli connection to 9/11-as Antiwar.com editor Justin Raimondo has attempted in The Terror Enigma-let us briefly recall some of the more intriguing facts as reported in the mainstream media, involving dancing Israelis, Odigo warnings, and Zim’s timely move.

The story of the five Israelis who were seen celebrating and filming as the Twin Towers burned and collapsed was investigated by Neil Mackay in Scotland’s Sunday Herald. The so-called “dancing Israelis” worked for Urban Moving Systems, later deemed to be a Mossad front by the FBI. Despite failing numerous polygraph tests, the young men were deported to Israel two months later. Back home, several of the men appeared on a TV chat show, in which one of them amazingly said, “Our purpose was to document the event.”

Two employees of Odigo, an Israeli instant messaging service, received messages two hours before the World Trade Center attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, Ha’aretz reported.

Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co., part-owned by the Israeli government, moved their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia one week before the 9/11 attacks, incurring a $50,000 fine for breaking its lease, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Despite being in the public domain, none of these relevant facts are mentioned in the 9/11 Commission’s 567-page report.

Moreover, Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, is concerned about the spread of such inconvenient facts to the wider public. “Our worry,” he says, “is when things become infectious…. [then] this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body.”

But was Zelikow speaking here as an American government official or as a pro-Israeli insider?

In the same month that he authored the so-called “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war, which provided the justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Zelikow made this candid admission: “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990-it’s the threat against Israel.”

Yet, instead of investigating the Israeli connection, Zelikow used the 9/11 Commission to sell the Israeli-inspired Iraq war to the American people.

Zelikow’s “bacteria” quote is cited in a 2008 paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories.” Co-authored by Cass Sunstein, who currently heads President Obama’s White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the main focus of the paper “involves conspiracy theories relating to terrorism, especially theories that arise from and post-date the 9/11 attacks.”

Rather than attempting to debunk such theories, Sunstein and Vermeule claim that those who suspect Israeli involvement in 9/11 suffer from a “crippled epistemology.” This, the authors argue, is due to “a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources.” In other words, “they know very few things, and what they know is wrong.”

To counter these suspicions, Sunstein recommends “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents, or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.”

It could, of course, be argued that Sunstein’s work also suffers from a crippled epistemology-his research relies heavily on pro-Israeli sources, most notably the notorious Islamophobe Daniel Pipes.

Pipes is a bit of an expert on conspiracy theories, having written two books on the subject. “Conspiracism provides a key to understanding the political culture of the Middle East,” Pipes opines in The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy. “It helps explain much of what would otherwise seem illogical or implausible, including the region’s record of political extremism and volatility, its culture of violence, and its poor record of modernization.”

Like Sunstein, Pipes is concerned that many in the region suspect Israeli involvement in 9/11. “The implications in the Middle East are quite profound,” Pipes told the LA-based Jewish Journal. “It’s one more brick in the edifice of fear and loathing of Israel and the Jews.”

In the absence of a proper 9/11 investigation, there remains a broad range of opinion about the precise nature of Israeli complicity. In The Terror Enigma, Justin Raimondo tentatively concludes that the Israeli connection to 9/11 amounts to “foreknowledge and passive collaboration with Bin Laden’s jihad.” Other experts, such as Alan Sabrosky, are less circumspect. Dr. Sabrosky, former director of studies of the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College, has recently stated that “it is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period.”

Either way, it’s hardly surprising that some of the most obsessive critics of 9/11 “conspiracy theories” have ties to Israel. If Americans ever find out that their “staunchest ally” had anything to do with the mass murder of their fellow citizens on September 11, 2001, the would-be conspiracy debunkers have good reason to be afraid.

* Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer based in Japan.

And then I found this:

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/10/1 ... -role-911/

Pentagon Author Exposes Zelikow’s Key Role in 9/11 Cover-Up

In an interview on the Fox Business Network, a retired U.S. intelligence officer accused the official in charge of the 9/11 Commission of a cover-up of intelligence failures leading up to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Appearing on the political talk show Freedom Watch, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer and the author of Operation Dark Heart, a much-hyped new book on the war in Afghanistan, spoke about his mid-October 2003 encounter with Dr. Philip Zelikow, then executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.

During a fact-finding mission to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, Zelikow's team was briefed by Shaffer on Able Danger, a DIA data mining project that had allegedly identified Mohammed Atta as a threat to the U.S. a year before 9/11.

Parenthetically, the "Mohammed Atta" identified by Able Danger may have been an imposter operating under a stolen identity, as occurred in the assassination of a senior Hamas official in Dubai. In an interview with a German newspaper, reported by the Guardian, Mohammed Atta's father claimed that his son had nothing to do with the attacks and was still alive a year after 9/11.

