1. 9/11 Mysteries: The Mystery Of The Magical Passport
2. GOP/Tea-Party Nonsense In A Nutshell: Outsiders are "Nazis"
3. Rachel Maddow On How Right-Wing Extremist Attacks Are Ignored By The Media In Favor Of Jihadist Violence
4. News In America Is Dead: Fox News IS Fake News... It Has Had It's Own "Pizzagate" MANY Many Times! Yet No One Calls Em Out!
Did the Bush Administration know about the 9/11 Hijackers plan before hand and let it happen so that they could invade Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for opium? (we know a 9/11 type plan by the joint chiefs already existed and the there is the Pearl Harbor memo)... Or did they set the ENTIRE thing up? This post explores that question with a collection of news reports from Democracy Now and an investigation by David Ray griffin. (This is probably the most complete explanation of events online!)
Part of the reason for this theory is that THREE buildings fell on 9/11 in a way which is impossible unless thermite charges were used like are normally used in building demolition... but it takes weeks if not months to set up the charges to make sure the building "falls into its footprint". So, did Bush allow the 9/11 hijackers to go ahead with their plan while they watched them through the NSA and set up the necessary demolition bombs in the buildings in preparation for the hijackers attack so the destruction could be truly dramatic enough to scare the Nation into following them with no questions asked? It's the only scientific explanation available for how these buildings could fall like this and for the events following the "Muslim terrorist attack".
Lets begin with an outline of the news so you can notice the weirdness of it...
Following a tradition started by Reagan when he instituted the NSA...
On Eve of 9/11, Bush Seeks to Expand Patriot Act
Later we discover that the Hijackers certainly were being tracked and didn't come out fo the blue
FBI Informant Lived with 9/11 Hijackers
SEP 09, 2002 Newsweek magazine is reporting one of the FBI’s informants actually lived with two of the September 11th hijackers. The connection has just been discovered by congressional investigators and has stunned some top counterterrorism officials and raised new concerns about information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies. FBI Director Robert Mueller initially insisted there was nothing the bureau could have done to penetrate the 9/11 plot.
Probably how they got the passport of the hijackers. The official theory is only something a shell shocked nation or a modern republican could believe
(Could the "Hijackers" have been chosen by the report of the FBI agent?)
No Responsibility Claimed, But U.S. Officials Point to Osama bin Laden
There was no immediate claim of responsibility, but U.S. officials said the tightly coordinated operation bears the hallmarks of Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born dissident now living in Afghanistan who is blamed for bombing two U.S. embassies in East Africa and other anti-American attacks. There is no evidence that’s been presented at this point to prove their assertions. A Pakistani newspaper, Khabrain, said bin Laden had denied blame. "The terrorist act," it said, "is the action of some American group. I have nothing to do with it," it quoted him as saying via sources close to the Taliban. The Taliban movement, which rules most of Afghanistan, said bin Laden could not have been involved. Western aid workers in Kabul began pulling out of the Afghan capital amid fears for their safety if the United States retaliates. A special U.N. flight carried some aid workers out of Kabul in the middle of the day, and United Nations said it’s considering a general withdrawal of its foreign staff from the battered country
Then, with no investigation (& strange cover-ups during the 9/11 commission providing enough indications to warrant a deeper investigation), the "culprit" is found;
Bush Admin Singles Out bin Laden as Prime Suspect
SEP 14, 2001 The Bush administration yesterday singled out Osama bin Laden, who operates, it is believed, from Afghanistan, as a prime suspect in Tuesday’s catastrophic terror attacks and vowed a comprehensive military campaign to demolish terrorist networks and topple regimes that harbor them. Late yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recommended calling up 50,000 members of the Reserve, initially to help support the combat air patrols flying over major U.S. cities and possible military action. Congress, despite some misgivings from lawmakers over granting President Bush open-ended authority, moved to give the administration $40 billion to wage its initiative.
3 years later, after Afghanistan AND Iraq were invaded ...
Osama Takes Credit for 9/11 Attack HEADLINES NOV 01, 2004
So... we invaded TWO countries on no evidence? That itself is suspicious.
