911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news. Blog posts are the responsibility of the poster. Readers are encouraged to check the facts, debate, and form their own conclusions.
Paul Schreyer's blog
Published via: http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-saudi-split-a-motive-for-911/5347816
A little known conflict between the United States and Saudi Arabia in summer 2001 sheds new light on 9/11. What role did the tensions back then play? And why did the attacks occur actually in early September?
Until today it is largely unknown that the Saudi government planned a radical course change in summer 2001. Via official diplomatic channels the U.S. government was informed that the Saudis intended to stop coordinating their policy with the United States. The attacks of 9/11 destroyed these plans to separate and gain more independence only weeks later.
The intimate relationship between Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador in the United States from 1983 till 2005, and U.S. President George W. Bush is legendary. Yet, the bond between the two former fighter jet pilots included more than just personal sympathy. The close friendship of Bandar and Bush represented also the special business relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States, dating as far back as to the first half of the 20th century. Its simple core: the Saudis are selling their oil and then promptly reinvest the received U.S. Dollars back in the United States - for weapons and large infrastructure projects. Thus in the end most of the American money is floating back to U.S. corporations.
This so-called "Petrodollar recycling" is crucial not only for the American economy but also for the U.S. currency itself. If the Arab nations, led by the Saudis, would ever decide to sell their oil for Euros instead for Dollars - like the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had declared some time before the invasion of his country - then the global need for Dollars would be reduced so dramatically that U.S. monetary supremacy would seriously be at risk.
The German Section of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) and the Centre of European Law and Politics at the University of Bremen, Germany, organized a high-level conference that took place from 26 - 28 April 2013 at the University of Bremen. Title: "Quo vadis NATO? - Challenges for Democracy and Law"
Among the speakers were:
Dr. Hans-Christof Graf von Sponeck, former United Nations Assistant Secretary General
Prof. Dr. Christopher Weeramantry, former Vice President of the International Court of Justice
Dr. Dieter Deiseroth, Judge at the German Federal Administrative Court
Wolfgang Nescovic, former Judge at the German Federal High Court
Prof. Dr. Reinhard Merkel, Professor for criminal law and philosophy of law, University of Hamburg
Dr. Andreas von Buelow, former German Assistant Secretary of Defense
Dr. Daniele Ganser, Swiss historian and peace researcher
There were a lot more speakers, many judges, lawyers, professors and politicians, but also researchers like myself.
Among the discussed topics were:
- "Military interventions to protect human rights?"
- "Gladio and the strategy of tension"
- "Historical fact checking regarding the debate about 9/11"
- "9/11 and the invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Charter - Legal questions"
My own short presentation on April 27th covered the circumstances of the creation of the 9/11 Commission, the missing evidence regarding Bin Laden and the 19 alleged hijackers, and the anomalies of the air defense on 9/11. I also mentioned "Vigilant Guardian". And I informed the audience about the 9/11 Consensus Panel and their website.
Daniele Ganser, who spoke before me, covered Gladio and also discussed WTC 7, including a presentation of a videoclip of the tower´s collapse. Many of the conference´s participants acknowledged that they hadn´t known about these facts before.
The courageous decision of the organizers to include 9/11 truth into a high-level conference about NATO and legal aspects of war and peace is remarkable and a new step towards greater public awareness of these issues.
The following article may shed some light on the possibility of aircraft remote control on 9/11. It´s from April 10th, and it led to an article in Germany´s most read online newspaper. ( http://www.bild.de/digital/handy-und-telefon/hacker/per-app-ein-flugzeug-hacken-29981928.bild.html )
Here is the original story:
Researcher: Vulnerabilities in aircraft systems allow remote airplane hijacking
Lucian Constantin, IDG News Service
The lack of security in communication technologies used in the aviation industry makes it possible to remotely exploit vulnerabilities in critical on-board systems and attack aircraft in flight, according to research presented Wednesday at the Hack in the Box security conference in Amsterdam.
The presentation, by Hugo Teso, a security consultant at consultancy firm N.runs in Germany, who has also had a commercial pilot license for the past 12 years, was the result of the researcher’s three-yearlong research into the security of avionics.
By Paul Schreyer
January 28, 2013
“If a mandarinate ruled America, the recruiting committee on September 11 would have had to find someone like Cheney.” Washington Post author Barton Gellman in his book “Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency”
Terrorism. Emergency plans. Political careers. The history of 9/11 can be written from many angles.
But whatever point of view is chosen, Dick Cheney is a central figure. “Principle is okay up to a certain point”, he once said, “but principle doesn´t do any good if you lose the nomination”. He´s surely an elusive character. Not less than Donald Rumsfeld, his close companion. Both of their lifes are inseperably bound with a dark side of recent American history. The core of the following story was originally told by the authors James Mann and Peter Dale Scott whose thorough research is deeply appreciated. Yet a lot of background information was added. Thus a bigger picture slowly took shape, showing a plan and its actors …
Following the publication of the paper "Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11" (see here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Schreyer-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf ) in October 2012 a discussion started between author Paul Schreyer and Miles Kara, former professional staff member of the 9/11 Commisson, assigned to their "Team 8", investigating the air defense on 9/11. Kara also published an article about this in November 2012 (see here: http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=5747 ).
Following the core points of this discussion, based on 7 questions Schreyer raised, published now with the approval of both at 9/11 Blogger and at JREF.
Paul Schreyer: The time of Scoggins´ first call to NEADS - I have it in my paper on page 6, lower part. What do you make of this? When did this call happen?
Though all this is history now, with more than 10 years having passed by, some crucial questions remain unresolved. In the recent study "Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11", published in October 2012 in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies", some of these questions are covered in great detail. You can read it here:
Now a video has been released, explaining these findings:
Core of the argument: The flight routes of the fighter jets scrambled on 9/11 show a pattern of deliberate diversion.
Today a new video about 7 substantial facts regarding 9/11 has been released. The 12-minute long film focuses on these points:
1. Insider trading
2. WTC 7
3. Air defense
5. Flight 77
6. Identification of hijackers
7. Evidence regarding Bin Laden
The video is available in two different language versions:
English version: http://youtu.be/STICJ9gfB2s
German version: http://youtu.be/MzBdcrEamI0
Furthermore a bilingual English / German website with additional links and sources has been launched today:
Hopefully this information will spread! Thanks for your help.
A new film of 6 minutes length has been released today, asking simple questions about the detours in the flight routes of the 9/11 hijackings, about "radar gaps", the simultaneous events between 8.46 and 8.56 a.m. that morning, as well as about the possibilitiy of remote control and the role of the war games:
Why did all four hijacked planes on 9/11 take long detours? How did the hijackers know about "radar holes"? How could they conduct key hijacking events simultaneously all within 10 minutes? Who controlled the planes?
A new film of 6 minutes length has been released today, asking simple questions about the detours in the flight routes of the 9/11 hijackings, about "radar gaps", the simultaneous events between 8.46 and 8.56 a.m. that morning, as well as about the possibilitiy of remote control and the role of the war games.
For German readers: more in depth analysis of these issues is also available in a 5-page article in the recent print edition of news magazine "Hintergrund" (www.hintergrund.de), as well as in a detailed report in the online news magazine "Telepolis" (www.telepolis.de), published on Sept. 7 - both articles written by me.
The widely distributed German popular science magazine "Welt der Wunder" published in its new september edition a 9-page article with critical questions about 9/11. The magazine which sells about 250.000 copies and is edited by "Bauer Verlag", one of Germany´s biggest publishing houses, focuses on questions arising from the "9/11 Commission Report", especially regarding the failure of the air defense and for example the case of "main witness" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to whom the "9/11 Commission" had no access at all. The article´s headline reads "11 truths about 9/11". The author of the text contacted me a few weeks ago, because of my recently published book "Inside 9/11", and consulted with me during writing. Hopefully the article causes more people to think about the issue. For German speaking readers I have posted a scan of it here: http://www.inside-911.de/wdw.pdf
Today I released the short film "Inside 9/11 - Obstructing the investigation":
It argues that former 9/11 commisson director Philip Zelikow fired a staff member for investigating highly sensitive evidence of a secret support network for the alleged hijackers in the United States. The recently published interview of former "anti-terror czar" Richard Clarke supports some of the claims made in the film.
To many 9/11 researchers this might not be new, since the issue is already mentioned in Philip Shenon´s book "The Commission", published in 2008. But I thought it might be the right time to remember ...
On July 7th, 2011 Miles Kara, researcher and former staff member of the 9/11 Commission, wrote a response to my film "Inside 9/11 - Hijacking the air defense":
Here is my answer to him - as an open letter.
Dear Miles Kara,
a reader pointed me to your response on my film "Inside 9/11 - Hijacking the air defense". First I want to thank you for taking the time for a closer look on this. I put this as an open letter, going out to several other researchers as well. My principal aim is to promote an open discussion about this issue and your response is a very welcome step in this process.