Whichever Mohammed Atta was referred to by Shaffer in Bagram, Zelikow reportedly "fell silent with shock at the news."

According to Shaffer, Zelikow came to him at the end of the meeting, gave him his card, and said: "What you said today is critically important, very important. Please come see me when you return to Washington D.C."

On his return to Washington in January 2004, Shaffer immediately contacted Zelikow's office and was told to "stand by." After a week passed, Shaffer called again, and this time was told by Zelikow's staff: "We don't need you to come in. We have all the information on Able Danger we need. Thank you anyway."

None of the information provided by Shaffer appeared in the 9/11 Commission's 585-page report, however.

In September 2005, more than a year after the publication of the 9/11 report, Shaffer said he met with one of the 9/11 commissioners in Philadelphia. Over lunch, he told the commissioner what he had told Zelikow in Afghanistan. The commissioner said that "he had never heard any of this," adding that, "had he heard of it, it would have been something that was very much of interest to he [sic] and the commission."

"So there's a lot of things that never made it in that 9/11 report?" asked Judge Andrew Napolitano, the host of Freedom Watch.

"Things were either by negligence left out, or, and I believe, by purpose left out," Shaffer replied.

Another guest on the show, Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, spoke of a similarly frustrating experience with the 9/11 Commission staff director.

Describing the 9/11 Commission Report as "a whitewash, and a lie from top to bottom," Scheuer said he provided Zelikow with over 400 pages of official government documents detailing intelligence failures before 9/11.

"I never heard one word back from Zelikow," he said.

"They all seemed very interested in what you had to say," the former CIA officer added, referring to meetings he had with Zelikow and his staff, "but at the end of the day, it didn't make it into the report."

This is not the first time that questions have been raised about Zelikow's handling of the 9/11 Commission.

In his 2009 book, The Commission, Philip Shenon, an investigative reporter for the New York Times, wrote about "how tightly Zelikow was able to control the flow of information on the commission," and that "everything" was "run through" him.

While Zelikow's tight control of the commission excluded disturbing evidence from national security experts like Shaffer and Scheuer, a dubious scholar like Laurie Mylroie was afforded ample opportunity to promote the most spurious justification for the Iraq war. Mylroie, whose major booster in government was Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, argued that Iraq had been involved in every major terrorist attack against the United States since the early 1990s, including 9/11. During commission hearings on al-Qaeda, Zelikow, writes Shenon, "made sure that she had a prominent place at the witness table."

And why wouldn't he? After all, Zelikow had an important role in, as Shenon puts it, "developing the scholarly underpinnings for the Iraq war." It was Zelikow who had authored a thirty-one-page "preemptive war" doctrine which George W. Bush announced to the world in 2002 as "The National Security Strategy of the United States."

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?" Zelikow asked an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. In a rare moment of candour, Zelikow proceeded to explain that the real reason for preemptive war against Iraq was "the threat against Israel."

Judge Napolitano asked Lt. Col. Shaffer if the commissioner in Philadelphia had said whether anyone on the 9/11 Commission "had an agenda, or was covering up for somebody, or was protecting somebody." The commissioner's reply was, according to Shaffer: "Everybody on the commission was covering for someone."

Given the fatal career implications of broaching such a taboo subject, not to mention Rupert Murdoch's well-known devotion to the State of Israel, it's hardly surprising that the Fox presenter didn't probe too deeply into who Philip Zelikow might have been covering for.

Nothing terribly new here, but every time I'm reminded of Zelikow's involvement in this, I see red.

I also found this:

http://911falseflagarchive.blogspot.com ... of_19.html

Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College: Mossad, Jewish neo-cons, and Israelis orchestrated 9/11 attack


Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: 9/11 and Beyond

By Alan Sabrosky.

September 10, 2009 "Information Clearing House' -- The attacks on September 11, 2001 have been a defining moment for America. The political and psychological impact on Americans of a concerted and visible attack in America was enormous -- indeed, it is an interesting "coincidence" that the attacks occurred on the one day of the year whose mention reinforces a public sense here of danger and emergency: 9-1-1.

