By Ethan Huff | Natural News | January 5, 2019

An underground hacking collective known as “The Dark Overlord” reportedly announced on New Year’s Eve that it now has in its possession 18,000 documents related to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks – critical information that, because it could potentially blow the lid on 9/11 being an inside job, has prompted the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to launch an urgent investigation.

Even as this same corrupt FBI refuses to pursue justice against felonious traitor Hillary Clinton, federal authorities are now actively pursuing these anonymous, would-be whistleblowers, which claim they’ll sell the documents in exchange for Bitcoin.

According to “two people familiar with the matter,” The Dark Overlord group possesses both emails and non-disclosure agreements concerning 9/11 that were sent and received by insurers such as Hiscox and Lloyd’s of London, both of which deny that they suffered a security breach in relation to the theft. Also mentioned as one of the sources of the stolen documents is law firm Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, now called Husch Blackwell.

The announcement by The Dark Overlord further invites ISIS, al-Qaeda, and various other nation states to “bid” on the documents online, insinuating that whomever offers to pay the most Bitcoin will gain exclusive access to the stolen documents.

“Pay the f*** up, or we’re going to bury you with this,” The Dark Overlord is vulgarly demanding. “If you continue to fail us, we’ll escalate these releases by releasing the keys, each time a Layer is opening, a new wave of liability will fall upon you,” the letter adds.




For more news about FBI corruption, Hillary Clinton and more, be sure to check out Clinton.news and Conspiracy.news.

The Dark Overlord tells politicians, law enforcement, and others to pay up or face repercussions

The Dark Overlord has already released a handful of decryption keys, which apparently unlock private conversations about the World Trade Center that took place among a cohort of entities that we’re guessing probably don’t want their identities publicly revealed – which would explain The Dark Overlord’s demands for bribery money in exchange for secrecy.

“If you’re one of the dozens of solicitor firms who was involved in the litigation, a politician who was involved in the case, a law enforcement agency who was involved in the investigations, a property management firm, an investment bank, a client of a client, a reference of a reference, a global insurer, or whoever else, you’re welcome to contact our e-mail below and make a request to formally have your documents and materials withdrawn from any eventual public release of the materials,” the demand letter adds.

“However, you’ll be paying us.”

Interestingly enough, The Dark Overlord says it’s been under investigation for many years now, particularly after it obtained key information about Larry Silverstein, the former owner of the World Trade Center complex who infamously stated on video that a decision was made to “pull it” before the buildings came down that fateful day.

The insurance industry took a major hit from the attacks, which cost the 2017 equivalent of around $45 billion, according to the Insurance Information Institute. This large amount of money prompted a series of lawsuits, at least some of the details of which are now allegedly in The Dark Overlord’s possession.

As for Silverstein Properties, the real estate development firm owned by Larry Silverstein that’s been tasked with rebuilding the World Trade Center complex, the company says it isn’t at all phased by the data breach.

“We have spent the last 17 years fulfilling our obligation to deliver a magnificent and fully rebuilt World Trade Center,” a company announcement reads. “We will not be distracted by 9/11 conspiracy theories.”


Originally published by Ethan Huff at NaturalNews.com


SHARE:

By Ron Paul | RPI | Sept. 11, 2018

Last week, I urged the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to stop protecting al-Qaeda in Syria by demanding that the Syrian government leave Idlib under al-Qaeda control. While it may seem hard to believe that the US government is helping al-Qaeda in Syria, it’s not as strange as it may seem: our interventionist foreign policy increasingly requires Washington to partner up with “bad guys” in pursuit of its dangerous and aggressive foreign policy goals.

Does the Trump Administration actually support al-Qaeda and ISIS? Of course not. But the “experts” who run Trump’s foreign policy have determined that a de facto alliance with these two extremist groups is for the time being necessary to facilitate the more long-term goals in the Middle East. And what are those goals? Regime change for Iran.

Let’s have a look at the areas where the US is turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda and ISIS.

First, Idlib. As I mentioned last week, President Trump’s own Special Envoy to fight ISIS said just last year that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” So why do so many US officials – including President Trump himself – keep warning the Syrian government not to re-take its own territory from al-Qaeda control? Wouldn’t they be doing us a favor by ridding the area of al-Qaeda? Well, if Idlib is re-taken by Assad, it all but ends the neocon (and Saudi and Israeli) dream of “regime change” for Syria and a black eye to Syria’s ally, Iran.





