January 22, 2013 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- Federal prosecutors in Chicago said they will ask that David Headley be sentenced to between 30 and 35 years in prison for his role in the 2008 Mumbai Massacre.
The government is not pressing for Headley to serve the maximum, life sentence.
Headley's different colored eyes are a fitting symbol of the double-agent role he has played for years.
He worked as an operative for Pakistani extremists and as an FBI informant and government witness.
Headley will be sentenced on Thursday.
We know the value of his cooperation as federal prosecutors have just filed papers laying out how long the terrorist should spend behind bars.
The horrific attack has become known as "India's 9-11".
The chief scout who did reconnaissance on each location for Pakistani terrorists was Chicago resident Headley.
According to a sentencing memorandum filed late Tuesday by federal prosecutors in Chicago, "Headley played an essential role in the planning" and "contributed to the deaths of approximately 164 men, women, and children, and injuries to hundreds more."
Read the government's position paper on Headley sentencing here
There were six Americans killed in the November 2008 attacks.
For Headley, who was taken into custody by the FBI in Chicago in 2009, "there is little question that life imprisonment would be an appropriate punishment."
But from the moment of his arrest, Headley began cooperating, according to the government.
Tape recordings secretly made by an FBI informer reveal that authorities were in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York's tallest towers, the New York Times reported.
The New York Times published conversations the informer, a 43-year-old former Egyptian army officer, Emad Ali Salem, taped with his FBI handlers.
A Case of Inter-NationalTerrorism
Today, Pakistans social media is full of hue that the Mumbai Attacks 26/11 were a false flag operation, having preplanned ulterior motives – is this counter-propaganda or does this popular public sentiment hold some grounds in truth?
Indeed, the elongation of the trials related to Mumbai 26/11, huge and repeated international bullying from the Indian side purporting Pakistan to be an instigator of terror, and the demeaning of the national morale of the Pakistani people lead to the desire of extensive scrutiny and counter-investigation over the case by many intellectuals, on individual and institutional basis. In this continuation, PKKH, an institution aspiring to be a leading policy-giver to the state, has most recently gathered its resources to be able to discover any possible conclusion to the demise, and perhaps bring some kind of respite to the people of Pakistan and that part of the world community which is always waiting for common-sense-conclusive truth.
In the process of our investigation, we have found that Mumbai 26/11 presents a copious exhibition of how terrorism is an inter-national phenomenon and how the theme of terror facilitates the accomplishment of goals otherwise abstract to the social status-quo. The Mumbai Case alone puts into question the involvement of at least six states in its making; Pakistan, Kashmir, Nepal, Russia, the United States and India itself.
Kassab’s claim that he was arrested 20 days prior to the attacks – Fahim Ansari providing hand-sketched maps to Shahabuddin (both in Indian jail at that time), and Sahabuddin handing the maps to Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi stationed in Paksitan via someone in Nepal – the US giving 18 warnings of an attack on Mumbai via sea, and the Indians not securing their coast – the email account from which India alleged ‘claimed responsibility’ of attacks being later disclosed by Google as located in Russia; all this clues of a game being cooked between many friends and foes. It gives an insight on how the US, wishful of the superpower status, while on the face deems it necessary to ‘pressure other countries to adopt American values and practices regarding human rights and democracy’; but in this case, it is evident that it covertly sold a false-flag option from its well-tried Chaos Theory to India.
The United States’ giving prior warnings of the attacks to India are two-faced – on one side, they show a US concerned with the greater good of humanity, and the other side shows their inability to convince a favorite ally to secure its coast of such a national calamity! How extensive was their intelligence in India, what exactly did they warn of and who were their informants, would perhaps be questions the answers of which would be the easiest way to come to quick conclusions, keeping in mind the precision of fact-finding the US is capable of – Why can’t the US be questioned? The US itself has kept David Headley for his involvement in the Mumbai Case; why has the US delayed Headley’s case for 5 years now, when he has reportedly been in the FBI and worked as an undercover agent for the CIA too; if so, they could sentence him for treason against their own state too. Above all this, the US provided the diplomatic backing required by India to voice its claims against Pakistan in the international podium. In fact, the US insisted on Pakistan to fulfill India’s demands without delay or question every time their delegates would meet. The same was repeated five years onward when Pakistan PM N. Sharif visited American President Obama last month. Why does the US not question India to make a complete, viable court case before it accuses Pakistan?
Dec. 3, 2013
The last part of the interview of former Senator Bob Graham with the Real News Network has been posted. The theme of the interview was the culture under Bush and Cheney of "not wanting to know." Graham brings up very specifically what the FBI calls the "coincidence" of the two hijackers in the same restaurant as a Saudi agent dispatched by a Saudi consular official, who invites them to San Diego.
When the interviewer asks what should be taken up in a re-opened investigation, Graham says that a new probe should ask whether there was someone assisting the hijackers, and what was "the extent of Saudi involvement."
Asked whether there is any evidence linking Prince Bandar to the attacks, Graham responds that there is some evidence that he can't talk about, and adds:
"But the fact that he [Bandar] had, and exercised as aggressively as he did, his special entrée at the White House, raises questions about why was he using that special entrée, for instance, to get people who were persons of interest to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement, out of the country before they could be interviewed."
The interviewer presses on Bush and Bandar, and whether there was a deliberate attempt "not to know." Graham answers:
"[I]t was so pervasive that virtually all of the agencies of the federal government were moving in the same direction, from a Customs agent at an airport in Orlando who was chastised when he denied entry into the United States to a Saudi, to the President of the United States authorizing large numbers of Saudis to leave the country, possibly denying us forever important insights and information on what happened. You don't have everybody moving in the same direction, without there being a head coach somewhere who was giving them instructions as to where he wants them to move."
Asked if this includes both before and after the events of 9/11, Graham says:
"Primarily before the event. After the event, it shifts from being an action that supports the activities of the Saudis, to actions that cover up the results of that permission given to the Saudis to act."
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 6, 2013SEE LINK FOR FULL STORYhttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/
By Geoffrey Fattah, Deseret News
9/11 : The National Sore-Spotby James Hufferd, PhD Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization* One of the great themes of modern literature is that of the Chosen, the few, the proud, survivors of a cataclysm or apocalypse. So, welcome to the party! You are The Redeemed! Let me explain before you go and blow it. It seems the emergent world (if that’s what it was doing) of rational humans ended on September 11, 2001. And you who stubbornly continue to apply the promising highest product of mind-propelled civilization, millennia-distilled principled scientific reasoning, to its ultimate test-case for most among us, at least in modern times, our understanding of 9/11, are in a real sense the survivors, the surviving seed for repopulating an evolved human culture on this planet. All others capable of apprehending mega-events remain in various phases of denial or still holed up in protective caves of their own construction, amounting in practical terms to the same thing. Meanwhile, myth-dependence and faith-based, as distinguished from evidence-based navigation as a mode of global- or cosmic-scale understanding, long thought to be dying out among the normally- or well-educated, seems to have received a spectacular shot of adrenaline as a protective reflex in the presence of what people are told, and the untrained eye construes as a terrifying, purely-evil alien attack, well beyond our capacity (we are told) to construe rationally otherwise: What you see is what you get, to quote Walter Mitty, or somebody. Hence, we’re told, it’s foolish (as well as unpatriotic, mischievous, and affording comfort to the enemy) to consort with anyone who’s such a blatant idiot as to not accept what couldn’t be more obvious. They are out to get us, and that’s that, it’s reasoned, shortsightedly, by nearly everyone for outward consumption. We know who did it and we saw what they did, leaving no need to quibble. Go sick ‘em! And beyond the simpleminded reluctance to critically examine society-wide, as Constitutionally-guaranteed due process would require, there is a profound fear dictating avoidance for most “good citizens” in the prospect of being seduced by heresy. Religious dissenters have traditionally been shunned and avoided by others, who want to claim and keep all the goodies, assurances, and comforts held out as rewards and inducements for conformity to community-wide consensual beliefs. If all else fails to dissuade from straying, resort is even made by those in gainful authority to ginned-up threats of eternal torment, based on “the Deity said…” And in the case of 9/11-related obedience to orthodoxy, all things quite literally work together for bad for you, at least superficially, if you seriously wander, and especially if you try to persuade others to deviate from the explanation that serves and suits authority. All other conspiracy theories are authoritatively declared “outrageous” (implying that the official conspiracy – OCT – is merely “rageous”, one must suppose). And if you deviate, you will lose or loosen ties with friends and relations. Many of your fledgling social contacts and prospective friends in particular will cut you off and avoid any and all contact. People will warn others about you. Your employer and public and private patrons, funders, and buyers of your services will set you adrift. Your career, if any, might well be toast, your