A significant development in the 1990s was the formation of the neo-conservative think tank known as PNAC (Project for a New American Century), whose members prepared position papers for the Israeli government and for a future US Administration sharing their views. That happened in 2000 with the election of George W. Bush, and a contemporary writer summarized the tip of the neo-conservative iceberg in his first Administration this way:

The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on US policy…PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

Especially significant in terms of subsequent events was the acknowledgement in one of PNAC's own documents that their program for America (and Israel) would not readily be accepted by the American people. What this meant, PNAC opined in 2000, was that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

9/11 Reconsidered

On September 11, 2001, the PNAC people in and out of government -- and by extension AIPAC and Israel -- "coincidentally" got the event they needed, barely eight months after coming into office. Most people are familiar with the basic details of that day -- two commercial aircraft crashing into the two tallest buildings in New York City's World Trade Center (WTC), a third striking the Pentagon, and a fourth ending up in a Pennsylvania field. Few people will forget the images of the burning buildings, their collapse, the casualties, and the sense of shock and tragedy that ensued.

The official 9/11 Commission's work and report were at best an incomplete exercise. Many people dismiss the findings of the Commission, and that includes its co-chairs. Many others who utterly distrust the 9/11 Commission report, dismiss the US Government’s explanation of it, and point to both an official cover-up and an “inside job,” include veteran fighter pilots, EMTs (Emergency Medical Technicians), air defense experts, experienced commercial pilots, demolition experts, architects and civil engineers – none of them professions that inherently attract and retain the gullible and credulous.

Several things are very clear to me from a careful assessment of both official and critical evaluations of the 9/11 attacks. First, the striking aircraft alone simply could not have brought down either of the two buildings in the manner in which they fell, much less a third building which was not hit by a plane (I expect the one intended to do that as a "cover" had ended up in that Pennsylvania field), given the available physical evidence and a wealth of expert testimony. This means the attackers had assistance on the ground, and it had to have been active before the attacks occurred: preparing buildings for controlled demolition is not something done haphazardly in the midst of chaos.

Second, only two intelligence agencies had the expertise, assets, access and political protection to execute 9/11 in the air and on the ground: our CIA and Israel's Mossad. Only one had the incentive, using the “who benefits” principle: Mossad. And that incentive dovetailed perfectly with the neo-con’s agenda and explicitly expressed need for a catalytic event to mobilize the American public for their wars, using American military power to destroy Israel’s enemies. Only the unexpected strength of the Iraqi resistance kept Syria and Iran from being attacked in the second Bush Administration. Thus, the evidential trail for 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq run from PNAC, AIPAC and their cohorts; through the mostly Jewish neo-cons in the Bush Administration; and back to the Israeli government. None of the denials and political machinations can alter that essential reality. Terms such as treason, betrayal and deceit do not overstate the case against them.

Finally, we need to take a hard look at why the mainstream media (MSM) have paid more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they have to dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the US Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath. And the reason is that on this issue, all are on the same side, and the official line is the one they all prefer – “all” meaning the PNAC alumni who took over the Bush Administration’s national security apparatus and their counterparts in the Obama administration, AIPAC and the rest of the numerous Jewish PACs, the MSM owners and Israel. The depiction of the media management in America in 2002 is especially informative, and has not changed significantly since then:

CEOs and Directors of companies change as often as Boards of Directors vote. But if we could “freeze frame” the CEOs of the largest US Media companies in mid 2002, we would find that ten Jewish American men ran the vast majority of US television networks and other media companies including movies, radio, and publishing at that time. Not much has changed today.

Looking Ahead

Today we are getting the same line on Iran, from the same type of people -- Obama himself tries to be more independent, but most of the key staff and national security people in his Administration do not differ greatly on Israel and the Middle East from those of his predecessor. And the Congress has shown itself to be even more of AIPAC's lap-dog than the preceding Congress, an exercise in self-serving cowardice that admittedly has taken some doing.

But AIPAC and company are riding a tiger in America, and if they ever slip, the resulting convulsion will be catastrophic for them and for Israel. The open unfolding of the 9/11 tragedy and its ensuing wars that is now occurring can be that slip. The human cost to America to date is some 60,000 people, military and civilian, killed or wounded on 9/11 and in Iraq and Afghanistan together, with more to come once we go to war with Iran (or get dragged into it following an Israeli attack on Iran). Much of the deliberately misdirected rage that followed 9/11 has given way to endurance and grief.

But grief is a close cousin to rage, and an enraged America is not pretty, as anyone familiar with our history can appreciate. Americans are often deceptive without meaning to be. To much of the world, they often come across as naive, bumbling innocents in the world of global politics. And on a day-to-day basis, there is much truth to that.

But an enraged America is a very different character. You have only to look at what happened in WWII to German and Japanese cities, towns and villages, where America slaughtered literally millions of German and Japanese civilians -- most of them women and children -- knew it was doing it, and cared nothing at all. The goal was to crush, and restraint was not a word used much at all.

