Archive | September 5th, 2012

Press TV: NATO Secretly Authorizes Syria Attack


Nato Secretly Authorizes Syrian Attack

By Press TV and Gordon Duff

Monday, August 28, 2012, in a meeting in Brussels, NATO military leaders in consultation with “telephonic liaison” with officers of military forces in several former Soviet Republics, major African states, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states came to a combined decision to act against Syria.

Two issues were on the agenda:

  1. How climate change in Greenland will effect geopolitics, immigration and military affairs for the EU and
  2. Syria and the potential for Russian and Chinese intervention.
  3. Iran was not an official agenda item but it is an unspoken conclusion that, if China and/or Russia stand aside for interference by NATO in Syria’s internal affairs, this will be seen as an authorization for incursions into Iran, a systematic “Balkanization” based on a prescribed formula of “manufactured and simulated internal political and social strife.”

No announcement was made, no plans or timetable published, simply a vote on authorization of force which passed unanimously by member and included non-member states unanimously.

News stories throughout North America and Europe earlier in the day were filled with reports of mass killings by the Syrian Army and the presence of Iranian troops in Syria.  True or not, these stories represent a pre-staging for the NATO conference.

The critical reporting issue involves rhetoric.  We moved, yesterday, from discussions of “fighting” to “systematic execution of hundreds of civilians.”

No video nor photos were included to verify neither claims nor sources given other than reports from “rebel forces.”

Recent consultation with friends in the Pentagon as to Syria’s air defense system indicated that the US has, in place, a play to destroy the command and control capability of Syria’s system.

The problems are twofold:

  1.  Russian technicians man the Syrian system
  2. The S300P2 system Syria uses is extremely “robust”

An additional political consideration is a simple one, there is no UN authorization.  Both Russia and China have vetoed even sanctions against Syria much less authorized an attack.

Thus, there is no existing authority capable of justifying an attack.

In an interview this week at the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) conference in Tehran, attended by 120 member states, a huge defeat for NATO interests in the area, this interview yielded some substantive and surprising facts.

Press TV: Certain powers have been trying to isolate Iran, actually, by not holding such a conference at such a high ranking level. As you said, this all has failed.

 Now tell us about all the sanctions against Iran which have propagated against Iran, that Iran should be isolated, but as you said it’s all been failed. What is really important is that the agenda of the 688-point draft document which talked about, as you call and urge all countries to make the world free from any nuclear weapons.

 You were a senior expert in the IAEA as an inspector. Tell us about that and also with the particular focus on Israel which has not yet signed up to the NPT.

 Abu Shadi: I oppose strongly any kind of accusation on any state based on intelligence information. All the accusations given to the nuclear program in Iran is based only on intelligence information. There is no single proof that Iran is deviating from its commitment from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 I am very surprised that the Security Council took four decisions, sanctions against Iran just because of rumors that the intelligence source may think there is something.

 I think this policy should be changed. The Security Council and its way of veto, and its limited number only to the big powers should be changed. I think that will also be one of the points to be addressed in this conference. I believe strongly that that situation, which is actually politically influenced by the West, should be changed.

 With respect to your second part about the NPT, in fact, almost all the states in the world respects the Non-Proliferation [Treaty] except the five weaponized states, which they should reduce their weapons which didn’t happen up until today, and the three or four states which did not sign the NPT including Israel. Israel is the only state in the Middle East who did not sign the NPT.

 None of the Western countries who are accusing not only Iran but before also Iraq, Libya, Syria and even Egypt, did not consider any accusation to what the Israelis are doing. I believe this bias in the international organization should be stopped.

Shadi makes some particularly interesting points and raises some concerns few had noticed.  His most damning statement, of course, is that the Security Council, a carryover from a war 70 years ago, certainly a demonstration of oligarchic rule at the United Nations, has been directed at Iran.

In particular, he notes that the council’s unilateral and undemocratic decisions, followed by nations, China and Russia, who defended Syria, were aimed at Iran but backed by no presentation of facts or even qualified intelligence assessments.  In fact, since Colin Powell’s humiliating WMD presentation before the UN, no “American fact” has been taken seriously nor is likely to.

CNN quotes a top Powell aid:

A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state’s presentation to the United Nations on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was “the lowest point” in his life.

“I wish I had not been involved in it,” says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. “I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life.”


Top intelligence analysts in private consultation fear a larger Middle East war.  “Russia and China won’t stand back, not with the US planning a unilateral move on Africa and its resources.  It’s like 1947 again with Truman and the Marshall plan, encirclement, but a war over, not just resources but a world war against what has now seen as the real threat, what Americans call the “middle class.”

Thus, taking Syria without taking Iran is “not in the cards.”  Here I return to the words of H. G. Wells, in his War of the Worlds.  His grasp in this fiction well over a century old reflects on our times in a curious and wonderfully literate manner:

“No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.

Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.

 The immediate pressure of necessity has brightened their intellects, enlarged their powers, and hardened their hearts. And looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of…

And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The Martians seem to have calculated their descent with amazing subtlety–their mathematical learning is evidently far in excess of ours–and to have carried out their preparations with a well-nigh perfect unanimity.”

Martians, this is how NATO and Israel look on the world, as expressed through the prose of Wells.  Their gaze “cool and unsympathetic,” as drone warfare and their plans, calculated acts of false flag terror, kidnappings, assassinations, the abomination of mythical news reporting.

The end of the road, this path of “hubris” could well be world war, least of all fuel price increases that collapse the currencies and economies.

Talking of death is nothing as we are now pre-staged to look on life as nothing, all victims are “militants” if you want them dead or “collateral damage” when you err.

Iran’s position chairing NAM makes them a harder target.  The general criticism by many NAM members, the dictatorial rule of the United Nations by the Security Council, has not prevented the Syrian conflict from becoming a threat to world peace.

For Iran, their choice seems, on the surface, to be in aiding Syria, negotiations, using oil leverage with India, China and others and predicting how the west is plotting.

If Iran falls, it will be only another domino.

Related Posts:

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Press TV: NATO Secretly Authorizes Syria Attack

Why Does IsraHell Hate Gentiles?


by Bob Johnson

Sabra and Shatila massacreChild victims of Israeli aggression from the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps. Judaism and “Judeo-Christianity” are twisted unnatural and unreasonable beliefs which bring much pain to the world.

The callous murder by the Israeli military of the American civilian Rachel Corrie and the recentwhitewash by an Israeli court of that murder, the grotesque repeated attacks on the virtually unarmed American Navy ship the USS Libertywhich took the lives of 32 American sailors and two US Marines and wounded 174 other Americans, the butchering of Palestinian women and children in a coordinated effort between Israel and its Lebanese Christian allies after Ronald Reagan talked the Palestinian men and fighters into leaving the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps are all examples of unrepentant hatred manifested in violent actions against other people. We must ask ourselves “WHY?!” Why is Israel so full of hate for Gentiles?

When we look at the fact that Israel claims to be a democracy, but it does not even have a constitution which is a violation of both UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (one of the excuses US politicians who are owned by the very powerful Israel lobby gave for starting the war with Iraq was that Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions – does this mean the US will shortly go to war against Israel for violation of UN Resolution 181 PLUS the many other UN resolutions they’recurrently in violation of?) and of its own declaration of independence which set a deadline for Israel’s constitution of no later than October 1, 1948 we see Israel is NOT a real democracy. The reason Israel does not have a constitution is because it is a religious state based on what it pretends to be the word of God, the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. And as any religious zealot of any of the various “revealed”/hearsay religions can tell you, no man-made law can be above God’s law.

Looking at what Israel holds out to be God’s law/the word of God, the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, we see it is a blue print written by ancient Hebrews/Jews for the supremacy of Hebrews/Jews/Israel over all other people and over all other nations. This is also made evident by the fact that the ancient Hebrews and Jews never attempted to convert people to Judaism because they preferred to slaughter them instead. As the American founder and Deist Thomas Paine wrote in his very powerful and thought provoking book The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition (for Kindle version click here), “The Jews made no converts; they butchered all.”

With Israel allowing and/or taking part in the slaughter of Palestinian women and children at the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps in mind, it’s easy to see the Israeli army of terrorists is still following Moses’ orders and example to commit war crimes against the Gentiles which are there for everyone to see at Numbers 31:17-18which says that Moses ordered the Israeli army as follows after their military victory over the Midian people: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Verse 35 tells us the number of women children the Israeli terrorists kept for themselves was 32,000!

Gentiles in general and Gentile children in particular are targets of Judaism. For example Psalm 137:9 reads, “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

One myth that is popular is that the Hebrews/Jews believed in the jubilee years in which all slaves would be freed and all debt would be forgiven. This is simply not true. What is true is that Hebrews/Jews who owned other Hebrews/Jews as slaves were supposed to free them and also forgive any debt which other Hebrews/Jews owed them. This did not carry over to Gentiles. Leviticus 25:1-43 has God instructing the Hebrews/Jews about the freeing of slaves and forgiveness of debt in the jubilee years. However, verses 44-46 makes it very clear this only applies to Jews/Hebrews and NOT to Gentiles. These three verses read, “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.” You can see that Gentile children are specific targets as “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy . . . And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever . . . ” makes very, very clear.

Regarding debt and the forgiveness of debt we can read at Deuteronomy 23:19-20 that it only applies to situations among Hebrews/Jews and does not apply to Gentiles. It teaches, “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.”

For a more thorough treatment of this very important topic read my new eBooklet The Danger of Israel (for the Kindle version click here). It’s time many more people knew the truth.


Related Posts:

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Why Does IsraHell Hate Gentiles?

AIPAC 101 — What Every American Should Know — Revisited


Editor’s Note: With the US presidential campaign circus under way, some kind of education offensive is essential to keep the pressure on. 

This video, is a 15 minute Masterpiece , by Anthony Lawson, that  powerfully demonstrates, why it doesn’t matter which candidate wins, Democrat or Republican; once he or she has taken the proverbial 30 pieces of silver, he is expected to do AIPAC’s bidding (American Israel Public Affairs Committee, America’s pro-Israel Lobby).

Every year US citizens dutifully pay their federal taxes which are then used for many purposes, one of which is to supply aid in various forms to Israel, currently estimated at 3 billion dollars per year, Lawson states, it is self-evident that some of this money is bound to find its way back to the United States to be used to top up the Election campaign funds for politicians.  Politicians who when elected will be very keen to vote even more aid to Israel next time around.

According to Lawson, citizens of other nations need not be complacent, for there is much evidence to suggest that the same pressures are being brought to bear on their politicians and officials to support Israel’s excesses.

AIPAC 101 — What Every American Should Know


RNC Sham 2012

The Convention is where delegates are meant to cast votes for the nominee, yet the Tampa Bay Times Forum was already plastered with embedded Romney banners, and additional ‘Mitt’ signs for people to hold were also smuggled in to make it appear that many are behind him. All Ron Paul material was promptly confiscated. Read more

Related Posts:

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on AIPAC 101 — What Every American Should Know — Revisited

A Wake-up Call — Stuart Littlewood


This horror story needs to be told…

Editor’s Note : Radio Free Palestine (2007) was written by Stuart Littlewood with Foreword by Jeff Halper ofICAHD and poems by Phillip Vine. It tells the plight of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation and throws light on the truth that’s obscured by media bias and the constant barrage of ‘hasbara’ disinformation.

The book is out of print but Stuart and Phillip have made this easy-reading guide available on the web for everyone to access.


“The situation in the Holy Land has gone from bad to worse,” says Stuart. “Injustice and crimes against humanity multiply while the international community and its leaders cower in their grubby corner.” The book’s message therefore is still relevant.

In view of the unhappy state of world affairs and the need for ordinary people to be aware of the issues that threaten peace in the Middle East and even our own comfy way of life, My Catbird Seat (MCS) and Veterans News Now (VNN), have decided to serialize the opening chapters of “Radio Free Palestine”. These include:

A Wake-up Call

A Story of Betrayal

One Land, Two Peoples, Three Religions

A Wake-up Call

by Stuart Littlewood


Irrepressible Palestinian children… But smiles of happiness may turn to tears of frustration when they grow up to find their dreams dashed in a country ravaged by decades of military occupation… where lands and resources have been stolen, education curtailed, freedom cancelled and travel made almost impossible.

How will they build a career or raise a thriving family? Separated from friends and relatives, amenities and opportunities by encroaching barriers, roadblocks and checkpoints, excluded from their Holy City, and stripped of heritage, economic prosperity and even healthcare, they seem destined for a life of despair in what Chomsky calls “the dungeons that are left”.

This is not an academic book. It’s a wake-up call, a snapshot of the situation in Palestine through ordinary westerners’ eyes. Our reasons for writing it were fourfold…

This horror story needs to be told. The British and American public seem to know little about the Arab-Israeli conflict even though it is central to world peace. Palestinians hope visitors to their tortured land will speak to the outside world on their behalf. And the trampling of human justice in the Holy Land, of all places, is an affront to civilized people.

Having begun, a fifth reason soon made itself felt: the indifference of the West’s political élite and media. They avoid honest debate and suppress the truth, even to the extent of burying a critical Foreign Office report. Many seem to regard Israel as exempt from normal standards of behaviour. Worse, they turn the sanctions screw on an already abused and impoverished Palestinian people, pushing them to the edge of a humanitarian crisis and collapsing their fragile economy.

There’s no such thing as “Radio Free Palestine”, as far as we know, except on the other side of the world in California. But there ought to be. Somewhere in the Middle East or Europe a “Free Palestine” station should be broadcasting its heartrending message, its cry for justice… loud and clear… to the so-called civilized world.

Of course the Occupation – and resistance to it – has to be seen in historical context… how the real trouble started in 1897 when Theodore Herzle organized the first Zionist Congress with the express aim of establishing Eretz Israel, a Jewish homeland, in Palestine. And how Zionist leaders like Chaim Weizmann canvassed British politicians, who were persuaded to the idea.

How, after World War One, Britain the occupying power and the mandated government in Palestine, made free with Arab lands and paved the way for a Zionist takeover that has infuriated Arabs and blighted East-West relations ever since.

And how, in 59 years, the Israelis have become past-masters in the art of land theft, ethnic cleansing and subjugation, perversely earning the approval of western leaders in the process.

What I saw during my visits to the West Bank in 2005 and 2006 made me angry. What has happened back home is even more disturbing – US, British and EU politicians ganging up to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority and collectively punish the people, while still at pains to sidestep their responsibility to call Israel to account.

And the contemptible spectacle of Israel’s high-tech military machine venting its fury on the helpless citizens of the Gaza Strip, smashing their infrastructure and reducing their lives to an even deeper shade of hell… all because Israeli leaders cannot accept that hardline Hamas is now the Palestinians’ chosen government.

We are accustomed to the White House aiding and abetting Israel’s unlawful expansionism and shielding them from criticism. Now EU ministers inexplicably reward Israel with trading privileges while the Separation Wall steals another 10% of Palestinian territory, including the richest agricultural land and nearly all the water.

In short, Britain has joined the US and Israel in a conspiracy of injustice. No-one I have met, knowing the situation on the ground, agrees with the idea that “recognizing” a brutal, armed occupier is a right or proper precondition for receiving aid. Israel exists; and one has to accept the fact. But recognition must be earned, usually by good conduct. And when has Israel ever “recognized” Palestine?

The question on most people’s lips is, why won’t the civilized world put pressure on the Israeli regime to comply with UN resolutions and international court rulings and withdraw to its pre-1967 borders?

So far, the Israelis’ definition of the situation and their pretense that the Occupation is for security reasons have been allowed to prevail. Now, at last, there are calls for the situation to be re-framed in terms that reflect the truth.

Most people in the west, who readily identify with Bethlehem, would have been appalled to hear the organisationOpen Bethlehem reporting that over 70% of its population now live below the poverty line and unemployment has soared to more than 60%.

“Once a prosperous middle class town, Bethlehem has been economically suffocated and the post-election sanctions have brought the local population to the brink of disaster.”

And this chilling warning from The Economist only added to the sense of foreboding:

“After millennia of violent conquest and reconquest, Jerusalem, centre of pilgrimage, crucible of history and the world’s oldest international melting-pot, is changing hands once more, but with a slow and quiet finality.”

“The last conquest of Jerusalem…”

A girl who worked for the Palestinian National Authority in Ramallah emailed me:

“Our daily life and work, believe me, is getting worse. We haven’t been paid for months… Some of my colleagues can’t come to work anymore because simply they don’t have money for the transportation. On Thursday we made a protest in front of the entrance of our ministry demanding the international community to end up this isolation and asking for our salaries. The mothers are bringing their babies and kids to work everyday because they can’t pay for the kinder-yards or the baby sitters. I don’t have kids but both my parents work also in the PNA….”

A few weeks later her emails stopped. A knock-out blow, then, for this family and heaven knows how many others. Her words, on top of all the other distress calls, were the spur to finishing the book as quickly as possible.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on A Wake-up Call — Stuart Littlewood

9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien


by Jim Fetzer

As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth(2005), the editor of THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY(2007), the chair of the Madison conference(2007) and the co-chair of The Vancouver Hearings (2011), it has been astonishing to me to discover that the atrocities of 9/11 were not simply allowed to happen but come closer to having been produced as a Hollywood-style spectacle, with phantom flights, faked phone calls, and fabricated crash sites. Anyone who wants to continue in a state of naive belief in their government as a nurturing institution that is dedicated to the best interests of the American people and to promoting their welfare should read no further, because 9/11 appears to have been a national security event that was approved at the highest levels of the Bush/Cheney administration, including the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA and The White House itself. When consideration is given the the totality of the evidence, no alternative explanation is reasonable.

For those who find this difficult to believe, check out “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job” by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, who undertook the systematic study of reports from Willie Rodriquez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and reported that an enormous explosion had taken place in the subbasements

even before there were any effects from the impact of a plane. They used very precise seismic data from a lab run by Columbia University and compared it with very precise FAA and military radar data and discovered that he was right: there had been explosions in the subbasements of both towers, which occurred 14 and 17 seconds prior to the hits of those planes on either tower. But this is only the tip of an enormous iceberg, which we can now seen encompasses the faking of the major events of 9/11, including the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, the hit by Flight 77 on the Pentagon, and both Flights 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 the South. It seems incredible, I know, but the evidence is there and, as I explain here, we know who the perps were who brought us 9/11. They were among the most familiar faces on our political stage at the time, actors one and all.

(#1) Evidentiary Submission #1 of 5 by James H. Fetzer


At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Philip Zelikow

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Philip Zelikow

Title at the Time of his Offense: Executive Director, The 9/11 Commission

Probable Cause: In his capacity as Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission and the principal author of its report, Philip Zelikow caused false claims to be disseminated about the events of 9/11, including the following:

(1) that Flight 11 had hit the North Tower;

(2) that Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon;

(3) that Flight 93 had crashed in Shanksville; and,

(4) that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower.

Information published in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) regarding (1) though (4) is demonstrably false because:

(a) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) records show that Flight 11 was not scheduled for 9/11;1

(b) BTS records show that Flight 77 was likewise not scheduled for 9/11;2

(c) FAA Registration Records show that the plane corresponding to Flight 93 was not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005;3

(d) FAA Registration Records show that the plane corresponding to Flight 175 was likewise not deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005; 4

(e) Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established that Flight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, subsequent to the time it was reported to have crashed in Shanksville,PA ; 5 and,

(f) Pilots for 9/11 Truth has also established that Flight 175 was in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after the time it was reported to have crashed into the South Tower. 6


Summary: Planes that were not even in the air cannot have crashed on 9/11; and planes that crashed on 9/11 cannot have still been in the air four years later. Zelikow appears to have been selected for his appointment as Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission, at least in part, because his area of academic expertise prior to joining the Bush administration turns out to have been “the creation and maintenance of, in his words, ‘public myths’ or ‘public presumptions’”.7 In addition to using flights that did not occur and crashes that did not take place, specifically:

(5) contrary to (1), Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;

(6) contrary to (2), Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;

(7) contrary to (3), Flight 93 did not crashed in Shanksville; and,

(8) contrary to (4), Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower;

there is abundant additional proof that what the public was presented in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) is itself a “public myth”, whose framework of four alleged “hijackings” and “plane crashes” is itself a contrived fabrication, which makes the person responsible for that report an accessory after the fact, as a person who assists in the commission of a crime by helping to cover it up.

Further proof that THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT was intended to deceive the American people includes that the government has not been able to prove the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes;8several of them turned up alive and well after 9/11;9 and the phone calls alleged to have been made from the panes were faked10. Virtually everything it claims about 9/11 is false.

1 Edward Hendrie, 9/11: ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC (2011), p. 8.

2 Hendrie, p. 9 The BTS would subsequently revise its data base and thus make itself an accessory after the fact. See NOTE: The official FAA site,, shows no records for any of the four planes. NOTE: The official FAA site,, shows no records for any of the four planes.

5 United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash – According To ATC/Radar


8 Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11″

9 David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), pp. 19-20; sources, p. 298.

10 David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”

(#2) Evidentiary Submission #2 of 5 by James H. Fetzer

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Richard B. Cheney

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Richard B. Cheney

Title at the Time of his Offense: Vice President of the United States 

Probable Cause: In his capacity as Vice President of United States, Richard Cheney issued orders that a plane approaching the Pentagon not be shot down, which thus allowed the plane to approach the building unimpeded. This appears to have been the plane that flew toward and then swerved over the Pentagon, while explosives were set off in the building, in an elaborate charade, which was used as the pretext for the following “declaration of war”, and to justify invasions of Afghanistan and of Iraq; and subsequently made false claims about the events of 9/11. Consider the following:

Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta tesified to The 9/11 Commission about his experience in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Richard Cheney, as (what would be identified as) American Airlines Flight 77 approached the Pentagon. According to Mineta, the vice president was asked about orders concerning the approaching aircraft:

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’ Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. 11

Commissioner Lee Hamilton queried if the order was to shoot down the plane, to which Mineta replied that he did not know that specifically.12 That interpretation, moreover, appears to be inconsistent with the aide’s concern. Since planes were being used as weapons, an order to shoot it down should not have caused any concern: You lose the pilots and the passengers, but not the personnel and the property that is being targeted. Instead,125 lives were lost at the Pentagon. 13

Mineta’s testimony to the Commission on Flight 77 differs rather significantly from the account provided in the 22 January 2002 edition of The Washington Post, as reported by Bob Woodward and Dan Balz in the series “10 Days in September”.14 This article reports that the conversation between Cheney and the aide occurred at 9:55 am, about 30 minutes later than the time Mineta cited (9:26 am) during his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. However, Cheney’s earlier arrival was independently confirmed both by Condoleezza Rice15 and by Richard Clarke. 16

Cheney’s remarks on “Meet the Press” (16 September 2001) support the earlier entry, 17 as does a newly discovered Secret Service document.18 The Woodward and Balz article thus appears to have been an effort to conceal his earlier arrival at the bunker, when the exchange with the aide occurred. Remarkably, the day after I appeared on “Hannity & Colmes” and reported Mineta’s testimony on FOX NEWS, 19 The White House announced that he had retired from the government. 20


SUMMARY: News leaks are a tried and true method for disseminating both true information (when it would be helpful) and false (when it would be more helpful). The Woodward and Balz article appears to have been intended to defect public attention from Cheney’s presence prior to the alleged hit on the Pentagon, since his order—that it not be shot down—facilitated the fabrication of a fake attack. It therefore reflects the consciousness of guilt, as did the abrupt “retirement” of the Transportation Secretary immediately after I publicized his story on FOX NEWS.

The Pentagon is among the most heavily defended building in the world. If the order had been to shoot it down, it would have been shot down. The plane now appears to have been a prop in an elaborate charade. This makes Cheney not only an accessory after the fact but an accomplice to the mass murder of 125 persons. While this aircraft itself does not appear to have been their cause of death (because they appear to have been killed by a series of explosions that simulated a plane crash), many of the dead were budget analysts and financial experts attempting to locate the $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld reported missing on 9/10.

11 Mineta’s testimony is at
14 Dan Balz and Bob Woodward, “10 Days in September”, The Washington Post,
15 David Ray Griiffin,“9/11 Contradictions: When Did Cheney Enter the Underground Bunker?”
16 Griiffin,
19 22 June 2006, First appearance on “Hannity & Colmes” discussing Mineta’s 9/11 testimony:
20 23 June 2006, Announcement of Mineta’s retirement:


(#3) Evidentiary Submission #3 of 5 by James H. Fetzer


At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Donald Rumsfeld

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Donald Rumsfeld

Title at the Time of his Offense: United States Secretary of Defense

Probable Cause: In his capacity as the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld actively participated in arranging for the occurrence of the Pentagon attack and by making false claims about the events of 9/11, including the following:

(1) The SOP for interdicting hijacked aircraft was change on 1 June 2001 so that it would now require the personal authorization of the Secretary of Defense;1

(2) Rumsfeld claimed to be unaware of any threats to the Pentagon, where he was located during the 9/11 attacks, until Flight 77 crashed into the building;2

(3) Rumsfeld. Condoleezza Rice, and other officials claimed they had no idea that planes could be used as weapons, which is contradicted on many grounds;3

(4) The “official account” of the Pentagon attack is not only wholly unsupported by the available evidence but is neither aerodynamically nor physically possible:

(a) the plane is alleged to have skimmed the lawn at over 500 mph, but that is not aerodynamically possible due to the phenomenon of “ground effect”,4 which would preclude the plane getting any closer than 60’ of the ground;

(b) the plane is alleged to have taken out a series of metal lampposts without affecting its flight path, which is physically impossible, because they would have ripped the wing off the plane and caused its fuel to have exploded;5

(c) the alleged “hit point” in the building is too small to accommodate a 100 ton airliner, where there is no massive stack of aluminum debris, wings, tail, bodies, seats or luggage, and not even the engines were recovered;6

(d) even though the Pentagon is surrounded by cameras, the only frame that it has released shows the image of a plane far too small to have been a Boeing 757, so the government’s own evidence contradicts its own story;7

(e) after the civilian lime-green fire trucks had extinguished the modest fires, the Pentagon lawn was clear, green, and unblemished by any debris from the crash of a large airplane, which should have been widely distributed;8

(f) Major Gen. Albert Stubblebein, USA (ret.), who was formerly in charge of all us military photographic intelligence, confirmed that no large plane had hit the Pentagon based upon his careful study of photographic evidence;9

(g) Other witnesses and evidence, including April Gallup, photographic and video evidence, substantiates that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and that, according to BTS records, Flight 77 was not even in the air on 9/11;10

(5) Secretary Rumsfeld predicts the Pentagon may be hit and is missing in action for at least 20 minutes before emerging on the lawn helping to carry the injured;11

(6) In his first public response, he accents that Secretary of the Army Tom White was responsible for “incidents like this”, shrugging off his own responsibility;12

(7) Tom White, a former Enron executive, had been appointed to that position on 31 May 2001, the day before the new hijacking instructions had been issued.13


SUMMARY: Even this brief and partial survey indicates that Donald Rumsfeld was too clever by half, appointing a patsy to take the blame the day before he changed the hijacking SOP, which appears to have been part of the plan to be sure there would be no NORAD response to the alleged hijackings. The claims made about “the Pentagon attack” are not only provably false but are not even aeronautically and physically possible. No reasonable alternative competes with the conclusion that Rumsfeld was a principal in planning the atrocities of 9/11, which not only caused the deaths of 125 persons who were in the building at the time but betrayed his responsibilities to the people of the United States as their Secretary of Defense, and deserves prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.

5 Nicely illustrated by a Lockeed Constellation hitting wooden telephone poles: (turn down the audio first)

(#4) Evidentiary Submission #4 of 5 by James H. Fetzer

At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Andy Card and George W. Bush

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: George W. Bush

Title at the Time of his Offense: President of the United States

Probable Cause: In his capacity as President of the United States, George W. Bush participated in planning the occurrence of and made false claims about the events of 9/11 to conceal their origins, an especially revealing example of which is a statement he made implicating himself. On 4 December 2001, in Orlando, FL, he said the following about his visit to Booker Elementary School on 9/11:1

“I was sitting outside the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower. You know, the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly myself. And I said to myself, ‘Well, there’s one terrible pilot.’ It must have been a terrible accident.”2

The alleged first hit on the North Tower took place at 8:46 AM/ET to be followed by the alleged second on the South Tower at 9:03 AM/ET.3 Bush’s motorcade had left the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort to head to Booker at 8:35 AM/ET.4 He arrived there at 8:55 AM/ET.5 Bush was told of the second hit at 9:06 AM/ET.6

Once he learned there had been two attacks, there was no rational justification to think the first had been “an accident”. Bush and Condoleezza Rice would initially feign that of the first hit, but they could not possibly have known.7 And he cannot have seen the Naudet video, which would not be broadcast until 1 AM/ET, 9/12.8

(a) An effort has been made to dismiss Bush’s remark about having seen the first hit “on television” as having been a mistake;9

(b) but he would repeat the same story during a town meeting in Ontario, CA, 5 January 2002, including having viewed it on TV;10

(c) a National Geographic Special that almost certainly included his recitation of his television viewing experience has been pulled;11 and,

(d) another—which is an obvious attempt to revise history–has been made available instead, where he recounts his story very differently:12

“I had been notified that a plane had hit the WTC. At first I thought it was a light aircraft. And my reaction was, ‘Man, either the weather was bad or something extraordinary happened to the pilot’. I then informed some of my staff members to provide help to New York City—whatever help was needed—and walked into the classroom”.


SUMMARY: President George W. Bush committed a gaffe when he spoke about his experiences on 9/11, candidly revealing that he had seen the first hit on TV, which has to have occurred while his motorcade was en route between Colony Beach and Tennis Resort and Booker Elementary School. This means that the Secret Service had a television camera focused on the North Tower when only those involved in planning the events of 9/11 would have had reason to watch the side of WTC-1. He could not have seen the hit on TV any other way. Eager to convey the impression he thought it was “an accident”, he revealed too much.

Removing “George W. Bush: The 9/11 Interview” and the substitution of another in which he contradicts his previous reports displays consciousness of guilt and the desire to tamper with evidence. But it was a risk that had to be run, because his having watched the first hit on Secret Service television was such an obvious indication of governmental complicity in 9/11. Given our other findings, such as:

(1) the fabrication of the four “crash sites” (see Evidentiary Submission #1);

(2) the failure to prove any of the “hijackers” were aboard any of the planes;13

(3) the faking of the phone calls alleged to have been made from the planes;14

and further forms of proof,15 it becomes increasingly apparent that the atrocities of 9/11 was a national security event that was approved at the highest levels of the American government, including The White House, NSA, CIA, Joint Chiefs and Department of Defense, where even the president appears to have been an accessory to the crime and to have committed treason against the United States.



3 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), for example, p. 285


5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.




11 “George W. Bush: The 9/11 Interview” (NO LONGER AVAILABLE)

12 “The President looks back”,




(#5) Evidentiary Submission #5 of 5 by James H. Fetzer


At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.

Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien

I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.

Name: Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, Minnesota Air National Guard (MNANG)

Title at the Time of his Offense: Pilot of C-130H circling the Pentagon on 9/11

Probable Cause: Among the most striking and indisputable aspects of 9/11 was the utter failure of NORAD, the NMCC and the FAA to coordinate any military response to (what were alleged to have been the hijacking of four commercial carriers, spanning an interval of time from 8:14 AM/ET, when the first reports of the possible hijacking of Flight 11 surfaced until after the Pentagon had been “hit” by Flight 77 at 9:38 AM/ET, over 1:14 hours later, even though a response to a hijacking should have taken less than 10 minutes.1 The failure to follow SOP is so blatant that there is no reasonable alternative to a deliberate “stand down”.2

THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), minimizes the absence of response and the time available to scramble fighters as if it was an innocuous event.3 One of the most peculiar aspects of the Pentagon attack is how our nation’s military leaders could not have known that a plane was approaching the building.4 This appears to be untrue on at least two grounds: first, that Vice President Cheney had been informed by an aide that a plane was headed toward the building by an aide and issued an order that the plane not be shot down (see Submission #2).

Another is that Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien was piloting a military C-130H cargo plane (call named, “Gofer 06”) in the vicinity of the Pentagon, where he and his crew were reported to have witnessed the crash of Flight 77 into the building as well as the crash of Flight 93 into the ground at Shanksville.5 Since O’Brien is said to have followed Flight 77—and to have identified it as a Boeing 757—it appears to be impossible that Pentagon officials, with whom he was in radio communication, could not have known a plane was approaching. The “official account” cannot be true, since it violates laws of aerodynamics and of physics (see Submission #3).

At 9:42 AM/ET, the FAA directed that all planes in the air should land6—minutes after the purported plane crash—but Gofer 06 remained airborne, apparently to perform a task essential to the cover-up. That no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon is not only established by the impossibility of the official trajectory—just skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out a series of lampposts without damage to the plane or affecting its trajectory—but also by the virtual absence of debris appropriate to the crash of 100-ton airliner: no massive pile of aluminum debris, no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats or luggage, such as would be expected.7 Not even the engines, which are virtually indestructible, were recovered from the site.

Photographs of the clear, green, Pentagon lawn—over 30 minutes following the attack, when a section of the building collapsed—display a stunning absence of debris.8 9 As even Jamie McIntrye reported live on CNN, there was no indication that any large plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.10 Pieces of plane fuselage and other debris would show up on the lawn, even though no plane had crashed there, which raises the question of where it came from. It would have been awkward to have officers or enlisted men carry pieces of debris out on the lawn, but it would not have been difficult to have dropped it from the C-130H that O’Brien was piloting. One especially notable piece of fuselage has been tracked back to the crash of a Boeing 757 that had occurred in Cali, Columbia, in 1995.11


SUMMARY: Debris that appeared on the Pentagon lawn more than 30 minutes after the alleged crash of Flight 77 cannot have come from a non-existent crash and must have been planted by military personnel or dropped from the C-130H that was circling the building. When I explained to the BBC that it had to have come from the plane for its second “Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On”, they featured Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, who expressed disgust at the implication that he had participated in faking the plane crash by dropping debris from his plane.12 13

But there is no reasonable alternative. The allege crash did not occur and any claims to have seen the plane hit the building cannot be true. It would have been impossible for the cargo door of his C-130H to open for the drop and the pilot be unaware of it; moreover, the C-130H is a special version with electronic warfare capabilities and may have played other important roles on 9/11.14 The evidence thus substantiates that Lt. Col. O’Brien remained airborne because he was “on a mission”, complicit in the crimes of 9/11, and actively engaged in their cover-up.

1 An excellent discussion is David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), Chapter 11. “NMCC” is the National Military Command Center.

2 Ibid., especially pages 146-153; and

3 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), Chapter 1, especially pages 24-40.

4 David Ray Griffin, 9/11 CONTRADICTIONS (2008), Chapter 11.

5 That claim is disputed at







12 is as close as I have been able to find it.


14 Email correspondence with military aircraft expert, Dennis Cimino (3 and 4 August 2012)

Jim Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and a journalist for Veterans Today. He has written dozens of articles on subjects like 9/11 and JFK.

Related Posts:

Posted in USAComments Off on 9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien

Independent Nations Must Move Toward New World Order: Jean Bricmont

By Kourosh Ziabari

Prof. Jean Bricmont is a renowned Belgian public intellectual, theoretical physicist, philosopher of science and a professor at the Université catholique de Louvain. A progressive author, he has cooperated with the leading American thinker Noam Chomsky on a variety of anti-war causes.

In 2007, he wrote an article in French discussing the possibility of a US invasion of Iran. One of his famous books is “Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science” which he has co-written with Alan Sokal. In this book, they talk about a number of issues, including the allegedly incompetent and pretentious usage of scientific concepts by a small group of influential philosophers and intellectuals.

Bricmont’s articles have appeared on Counterpunch, Monthly Review, Voltairenet, Z Magazine, Global Research and other print and online publications.

He has proposed the theory of humanitarian imperialism and is strongly opposed to the U.S. military expeditions around the world and its unilateral attitude toward the independent nations. Bricmont believes that the Non-Aligned Movement countries can move toward establishing a new world order based on the communal interests of the member states.

What follows is the full text of my interview with Prof. Jean Bricmont to whom I’ve talked about a number of issues including the Western powers’ hypocrisy on the human rights issue, America’s wars and military expeditions around the world, the concept of “humanitarian intervention” and Israel’s war threats against Iran.

Dear Jean; in your article, “The Case for a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy,” you write of the justifications the imperial powers come up with in order to rationalize their military expeditions around the world. Isn’t a hawkish foreign policy an advantage for the politicians in the Western world, particularly the United States, to attract the vote and supporting of the public? Will the American people elect a pacifist President who openly vows to put an end to all the U.S. wars and refrain from waging new wars?

I am not sure that it attracts the votes. In Europe, certainly not. The most hawkish politicians, Blair and Sarkozy were not popular for a long time because of their foreign policy. In Germany the public is systematically in favor of a peaceful foreign policy. As the American pacifist A. J. Muste remarked, the problem in all wars lies with the victor – they think violence pays. The defeated, like Germany, and to some extent the rest of Europe, know that war is not so rosy.

However, I think that, except in times of crisis, like the Vietnam or the Algerian wars, when they turned badly for the U.S. or France, most people are not very interested in foreign policy, which is understandable, given their material problems and given the fact that it looks like being out of reach of ordinary people.

On the other hand, every U.S. presidential candidate has to make patriotic statements, “we are the best”, “a light at the top of the hill”, a “defender of democracy and human rights” and so on. That, of course, is true in all systems of power, the only thing that varies are the “values” to which one refers (being a good Christian or Muslim or defending socialism, etc.).

And, it is true that, in order to get the votes, one must get the support of the press and of big money. That introduces an enormous bias in favor of militarism and of support for Israel.

The imperial powers, as you have indicated in your writings, wage wars, kill innocent people and plunder the natural resources of weaker countries under the pretext of bringing democracy to them. So, who should take care of the principles of international law, territorial integrity and sovereignty? Attacking other countries at will and killing defenseless civilians recklessly is a flagrant parade of lawlessness. Is it possible to bring these powers to their senses and hold them accountable over what they do?

I think the evolution of the world goes in that direction; respect for the principles of international law, territorial integrity and sovereignty. As I said before, the European populations are rather peaceful, both inside Europe and with respect to the rest of the world, at least, compared to the past. Some of their leaders are not peaceful and there is a strong pressure from an apparently strange alliance in favor of war between human rights interventionists and neo-conservatives who are influential in the media and in the intelligentsia, but they are not the only voices and they are rather unpopular with the general public.

As for the U.S., they are in a deep crisis, not only economically, but also diplomatically. They have lost control of Asia long ago, are losing Latin America and, now, the Middle East. Africa is turning more and more towards China.

So, the world is becoming multipolar, whether one likes it or not. I see at least two dangers: that the decline of the U.S. will produce some crazy reaction, leading to war, or that the collapse of the American empire creates chaos, a bit like the collapse of the Roman Empire did. It is the responsibility of the Non-Aligned Movement and the BRICS countries to insure an orderly transition towards a really new world order.

What seems hypocritical in the Western powers’ attitude toward the concept of human rights is that they ceaselessly condemn the violation of human rights in the countries with which they are at odds, but intentionally remain silent about the same violations in the countries which are allied with them. For instance, you surely know that how the political prisoners are mistreated and tortured in Saudi Arabia, Washington’s number one ally among the Arab countries. So, why don’t they protest and condemn these violations?

Do you know any power that is not hypocritical? It seems to me that this is the way power functions in all places and at all times.
For example, in 1815, at the fall of Napoleon, the Tsar of Russia, the Austrian Emperor and the King of Prussia came together in what they called their Holy Alliance, claiming to base their rules of conduct “on the sublime truths contained in the eternal religion of Christ our Savior,” as well as on the principles “of their holy religion, precepts of justice, charity and peace,” and vowed to behave toward their subjects “as a father toward his children.” During the Boer war, the British Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, declared that it was “a war for democracy” and that “we seek neither gold mines nor territory”. Bertrand Russell, citing these remarks, commented that “cynical foreigners” couldn’t help noticing that “we nevertheless obtained both the mines and the territory”.

At the height of the Vietnam War, the American historian Arthur Schlesinger described U.S. policy there as part of “our overall program of international good will”. At the end of that war, a liberal commentator wrote in the New York Times that: “For a quarter of a century, the United States have tried to do good, to encourage political freedom and promote social justice in the Third World”.

In that sense, things have not changed. People sometimes think that, because our system is more democratic, things must have changed. But that assumes that the public is well informed, which it is not true because of the many biases in the media, and that it is actively involved in the formation of foreign policy, which is also not true, except in times of crisis. The formation of foreign policy is a very elitist and undemocratic affair.

Attacking or invading other countries under the pretext of humanitarian intervention may be legalized and permissible with the unanimity of the Security Council permanent members. If they all vote in favor a military strike, then it will happen. But, don’t you think that the very fact that only 5 world countries can make decisions for 193 members of the United Nations while this considerable majority don’t have any say in the international developments is an insult to all of these nations and their right of self-determination?

Of course. You don’t need unanimity actually, except for the permanent members. But now that China and Russia seem to have taken an autonomous position with respect to the West, it is not clear that new wars will be legal. I am not happy with the current arrangements at the Security Council, but I still think that the UN is, on the whole, a good thing; its Charter provides a defense, in principle, against intervention and a framework for international order and its existence provides a forum where different countries can meet, which is better than nothing.

Of course, reforming the UN is a tricky business, since it cannot be done without the consent of the permanent members of the Security Council, who are not likely to be very enthusiastic at the prospect of relinquishing part of their power. What will matter in the end will be the evolution of the relationship of forces in the world, and that is not going in the direction of those who think that they now control it.

Let’s talk about some contemporary issues. In your articles, you have talked of the war in Congo. It was very shocking to me that the Second Congo War was the deadliest conflict in the African history with some 5 million innocent people dead, but the U.S. mainstream media put a lid on it because one of the belligerents, the Rwandan army, was a close ally of Washington. What’s your take on that?

Well, I am not an expert on that part of the world. But I notice that the Rwandan tragedy of 1994 is often used as an argument for foreign intervention, which, it is claimed, would have stopped the killings, while the tragedy in Congo should be taken as an argument against foreign intervention and for respect of international law, since it was to a large extent due to the intervention of Rwandan and Ugandan troops in Congo.

Of course, the fact that the latter argument is never made shows, once more, how the discourse about humanitarian intervention is biased in favor of the powers that be, who want to attribute to themselves the right to intervene, whenever it suits them.

Just a few days ago, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon condemned Iranian leaders for their supposedly “inflammatory and hateful” remarks on Israel. However, I never remember him condemning the Israeli officials for their frequent repeating of dangerous war threats against Iran. What’s the reason behind this hypocrisy?

As you know, the hypocrisy with respect to Israel in the West reaches staggering proportions and Ban Ki-moon, although he is UN Secretary General, is very much on “pro-Western” positions. While I myself have doubts about the wisdom of the Iranian rhetoric about Israel, I think that the threats of military actions against Iran by Israel are far worse and should be considered illegal under international law. I also think that the unilateral sanctions against Iran, taken by the U.S. and its allies, largely to please Israel, are shameful. And, although the people who claim to be anti-racist in the West never denounce these policies, I think they are deeply racist, because they are accepted only because so-called civilized countries, Israel and its allies, exert this threat and those sanctions against an “uncivilized” one, Iran.This will be remembered in the future in the same way that slavery is remembered now.

There are people like you who oppose the U.S. militarism, its imposture and hypocrisy in dealing with the human rights and its attempts to devour the oil-rich Middle East, but unfortunately I should say, you’re in the minority. It’s the Israeli-administered Congress and hawkish think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations and National Endowment for Democracy that run the United States, not the anti-war, pro-peace progressive thinkers and writers like you. How much influence do the progressive thinkers and leftist media have over the policies which are taken in the United States?

Well, I think one has to make a difference between support for Israel and the desire to “devour” oil. The two policies are not the same and are, in fact, contradictory. As, I think, Mearsheimer and Walt have shown, the pro-Israel policies of the U.S. are to a large extent driven by the pro-Israel lobby and do not correspond to or help their economic or geo-strategic interests. For example, as far as I know, there would be no problem for our oil companies to drill in Iran, if it weren’t for the sanctions imposed on that country; but the latter are linked to the hostility to Iran from Israel, not from any desire to control oil.

The second remark is that the anti-war people are not necessarily on the left. True, there is a big part of the Right that has become neo-conservative, but there is also a big part of the Left that is influenced by the ideology of humanitarian intervention. However, there is also a libertarian Right, Ron Paul for example, that is staunchly anti-war, and there are some remnants of a pacifist or anti-imperialist Left. Note that this has always been the case: the pro and anti-imperialist position, even back in the days of colonialism, do not coincide with the Left-Right divide, if the latter is understood in socio-economic terms or in “moral” terms (about gay marriage for example).

Next, it is true that we have very little influence, but that is partly because we are divided, between an anti-war Left and anti-war Right. I believe that a majority of the population is opposed to these endless and costly wars, mostly, in Europe, because of the lesson they drew from WWII, or from their defeat in the colonial wars, and, in the U.S., because of war fatigue after Afghanistan and Iraq.

What we do not have is a consistent anti-war movement; to build the latter one would have to focus on war itself and unite both sides of the opposition (Right and Left). But if movements can be built around other “single issues,” like abortion or gay marriage, that put aside all socio-economic problems and class issues, why not?

Although such a movement does not exist now, its prospects are not totally hopeless: if the economic crisis deepens, and if the worldwide opposition to U.S. policies increases, citizens of all political stripes might gather to try to build alternatives.

What’s your viewpoint regarding the U.S. and its allies’ war of sanctions, embargoes, nuclear assassinations and psychological operation against Iran? Iran is practically under a multilateral attack by the United States, Israel and their submissive European cronies. Is there any way for Iran to get out of the dilemma and resist the pressures? How much do you know Iran? Have you heard of its culture and civilization, which the mainstream media never talk about?

I do not know much about Iran, but I do not think I need to know very much about that country although I would certainly like to know more, in order to oppose the policies you mention. I was also opposed to Western interventions in former Yugoslavia or in Libya.

Some people think there are good and bad interventions. But the main issue for me is: who intervenes? It is never really the “citizens” or the “civil society” of the West, or even the European countries on their own, meaning without U.S. support, it is always the U.S. military, mostly its Air Force.

Now, one may of course defend the idea that international law should be disregarded and that the defense of human rights should be left to the U.S. Air Force. But many people who support “good” interventions do not say that. They usually argue that “we” must do something to “save the victims” in a particular situation. What this viewpoint forgets is that the “we” who is supposed to intervene is not the people who actually speak, but the U.S. military.

Therefore, support for any intervention only strengthens the arbitrary power of the U.S., which, of course, uses it as it seems fit, and not, in general, according to the wishes of those who support “good” interventions.

And finally, would you please give us an insight of how the corporate media serve the interests of the imperial powers? How do they work? Is it morally justifiable to use media propaganda to achieve political and colonial goals?

The connection between “corporate media” and war propaganda is complicated, as is the relationship between capitalism and war. Most people on the Left think that capitalism needs war or leads to it. But the truth, in my view, is far more nuanced. American capitalists make fortunes in China and Vietnam now that there is peace between the U.S. and East Asia; for American workers, it is a different matter, of course.

There is no reason whatsoever for oil or other Western companies not to do business with Iran, and, if there was peace in the region, capitalists would descend upon it like vultures in order to exploit a cheap and relatively qualified labor force.

This is not to say that capitalists are nice, nor that they cannot be individually pro-war, but only that war, in general, is not in their interests and they are not necessarily the main force pushing for war.

People are driven to war by conflicting ideologies, especially when they take a fanatical form – for example, when you believe that a certain piece of land was given to you by God, or that your country has a special mission, like exporting human rights and democracy, preferably by cruise missiles and drones.

It is both sad and ironical that an idea that is largely secular and liberal, the one of human rights, has now been turned into one of the main means to whip up war hysteria in the West. But that is our present situation and a most urgent and important task is to change it.

Related Posts:

Posted in WorldComments Off on Independent Nations Must Move Toward New World Order: Jean Bricmont

Waging War on Leaks


by Stephen Lendman


On July 30, the Washington Post headlined “A bill to stop security leaks puts a plug on democracy,” saying:

Journalists and others talk to officials daily. Background briefings are commonplace. Vital information is discussed. Most of it is unclassified.

On May 15, HR 5743: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 was introduced and referred to committee. On May 31, it passed.

On July 30, S. 3454: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 was introduced and reported to committee. Enactment hasn’t occurred. More on it below.

A Senate amendment to S. 3454 permits only the director, deputy director, or public affairs representative of an intelligence agency to provide “background or off-the-record information regarding intelligence activities.”

Lower level personnel perhaps with contrary views are prohibited from stating them. At issue is government transparency, press freedom, and the public’s right to know.

Independent investigative journalism will be compromised. So will press and other First Amendment freedoms. At issue are provisions listed below.

  1. Requiring Congress to be notified when intelligence related information is publicly disclosed. In addition, maintaining a record of all authorized disclosures is mandated.
  2. Establishing formal leak investigation procedures.
  3. Assessing their effectiveness by expanded polygraph testing despite its unreliability and inadmissibility in court.
  4. Prohibiting cleared personnel from serving as paid consultants or commentators for up to a year after government service.
  5. Letting only designating intelligence community officials communicate with the media.
  6. Requiring all media contacts be reported.
  7. Requiring the attorney general and director of national intelligence (DNI) to report to Congress on improving procedures governing leak investigations.
  8. Punishing unauthorized leakers by rescinding their federal pension benefits.
  9. Prohibiting security clearances for unauthorized leakers.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) calls the measure dangerous and “sloppily” written. It goes way beyond stopping classified information leaks. Passage will enact a new layer of secrecy and coverup. The bill’s problems are “extensive and severe.”

New York Times editorial called it “A Pernicious Drive Toward Secrecy,” saying:

“(M)misguided legislation….would severely chill news coverage of national security issues. Drafted in secret without public hearings,” enactment will undermine democracy.

Debate on vital issues will be compromised. Issues like government spying, torture, and war won’t be discussed.

Whistleblowers will be targeted more than now. Discussing truths too important to conceal will be compromised. Mostly unclassified information is affected.

The measure “draws no distinction between information that is properly classified and the vast pile of information that poses no national risk but has been deemed secret thanks only to a dysfunctional system of over-classification of government documents.”

Enactment compromises constitutional rights. It passed the Senate Intelligence Committee with one dissenting vote. Former officials, civil liberties groups, and outspoken journalists denounce it.

Don’t count on Obama to stop it. He routinely supports police state measures. He’s targeted whistleblowers more aggressively than all his predecessors combined. House and Senate approval assures enactment.

Classification expert Steven Aftergood documented worrisome bill provisions. What’s “unauthorized disclosure,” he asked? Clarity about what constitutes the media is absent. Professional journalists are fourth estate members. What about independent writers, bloggers, and social network contributors?

Classified information isn’t defined. “Merely being classified (doesn’t) warrant exemption from disclosure under FOIA.” A court ordered the US trade representative to release a classified document not properly classified. So far the government refused.

The concept of unauthorized disclosure is ill-defined. Interpretations differ. Most bill provisions apply to elements of the intelligence community. Section 501 affects the executive branch. It requires notification of authorized information releases.

FOIA provisions exempt classified information provided it’s “properly classified.”

EFF calls the Senate measure troubling, “given that the government’s secrecy system has ballooned to absurd proportions.”

Secrecy was always excessive. However, “2011 was particularly egregious.” Washington classified 77 million documents, 40% more than the previous year.

Government employees with security clearances number 4.2 million. Air Force families are prohibited from accessing WikiLeaks. The Air Force also bars service members in war theaters from reading The New York Times.

Guantanamo detainee lawyers are prohibited from reading WikiLeaks files pertaining to their clients. Some were publicly released. Numerous other examples show troubling secrecy level annual increases.

Virtually everything in government related to national security and foreign policy is now classified. Doing so is often out of line and improper. It’s done to hide embarrassing truths, government waste, corruption, other criminality, and serious constitutional violations.

Former US classification czar, J. William Leonard, calls the system “dysfunctional.” It “clearly lacks the ability to differentiate between trivial information and that which can truly damage our nation’s well-being.”

Bureaucratic overkill stamps virtually everything secret. Leonard was Bush’s secrecy chief. He’s now a vocal critic. The new Senate measure is another attempt to subvert democracy and conceal wrongdoing through secrecy.

Whistleblowers are especially at risk. The Times article said FBI investigations into leaks are “casting a distinct chill over press coverage of national security issues as agencies decline routine interview requests and refuse to provide background briefings.”

If enacted, new anti-leaks legislation may permanently alter the way journalists interact with government officials. Doing so deals democracy another blow.

EFF calls the most disturbing issue the fact that Congress proposed the measure. According to Steven Aftergood:

“(T)there is something incongruous, if not outrageous, about the whole effort by Congress to induce stricter secrecy in the executive branch, which already has every institutional incentive to restrict public disclosure of intelligence information.”

Investigations followed previous leaks. “Substantive” Congressional oversight followed. In contrast, post-9/11, Congress and officials in two administrations targeted whistleblowers with a vengeance.

For example, New Yorker contributor Steve Coll addressed Newsweek reporter Daniel Klaidman’s book on Obama’s drone strike policy.

He discusses “the first instance in American history of a sitting President speaking of his intent to kill a particular US citizen without that citizen having been charged formally with a crime or convicted at trial.”

When the New York Times discussed cyberattacks on Iran (based on leaks), The Times said doing so was unprecedented. It compared doing so to “the first use of atomic weapons” against Japan.

These and other issues demand open unobstructed debate and scrutiny. Criminalizing it is unconscionable. Everyone has a right to know. Independent journalists especially serve a vital service. They go where mainstream ones won’t dare. They do it because it’s the right thing to do. Anything less falls short. Free and open societies depend on them.

Secrecy, lack of oversight, and unaccountability prevent the public from knowing what’s most important.

A firestorm of criticism got Senate Intelligence Committee Chairperson Dianne Feinstein to consider bill revisions. A committee aide said she and other senators were “reviewing comments.” They’ll consider changes “as the bill moves forward.”

Modifications are likely before the full Senate votes. Even Bush was less restrictive than Obama. He’s more secretive and draconian than any previous president. He want total control over what’s secret and what’s not.

EFF condemned him and congressional supporters, saying:

Vital information secrecy, coverup, and obstruction “have no place in a democracy that values government transparency and prides itself on press freedom and justice under the law.”

Obama and those around him are going all out to destroy them. Failure to stop them assures tyranny. It’s already perilously close to full-blown.

Inattention and indifference means accepting the worst of all possible worlds. No one should tolerate them. Resistance, not acquiescence, is essential.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Waging War on Leaks

Why Is Iran’s Ayatollah Saner than Mitt Romney?


Simple Truth from an Unexpected Sourc

Address At Non-Aligned Conference in Tehran a “Breath of Fresh Air”

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

In Tehran, 120 nations got together, risking car bomb retaliation and the scorn of Mitt Romney and Sheldon Adelson to discuss why they think the UN is a cheap con and America and Israel are “full of it.”  The numbers of nations no longer willing to “kiss butt” is a smackdown for Israel more than America.

It is also a total “smackdown” for the UN, the pretend organization where 5 nations have total veto power over any real action.


There are 7 videos here, 34 minutes of translated speech, something I expect about one in 20 readers to look at.  I don’t blame you, I hate seeing videos also.  However there is a reason for me to put this here.  If  you want to understand the UN, the US and Israel and who and what Iran is, it is explained in plain language.  It just takes a half hour.  About 7 minutes of it involves the rights of Palestinians.  There has been so much propaganda out there, trying to save them seems hopeless to many of us.  Billions have been spent so we would give up, no accident there.


For members of our military and intelligence services, the answer is simple, right out of the comic strip “Pogo”:  “We have met the enemy and he is us.”  No one remembers when Americans started vilifying any potential adversary, almost always tied to profiteering or some business interest, in order to coax volunteers to be slaughtered as General Smedley Butler, twice CMOH winner would say, as “gangsters for Wall Street.”  We tell ourselves of “honorable service” and forget we killed “militants” who were farmers the day before, enemies that were more “freedom fighter” than we would ever want to admit.


For Americans, how do you listen?  Look at how he is dressed, the beard, the room full of dark skinned foreigners.  Were any of them at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, would the crowd be throwing them nuts saying “this is how we feed the animals?”  The message in the video, that non-aligned nations are finished with the corrupt UN.  There is clear agreement on that.  Whether they buy everything said, that remains to be seen.


If you want to know what is wrong with America, the answer is simple.  120 nations sit here that should be buying American made cars and trucks, American machinery and electronics but, instead, they are loading up on arms, American some, Israeli and Chinese, Russian mostly.  The system of cooperation and peace that would give jobs to millions of Americans was systematically destroyed when America’s economy was hijacked during the Reagan administration, the man who decided wealth would “trickle down” and that we didn’t need factories.  We were going to flip burgers and count phony money.  Reaganonmics.


34 minutes, talk about “Zionism,” talk many of us know valid but a term that controlled news has transformed from a system as evil as communism to a mythical biblical concept that, when examined, has nothing “Jewish” about it.  Zionism is a political con.  A definition;  “Starting wars, getting others to die and you make all the money.”


What is the lesson?  Iran doesn’t stand alone, Israel does, abandoned even by American Jews.  That can change and should and the formula for it is being offered.  Look on what is suggested, the referendum as a beginning of negotiations.  Without justice there will be eternal war.  If Israel wants to fight it, let us correct our falsified and propagandized history first and then let properly informed and educated Americans of all faiths including “none of the above” make the decisions.

The issue should be humanity for all.  Today, the religious conflicts of the Middle East, not confined to just Jews and Muslims, it goes deeper, it goes back centuries, all need to be redressed.  I have issues about Christians and their rights, issues about the Kurds, about the Armenians, there is a thousand  years or more that has to be redressed, “de-propagandized” and replaced with peace and understanding.

Wars must end and those who sell them need to be punished, isolated from mankind like an incurable disease.


Related Posts:

Posted in IranComments Off on Why Is Iran’s Ayatollah Saner than Mitt Romney?

ISI: US Special Forces Back Terror Attack on Pakistan’s Kamra Base


Militants who attacked the Minhas Air Base in the aviation city of Kamra had highly-sophisticated equipment and possessed a very tactical standard of guerrilla warfare training which no ordinary Taliban brigade has.

by Zaki Khalid


As the sacred Islamic month of Ramadan was at its peak in Pakistan, the serene city of Kamra near Islamabad (known as the Aviation City for housing a number of aircraft production/maintenance factories) wasattacked by a horde of terrorists in the dark hours of the night.

The final overview of the attack made it clear that it was, fortunately, a humiliating failure for the improvised militants whose core objective was to give a series of strategic blows to the Pakistani military, especially the airforce since two very important assets of the country were parked at that base: JF-17 Thunder jets which were jointly manufactured with China and the Saab AWACS tasked with gathering aerial intelligence for the country’s defence establishment.

Had this terror operation proven successful, another major loss for the Pakistan Air Force would have taken place like the one before it when similarly-trained guerrillas managed to destroy Orion surveillance planes at the PNS Mehran base in the port city of Karachi.

However, thanks to the enhanced training for Pakistani Special Forces regiments such as the Special Services Group (SSG) Commandos and the exclusive Special Service Wing (SSW) Commandos of the airforce, a dreadful repeat was averted. Like the previous occurrence, the fingers were immediately raised towards India as the arch-rival.

But as my team presented in its report last year, this assertion is what was planned by the actual layout officials. The assortment of sophisticated hi-tech equipment, ammunition and training which the terrorists had was found to be too advanced for what the Indian intelligence RAW is capable of.

As always, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades were found along with suicide jackets. This time, there was a new addition: For the attack on PNS Mehran in Karachi, the militants then had static preset coordinates set for the operation and communicated just via satellite phones; but during the recent attack on Kamra, the terrorists besides these had real-time GPS enabled touchpads fixed on their bodies, two BlackBerry smartphones (exact quantity could not be confirmed from secondary source), infrared devices, daggers inside pockets and more items which were not disclosed by sources for various reasons.

As always, the planners always forget to leave their marks (mostly by accident), and this time the mark they left was that the GPS devices were of a make used only by US troops. They might not have had the intention to let the devices come in Pakistani hands since the recruits were strapped with suicide vests to blow themselves off after the stunt, but the vest-strapped attackers were all gunned down by sniper shots where only one blew himself up beforehand. This helped forensic experts from the ISI and MI gather evidence which remained intact. Using BlackBerry phones was a smart option because of its highly secure encrypted communication logs.

In an ominous backdrop, just a day before the attack, Leon Panetta held a press conference at the Pentagon in which he said:

“The great danger we’ve always feared is that if terrorism is not controlled in their country (Pakistan), then those nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands”

I am not saying that the attack was planned right after that overnight. Surely such pinpoint operations take months of regular practice before the recruits are sent on their mission by being told that they are ‘doing a great service to Islam‘.

The attacks are executed on symbolic occasions: that night was the most holiest night of Ramadan in the country and the Independence Day (August 14) had just passed. Pakistani security officials have maintained that almost all militants who come from Afghanistan are jointly trained by the Afghan NDS and Indian RAW or directly by the US, in this case the latter was found involved knee-deep.

“It is very easy to assess that the attackers were backed by a group more technologically advanced since the Afghan intelligence has considerably zero TECHINT capability and neither did our ground sources find any archived leads which showed that the Indian RAW had links to this particular misadventure,” said an official on condition of anonymity. “Almost all the militants were traced to the Khost area of Afghanistan. Leads from that region suggest that majority of the attackers comprised of recruits from various Kandaks (battalions) of the Afghan National Army Commando Brigade working under the directorate of the US Special Operations forces had been trained for incursion into Pakistan. They were deployed to the mainland of the country for a grand operation and had local assistance by Pakistani militia also”.

The Minhas Air Base has a false notion attributed to it. Miscreant journalists tasked with writing propaganda such as Declan Walsh of Guardian fame (now in the New York Times) wrote an article on the attack with the crispy headline ‘Pakistani Air Force base with nuclear ties is attacked‘.

Just where the heck did he come out with the supposed relation is beyond many; since my primary subject of discourse is intelligence affairs, I happen to be a regular reader of the DEBKAFile website which has close ties to the Israeli intelligence. The site had written a report titled ‘Two Pakistani N-bombs available to Saudi Arabia‘. An excerpt from the article reads:

‘Saudi Arabia has jumped ahead of Iran by obtaining the use of two Pakistani nuclear bombs or guided missile warheads. debkafile’s Gulf sources believe the weapons are ready for delivery upon royal summons in Pakistan’s nuclear air base at Kamra in the northern district of Attock. Already delivered is a quantity of Pakistan’s Ghauri-II missile with an extended range of 2,300 kilometers. They are tucked away in silos in the underground city of Al-Sulaiyil, south of the capital Riyadh’

Pakistan indeed has nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia but the details aforementioned are quite distorted and far from reality. This is a separate topic for discussion and might be highlighted later someday. What is to be noted above is that it is DEBKAFile which is the first known news source to allege Kamra as a nuclear base whereas it is not factually true.

The Minhas Air Base was never used for emergency nuclear assembly neither is Pakistan’s National Command Authority so unprofessional that it will store disassembled warheads on a base which is in a region infested with growing threats from the CIA-sponsored Punjabi Taliban. For the part, this proves Mr. Walsh’s research is either absolutely faulty or it was purposely added for nefarious reasons known better to himself.

It has long been an American strategy to push for an Indo-Pakistan war. Admiral Mullen was the first to push for one, and so was McRaven, who is now at SOCOM. His successor Lt Gen Joseph Votel is proving to be even more of an enthusiastic officer. What is clear though is that whichever special operations team was involved, SOCOM or JSOC, the quality of intelligence which the attackers had was courtesy of the notorious CIA.

To be honest, the US gains nothing by destroying the Saabs and JF-17s under Pakistan’s possession. All this was meant, as I have been consistently saying, to provoke Pakistan into triggering a regional war. India could surely have garnered strategic leverage but it could not afford a misadventure into Pakistan of this magnitude. India’s RAW in association with the CIA already has its hands full providing for the TTP militancy in northern and central Pakistan.

I personally think that the American Task Force 373 (TF373) could be behind this attack keeping in light its bloody past and bases in Khost and Kunar from where major terrorism comes into Pakistan. However, it might not be so since the TF373 act as more of standalone contractors rather than trainers and the level of training imparted to the terrorist Afghan Commandos was very high which can lead one to safely suggest that such specified exercise could only be the handiwork of the elite US Special Operations forces scattered across Afghanistan.

But then why did the TTP accept responsibility for the attack?

“Routine PR,” says the official. “Tomorrow a false-flag happens in Europe or the US, they will be told to come out again and ‘accept responsibility’. Its all about repeatedly stressing that Waziristan is the supposed epicentre of global terror.

The Kamra attack is a notable addition to this demand. They are challenging the Pakistan Army to come to North Waziristan and believe me, the military leadership including General Kayani do not want to go there”.

“Has the military expressed its concerns with the government?” I asked.

“Yes it has. But to no avail”, came the reply.


I would like to reiterate what I briefed in my interview to Press TV not long ago. It provides a comprehensive summary of why the US is constantly provoking Pakistan’s military establishment and what adverse effects it could have for the entire world. Please spare out some minutes to listen to my statement:



Related Posts:

Short URL:

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on ISI: US Special Forces Back Terror Attack on Pakistan’s Kamra Base

9/11: Confessions of a Former CIA Asset


by  Susan Lindauer  (with  Jim Fetzer)

It was my great pleasure to invite Susan Lindauer, a former CIA asset, who had extraordinary experiences conducting back channel talks with Saddam Hussein about resuming UN weapons inspections during negotiations prior to the invasion of Iraq, to speak at The Vancouver Hearings.  

She had served as a conduit in communications between the US and Saddam, who had been cooperating with the United States and even offered to purchase 1,000,000 new cars from Detroit per year for the next ten years or, if that were not enough, for the next twenty, if the US would not attack his country.

Imagine what an impact that would have made on our economy if Bush and Cheney had not been dedicated to the invasion of Iraq?

We were told that Saddam had been involved in 9/11, that Iraq and al Qaeda were in cahoots, and that he was out to develop nuclear weapons and had attempted to purchase yellowcake from Niger, a fraud that was exposed by US Ambassador Joe Wilson, in retaliation for which his wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as an undercover CIA agent who was managing the most important intelligence operation in the world at the time to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

Dick Cheney and his minions did not take that kindly and revealed that Valerie was conducting this operation, which not only decimated the task on which it had embarked but no doubt led to the deaths of those who had placed their lives at risk by cooperating covertly with Plame and her associates.

This is only one of many crass and corrupt acts by our own Vice President, who was running an assassination ring out of his office in the White House itself, which appears to have been responsible not only for the death ofSen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) for opposing the administration on Iraq but also Cpl. Pat Tillman, who had become disillusioned with the war and — in a fatal error of judgment — appears to have confided in Noam Chomsky, who in turn appears to have advised the White House that they had a problem, which they resolved by taking him out and fabricating a story of his death as a tragic and fateful “accident”.

While Chomsky has been lionized by the left for his courageous and outspoken criticism of one administration after another and has done brilliant work exposing the use of propaganda and disinformation in instances of intermediate significance, when it comes to major events, such as the assassination of JFK and the atrocities of 9/11. He has become an apologist, even dismissing the idea of conspiracy in the case of JFK on the grounds that, even if there had been collusion between parties, it was of no significance, since his death did not involve any major policy issues.

We are left to believe as though not invading Cuba, signing an above ground test ban treaty with the Soviet Union, withdrawing from Vietnam, shattering the CIA into a thousand pieces, cracking down on organized crime, cutting the oil depletion allowance, and abolishing the FED were not major policy issues! Chomsky’stheories of linguistics are as impoverished as his political stance on issues of this magnitude.

Chomsky may be doing the most damage to the 9/11 Truth movement, but others are playing subsidiary roles, even if they may have different reasons for doing so.  Dan Rather would prefer the world would forget that, on 9/11, he broadcast a report about the arrest of two suspects in a van with enough explosives to do “great damage to the George Washington Bridge”, which has been confirmed by other sources.  See, for example,

BILL HEMMER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you. Again, our apologies to our viewers about five minutes ago, but we do have an established connection now with CNN’s Deborah Feverick. The reports we’re getting now, two or three men arrested on the New Jersey Parkway. Deborah, can you hear me now?

DEBORAH FEVERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I can. That is the information that I am getting from two sources, that there was a van either on the New Jersey Turnpike or the Garden State Parkway, and that it was near the George Washington Bridge.

There were two or three men who were in the van that was pulled over. It is not clear why the van was pulled over, but when it was, law enforcers found tons of explosives inside of the van.

That is, right now, all I am hearing. But again, two to three people in custody, and we are trying to get more information on that right now.

HEMMER: Deborah, I don’t mean to put you on the spot here. Do you know where on the Jersey Turnpike this was? How far from New York City?

FEVERICK: We do not know that. We are looking into that. There is one report that it was on the New Jersey Turnpike. There is another report that it was very close to the bridge, if not on the bridge. So again, these details are emerging. We’re trying to piece them together. But that’s what we have so far, two to three people in custody, found with a van filled with explosives.

Even web sites that attempt to debunk these reports inadvertently confirm them, where, although Dan Rather opined that it wasn’t clear whether this van-load of explosives was related to the other events of 9/11, it is not rocket science to appreciate that they were connected.  Indeed, we have a great deal of information that links Israel to 9/11 via the transfer of the WTC to Larry Silverstein, “the Dancing Israelis”, Urban Moving Systems, ICTS, and much, much more.

We know that Israel was complicit in the crimes of 9/11. Susan reports that a series of vans was also used to visit the Twin Towers late in the evening to prep the buildings for destruction. Even though some have continued to entertain the possibility US intelligence was incompetent and that 9/11 was simply “allowed to happen”, we now have persuasive information from an informed source, who should enable even the most naive to better understand that 9/11 was “an inside job” and that, as many of us have pieced together from other sources, where the US government attacked the US to promote a political agenda.

For her attempts to expose the truth about 9/11, Susan was arrested and prosecuted under the PATRIOT ACT, only the second US citizen to endure such a fate.  She was incarcerated and tortured for five years and denied the right to legal counsel, even though she was innocent of any crime.  This is a stunning indictment of what the United States has become, which our Founding Fathers would not recognize:  a neo-fascist, militaristic police state, where surveillance is ubiquitous.

The Department of Homeland Security has now acquired more than a million rounds of .40 hollow-point ammunition, which is not even permissible in times of war under the Geneva Conventions.  We know there arehundreds of FEMA camps around the country and that Congress has authorized the use of 30,000 drones to track American civilians.  What she has to tell us should disturb every American, indeed, every citizen of the world who cares about human rights, due process, and simple decency.



August 13, 2012

My name is Susan Lindauer. I was one of the very few U.S. Intelligence Assets covering Iraq and Libya at the United Nations in New York from 1995 to 2003. As a back channel, I started talks for the Lockerbie Trial with Libya’s senior diplomats. I also conducted preliminary talks to resume weapons inspections with Iraq’s Ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan, as part of a larger, comprehensive peace framework.

I submit this sworn affidavit as evidence of criminal actions by President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice.

This affidavit will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that those officials in the Bush Administration knowingly and deliberately practiced “command failure” to thwart the 9/11 attack. It will prove that those officials hyped a War with Iraq as a probable outcome of the attack, exciting motive and opportunity for an orphan intelligence team to lay explosives through the Towers to maximize damage and guarantee the outcome.

After the attack, White House officials compounded the crime of mass murder with perjury and obstruction of justice in the Federal Courts and the 9/11 Commission to a degree that would be punishable offenses for ordinary citizens.

I also accuse Larry Silverstein of profiteering from government lies about 9/11 to a degree that qualified as insurance fraud.  Together with government officials, Silverstein committed multiple acts of perjury in the Federal Court of Chief Justice Michael B. Mukasey, the Southern District of New York — and obstruction of justice to protect the financial profits of his insurance scam.

This was done with full knowledge of the consequence — that a fellow American was subjected to false arrest, false imprisonment on a military base without trial or hearing, and threats of forcible drugging in prison, as a judicial effort to destroy knowledge of the CIA’s advance knowledge of 9/11 — thus safeguarding Silverstein’s profits.  I know, because I was that American.

Any ordinary citizen would face prison for Silverstein’s crimes — and their attorneys would face disbarment —whereas Silverstein and White House officials got off scott free.

Above all, to understand why 9/11 was an “inside job,” it’s critical to understand that its completion resulted from opposing forces colliding against each other — one side working aggressively to stop the attack, and the other undercutting every proactive move.

This affidavit exposes their legacy.


I, Susan Lindauer, hereby swear under oath that I first learned of the 9/11 Conspiracy from my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, in mid-April, 2001.

In April, I received a summons to visit Dr. Fuisz at his office in Great Falls, Virginia. We met weekly anyway. On this occasion, he rang my home and asked me to come straight away. He inquired when I planned my next trip to the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations in New York. He wanted to talk before I left, and he wanted me to go soon.

This does not strike me as unusual. My back channel to Iraq and Libya existed to communicate messages back and forth from Washington, because those countries had no official ties with the United States. Most significantly, my team kept a special line open for intelligence on terrorist activities that Tripoli or Baghdad might need to share with the West. Even under sanctions and global isolation, the importance of intelligence to block terrorism was recognized as a necessary exemption to U.S. foreign policy isolating Iraq.

And so I visited Dr. Fuisz immediately. He instructed me to demand that Libya and Iraq must hand over any intelligence regarding conspiracies involving airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings. He insisted that I must warn Iraqi diplomats Baghdad would suffer a major military offensive— worse than anything Iraq had suffered before— if the U.S. discovered Saddam’s government had possessed such intelligence on airplane hijackings and failed to notify us through my back channel.

Admittedly, I was reluctant to deliver such a harsh message. I have always been an anti-war activist. So on my next trip to New York, I soft pedaled Dr. Fuisz’s message. I asked diplomats to send cables to Baghdad and Tripoli, watching for possible airplane conspiracies. But I made no threats of violent reprisal against Iraq or Libya.

When I got home to Washington, I met with Dr. Fuisz, who demanded to know how Iraqi diplomats (only) had responded to his threat. I admitted that I stopped short of delivering his full message. But I assured him that I had requested Iraq’s cooperation.

At that point, Dr. Fuisz became enraged. In all of our years together, I recall no other time that he lost his temper and shouted at me. He stormed up and down the conference room, letting loose a tirade punctuated with colorful obscenities. Dr. Fuisz demanded that I must return to New York immediately. I must not be polite. I must tell Iraqi diplomats exactly what he said.

“The United States would bomb Baghdad back into the Stone Age, worse than they’ve ever been bombed before, if they discovered a terrorist conspiracy involving airplane hijackings or airplane bombings and failed to notify us. They would lose everything. We would destroy them.”

There was one more point that Dr. Fuisz was adamant I must communicate: “Those threats originated at the highest levels of government,” and I quote, “above the CIA Director and the Secretary of State.”

Those were his exact words. And it was not ambiguous. It could only mean President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

As of that conversation, there was no doubt in my mind that the President’s Office and the CIA were fully cognizant of the existence of the conspiracy. Dr. Fuisz claimed the CIA lacked “actionable intelligence” to stop the attack. (That’s nuts and bolts—who, day, flight #, airport hub). But the conspiracy itself was known.

Dr. Fuisz was not pacified until I promised to deliver his message with all the force that he communicated. He expressed tremendous satisfaction that I would make sure

Iraqi diplomats understood the warning came from above the CIA itself—not from him or me— but from the highest levels of government “above the CIA Director and Secretary of State.”

In early May, 2001, I returned to New York and delivered that message exactly as he dictated.

Tension built throughout the summer of 2001. Practically every week, we discussed the 9/11 strike. By June, our focus turned to the World Trade Center. Our belief in that target was very precise. We believed the attack would finish the cycle started by Ramzi Youssef in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. And we fully expected that  airplanes would be seized by hijackers and used as trajectory weapons to strike the Towers. No other target was ever discussed — not the Pentagon or the White House, only the World Trade Center.

We also discussed the possibility that a miniature thermo-nuclear device might raze the buildings. Throughout the summer of 2001, we were convinced the Twin Towers would be demolished, using a combination of explosives with the airplanes. That’s why Dr. Fuisz warned me to stay out of New York in August. Nobody worried that I might get hurt if the Towers collapsed. The CIA worried about exposure to military grade contaminants in the dust or air, including possible radiation.

Throughout June and July of 2001, Dr. Fuisz continued to push hard for any fragment of actionable intelligence from Iraq. After our first conversation in April, he never asked about Libya at all. Over and over again, Dr. Fuisz demanded that I threaten Baghdad — not Libya — if the strike occurred.

Every police officer will tell you a crime requires motive and opportunity. I know from direct conversations with Dr. Fuisz that six (6) months before 9/11, a cabal of pro-War neo-Conservatives at the top of the government was already prepping the Intelligence Community to accept War with Iraq as the inevitable consequence of the strike. That created “motive” and plenty of advance opportunity for any pro-War intelligence team to do the unthinkable — wire the Towers with explosives, to guarantee maximum destruction and secure the desired outcome of War. That’s what I’m convinced happened. The evidence certainly supports that conclusion.

As of May, 2001, Iraqi diplomats proposed an immediate solution to the 9/11 conspiracy. As of February, 2001, Baghdad agreed to allow an FBI Task Force into Iraq — to monitor radical Jihadis who might attempt to exploit Baghdad’s weakened central authority to launch terrorist strikes on its neighbors. The CIA made this demand through my back channel following the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, in October, 2000. From the opening days of the Bush Administration, Iraq agreed to show good will towards Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

When confronted with the 9/11 scenario, Iraq placated the U.S. masterfully: “Perhaps this would be the appropriate moment for the FBI to start its work —” the diplomat suggested. “If the United States is very worried, the FBI should come right away.”

The world knows that never happened. Over the summer, Iraq continued to invite the FBI, as U.S. warnings about 9/11 persisted. And I expressed frustration for the slow learning curve of the Bush Administration, which felt unnatural after eight years of rapid and decisive policy-making by the Clinton White House.

The 1990s have been called the Halycon Years of U.S Intelligence. From my perspective as an Asset, the arrival of George Bush felt like driving a high performance Maserati after some fool pours lower grade oil into the engine— and it starts clunking and sputtering and seizing up. You don’t know if the car will keep running until the mechanic’s ready to work on the problem— or if the car will die on the street.


That was Republican Policy on anti-terrorism before 9/11. Our problem was the CIA had to keep driving that car no matter what. And we had to block terrorist threats against the U.S, regardless of whether the White House was responsive to warnings about those threats— or not.

Before 9/11, the answer was “not.” I was not alone in feeling frustrated Throughout June and July, Dr. Fuisz beseeched me not to filter intelligence on the impending aerial strike on the World Trade Center. During our meetings, he would painstakingly explain how urgently he needed to collect even fragments of actionable intelligence on these airplane hijackings, whether it made sense to me or not. He begged me to hold nothing back. He appeared to be frantically searching for anything to pre-empt the strike. In fairness, a significant faction of CIA and Defense Intelligence urgently tried to stop 9/11.

Tensions accelerated to a head on August 2nd, the day of the Senate hearings on Robert Mueller’s nomination to head the FBI.

My heated conversation with Dr. Fuisz about Mueller’s confirmation accounts for why I recall the timing of events so precisely in the weeks before 9/11. I can pinpoint my actions to the day of the week because of this hearing.

In our opinion, Robert Mueller was such a political animal that we argued he would throw the FBI investigation into this future attack on airplane hijackings used to strike the World Trade Center!  He’d do whatever was most helpful to politicians!

“You want me to crash the nomination hearings this afternoon? Lay a little truth on Congress?” I said to Dr. Fuisz.

“No. No, it’s too late for that.”

“Too late for the hearings? Or too late to stop the attack?”

“Both, I think.”

“You think it’s that soon???”

“I think it could be.”

I was aghast. The phone got quiet for a moment.

“We can’t do nothing, Richard.”

“Of course not.”

“I’m going to New York,” I said. “I’ll ask the Iraqis again. I’ll push them hard.”

“What? When are you going?” I recall vividly the alarm saturating his words.

“I’m going this weekend.”

“No, no. This weekend? Don’t go to New York, Susan. Don’t go. It’s too dangerous.”

“It’s just the weekend. The day after tomorrow. I’ll be up and back. I’ll stop by your office on Monday. I understand what you guys want. I’ve been pushing Iraqi diplomats all summer for any fragment of intelligence on this attack. They know what’s up.  I will check if something’s come in from Baghdad.”

August 4th would be my last trip to the Iraqi Embassy and the Libya House before that fateful September morning. That’s something I deeply regretted for many years.

As it happens, there were extraordinary reasons for Dr. Fuisz’s concern. The “chatter” between terrorist cells monitored by the National Security Agency reached unprecedented levels by May 2001, which accelerated until September 11, 2001.

George Tenet

The U.S. Intelligence Community buzzed with warnings. On July 10, 2001, CIA Director, George Tenet, was so alarmed by a classified debriefing on the threat from Al Qaeda that he marched straight to the White House.

A top CIA analyst suggested a major attack was coming in the next few weeks. Apparently Tenet wasted no time alerting Condoleezza Rice in writing. He also brought along one of the CIA officers tracking

Bin Laden, who gave Rice an oral debriefing. Former Anti-Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke strongly endorsed the importance of the report. The CIA officer who gave the briefing said the nation had to “go on a war footing now.”

On Friday, Sept. 7, the State Department issued a worldwide alert— “American citizens may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups with links to [Osama bin Laden’s] al Qaeda organization.” That report cited intelligence from May, 2001 as suggesting an attack was imminent. The State Department bulletin warned “Al Qaeda does not distinguish between official and civilian targets.”

As one of the participants in those discussions, I am ready to swear under oath that U.S. Intelligence anticipated the attack in all of its precise detail. Intelligence predicted airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center—not the Pentagon or the White House.

What was missing was actionable intelligence to stop the conspiracy — who were the terrorists, how many, which airport, what airlines, what flight numbers. I was looking for a name. A number. A fragment. All summer Dr. Fuisz pleaded with me exhaustively to bring him anything at all. He swore that if I could get it, the NSA and CIA would bust overtime to flesh it out, and make sense of it, so that we could stop the attack.

I will prove now why action in August, 2001 (to maximize or stall the attack) was so much bigger than ever reported. .


By August, our hunt was becoming frenetic. I have physical proof that a second intelligence team was also ferreting for intelligence on the 9/11 conspiracy the weekend of August 4-5. During a speaking tour through Japan before the release of my book, “Extreme Prejudice,” I spoke extensively about our team’s aggressive actions in the critical week after Robert Mueller’s Senate nomination hearing.

 Low and behold, when I returned from Japan, I discovered a copy of the original newsprint edition of the Wall Street Journal dated July 30, 2001— pinned by a rose quartz paper weight on my desk next to my computer, so that it would not get thrown away. The faded 10 year old newspaper was addressed to my boss at the street address of my consulting job in Silver Spring, Maryland during the summer of 2001.

That’s where I was working on August 2nd when I phoned Dr. Fuisz on the day of Robert Mueller’s nomination hearing. The Wall Street Journal proves that several weeks before 9/11 somebody had gone to the trouble of tracking down where my phone call to Dr. Fuisz originated.

That individual “visited” my office, no doubt seeking any scribbles or papers that I might have left around my desk, which might provide clues of what our team had discovered about the conspiracy so far. It’s standard practice to grab a newspaper off a desk in situations like that, as an accurate snapshot with the company’s name, address and date, etc. It’s a “proof of life.”

Rober S. Mueller

The July 30, 2001 edition of the Wall Street Journal would have been tossed in the trash weeks before the official 9/11 investigation kicked off.  Ergo, it could only have been grabbed the week of Robert Mueller’s nomination hearing.

Yes, it indicates another intelligence team picked the locks to get into the office — (and tapped our phones). There’s a time when that sort of thing is necessary. And this would be it! I’m grateful for it. Our team urgently desired as much help as we could get.

This was a race to stop massive violence against the United States — not a competition. All of us gravely worried over what we all knewwas coming. Intelligence teams are structured to function independently and overlap, but (most of the time) we’re on the same side, with the same shared goals.

On that note, I take umbrage at the lies that were invented by The 9/11 Commission over our so-called intelligence failures.  Prior to 9/11, the Intelligence Community was accustomed to functioning on a superior and pro-active footing. U.S. Intelligence had rapid fire reflexes, and a reputation for attracting brilliant case officers. These were creative strategists and problem solvers. They were the best and the brightest.

The Intelligence Community was at the top of its game. It’s just not monolithic, like most civilians imagine. Teams are separate and joined to different factions, with different objectives and motivations.

That’s where 9/11 went to hell.

9/11 was not the result of mistakes. It was a deliberate execution. Though 90 percent of U.S. Intelligence tried to stop the attack, the compartmentalized structure of the intelligence community made it possible for a minority 10 percent to undercut all the good work and proactive planning of the others.

That’s what I believe happened on 9/11.

9/11 was an Inside Job that played a magician’s trick on the American people. All eyes were on the left hand — that would be airplanes crashing into the Towers — But the real action was done by the right hand. The controlled demolition of the Towers using a combination of military grade explosives.

There, I bow to explosives experts on the type of explosive devices and materials. There has been some excellent research on thermatic bombs, which produce such heat intensity as to melt steel, and create dust from a sulfur compound.   [More recent research, however, especially by T. Mark Hightower, suggests that thermite / thermate / nanothermite could not have been the principal cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers.] Throughout the summer, we discussed the use of a miniature thermo-nuclear device. It could have been a combination.

The point I must underscore is that our discussions from June, July and August always presumed explosives would be used in combination with the airplane hijackings to destroy the Towers.  I recall conversations where and how somebody could locate the necessary explosives inside the United States—even a nuke. How those explosives could be stolen from a military base in driving range to New York City. We always forecast the total destruction of the Towers in the attack, and predicted “mass human casualties.”

9/11 fit our scenario in all detail. And so, I insist, 9/11 was not an intelligence failure. There was active concern. Despite those efforts, it succeeded because a minority decided to smash any progress by the majority to thwart the attack. They were incited to act by wild leadership pronouncements that maximum destruction would provoke War with Iraq. Threats of war created motive for a second team to do the unthinkable.

The leadership egged them on.  There are so many fail-safes and trip wires in place to trigger pre-emptive responses that it required a leadership decision to subvert the process.


On my last trip to New York on August 4, 2001, Iraqi diplomats threw up their hands. They’d been warned of the consequences for months if something awful happened. Retribution would be swift and severe. Nevertheless, even with his ear to the ground, Saddam and his vast network of Iraqi Mukhabarat could locate no actionable intelligence to give us. Saddam could not find it!  

Instead, diplomats insisted the U.S. was the only source chattering about this airplane hijacking conspiracy. All intelligence reports originated from us, they claimed! Diplomats protested that Washington was demanding cooperation from Baghdad, yet took no action to send the FBI. If the CIA believed the conspiracy was real, we had options. Baghdad locked on to Washington’s failure to act as undercutting our sincerity.

My next face meeting with Dr. Fuisz took place on August 6, 2001. At the same hour of the same day, down at Crawford Ranch in Texas, President Bush was handed a memo from the CIA outlining the severe threat of a terrorist attack by Osama bin Laden’s network on the United States. I’m told President Bush tossed aside the CIA’s Presidential Briefing Memo: “Now you’ve covered your ass. Let’s go shoot some golf balls.”

Unaware that President Bush had just blown off the CIA’s explicit warnings about the airplane hijackings and the planned aerial strike on the World Trade Center, Dr. Fuisz and I decided to request emergency assistance from the Justice Department.

John Ashcroft

At the instructions of Dr. Fuisz, I telephoned the private office of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, consisting of about 20 senior staff. (Having worked in anti-terrorism for almost a decade, our team had all the correct phone numbers to raise the alarms in any terrorist crisis.)

Quickly I identified myself as the chief U.S. Asset covering Libya and Iraq at the United Nations. That way I could make sure the bureaucrat on the other end of the phone recognized my special access to high level intelligence on terrorism as a primary source, which should be weighed before disregarding my call.

Once I had the staffer’s attention, I made a formal request for Attorney General

Ashcroft’s office to “broadcast an emergency alert through all agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence pertaining to possible airplane hijackings or airplane bombings.”

I explained that we believed “a major attack on the United States was imminent, with a high probability of mass casualties.” I expressly stated that we believed “the target was the World Trade Center, which would suffer some sort of aerial strike, using hijacked airplanes.” I provided as many specific details as possible to help focus the investigation.

Given the dangers and timing of the attack, I asked that “our request for emergency cooperation should be given the highest priority.”

Immediately Attorney General Ashcroft’s private staff gave me a phone number at the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department, and urged me to repeat my message. I did so without delay. I repeated the warning in full detail, and requested that any possible information should be submitted immediately to all agencies.

With those phone calls to the Attorney General’s private staff and the Office of Counter-Terrorism, the U.S. government lost its cover of deniability. If I testified before the 9/11 Commission or any congressional inquiry—the Justice Department would have been forced to admit that some of its very own top staff received formal warning about the conspiracy by early August, when there was still time to coordinate a response, and thwart the demolition of the Towers.

I didn’t stop there.  Most Americans would be stunned to know that in mid-August, our team was so convinced a 9/11 style attack was “imminent,” that I visited my second cousin, Andy Card, Chief of Staff to President Bush, requesting his intervention at the Justice Department, too.

Andrew Card

I parked on the street outside his house in Arlington, Virginia, chain smoking for almost two hours. (I quit in 2005!) Occasionally, I could see neighbors peering out of their windows and frowning at me.

In my head, I rehearsed what I would tell Virginia State Police or the Secret Service, if they showed up to investigate this strange car parked outside the home of the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.

Unhappily, Andy did not return that afternoon. I finally left without sharing our fears. Driving away, I distinctly recall asking myself if I might be making the greatest mistake of my life. Throughout all these years, it is one of my few regrets.

What I could not know, is that another intelligence faction was working aggressively opposite us—anticipating all of the protocols to stop the strike, and sabotaging our best efforts to activate the warning system. 

Like the copy of the Wall Street Journal that appeared on my desk after my Japanese book tour, a trustworthy source revealed this to me after the first edition of my book, Extreme Prejudice had gone to galleys. The new second edition includes this information.


Late on the night of August 23, 2001, at about 3 a.m. security cameras in the parking garage of the World Trade Center captured the arrival of three or four truck vans. Visual examination determined the vans were separate and unique from trucks used by janitorial services, including different colors and markings. More curious, all the janitorial trucks had pulled out of the Towers by about 2:30 a.m — half an hour before the second set of vans arrived.

According to my source, who saw the tapes, no vans matching that description entered the parking garage at that extraordinary hour in any of the weeks or months prior to August 23. It was a unique event.

Security cameras caught the vans leaving the Towers at approximately 5 a.m — before the first wave of Wall Street tycoons arrived to track the Asian markets.

For the next 10 to 12 nights, the same mysterious vans arrived at the World Trade Center at the same mysterious hour — after the janitorial crews had left the building and before the robber barons on Wall Street started their work day. The vans clocked into the parking garage from approximately August 23, 2001 until September 2 or 3, 2001. 

After that last night, they never appeared at the Towers again. The vans were never heard of again, either. The 9/11 Commission was never informed of their surprising presence on 10 consecutive nights up to the week before the 9/11 strike.

Were the vans transporting explosives into the Towers — or transporting gold reserves out? Or possible some combination of the two?  We cannot be certain.

Video from those security cameras in the parking garage could be the most significant missing evidence of the 9/11 puzzle. My source was convinced those mysterious trucks transported explosives into the Towers, so that this unidentified orphan team could finish wiring the World Trade Center for a controlled demolition.

My source has stayed quiet to protect his government job, his retirement pension and his reputation — knowing that others who spoke up have gotten fired or thrown in prison.

Like me.


Unlike others who could be bullied into silence (or bought off), I was adamant that I wanted to talk. I made one fatal mistake. I requested to testify through proper channels. I declared my intention to show how 9/11 intersected with Pre-War Intelligence. My testimony before a blue ribbon Presidential Commission on Pre-War Intelligence would have disclosed the existence of a comprehensive peace framework — and Baghdad’s eager efforts to cooperate with the 9/11 investigation.

My testimony would have put 9/11 into a larger global perspective — which most Americans still don’t understand to this very day.

It’s greater insight as to why the Pro-War Cabal urgently required a Pearl Harbor Day, in order to overcome international loathing of another War in Iraq.

I should have known better than to trust Congress. Thirty days after I phoned the Offices of Senator John McCain and Senator Trent Lott, I woke to find the FBI pounding on my front door. At that point, I gained a new distinction as the second non-Arab American arrested on the Patriot Act, facing secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony.  I was held under indictment for five years without a Trial—and thrown in prison on Carswell Air Force Base in Texas for a year, without a hearing.

To Washington’s greatest shame, the Patriot Act, which Congress proclaimed a key judicial weapon to break up terrorism in the United States, was first used to stop a whistle blower from telling the truth about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence.

Over my fiercest objections, on Carswell Air Force Base, I was declared “incompetent to stand trial” and threatened with forcible injections of Haldol, a zombie drug that imitates the stone-like effects of Parkinson’s Disease.

That’s an old intelligence tactic from the Cold War, designed to scare into Assets into silence. Believe me, the threat can be very effective.

All the while, the Justice Department aggressively lied to the Court about my team’s 9/11 warnings.

That subterfuge was no accident (as the corporate media would like the public to believe).  Chief Justice Michael Mukasey was also hearing the financial lawsuit brought by Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Center, and his insurance claims for 9/11.

I recall distinctly Silverstein’s high-priced New York attorneys strutting into Court, while I got shackled and marched off to my cell, and my public attorney chatted.

Silverstein’s attorneys could not have been ignorant of the ferocity of our debate. The Courtroom was abuzz with my outrage and urgent pleas that my Intelligence team had full knowledge of the 9/11 Conspiracy, and tried to warn the Bush Administration officials about the dangers of the impending attack.

Silverstein’s attorneys heard it all — including my frantic appeals not to be forcibly drugged without a hearing to prove that I had warned about 9/11.

It was a tangled web of deceit from start to finish.

Even the bailiffs looked at me with eyes filled with horror.

The pretense of my “incompetence” was an outrage to protect White House and Congressional leaders.

Unhappily for Silverstein’s attorneys and the Bush Administration, they quickly discovered that I warned civilian friends about the 9/11 style of attack, too — particularly friends with family or professional ties to New York City.

That’s where the Feds got crossed up.

Four years almost to the day before my sworn testimony at the Vancouver Tribunal on 9/11 — on June 17, 2008, a Canadian Resident named Parke Godfrey, who lives in Toronto, was sworn in to testify at the Federal Courthouse of Manhattan. The Courthouse stands 1,000 feet from Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center once graced the New York skyline.

Godfrey’s testimony was a watershed moment for the 9/11 community.  For 4 ½ years prior to that day, the U.S.

Phil Berg, Susan Lindauer, and Parke Godfrey

Justice Department had fought savagely to stop his testimony from reaching public ears.

Despite the public’s ignorance, Godfrey’s revelations were already notorious to the U.S. Attorney General’s office, the Office of Counter-Terrorism, the FBI, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons — not to mention top officials at the White House, CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency.

Parke Godfrey was one of my closest friends in Maryland, working on his Ph.D. in computer science at the University of Maryland in College Park.

His family lived in the Connecticut suburbs of New York City. We spoke frequently by phone, socializing a couple of times a week, and shared much of the same political outlook.

Godfrey has a distinguished career as a tenured Professor of Computer Science and Technology at York University in Toronto, Canada. He presents a calm, studied demeanor. He speaks precisely and methodically, choosing his words carefully — what some friends have teasingly compared to Dr. Spock of Star Trek. During difficult courtroom questioning, he would frequently pause and take his time to give an accurate, thoughtful response. He proved a superior witness by any measure.

In shattering testimony, Godfrey told the Court how several times in the spring and summer of 2001 I warned him that we expected a major terrorist strike that would encompass the World Trade Center.

BRIAN SHAUGHNESSY, Attorney for My Defense: “Did there come a time when she was concerned about a possible attack on the United States?”

GODFREY: “She had described that.”

SHAUGHNESSY: “What did she describe?”

GODFREY: “In particular, she warned me when I was job hunting and considering

potential work in New York— because I liked New York City– that New York City was dangerous. In particular she was predicting that there was going to be a massive attack here. In southern Manhattan. This was before 9/11.”

“So when I was looking for the job at William and Mary, which was late 2000 – I was at York University, but looking at other universities [for a sabbatical] – she warned [me] not to consider New York because she thought an attack was imminent here.”

SHAUGHNESSY: “Continue, please.”

GODFREY: “I asked her about the nature of it. She said that she thought it would be something very, very big. I asked her, “Well, what do you mean?” She said that it would involve airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon. She said that what was started in ‘93, she thought was going to come back.”

SHAUGHNESSY: “What was that she referenced as having started in ‘93?”

GODFREY: “Well, the attempt on the World Trade Center at the time.”

SHAUGHNESSY: “Did she believe, or was she telling you that very shortly there was likely to be another attack of that nature?”

GODFREY: “She did. She said that it would complete the cycle of the 1993 attack. And she said that there would be an attack in late summer, early fall.”

 “In August, she told me that she thought it was some time imminent.”

SHAUGHNESSY: “Now, did you know any of the things that she was doing that might have given her access to information, that might lead to a prediction of that nature?”

GODFREY: “Well, I had known that she was active in trying to prevent escalation with what turned out to be the war in Iraq.”

At another point, Godfrey detailed the Justice Department’s knowledge of my 9/11 warnings.

GODFREY:  “In September, 2004— I was interviewed by the FBI in Mississauga [adjacent to Toronto], in the presence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP insisted on this, as the interview was in Canada, and I was a Canadian resident. I spoke with FBI special agent Suzan LeTourneau.”

“While the interview focused on mundane details of Ms. Lindauer’s life, I told  {Special Agent] LeTourneau that Ms. Lindauer had predicted the 9/11 attack throughout the spring and summer of 2001, and that her prediction was very specific. It involved airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center.”


Parke Godfrey’s testimony sworn under oath in the Federal Courthouse in Manhattan provides irrefutable proof that the FBI received confirmations of my 9/11 warnings by September, 2004 — a few months after my arrest  —

Michael Mukasey

and before the 9/11 Commission issued its report. In truth, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan had time to alert the 9/11 Commissioners about this shattering revelation.

Instead, they made a decision to withhold exculpatory knowledge from the Court of Chief of Justice Michael B. Mukasey —  who was hearing arguments from Larry Silverstein’s attorneys seeking a massive insurance settlement. Twelve months later, I got shipped off to Carswell Prison, while the Justice Department vigorously denied all knowledge of my 9/11 warnings. Once I was in prison on Carswell Air Force Base, the Justice Department argued vigorously that I should be forcibly drugged with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac until I stopped claiming to have warned about the attack.

Godfrey’s testimony proves the Cover-Up Conspiracy was widespread throughout the Justice Department.


GODFREY: “In early December 2005, a few months after Ms. Lindauer had been sent to Carswell Prison, I spoke with the psychologist handling her competence evaluation for the Court. I attempted to confirm that Ms. Lindauer had made predictions of a terrorist attack in Manhattan to me and others prior to the 9/11 attack. He seemed to have no interest in hearing this. Our conversation was brief.”

“While she was still detained in prison, I offered to travel from Toronto and testify

at any hearing on her mental competence, on what I knew of her political activities before her indictment, about warnings of terrorist attacks, and other aspects which might interest the Court.”

“I attended the hearing on forcible drugging in May, 2006. In fact, I arrived at Court, assuming that I was to testify. Her attorney, Sam Talkin, did not call me. In conversation that day, I told him that she made warnings of a terrorist attack to me and others, in advance of 9/11. I told him that I was mortified by what the Court seemed to be doing.”

He expressed concern for the legal competence of my attorney, Mr. Talkin as well.

GODFREY: “I made myself available to speak with the investigator working for her defense attorney. I was prepared for a lengthy conversation, including a discussion of Ms. Lindauer’s 9/11 warning. I was surprised when the investigator cut short the conversation after only five to ten minutes. His questions seemed far inadequate for the scope of the indictment against Ms. Lindauer, and for what I felt I had to share with her Defense Attorney.”

GODFREY: “Several months later, I contacted Ms. Lindauer’s uncle, Ted Lindauer, and spoke with him at greater length about several issues in her case, including her 9/11 warnings. I can verify that Ms. Lindauer felt compelled to seek her uncle’s assistance interviewing witnesses for her case, before she got sent to Carswell.”

Godfrey’s cross-examination with the Prosecutor on 9/11 was aimed at sowing confusion. The Prosecutor tried to dismiss my 9/11 warning as “a premonition.”

Godfrey adamantly corrected him that it was “a prediction— not a premonition.”

And he stuck by it, never deviating from the word.

For the sake of further clarity, he submitted an affidavit on my team’s 9/11 warnings, which cuts through the Prosecutor’s attempts to deflect the impact of my warning.

GODFREY: “Ms. Lindauer’s original warning to me in 2000 was somewhat vague, describing her opinion that a terrorist attack would occur in New York City. I recall that by the spring and summer of 2001, her warning became much more emphatic and explicit. She got much more agitated about the likelihood of the attack.”

“Ms. Lindauer confided on several occasions that the next terrorist attack would involve airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings.”

“In the spring and summer of 2001, she claimed it would reprise the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. She described it as completing the cycle started in that first attack.”

“She definitely tied the threat of airplane hijackings to some sort of strike on the World Trade Center—and the possible use of a miniature nuclear bomb. That’s what she was predicting.”

“In August, 2001, Ms. Lindauer told me the attack was “imminent. She warned me to stay out of New York City. She told me the situation was very dangerous, and that a lot of people would get killed in this attack. She expected heavy casualties.”

Godfrey disputed the notion of my incompetence whole heartedly, and roundly castigated the Justice Department.

GODFREY: “In my opinion, contrary to the Justice Department lawyers, Ms. Lindauer is now, and always was, competent to stand trial. The decision to accuse her of incompetence was baffling to myself and many others. I was forced to conclude that it was likely politically motivated to block her request for a trial.”

“Throughout this entire ordeal, Susan Lindauer suffered harassment. She faced inexcusable delays in setting a trial date, (or dropping the charges). She was repeatedly questioned in court over the reliability of her terrorist warnings, despite that her warnings had been corroborated by me and by many others in affidavits, and under oath in spoken testimony. She was incarcerated in a mental facility, within a federal prison for 7 months,

1,600 miles from her home for supposed observation. And then held in confinement for months afterwards.”

“The FBI and the US Attorneys Office’s behavior in Ms. Lindauer’s case were abhorrent. It is quite clear that much more was going on.”


At the defendant’s table, I recall a grim satisfaction of triumph. My mind flashed back to those terrified nights at Carswell Air Force Base and the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, writing frantic, tearful letters to Judge Mukasey at 2 in the morning.

Everything I said was truthful always. Within a few months of my arrest, the FBI, the US Attorneys Office in Manhattan — even the Royal Canadian Mounted Police — were fully aware that a private citizen outside the Intelligence Community stood ready to authenticate my 9/11 warning in a Court of Law.

Notably, Godfrey’s testimony could not be suppressed by secrecy laws. His revelations would have created serious blowback for Congress. Politicians, pundits and the 9/11 Commission strongly denounced “conspiracy theorists” who believed action should have been possible to prevent the strike, or substantially cripple its impact.

The 9/11 Commission Report would have been exposed as an egregious public fraud on so many levels.  The truth would be out in the open. That provided a strong motivation for the Justice Department to fight my demands for a trial, or even a hearing.

This affidavit proves that 9/11 was an Inside Job. There were countless ways to stop the attack, which were defeated systematically. Afterwards, the 9/11 investigation was crafted to hide shocking decisions by White House leaders and Attorney General John Ashcroft, which enabled the attack to go forward as planned. And profits were shoveled out to Larry Silverstein, at the expense of freedom, and the lives of our fellow Americans.

Shame on the White House and Congress! Shame on the Justice Department! Shame on the greed of Larry Silverstein! Shame on the CIA for saving the politicians! They don’t deserve praise for their national security policy!

If you want to know who committed 9/11, turn on the television or look in the mirror!

The enemy is Us. It was always Us.

Sworn by


Susan Lindauer,

Former U.S. Intelligence Asset

This Day of   ___________________


Susan Lindauer, a graduate of Smith, sent a letter protesting plans to illegally invade Iraq to President George W. Bush, for which she was harassed, prosecuted, and incarcerated, even though she had been a CIA and DIA asset, which she writen about in Extreme Prejudice (2010).

Related Posts:

Posted in USAComments Off on 9/11: Confessions of a Former CIA Asset

Shoah’s pages


September 2012
« Aug   Oct »