Israel's 9/11 Opportunities

     This is part 4 of a 4-part series on motive, means, and opportunity in the false-flag attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. To assign guilt in a criminal investigation, one must find out who had the motive for the crime, the means of committing the crime, and the opportunity to commit the crime.

     In part 1—“September 11’s Lucky Winners”—I described many ways that Israel benefited from the attack. Benjamin Netanyahu even went as far to say that 9/11 was "good for Israel."  I also showed that Israel not only benefited from the attack; I laid out proofs of Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks.

In part 2—“The ‘Official Story’ of 9/11: A Fairy Tale”—I proved that the nineteen Middle Easterners accused of the 9/11 attack could not possibly have done what they were accused of doing.  The words Official Story, in the title, are placed in quotation marks because of my discovery that there's often a stunning difference between what the corporate media tell us that the 9/11 Commission Report  says and what the 9/11 Commission Report actually says.

     In part 3—“Suspicious Timing: More Evidence of Israeli Prior Knowledge and Planning of 9/11”—I showed that an Israeli front group, supposedly formed in response to the needs of the post-9/11 world, had been formed several months before 9/11. I also proved that the group's leadership considerably overlapped with the leadership of the Project for the New American Century—the neoconservative group whose position papers cited the need for “a new Pearl Harbor” in order to bring about the changes they desired.

     Now we come to part 4: “Israel’s 9/11 Opportunities,” in which I show that most of the opportunities for bringing about the events of 9/11 were in the hands of Israelis and Americans who fronted for Israelis. High-level American officials had the power to help cover up the crime (here), but only Israel and their henchmen had the opportunities to carry out the crime every step of the way.

     What excuses did President Bush, de facto President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice—the unholy trio who lied to the American public over 90 times to get us into an illegal war in Iraq—and their allies make? They made two excuses:

     1. It was a failure of imagination; that is, (as Rice put it) no one could have foreseen that someone would use a commercial airliner as a bomb.
      2. The Bush Administration had relied too heavily on technology.

     The first excuse was disproven almost as soon as it was uttered. Terrorist Ramsey Yosef proposed it in 1993, and Philippine intelligence conveyed the message to the CIA. The CIA studied the possibility that same year. In 1994, author Tom Clancy described such an event as this in his book Debt of Honor. 

     In 1996, the movie The Long Kiss Goodnight was about a false-flag terrorist act killing a projected 4,000 people and blaming it on the Muslims.  (Click here for video clip.) 

     On March 4, 2001, television director Chris Carter chillingly portrayed the events of 9/11 several months before they took place.  In the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, an X-Files spin-off, high-level government officials in the intelligence community used remote-control technology to electronically hijack an airliner, intending to crash it into the World Trade Center and blame it on the Arabs.

     In 2003, the Bush Administration admitted that, on the morning of September 11, 2001, a war games scenario was taking place which posited the use of hijacked commercial airliners as flying bombs.  (Click here.)

     So much for a “failure of imagination.” What about the over-reliance on technology? Who controlled the technology?

     Whoever pulled off 9/11 had to have had the means to get nineteen misfits through security screening. Who was in charge of security at those airports?

     Whoever pulled off 9/11 had to have had the means to prevent America’s military pilots form following normal procedure by scrambling as soon as the airliners veered off course. Who designed the technology on which the military relied for that purpose?

     Ground controllers were confused by computer-simulated planes as a result of the war games that were taking place at the same time as the hijackings. Several orders were given to delete those signals, but the problem continued until after the real terrorist attacks were over.    Who designed the program they were using—the program that made it impossible for air traffic controllers to tell where the real airliners were?

     Who was in charge of security at the World Trade Center up to the day it was destroyed? Who was in charge of port security at New York Harbor? Who designed other security systems that facilitated the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

     Demonstrating who had the technological opportunities to bring about 9/11 leaves me with two unpleasant options. Either I can refer you to the research others have done, or I can, so to speak, try to re-invent the wheel by copying their research. To save both you and me the trouble, I’ll refer you to what others have found.

     The answer to all these questions and more can be found in the Vatic Project article “Israel Did 9/11: All the Proof in the World.” In support of Vatic’s findings, here is an article from the web site What Really Happened, showing that Israelis were in control of security at all three of the airports involved in 9/11.   
     More recently, Vatic has uncovered evidence that the 9/11 mastermind was Dov Zakheim, a reputed dual-citizen Israeli who was well positioned for several opportunities to effect 9/11. I mention this particular video because it addresses one question that “All the Proof in the World” didn’t address: Who designed and marketed the technology that made it possible for airliners to be electronically hijacked (a standard safety feature on all commercial airliners for several decades)? Until Zakheim began working for the Pentagon, he was the CEO of the company that designed and marketed the software that made it possible to precision guide commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. (Click here.)

     There you have it. The Israelis, with their long history of false flag attacks, benefited most from 9/11. Muslims gained nothing but suffering, death, rejection, and ruin from it.

     By the Bush Administration’s admission, 9/11 happened because America’s over-reliance on certain technology. At every turn, that technology was either designed by, or controlled by, Israelis. They, and only they, had the means and the opportunity to use the technology necessary for bringing about the events of 9/11.

     People who are prone to cry, “Conspiracy theorist,” will undoubtedly say that what I’ve written in this series of articles contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report. It doesn’t. Of the 585 pages in the 9/11 Commission Report, only 13 pages describe the Commission’s version of the hijacking. Only 86 pages describe events that occurred that day. Mostly, the 9/11 Commission Report is about terrorism in other parts of the world.  Pages 325 through 585 are devoted entirely on anti-terrorist strategies for the future.
      Bear in mind that the Bush Administration had resisted calls for any investigation of 9/11 at all.  Only public outrage and demand led to the 9/11 Commission convening 441 days after the attacks had occurred.  By contrast, the Monica Lewinsky investigation began less than two weeks after the news broke.  Some $100 million was spent on the Lewinsky investigation, as compared to $14 million for the 9/11 Commission. 
     Even a glance at the table of contents is enough to convince you that the real purpose of the Report was to justify the Bush Administration's war on American liberties and the U.S. government's illegal intervention in other countries.

     Read it. (For a free PDF download, click here.) You’ll be amazed at how little the 9/11 Commission Report says about 9/11. After reading it, you’ll probably ask, “Why?”
Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog

The Grand Chessboard

My undergraduate studies were in the field of political science, but I learned more by doing than I ever learned in class. From experience, I learned that politicians always try to give acceptable reasons for what they do. I also learned that they often have ulterior motives. That is, the reasons they give to the public are often not their real reasons. From these observations, I devised a simple rule of thumb: When the stated reasons make no sense to you, it’s not usually because you don’t understand. More often, it’s because the stated reasons are not the real reasons.
Our stated reasons for going to war in Iraq against a dictator that had been put in power by the CIA were that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction similar to the ones possessed by the United States and England. Supposedly, Saddam supported alQaeda, which the CIA had created in Afghanistan to lure the Russians into their own Vietnam.
All of the officially stated reasons for our being in Iraq are false, and all of our officially stated reasons for remaining in Iraq are false. One of our reasons for remaining there is that it’s our way of “supporting the troops” who don’t want to be there. Many have mutinied, singly or in groups, and most of whom are stretched nearly to the breaking point.
We’re at war in Afghanistan because a former CIA asset named Osama bin Laden was in a cave in Afghanistan when several of his followers, novice pilots all, flew large, commercial jets with such unusual skill and with such devastating effect that tens of thousands of professional pilots, engineers, demolition experts, and other experts have signed documents urging federal investigators to explain how they’d done it.
Let me digress for a moment, and pardon me for dragging Hitler into this. I assure you, it’s not gratuitous but because certain lessons of history are so well known and clear that they beg to be cited as examples.
During the 1920’s, Hitler wrote the book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) to tell in detail what he would do if he gained power in Germany. Almost as soon as he gained power, American liberals such as William O. Douglas arranged for the English translation of Mein Kampf to be circulated in the United States. They wanted to use Hitler’s words to warn the American people of what Hitler would do if he were given the chance.
Hitler did get the chance. I’ve heard all the arguments against a belief that the Holocaust occurred. They all offer the Accidentalist (or Coincidentalist) Theory of history. The Holocaust deniers tell us that the nine million dead were the result of wartime shortages. Confronted with the fact that they happened to the same demographic and other groups that Hitler had earlier promised to eliminate, in direct proportion to his hatred of each group, what’s the most reasonable explanation?
The almost perfect match up between Hitler’s promises of a holocaust and the Holocaust itself can’t be chalked up to mere coincidence. It happened that way because that’s how it was planned.
Now, let’s fast forward to the year 1997, the year that Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard was published. No, I’m not comparing Brzezenski to Hitler; I wouldn’t trivialize the Holocaust doing that.
In The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski wrote that three fourths of the world’s population, physical wealth, and energy resources are on the Eurasian continent and that it was “critical” for the United States should control all of them.
In The Grand Chessboard, he laid out a plan to encircle Russia and China by taking over the Middle East, destabilizing Pakistan and India, and gaining hegemony over Southeast Asia. The eventual goal was the entire Eurasian continent.
His ambitious plan was far more detailed than I describe it here. The details closely match what we see from the Mediterranean Sea to the South China Sea.
So, who is Zbigniew Brzezinski? He’s a protégé of Henry Kissinger, one of the founding members of the Trilateral Commission in 1973, and a top foreign policy adviser to every U.S. President—including Ronald Reagan—since 1977. Brzezinski and David Rockefeller tapped then-obscure Governor Jimmy Carter to be another founding member of the Trilateral Commission and set about grooming him for the presidency. When Barack Obama was a student at Columbia University, one of his political science professors was Zbigniew Brzezinski. Today, Brzezinski is one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers.
I’m not saying that the events in Asia today are the result of Brzezinski’s book. More likely, Zbig’s book was simply a printed document revealing what had been in the planning stages for many years. The Grand Chessboard and what it means for each of us and our respective countries is well worth the read.
The Grand Chessboard is about more than manipulating countries. It’s also about manipulating people. Since America is being manipulated into military adventures and intrigues that are against the national interest—benefiting none but an elite few—doesn’t it naturally follow that the American people are also being manipulated to support those actions?
Check out this clip from the 1996 movie The Long Kiss Goodbye. Now check out this clip that was aired in March 2001, as the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen.
In that regard, I have a few words of counsel: “Seek out reliable sources of information. The truth is out there.”