If these Americans and those like them ever fully understand just how much of their suffering -- and the suffering we have inflicted on others -- is properly laid on the doorsteps of Israel and its advocates in America, they will sweep aside those in politics, the press and the pulpits alike whose lies and disloyalty brought this about and concealed it from them. They may well leave Israel looking like Carthage after the Romans finished with it. It will be Israel’s own great fault.

Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net

The bolded parts are a lovely pipe dream, but I'm convinced will never happen. An entire generation has been brainwashed into thinking OBL and a bunch of hairy fanatic Muslims did 9/11, and in ten more years, that will be even more ensconsed into the American psyche. And at that point it will be ancient history, like with JFK, and nobody's really gonna care. It's now part of America's Mythological Past, like Christopher Columbus and Thanksgiving Turkey.

[8bitagent]

@Nordic:

You bring up a lot of bullseye points man. And this is the most peculiar aspect of 9/11...unlike the ISI "connections" which often seem tenuous at best...and even the links to Saudi intelligence...

The Israeli factor is so over the top, that it is like an elephant in the room. Remember how within days the first conspiracies of 9/11 concerned "Jews told not to go to work". Then Bush two months later said "we should never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories regarding the events of September 11th", saying he was referencing the Jewish conspiracies. Even "al Qaeda" Zawahiri claims Israeli links to 9/11 are all lies.
So pretty much, from the getgo the mission was to paint questioners of 9/11 as Jew hating anti Semites...because originally before the "inside job/neocon" theories, it was about Israel. And as we all know Nordic, criticizing Israel means you're a racist Jew hater!

But here's the thing...sadly, most google searches for Israeli connections to 9/11 are straight out of S-Front world. Look at any random post on Prisonplanet or other sites and it's filled with "Jew this, Jew that".
Same with youtube. So yeah, I can see why this has been buried. Hell when Fox News aired a 20 minute documentary on the possible Israeli connection to 9/11 in 2002, it was quickly squashed.

You have Israeli spies/agents literally living next door or within blocks to a number of the hijacker rented homes in Florida during both 2000 and 2001(one of them includes the student art guerrilla group B-Thing who staged the 2000 World Trade Center window stunt...another artist from the troupe lived next to Hamas funding Infocom in Dallas with other Israeli agents)

You have all the stories of white vans in NYC and NJ the day of 9/11, as well as the white van that approached Bush's secret service the morning of 9/11 in Florida. So Florida, NYC and NJ seemed to be a hotbed of Mossad activity. And then the whole art student/toy kiosk mall angle with military surveilence and communication infiltration

Now that Fox News article from 2001 flat out says Israel had advance knowledge of the attacks. And Netanyahu repeatedly as said 9/11 was a VERY very good thing for Israel
And what of the high level former anti airjacking commando Daniel Lewin being the alleged first victim of 9/11, allegedly shot in the head on Flight 11?
Is the limited hangout that Israel knew of the coming attack and was surveying the hijackers...in a kind of "well, fuck America...let them experience terrorism finally so they'll sympathize with us?"
Thats the fallback theory some have suggested, illustrated by here to "document" the event.

I wonder if there's a real link between Ptech and Israel too, because hampering computer systems in 2000/2001 seemed to be another key factor.
Bottom line, the links between Israel and 9/11 seem stronger than any other foreign nation states (possible) involvement...but to "go there" is considered taboo.

[8bitagent]

The bolded parts are a lovely pipe dream, but I'm convinced will never happen. An entire generation has been brainwashed into thinking OBL and a bunch of hairy fanatic Muslims did 9/11, and in ten more years, that will be even more ensconsed into the American psyche. And at that point it will be ancient history, like with JFK, and nobody's really gonna care. It's now part of America's Mythological Past, like Christopher Columbus and Thanksgiving Turkey.

Regarding the bolded part, even some of the most left of the leftist people Ive known make it a point to gloss over war crimes committed by the West/Soviets during WW2 saying it was all justified and that it shouldn't even be brought up. Well, why can't we just consider it all the holocaust? Nanking, Dresden, Tokyo Fire Bombing, Death Camps, Ukrainian forced starvation, Unit 731, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.
To me it's all evil of the highest magnitude. I mean literally burning the flesh of hundreds of thousands of innocent families eating supper...how can any sane rational person think that was a good thing?
Japan was going to surrender anyways, according to leaked documents.

Now, JFK...remember when it was safe for the public to believe JFK was an inside job? During the late 80's and 90's? Well since 9/11, there's been a HUGE push to "reclaim history" by news networks, cable shows, books, etc. Now people's opinions have gone back to believing the lone gunmen theory. Alex Jones had the author of "Reclaiming History", saying he's committed to having Tom Hanks star in some HBO docudrama to "show people how the conspiracies are wrong". PBS showed "Oswald's Ghosts", aimed at "Dispelling the conspiracies". Bugliosi write a book saying Bush is a war criminal and should be sent to the Hague...oh, but JFK...totally the act of a lone gunmen. The disconnect is quite large there.

