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.


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, 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.”


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

Contributed by JD Heyes of Natural


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
Five Minuets To Midnight and Counting.

L. Steele / October 21, 2007

The keepers of the symbolic Doomsday Clock – a world-famous symbol designed by the US-based Bulletin
of Atomic Scientists
to chart how many minuets we are to midnight,  what some believe to be Armageddon –
just might be falling behind with their timekeeping skills.

The clock, which has appeared on the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists magazine’s front cover since 1947, is
currently set at five minutes to midnight – with midnight marking global catastrophe.

The clock was moved ahead to five minutes to midnight in January 2007 due to “growing concerns about a
‘Second Nuclear Age’ marked by grave threats, including: nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea,
unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing ‘launch-ready’ status of 2,000 of the
25,000 nuclear weapons held by the US and Russia; escalating terrorism; and new pressure from climate
change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks,” ~ Bulletin of Atomic

Now, there is speculation by some that the clock needs to be pushed forward another minute or two because
of original  concerns of nuclear war inching closer to becoming reality. Many believe that recent escalation
between the United States and Iran over nuclear technology is getting out of and hand adding Russia to the
mix is pushing the world far too close to all out nuclear war. Sadly, the one nation most would assume be the
first to prevent such a risk seems to be doing more to welcome the danger to humanity.

The clock was created by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists magazine’s staff in 1947, it was initially set at
seven minutes to midnight and has moved 18 times since then. The last time it was so close to midnight was
in 1988, when many thought the Cold War was beginning to show its first signs of coming to an end and the
clock showed 11.54pm. However, the Cold War never actually came to a true end. In fact, the Cold War
seems to be escalating all over again. Thanks in part to the Bush / Cheney administration.

On October 17, 2007, just ten months after the clock had moved to five minutes, President Bush insinuated
the coming of World War III if world leaders did not prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear technology. This alone
should be alarming enough to move the clock forward to at least four minutes to midnight. As of today the
clock holds at five minutes.

On October 16, Just one day before Bush’s warning of a third World War, Republican White House
candidates pounded the Iran subject. Rudolph Giuliani warned of a military strike against Iran for its nuclear
ambitions, which have yet to show any sign of interest of a nuclear weapon. Iran says it is intended purely for
peaceful energy production.

Vladimir Putin issued a veiled warning Tuesday (October 16) against any attack on Iran as he began the first
visit by a Kremlin leader to Tehran in six decades — a mission reflecting Russian-Iranian efforts to curb U.S.
influence. Reported in that exact text on yahoo news, but the text has since changed to show Putin with a
less harsh stance. Reason for this is unclear.

Tension is building with the Iran subject. Russia has made it clear whose side they will chose if World War III
does in fact break out. There is growing speculation that China will also chose to defend Iran.

The Bush / Cheney administration has made it clear they are itching for war with Iran. They have made it
clear that they will pursue Israel’s interest on this matter. Bush and Cheney have already shown the extent
the will go in order to pursue war in which others will die for their cause. It becomes easy to understand why
other nations are starting to view the United States as a threat instead of a friend. They seem to be all too
anxious to go to war, and they seem to like the idea of nuclear war. If their past is any indication of what is to
come, they will pursue more war no matter the cost.

With 2008 elections getting closer, a nuclear World War III will only benefit the Bush administration. This has
become a situation that any dictator could dream about. If nobody steps up to the plate to put a stop to the
war hungry politics, World War III is not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have yet to move the Doomsday Clock any closer to midnight since January,
reasons unknown. Even though we are at the brink of World War III, and a third World War brings us the
closest ever to all out nuclear war. This being the situation, the clock should be due to move to four, three or
even two minutes to midnight. It does not take a scientist to figure that out.

L. Steele / December 13, 2005

 I am writing this in response to an article posted on AlterNet, When 9/11 Conspiracy
Theories Go Bad. I would like to thank What Really Happened .com for posting this
article and pointing out that there are still people whom are either blind or just plain
stupid. I really don’t mean any offence with that statement, I am just saying it is a sad
tragedy. I do not know or really care how many people read articles at AlterNet like this
one by David Corn. It is fair to say he more than likely has far more readers than I do.
The sad part is, many people are mislead by people like this. He is good at making his
point convincing, but he fails to disprove anything. Though I can honestly say I have not
sent any of those emails to him, maybe nobody did. Still I am not one to listen to, I am
just a nut case because I happen to believe that there really are conspiracies. I figure I
should let you know now so you don’t waste your time reading my thoughts.

David Corn wants to believe that most of the 911 theories sent to him are false and
twisted. He may be partially right, judging by the way he describes these theories. This
man is either an agent of disinformation or (giving the benefit of doubt) he is simply in
denial. He believes the government lies and does many bad things, but not against it’s
own people. A little research and history will prove that all governments will allow harm to
their own people. Yes, America too. This isn’t the first time and as long as we allow it, it
won’t be the last. I am a little understanding with his view because he is obviously still
grieving 911. Some people take longer then others to go through the grieving process.
In the case of September 11, 2001, I think I finished the whole process in about a week.

Not only is he grieving the tragedy of 911 but also grieving the loss of America. So,
judging by his article he is in denial. Denial is the first step of the grieving process, so he
may be a little slow. There are 5 stages in the grieving process. It’s true, ask anyone
involved in psychiatry. Even the workforce is cramming this down the throats of
Americans everywhere, “team concept training” if you haven’t had it yet you soon will.
The five stages are Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. This
is not a lesson in grieving so I will leave it at that, but do a little research on the grieving
process and you will understand. David Corn is in denial or at least was when he wrote
the article. Could I be wrong? There is always that possibility.

Maybe I am the one in denial, no maybe the bargaining stage. So to all of those who
think I am wrong, here is my cry for help. HELP! Give me absolute proof that 911 is the
way “the man” says it is. Prove to us “nut jobs” that there were no bombs inside the
trade towers. Prove that Osama is still alive. Show us proof that fire caused a “pancake
effect” on Sept. 11, 2001. Give us proof that flight 93 was not shot down but taken down
by it’s passengers. Give us proof that Saddam was a grave threat to the United States.
Show us what happened to those WMD’s. We need to see proof that members of the
government did not have prior knowledge. Mr. Corn, please prove that Ossama bin
Laden started a network more superior than our own inelegance. Show me why you feel
that our high tech forces could not pull this off, but these uneducated cavemen were
able. We are crying out for your help! If you could prove to us that we are wrong, we
could then move on to the next stage in the grieving process. We would finally enter into
the depression stage and before long we would be in the acceptance stage. We are still
waiting! As quick as you are to jump to the defense of a lying government you should be
able to at least give some half ass proof. Still we wait.

“I won’t argue that the U.S. Government does not engage in brutal, murderous
skulduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. Government either detected
the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of
Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. Still, each week emails
passing on such tripe arrive. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I’m
irritated enough to try.”
~ AlterNet

At least he will agree that the U.S. Government takes part in evil deeds, he makes light
of that situation but does admit it. This is a good place to start because even if he was
right and 911 is not part of a big conspiracy, there is still the issue of war. My question
is, if we know that the government takes part in these evil deeds then how can we justify
punishing the “worst tyranny the world has seen” as Bush says. We know for a fact that
members of the government lied to invade Iraq, and still defend those lies. If they lied to
us about that, why should we believe they are not lying about everything else? They
have established that they are liars, they can’t be trusted and have no credibility. Would
the U.S. Government conspire to kill thousands of Americans in order to launch a war?
Why not? They obviously needed this war. They killed thousands of troops with their lie!
If they are willing to send your children to die for their lies, then why is it so hard to
believe that they would kill thousands of Americans in order to fulfill their agenda?

There are millions of Americans, what’s a few thousand? It’s a small sacrifice to pay in
order to achieve a goal. It’s better to sacrifice a few thousand than to sacrifice the whole
bunch, right? There is also some evidence pointing to Israeli involvement. Mr. Corn has
already established that governments have no problem sacrificing the lives of
foreigners, so it is safe to say that Israel would have no problem conspiring to kill
thousands of Americans.

This article keeps pushing the thought that the theory is that 911 was pulled off just to
start a “war for oil”. I’m sure it goes further than that. It’s not ExxonMobil to benefit, it’s
not the American oil companies at all. If this has anything to do with oil, it is Israel that
wants that oil. But every way you look at it, it is a win win situation for all parties involved.
Thanks to 911 Israel gets rid of some of the Arab governments and hopefully will get
their pipeline for oil, and the U.S. Government gets more control of their citizens. Not to
mention all of the people getting rich from this tragedy and even from this war. One thing
is certain, 911 is directly tied to this war.

“So let’s start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed?
Capable — as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special
agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation.
That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years
spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed
over 100 CIA officials and employees.)”

This is the worst reasoning that I have ever heard! The U.S. Government is not capable
of pulling off such a deed? My ass! The U.S. Government is the most capable of pulling
off such a deed. Because it happened here in the U.S. our government is about the only
ones who could pull it off so easily. For years we have been told that our intelligence
does things without our knowledge for our own good. They keep tabs on everything,
everywhere. Now you want us to believe that our high tech intelligence is so inferior to
the rest of the world. Our intelligence is so inferior compared to Ossama? This is exactly
what they want you to think. Who else could give stand down orders? Who else could
make sure that four planes go missing but it’s no big deal? Who else could have pulled it
off? Our government was the most capable, and willing. Who else stood to gain from this
attack? We should believe this mans opinion because he interviewed over 100 CIA
people? Well now I am sure that’s pretty reliable. The CIA are trained liars, part of their
job is to know how to lie without being detected. If the CIA says they would not be able to
do such an evil task, they are the first people you should not believe. Yes, you did dare
say common sense. Common sense is the best way to spot a lie. Common sense is what
tells us who stood to gain from 911. Common sense tells us that nobody was more able
to pull it off than our very own government.

“Not good enough: Such a plot — to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two
towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was
done by another party — is far beyond the skill level of U.S. Intelligence. It would require
dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would
have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the
conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs,
State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.)”
~ AlterNet

Ossama on the other hand had all of this?

“Not evil enough. This is as foul as it gets — to kill thousands of Americans, including
Pentagon employees, to help out oil companies. (The sacrificial lambs could have
included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed
in Pennsylvania.) This is a Hollywood-level of dastardliness, James Bond (or Dr. Evil)
~ AlterNet

So Ossama is the comparable to James Bond or Dr. Evil? How many high level
Pentagon employees died? Let’s not forget that the area of the Pentagon that was hit
just so happened to be under construction. While I am thinking about it, how many
Israelis died in the trade towers? As I said before, this wasn’t done just to help out oil

“Would George W. Bush take the chance of being branded the most evil president of all
time by countenancing such wrongdoing? Oil may be in his blood, but would he place
the oil industry’s interests ahead of his own? (He sure said sayonara to Kenneth Lay
and Enron pretty darn fast.) And Bush and everyone else in government know that plans
leak. Disinformation specialists at the Pentagon could not keep their office off the front
page of The New York Times. In the aftermath of September 11, there has been much
handwringing over the supposed fact that U.S. intelligence has been too risk-averse.
But, thankfully, some inhibitions — P.R. concerns, career concerns — do provide brakes
on the spy-crowd.”
~ AlterNet

Yea, Okay. George W. Bush sure didn’t mind taking a chance at lying to the people in
order to go to war in Iraq. Where is his P.R. concern for that? Not to mention that there
have been leaks, but what does that matter? Nothing is going on the front pages of the
New York Times that they don’t want. They wouldn’t even publish Bush’s military record,
why would they publish anything worse? They refuse to question the lies told by the
president, why would they publish 911 truth?

I deal with people like this all of the time, they are in denial. They are all caught up in the
“red pill, blue pill” garbage. Many are afraid if they admit the government could have
been involved, they will be swallowing the “blue pill”. It’s just plain nonsense. We need to
stop this red and blue, black and white bullshit. We need to get into our heads that it’s
not white against black, but rather rich against poor. As long as we keep this red side
blue side mentality we will never get nowhere. If you are stuck on the “red pill or blue
pill”, you are stuck with somebody else’s views and personality. Just because I believe
911 is part of a conspiracy does not mean I am a radical liberal. When it comes to
government, I take the white pill. If you are a liar, you don’t get my vote. If you have
corruption in you political history, you don’t get my vote. If you are a frickin moron, you
will not get my vote! We have been brainwashed for years that you are either on one
side or the other. Most of the people that resist these theories are Bush supporters.
They are afraid to admit he has ever done anything wrong. Many of them are Christian,
which is fine, but they are afraid to admit that they have been played for a fool. They
don’t want to face the fact that Bush is their wolf in sheep’s clothing, they voted for him
based on his religious belief and no Christian would allow something so horrible to take
place. They have feeling like even though Bush is a moron, they had to vote for him
otherwise nobody would fight against abortion. Wake up! Nobody is fighting against it.
These people are absolutely afraid to seek the truth. They will not even glance at your
evidence that the government may have been involved in 911. They are afraid to look,
because deep down inside they know it is very possible and they wouldn’t know what to
do with the truth. They scream so loud that we are crazy, yet they can not provide an
ounce of proof. They are the walking dead.

I have a relative who debates with me all of the time. We argue back and forth almost
daily, it’s fun. He does a good job at defending Bush on certain issues. However, when it
comes to 911 or the war he has nothing. Nothing at all. When I send a list of issues, he
will fire back at each and every one except for those that address the war or 911. His
simple reply is that I am radical and caught up in too much “liberal” propaganda. He
makes excuses that he is busy and does not have time to look at this or that. He
sometimes says that he does not want to allow negative things to interrupt his positive
mind. The fact is he will not look because he is afraid that it could be true. He is in
denial. With tragedies like 911 there are two stages missing from the grieving process. I
stated before that there are five stages. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and
acceptance. There are two stages that should be added to it when it comes to
something like 911 or this war. Anger and Action. We can’t allow acceptance to be the
last stage. Once we hit the acceptance stage we really should go into a second anger
stage. Angry that we are allowing this to happen. Then into an action stage, taking
action against the evil that has brought all of this tragedy to us.