perks gone. Another step beyond: many fear that FEMA camps that some warn of will turn out to be the new post-modern leper colonies, Gulags, or “resettlement centers”, mostly incommunicado, placed away from access to the herd in cold, isolated places with inadequate heat and dwindling edibles. I don’t personally know if the FEMA camp legends are true or to what extent. But I do know that 9/11 is a sore-spot in our scoured and myth-laced national record even to professional chroniclers and mainstream historians of all stripes, who conspicuously leave its details and origins either out of their otherwise just-coherent-enough narratives altogether or deliberately render it vague and indeterminate. Because they could easily simply plug in the official story (as a few do) to fill in these gaps, this maddening tendency of the balance of them probably means they secretly comport with our assessment that the truth has been covered up, but would fight to the death to avoid actually saying so – because they know the consequences. It’s a glaring instance of the “spiral of silence” spotlighted by German writer Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in her 1990s book by that title: don’t dare be caught naked alone. To tempt ostracism myself, even here (though I am not an atheist, and probably he isn’t), I quote the wisely-anonymous little boy who once observed, “Religion is believin’ what you know ain’t so.” And venture to opine that most people probably know down-deep lots of things they won’t let on and are unwilling to face head-on. But, in this case, what they refuse to embrace or believe can hurt and maybe kill them. Because the perpetrator strain are still at large and at work. Our national motto ought to be, “Say it isn’t so.” Which doesn’t change one iota the verifiable fact that it is. If there is a breaking point to come at which all of that deeply-held knowledge I posit exists will come whooshing out and can’t be bottled back up is anybody’s guess.JH/12/13/13
9/11 : The National Sore-Spot
by James Hufferd, PhD Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
One of the great themes of modern literature is that of the Chosen, the few, the proud, survivors of a cataclysm or apocalypse. So, welcome to the party! You are The Redeemed! Let me explain before you go and blow it. It seems the emergent world (if that’s what it was doing) of rational humans ended on September 11, 2001. And you who stubbornly continue to apply the promising highest product of mind-propelled civilization, millennia-distilled principled scientific reasoning, to its ultimate test-case for most among us, at least in modern times, our understanding of 9/11, are in a real sense the survivors, the surviving seed for repopulating an evolved human culture on this planet.
All others capable of apprehending mega-events remain in various phases of denial or still holed up in protective caves of their own construction, amounting in practical terms to the same thing.
Meanwhile, myth-dependence and faith-based, as distinguished from evidence-based navigation as a mode of global- or cosmic-scale understanding, long thought to be dying out among the normally- or well-educated, seems to have received a spectacular shot of adrenaline as a protective reflex in the presence of what people are told, and the untrained eye construes as a terrifying, purely-evil alien attack, well beyond our capacity (we are told) to construe rationally otherwise: What you see is what you get, to quote Walter Mitty, or somebody.
Hence, we’re told, it’s foolish (as well as unpatriotic, mischievous, and affording comfort to the enemy) to consort with anyone who’s such a blatant idiot as to not accept what couldn’t be more obvious. They are out to get us, and that’s that, it’s reasoned, shortsightedly, by nearly everyone for outward consumption. We know who did it and we saw what they did, leaving no need to quibble. Go sick ‘em!
And beyond the simpleminded reluctance to critically examine society-wide, as Constitutionally-guaranteed due process would require, there is a profound fear dictating avoidance for most “good citizens” in the prospect of being seduced by heresy. Religious dissenters have traditionally been shunned and avoided by others, who want to claim and keep all the goodies, assurances, and comforts held out as rewards and inducements for conformity to community-wide consensual beliefs. If all else fails to dissuade from straying, resort is even made by those in gainful authority to ginned-up threats of eternal torment, based on “the Deity said…” And in the case of 9/11-related obedience to orthodoxy, all things quite literally work together for bad for you, at least superficially, if you seriously wander, and especially if you try to persuade others to deviate from the explanation that serves and suits authority.
All other conspiracy theories are authoritatively declared “outrageous” (implying that the official conspiracy – OCT – is merely “rageous”, one must suppose). And if you deviate, you will lose or loosen ties with friends and relations. Many of your fledgling social contacts and prospective friends in particular will cut you off and avoid any and all contact. People will warn others about you. Your employer and public and private patrons, funders, and buyers of your services will set you adrift. Your career, if any, might well be toast, your perks gone. Another step beyond: many fear that FEMA camps that some warn of will turn out to be the new post-modern leper colonies, Gulags, or “resettlement centers”, mostly incommunicado, placed away from access to the herd in cold, isolated places with inadequate heat and dwindling edibles.
I don’t personally know if the FEMA camp legends are true or to what extent. But I do know that 9/11 is a sore-spot in our scoured and myth-laced national record even to professional chroniclers and mainstream historians of all stripes, who conspicuously leave its details and origins either out of their otherwise just-coherent-enough narratives altogether or deliberately render it vague and indeterminate. Because they could easily simply plug in the official story (as a few do) to fill in these gaps, this maddening tendency of the balance of them probably means they secretly comport with our assessment that the truth has been covered up, but would fight to the death to avoid actually saying so – because they know the consequences. It’s a glaring instance of the “spiral of silence” spotlighted by German writer Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in her 1990s book by that title: don’t dare be caught naked alone.
To tempt ostracism myself, even here (though I am not an atheist, and probably he isn’t), I quote the wisely-anonymous little boy who once observed, “Religion is believin’ what you know ain’t so.” And venture to opine that most people probably know down-deep lots of things they won’t let on and are unwilling to face head-on. But, in this case, what they refuse to embrace or believe can hurt and maybe kill them. Because the perpetrator strain are still at large and at work.
Our national motto ought to be, “Say it isn’t so.” Which doesn’t change one iota the verifiable fact that it is. If there is a breaking point to come at which all of that deeply-held knowledge I posit exists will come whooshing out and can’t be bottled back up is anybody’s guess.
An interview with Elias Davidsson
by Ludwig Watzal / December 20th, 2013
More than twelve years have passed since 9/11 happened. Although the 9/11 Commission produced a voluminous “9/11 Commission Report”, it did not provide answers to central questions concerning the circumstances of this horrendous crime. Critical observers have noted numerous glaring omissions, contradictions, anomalies and misrepresentations in this report. Even the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission admitted in a joint book they later published, that their report was deficient in many ways and that the Commission had been lied to by government agencies. One of the reactions to this deficient report was the emergence of a “truth movement”, which consists of experts from different scientific fields, who question the official narrative and demand a truly independent investigation of the crime.
Elias Davidsson is one of these “truthers” who challenges the official narrative on 9/11.
He is also concerned about the claim made by some “truthers” that Israel was behind the attacks. He is not, by any means, a sympathizer of Israel. On the contrary, as his writings demonstrate, he not only denounces the oppressive policies of the State of Israel against the Palestinians, but considers that state as inherently dangerous for its neighbors. The fact should be mentioned that he is Jewish and has family in Israel.
Davidsson’s concern appears justified. The catchwords “9/11 and Israel” produce over 66 million hits on Google. Immediately after the attacks some traces to an “Israeli connection” were publicized in U.S. media, including by media notoriously supportive of Israel, such as Fox News. About this and other topics regarding 9/11, I talked to Mr. Davidsson after he presented in Bonn, Germany, in November 2013, his book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence, released in May in New York.
Ludwig Watzal: A few months ago you published the book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11. What made you write this book twelve years later, when all questions concerning the 9/11 attacks seem to have been answered?
Elias Davidsson: In 2002, it was pointed out to me, that the official account on 9/11 is dubious. Until then, I believed what mass media told us, namely that the mass murder had been orchestrated by Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden and executed by 19 fanatic Muslims. At first, I doubted that the contrary evidence – published by Thierry Meyssan – was credible. Yet, my sense of curiosity led me nevertheless to check the facts. I discovered that grounds for suspicion were justified. This led me to extend my research of 9/11. I was not alone in this endeavor. One of the main focuses of such research was the puzzling demise of the Twin Towers. A consensus is gradually emerging among engineers and architects that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and building WTC No 7 had been demolished by explosives and/or more exotic means. This conclusion implies official malfeasance and complicity in mass murder. Yet the question remained nagging me: what to make of the other part of the official account, namely the alleged participation of 19 Islamic fanatics in hijacking four airliners, steering them to death and succeeding to avoid interception by the US air force. I decided, therefore, to search for evidence supporting these claims. I discovered that such evidence does not exist. Not a shred of it. This may sound unbelievable, yet despite the most exacting searches, I could not find any such evidence. I also discovered that there exists no evidence that passenger airliners crashed on 9/11: The FBI actually admitted to have failed to link the wreckage of the crashed aircraft to the airliners that were allegedly hijacked. Having made these discoveries, I found it necessary to deal with an additional puzzle, namely what to make of the telephone calls that were allegedly made from the hijacked planes and in which passengers and crew members reported hijackings. I spent a great deal of time to track and analyze all known phone calls. These analyses represent until now, to my knowledge, the most thorough examination of the 9/11 phone calls. I concluded that the callers did not report real events. They did not lie, yet did not say the truth. I won’t reveal here the solution of this paradox and its sinister sequels. Readers are invited to track my analysis and draw their own conclusions from the wealth of details provided in the book. As I finished the book, any doubt that might have lingered in my mind regarding the identity of the 9/11 plotters, dissipated: I became convinced that 9/11 was an inside job by the US military.
LW: There are still many people who believe that the alleged hijackers were able to steer an airliner onto the Pentagon.
ED: To these individuals I only say: The first step in investigating a plane crash is to determine its identity and the identities of its passengers. The next step would be to determine who among the passengers might have had a motive and the capabilities to cause the crash. In the case of 9/11, neither the identities of the debris were determined nor was the presence of the 19 suspects in the planes ever proven. For this reason, it is moot to examine their alleged flight skills. One does not examine the flight skills of ghosts. Those who nevertheless attempted to examine the flight skills of the alleged hijackers discovered that precisely the pilot of flight AA77, which allegedly crashed on the Pentagon, was a completely incompetent pilot who could not, according to his teachers, properly maintain a one-motored Cessna in the air. While even an amateur pilot might have been able to steer an aircraft onto the huge roof of the Pentagon, professional pilots doubt that any pilot could have steered a Boeing 757 horizontally at 500 mph with an altitude of 15 feet above the ground (the aircraft is said to have crashed horizontally on the side of the Pentagon between the first and second floor).
LW: Shortly after the attacks the story of Osama bin Laden and his men were aired worldwide and nobody dared to question it. Do you think that bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan could have masterminded such an attack with dilettantes armed with box cutters?
ED: Before asking whether bin Laden could have masterminded anything, it is worthwhile to note that the U.S. government had never accused him of complicity in 9/11, as admitted by the FBI in 2006. The U.S. government did not even take seriously the conclusion of the German Upper Court of Hamburg (Oberlandesgericht), that Osama bin Laden had selected Mohamed Atta and his friends to conduct 9/11. This conclusion was not shared by the US. This leaves us with the question what role Osama bin Laden played during the years in which he was depicted as a master terrorist: Was he a willing or unwitting US agent, as some maintain, or a genuine, but pathetic, fighter against Americans and Jews, as others maintain? This question has, however, no direct bearing on 9/11. A true history of Osama bin Laden has still to be written.
LW: In a speech before the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco on October 3, 2007, General Wesley Clark mentions an accidental meeting with Paul Wolfowitz in 1991 at the Pentagon in which Wolfowitz said that the US could use its military in the Middle East without being stopped by the Russians: “We have got about 5 to 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran, Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” And Clark continued: “This country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup. Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld, you can name a half of dozen collaborators from the ‘Project of a New American Century’. They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, and make it under our control.” Taking this statement into account and linking it to the call of this “Project” for a “new Pearl Harbor”, what comes up to your mind regarding 9/11?
ED: It is fairly logical that after the demise of the Soviet bloc, the US had an immense window of opportunity to secure its global hegemony for decades to come. But doing so required immense resources and thus the approval of the US population. Such approval could only be secured if a traumatic event would arise, which could be ascribed to a deadly enemy. The mass-murder of 9/11 filled the bill. Such reasoning is no proof that 9/11 was an inside job. It is, however, a proof that the U.S. administration, acting on behalf of Corporate America and the military-industrial complex, possessed a huge motive to see a “new Pearl Harbor” occur.
Wolfowitz was correct in assessing the window of opportunity as five to ten years. There exists evidence that the United States began “manufacturing” its new epochal enemy (Islamic terrorism), replacing the Red Menace, precisely around 1990.
LW: The circumstances surrounding 9/11 seem to be the West’s newest and greatest taboo. To question the official narrative endangers a person’s career. Even the academic community seems afraid to ask the relevant questions. You have been in direct contact with representatives of academia over 9/11. What is your experience?
ED: The overwhelming majority of academics do not wish even to discuss 9/11, let alone examine the nuts and bolts of these events. Part of this fear is that of being ostracized by peers or even endangering one’s career. Another part of the fear is that discovering the truth about 9/11 would inevitably shatter the questioner’s comfortable world view. I suspect that many academics regard 9/11 as a Pandora’s Box, best kept locked. If 9/11 was indeed an “inside job”, that would mean that political parties, media, the business community and the judiciary have been lying to us through their teeth for more than a decade and based their various policies, including wars and massive surveillance, on a monumental lie. Not many people are willing to live with such conclusions about their cherished institutions, even if such conclusions are, in my view, justified. We have here, I argue, an unprecedented case of mass denial, a pathological phenomenon that undermines the fundaments of the Age of Reason.
LW: In an recently published article by Eric Walberg on the website Dissident Voice, the author hinted at a connection between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the CIA concerning the 9/11 attacks. Does such collaboration makes more sense to you than the “official” story?
ED: It is possible that various states, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Germany have provided the United States some assistance in preparing 9/11. However – and this is an important caveat – I do not believe that the governments of these states or even their intelligence services, knew about the plans of 9/11. The U.S. planners would have been foolish to share the plans of 9/11 with other states. Thus, it is likely that the Saudi authorities helped recruit some individuals to be used as patsies in the United States and later designated as hijackers. But it is unlikely that the Saudis were advised about the ultimate role of these patsies.
LW: Shortly after the attacks, there were media reports on a possible “Israeli connection”. These reports centered on Larry Silverstein, Dov Zakheim, the five “dancing Israelis” and the “Israeli art students”. Please could you unravel this tangle of guesswork for the public and give us your judgment?
ED: Larry Silverstein was and is a known real-estate mogul in New York. He is Jewish and a known friend of Israeli politicians, such as Ariel Sharon and Benyamin Netanyahu. He was for many years the owner of WTC No. 7, a 47-floor building that housed, inter alia, New York City’s Emergency Center, offices of the CIA, SEC, the Secret Service and other government bodies. In 2001, the City of New York decided to lease out the Twin Towers to private investors. One of the bidders was Larry Silverstein.
Larry Silverstein is suspected in some circles for the above reasons to be an accomplice to the mass murder of 9/11, in which several of his own employees died. Yet, he did not make any effort to cover his alleged tracks. He leased the WTC just six weeks before 9/11, announced this lease to the world, insured it against terrorism for a whopping $3.2 billion and “admitted” in a documentary film to have given on 9/11 the authorization to “pull” WTC 7 (that is to demolish the building). He then sued insurance companies for double damages, because each tower was hit by a separate aircraft, thus displaying what would be widely regarded as greed. He even admitted to have escaped death by canceling a meeting at the WTC on 9/11. And he has never attempted to conceal his friendship with controversial Israeli politicians, such as Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu.
We have here all the requisite elements: A greedy Jew, proximity to the crime, motive. It is precisely the high visibility of Larry Silverstein as an ideal villain that makes me hesitate to implicate him in the crime. His alleged complicity is simply too obvious. It is difficult to believe that a person implicated in planning arson would take out a lease of the building six weeks before the crime and announce his agreement publicly. It is even more difficult to believe that a smart businessman, such as Silverstein, would risk the electrical chair in a criminal enterprise whose outcome he could not foresee. It is far more probable that Silverstein was framed into leasing the World Trade Center by the real plotters, precisely because he is greedy, because he is Jewish, and because of his ties to Israel. More to the point: Silverstein was not in a position to manage the hijacking exercises conducted by the military on the morning of 9/11, not in a position to steer airplanes against buildings and not in a position to wire WTC 7 within hours to demolish the building. Whatever his alleged role in 9/11, if any, the coordinators of Operation 9/11 did not sit in his office, but presumably in the Pentagon, led by Donald Rumsfeld. Larry Silverstein, however, represents an ideal bogeyman.
The fact that Mr. Silverstein did not demonstrate any interest in investigating the demise of the Twin Towers he had leased, is no evidence of malfeasance. In that he acted like most Americans, who till this day do not wish to ask questions and know the truth.
Dov Zakheim is another such ideal bogeyman. He is an ordained rabbi who made it to a high position in both government and private business. He worked in the Pentagon between 1985 and 1987. From 1987-2001, Zakheim was CEO of SPC International, a high-technology firm that manufactures, inter alia, equipment to remotely control aircraft. During 2000, he served as a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush. He was hired as a Comptroller of the Pentagon in the spring of 2001. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Secretary, announced to a stupefied internal Pentagon audience that the Pentagon could not track $2.3 trillion dollars in its books. This statement disappeared, as it were, into the memory hole the next day because of the deadly events, but continues to be widely quoted by Jew-bashers, who connect these missing funds to Zakheim. A Google search on the string “$2.3 billion Zakheim” yields no less than 150,000 hits. But is it at all true that the Pentagon could not track $2.3 trillion, as Rumsfeld claimed? And if that was the case, could Zakheim make that money disappear from Pentagon accounting within a few months? And if he could do so, why wasn’t he accused, charged, and prosecuted? But probably the most important question is: Why did Rumsfeld make at all this statement, and precisely on the eve of 9/11? Wouldn’t a political leader rather attempt to conceal such apparent malfeasance? Or was there a hidden motive behind this bizarre announcement?
In order to implicate Israel in the events of 9/11, the story of the “five dancing Israelis” is often invoked. There is no dispute that five young Israelis were seen photographing the Twin Towers after they were hit and possibly making signs that were interpreted as celebration. They were arrested by the New York police after a woman, only known as Maria, called the police to report their suspicious conduct, as seen from her window. Interestingly, it was highlighted in the media that these Israelis were found in the possession of box cutters when they were arrested. The theme of box cutters was to remain attached to the alleged hijackings. A mere coincidence? The boys were, anyway, kept in detention in the United States for several weeks, and then deported to Israel. Two of them appeared in an Israeli TV show and said that they were photographing the Twin Towers to “document the event”. They implied that this had been their task but did not say who tasked them with that mission. This episode suggests Israeli foreknowledge of the events. Another case of foreknowledge, also involving Israelis, is an email message received by two employees of the Israeli company Odigo two hours before the attacks. It has not been determined who sent the message and the reason for informing Odigo. One explanation would be that the plotters wished to connect Israel somehow to the attacks.
And finally, we have the canard that 4,000 Jews, forewarned, did not come to work to the World Trade Center on 9/11. A mere glance at the names and backgrounds of the WTC victims suffices to rubbish this story. Many Jews died in the Twin Towers. While this story is false, it is actually based on an authentic news report that appeared in the Jerusalem Post on September 12, 2001. According to that report, the Israeli Foreign Ministry expressed its concern about the fate of 4,000 Israelis (not “Jews”) believed to be present around or in the World Trade Center. It is not known from where the Ministry obtained the figure of 4,000. As it turned out, only 2-3 Israelis died at the World Trade Center. In order to assess whether this low ratio of Israeli fatalities is plausible or not, it would have been necessary to know how many Israeli nationals actually worked in the Twin Towers and on which floors they worked. I could find no such information. It is known, however, that an Israeli shipping company (ZIM) moved its offices from the WTC shortly before 9/11. It is not known where exactly these offices were located in the buildings. This move is also invoked by some observers as a sign of foreknowledge. If ZIM was forewarned, who was doing the warning and made ZIM thus a suspect?
LW: What might be the motives for linking Israel to 9/11?
ED: Presuming, as I do, that 9/11 served U.S. imperial – and more generally Western – interests and was executed by entities under the control of the U.S. military, the plotters had evidently to conceal their trail and engage in serious efforts to impute their crime to others. Until now they did so by attributing the crime to 19 Islamic hijackers, who are presumably dead (or never existed). As this initial story is being increasingly debunked, a fall-back position for the plotters would be to blame the attack on other entities. Recent attempts are made by members of the U.S. Congress, for example, to blame 9/11 on the Saudis. But who are better placed as bogeymen than Jews or Israel? The Nazis used this method with great success. Why wouldn’t the US elite repeat this sordid game, if it fears that its days are counted? I suspect therefore that the “Israel did it” meme in regard to 9/11 is maintained over low fire by powerful forces in the United States in reserve for the day when the American people will discover that 9/11 was an inside job. If that should happen, the US elite would suddenly “discover” evidence that Jews within the Pentagon orchestrated 9/11 in cooperation with the Mossad; that American Jews led hapless Americans to attack other countries; that Jews were responsible for the introduction of torture and extra-judicial executions and that the PATRIOT Act was a Jewish project to control Americans.
LW: After you rubbished the official narrative and the so-called Israel link, who, in your view, could have had the largest interest to commit such a horrendous crime? What geopolitical and geostrategic interests could the US have in engineering such an operation?
ED: As I already mentioned above, I consider it beyond dispute that the US military planned and executed the mass-murder of 9/11 on behalf of the US elite (which, evidently, includes also persons of Jewish descent). The operation served multiple purposes, all beneficial to the US elite: It provided justification for the occupation of Afghanistan, a strategically location in Central Asia; it provided justification for destroying and rebuilding Iraq (both of which were profitable to U.S. corporations); it provided justification for a U.S.-led global War on Terrorism; it provided justification for huge increases in military appropriations and corresponding profits of the military-industrial complex; it provided justification for the erosion of constitutional rights and international law; it provided justification for global Big Brother measures, led by the NRO and NSA; and it provided the justification for the establishment of a new and profitable security industry. All of these developments have been detrimental to human rights, individual freedoms and global peace. That is one of the reasons why I consider that challenging the official myth of 9/11 is one of the most urgent tasks facing humanity today.