Finally, for awhile it was hip for a lot of liberals to say "yeah, maybe 9/11 was a setup". Loose Change was a big fad, and in 2006 every mainstream magazine, show, etc was aggressively covering the 9/11 theories...it was this huge pop phenomenon where polls showed a lot of people questioned 9/11. Flash forward to the Obama era...now it seems very few liberals and people in general question the official narrative. We've all been tucked into bed, kissed on the forehead and told not to worry...the wolf is not really bad, it's all a fairytale

[8bitagent]

Also not really in reference to anyone on here, but I'm tired of people putting down fellow truthers who point to a wider globalist conspiracy beyond the "neocon inside job" meme.

It's not just Indira Singh who pointed at a vast transnational financial interest tied to 9/11. This is an exceptional article that shows the very deep state financial interests directly linked to the financing of bin Laden and al Qaeda. Large financial firms all over the world:

http://911review.org/brad.com/Iridium/IRIDIUM.html
http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ ... parts-1-2/
http://spitfirelist.com/news/banking-with-bin-laden/



Many truthers want to paint 9/11 *strictly* as a neocon "inside job", no involvement of anyone Arab. "No such thing as al Qaeda, bin Laden is totally innocent, hijackers are alive, yada yada". To me this is the same as people who think bin Laden acted alone, and push the blowback/al Qaeda is independent meme.
But all the evidence points to a much more wider conspiracy at work with many moving parts, or the "meta play" as PDS posits.

[seemslikeadream]

I may buy the issue to get the whole article

Iran and the Bomb
How real is the nuclear threat?
by Seymour M. Hersh June 6, 2011

ABSTRACT: ANNALS OF NATIONAL SECURITY about whether Iran’s nuclear program is being exaggerated. Is Iran actively trying to develop nuclear weapons? Members of the Obama Administration often talk as if this were a foregone conclusion, as did their predecessors under George W. Bush. There’s a large body of evidence, however, including some of America’s most highly classified intelligence assessments, suggesting that the U.S. could be in danger of repeating a mistake similar to the one made with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq eight years ago—allowing anxieties about the policies of a tyrannical regime to distort our estimates of the state’s military capacities and intentions. The two most recent National Intelligence Estimates (N.I.E.s) on Iranian nuclear progress have stated that there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has made any effort to build the bomb since 2003. Yet Iran is heavily invested in nuclear technology. In the past four years, it has tripled the number of centrifuges in operation at its main enrichment facility at Natanz, which is buried deep underground. International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) inspectors have expressed frustration with Iran’s level of coöperation, but have been unable to find any evidence suggesting that enriched uranium has been diverted to an illicit weapons program. In mid-February, Lieutenant General James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, provided the House and Senate intelligence committees with an updated N.I.E. on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program. A previous assessment, issued in 2007, created consternation and anger inside the Bush Administration and in Congress by concluding, “with high confidence,” that Iran had halted its nascent nuclear-weapons program in 2003. Mentions the Defense Intelligence Agency (D.I.A.), W. Patrick Lang, and Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess, Jr. Thomas E. Donilon, Obama’s national-security adviser, said in a speech on May 12th that the U.S. would continue its aggressive sanction policy until Iran proves that its enrichment intentions are peaceful and meets all its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. Obama has been prudent in his public warnings about the consequences of an Iranian bomb, but he and others in his Administration have often overstated the available intelligence about Iranian intentions. Mentions Robert Einhorn. Israel views Iran as an existential threat. Nevertheless, most Israeli experts on nonproliferation agree that Iran does not now have a nuclear weapon. A round of negotiations five months ago between Iran and the West, first in Geneva and then in Istanbul, yielded little progress. Mentions Benjamin Netanyahu. The unending political stress between Washington and Tehran has promoted some unconventional thinking. One approach, championed by retired ambassador Thomas Pickering and others, is to accept Iran’s nuclear-power program, but to try to internationalize it, and offer Iran various incentives. Pickering and his associates are convinced that the solution to the nuclear impasse is to turn Iran’s nuclear-enrichment programs into a multinational effort. Mentions a 2008 essay Pickering, Jim Walsh, and William Luers published in The New York Review of Books. Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient who is now a candidate for the Presidency of Egypt, spent twelve years as the director-general of the I.A.E.A., retiring two years ago. In his recent interview, he said, “I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran.”