Anyways, instead of an investigation the Bush Administration used language the appeals to religious people of Christian persuasion to start a Christian version of Holy War (i.e. "Jihad" but called "Crusade" by Christians);
Bush & Clinton Officials Defend Pre-9/11 Actions At Hearings
Secretary of State Colin Powell Secretary of State Colin Powell using the word "crusade" to describe anti-terror efforts. Two-and-a-half years ago President George W Bush used the same word and had to backtrack afterwards. Others who testified in the public hearings included Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and former Defense Secretary William Cohen. To conclude the day, Defense Secretray Donald Rumsfeld along with his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Richard Myers took the stand. Rumsfeld came under questioning from former Senator Bob Kerrey.
CIA Told Bush of No Iraq-Al Qaeda Links Ten Days After 9/11
A new article by investigative journalist Murray Waas in the National Journal says President Bush was notified ten days after the 9/11 attacks U.S. intelligence had no evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda or the attacks. According to several current and former government officials, little evidence has emerged to contradict the assessment. One former high-level official said : "What the President was told on September 21 2001, was consistent with everything he has been told since — the evidence was just not there." The Bush administration has so far refused to release the briefing, not even as a redacted document. Administration officials subsequently ignored the intelligence assessments in favor of those that alleged Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons and ties to Al Qaeda. One of the key proponents of this theory was then-undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. In the margin of one of Feith’s reports, Vice President Dick Cheney wrote: "This is very good indeed ... Encouraging ... Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA."
Congress 9/11 report: No Iraq link to al-Qaida
Among other findings, the 900-page Congressional report on 9/11 reveals that U.S. intelligence had no evidence that Iraq or Saddam Hussein had any involvement in the attacks or connection to Al Qaida. Former Democratic Georgia Sen. Max Cleland who served on the congressional committee said, "The administration sold the connection to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war. What you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends." Cleland also charged the Bush administration purposely delayed the release of the 9/11 report until after the Iraq invasion. Cleland said, "Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."
Then war is announced and media begins the promotion of war (no investigation, no hearings, no congress till after everyone decided to go to war with a full scale propaganda campaign with no investigation required! Just like the good old slave days!) ;
Bush Administration Promises "Campaign" of Retaliation to 9/11 Attacks
SEP 14, 2001 Sketching in the outline of an aggressive new American foreign policy, the Bush administration and senior officials cast aside diplomatic language, promising the response to Tuesday’s attacks in New York and Washington would be a "campaign," not a single action, that might last a year or more. Such a campaign could involve U.S. forces in protracted fighting against a number of Asian and African countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and even nuclear-armored Pakistan, which occupies a vital, strategic position south of Afghanistan, where the Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is believed to be based. Other top officers at the battered Pentagon made it clear that "ending states who sponsor terrorism meant wiping out governments that refuse to cooperate." Secretary of State Colin Powell used language similar to the warlike phrases he employed in 1991, when he said of Saddam Hussein’s army in Kuwait, "First we’re going to cut it off, then we’re going to kill it." By equating acts of terrorism and even the harboring of terrorists with acts of war, the administration is going well beyond traditional international practice. In this new kind of war, it is saying, there are no neutral states and no clear geographical confines.
Drumbeat for War Permeates TV News Coverage
A drumbeat for war has begun to permeate the blanket TV news coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Mixed among the sober reports on heroic rescue efforts, heartbreaking personal loss and the fast-moving FBI investigation, a range of tough voices, including those of the President, members of Congress, military experts and television commentators, have discussed options for retaliation, from possible assassinations to full military engagement. Polls of the U.S. public since the attacks showed an overwhelming majority ready to go to war. Among every network’s guest commentators were hawks, many of their comments spurred by the questions of their hosts. Producers said there was nothing wrong with presenting talk of war and polling American views on war so soon after the attacks and that television is not pushing the bounds of its mandate to be unbiased. Producers said they were simply presenting the evolution of the national psyche and the decision-making process in Washington.
German Court Overturns 9/11 Suspect's Conviction
Bush vs Civil Liberties Pt. 3: Justice Department Report Details Abuse of 9/11 Detainees
The Inspector General’s office of the Justice Department released a detailed report describing rampant abuse of 9/11 detainees inside a government-run detention center in Brooklyn.
EXCLUSIVE...Jordanian Student Acquitted in 9/11 Perjury Case Recounts FBI Intimidation and Mistreatment
Jordanian immigrant Osama Awadallah was acquitted of federal charges Friday that he lied to a grand jury investigating the September 11 attacks. In a Democracy Now! exclusive, Awadallah joins us live in our firehouse studio to talk about his arrest, detention and much more. We also discuss the specifics of the case with his attorney, Sarah Kunstler.
U.S. Agrees to Pay Egyptian Man $300K For Post-9/11 Detention in Unprecedented Settlement
The U.S. government has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by an Egyptian man who spent several months in U.S. detention even though he had been cleared of terror charges. Ehab Elmaghraby was one of over 100 Muslim men rounded up and detained after the 9/11 attacks. According to a lawsuit, he was repeatedly beaten and abused by prison guards. We go to Egypt to speak with Elmaghraby and we are joined by two of his attorneys. [includes rush transcript] The U.S. has government has agreed to pay an Egyptian man $300,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging that the man was illegally detained during the round-up of hundreds of Arab and Muslim men inside the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks. The man, Ehab Elmaghraby, was detained on Sept. 30, 2001. Federal agents came to his apartment in Queens New York in search of his landlord who–years earlier–had applied for pilot training. Even though he wasn’t the original target of the investigation, Elmaghraby was detained. He would spend nearly the next year in jail at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.
"Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World"
Canadian human rights attorney and author Maureen Webb discusses the comprehensive scope of government surveillance and finds that the use of sophisticated methods to search for terrorists is not identifying the right suspects.
Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?
The assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11 also lies behind the widespread perception of Islam as an inherently violent religion and therefore of Muslims as guilty until proven innocent. This perception surely contributed to attempts to portray Obama as a Muslim, which was lampooned by a controversial cartoon on the July 21, 2008, cover of The New Yorker. As could be illustrated by reference to many other post-9/11 developments, including as spying, torture, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, America’s new doctrine of preemptive war, and its enormous increase in military spending, the assumption that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by Muslim hijackers has had enormous negative consequences for both international and domestic issues.
1. Were Mohamed Atta and the Other Hijackers Devout Muslims? The picture of the hijackers conveyed by the 9/11 Commission is that they were devout Muslims. Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader, was said to have become very religious, even “fanatically so.”2 Being devout Muslims, they could be portrayed as ready to meet their Maker—as a “cadre of trained operatives willing to die.”3 But this portrayal is contradicted by various newspaper stories. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made “at least six trips” to Las Vegas, where they had “engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures.” These activities were “un-Islamic” because, as the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada pointed out: “True Muslims don’t drink, don’t gamble, don’t go to strip clubs.”
2. Do Authorities Have Hard Evidence of Osama bin Laden’s Responsibility for 9/11? Whatever be the truth about the devoutness of the hijackers, one might reply, there is certainly no doubt about the fact that they were acting under the guidance of Osama bin Laden. The attack on Afghanistan was based on the claim that bin Laden was behind the attacks, and the 9/11 Commission’s report was written as if there were no question about this claim. But neither the Bush administration nor the Commission provided any proof for it. Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” said he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.”8 But at a press conference with President Bush the next morning, Powell reversed himself, saying that although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden’s responsibility, “most of it is classified.”9 According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a “lack of solid information.”10 That same week, Bush had demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden. But the Taliban, reported CNN, “refus[ed] to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week’s attacks on the United States.” The Bush administration, saying “[t]here is already an indictment of Osama bin Laden” [for the attacks in Tanzania, Kenya, and elsewhere],” rejected the demand for evidence with regard to 9/11.11 The task of providing such evidence was taken up by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who on October 4 made public a document entitled “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States.” Listing “clear conclusions reached by the government,” it stated: “Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001.”12 Blair’s report, however, began by saying: “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.” This weakness was noted the next day by the BBC, which said: “There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial.”
3. Was Evidence of Muslim Hijackers Provided by Phone Calls from the Airliners? Nevertheless, many readers may respond, there can be no doubt that the airplanes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers, because their presence and actions on the planes were reported on phone calls by passengers and flight attendants, with cell phone calls playing an especially prominent role. The most famous of the reported calls were from CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson. According to CNN, he reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by . . . hijackers [armed with] knives and cardboard cutters.”27 Although these reported calls, as summarized by Ted Olson, did not describe the hijackers so as to suggest that they were members of al-Qaeda, such descriptions were supplied by calls from other flights, especially United 93, from which about a dozen cell phone calls were reportedly received before it crashed in Pennsylvania. According to a Washington Post story of September 13,
There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls: Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above 30,000 or even 40,000 feet. This problem was explained by some credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American.33 Although some defenders of the official account, such as Popular Mechanics, have disputed the contention that high-altitude calls from airliners were impossible,34 the fact is that the FBI, after having at first supported the claims that such calls were made, withdrew this support a few years later. With regard to the reported 12-minute call from Amy Sweeney to Michael Woodward, an affidavit signed by FBI agent James Lechner and dated September 12 (2001) stated that, according to Woodward, Sweeney had been “using a cellular telephone.”35 But when the 9/11 Commission discussed this call in its Report, which appeared in July 2004, it declared that Sweeney had used an onboard phone.36 Behind that change was an implausible claim made by the FBI earlier in 2004: Although Woodward had failed to mention this when FBI agent Lechner interviewed him on 9/11, he had repeated Sweeney’s call verbatim to a colleague in his office, who had in turn repeated it to another colleague at American headquarters in Dallas, who had recorded it; and this recording—which was discovered only in 2004—indicated that Sweeney had used a passenger-seat phone, thanks to “an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant.”37 This claim is implausible because, if this relayed recording had really been made on 9/11, we cannot believe that Woodward would have failed to mention it to FBI agent Lechner later that same day. While Lechner was taking notes, Woodward would surely have said: “You don’t need to rely on my memory. There is a recording of a word-for-word repetition of Sweeney’s statements down in Dallas.” It is also implausible that Woodward, having repeated Sweeney’s statement that she had used “an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant,” would have told Lechner, as the latter’s affidavit says, that Sweeney had been “using a cellular telephone.” Lechner’s affidavit shows that the FBI at first supported the claim that Sweeney had made a 12-minute cell phone call from a high-altitude airliner. Does not the FBI’s change of story, after its first version had been shown to be technologically impossible, create the suspicion that the entire story was a fabrication?
Read the whole article here
Videos where David Ray Griffin explains his theories;
David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview
David Ray Griffin Best Evidence of Truth on 9-11
David Ray Griffin 2008 “Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?” PART 1
David Ray Griffin 2008 “Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?” PART 2
Note: Did the Bush Administration evacuate their Saudi friends since they knew they were going to use Muslims as a decoy for their 9/11 crimes and didn't want any fallout on their Saudi friends?
9/11 Report: "High Levels" of Saudi Gov't Connected to Attacks
More information is emerging about what is in the 28 deleted pages of the Congressional 9/11 Report. The New Republic quotes an unnamed official who read the full report who says, "Everyone’s chasing the charities. They should be chasing direct links to high levels of the Saudi government. We’re not talking about rogue elements. We’re talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."
Saudi Gov’t Backed Man Linked to 9/11 Hijackers
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Saudi man connected to two of the 9/11 hijackers was being paid by a Saudi government contractor for several years while he was living in San Diego. Newly reviewed documents also show that when the private company tried to kick the man, Omar al-Bayoumi, off the payroll, the Saudi government insisted he stay on the payroll even though he was apparently doing no work. The Journal also reports the FBI started to investigate Bayoumi in September 1998 but the inquiry was stopped in 1999 for unknown reasons. In San Diego, Bayoumi met two of the would-be hijackers, found them housing and paid for their first two months of rent.
Saudis & Bush Hold Emergency Meeting Over 9/11 Report
President Bush will meet with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Faisal today to respond to Saudi criticism of the Congressional 9/11 report. The Washington Post reports that it appears the Saudi government may urge the Bush administration to declassify 28 pages within the report that detail connections between Saudis and the 9/11 attack. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and The New York Times reports that classified section shows that Saudis poured hundreds of millions into charities and other groups that assisted the hijackers.
Bush Refuses to Declassify 9/11 Report
President Bush stands by his 28-page gap. He is refusing to declassify the portion of the Congressional 9/11 report that is believed to detail ties between Saudi Arabia and the Sept. 11 attacks. This comes despite calls from the Saudi foreign minister and a bipartisan coalition of Senators. Bush yesterday held a hastily arranged meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Faisal after which Faisal told reporters at the White House "We have nothing to hide. Anybody who accuses us must have a morbid imagination.’’ Bush claimed the section could not be released without jeopardizing national security. But Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, who served as a vice chairman of the congressional inquiry, contradicted Bush by saying up to 95 percent of the section could be released. At the meeting, the Saudi minister agreed to allow U.S. officials question Omar Bayoumi, the former Saudi aviation official, who is believed to have helped two of the hijackers find and pay for an apartment prior to the attacks. The report found that Bayoumi had "had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia."