How America was neoconned
into World War IV
LAURENT GUYÉNOT • SEPTEMBER 10, 2018
Thanks to courageous
investigators, many anomalies in the official explanation of the events of 9/11
were posted on the Internet in the following months, providing evidence that
this was a false flag operation, and that Osama bin Laden was innocent, as he
repeatedly declared in the Afghan and Pakistani press and on Al Jazeera.[1] The proofs of this appalling fraud have been
accumulating ever since, and are now accessible to anyone willing to spend a
few hours of research on the Web. (Although, while preparing this article, I
noticed that Google is now making access to that research more difficult than
it was five years ago, artificially prioritizing anti-conspiracy sites.)
For example, members
of Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth have
demonstrated that it was impossible for plane crashes and jet fuel fires to
trigger the collapse of the Twin Towers. Even Donald Trump understood this. In fact, speaking of “collapse” is perhaps
misleading: the towers literally exploded, pulverizing concrete and projecting
pieces of steel beams weighing several hundred tons hundreds of meters
laterally at high speeds. The pyroclastic dust that immediately flooded through the streets,
not unlike the dust from a volcano, indicates a high temperature mixture of hot
gasses and relatively dense solid particles, an impossible phenomenon in a
simple collapse. It is also impossible that WTC7, another skyscraper (47 stories), which had not been
hit by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint at near free-fall speed,
unless by “controlled demolition.”
Testimonies of firefighters recorded shortly after the events describe
sequences of explosions just before the “collapse”, well below the plane
impact. The presence of molten metal in the wreckage up to three weeks after
the attack is inexplicable except by the presence of incompletely burned
explosives. Firefighter Philip Ruvolo testified before Étienne Sauret’s camera
for his film Collateral Damages (2011): “You’d get down below and you’d see
molten steel—molten steel running down the channelways, like you were in a
foundry—like lava.”
Aviation professionals have also reported impossibilities in the
behavior of the planes. The charted speeds of the two aircraft hitting the Twin
Towers, 443 mph and 542 mph, exclude these aircraft being Boeing 767s, because
these speeds are virtually impossible near ground level. In the unlikely event
such speeds could be attained without the aircraft falling apart, flying them
accurately into the towers was mission impossible, especially by the amateur
pilots blamed for the hijacking. Hosni Mubarak, a former pilot, said he could
never do it.
(He is not the only head of state to have voiced his doubts: Chavez and Ahmadinejad are among them.) Recall that neither of the
black boxes of the jetliners was ever found, an incomprehensible situation.
And of course, there are the
obvious anomalies of Shanksville and Pentagon crash sites: no plane or credible
plane debris can be seen on any of the numerous photos easily available.
Among the growing number of
Americans who disbelieve the official version of the 9/11 attacks, two basic
theories are in competition: I called them “inside job” and “Mossad job”. The
first one is the dominant thesis within the so-called 9/11 Truth movement, and
blames the American government, or a faction within the American Deep State.
The second one claims that the masterminds were members of a powerful Israeli
network deeply infiltrated in all spheres of power within the US, including
media, government, military and secret services.
This “Mossad job” thesis has
been gaining ground since Alan Sabrosky, a professor at the U.S. Army War
College and the U.S. Military Academy, published in July 2012 an article entitled “Demystifying
9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake”, where he voiced his conviction that September 11thwas
“a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation.”
We can notice from the
outset that incriminating Israelis or Arabs are both “outside job” theories (in
fact, they are mirror images of each other, which is understandable in light of
what Gilad Atzmon explains about Jewish “projected guilt”).[2] Before even looking at the evidence, “outside
job” sounds more credible that “inside job”. There is something monstrous in
the idea that a government can deceive and terrorize its own citizens by
killing thousands of them, just for starting a series of wars that are not even
in the nation’s interest. By comparison, a foreign power attacking the U.S.
under the false flag of a third power almost seems like fair play. Indeed
suspicion of Israel’s role should be natural to anyone aware of the reputation
of the Mossad as: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target
U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act,” in the words of a
report of the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies quoted by the Washington Times, September 10th, 2001 — the day before the attacks.
This is an important point,
because it raises the question of how and why the 9/11 Truth movement has been
led to endorse massively the outrageous “inside job” thesis without even
considering the more likely thesis of an attack by a foreign power acting under
an Islamic false flag—and what foreign power but Israel would do that?
Of course, the two
dissenting theses do not necessarily exclude each other; at least, no one
incriminating Israel denies that corrupted elements from the American
administration or deep state were involved. The “passionate attachment” between Israel and the U.S. has been going on
for decades, and 9/11 is one of its monstruous offsprings.
I can think of no better
symbol of that reality than the marriage of Ted and Barbara Olson. Ted Oslon, after having defended Bush in the
disputed 2000 election, had been rewarded with the post of Solicitor General
(he also defended Dick Cheney when he refused to submit to Congress
Enron-related documents). Barbara was a famous CNN reporter, but before that,
she was born Barbara Kay Bracher of Jewish parents, educated at Yeshiva
University School of Law, and hired by the legal firm WilmerHale, of which
Jamie Gorelick, a future member of the 9/11 Commission, was also a member, and
whose clients include powerful Israeli firms like Amdocs, a digital
communication company charged with spying for Israel in the United States. On September 11, 2001, Barbara Olson alledgedly was
on flight AA77, from which she made two telephone calls to her husband. Her
calls were reported on CNN in the afternoon, and contributed to crystallize
some details of the official story, such as the “box cutters” used as only
weapons by the hijackers. Repeatedly invited on television shows after 9/11,
Ted Olson frequently contradicted himself when questioned about the calls from
his wife. In a 2006 report, the FBI identified only one call from Barbara
Olson, and it was an unconnected call lasting 0 seconds. Like all other
reported phone calls from desperate passengers (including the famous “Hi, Mom.
This is Mark Bingham”), Barbara’s call was simply impossible, because the
technology required to make high-altitude phone calls was not developed until
2004.[3]
9/11 was made possible by an
alliance between secret worshippers of Israel and corrupted American elements.
The question is: who, of the two, were the masterminds of this incredibly
daring and complex operation, and for what “higher purpose”?
Another question is: why do
those who keep repeating as a mantra “9/11 was an inside job” ignore
totally the compelling evidence pointing to Israel? In other words, to what
extent do they constitute a “controlled opposition” intended to cover up for
Israel? Asking this type of question does not mean suspecting anyone who
defends an erroneous or incomplete theory of being a hypocrite. Most people
defending one theory or the other do so sincerely, based on the information to
which they have access. I have myself been a believer in the official theory
for 7 years, and in the “inside job” theory for 2 years, before progressively
moving on to the present argument from 2010. On the other hand, we can assume
that those who lead the public into error on a long term are not just mistaken
but lying. In any case, it is legitimate to investigate the background of
opinion makers, and when they are caught lying or distorting the truth, we can
speculate on their motivation. I will come back to this issue at the end of the
article.
Researchers who believe
Israel orchestrated 9/11 cite the behavior of a group of individuals who have
come to be known as the “dancing Israelis” since their arrest, though their aim
was to pass as “dancing Arabs.” Dressed in ostensibly “Middle Eastern” attire,
they were seen by various witnesses standing on the roof of a van parked in
Jersey City, cheering and taking photos of each other with the WTC in the
background, at the very moment the first plane hit the North Tower. The
suspects then moved their van to another parking spot in Jersey City, where
other witnesses saw them deliver the same ostentatious celebrations.
One anonymous call to the
police in Jersey City, reported the same day by NBC News, mentioned
“a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there. They look like Palestinians and going
around a building. […] I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he
has those sheikh uniforms. […] He’s dressed like an Arab.” The police soon
issued the following BOLO alert (be-on-the-look-out) for a “Vehicle possibly
related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey
registration with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State
Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade
Center. Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact
and subsequent explosion.”
By chance, the van was
intercepted around 4 pm, with five young men inside: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg,
Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari. Before any question was asked, the
driver, Sivan Kurzberg, burst out: “We are Israelis. We are not your problem.
Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem”.The Kurzberg
brothers were formally identified as Mossad agents. All five officially worked
for a moving company (a classic cover for espionage) named Urban Moving
Systems, whose owner, Dominik Otto Suter, fled the country for Tel Aviv on
September 14.[4]
This event was first
reported the day after the attacks by journalist Paulo Lima in the New Jersey
newspaper The Bergen Record, based on “sources close to the investigation” who
were convinced of the suspects’ foreknowledge of the morning’s attacks: “It
looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State
Park”.The 579-page FBI report on the investigation that followed (partially declassified in 2005)
reveals several important facts. First, once developed, the photos taken by the
suspects while watching the North Tower on fire confirm their attitudes of
celebration: “They smiled, they hugged each other and they appeared to ‘high
five’ one another”. To explain their contentment, the suspects said they were
simply happy that, thanks to these terrorist attacks, “the United States will
take steps to stop terrorism in the world”. Yet at this point, before the
second tower was hit, most Americans believed the crash was an accident. The
five Israelis were found connected to another company called Classic
International Movers, which employed five other Israelis arrested for their
contacts with the nineteen presumed suicide hijackers. In addition, one of the
five suspects had called “an individual in South America with authentic ties to
Islamic militants in the middle east”. Finally, the FBI report states that the
“The vehicle was also searched by a trained bomb-sniffing dog which yielded a
positive result for the presence of explosive traces”.
After all this incriminating
evidence comes the most puzzling passage of the report: its conclusion that
“the FBI no longer has any investigative interests in the detainees and they
should proceed with the appropriate immigration proceedings”. In fact, a letter
addressed to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, dated September
25, 2001, proves that, less than two weeks after the events, the FBI federal
headquarter had already decided to close the investigation, asking that “The
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service should proceed with the appropriate
immigration proceedings”. The five “dancing Israelis”, also known as “the high
fivers”, were detained 71 days in a Brooklyn prison, where they
first refused, then failed, lie detector tests. Finally, they were quietly
returned to Israel under the minimal charge of “visa violation.” Three of them
were then invited on an Israeli TV talk show in November 2001, where one of
them ingenuously declared: “Our purpose was simply to document
the event.”
The five “dancing Israelis,”
the only suspects arrested on the very day of the 9/11 attacks, were just the
tip of an iceberg. In September 2001, the federal police were busy dismantling
the largest Israeli spy network ever uncovered on American soil. In the summer
preceding the attack, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) compiled a report which
would be revealed to the public by the Washington Post on
November 23rd, 2001, followed by a Carl Cameron’s four-part documentary
broadcast on Fox News from December 11th, 2001. On March 14th,
2002, an article in French newspaper Le Monde signed by
Sylvain Cypel also referred to the report, shortly before the French
magazine Intelligence Online made it fully accessible on the Internet.[5]It said that 140 Israeli spies, aged between 20 and
30, had been arrested since March 2001, while 60 more were arrested after
September 11. Generally posing as art students, they visited at least “36
sensitive sites of the Department of Defense.” “A majority of those questioned
have stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal intercept,
or explosive ordnance units. Some have been linked to high-ranking officials in
the Israeli military. One was the son of a two-star general, one served as the
bodyguard to the head of the Israeli Army, one served in a Patriot mission
unit.” Another, Peer Segalovitz, officer in the 605 Battalion of the Golan
Heights, “acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and anything
else that he needed to.”[6]
Of special interest is the
mention that “the Hollywood, Florida, area seems to be a central point for
these individuals.”[7] More than 30 out of the 140 fake Israeli
students identified before 9/11 lived in that city of 140,000 inhabitants. And
this city also happens to be the place where fifteen of the nineteen alleged
9/11 Islamist hijackers had regrouped (nine in Hollywood, six in the vicinity),
including four of the five supposed to have hijacked Flight AA11. What was the
relationship between the Israeli spies and the Islamist terrorists? We were
told by mainstream news that the former were monitoring the latter, but
failed to report suspicious activities of these terrorists to American
authorities. From such a presentation, Israel comes out clean, since a spy
agency cannot be blamed for not sharing information with the country it is
spying in. At worst, the Israeli Intelligence can be accused of “letting it
happen”—a guarantee of impunity. In reality, the Israeli agents were certainly
not just monitoring the future “hijackers,” but financing and manipulating
them, before disposing of them. We know that Israeli Hanan Serfaty, who rented
two flats near Mohamed Atta, had handled at least $100,000 in three months. And
we also learned from the New York Times on February 19, 2009, that Ali al-Jarrah, cousin of the alleged hijacker
of Flight UA93 Ziad al-Jarrah, had spent twenty-five years spying for the
Mossad as an undercover agent infiltrating the Palestinian resistance and
Hezbollah.
Israeli agents apparently
appreciate operating under the cover of artists. Shortly before September 11, a
group of fourteen Jewish “artists” under the name of Gelatininstalled themselves on the ninety-first floor of the
north tower of the World Trade Center. There, as a work of “street art,” they
removed a window and extended a wooden balcony. To understand what role this
piece of scaffolding may have played, it must be remembered that the explosion
supposedly resulting from the impact of the Boeing AA11 on the North Tower took
place between the ninety-second and the ninety-eighth floors. With the only
film of the impact on the North Tower being that of the Naudet brothers, who
are under suspicion for numerous reasons, many researchers are convinced that
no aircraft hit this tower, and that the explosion simulating the impact was
provoked by pre-planted explosives inside the tower.
Floors ninety-three to one
hundred of the North Tower were occupied by Marsh & McLennan, whose CEO was
Jeffrey Greenberg, son of wealthy Zionist (and financier of George W. Bush)
Maurice Greenberg, who also happens to be the owner of Kroll Inc., the firm in
charge of security for the entire World Trade Center complex on 9/11. The
Greenbergs were also the insurers of the Twin Towers and, on July 24, 2001,
they took the precaution of having the contract reinsured by competitors. In
November 2000, the board of directors of Marsh & McLennan was joined by
(Lewis) Paul Bremer, the chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, who,
on September 11, 2001, two hours only after the pulverization of the North
Tower, would appear on NBC to name bin Laden as prime
suspect,
perfectly calm as 400 of his employees are missing (295 will finally be
declared dead). “It is the day that will change our lives,” he said. “It is the
day when the war that the terrorists declared on the US [. . .] has been
brought home to the US.” In 2003, Bremer would be appointed administrator of
the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to level the Iraqi state to the
ground and oversee the theft of almost a trillion dollars intended for its
reconstruction.
With Goldberg and Bremer, we
have reached the upper level of the conspiracy, comprising a number of
influential Jewish personalities, working inside and outside the U.S.
government — super-sayanim, so to speak. The most representative of
those outside government is Larry Silverstein, the real estate shark who, with
his partner Frank Lowy, leased the Twin Towers from New York City in the spring
of 2001. The head of the New York Port Authority, who granted Silverstein and
Lowy the lease, was none other than Lewis Eisenberg, another member of the
United Jewish Appeal Federation and former vice-president of AIPAC. It appeared
that Silverstein had made a disastrous deal, because the Twin Towers had to be
decontaminated for asbestos. The decontamination process had been indefinitely
postponed since the 1980s because of its cost, estimated at nearly $1 billion
in 1989. In 2001, the New York Port Authority had been all too happy to shift
responsibility to Silverstein.
Immediately after acquiring
the Twin Towers, Silverstein renegotiated the insurance contracts to cover
terrorist attacks, doubling the coverage to $3.5 billion, and made sure he
would retain the right to rebuild after such an event. After the attacks, he
took his insurers to court in order to receive double compensation, claiming
that the two planes were two separate attacks. After a long legal battle, he pocketed $4.5 billion. Silverstein is a leading member of the United Jewish
Appeal Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, the biggest fundraiser
for Israel (after the US government, which pays about $3 billion per year in
aid to Israel). Silverstein also maintained “close ties with Netanyahu,”
according to Haaretz (November 21, 2001): “The two have been on friendly terms since
Netanyahu’s stint as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations. For years they
kept in close touch. Every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu would
call Silverstein.” Besides being a powerful man, Larry is a lucky man: as he explained in this interview, every morning of the week, he had breakfast at
the Windows on the World on top of the North Tower, but on
September 11th, he had an appointment with his dermatologist.
Accomplices to the 9/11
false flag attack with strong Israeli connections should also be tracked at the
other end of the trajectory of the planes reported to have crashed into the
Twin Towers. Flights AA11 and UA175 took off from Logan Airport in Boston,
which subcontracted their security to International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), a firm based in Israel and
headed by Menachem Atzmon, a treasurer of the Likud. So did Newark Airport
where flight UA93 reportedly took off before crashing in Shanksville.
A serious investigation
would follow many other trails, such as the Odigo instant messages received by
employees at the WTC two hours before the plane crashes, as reported by Haaretz on
September 27th, 2001. The first plane hit the WTC at the precise
time announced, “almost to the minute,” admitted Alex Diamandis, vice-president of
Odigo, headquartered in Israel. Also disturbing is the behavior of the American
branch of Zim Israel Navigational, a maritime shipping giant
48% owned by the Jewish state (occasionally used as a cover for the Israeli
secret services), which moved its offices from the WTC, along with its 200
employees, September 4th, 2001, one week before the attacks —“like
an act of God, we moved”, said the CEO Shaul Cohen-Mintz when interviewed by USA Today, November 17th, 2001.
But of course, none of these
trails were ever pursued. That is because the most powerful conspirators were
at the highest level of the Justice Department. Michael Chertoff was head of
the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in 2001, and responsible,
among many other things, for securing the release of the Israeli agents
arrested before and after 9/11, including the “dancing Israelis.” In 2003, this
son of a rabbi and of a Mossad pioneer would be appointed Secretary of Homeland
Security, in charge of counter-terrorism on the American soil, which allowed
him to control dissenting citizens and restrain access to the evidence under
the pretext of Sensitive Security Information.
Another chief of the
cover-up was Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 presidential
Commission established in November 2002. Zelikow is a self-styled specialist in
the art of making “public myths” by “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take
on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the
experiencing generation passes from the scene” (Wikipedia). In December 1998, he co-signed an article for Foreign Affairs entitled “Catastrophic
Terrorism,” in
which he speculated on what would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing
(already attributed to bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear bomb: “An act of
catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people
and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even
millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve
loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’
fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the
1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. […] Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past
and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with
draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of
citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force.” This is the man who
controlled the governmental investigation on the 9/11 terror attacks. Thomas
Kean and Lee Hamilton, who nominally led the commission, revealed in their
book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (2006),
that the commission “was set up to fail” from the beginning. Zelikow, they
claim, had already written a synopsis and a conclusion for the final report
before the first meeting. He controlled all the working groups, prevented them
from communicating with each other, and gave them as sole mission to prove the
official story; Team 1A, for example, was tasked to “tell the story of
Al-Qaeda’s most successful operation—the 9/11 attacks.”
A tight control of
mainstream media is perhaps the most delicate aspect of the whole operation. I
will not delve into that aspect, for we all know what to expect from the MSM.
For a groundbreaking argument on the extent to which 9/11 was psy-op
orchestrated by MSM, I recommend Ace Baker’s 2012 documentary 9/11
The Great American Psy-Opera, chapters 6, 7 and 8.
If we move up to the very
highest level of the conspiracy, we find ourselves in Tel Aviv. The preparation
for 9/11 coincided with the coming to power of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996,
followed by Ehud Barak in July 1999, and Ariel Sharon in March 2001, who
brought back Netanyahu as minister of Foreign Affairs in 2002 (with Netanyahu
again becoming prime minister in 2009). It must be noted that both Netanyahu
and Ehud Barak were temporarily out of the Israeli government in September
2001, just like Ben-Gurion at the time of Kennedy’s assassination (read my article on JFK). A few months before 9/11, Barak, a former head of
Israeli military intelligence, was “recruited” as a consultant to a Mossad
front company, SCP Partner, specializing in security and located less than
seven miles from Urban Moving Systems.[8] One hour after the explosion of the North
Tower, Barak was on BBC World to point the finger at bin Laden (the first to
do so), and concluded: “It’s a time to launch an operational, complete war against
terror.”
As for Netanyahu, we are not
surprised to hear him boast, on CNN in 2006, of having predicted in 1995 that, “if the West
doesn’t wake up to the suicidal nature of militant Islam, the next thing you
will see is militant Islam bringing down the World Trade Center.” Netanyahu is
exemplary of the ever closer “special relationship” between the US and Israel,
which started with Truman and blossomed under Johnson. Netanyahu had lived,
studied, and worked in the United States from 1960 to 1978, between his 11thand
his 27th year—except during his military service—and again
after the age of 33, when he was appointed deputy ambassador to Washington and
then permanent delegate to the United Nations. Netanyahu appeared regularly on
CNN in the early 1990s, contributing to the transformation of the world’s
leading news channel into a major Zionist propaganda tool. His political
destiny was largely planned and shaped in the United States, under the
supervision of those we now call neoconservatives, and the only thing that
distinguishes him from them is that, for public relations reasons, he does not
possess American nationality.
“What’s a neocon?” once asked
Bush 43 to his father Bush 41, after more than three years in the White House.
“Do you want names, or a description?” answered 41. “Description.” “Well,” said
41, “I’ll give it to you in one word: Israel.”[9] That anecdote, quoted by Andrew Cockburn, sums
it up. The neoconservative movement was born in the editorial office of the
monthly magazine Commentary, which had replaced the Contemporary
Jewish Record in 1945 as the press organ of the American Jewish
Committee. “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention
Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it,” wrote Gal Beckerman in the Jewish
Daily Forward, January 6,
2006. “It is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born
among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual
domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.”
The founding fathers of
neoconservatism (Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Donald Kagan, Paul
Wolfowitz, Adam Shulsky) were self-proclaimed disciples of Leo Strauss, a
German Jewish immigrant teaching at the University of Chicago. Strauss can be
characterized as a meta-Zionist in the sense that, while an ardent supporter of
the State of Israel, he rejected the idea that Israel as a nation should be
contained within borders; Israel must retain her specificity, which is to be
everywhere, he said in essence in his 1962 lecture “Why We Remain Jews.” Strauss would also approve of being called a
Machiavellian, for in his Thoughts on Machiavelli, he praised the “the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his
vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech” (p. 13). Machiavelli’s model
of a prince was Cesar Borgia, the tyrant who after having appointed the cruel
Ramiro d’Orco to subdue the province of Romania, had him executed with utter
cruelty, thus reaping the people’s gratitude after having diverted their hatred
onto another. Machiavelli, writes Strauss, “is a patriot of a particular kind:
He is more concerned with the salvation of his fatherland than with the
salvation of his soul” (p. 10). And that happens to be exactly what Jewishness
is all about, according to Jewish thinkers such as Harry Waton: “The Jews that
have a deeper understanding of Judaism know that the only immortality there is
for the Jew is the immortality in the Jewish people” (read more here). As a matter of fact, in the Jewish World Review of
June 7, 1999,
Michael Ledeen, a neocon and founding member of the Jewish Institute
for National Security Affairs (JINSA), assumed that Machiavelli must
have been a “secret Jew,” since “if you listen to his political philosophy you
will hear Jewish music.”
The neoconservatives of the
first generation originally positioned themselves on the far left. Irving
Kristol, one of the main editors of Commentary, had long claimed to
be a Trotskyist. It was soon after the 1967 successful annexation of Arab
territories by Israel that the Straussians experienced their conversion to
right-wing militarism, to which they owe their new name. Norman Podhoretz,
editor-in-chief from 1960 to 1995, turned from anti-war activist to defense
budget booster in the early 70s. He gave the following explanation in 1979:
“American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in
international affairs—from which it followed that an American withdrawal into
the kind of isolationist mood [. . .] that now looked as though it might soon
prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.” (Breaking
Ranks, p. 336). Leading the U.S. into war for the benefit of Israel is
the essence of the Machiavellian crypto-Zionists known deceptively as
neoconservatives.
The story of how the
neoconservatives reached the position of influence they held under George W.
Bush is a complicated one, which I can only outline. They entered the state
apparatus for the first time in the baggage of Rumsfeld and Cheney, during
president Ford’s cabinet reshuffle known as the “Halloween Massacre,” following
Nixon’s resignation. When the Cold War calmed down after America evacuated its
troops from Vietnam in 1973, and the CIA produced reassuring analyses of the
USSR’s military capabilities and ambitions, Rumsfeld (as Secretary of Defense)
and Cheney (as Chief of Staff) persuaded Ford to appoint an independent
committee, known as Team B, to revise upward the CIA estimates of the Soviet
threat, and reactivate a war attitude in public opinion, Congress, and
Administration. Team B was chaired by Richard Pipes and co-chaired by Paul
Wolfowitz, both introduced by Richard Perle.
During the Democratic
parenthesis of the Carter presidency (1976–80), the neoconservatives worked at
unifying the largest number of Jews around their policies, by founding the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which became the
second-most powerful pro-Israel lobby after AIPAC. According to its “mission statement”, it is “dedicated to educating Congressional,
military and civilian national security decision-makers on American defense and
strategic interests, primarily in the Middle East, the cornerstone of which is
a robust U.S.-Israeli security cooperation.” In 1980, the neocons were rewarded
by Ronald Reagan for their support by a dozen posts in national security and
foreign policy: Richard Perle and Douglas Feith to the Department of Defense;
Richard Pipes at the National Security Council; Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter”
Libby, and Michael Ledeen in the State Department. They helped Reagan escalate
the Cold War, showering billions of dollars on the military-industrial complex.
The long term planning of
9/11 probably started then. Isser Harel, founder of Israeli secret services (Shai in
1944, Shin Bet in 1948, Mossad until 1963) is reported as
prophesizing in 1980, in an interview with Christian Zionist Michael Evans,
that Islamic terrorism would end up hitting America in their “phallic symbol”:
“Your biggest phallic symbol is New York City and your tallest building will be
the phallic symbol they will hit”.[10] (A whole article would be needed to document and
explain the revival of the Jewish gift of apocalyptic prophecy in recent
decades.)
In 1996, during the Clinton
years, the neoconservatives threw all their weight into their ultimate think
tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), directed by William
Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC recommended taking advantage of the defeat of
communism to reinforce American hegemony by preventing the emergence of any
rival. Their Statement of Principles vowed to extend the current Pax Americana, which entailed “a
military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges.”
In its September 2000 report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, PNAC anticipated that US forces must become “able to
rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.” This required a
profound transformation, including the development of “a new family of nuclear
weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements.” Unfortunately,
according to the authors of the report, “the process of transformation […] is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a
new Pearl Harbor.” It is certainly no coincidence that the three-hour-long
blockbuster Pearl Harbor was released in the summer 2001,
conveniently entrenching the “New Pearl Harbor” meme into the minds of
millions.
PNAC’s architects played the
American hegemony card by draping themselves in the super-patriotic discourse
of America’s civilizing mission. But their duplicity is exposed in a document
brought to public knowledge in 2008: a report published in 1996 by the Israeli
think tank Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS),
entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
Securing the Realm, written specifically for the new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu. The team responsible for the report was led by Richard Perle, and
included Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who figured the same year among the
signatories of PNAC. As its title suggests, the Clean Break report
invited Netanyahu to break with the Oslo Accords of 1993, which officially
committed Israel to the return of the territories it occupied illegally since
1967. The new prime minister should instead “engage every possible energy on
rebuilding Zionism” and reaffirm Israel’s right to the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip.
In November 2000, Bush Jr.
was elected under conditions that raised protests of electoral fraud. Dick
Cheney, who had directed his campaign, named himself vice-president and
introduced two dozens neoconservatives in foreign policy key positions. The
State Department was entrusted to Colin Powell, but he was surrounded with
neocon aides such as David Wurmser. As National Security Adviser, Condoleezza
Rice, a specialist of Russia with no expertise in the Middle East, was entirely
dependent on her neocon adviser Philip Zelikow. William Luti and Elliott
Abrams, and later Eliot Cohen, were also tasked with steering Rice. But it was
mainly from within the Defense Department under Donald Rumsfeld that the most
influential neocons were able to fashion US foreign and military policy.
Richard Perle occupied the crucial position of director of the Defense Policy
Board, responsible for defining military strategy, while Paul Wolfowitz became
the “soul of the Pentagon” as deputy secretary with Douglas Feith as under
secretary.
After eight months in the
presidency, Bush was confronted with the “catastrophic event,” the “new Pearl
Harbor” that PNAC had wished for a year earlier. 9/11 was a real “Hanukkah miracle” for Israel, commented Mossad chief Ephraim
Halevy and Israeli National Security Council chairman Uzi Dayan. Netanyahu rejoiced: “It’s very good […] it will generate immediate sympathy […],
strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror
over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive
hemorrhaging of terror.” On September 21, he published an op-ed in the New
York Post entitled “Today, We Are All Americans,” in which he
delivered his favorite propaganda line: “For the bin Ladens of the world,
Israel is merely a sideshow. America is the target.” Three days later the New
Republic responded with a headline on behalf of the Americans: “We are
all Israelis now.” Americans experienced 9/11 as an act of hatred from the Arab
world, and they felt an immediate sympathy for Israel, which the
neoconservatives relentlessly exploited. One of the aims was to encourage
Americans to view Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians as part of the global
fight against Islamic terrorism.
It was a great success. In
the years preceding September 11, Israel’s reputation had bottomed out; condemnations
had been raining from around the world for its policy of apartheid and
colonization, and its systematic war against Palestinian command structures.
Increasing numbers of American voices questioned the merits of the special
relationship between the United States and Israel. From the day of the attacks,
it was all over. As Americans now intended to fight Arab terrorists to the
death, they would stop demanding from Israel more reasonable, proportionate
retaliation against Palestinian suicide bombers and rockets.
Instead, the president’s
speeches (written by neocon David Frum) characterized the 9/11 attacks as the
trigger for a world war of a new type, one fought against an invisible enemy
scattered throughout the Middle East. First, vengeance must come not only
against bin Laden, but also against the state harboring him: “We will make no
distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them”
(Sept. 11). Second, the war extends to the world: “Our war on terror begins
with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist
group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated” (Sept. 20). Third,
any country that does not support Washington will be treated as an enemy:
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (Sept. 20).
In an article in the Wall
Street Journal dated November 20, 2001, the neoconservative Eliot
Cohen dubbed the war against terrorism as “World War IV,” a framing soon echoed
by other American Zionists (the odd choice of the name WWIV rather than WWIII
comes, I suspect, from the neocons’ ethnocentric worldview, in which every
world war is a step toward Greater Israel; since one major step was
accomplished in 1967, the Cold War counts as WW3). In September 2004, at a
conference in Washington entitled “World War IV: Why We Fight, Whom We Fight,
How We Fight,” Cohen said: “The enemy in this war is not ‘terrorism’ […] but
militant Islam.” Like the Cold War, the imminent world war, according to
Cohen’s vision, has ideological roots, will have global implications, and will
last a long time, involving a whole range of conflicts. The self-fulfilling
prophecy of a new World War centered in the Middle East has also been
popularized by Norman Podhoretz, in “How to Win World War IV” (Commentary, February
2002), followed by a second article in, “World War IV: How It Started, What It
Means, and Why We Have to Win,” (September 2004), and finally a book
titled World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (2007).[11]
In the case of 9/11 as in
the case of Kennedy, controlled opposition operates on many levels, and many
honest scholars now realize that the 9/11 Truth movement itself is partly
channeled by individuals and groups secretly aiming at drawing suspicions away
from Israel. Such is certainly the case of the three young Jews (Avery, Rowe,
and Bermas) who directed the film Loose Change(2005), the most
widely watched 9/11 conspiracy film since its first version in 2005. They
hitched their whole thesis on a comparison with the never carried-out false
flag project Operation Northwoods (timely revealed to the public in May 2001
in James Bamford’s book Body of Secrets, written with the
support of former NSA director Michael Hayden, now working for Michael
Chertoff), but they failed to mention the attack on the USS Liberty, a
well-documented false flag attack by Israel on its U.S. ally. They did not
breathe a word about the neoconservatives’ loyalty to Israel, and treat anyone
who cited the Israeli role in 9/11 as anti-Semitic. The same can be said of
Bermas’s more recent film Invisible Empire (2010), also produced by Alex Jones: a compilation of anti-imperialist
clichés focusing on the Bushs and the Rockefellers, without a single hint of
the (((Others))).
It is interesting to note
that the 9/11 scenario put forward by Loose Change had
actually been prewritten by Hollywood: on the 4th of March,
2001, Fox TV broadcast the first episode of the
series The Lone Gunmen, watched by 13 million Americans. The plot is about computer hackers
working for a secret cabal within the U.S. government, who hijack a jet by
remote control with the intent to crash it into one of the Twin Towers, while
making it appear to have been hijacked by Islamic terrorists. At the last
seconds, the pilots manage to regain control of the plane. The purpose of the
failed operation was to trigger a world war under the pretext of fighting
terrorism. Truthers of the “inside job” school fancy that this episode must
have been written by some whistleblower inside Fox. Unlikely!
There is, of course, some
truth in the “inside job” theory, as I said at the beginning. Israel (in the
wider sense) would not be able to pull such an operation and get away with it,
without complicity at the highest level of U.S. government. How does that work?
Pretty much like for the Kennedy assassination, if you consider that the country was then ruled by
its vice-president Dick Cheney, the president being a mere dummy (see Lou
Dubose and Jake Bernstein, Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the
American Presidency, Random House, 2006). In my book JFK-9/11, I
have proposed a plausible scenario of how Israel had in fact hijacked a smaller
false flag attack on the Pentagon fabricated by the American Deep State, for
the limited purpose of justifying the overthrow of the Talibans in Afghanistan,
a goal fully supported by such “Great Gamers” as Zbigniew Brzezinski, but which
didn’t in itself interest the neocons.
What the neocons wanted was
a new war against Iraq and then a general conflagration in the Middle East
leading to the crumbling of all the enemies of Israel, with Syria and Iran high
on the list. So they outbid everyone and gave the operation the scale they
wanted with the help of their New York super-sayan Silvertein.
George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and other goyim who had been
kept out of the loop, finding themselves embroiled in geopolitical machinations
of global scope, could merely try to save face. On September 19 and 20, Richard
Perle’s Defense Policy Board met in the company of Paul Wolfowitz and Bernard
Lewis (inventor of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the “clash of
civilizations”) but in the absence of Powell and Rice. They prepared a letter
to Bush, written on PNAC letterhead, to remind him of his historic mission:
“Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy
aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a
determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to
undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive
surrender in the war on international terrorism.”[12] This was an ultimatum. Bush was certainly aware
of the leverage that the neocons had acquired over the major print and
television media. He was obliged, under penalty of ending in the proverbial
trash bin of history, to endorse the invasion of Iraq that his father had
refused the Zionists ten years earlier.
As for Brzezinski and other
genuine U.S. imperialists, their support for the invasion of Afghanistan made
their timid protests against the Iraq war ineffective. It was a little late in
February 2007 when Brzezinski denounced before the Senate “a historical,
strategic and moral calamity […] driven by Manichaean impulses and imperial
hubris.” In 2012 he declared, regarding the risk of conflagration with Iran,
that Obama should stop following Israel like a “stupid mule.” He soon disappeared from the MSM, as a useful
idiot no longer useful.
The “half truth” of the
exclusively “inside job” theory, which denounces 9/11 as a false flag operation
perpetrated by the American state on its own citizens, functions like a
secondary false flag hiding the real masters of the operation, who are in fact
agents in the service of a foreign nation. One of the aims of this
inside-jobish controlled opposition is to force American officials to maintain
the “bin Laden did it” masquerade, knowing that tearing apart the fake Islamic
flag would only reveal the U.S. flag, not the Israeli flag. No longer
controlling the media, they would not have the means to raise this second veil
to expose Israel. Any effort to get at the truth would be political suicide.
Everyone understands what is at stake: if one day, under mounting pressure from
public opinion or for some other strategic reason, the mainstream media
abandons the official bin Laden story, the well-rehearsed slogan “9/11 was an
inside job” will have prepared Americans to turn against their own government,
while the neocon Zionists will remain untouchable (Machiavelli’s method: make
another accomplish your dirty ends, then turn popular vengeance against him).
And God knows what will happen, if the government has not by then succeeded in
disarming its citizens through Sandy Hook-type psy-ops. Government officials
have little choice but to stick to the Al-Qaeda story, at least for the next
fifty years.
After reaching this
conclusion in JFK-9/11, I had the satisfaction of finding that
Victor Thorn, in a book that had eluded me (Made in Israel: 9-11 and the Jewish
Plot Against America, Sisyphus Press, 2011), had already expressed it in harsher terms: “In
essence, the ‘9-11 truth movement’ was created prior to Sept.
11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. By
2002–2003, ‘truthers’ began appearing at rallies holding placards that read
‘9-11 was an inside job.’ Initially, these signs provided hope for those who
didn’t believe the government and mainstream media’s absurd cover stories. But
then an awful realization emerged: The slogan ‘9-11 was an inside job’ was
quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised. […] The
mantra, ‘9-11 was an inside job’ is only partially true and is inherently
damaging to the ‘truth movement’ because it shifts all attention away from
Israel’s traitorous assault against America. […] Leaders of these fake 9-11
groups know the truth about Israel’s 9-11 barbarity. Their willingness to
perpetuate or cover it up ultimately makes them as guilty and vile as those who
launched the attacks. There are no degrees of separation in this matter. It’s a
black-and-white issue. Tell the entire truth about Israel’s Murder, Inc. cabal,
or sleep in the same infected bed as these murdering dogs lie in. […] Faux
conspiratologists complain about the government and news sources not telling
the truth, yet they’ve erected an utter blackout on data regarding Israel and
9-11.”
Some readers will complain
that I am making a very complex operation appear too simple. I plead guilty: I
have merely tried here to outline the case against Israel in the short scope of
an article. But I am fully aware that creating Greater Israel through a world
war fought by the U.S. might not have been the only consideration in the
preparation of 9/11. Many private interests had to be involved. Yet I believe
none of them interfered with Israel’s plan, and most of them supported it.
There is, for example,
the missing gold in the WTC basement : $200 million were recovered from the estimated
$1 billion stored: who took the rest? But that is nothing compared to the $2.3
trillion that were missing from the accounts of the Department of Defense for
the year 2000, in addition to $1.1 trillion missing for 1999, according to a
televised declaration made on September 10th, 2001, the day before
the attacks, by Donald Rumsfeld. Just for comparison, this is more than one
thousand times the colossal losses of Enron, which triggered a chain of
bankruptcies that same year. All this money evaporated into thin air under the
watch of William Cohen, Defense Secretary during Bill Clinton’s second term. In
2001, the man who was tasked to help track down the missing trillions was Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Dov Zakheim, a member of PNAC and an
ordained rabbi. Practically, the mystery had to be resolved by financial
analysts at Resource Services Washington (RSW). Unfortunately, their offices
were destroyed by “al-Qaeda” the following morning. The “hijackers” or Flight
AA77, rather than hitting the command center on the eastern side of the
Pentagon, chose to attempt a theoretically impossible downward spiral at 180
degrees in order to hit the west side of the building precisely at the location
of the accounting offices. The 34 experts at RSW perished in their offices,
together with 12 other financial analysts, as is noted in the biography of the
team leader Robert Russell for the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial: “The weekend before his death, his entire office
attended a crab feast at the Russell home. They were celebrating the end of the
fiscal-year budget completion. Tragically, every person that attended that
party was involved in the Pentagon explosion, and are currently missing”.
By an incredible
coincidence, one of the financial experts trying to make sense of the Pentagon
financial loss, Bryan Jack, was reported to have died at the precise location
of his office, not because he was working there that day, but because he was on
a business trip on Flight AA77. In the words of the Washington Post database: “Bryan C. Jack was responsible for crunching
America’s defense budget. He was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77,
bound for official business in California when his plane struck the Pentagon,
where, on any other day, Jack would have been at work at his computer”. Yahweh
must have a sense of chutzpah!
Laurent Guyénot is the
author of JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State, Progressive Press, 2014, and From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God,
Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018. (or $30 shipping included from Sifting and
Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556).
[1] Philippe Broussard, “En dépit des déclarations
américaines, les indices menant à Ben Laden restent minces,” Le
Monde, September 25, 2001.
[2] Gilad Atzmon, Being in Time: a
Post-Political Manifesto, Interlink Publishing, 2017 , p.
142.
[3] David Ray Griffin, 9/11
Contradictions, Arris Books, 2008, pp. 170-182; Webster Griffin
Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA, Progressive Press,
2008, pp. 321-324.
[4] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The
Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, pp. 278–280.
[5] It is quoted here from Bollyn’s book and from
Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection,
iUniverse, 2003.
[6] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The
Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, p. 159.
[7] Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11
and the Israeli Connection, iUniverse, 2003, p. 3.
[8] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The
Deception that Changed the World, 2012 , pp. 278-280.
[9] Quoted by Andrew Cockburn, who claims to have
heard the anecdote from “friends of the family”, in Rumsfeld: His Rise,
His fall, and Catastrophic Legacy, Scribner, 2011, p. 219.
[10] Michael Evans told of this prophecy in an
interview with Deborath Calwell and in his book The American
Prophecies, Terrorism and Mid-East Conflict Reveal a Nation’s Destiny), quoted
in Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the
World, C. Bollyn, 2012, p. 71.
[11] Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent
Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National
Interest of Israel, Enigma Edition, 2008, p. 193.
[12] Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent
Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National
Interest of Israel, Enigma Edition, 2008, p. 144.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.