LW: Mr. Davidsson thank you very much for the interview.
Elias Davidsson was born in 1941 in Palestine to Jewish parents. His parents were born in Germany but had to immigrate to Palestine due to the Nazi persecution of Jews. He lived in his youth in France, Germany and the United States until he settled finally in Iceland in 1962. After working for 20 years in the computer field, he changed to musical occupation, as a music teacher, choir master, arranger and composer. In parallel to his profession, Davidsson has for many years been involved in activism and research regarding social and global justice, peace, anti-racism and human rights. Since 1990, Davidsson has focused on the role of international law as a tool for peace and published several scholarly articles in legal journals.
James 'Jim' Swire (born 1936) is an English doctor who is best known for his involvement in the aftermath of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, in which his daughter Flora was killed.
Dr Jim Swire is a founder member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign group and is a signatory of its PE1370 e-petition which calls on "the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988."
Dr Swire described the Scottish Government's reaction to JFM's petition, with its 1,646 signatures, as "despicable".
In November 2013, in response to Frank Duggan's accusation that UK relatives of Lockerbie victims were liars, Jim Swire wrote:
Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2014
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Richard L. Wade | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 29, 2013
a recent comment from DXer …
In mid-December 2003, two brothers, Michael Ray and James Stubbs, were arrested in a Manila suburb where they were fundraising for a charity that supported the militant islamists and allegedly in contact with militant brothers. Michael Ray, an American, had been a HVAC technician at Lawrence Livermore near San Francisco — until March 2000 — where the Defense Threat Reduction Agency had launched a program to combat the Bin Laden anthrax threat in 1998. He had a high security pass that he permitted him to go to labs throughout Lawrence Livermore, including those combatting the Bin Laden anthrax threat.
His brother, James, Jr., also known as Jamil Daud Mujahid. James reportedly was monitored saying that he had been a classmate of bin Laden and had named his son Osama. James once was a policeman in California and a teacher in Missouri. James allegedly met with members of Abu Sayyef and Moro Islamic Liberation Front while in the Philippines doing charity fundraising. The brothers had been under surveillance at the time of their arrest. James Stubbs, according to some reports, had recently left a job as a teacher in California to study Arabic in Sudan. Other reports suggested that his recent work instead involved training dogs. Authorities allege that the brothers in May 2003 had met with several charity groups suspected of being al-Qaida fronts, founded by Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law Khalifa.
In mid-April 2004, Patrick Hughes, Lieutenant General (Retired), Assistant Secretary for information Analysis, Homeland Security Department testified before the 9/11 Commission. He explained that interrogations and other evidence revealed that Al Qaeda wanted to strike the US with a nonconventional weapon, most notably anthrax.
It’s naive and uninformed to think that Al Qaeda could not have obtained Ames just because it tended to be in labs associated with or funded by the US military.
US Army Al Qaeda operative Sgt. Ali Mohammed accompanied Zawahiri in his travels in the US. (Ali Mohamed had been a major in the same unit of the Egyptian Army that produced Sadat’s assassin, Khaled Islambouli). Ali Al-Timimi was working in the building housing the Center for Biodefense funded by the DARPA and had access to the facilities at both the Center for Biodefense and the adjacent American Type Culture Collection. For example, Michael Ray Stubbs was an HVAC system technician at Lawrence Livermore Lab with a high-level security clearance permitting access; that was where the effort to combat the perceived Bin Laden anthrax threat was launched in 1998. Aafia Siddiqui, who attended classes at a building with the virulent Vollum strain. She later married a 9/11 plotter al-Balucchi, who was in UAE with al-Hawsawi, whose laptop, when seized at the home of a bacteriologist, had anthrax spraydrying documents on it. Indeed, Bruce Ivins had supplied virulent Ames to a non-citizen from Egypt whose friends and classmates had been recruited personally by Dr. Ayman Zawahiri.
The reality is that a lab technician, researcher, or other person similarly situated might simply have walked out of some lab that had it.
Add a Website Forum to your website.
Supported videos include:
Please paste your code into the box below: