The “reversible false flag” scheme and the “hijacked plot” hypothesis
A new paradigm in 9/11ologyThree major thesis are in competition concerning the culprit of the 9/11 attacks:
1. Islam Job: the official conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, blaming Muslim terrorists in general, and Osama bin Laden in particular;
2. Inside Job: the dominant thesis within the so-called 9/11 Truth movement, which accuses the American government, or a faction within the American Deep State;
3. Mossad Job: the rising alternative thesis within the community of truth seekers, which claim that the masterminds were a Zionist network close to the Israeli Likud.There are variations on each thesis and middle grounds between them, but three camps can clearly be distinguished: the first ridicule the second as “conspiracy theorists”, while the second loath the third as anti-Semites. Each thus justifies its refusal to weigh the evidence produced by the other. Acknowledging this reality, by renouncing the bipolar vision of an information warfare between official liars and 9/11 truthers, and paying attention to the debate (or absence of the debate) between Inside-jobbers and Mossad-jobbers, is the first step toward a paradigm shift in “9/11ology”.
This article takes the view of the third thesis. The author belongs to those who, after thousands of hours of research, came to the conclusion that the 9/11 false flag operation was planned by a Zionist network, with the aim of dragging the United States into a “war on terror” of their invention, of which the only ultimate beneficiary will be Israel, as Netanyahu well understood from the very day: “It’s very good […], it will generate immediate sympathy […], strengthen the bond between our two peoples.”
I have already listed the evidence against Israel in a previous article and in my book JFK-9/11 (Progressive Press, 2014). The subject of this article is not the truth on 9/11—who did what and how—, but the media war on 9/11: who says what and why. Nevertheless, such an approach requires that we are able to weigh the credibility of each claim, and we will do that on a few key points.
We can notice from the outset that theses 1 and 3 each accuse a foreign power, unlike thesis 2. Before even looking at the evidence, it is obvious that an Outside Job thesis is more credible than the Inside Job thesis. There is something monstrous in the idea that a government can deceive and terrorize its own citizens by killing thousands of them, just for starting a series of wars which are not even in the nation’s interest. By comparison, a foreign power attacking the US under the false flag of a third power almost seems like fair play. This is an important remark, because it makes us wonder how and why the 9/11 Truth movement has been led to endorse massively the outrageous thesis 2 without even considering the more likely thesis 3. This is one of the questions I will tackle here.
The thesis that the masterminds of 9/11 worked for Israel does not mean that the Bush administration is innocent. Thesis 3 admits that thesis 2, unlike thesis 1, is not completely false and rests on hard evidence pointing to US complicity. But it claims that thesis 2 overrates that evidence while ignoring the evidence pointing to Israel. The question is to what extent it does so intentionally, that is, to what extent thesis 2 is a “controlled opposition” intended to cover up the truth of thesis 3.
Asking this type of question does not mean suspecting anyone who defends an erroneous or incomplete theory of being a hypocrite. Most people defending one theory or the other do so sincerely, based on the information they have access to. I have myself been a believer in thesis 1 for 7 years, and in thesis 2 for 2 years, before progressively moving on to thesis 3 from 2010. On the other hand, we can assume that those who lead masses into error on a long term, are not just mistaken but lying —they may also be lying to themselves, i.e., engaged in self-deception. In any case, it is legitimate to investigate the background and the means of opinion makers, and when they are caught lying or distorting the truth, we can ponder about their motivation.
This is what we will do in the first part, so as to demonstrate that liers are not confined to the official storytellers’ camp. It is not enough that someone challenges the official Big Lie for us to believe him blindly; his arguments and allegations should be judged by the same standard. The purpose of the two following examples is, firstly, to show the need for a critical mind when listening to dissenting theses, and, secondly, to show the need for a new paradigm taking into account the several layers of lies stacked on top of the truth. We will outline this new paradigm in a second part, in the form of a working hypothesis. Then, in a third part, we will see if this new paradigm is consistent with certain technical issues currently dividing 9/11 truthers.
I. phony whistleblowers and the ControlLed opposition
Example n°1: Bob Graham
It is easy to bridge thesis 2 and 3 by imagining American interests in cahoots with Israel.
Likewise, it is possible to make theses 1 and 2 overlap by blaming bin Laden while accusing the US administration of complicity.
Let’s see a couple of examples of this later stand, which we may call the “soft opposition”.
It rests strongly on the testimony of senator Bob Graham, who, in his capacity of Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was asked to join the 9/11 Commission. In his book Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America’s War on Terror (Random House, 2004),and in articles, conferences and interviews, Graham claims that the Commission was informed of evidence that members of the Saudi royal family financed Al-Qaeda, but that the government censorship of 28 pages of the Commission’s report dealing with this issue, because of “the special personal friendship between the [Saudi] royal family and the highest levels of our national government [meaning the President].”
Anyone who believes that the story of bin Laden’s responsibility in 9/11 is a lie must logically conclude that the story of the Sauds’ complicity with bin Laden is another lie —one lie inside another. Since the 9/11 Commission report is a scam, it doesn’t make any difference if the censored 28 pages — which Graham has never leaked anyway — do exist or not; they are part of the scam. Let us stress, however, that even within the theory of bin Laden’s responsibility, the Sauds’ complicity make no sense at all. The Sauds have stripped Osama bin Laden of his citizenship in April 1994, exasperated by his nagging accusations for their acceptance of US military presence on the holy ground of Islam.
In a 1996 declaration, bin Laden called for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy, and in 1998, he admitted his role in the November 13, 1995 attack against the National Guard headquarters in Riyadh. Osama bin Laden, anathematized by his own family, is the sworn enemy of the Sauds, who have put a price on his head. Why would the royal family help him strike their longtime US ally? “The answer I have come to”, writes Graham, “is survival—survival of the state and survival of the House of Saud.” What he means is that the Saudi princes were forced to help bin Laden strike the United States under “the threat of civil unrest against the monarchy, led by Al-Qaeda.” Anyone trying to convince people of such absurdity can only be a disinformation agent. Far from being the courageous whistleblower who refuses to play the part the government asked him to, Graham is playing exactly the role he was hired for. The question is: Who wrote his script? That is an easy question: Bob Graham is the brother-in-law of Katharine Graham, heir of her father Eugene Meyer’s Washington Post, a major Zionist propaganda machine in the US. By claiming on PBS in December 2002, that there is “evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States”, Graham is diverting suspicion away from the only “foreign government” whose links with the terrorist suspects of Hollywood, Florida, are out in the open: Israel (an enemy of Saudi Arabia, as it happens).
The indictment of Saudi Arabia is a phony dissension. The plan to accuse and threaten Saudi Arabia was clearly built in the 9/11 false flag scenario, by the decision to include 15 Saudis in the phony list of the 19 hijackers. Why such a choice, if not to make sure that the Sauds could be targeted as a prime suspect and therefore pressured and threatened? But why would the perpetrators target specially Saudi Arabia, the oldest and most loyal ally of the United States in the Middle East? Who is trying to damage that relationship by portraying the Sauds as traitors? That is, again, an easy question: just like the ludicrous idea of Saddam Hussein’s complicity in 9/11, the no less ludicrous idea of the Sauds’ complicity is a neoconservative invention. David Wurmser first opened fire in the Weekly Standard in October 2001 with an article titled “The Saudi Connection: Osama bin Laden’s a lot closer to the Saudi royal family than you think”, pretending that, ultimately, the Saudi royal family was behind the attack. Long before 9/11, the Hudson Institute, a bastion of neoconservative doctrine (co-founded by Max Singer, now at the Institute for Zionist Strategies in Jerusalem), had been involved in a campaign to demonize the Saudi dynasty. And on July 10th, 2002, longtime member Laurent Murawiec explained before Richard Perle’s Defense Policy Board that Saudi Arabia represented “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent”, recommended that the US army invade it, occupy it and dismember it. In their 2003 book, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, Richard Perle and David Frum (Bush’s speech-writer) write that “The Saudis qualify for their own membership in the axis of evil”, and ask President Bush to “tell the truth about Saudi Arabia”, meaning that Saudi princes finance Al Qaeda.
That not-so-subtle accusation against President Bush is proof enough that a media war is being waged between the neocons and the White House during the whole of Bush II’s term. By claiming that the Saudi trail has been covered up because of the Bushs’ friendship with the Sauds, Graham and the neocons are pushing the president into the defensive, under the threat of unleashing a major scandal. The business partnership forged by the Bushs with Saudi princes is notorious. It may go back to 1976, when CIA Director George H. W. Bush first traded with the bin Mahfouzs and the bin Ladens, but it was broadened during the Gulf War, when the elder President Bush was posing as protector of Saudi Arabia. Since that time, the Bushs are notoriously close to Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud (nicknamed Bandar Bush), a member of the royal family, ambassador in Washington from 1983 to 2005. The Carlyle Group, of which George H. W. Bush is a major shareholder, played a central role in the Bushs’ ties with the Sauds, including a nephew of King Fahd. A scandal broke out in March 2001, during one of Bush’s visits to Saudi Arabia, as acting head of the Carlyle Group. The nature of his meeting with King Fahd raised questions: was this a diplomatic meeting, private business travel, or both? On the same occasion, the former President also met the bin Laden family, in business with Carlyle since 1990.
Because of this business connection, it seems highly improbable that the Bushs were consulted for the choice of Osama bin Laden as the patsy for 9/11. And it is just as highly improbable that they were consulted for the date, because September the 11th happened to be the date scheduled for the yearly assembly of the Carlyle Group in Washington. On that day, Bush senior would be meeting Shafig bin Laden (Osama’s half-brother), among dozens of other Saudi investors, as Michael Moore revealed in his award-winning film Fahrenheit 9/11. In the following week, in violation of the flight ban maintained by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), a Boeing 747 from Saudi Arabian Airlines was allowed to leave the United States, carrying 140 Saudis, including Shafig bin Laden and twenty members of his family.These news caused considerable embarrassment for the Bush family in the aftermath of 9/11. It is quite obvious that the date was chosen, not in spite of the Carlyle meeting on Bush’s agenda, but because of it, with the purpose of putting the President’s family under some form of blackmail. Is it possible that 9/11 was set up in such a way as to not only openly incriminate bin Laden, but also to potentially incriminate the Bushs?
Before we look into the deeper roots of that test of strength between the neocons and the Bush clan, let’s ask which media relayed the neocon accusation against the Sauds. Curiously, it is not Fox News but rather the opposite end of the spectrum: Graham is interviewed by Democracy Now, the very respectable Internet channel founded by Amy Goodman, icon of the radical, antiwar left, whose maternal grandfather, Wikipedia informs us, was an Orthodox rabbi, and whose most regular guest is Noam Chomsky, the gatekeeper par excellence.
Let’s recap: If you once were gullible and trusted mainstream media, you believed the invasion of Iraq was motivated by Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, and/or that the US got militarily involved in the Middle East in order to fight a “war on terror”. If you are now skeptical and prefer to trust alternative Internet journalism such as Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now — or Paul Jay’s The Real News, or Russ Baker’s WhoWhatWhy — you believe that the US is “reshaping” the Middle East in the interest of Big Oil, the Military-Industrial Complex, or some other American interest including the Bush dynasty. In both cases, you have been fooled. This is the “double lie” principle, the media equivalent of the psychological “double bind” which paralyses freethinking. When you break free from the lies of mainstream news, you find yourself in another world of lies; and your trust for those who pulled you out of the first lie by showing you a portion of the truth, makes it even harder for you to see that second lie. You now feel above the crowd, and unless you are a genuine truth-seeker, you feel fine there.
The opposition of the Democracy Now type is phony: it accepts the 9/11 official story — the Big Lie — only to cast suspicions on the Sauds, the Bushs, the Pentagon, the military industry, the oil lobby… never the Zionists. It is a “controlled opposition”, designed to engage in a false debate with mainstream propaganda. The idea is comparable to wrestling: the roles are prearranged. The more violent the figth appears, the better, but the violence is mostly faked: all is fair, as long as it doesn’t seriously hurt. What is important is to keep people watching the show, and not being distracted by the real issue. The real issue today is Zionist supremacism and its role in world wars past, present, and future. This is the issue that must not be addressed.
Keeping America’s bad conscience constantly in a neurotic state, this controlled opposition makes sure that Israel’s crimes can always be blamed on America: after all, Israel is the 51st American State, Washington’s beachhead in the Middle East, according to Chomsky. This makes Zionist expansionism look like a local manifestation of American imperialism. Since 2001, this crypto-Zionist left also justifies all the real or imaginary crimes of Islamic terrorism, including 9/11, by legitimate resentment against America. Between the mainstream mediaholding Arabs and Muslims directly responsible for all evils in the world, and this so-called alternative journalism holding America indirectly responsible for the same evils, American public opinion is squeezed between the two jaws of a pair of mental pliers. At the other end, it is ultimately the same power holding both jaws, as is well illustrated by those Trotskyists turned neoconservatives.
This controlled opposition is a “soft” opposition, in the sense that it will not challenge the 9/11 Big Lie. When questioned on that issue, Howard Zinn, like Noam Chomsky, will answer that the question is not who perpetrated the attacks, but why does bin Laden hates America so much. Armed with a better understanding of media warfare strategy, let’s now move one level below, into the 9/11 Truth movement.
Example n°2: Aaron Russo
Let’s go directly to Alex Jones’s Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com, comparable in audience to Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now. In the beginning of 2007, Jones interviewed Aaron Russo, a Hollywood producer. Russo pretended to have been befriended by Nicholas Rockefeller, who then forewarned him about the 9/11 attacks and its aftermaths eleven months before it happened, and attributed them to a conspiracy fomented at the heart of the Council on Foreign Relations by the financial elite of which he was part. The ultimate aim of the false flag operation, Nick Rockefeller allegedly told Russo, was to establish a New World Order based on the enslavement of all mankind for the benefit of a global elite. Among other “revelations”, Nick explained that the women’s liberation movement was invented by this elite as a way to transform women into taxpayers, and that the next step would be the implantation of a microchip into every human being.
Is Aaron Russo’s amazing testimony reliable? No. There does exist a Californian lawyer by the name of Nick Rockefeller, but he is nowhere to be found in the family tree of the famous Rockefeller dynasty. At best, he is only a minor and distant member of the family. The probability that he would know such a secret, let alone share it with a small Hollywood producer, is totally preposterous. Yet Russo’s claim has had tremendous success on the net. Russo died six months after his “revelation”, of a cancer he had been battling for seven years.
Alex Jones (husband to a Jewish wife, the daughter of Edmund Lowe Nichols and Sandra Kay Heiligman) is to the 9/11 Truthmovementwhat Amy Goodman is to the liberal left: he disseminates half-truths and sometimes full lies, with the purpose of diverting attention from the core truth of 9/11. His obsession is the New World Order, a concept so broad that it may be attached to any form of power, real or fantasized. Two family names, however, are attached to that concept in Alex Jones’ paradigm: Rockefeller and Bush. Rockefeller, mostly because of David Rockefeller’s founding role in the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission; Bush, because of George H.W.’s famous speech (on September 11th, 1990, as it happens) before Congress, in which he announced “an era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. […] A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility of freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak…”. What sense does it make to read in that totally demagogical speech, a secret plan to enslave mankind? “A new world order” is just a phrase, it can mean anything you like; repeating it every time something weird is going on does not make investigative journalism. Pay close attention, for example, to the real content of Invisible Empire (2010), the latest film by Jason Bermas (author of the Loose Change series), produced by Alex Jones: is there any hard evidence of anything in there? It is a collection of conflations, rumors and slogans, a salad of all the commonplace on the New World Order, with, of course, the leading roles given to the Bushs and the Rockefellers. Brainwashing stuff.
It is hard to say precisely what the New World Order is for Alex Jones, Jason Bermas and the likes, but it is easy to say what it is not: Zionism. You won’t even hear from them that the neocons are Jewish. Ever. In fact, they may call you an anti-Semite if you say so.
“Bush” and “Rockefeller” can be taken, in this context, as kinds of false flags. Which name could, by contrast, best serve as the flag of the real perpetrators? Perhaps the name of the dynasty whose wealth is estimated at 50 trillion dollars, which Alex Jones will never utter. Let me give you a clue with another misuse of the name Rockefeller: that famous quote where David Rockefeller thanks the Washington Post, the New York Times and other publications for having “respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years” on the Trilateral Commission’s project for a “supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers.” That quote, disseminated throughout the Internet like a virus, is another hoax. Of course the Rockefellers do not control the Washington Post and the New York Times!We know very well who do. It would be more credible if a Rothschild (a heir to Lord Rothschild of the English Zionist Federation, to whom was addressed the Balfour Declaration in 1917) would congratulate the Grahams and the Sulzbergers (hereditary directors of the Washington Post and the New York Times respectively) for their discretion of seventy years on the crimes and deceptions of Israel, wouldn’t it? Let’s face it: the Rockefellers and their New World Order are Alex Jones’s false flag for the Rothschilds and their Empire of Zion.
Let’s recap, again: If you are credulous and trust the government, you believe that 9/11 is the work of Al-Qaeda. If you are skeptical and trust Alex Jones and other related 9/11 Truth investigators such as Jason Bermas of Loose Change or Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange.com, you believe 9/11 was an inside job, perpetrated by a New World Order conspiracy which includes the Bushs and the Rockefellers (Big Oil, Wall Street, etc.). In both cases, you are being fooled.It is important to recognize that the dominant voices in the 9/11 Truth movement are partly engaged in disinformation, with the obvious intent to divert suspicions from Israel. It is important to be aware of their occasional deceptions and not repeat them uncritically. It is important to expose them, and to build an alternative third way. These “half-truthers” want us to continue chanting “9/11 is an inside job”, and will never even hint at the evidence pointing to Israel; they will even feign to ignore that the neocons are an almost exclusively Jewish Zionist ideological network. To this “mainstream” 9/11 Truth movement belong the most visible films produced so far, including the recent fiction by Art Olivier, Operation Terror (2012) and the upcoming docu-thriller by David Hooper, The Anatomy of a Great Deception (2014).
This new controlled opposition is not necessarily leftwing (Alex Jones, a fervent defender of the Fifth Amendment, is rather seen as a rightwing, patriotic libertarian). Nevertheless, it agrees on many points with the more “traditional” controlled opposition discussed above. While they interpret 9/11 differently, both levels of controlled opposition target Saudi Arabia, and both cry foul on the Bushs and the Rockefellers. Ultimately, both hold US imperialism directly or indirectly responsible for 9/11. But more importantly, both shield Israel from suspcicion, just like the official story. In this way, the Zionist crime is buried under three layers of media lies. If there is a lesson to learn from the examples above, it is that an efficient quest for truth is primarily a hunt for lies.
Among the lies shared by both levels of controlled opposition is the claim that the US Middle East wars are for oil. “Of course it was Iraq’s energy resources. It’s not even a question,” says Noam Chomsky, (echoed by Alan Greenspan, who repeats “what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”). In fact, as James Petras has convincingly shown,“‘Big Oil’ not only did not promote the invasion, but has failed to secure a single oil field, despite the presence of 160,000 US troops, 127,000 Pentagon/State Department paid mercenaries and a corrupt puppet régime.” Oil companies are perfectly happy to deal with dictatorships. What they need is stability, not democracy. And what they have always lobbied for is the lifting of sanctions that prohibited dealing with Saddam’s Iraq — the same they are asking for Iran. Like your typical Chomskian dissenter, the average 9/11 truther takes for granted that the ultimate purpose of 9/11 was Middle East oil (although there is no oil in Afghanistan), and conveniently exempts himself from the need to prove his claim: “I personally believe that there is a deep relationship between the events of 9/11 and peak oil, but it’s not something I can prove,” admits Richard Heinberg, a specialist in energy depletion, in the documentary Oil, Smoke and Mirrors.
II. The reversible false flag and the Hijacked plot
The reversible false flag
In some way, the Inside Jobtheoryexposes 9/11 as a false flag operation, yet still functions as a false flag itself, since by directing public outrage against the US government, it fails to designate the masterminds of the operation. It trades one false flag for another, although of course, the US flag is, in that matter, not 100 percent false. This basic observation leads us to formulate a new paradigm for understanding 9/11, one which takes into account the two false flags — one sewed behind the other — designed within the plot.
One of the purposes of having a US false flag sewed or hidden under the Al-Qaeda false flag, is to force the US leaders to pretend they believe in the bin Laden fairy tale, knowing full well that lifting the bin Laden mask will make Uncle Sam’s face appear under it. Since they know they don’t have control of the media, they also know they would not be able to lift that second mask to expose Israel. They would be politically dead before even trying.
But it is not enough to control mainstream and alternative media. Those who orchestrated 9/11 must also control the 9/11 Truth movement. As I will show, this movement was not just infiltrated and contaminated by people with another agenda than “truth”, but largely led from the beginning by such people. While corporate media stick to the official Al-Qaeda thesis, the dominant stream of the 9/11 Truth movement defends exclusively the Inside Job thesis. Despite their outward disagreement, both are basically Israel-friendly. This puts the US officials in an impossible dilemma, and forces them to cover Israel’s crime to save their own ass. If one day, under mounting pressure from public opinion or for some other strategic reason, the mainstream media abandons the official story, the well-rehearsed slogan “9/11 was an inside job” will have prepared Americans to turn against their own government, while the neocon Zionists will remain legally untouchable. And God knows what will happen, if the government has not by then succeeded to disarm its citizens through Sandy Hook-types psy-ops. Government officials have little choice but to stick to the Al-Qaeda story, at least for the next fifty years.
By formulating this “reversible false flag” or “double lie” paradigm, I do not claim to bring a Copernican revolution in 9/11ology. The concept is no more than a standing point from where to grasp apparently contradictory phenomena in a complex media world. But it also provides a plausible reconstruction of the pattern on which the 9/11 plot was masterminded. Imagine that a Zionist network wants to orchestrate a false flag operation to attract the United States into its “war of civilization” in the Middle East, unwinnable by Israel alone. Do they have the means to deceive the huge American Intelligence machine? No. But they have both the means to deceive public opinion, and the means to force enough people in the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, the National Security Council and the Intelligence community, to go along with their lie. At least for some time. One way is to carefully place the US flag under the false flag of Al-Qaeda, so that anyone trying to pull the veil of the official story will disclose American involvement — and even risk seeing his own face — before having a chance to expose Israel. It would be like opening Pandora’s box. The Bushs certainly understand this. The controlled opposition of the first type (Amy Goodman) and the controlled opposition of the second type (Alex Jones) constantly remind them that their portrait lies just under bin Laden’s portrait. This explains why incriminating evidence against President Bush and his family, as well as against the Pentagon, the CIA and other government institutions, have been built in the scenario. Followers of the Inside Job theory take this evidence at face value, without realizing the enormity of the mistakes they suppose on the part of the Bush family in particular.
To sum up, the reversible false flag is handled in a threefold way: the mainstream media show only the Al-Qaeda side, the controlled 9/11 Truth movement exposes the US side, and the alternative (chomskian) media show mostly the Al-Qaeda side but occasionally flip some corners to hint at US complicity)
Israel in the wider sense
Having drawn the general outline of our new paradigm, we need to clarify certain points. First, when we say that Israel orchestrated 9/11, what do we mean by “Israel”?
Like “Jewishness” — is it a religious faith, or an ethnic heritage? —, “Israel” is an ambivalent concept. Until 1947, Israel was commonly used (interchangeably with Judea) to designate the worldwide community of all Jewish people; for example when the British Daily Express of March 24, 1933 published a front-page article headlined “Judea Declares War on Germany,” announcing that “The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany.” But in May 1948, the Zionists decided to name their self-proclaimed “Jewish nation” in Palestine, Israel, thus giving it a second meaning. These two notions largely overlap, from a Jewish point of view, since every Jew is virtually an Israeli citizen: he just has to ask to become one officially. Moreover, recent surveys show that Israel is the second most important idea to which American Jews attach their “sense of being Jewish”, after the Holocaust, before God and the Torah.
In the larger sense, common among Jews, Israel includes all those who feel strongly attached to the State of Israel. Israel is a loyalty rather than a legal citizenship. But when we say that Israel orchestrated 9/11, we use Israel in an intermediate sense between the restrictive sense and the wider sense: we do not include the Jewish community at large, but only their financial and cultural elites, and above all, their self-proclaimed representatives. That includes the 52 national Jewish American organizations and lobbies, and their coordinating structure the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who are actively and overtly defending Israel’s interests, even when they are fighting anti-Zionism by calling it anti-Semitism.
In this sense, Israel has two world capitals: Tel Aviv and New York. Jacob Neusner compares “American Jewry” to the community of exiles in Babylon, which was the center of universal Judaism for one millennium (and the birthplace of the Babylonian Talmud). The history of the relationship between American Jews and Zionist immigrants in Palestine is well known: in the first half of the 20th century, although the Yiddish press had espoused the Zionist cause, the majority of American Jews showed little support for it, believing that Israel was doing fine in the form of a Diaspora, and having no desire to emigrate to Palestine as Zionists claimed every Jew should do. Then, in the 1950s, “an accommodation was reached between the Jewish state in Israel and the Jewish state in America”, in the words of Benjamin Ginsberg. The 1967 Arab/Israeli war a turning point: “the immediate reaction of American Jewry to the crisis was far more intense and widespread than anyone could have foreseen,” writes Arthur Hertzberg in Being Jewish in America (1979), and many American Jews could identify with the statement of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, that until that time, “I had not known how Jewish I was,” adds Charles Silberman in A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today (1985).Zionists, from their side, recognized the legitimacy of serving Israel while residing in “the nations”.
Today, among political, financial and cultural elites, there is hardly any difference between American and Israeli Jews from the point of view of their loyalty to the “Jewish State”. Many have dual citizenship, and reside alternatively in the US and in Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu is a case in point: the son of Ben Zion Netanyahu (born Mileikowsky in Warsaw), he lived, studied and worked in the United States from 1960 to 1978, except for his military service. He published in English in the 1980s (International Terrorism: Challenge and Response in 1982 and Terrorism: How the West can Win in 1986), and in the 1990s, he was a familiar face on CNN, a master of hasbara who helped turn CNN into a Zionist propaganda machine. Conversely, many American neoconservatives, who hold high positions in the federal administration, have relatives in Israel and/or have lived there. Many are overtly close to the Likud party, and some have even served officially as advisors to Netanyahu.
Let us not forget that neoconservatism is an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of Commentary, the monthly magazine of the American Jewish Committee. “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it,” writes Gal Beckerman of The Jewish Daily Forward (January 6, 2006).
Most redactors of Commentary were leftists, like its editor in chief from 1960 to 1995, Norman Podhoretz; some were confessed Trotskyists, like Irving Kristol.It is only in the 70s that Commentary became, in the words of Benjamin Balint, “The Contentious Magazine that Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative Right” (subtitle of his 2010 book Running “Commentary”), and that the leading intellectuals of this movement traded their anti-war stance for a strong advocacy of American military hegemony.
Their true reason is given away by Irving Kristol in the 1973 issue of the journal of the American Jewish Congress:
“Jews don’t like a big military budget, but it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States. [...] American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.” Or by Norman Podhoretz who in his book Breaking Ranks in 1979 wrote that American isolationism would represent “a direct threat to the security of Israel.”The neocons’ duplicity has been clearly exposed by the translation of a Hebrew document entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, written in 1996 specifically for the new Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by a team of the Israeli think tank Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), which was led by Richard Perle and included Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and his wife Meyrav Wurmser. The same year, the same authors signed the founding manifesto of PNAC in the US, and four years later, they would be positioned in key posts of the US military and US foreign policy. As its title suggests, Clean Break invites Netanyahu to betray Israel’s commitment to the Oslo Accords of 1993, and to instead “engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism”, meaning reaffirming Israel’s right over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and creating the conditions for the occupation of new territories, until the restoration of the biblical borders.
The main problem of the Inside Job paradigm is that it ignores the neocons’ obvious loyalty to Israel. Webster Tarpley sees them as mere “moles” of an “invisible government” controlled from Wall Street, when in fact, they are “moles” of a foreign government (which is also, in some way, an “invisible government”). When Tarpley does mention one foreign government as suspect, it is Great Britain: “The foreign intelligence service which contributed the most indirect support to 9/11 was unquestionably the British MI-6,” but he fails to produce a single piece of evidence to support that claim. True, the neocons are not all Jewish. Under Bush II, they have allies, mercenaries and moles among the Goyim, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who introduced them into the White House and the Pentagon, or like John Bolton in the State Department. They also employ some front intellectuals such as Samuel Huntington, who was given credit for foretelling a Clash of Civilizations in 1996, only because it would have been harder to sell it under the name of Bernard Lewis, the real inventor of this self-fulfilling prophecy. Nevertheless, it is clear today that the neocons are crypto-Zionists who move under the mask of American imperialism, but who are secretly working for Israel’s hegemonic plan in the Middle East. As Bush I once explained to Bush II, the short answer to “What’s a neocon?” is “Israel”.
The Bushs and the “crazies”
Understanding the neocons as crypto-Zionists and Israelis at heart is the first step in trying to make sense of 9/11. The next step is understanding the nature of their relationship with the Bushs. The classic Inside Job paradigm doesn’t make any difference between these two clans. But the historical record shows that the Bushs and the neocons are longtime rivals. We like to see the world with all the baddies on the same side and the goodies on the other. But the baddies don’t necessarily like each other. And it is not necessary to feel sympathy for the Bushs or for the neocons to understand the nature of their rivalry.
It goes back to the Bush I presidency, which was perceived, with good reasons, as rather hostile to Israel. Even before that, Bush had learn to distrust the neocons: during his brief appointment as director of the CIA in 1976, he had watched how Richard Pipes and Paul Wolfowitz had succeeded in imposing their Team B’s apocalyptic estimates of the Soviet threat, over the CIA’s more realistic Intelligence. When he was Reagan’s Vice-President, Bush could witness the neocons’ influence on foreign policy; he called them “the crazies”.So when he succeeded to Reagan, he got rid of many of them. And after Operation Desert Stormin 1991, he stood fast against their pressure to invade Iraq. That same year, he also resisted the pro-Israel lobby’s demand for $10 billion to help Jews from former USSR to settle in Israel, and complained in a televised press conference on September 12th that “one thousand Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me”, which made the Executive Director of AIPAC declare, “September 12, 1991, is a day that will live in infamy.” But above all, Bush I and his Secretary of State James Baker ended the pro-Israel policy of Reagan. In November 1991, just after the Gulf War, he convened the Madrid Conference, the first serious attempt at setting a road map toward peace in Palestine, by involving Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Palestinian representatives. In the eyes of Israeli leaders, Bush and Baker were much too receptive to Arab proposals. As a result, the Israeli lobby and Zionist media sabotaged his chances for a second term and supported the Democrat candidate Bill Clinton, whose government became so “full of warm Jews”, in the words of a prominent Washington rabbi, that “the term ‘government of goyim’” has become “an outdated term in the US.”
Not only did Bush I appear anti-Israel to the neocons, but, to make things worse, he was decidedly pro-Saud. Saudi Arabia had always been the most troublesome enemy of Israel, precisely because it was the most loyal US ally in the Middle East, and therefore the Arab State that US foreign policy would always protect, no matter what. No “Arab Spring” would ever reach it. It is true that Israel has managed to use to its advantage the Wahhabi brand of Islam exported from Saudi Arabia. It is also true that the Saudis have always played a very ambiguous roles in the Middle East, often more intend to harm its Muslim rivals, Egypt or Iran, than Israel. And there is a lot of talk today about a warming relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel. But this recent and fragile development is the result of more than a decade of geopolitical upheaval since 9/11. Fundamentally, and at least until 2001, Saudi Arabia and its sponsored jihadists were fundamentally anti-Israel. Israel and Saudi Arabia, the self-proclaimed holy lands of Judaism and Islam, had remained irreconcilable enemies ever since Truman betrayed Roosevelt’s promise to King Ibn Saud by recognizing unilaterally Israel in 1948. The assassination of King Faisal in 1975 did bring into power a more conciliatory king, but Israeli leaders have always understood that corroding the US-Saudi alliance was the only way to be able to stand one day in the privileged position of being the only American ally in the Middle East.
It is interesting here to quote what Isser Harel, the “father of Israeli intelligence”, told author Michael Evans in a 1980 interview, which Evans recalled in a Jerusalem Post editorial on September 30th, 2001, then again in an interview with Deborah Caldwell in 2004: “He told me that America had developed an alliance between (sic) two countries, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and that the alliance with Saudi Arabia was dangerous and would develop a tolerance for terror among Americans. He said if the tolerance continued that Islamic fundamentalists would ultimately strike America. I said ‘Where?’ He said, ‘In Islamic theology, the phallic symbol is very important. Your biggest phallic symbol is New York City and your tallest building will be the phallic symbol they will hit.’” By relating this conversation 21 years later, Evans, a Christian Zionist, hoped to pass Harel as a prophet, but less mystical readers may conclude otherwise (especially if they have any notion of Islamic theology).
Because President Bush Sr. had tried to strengthen the Saudi alliance, and took up the leadership of the pro-Saud camp in Washington, he became a target of the pro-Israel lobby. After the defeat of Saddam in 1991, the Bush clan and the neocon Zionists both developed very different visions of the New World Order to come: for Bush, it should be based on a strengthened Washington-Riyadh axis, while neocons wanted it based on a Washington-Tel Avid axis. Besides, let us not forget that Bush spoke about a New World Order after having liberated Kuwait and refused to invade Iraq: he was posturing as the protector of national sovereignties, whereas the neocons’ project is founded on the destruction of the Seven Nations. We don’t know who convinced Bush to use the phrase “New World Order” before Congress on September 11th, 1990. But we know that it had been coined in 1957 by geopolitician Robert Strausz-Hupé, in the first issue of his review Orbis, one of the early crucibles of neoconservatism, later directed by Richard Pipes. Strausz-Hupé identifies the coming New World Order as “the American universal empire,” destined to “to bury the Nation-States”: “The American empire and mankind will not be opposites but merely two names for the universal order under peace and happiness. Novus orbis terrarum (New World Order).”Now that we see more clearly into the double game of the neocons, we understand the ironic duplicity of such language. The whole neocon machiavelian craftinessis about riding of the back of US imperialism to build its own imperial basis in the Middle East, until one day the American horse will collapse of exhaustion, leaving Israel in control. With this intend the neocons have preferred to rename their project the “New American Century” in 1996. But in the Jerusalem Summit of 2003, attended by Richard Perle, they enshrined in a solemn declaration their hope of making Israel “the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets.” “New American Century” and “New World Order” are the false flags under which Zionism will conquer the world — or disappear.
Given the reciprocal hostility between Bush Sr. and the neocons, how can we explain the ubiquity of the neocons in the administration of Bush Jr.? The short answer is Dick Cheney: it is said that, after choosing himself as Vice-President, he had no difficulty to bring his neocon sponsors through the back door, George W. being quite happy to let him in charge and take some vacation. More important is the question: How did the neocons manage to control Bush Jr., to the point of isolating him from his own clan? I don’t know, but 9/11 certainly was a crucial factor. The humiliating situation in which the President found himself at the time of the attacksdramatically illustrates how he was removed from direct control of ongoing operations. Those ten minutes made memorable by Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, when Bush kept reading My Pet Goat with primary schoolchildren after being informed that the second tower had been hit, could be the equivalent to the Zapruder film for Kennedy: the moment when the President was neutralized, while the Vice-President was taking over effective government. Bush’s ensuing arraignment alongside the Saudis indicates that he was held hostage by the neocons.
It is clear that, from the day of 9/11, Bush Sr. and his political family lost their influence on Bush Jr. To reporter Bob Woodward, the President said he didn’t even ask for his father’s advice: “He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. […] There’s a higher Father that I appeal to.” The Good Lord must be a neocon, then, for Bush Jr. started speaking and acting just like one. His neocon advisers took a spectacular revenge on the father by forcing the son to invade Iraq. In 2007 again, George W. did exactly the opposite of what the congressional Iraq Study Group, initiated by his father’s friends (and chaired by James Baker), recommended; he followed instead the recommendations of the neocon pro-Surge lobby Freedom’s Watch, and announced the deployment of 20,000 additional troops. Thomas Neumann, Executive Director of the JINSA, could then praise Bush Jr.’s administration as “the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman.”
The hijacked plot
With a better understanding of the power struggle within the Bush II administration, we have a better chance of understanding how 9/11 was schemed. In its classic form, the Inside Job thesis assumes some collusion between several groups with converging interests: the operation, we are led to believe, was conceived partly for oil, partly for the military-industrial complex, with Halliburton profiting from both; it involved the Bushs, the Rockefellers and other Wall Street executives, as well as some Pentagon generals, not to forget the powerful Saudi lobby. With such a paradigm, we can even find place for a Mossad involvement and have the satisfaction of not having to choose between thesis 2 (Inside Job) and thesis 3 (Mossad Job). This is not a credible scenario. Such a complex operation as 9/11 can only be orchestrated by a highly cohesive, single-minded group, bound by a unique goal and absolute loyalty. They must hold strategic positions, but also be able to rely on a larger group of loyal collaborators who will give a hand without asking questions. The neocons and the wider Zionist elite, with the help of a network of influential and devoted New York sayanim, fit that description. I can’t think of any other candidate.
The idea that the Bushs had willingly collaborated to such a conspiracy with the neocons is hard to believe. In general, the idea that the plotters include at the highest level an opportunistic alliance between rival clans, or even different clans, seems to me unrealistic. On the other hand, it is likely, and even certain, that the plotters drew a number of high officials to some degree into their scheme, by corruption or other means, not only because they needed their practical cooperation, but also because they needed to control them after the operation. It is of crucial importance that a sufficient number of highly placed people have a strong interest in keeping the truth buried, knowing full well that the Big Lie is their only protection. And, of course, the one man the plotters needed to control was the President.
The simplest application of this basic principle is the hijacking of a war game to create a false flag attack. Once the war game is in action, one or two parameters can be changed to make it appear real, and sell it as such to the media. Those who do that need not be the designers of the drill; they may have simply infiltrated it. Those who participate, anyway, are military personnel who are used to obey without questions, and who know the price they would have to pay for speaking out after realizing what they have contributed to. On September 11th, 2001, NORAD was occupied with five military exercises, three of which, under the names of Vigilant Guardian, Global Guardian, and Vigilant Warrior, were simulated hijackings, both with real and virtual flights. Consequently, according to Colonel Robert Marr, head of NEADS, as many as twenty-nine “hijacked planes” were on the radar screens at NORAD on that day.
These NORAD exercises are only one of keys to 9/11 truth. They only explain a small part of the plot. But the idea of hijacking a minor secret operation to transform it into something much bigger, with consequences unforeseen by the original planners, can be applied on another scale. Let’s say, as a working hypothesis, that the American government, or part of it, organized a false flag operation of limited scope, with few or no real victims, and with a well defined limited goal. The network of neocons, who may or may not have launched themselves this operation with White House approval, secretly decide to maximize its effect for the benefit of Israel. Because they are merely parasitizing an undisclosable operation of the government, the Zionists can force the government to play their game until the end, under fear of being exposed. The idea is to get into a boat that nobody can leave, and take over the helm to change direction. This scenario, which we may call the “hijacked plot”, or “one conspiracy inside another”, is a practical means to set up an operation under “double false flag”, as 9/11 seems to have been planned. It would explain how efficiently the neocon Zionists have forced the President and his administration to play their script of a world war on terror. They possess the proofs of a State crime and a State lie, and the media means to blow the scandal of the century, and they use this information both to blackmail State officials and to hide their own crime and lie. The government involvement is the shield preventing their own involvement to be exposed.
Imagine, for example, that under neocon advice, the White House (George W. Bush), the State Department (Colin Powell) and the National Security Council (Condoleezza Rice) have agreed to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban régime, by falsely blaming their guest Osama bin Laden of a terror attack. They can even get some support from the Saud royal family for such an operation. In order to justify such a limited war, under the pretext of a manhunt in Afghanistan, one plane hijacked by suicidal terrorists and crashed on the Pentagon will be enough. (As a secondary goal, to kill two birds with one stone, the attack, simulated by a missile, will kill the 34 financial experts of the Resource Services Washington who, in the eastern side of the Pentagon, were trying to find out who had stolen the $2.3 trillion vanished from the accounts of the Department of Defense; and, as a show of chutzpah, one of them, Bryan Jack, will be said to have died at his office… because he was in Flight AA77 which crashed onto it).
The neocons are not really interested in bin Laden. What they want is to finish up Iraq, then the rest of the “seven nations” (Afghanistan not being part of them). So, with the help of their New York super-sayanim, they will give the operation a much bigger impact, enough to con Americans into supporting their insane plan. To start a war on the Islamic civilization, one plane crashed on the Pentagon and a few dozen dead will not suffice. What is needed is a more dramatic and tragic event, such as the explosion of the Twin Towers and victims by the thousands. Larry Silverstein, Frank Lowy and Lewis Eisenberg will gladly oblige: this will be a golden opportunity for their New York gang to solve the bothersome asbestos problem of the Twin Towers at a much lower cost than the regular procedure, estimated a billion; even at a profit, thanks to a smart insurance policy. With the cooperation of the major news media, the neocons take the administration by surprise and win the day. The little-weight plotters (Bush, Powell and Rice) can only try to save face, unwillingly embarked into a gigantic geopolitical scheme. Bush is forced to approve the invasion of Iraq that his father had refused ten years earlier, to the day. An attack against Iran, under the same false pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction, is also on the new agenda laid on his desk.
Every Goy in the administration is taken by surprise, except perhaps Cheney. (I doubt if Rumsfeld would have chosen to announce the missing $2.3 billion on September 10th, if he had known that the investigators in charge would die the next day; I rather suspect this coincidence was planned to embarrass him and put him under a media blackmail). The fooled high officials have no time to think, since the Zionist-controlled media are already playing along with the neocon tune of the war on civilization. As a telling illustration of that, let us listen again to (Lewis) Paul Bremer speaking on NBC in the early afternoon of 9/11. Bremer was the Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism.He was also on the Board of Directors of Marsh & McLennan, a worldwide insurance company chaired by Jeffrey Greenberg, which occupied the 93rd to 100th floors of the North Tower, precisely where Flight AA11 “cut a gash that was over half the width of the building and extended from the 93rd floor to the 99th floor”, according to the NIST report. On NBC, Bremer, seemingly unaffected by the death of his employees (officially 295), designated bin Laden as the prime suspect (script n°1), but immediately added Iraq and Iran (script n°2): “He certainly has to be a prime suspect. But there are others in the Middle East, and there are at least two States, Iran and Iraq, which should at least remain on the list as essential suspects.” In 2003, Bremer would be promoted Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), in charge of the dismantling of the Iraqi State. Under his leadership, 9 billion dollars would disappear in fraud, corruption and embezzlement.
III. mini-nukes and ghost-planes
As I explained in the introduction, there is much evidence that Israel (in the larger sense) orchestrated 9/11. However, there are apparent technical objections to that hypothesis: even if we assume that Israel infiltrated every body of the federal administration, including the Air Force, it is hard to imagine that a Zionist network could have had the technical means to crash two planes into the Twin Towers and wire their controlled demolition, both highly complex operations. In this third part, I will answer these objections. I could have started with that part, but the technical questions that we are going to examine will give us the opportunity to check the validity of our new paradigm of the double false flag.
Controlled demolition or mini-nukes
The murder weapon classically leads to the murderer. And so the technical means used to destroy the Twin Towers is crucial in identifying the ultimate culprit of the 9/11 mass-murder.
According to the dominant 9/11 Truth thesis, the method can be deduced by looking at the collapse of WTC7, a neighboring 47-story skyscraper that collapsed at 5:20 pm. Its fall, which can be viewed on the Internet from multiple angles, occurred at the speed of free fall within seven seconds, in a perfectly symmetrical and vertical manner, exactly like a standard “controlled demolition.”
The mass media remained so discreet about this third tower that few people have heard of its collapse.
FEMA barely mentions it in its 2002 report, only to state that office fires must have caused the collapse, in a way which “remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence”, a sentence which sounds as the near admission of a lie?
The controlled demolition of a steel-framed skyscraper like WTC7 requires months, or at least weeks of preparation by a team of experts. Tens of thousands of tons of energetic materials are needed, to be attached in a precise manner on the steel columns, and the sequence of their ignition must be electronically calculated. Who could have done that? Certainly not a team of secret agents from the Mossad. Therefore the controlled demolition of WTC7 is proof of an “inside job” implicating, at the least, New York authorities.
Scientific confirmation of the use of explosives came in February 2009, when an international team of chemists led by professors Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University and Steven Jones of Brigham Young University (Utah), after having examined wreckage dust materials from the WTC, published an article in the scholarly journal Open Chemical Physics Journal, entitled: “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9-11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” The thermite (a high-tech incendiary capable of cutting through steel beams) found in the WTC dust is the product of sophisticated nanotechnology.
From these two elements — the images of the collapse of WTC7, and the discovery of nanothermite on the site of the WTC — the core 9/11 Truthmovement concludes that the Twin Towers were also pulled down by controlled demolition using nanothermite. There is a huge problem with that theory, though: anyone looking at the images on YouTube can see that the destruction of the Twin Towers and the destruction of Tower 7 are completely different. This is what Danish demolition expert Danny Jowenko declared without hesitation, when shown the film of the collapse of WTC7, before knowing it happened on September 11th. For one thing, the collapse of the Twin Towers starts from the top, while the collapse of WTC7 starts from the bottom, like any controlled demolition. Secondly, the word “collapse” is inadequate for the Twin Towers: we can see them literally explode, floor by floor. The pile of rubble left on their footprint looks nothing like what is seen after a controlled demolition. One may wonder why the differences, so obvious, are lost on most 9/11 Truth sites.
There are, however, dissenters within the movement who claim that nanothermite can in no way explain the force of the explosions witnessed in the Twin Towers. Technically, nanothermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. It may have been enough to “pull” WTC7, from bottom to top with no horizontal projection and little dust produced, but it fails to explain the very different destruction of the Twin Towers, from top to bottom, and the pulverization into very fine dust of almost all their concrete — not to mention the eleven hundred bodies never recovered. Nanothermite doesn’t explain the temperatures of 600 to 1,500 °F at Ground Zero for six months after 9/11.The pyroclastic dust that flooded through the streets at high speed after the collapse, not unlike the dust from a volcano, indicates a high temperature mixture of hot gazes and relatively dense solid particles, a phenomenon impossible from a simple collapse caused by nanothermite.
The visibility was increased by the timing of the collapse of WTC7, seven hours after the Twin Towers. Was it scheduled for the morning, so as to be rendered invisible by the dust cloud from the Twin Towers, but delayed by a flaw in the wiring?This would be consistent with the testimony of two New York City police officers, Michael Hess and Barry Jennings, who felt a series of explosions in Tower 7 at 9:15 am. Is this why some television networks reported its collapse before it even took place, starting with CNN correspondent Alan Dodds who reported by telephone at 11:07 am that a firefighter had just told him that a third building of fifty floors had collapsed, and culminating with BBC World correspondent Jane Standley, announcing the collapse of WTC7 at 4:54 pm, while it was still seen standing behind her (a “mistake” attributed to “the chaos and confusion of the day” by the director of information at BBC World)?
Then there is the damning testimony of Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC7, who somehow hinted at the responsibility of the New York Fire Department, under Mayor Giuliani. Interviewed for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds in September 2002, Silverstein said about Tower 7:
“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
This adds up to a lot of anomalies connected to the collapse of WTC7 which itself stands out as an anomaly in the false flag scheme. In the framework or our “reversible false flag” paradigm, the suspicion arises that these anomalies are intentional.
The collapse of WTC7 was kept out of the mainstream news, because it didn’t support the Big Lie and was therefore not meant for the general audience. But is was made sufficiently visible to serve as the major argument of the 9/11 Truth movement’s demand to reopen the case. In other words, it does not carry the banner of Al-Qaeda, but instead the secondary false banner of the Inside Job. As proof that a controlled demolition was used on 9/11, it is used to claim that the Twin Towers must also have been destroyed by controlled demolition, which is obviously a flawed reasoning. As proof that 9/11 is partly “inside job”, it is used to claim that 9/11 is completely “inside job”. The controlled demolition of WTC7 therefore functions like a smoking gun laid intentionally on the crime scene by the murderer, with the fingerprints of a secondary false culprit for those who don’t buy bin Laden’s faked fingerprints. It serves two purposes: first, it is a bait and a rallying sign for 9/11 truthers. Secondly, it is a sword of Damocles hanging over a few heads, starting with Giuliani’s. That is how it is used by the Zionist mainstream media, who will cover the story at very small dose, just enough to lift a corner of the Al-Qaeda veil, with the implicit threat to lift it all and create a constitutional crisis and perhaps a civil war in the US.
The perfect illustration is the Fox News program Geraldo at Large aired on November 13, 2010. Anchorman Geraldo Rivera devoted a major part of his program to 9/11. His guests were the father of a victim of 9/11, and a member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who dispute the official version. Rivera appeared supportive of their view. The focus was on WTC7, with images of its collapse (shown twice), as well as of Silverstein’s famous “pull it” interview. Rivera emphasized that WTC7 housed “Mayor Giuliani’s bunker” and made sure that his guest expressed his suspicion of a government conspiracy.
YouTube - Veterans News Now -
This program was welcomed by 9/11 truthers around the world as a decisive breakthrough,and it raised high hopes that other channels would follow in the same vein.Yet four years later, nothing has changed. Why? Before we answer this question, let’s ask another one: How come such a program was aired by Fox News, the spearhead of Rupert Murdoch’sNews Corporation, which, more than any other, had served as propaganda machine for the neocons’ Iraq war, and so far had shown only contempt for 9/11 truthers. It is unconceivable that this could have been a blunder; Rivera was not fired or even sanctioned. We are not surprised to learn from Wikipedia that his mother, Lillian Friedman, was of Ashkenazi Russian Jewish descent, and that he was raised “mostly Jewish”.
Let’s recap once more: if you are credulous, you believe that the Twin Towers collapsed because two planes crashed into them, and you accuse bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. If you are skeptical and visit 9/11 Truth websites (perhaps inspired by Geraldo of Fox News), then you believe they have been destroyed by controlled demolition, and you naturally turn against your own government, shouting “inside job!”. In both cases, you have been fooled: the Twin Towers neither collapsed because of the planes, nor were they destroyed by controlled demolition. Only an unyielding determination to seek the truth, together with the willingness to pay the price, can lead you to realize that the Twin Towers were blown to Kingdom come by Israeli nuclear bombs.
Ghost planesWe are now going to tackle the second technical question dividing the community of 9/11 truthers. And since we just mentioned Fox News, let us begin by another program of the same network. On the 4th of March, 2001, Fox TV broadcast the first episode of the series The Lone Gunmen, watched by 13 million Americans: computer hackers working for a secret cabal within the government take remote control of a commercial jet and intend to crash it into one of the Twin Towers, while making it appear to have been hijacked by Islamic terrorists. The purpose of the failed operation was to trigger a world war under the pretext of fighting terrorism.
How can we interpret the amazing coincidence of this scenario with the most common explanation among 9/11 truthers of what happened six months later? Did an insider infiltrate Fox scenarists in order to blow the whistle? Unlikely! Could this be some kind of psychological “vaccine,” meant to denigrate in advance conspiracy theories? It would be a rather risky gamble to give to millions of Americans the key to solve 9/11, just to be able to then dismiss them under the pretext that “they watch too much TV”. Or was it meant to condition in advance the 9/11 Truth movement toward the hypothesis of the remote controlled planes? Because the passenger lists have proven largely fictitious, the hypothesis that Flight AA11 and UA175 were remotely hijacked has now given way to the hypothesis that they had been replaced by disguised military drones, but that is a minor change: the 9/11 Truth movement is still in its majority working within the drone hypothesis. But that hypothesis has its detractors.
Any correctly reinformed person knows that no plane crashed on the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, nor in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. But some go further and claim that no plane crashed on the Twin Towers either. Professor Morgan Reynolds was one of the first to make this claim in 2005: according to him, the aluminum planes shown to penetrate the steel towers without resistance, like a knife in hot butter, defy physical laws and therefore must be video artifacts.The majority of 9/11 truthersconsider this claim ridiculous and suspect that it is meant precisely to attract contempt on the 9/11 Truth movement. Indeed, it is with that purpose in mind that Fox News invited Professor Reynolds in 2005. I myself have long taken this no-plane theory as a hoax. That was before I watched Ace Baker’s groundbreaking film 9/11 American Psy Opera, and then looked deeper into this issue.
It is impossible to summarize here the arguments of the no-plane theory, for they rely on a careful analysis of the images of the planes crashing into the towers. One must watch and study chapters 6, 7 and 8 of Baker’s film to get an overview of the demonstration. One will see, for example, what Baker calls “Pinocchio’s nose”: the plastic nose of UA175 emerging intact from the steel-structured South Tower after having entered its opposite side, in the images filmed from a chopper by Kai Simonsen, an expert in video compositing hired by Fox. Baker, himself expert in video compositing, convincingly demonstrates the techniques used to add, in a few seconds, a plane into images where only an explosion had occurred.Baker has been criticized on points of detail, but no effort has been successful at debunking the core of his demonstration.
One major objection to the no-plane theory is that thousands of witnesses had their eyes on the Twin Towers when the second one was hit. If there had been no plane, they would have spoken out. Answering that objection requires some deep thinking into the level of mind control reached by television today, and the masses’ willingness to believe what they see on television more than what they didn’t see directly. After all, what do those few thousands direct eyewitness count for, compared to the more than 2 billion people in the world who saw the second plane hit the South Tower live on mondiovision? Even a few sayanim telling in front of cameras that they saw the plane far outweight the very few among the direct witnesses who stubborning insist that they didn’t see any. Take, for example, pseudo-Mark Walsh interviewed by Fox News on the ground, pronouncing the very terms destined to become the official narrative: “I saw this plane come out of nowhere and just ream right into the side of the Twin Tower exploding through to the other side, and then I witnessed both towers collapse, the first, and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.” How many crisis actors like him can be hired in New York?
If no real planes hit the Twin Towers any more than the Pentagon or Shanksville, a totally different paradigm for understanding 9/11 is needed. For in that case, the operation required very few accomplices in the military, perhaps none. On the other hand, it required a very tight control of the major news outlet. And we know which organized community has that kind of power: the same to which belongs Larry Silverstein, (Lewis) Paul Bremer and the rest of the New York gang who coordinated the blowing of the Twin Towers. The reason for the marginalization of the no-plane theory within the 9/11 Truth movement then becomes clear.
If the planes are video composites, then the passenger lists are faked, discussions on the failures of US air defenses can be counted as diversions, and so can speculations on the military origin of the planes, such as in Dave von Kleist and William Lewis’s film In Plane Site (2004). The authors focus on a “pod” visible at the bottom of the second plane, and on a flash visible at the instant of the impact of both planes, which they explain as a missile shot into the tower a fraction of a second before the plane penetrates into it. This is a diversion from the more obvious inconsistency which is to be found in the following images, where “the aluminum airplane disappeared completely into the steel and concrete tower without bending, breaking, twisting, or slowing down. Not one piece of shattered airplane debris is seen of the images”, in the words of Ace Baker.
Interestingly, the “military drone” hypothesis has been insinuated by Fox News itself, through the testimony of another “Fox employee” by the name of Mark Burnback, who declared by phone around 9:20 am that the plane crashing into the South Tower “definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. […] it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport.” So we see Fox launching both the primary lie of the hijacked planes (Mark Walsh), and the secondary lie of the military drone (Mark Burnback).
The famous Loose Change series (first version 2005), which did more than any other film or book to stir the 9/11 Truth movement toward the drone hypothesis and the guilt of the US military-industrial complex, must also be counted as part of the 9/11 controlled opposition. One of the smartest ideas of its three Jewish producers (Dylan Avery, Corey Rowe, and Jason Bermas) was to draw a parallel between 9/11 and Operation Northwoods, in the very opening sequence of their film. Operation Northwoods was a false flag operation designed to create a casus belli against Cuba. It was presented to Kennedy’s Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in March 1962, and rejected. The project consisted in a wave of terrorist acts falsely attributed to Cuba, culminating in the explosion of a plane allegedly carrying vacationing American students over Cuban waters. The explosion would have been preceded by distress radio communications indicating an attack by a Cuban fighter. The actual passengers would be secretly transferred to another plane, and a state funeral would be held in their remembrance.
The Top-Secret memo detailing Operation Northwoods was revealed to the public by James Bamford in May 2001 in his book on the NSA, Body of Secrets. It proves that, already in 1962, the National Security State was capable of such turpitude as 9/11. Or does it? The timeliness of the Northwoods revelation four months before 9/11, and its immediate coverage by ABC News, actually raise suspicion. Random House informs us that, to write his book, Bamford — an ex-Navy employee who turned journalism after Watergate, just like Bob Woodward — was granted “unprecedented access to Crypto City (the NSA campus in Ft. Meade, MD), senior NSA officials, and thousands of NSA documents,” by none other than NSA director Michael Hayden. In other words, Hayden provided Bamford with all his sources. Since Bamford doesn’t tell us where he found the Northwoods memo, we must assume he got it from Hayden too. But that memo is supposed to be the only remaining copy, found in the personal papers of Lemnitzer. How did Hayden get it? A better question, perhaps, is: Who is Michael Hayden? After moving to the CIA, he retired as a principal at the Chertoff Group, the security consultancy founded by former Secretary for Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (son of a rabbi and a Mossad pioneer). Since he was so generous in 2001 with Bamford with classified material, it is surprising to learn (from Wikipedia) that in 2013 he was a fervent advocate of imprisoning journalists who leaked classified material.
There is a good chance that the Northwoods revelation just before 9/11 was calculated to predispose truth seekers toward the hypothesis of a US rather than Israeli false flag operation, just like the Lone Gunmen episode on Fox TV. Bermas and Avery’s heavy use of it in Loose Change made a major impact (by contrast, they make no mention of the USS Liberty incident, which, unlike Northwoods, really happened). There is even a reasonable chance that the document is a forgery, as Carol Valentine has suggested by pointing out a few anachronistic British colloquialisms. After all, the National Security Archive team of scholars and activists had never heard of Operation Northwoods until Bamford or Hayden provided them with a copy. And, when asked about it by David Talbot, Robert McNamara, the supposed recipient of this outrageous memo, declared: “I have absolutely zero recollection of it.”
Let’s recap again: if you are credulous, you believe that commercial jets hijacked by Al-Qaeda crashed into the Twin Towers. If you are skeptical, you watch closely In Plane Site and you now see military airplanes with a suspicious pod. You then shout “Inside Job!” In both cases, you have been fooled. The truth is elsewhere, hidden under those two false banners. To find it, you will have to delve into the unfathomable mystery of psy-ops and the manipulation of the masses.
IV – Conclusion
In this article, we have made several assertions. Some are solidly grounded, while others can be taken as a working hypothesis, which still needs to be discussed.
What I hold as certain is the existence of a “controlled opposition” to the official 9/11 story, operating on two levels: at the soft level, we have “alternative” media which accept the core bin Laden myth but confront the US government on the side with the accusation of covering up part of the truth, and “using 9/11 as an excuse for war”, in Howard Zinn’s terms; at the “hard” level, we have the dominant trend in the 9/11 Truth movement which considers 9/11 as an “inside job”. Lies and manipulations are found in both camps, which are sometimes so close as to overlap. Our investigation therefore resembles a well-made thriller in which neither the first suspect, nor the second, is the culprit.
The concept of the “reversible false banner” stems directly from our empirical conclusion that the 9/11 Truth movement is largely a controlled opposition: it simply assumes that the “inside job” trail was built into the plot from the start, in order to lead the 9/11 Truth movement to suspect the US rather than Israel. It provides a viewpoint from which the interrelated roles of the different levels of disinformation (the official story and the inside job theory) can be understood. It is just a concept, but it might be one of the concepts that the plotters worked from.
The notion of a “hijacked plot” is more speculative, and will remain so until a proper criminal investigation is opened. It goes beyond the model of “double false banner” by providing a plausible explanation of how the secondary “inside job” banner has been built into the plot, and how Israel uses it to keep the American government hostage. The way Israel has managed in the last decades to gain almost total control of American foreign and military policy is truly amazing; obviously, 9/11 is one of the leaches by which Israel now leads America where it wishes, and the “hijacked plot” is an attempt to understand how it works. Although it is conjectural, the idea that Israel hijacked a secret operation is consistent with other observations of how the Machiavellian Zionists manipulate events, government policy, and public opinion.
After researching the Kennedy assassination for some years, I have come to the conclusion that the pattern of the “hijacked plot” can solve many of its mysteries, while the “reversible false flag” model can explain many puzzling oddities of JFK research. Gary Wean, a detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department, has laid the foundation for such a new paradigm in JFKology, in his book There’s a Fish in the Courthouse (1987), ignored by all JFK researchers but Michael Collins Piper.Relying on a well-informed source in Dallas (identified as Republican Senator John Tower in a 1996 second edition), Weanargues that the Dallas coup was “a double-cross of fantastic dimensions”, in which a failed assassination attempt staged by the CIA had been hijacked by what he refers to as the Mishpucka (the Family, in Hebrew), the Russian Jewish Mafia, whose evil power reaching into the highest spheres Wean had been investigating for years.
I will follow this trail and expound a full-blown theory of the JFK hijacked plot in a follow-up article. But here it is in a nutshell:
The CIA and their sponsored Cuban exiles had schemed a false flag assassination attempt intended to spare Kennedy’s life but force him to retaliate against Castro. Israel, on the other hand, wanted Kennedy dead. So did Lyndon Johnson, who had been forced on Kennedy’s ticket by Israel.Together, the Jewish mafia and Johnson’s men in Dallas turned the CIA operation into a successful assassination. Seconds after the CIA sniper missed on purpose from the School Book Depository, the Johnson-Zion killers (from Murder Incorporated?) blew Kennedy’s brain from the grassy knoll.
Jacob Rubenstein (aka Jack Ruby), a Johnson operative finished up the job two days later, mistakenly believing he would be pardonned by Johnson. He would die in prison in 1967, after calling Johnson “a Nazi in the worst order” and telling both his lawyer and his rabbi having killed Oswald “for the Jews.” Once in power, Johnson was able to blackmail the CIA into renouncing their pro-Castro conspiracy hoax, and go for the lone nut theory (he would calm the Military-Intelligence’s frustration by offering them Vietnam instead of Cuba). Arlen Specter, “an unswerving defender of the Jewish State,” would have no difficulty selling his “magic bullet” to the compliant media, while Mark Lane (born Levin) steered the JFK Truth movement on the CIA’s trail with a groundbreaking article a mere four weeks after the assassination. And for 5 years, Johnson would do so much for Israel, especially with his support for their 1967 aggression and expansion (despite the USS Liberty fiasco), that The 5 Towns Jewish Times, delving into his ancestry, would conclude: “There is little doubt that he was Jewish.”
 New York Times, September 12, 2001: www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/day-terror-israelis-spilled-blood-seen-bond-that-draws-2-nations-closer.html
“Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?” The Daily Beast, July 11, 2011: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/saudi-arabia-fried-or-foe-asks-senator-bob-graham.html
“Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?”, op. cit.
 Quoted by Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, iUniversal, 2003, p. 64.
 To be precise, a similar attempt to implicate Pakistan, another US ally, can be documented, especially by the “revelation” that “$100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohamed Atta from Pakistan by [ISI agent] Ahmed Omar Said Sheikh at the instance of [ISI director] General Mahmud”, leading to Mahmud’s eviction(The Times of India, October 9, 2001, 911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Ahmad,GeneralMahmud.shtml
 “The Saudi Connection: Osama bin Laden’s a lot closer to the Saudi royal family than you think”, The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2001, www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/393rwyib.asp
 Thomas E. Ricks, “Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies Ultimatum Urged To Pentagon Board”, The Washington Post, August 6, 2002.
Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, Enigma Edition, 2008, p. 204.
 Russ Baker, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years,Bloomsbury Press,2009, p. 280-98.
 Bandar bin Sultan took the head of the Saudi secret services in 2012, before resigning in 2014.
 See also Éric Laurent, La Face cachée du 11 Septembre, Plon, 2004, p. 119-22.
 Listen to Howard Zinn on The Real News: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElSJTXHELd8invstigating
 Watch on YouTube, “Bush Before a Joint Session of Congress (September 11, 1990)”, www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iUX3yP9M8g
 Read the first chapter of Hongbing Song’s classic book Currency War.
 For an insider’s view of this deal, read Benjamin Freedman on rense.com/general34/amaz.htm
Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal, op. cit., p. 333.
Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Penguin Press, 2007.
James Petras, Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power, Clarity Press, 2008, p. 18.
In Oil, Smoke and Mirrors, documentary by Ronan Doyle, 2007.
Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel, 2014, kindle pos. 3280-94
 Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontent: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998,kindle format, 2013, pos. 4675-86.
Benjamin Ginsberg, “Dilemmas of Jewish Leadership in America”, in L. Sandy Maisel, ed. Jews in American Politics: Essays, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, p. 2-27, (p. 22).
 Charles Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, New York Summit Books, 1985, p. 184, quoted in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, 2013, kindle pos. 6343-50.
 Max Blumenthal, Goliath, Nation Books, 2013, p. 28-31.
 Benjamin Balint, Running Commentary: the Contentious Magazine That Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative Right, Public Affairs, 2010.
Congress Bi-Weekly, quoted by Philip Weiss on Mondoweiss.net, May 23, 2007: mondoweiss.net/2007/05/30_years_ago_ne.html
Breaking Ranks, 1979, quoted by Philip Weiss on Mondoweiss.net, April 24, 2007: mondoweiss.net/2007/04/norman_podhoret.html
 The full text ison the IASPS website: www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
Webster Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA, Progressive Press, 2008.
Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, op. cit., p. 324
 Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? The Clash between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, Harper Perennial, 2003.
Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy, Scribner, 2011, p. 219.
Alexander Cockburn, ed., The Politics of Anti-Semitism, AK Press, 2003, p. 104.
Avinoam Bar-Yosef, “The Jews Who Run Clinton’s Court”, Maariv, September 2, 1994, translated by Israel Shahak in Open Secrets: Israeli nuclear and foreign policies, Pluto Press, 1997.
Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World, 2012, p. 71.
Robert Strausz-Hupé, “The Balance of Tomorrow”, Orbis, 1957, quoted in Meyssan, L’Effroyable imposture II, op. cit., p. 217-8.
 The “Jerusalem Declaration” is on the Jerusalem Summit’s official website: www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/declaration.php
 Read Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein, Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, Random House, 2006.
 On the plotters’ control of president Bush, read Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, op. cit., p. 272-301.
 Sniegoski, Transparent Cabal, op. cit., p. 324.
 Quoted by Jonathan Cook, Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East, Pluto Press, 2008, p. 33.
In the words of the Washington Post: “Bryan C. Jack was responsible for crunching America’s defense budget. He was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77, bound for official business in California when his plane struck the Pentagon, where, on any other day, Jack would have been at work at his computer” (“Remembering: The Pentagon Victims”: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/attacked/victims/v_235.html).
 www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909236, p. 20.
 Read on CNN.com, “Audit: US lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds”, January 31, 2005, edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/
 “FEMA’s Investigation”, 9-11 Research, 911research: 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
 See on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHHvo6U4lA
 See for example: gcn.com/articles/2002/09/09/handheld-app-eased-recovery-tasks.aspx
 See the photos published by the online journal 9-11 Research, “Twin Towers’s Dust Clouds”, 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/dust.html
 Read Jeff Prager, 9/11 America Nuked, freely downloadable on: 911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jeff-prager-9-11-america-nuked-free-downloadable-ebook. Read also on Veterans Today the article by Don Fox, Jeff Prager and Ed Ward, “Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11”: www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/
 See Jim Fetzer on YouTube, “Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference Part 2”: www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZAEvw2CjAYQ#t=2611, and his article with Don Fox’s article, “2 + 2 = Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11”: www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/28/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/
 Joe Vialls, “Bali Micro Nuke – Lack of Radiation Confuses ‘Experts’”: web.archive.org/web/20030210220533/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htm
 See his article co-authored by Don Fox, “2 + 2 = Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11”: www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/28/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/
 Judy Woods, Where Did the Towers Go ? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11, The New Investigation, 2010.
 For a harsh critic of Wood as a “gatekeeper” of 9/11, see: donaldfox.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/dr-judy-wood-911-gatekeeper-extraordinaire/
 Visit the blog dedicated to Jennings, who died in 2008 of undisclosed causes, two days before the release of the NIST report on Tower 7 : barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.fr
YouTube, “BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early”: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI. Porter’s comments is on www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
 David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions, Arris Books, 2008, p. 263. YouTube, “Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11”: www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5DMjnbmhXo
 See on YouTube, www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP4ro6eoHMk
 See on: www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEA05F393EC843D80.
YouTube, “Fox News – Rick Leventhal interviews 9/11 WTC witness, Mark Walsh”: www.youtube.com/watch?v=07hJhmiWZSY
 See the critical review on 911research.wtc7.net/essays/baker1.html. Check critical reviews of other films on: 911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html and 911review.com/reviews/911eyewitness/
James Bamford, Body of Secrets: How America’s NSA and Britain’s GCHQ Eavesdrop on the World, Century, 2001, p. 84-90.
 Bamford’s profile on Random House’s website: www.randomhouse.com/features/bamford/author.html
Seamus Coogan, “Who is James Bamford and what was he doing with ARRB?”, août 2010, sur le site de Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination : www.ctka.net/2010/OpNorthwoods.html. Lire aussi Jim DiEugenio sur l’éditeur de Bamford : www.ctka.net/posner_jd4.html
 Carol Valentine on: www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html
David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 107.
 Alan Hart, Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009, p. 250-257.
Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 604-607.
William Kunstler, My Life as a Radical Lawyer, Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158; Steve North, “Lee Harvey Oswald’s Killer ‘Jack Ruby’ Came From Strong Jewish Background”, The Jewish Daily Forward, November 17, 2013, http://forward.com/articles/187793/lee-harvey-oswalds-killer-jack-ruby-came-from-stro/?p=all#ixzz2oUwQ6vpx
Morris Smith, “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!”, 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013: 5tjt.com/our-first-jewish-president-lyndon-johnson-an-update/