Dick Cheney: 9/11 Cover Up | Interview

Published on Mar 15, 2013

Abby Martin speaks with independent journalist, and co-host of Media Roots Radio, Robbie Martin, about the recent revelations of former vice president Dick Cheney lying to the 9/11 commission, and what larger implications this could have.

LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet
FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin

Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11

Reminds me of this odd exchange and reaction...


Full Interview: Dick Cheney: 9/11 Cover Up, Black Water: 'Extension of CIA'


Good stuff - wargames, pre-attack warnings, the WTC7 collapse, the Mineta testimony - this is a solid initial introduction to the deficiencies in the official story, and the suggestive reasons why Cheney personally warrants reinvestigation for his lies and his probable role in facilitating the attack. You could have a lengthy thread here covering Cheney's relationship to the instigation of Continuity of Government (see Peter Dale Scott's THE ROAD TO 9/11), his determination to unleash unshackled executive power after the Iran-Contra hearings, his decades-long interest in war-for-profiteering, his role in the Team B propaganda group during the Carter admin under the steerage of Bush Sr, etc etc, and still not uncover all the ramifications that Cheney's presence in the administration likely means to the real story behind 9/11. Equally, I expect that Cheney’s activities after the event were probably instrumental in keeping a tight lid on the story, and maintaining the complicity of the domestic media.

In March 2009, Seymour Hersh mentioned during his University of Minnesota speech that "the Bush administration ran an executive assassination ring that reported directly to Vice President Dick Cheney". A Democracy Now episode interviewed Hersh and replayed the audio.


A few months later The Guardian followed up the lead, reporting that Cheney had arranged for the concealment of CIA assassination squads overseas. The squads were set-up to hunt down and kill 'al-Qaida operatives in friendly countries' without informing the governments concerned.


Those pesky al-Qaida figures – designated, I’m sure, through evidence that was rarely, if ever, released to the public - could have been anywhere, I guess. A week or so after the Guardian article, Wayne Madsen asserted that the Cheney assassination team in question - JSOC (the Joint Special Operations Command) - worked hand-in-hand with Israeli commando personnel from the Mossad's 'Kidon' department, which was reportedly 'responsible for conducting assassinations and kidnappings'.


(I'm aware of the difficulty of referencing some of Madsen’s claims when he simply links them to unnamed ‘intelligence sources’, but am putting the info here for reference). Madsen notes:

"During the time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was in charge of the Pentagon, his neoconservative subordinates, including Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, authorized the entrance into the Pentagon of top Israeli Defense Force and Mossad officers, including Kidon personnel, according to information obtained by WMR. There were no records maintained of the Israeli visits or the identities of the visitors in what was described by Pentagon officials as a complete violation of Pentagon security procedures.... The operations of the JSOC-Mossad team were coordinated by the Office of Special Plans... The Cheney joint Pentagon-Israeli team goes to the heart of covert activities conducted by the Bush-Cheney administration."

The overseas JSOC activities listed by Madsen include various covert actions against Iran, so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that Mossad personnel would have been given the go-ahead to co-operate in activities that they found beneficial to their goals. Nonetheless, a joint Pentagon/Mossad covert action team set-up “during the time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was in charge of the Pentagon” (i.e presumably before 9/11) is suggestive for reasons that don’t need to be belaboured. Searching for a link to add at this point, I find the best one is from a piece printed here on 911Blogger in 2007, following a much vaunted Christopher Ketcham Counterpunch article that addressed the issue in a perhaps more superficial manner:


Whether you concur with Ketchum or the more accusatory Crimes of the State blog piece reprinted on 911Blogger just above, there is ample evidence of an Israeli covert action team hard at work prior to and circa 9/11. I don’t find the later revelation that Cheney had the ability to cover the tracks of a black-ops/assassination group, to hide it from congress, and to make it answerable only to him, particularly reassuring. The domestic anthrax attacks, presumably in preparation before 9/11, and later linked to a US government lab, reconfirm that the forces behind 9/11 felt little compunction against declaring the American public the enemy. Cheney’s oversight and control of an assassination team that may have itself been complicit in the 9/11 attacks would give him ample muscle – if any more were needed – to target and remove domestic elements that were problematic, and to put the word out for the requirement of silence to anyone lower down in the administration who was paying attention. It would have then been an elegantly cynical move to later push that black-ops team forward (in conjunction with JSOC) to help wage war against a phantom enemy that was itself created by the CIA.

As an aside, Cheney’s long-time cohort Rumsfeld was suggestively active with NATO at the same place, and during the same time, that the 1970’s Gladio attacks – later attributed to NATO by Italian investigative authorities - were at their height. Rumsfeld would eventually leave his duties with NATO to join Cheney in the Ford administration. A biography of Lyman Lemnitzer, who headed the Joint Chiefs in the early 1960’s when they drafted the seminal Cold War false flag proposal Operation Northwoods…


…later places Lemnitzer right next to Rumsfeld and Cheney in the Team B group that agitated for an arms build-up and aggressive stance towards Russia, and which cynically manufactured intelligence to reach that goal - see the Adam Curtis documentary THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES for much more on this. I’m sure the three of them had plenty to talk about.

Thank you

Can everyone say, "Thank you, Abby" (and Robbie)

Show "No." by 911ARTISTS

I don't understand your thinking

Sure, RT is a compromised source and yet you go to another compromised source to prove your point. By the way I agree with the estimate but I would put the start up cost of RT at 65 million but that is my personal opinion. I am learning to read newspapers backwards or between the lines as I have heard that Russians had to do with Pravda. Do you remember the story not to long ago about some remnants of a parachute attributed to D.B. Cooper being found? I showed the story to a non-conspiratorial friend and asked him if the story had any legs and he said no. In other words it was a crap news story with no real news value. I then thought what is the purpose of the story and reread it. It went something like: D.B. Cooper was involved in the only unsolved hijacking in U.S. history that was why they planted that story years after 9/11 to reinforce the point that 9/11 was solved. So I got some news value out of that rag. I still never figured out the tell that pointed out the glaring fact that this story was so un newsworthy that even my innocent friend could figure that out. RT tells the truth (sometimes) to stick it to the U.S. They won't go head on with the U.S. oligarchy or Mono e mono with the cabals which points to collusion at the top. So, yes, I like RT, for now, anyway.

Mr. ORourke,

thank you. How did you arrive at the figure $65,000,000?

I don't watch much tv

but Abby Martin is a real asset to all who want truth revealed and lies exposed. Great job.

Thank you Abby !

You're awesome ! If you were on mainstream prime time i would watch you everyday. Then again, if you were the American people would learn the truth, and the corruption would end. Can you imagine how great our country would be?
Thanks again for all that you do. Keep up the good work.

The only way there could have been no conspiracy

to mass murder would be in my opinion if only one person had the plan of mass murder in their head
most likely DC the VP.. the CoG planner and a possible influence on the PNAC document
then as we know that controlled demolition brought down the 3 high rises, which demolition explosions mass slaughtered over 3000 people and many more after 9/11 via unsafe environmental aspects
as we know CD (anyone who's not CD aware please leave the room jetzt bitte ,, schnell!)... as we know CD then if there was no conspiracy the people installing the explosives must have done it not knowing it was to needlessly mass murder people
an example i can think of is that such explosives were installed covertly so as not to alarm the public and were installed on the pretext of collateral damage minimisation in the case of 2 quarter mile tall skyscrapers falling lengthwise across manhattan into countless other skyskrapers in the case of the wtc buildings being attacked at their bases
so in the knowledge that one was potentially saving tens of thousands of lives one might regretably push the button to collapse 2 towers that killed 3000 people
also the hijackers; one possible explaination in the case of "cheney did it all" theory is that the hijackers were part of an intelligence as well as military real world training exercise. . . just actors on 9/11 with an intel legend made for the intel training exercise. people involved in fabricating that would think they were doing something good rather than participating in a plot to mass murder
the planes would have to be remote controlled by the VP
as well as the CD
The standard defence of non OCT conspiracy theories in the face of the accusation that "a massive conspiracy like that would be impossible because someone would have talked" is "well, noone talked on the manhattan project"
thats a complete mis comparison
firstly the scientists on the manhattan project were given the pretext that fascist mass murdering powers were keen to take over the world so they thought they were doing something for the greater good though there would be mass collateral damage
just to focus on the danger of someone leaking information during the project and hence jeapordising it i think this:
its ridiculous to compare the manhattan project with a hypothetical situation where all the people required to blow up a building would be in on a plot to needlessly mass murder civilians in the west
in which hypothetical situation i think people could well have jeapordised the whole conspiracy by feeling morally bound to leak information in order to prevent the mass slaughter of civilians on home turf before it happened

and cheney would perhaps have to keep rumsfeld in line too- remember AA77 first approached the pentagon arriving above Rumsfeld before doing another manoeuvre.. why 2 approaches on the pentagon?
why Rummys pentalawn photoshoot? was he trying to show history and clued up intel worldwide that he wasnt locked in a secure bunker remote controlling planes and misusing collateral damage building self destruct protocols?

something rarely mentioned here is the fact that the UNGA was meeting on 9/11 and the last time that had happened the result was that a NSSE day had been declared
that would put the VP in full control while Dubya read an australian(!?) book on goats (well it was upside down)

it could have been a conspiracy.. but as long as i can show as above that it might have been a genius one man show then...

lets be the9/11 truth (whatever it may be) movement as opposed to the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement

The Big Lie

I am all for letting the facts lead, but your questions sound like excuses. The goat book was not upside down btw.


Explosives for "safety":


If you want to cover up a crime, put the people connected to it in charge of investigating it.

Remember who the first pick for the 911 Commission was?

Who did the final technical investigation? (they had to ignore the FEMA report... what WTC7 steel?)

Cui bono?
(the Dr. Strangelove's)

your embedded explosives link

point 1 doesnt negate the possibility that a pretext may have been given to install explosives on th grounds of collateral damage minimisation
point 2 doesnt make sense.. the buildings were1/4 mile high each .. surely if they toppled the vast majority of people in them would be dead anyway and even it fully evacuated could you imagine the carnage they could wreak over a large area of high rise real estate?
point 3 is lame . it doesnt at all negate the possibility that explosives may have been installed on the pretext of collateral damage minimisation
point 4 again doesnt make sense. im not refuting CD the rigging of the buildings on the pretext of collateral damage mijimisation IS CD being used

please be more specific

You are re-iterating "it was for safety" without offering specifics.

1. There is no physical evidence the towers were about to tip over. Remember, the core columns of both towers were briefly still standing after the exteriors were blown off. The fires were going out, and the firefighters had reached the impact zone. They radioed that they needed 2 lines to take out the small fires. Then the changes in WTC2 were set off.

Do you think you can rig a building for CD and then keep it undiscovered for extended periods of time? How long do you hypothesize these "safety" charges were there? The dust is roughly 5% by weight explosive byproducts, we are not talking about just a little bit of high explosives, we are talking about tonnes of unconventional explosives and a unknown amount of high explosives. The video evidence shows bombs going off on almost every floor. Maybe you think other tall buildings are currently rigged for CD for "safety" purposes, the burden of proof is on you. Happy hunting.

2. Blowing up buildings in the way that the towers were does not minimize collateral damage, it maximizes it. Physically and psychologically. A CD designed to take the buildings down for "safety" would look more like a conventional CD. Your assertions that it would minimize the collateral damage of "countless other skyskrapers" and save "tens of thousands of lives" are not supported by the evidence. Blowing them up by throwing the exterior columns into the surrounding buildings/people and maximizing the destruction of the building contents is not how a operation for "safety" would be designed. Far more people were hurt in the long run (and I bet in the short run as well) than would have been by one or both tipping over. Blowing them up guarantees everyone inside will be killed. Also, it would not be necessary to explode them down to the lower floors.


3. Lame? That's your rebuttal? The buildings were not about to tip over, and you are arguing that they were blown up because they were about to tip over...

4. Exactly how does it not make sense? Are you suggesting that someone decided an hour ahead of time that the buildings were going to tip over, so they started _further_ weakening the buildings before finally blowing them up, while at the same time sending in the firefighters?

The cover-up speaks for itself. It's not a pretext to minimize collateral damage, it's a pretext to wage war.

"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

i know youre working hard to knock this

so maybe im communicating with the wrong person

anyway your point about someone deciding to use CD because the towers were leaning or toppling misses the mark by a mile

im theorising that before 9/11 something happened
that is not made more or less likely by what transpired on 9/11

im theorising that maybe...and by the way you exaggerate when you claim i assert.. im theorising ..not making claims of truth.. im saying "What if?"

Now, what if somehow such a CD for collateral damage minimisation protocol was high level... you bet itd be high level! maybe high enough that the man incharge of air sea and land military as well as some of the alphabet agencies via NSSE powers as well as controlling the wargames might just have had some access to control there ?

maybe this guy laid the groundwork for a coup with CoG planning and then provided an excuse to use it

Dick Cheney

maybe the only person who murdered

stop believing and think

im not solid on this theory. its just a theory. not a belief. not an assertion. not a claim of fact.

a pretext

given could have been "what if the towers are massively attacked at the base ?"
then whoever wanted the towers rigged for CD could maybe convince others to do it for the greater good
perhaps it would have been easier to justify after the wtc truckbomb

if there was no conspiracy to unnecessarily murder then those placing explosives in the buildings werent placing them for that intent but maybe on the basis that they were only to be used to save extra deaths in a situation where there was no escape at the base of a toppling wtc tower where most occupants were going to die anyway

my speculation is that that protocol was set up but then abused by DC

you mention a quote "a new pearl harbor"
yes the Dr Strangeloves were involved and dont get me wrong I know the hawks were loving the excuse to go to war but the coup involving mass murder would have been more airtight the less people were involved
so i speculate could the mass murder have been planned by only one man- the most foolproof number of people with much less likelihood of someone growing a conscience
for that quote i refer you to my initial comment which is that DC was a possible influence on PNAC so could have made sure that went into the document.. after all he was a drafter of CoG planning documents so perhaps he could have influence on a thinktank document

ive corresponded with someone who researches CoG and PNAC and he agreed with my speculation that "PNAC were not plotters of WTC mass murders but prepped and ready to roll on any false flag pretext.."... now getting them prepped would be important to a single mass murderer

also- worst case scenarion- one man goes to jail and the rest say they didnt plan mass murder and that it was his finger on the CD button by way of NSSE powers thru secret service computers and poss CoG powers if the criteria for CoG was met by the second jet impact ie "America under attack"

as the corporate execs love to say, "plausible deniability" for the rest of them thats an airtight 9/11

I am mathematically educated

maths (as we spell it in the UK) is the pursuit of truth

this is not a claim of truth
this is a quest for truth...
im open to other scenarios but im pondering whether a one man theory holds any water

negative voter

pls add to the debate