Support 911Blogger


Al Qaeda

Tom Secker : 7/7 - The London Bombings

http://TheMindRenewed.com

Tom Secker Interview

Interview published on January 17, 2014

MP3 and Link to Show Notes: http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2014/406-int-38

Writer, researcher and film-maker Tom Secker joins us for a detailed interview on 7/7 (the July 7th 2005 London bombings). Drawing upon his several years of research, Tom shares with us many of the problems with the official story, delves into the backstories behind the alleged suicide bombers, and uncovers layer upon layer of suspicious information suggesting that 7/7 may well have been a false-flag terror event instigated by British Intelligence.

Tom also discusses how, in the run-up to the attacks, predictive programming in popular culture may have shaped public perception of 7/7, and how cognitive infiltration as a double bluff has negatively impacted the quest for 7/7 truth.

Los Angeles Times: With Al Qaeda shattered, U.S. counter-terrorism's future unclear

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-al-qaeda-20130415,0,748515.story
By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times
April 14, 2013, 9:09 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Skilled in tracking foreign terrorists, Jarret Brachman once was a sought-after expert on Al Qaeda, advising several federal agencies and speaking regularly around the country.

Now the former research director of the Combating Terrorism Center, a think tank at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, has turned his focus away from Islamic militants. He spends most of his time consulting with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies about threats from domestic extremists and antigovernment militias.

"I have totally re-branded my career," Brachman said. "I still do the Al Qaeda stuff, but there's no interest, no demand.... We've broken Al Qaeda's back, strategically."

The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State, The Grand Plan for a New World Order

We bring to the consideration of our readers this incisive and carefully formulated analysis by Canada’s renowned philosopher Professor John McMurtry.

I was sceptical of the 9-11 event from the first time I saw it on television. It was on every major network within minutes. All the guilty partieswere declared before any evidence was shown.The first questions of any criminal investigation were erased. Who had the most compelling motives for the event? Who had the means to turn two central iconic buildings in New York into a pile of steel and a cloud of dust in seconds?[i]

Other questions soon arose in the aftermath. Why was all the evidence at the crime scenes removed or confiscated?

Who was behind the continuous false information and non-stop repetition of “foreign/Arab terrorists”when no proof of guilt existed? Who was blocking all independent inquiry?

Even 11 years on these questions are still not answered.

But those immediately named guilty without any forensic proof certainly fitted the need for a plausible Enemy now that the “threat of the Soviet Union” and “communist world rule” were dead. How else could the billion-dollar-a-day military be justified with no peace dividend amidst a corporately hollowed-out U.S. economy entering its long-term slide? While all the media and most of the people asserted the official 9-11 conspiracy theory as given fact, not all did.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-moral-decoding-of-9-11-beyond-the-u-s-criminal-state-the-grand-plan-for-a-new-world-order...

Co-Chair of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11: Re-Open 9/11 Investigation Now

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-graham/911-saudi-arabia_b_1868863.html

The passage of time since September 11, 2001, has not diminished the distrust many of us feel surrounding the official story of how 9/11 happened and, more specifically, who financed and supported it. After eleven years, the time has come for the families of the victims, the survivors and all Americans to get the whole story behind 9/11.

Yet the story of who may have facilitated the 19 hijackers and the infrastructure that supported the attacks -- a crucial element of the narrative -- has not been told. The pieces we do have underscore how much more remains unknown.

Did the hijackers execute the plot alone, or did they have the support of forces other than the known leaders of al-Qaeda -- a network even -- that provided funds, assistance, and cover?

It is not merely a question of the need to complete the historical record. It is a matter of national security today.

The “War On Terror” Has Changed, and Not One In 1,000 Americans Has Noticed... We're now fighting alongside Al Qaeda.

Posted on by WashingtonsBlog

What You Should Know about this “Unthinkable” Development…

In George Orwell’s novel 1984,  the country of Oceania has been in a war against Eurasia for years.

Oceania suddenly switches sides, naming Eastasia as its enemy and making its mortal enemy, Eurasia, its new ally.

The government uses propaganda to convince people that, “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”.  The dumbed-down public doesn’t even notice that they’ve switches sides, and blindly rallies around Eurasia as its perennial friend and ally.

The same thing is happening in real life with Al Qaeda.

Western governments and mainstream media have admitted that Al Qaeda is fighting against the secular Syrian government, and that the West is supporting the Syrian opposition … which is helping Al Qaeda.

Similarly, the opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was mainly Al Qaeda … and they now appear to be in control of Libya (and are instrumental in fighting in Syria.)

The U.S. also funds terrorist groups within Iran.

Of course, Al Qaeda was blamed for 9/11, and the entire decades-long “War on Terror” was premised on rooting out Al Qaeda and related groups.

So the fact that we now consider Al Qaeda fighters to be allies in any way, shape or form is positively Orwellian.

Newly Released CIA Documents Show 9-11 Warnings Before Attack

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/07/newly-released-cia-documents-show-9-11-warnings-before-attack/

Could 9/11 have been prevented?

Up until now the common sentiment was that the 9/11 attacks came as a complete shock to the U.S., which had no idea that the devastation that happened on September 11, 2001 was going to occur.

However, a trove of documents have been released concerning Osama bin Laden and terrorist attacks that paints an alarming picture that President Bush had actually been warned of an imminent attack, but had chosen to ignore the warnings.

The CIA documents are newly declassified and have been released to the National Security Archive. The documents are available to read on DocumentCloud, a document uploading site that gives users access to extensive information about organizations, people and places.

The highly damning documents provide readers with a clearer account of U.S. knowledge about the possibility of its country being attacked, which blatantly contradicts claims made by Bush officials, that the U.S. government was aggressively pursuing bin Laden and al-Qaida prior to 9/11 and that nobody could have predicted the 9/11 attacks.

Newly Released CIA Documents Show 9-11 Warnings Before Attack

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/07/newly-released-cia-documents-show-9-11-warnings-before-attack/

Newly Released CIA Documents Show 9-11 Warnings Before Attack

Could 9/11 have been prevented?

Up until now the common sentiment was that the 9/11 attacks came as a complete shock to the U.S., which had no idea that the devastation that happened on September 11, 2001 was going to occur.

However, a trove of documents have been released concerning Osama bin Laden and terrorist attacks that paints an alarming picture that President Bush had actually been warned of an imminent attack, but had chosen to ignore the warnings.

The CIA documents are newly declassified and have been released to the National Security Archive. The documents are available to read on DocumentCloud, a document uploading site that gives users access to extensive information about organizations, people and places.

The highly damning documents provide readers with a clearer account of U.S. knowledge about the possibility of its country being attacked, which blatantly contradicts claims made by Bush officials, that the U.S. government was aggressively pursuing bin Laden and al-Qaida prior to 9/11 and that nobody could have predicted the 9/11 attacks.

From June until August 2001 a series of documents made clear reference to bin Laden, and his associates impending attack on the U.S.

Why Are We Fighting On the Same Side with Al Qaeda?

Posted on by WashingtonsBlog

The U.S. Is On the Same Side as Al Qaeda In Syria

Reuters notes that the leader of Al Qaeda – Ayman al-Zawahri – is backing the Syrian rebels, and asking his followers to fight the Syrian government.

Some of the main Al Qaeda fighters who overthrew Gadaffi – and now appear to be in control of Libya – are already helping the Syrian rebels.

This is curious, given that the U.S. is considering military options for ousting the Syrian government, American allies Britain and Qatar allegedly already have foreign troops inside Syria, and the U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for over 50 years.

Mainstream reports also state that the U.S. and its allies are backing Iranian terrorists.

I thought Al Qaeda was America’s mortal enemy. Why are we backing terrorists?

U.S. fights to keep $6.6 million in al-Qaeda assets from 9/11 victims

January 22, 2012 | By Chris Mondics, Inquirer Staff Writer

In a ferocious legal battle pitting government lawyers against victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the Justice Department is fighting to block thousands of individuals and businesses from taking $6.6 million in frozen al-Qaeda assets seized from an alleged terrorism financier.

Frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2007, the money is sought by the attorneys for 6,000 individual victims and insurers who suffered billions in losses from the attacks on the World Trade Center.

The money, in a Chicago brokerage account controlled by senior al-Qaeda operative Abu al-Tayyeb until his arrest in Saudi Arabia in 2006, drew little public notice until lawyers for 9/11 victims moved in June to collect on a 2007 default judgment.

Read more here: http://articles.philly.com/2012-01-22/business/30652937_1_qaeda-al-qaeda-terror-attacks

National Archive keeps bulk of 9/11 Commission report sealed

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/08/national-archive-keeps-bulk-of-911-commission-report-sealed/

By Reuters
Thursday, September 8th, 2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Ten years after al Qaeda's attack on the United States, the vast majority of the 9/11 Commission's investigative records remain sealed at the National Archives in Washington, even though the commission had directed the archives to make most of the material public in 2009, Reuters has learned.

The National Archives' failure to release the material presents a hurdle for historians and others seeking to plumb one of the most dramatic events in modern American history.

The 575 cubic feet of records were in large part the basis for the commission's public report, issued July 22, 2004. The commission, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, was established by Congress in late 2002 to investigate the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks, the pre-attack effectiveness of intelligence agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the government's emergency response.

MI6 documents: Libyan extremist was link to al-Qaeda in Iran

Daily Telegraph, 5 September 2011

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Deconstructing the 9/11 Dot Disconnection: a book review by Erik Larson

Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI officials enabled 9/11 and evaded government investigations, by Kevin Fenton. Waltersville, OR: Trine Day, 2011. 416 pages.

“Enabling 9/11 was a job done at the office, with memos” (15).

It is a non-controversial fact that the NSA, CIA and FBI missed a number of opportunities to disrupt the 9/11 plot. Many, but not all, of these failures were documented by the four main investigations that dealt with pre-9/11 intelligence failures: those by the Congressional Joint Inquiry, the 9/11 Commission, the Department of Justice Inspector General and the CIA Inspector General. The best-known investigation, the 9/11 Commission, ultimately concluded that 9/11 was preceded by “four kinds of failures: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management” (339). This is the narrative largely held to by mainstream politicians and media, but these explanations do not credibly account for what happened at the NSA, CIA and FBI in the years, months and weeks leading up to 9/11. This has been demonstrated by a number of researchers, but Kevin Fenton’s* book, Disconnecting the Dots, has the most comprehensive documentation and in-depth analysis to date. Primarily using the official reports, the available source records and some reporting by mainstream media and journalists, Fenton documents how specific CIA and FBI officials engaged in deliberate efforts to protect the 9/11 plot from discovery and disruption by FBI investigators, and that the most probable explanation is that this was done in order to enable the 9/11 attacks.

One of Fenton’s major strengths is that he limits himself to his area of expertise; Disconnecting the Dots is narrowly focused on the pre-9/11 intelligence failures and the official investigations of these failures. The book is a complex and dense compilation of interrelated names, dates, bits of information and sequences of events, a situation that is unavoidable due to the complex nature of the subject. Fortunately for the reader, Fenton’s style and presentation are simple and lucid, which helps make the complicated and often unclear nature of the subject more easily understood. Whenever possible, he names those responsible for the decisions and actions being examined, though this is sometimes impossible due to the limited amount of information that has been made public. Whenever a particularly complex set of issues or series of events have been examined in a chapter, Fenton provides a summary at the end of that chapter, and at a number of points in the book he summarizes what can be understood from the pattern of facts presented up to that point. His analysis considers the full range of available evidence, assesses the quality of individual pieces and does not go beyond the evidence. When he does draw conclusions they are generally conservative and understated, and he is careful to address other possible explanations for the evidence.

The US-Al Qaeda Alliance: Bosnia, Kosovo and Now Libya. Washington’s On-Going Collusion with Terrorists

by Prof. Peter Dale Scott

Twice in the last two decades, significant cuts in U.S. and western military spending were foreseen: first after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and then in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. But both times military spending soon increased, and among the factors contributing to the increase were America’s interventions in new areas: the Balkans in the 1990s, and Libya today.1 Hidden from public view in both cases was the extent to which al-Qaeda was a covert U.S. ally in both interventions, rather than its foe.

U.S. interventions in the Balkans and then Libya were presented by the compliant U.S. and allied mainstream media as humanitarian. Indeed, some Washington interventionists may have sincerely believed this. But deeper motivations – from oil to geostrategic priorities – were also at work in both instances.

In virtually all the wars since 1989, America and Islamist factions have been battling to determine who will control the heartlands of Eurasia in the post-Soviet era. In some countries – Somalia in 1993, Afghanistan in 2001 – the conflict has been straightforward, with each side using the other’s excesses as an excuse for intervention.

But there have been other interventions in which Americans have used al-Qaeda as a resource to increase their influence, for example Azerbaijan in 1993. There a pro-Moscow president was ousted after large numbers of Arab and other foreign mujahedin veterans were secretly imported from Afghanistan, on an airline hastily organized by three former veterans of the CIA’s airline Air America. (The three, all once detailed from the Pentagon to the CIA, were Richard Secord, Harry Aderholt, and Ed Dearborn.)2 This was an ad hoc marriage of convenience: the mujahedin got to defend Muslims against Russian influence in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, while the Americans got a new president who opened up the oilfields of Baku to western oil companies.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25829

Al Qaeda Flying Planes Into the World Trade Center and Pentagon Was Foreseeable

Washington's Blog

A whistleblower using the alias "Iron Man" was the head of a special joint military-intelligence operation called DO5, a branch of the Joint Forces Intelligence Command, alleges that his team knew that the World Trade Centers and Pentagon were likely targets of Al Qaeda, and that he ran this information up the chain of command.

As Truth-out reports:

"I kept the original classifications on the slides, as historical documents, although the fact that al-Qa'ida was likely to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was clearly no longer classified" ...

Iron Man further elaborated on this point by stating that high-level DoD officials held discussions about DO5's intelligence activities between the summer of 2000 and June 2001 revolving around al-Qaeda's interest in striking the Pentagon, the World Trade Center (WTC), and other targets.

In other words, the Bush administration was fully aware the terrorist organization had set its sights on those structures prior to 9/11 and, apparently, government officials failed to act on those warnings.