Second, one of the last groups of ISIS fighters in Syria are around the Al-Tanf US military base which has operated illegally in northeastern Syria for the past two years. Last week, according to press reports, the Russians warned the US military in the region that it was about to launch an assault on ISIS fighters around the US base. The US responded by sending in 100 more US Marines and conducting a live-fire exercise as a warning. President Trump recently reversed himself (again) and announced that the US would remain at Al-Tanf “indefinitely.” Why? It is considered a strategic point from which to attack Iran. The US means to stay there even if it means turning a blind eye to ISIS in the neighborhood.

Finally, in Yemen, the US/Saudi coalition fighting the Houthis has been found by AP and other mainstream media outlets to be directly benefiting al-Qaeda. Why help al-Qaeda in Yemen? Because the real US goal is regime change in Iran, and Yemen is considered one of the fronts in the battle against Iranian influence in the Middle East. So we are aiding al-Qaeda, which did attack us, because we want to “regime change” Iran, which hasn’t attacked us. How does that make sense?

We all remember the old saying, attributed to Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack, that “if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.” The “experts” would like us to think they are pursuing a brilliant foreign policy that will provide a great victory for America at the end of the day. But as usual, the “experts” have got it wrong. It’s really not that complicated: when “winning” means you’re allied with al-Qaeda and ISIS, you’re doing something wrong. Let’s start doing foreign policy right: let’s leave the rest of the world alone!


Contributed by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.


SHARE:

By JD Heyes | Natural News | Sept. 4, 2018

It’s no secret that Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, is no fan of POTUS Donald Trump, as he has made clear on Twitter and on cable news programs regularly.

It’s also no secret to people who have taken the time to research Brennan that in the 1970s, as the Cold War with Russia was in full swing, Brennan actually voted for an American Communist Party candidate for president– something that should have negated his ever becoming a staffer back in 1980, much less head of the country’s most powerful spy agency.

The president finally did justice and the American people a favor when he recently revoked Brennan’s security clearance. But according to a bombshell report, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

As noted by Teaparty.org, some believe that Brennan has been actively plotting against the United States for years, even allegedly playing a pivotal role in allowing the 9/11 hijackers inside the country:

Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Jarrett…far too many people in the previous administration had highly troubling ties to the terrorist state of Iran and in Obama’s case, there is quite a bit of evidence pointing to the fact that he was a Muslim, a fact which remained in question throughout the entirety of his presidency and he did little to dispel by always referring to the Koran as “The Holy Koran” and the Bible simply as “the Bible.”




Obama points to his decades-long association with a Christian church in Chicago, where he lived and served as a state, then U.S., senator before becoming president. But the pastor of that church was Jeremiah Wright, whose fiery sermons can best be summed up as anti-white and anti-Republican, to say the least, and who was regularly critical of America in general.

There is even some speculation that Brennan may have converted to Islam at some point.

But there’s more. According to Freedom Outpost, Brennan was the CIA station chief in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, when the 9/11 hijackers were given visas to travel to the United States. There are even reports he gave the final approval for those visas.

In September 2014, a whistleblower named Greg Ford, a former military intelligence officer, told Ground Zero Radio’s Clyde Lewis that Brennan actually overrode CIA objections to the approval of those visas.

Brennan the key?

Ford said on the show: “All 19 high jackers? Where did they get their visas stamped before they came to this country to launch 9/11? They got their visas stamped in the CIA station in Jeddah. And the second in command said, ‘No way, absolutely we are not going to stamp those visas.’ And the fellow who was in charge, his name was John Brennan. He was the person who overrode those concerns and cautions and ordered those visas stamped in Jeddah.”

Bombshell.

Freedom Outpost noted further that Michael Springman was, at the time, head of the American visa bureau in Saudi Arabia, a post he held during the Reagan and Bush administrations, from September 1987 through March 1989. He said during his time there he was ordered by higher State Department officials to hand out visas to applicants who were not qualified. He said the applications were for recruits of Osama bin Laden, who was fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and who was sending recruits to the U.S. for training by the CIA.

Springman made his incredible claims during an appearance at the National Press Club on June 10, 2002.

The National Review subsequently reported that none of the 9/11 hijacker visas were completed in the proper manner, turning the U.S. government into “a travel agency for terrorists.”

The magazine, citing an August 2004 report[.pdf] from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, said the visa applications for the 19 hijackers were replete with data fields left blank and questions that were not fully answered, and yet U.S. officials approved 22 of 23 visa applications for the hijackers.

Of the 15 Saudi terrorists, four of them received visas through the Visa Express Program in June 2001.

“If it weren’t for John Brennan, 9/11 may never have happened,” Freedom Outpost concluded.

Read more about Islamic terrorism against the U.S. at Terrorism.news.


Contributed by JD Heyes of Natural News.com


SHARE:

Shifting The Blame: How US Made Iran Responsible For 9/11

 

 Eric Zuesse | May 29, 2017 

 

The official U.S. government line is that Iran is the main country responsible for the 9/11 attacks in America. On 9 March 2016, a U.S. civil court ruled that Iran must pay to some victims of the 9/11 attacks $10.5 billion in fines, and the Obama Administration had no comment, so the U.S. press ignored the verdict almost totally. But this verdict was the only official U.S. court ruling thus far about state-sponsorship of the 9/11 attacks, 16 years after the event. It was therefore huge news on 9 March 2016 — it created a precedent, for the U.S. government to allege that Iran had caused the 9/11 attacks and is consequently ‘the number one terrorist state’ (as Israelis have long claimed). But it received very little coverage at the time.



The event’s significance was the precedent that this verdict set, but most of the ‘news’media simply didn’t report this important precedent: it was the first official U.S. governmental conclusion alleging that Iran had, in effect, ‘invaded’ America, on 11 September 2001; and, yet, even now, no one is saying that Iran invaded the U.S. on 9/11, because the U.S. government isn’t yet trying to prepare the public to support an invasion of Iran by American forces. Still, this precedent could become the start for such preparation, if neither of America’s Iran-hating ‘allies’, Israel and/or Saudi Arabia, can be induced to invade.

President Trump, on May 20th, advanced toward the possibility of invading Iran, a long way, when he announced a record-shattering $350 billion sale of U.S.-made weapons to Saudi Arabia, and the White House said “This package of defense equipment and services support the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of Iranian threats”. The symbolism here was that Saudi Arabia is America’s ally, and that Iran is America’s enemy. The stage is set, in case a U.S. President will want to take that stage.

President Trump, on 5 February 2017, was asked in a Super Bowl television interview, what his policies would be regarding Iran, and he answered (video here, transcript here): “They have total disregard for our country. They are the number one terrorist state”. (When he was running for the U.S. Presidency, in 2016, he had spoken only about Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia’s role on the World Trade Center and the attack. That’s very serious stuff. It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are». But now that he was the U.S. President, and his biggest initial American jobs achievement — already in the works during his Presidency’s start — would be an all-time record high $350 billion sale of U.S.-made weapons to the Sauds, Trump as President has been mentioning the Sauds only as ‘allies’, no longer as supporters of terrorism.)

All of the information that’s known about Iran’s actual role in 9/11 is contained in the judge’s 22 December 2011 “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” in the civil court case, which the judge stated solely upon the basis of the research that the law firm for the suing American victims had set forth. Basically, what their case came down to is that some of the 9/11 hijackers had travelled through Iran prior to 9/11. Among those “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” were no allegations of evidence to prove that Iran had participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, nor of any Iranians paying any of the hijackers. However, one anti-government Iranian, named Mesbahi, referred to a flight simulator that maybe had been purchased from Iran, and he was alleged to have said that he “believes that the simulator was probably used to train the 9/11 hijacker pilots”. That’s all. For these things, the judge fined the Iranian government $10.5B, and told the suing victims to get the money any way they could (which might be not at all, since Iran mocked and rejected the verdict — but the precedent for ‘Iran caused 9/11’ was set).

What, then, was the reality of Iran and the 9/11 attacks? Even the civil suit’s claimants didn’t allege anything substantial for the period prior to 9/11, but what about the period since 9/11?

On 23 May 2013, FBI Agent Daniel A. Mehochko was honored by a U.S. military School of Advanced Military Studies, for “writing the best monograph in the AOASF [that school’s] program” and this 104-page study was titled “Iran’s Post 9/11 Grand Bargain: Missed Opportunity for Strategic Rapprochement Between Iran and the United States”. Its “Abstract” and “Conclusion” say:

The events of 9/11 … provided an unprecedented opportunity for a strategic rapprochement between the United States and Iran. After 9/11, Iran not only denounced the attacks and cooperated with the United States in Afghanistan, but also offered to negotiate a comprehensive resolution of differences with no preconditions.

The failure to recognize the impact of the 1953 coup on Iran’s collective identity, and subsequent policy decisions in support of the shah, only reinforced the view that the United States was the primary source of Persian humiliation. … The Bush neoconservatives, dominating the NSC policy formulation process, viewed Iran through the same lens they viewed al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein. Americans have a short attention span: the administration responded to Iran through the context of 1979, yet few considered that most Iranians still viewed America through the events of 1953. Regime change was the wrong policy for Iran. The militarized foreign policy approach that the administration thought worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq was not relevant to Iran. As the Bush administration was about to discover, one cannot apply a singular policy to the complexity of the Middle East. The Bush Doctrine did just that.

Trump is continuing George W. Bush’s policy.

Mehochko wrote, on page 52:

Iran’s response to 9/11 surprised many observers: spontaneous candlelight vigils in Tehran mourned the American dead, the mayors of Tehran and Isfahan sent condolence messages to the people of New York City, and Iranians observed a moment of silence before a national soccer match. The Iranian government issued a strong statement condemning the terrorist attacks, and President Khatami publicly expressed his «deep regret and sympathy with the victims». During his November visit to the UN General Assembly, Khatami went so far as to request permission to visit ground zero in order to offer prayers and light a candle for the victims.88

On page 55:

At the January 2002 Afghanistan Donors Conference in Tokyo, Iran pledged $540 million in assistance for the new Afghan government, compared to the $290 million committed by the United States. While in Tokyo, an Iranian representative approached Dobbins and expressed his desire to not only continue cooperation in Afghanistan, but work on other issues with the appropriate American officials. At this same conference, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill received a similar message from the Iranian government. Both Dobbins and O’Neill reported Iran’s offers to Rice and Powell, but no reply was given to Iran. Later, during a March 2002 meeting in Geneva, the Iranian delegation met again with Dobbins, and offered military assistance to house and train up to 20,000 Afghan troops under the American led effort. Dobbins relayed this offer to the administration, but Powell deferred the issue to Rice, who deferred the issue to Rumsfeld. Days later, the issue was on the agenda for discussion at a NSC Principals Committee meeting. During the meeting, Dobbins relayed Iran’s offer, but Rumsfeld ignored the issue, and no one else seemed interested.

Page 59:

In October 2001, Flynt Leverett, Middle East expert for the Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff, was responsible for developing a strategy to address the offers of support from Syria, Libya, Iran, and other troublesome countries. Leverett’s proposal to Powell was basically a quid pro quo engagement: if these countries agree to expel terrorist groups and cease efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the United States, in return, will normalize relations. In December, when this policy proposal came up for discussion at a NSC Deputies Committee meeting (chaired by Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley), Hadley, as well as the representatives from the vice president’s office and the OSD, rejected the idea.

Then, Mehochko stated: “The Pentagon was already exploring options for regime change in Tehran”. Furthermore: “Israel and Pakistan were also alarmed about the increased cooperation between Iran and the United States”.

On page 65, Mehochko quoted from President Bush’s State of the Union Address on 29 January 2002:

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11th, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade…States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.

Clearly, the U.S. is set upon conquest. First, Afghanistan was invaded; then, Iraq; then, Libya; then, Syria — all of them destroyed (and radicalized — which the U.S. started in Afghanistan back in 1979). Perhaps Iran will be next. What is the point of anyone’s trusting a government like that?

Mehochko’s report ignored the fact that the Islamic world is split between Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia, versus Shiites, led by Iran, and that the Sauds’ desire to exterminate all Shia goes back at least to the 1744 compact between Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Wahhab, which formed Saudi Arabia, in a compact of hate. Mehochko’s report ignores the crucial alliance between the U.S. and the Saud family. Mehochko ignores that the U.S. co-founded Al Qaeda along with the Sauds in 1979 in order to conquer Russia, which the American aristocracy hate, and conquer Iran, which the Saudi aristocracy hate. But compared to what most American officials and military and intelligence operatives and scholars write about Iran and the nations that are friendly toward it, Mehochko’s paper was remarkably honest, so it’s cited here.

The U.S. government has and hides massive reams of rock-solid evidence that leaders of the Saud family, which is the royal family who own all of Saudi Arabia, not only were the top funders of Al Qaeda and of the 9/11 attacks, but continued afterward being the world’s top funders of not only Al Qaeda but also of many of the other jihadist groups that accept and follow Al Qaeda’s leadership.

If Trump were sincere, then, he would instead publicly expose the fraud that U.S. foreign policy has been based upon, and he would expose the historical record, which proves that the U.S. should be protecting Iran and its allies from the Saudi-led fundamentalist-Sunni war against Iran and against all of the world except Sunni-allied Israel and except Sunni-ruled countries. Russia and China and India would then become also U.S. allies, and the possibility of a globe-annihilating nuclear world war, WW III, would immediately plunge. Hundreds of trillions of dollars that will otherwise be spent on preparations for WW III would then go instead toward constructive expenditures. But something prevents American Presidents from doing any such thing as that. Apparently, America’s long war to conquer Iran, Russia, and China, must go on, no matter what. The 9/11 attacks kicked it into high gear.

First, the U.S. punished Afghanistan for 9/11. Then, the U.S. punished Iraq for 9/11. Then, the U.S. court said that Iran somehow was the nation guilty for 9/11. Then, the U.S. President said that Iran is ‘the number one terrorist state’.

The stage is set. But after an intermission, what will the remaining acts be? Has the script been written for what is to come? Does anyone know how the play that started on 9/11 will end?

All that can be concluded from the evidence thus far is that the Sauds did 9/11 with inside-job cooperation from George W. Bush, and that afterward, a country uninvolved in it — Iraq — was invaded and destroyed, and another country uninvolved in it — Iran — has recently become fined for having caused it.

 

Eric Zuesse is an American writer and investigative historian who writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation, where this article first appeared.

 


Widget not in any sidebars

By Liberty Report Staff | May 8, 2017

The U.S. is on year 16 of its war in Afghanistan. There are American troops in Afghanistan that were just 2 years old when this misguided war began.


Not only does the Taliban control
most of the country, but another deadly side-effect (no pun intended) has come from this disastrous war.
Mint Press News reports:

When the U.S. overthrew the Taliban in the wake of 9/11 as part of its newly launched “war on terror,” it set the stage for the explosive growth of Afghanistan’s dying opium industry. A few short months before the invasion took place, the Taliban made headlines for having “dramatically ended the country’s massive opium trade” after the leader of the fundamentalist group had declared the substance to be un-Islamic. At the time, Afghanistan’s opium was used to produce 75 percent of the world’s heroin.

But despite being squashed by the Taliban, the opium market made a dramatic comeback immediately following the U.S. invasion in October 2001. Not only was the opium trade restored, it surged drastically – rising from a production level of 185 tons under the Taliban (before the production ban) to 3,400 tons in 2002.

Over a decade later, the amount of opium harvested annually continues to rise. Afghanistan’s opium is now used to produce 90 percent of the world’s heroin. This increase has been directly overseen by U.S. forces, whoopenly guard Afghanistan’s poppy fields. Indeed, during that same time, the U.S. governmentclaims to have spent $8.4 billion on counternarcotic programs within Afghanistan. […]

In addition, opioid addiction – in the form of both legal opiate painkillers and illegal drugs – is growing out of control in the U.S., with more opium being consumed within America than ever before. The onset of this epidemic coincided with the U.S.’ occupation of Afghanistan as, between 2002 and 2013, U.S. heroin usejumped by 63 percent, reachinga 20-year highHeroin overdoses quadrupled in the U.S. within that same timeframe.

Editors Note:


SOURCE: Ron Paul Liberty Report


SHARE: