Monday 9th of December 2019




4. America can be scary.

The audience cheered when the moderator asked Rick Perry about his record in executing more death-row inmates than any other governor in modern history. They cheered again when he said he hadn't lost a wink of sleep over the prospect that some of them might have been innocent. It was perhaps the strongest moment of Rick Perry's night. Shudder.


Remember that Perry is a fundamentalist christian who has no qualm in flounting the 10 commandments... "You shall not kill..." This shows that Perry does not believe in what he claims his faith is... All he believes in is "POWER by any means". He lies ... and the faithfuls love and applaud the lie, for him to grab the "power".

poisoned memory...

From Paul KrugmanThe Years of Shame

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.



Gus: if you wish to comment on this site about this post please do...

a forgotten 911 .....

This September 11 marks the 38th anniversary of the CIA backed coup in Chile.

US henchmen killed Salvador Allende, the democratically elected President, and imposed a reign of terror on the Chilean people under ruling class US puppet Augusto Pinochet. 

These butchers on the payroll of American imperialism rounded up over 3000 leftists and executed them in the capital's main sports arena. Something like 15,000 died at Pinochet's hands in the years after.

This makes the main American political players in the coup - Nixon and Kissinger - the moral equivalent of Osama bin Laden.

This is not because they are inherently evil (although that helps) but because of the positions they held as the political defenders of US imperialism.

Bush used the terrorist attacks of September 11 on New York as justification for US state terrorism against Afghanistan and then Iraq. Reliable estimates are that over 1.5 million innocent Iraqis have died as a result of the American invasion. This is the equivalent of 9/11 every few weeks in Iraq.

In Afghanistan the total is tens of thousands.

Apparently we relativists should accept that the 3000 killed by terrorists in the US are of much greater importance than the millions killed by US terrorists.

Ah but that's the point, isn't it? The ruling class remembrance of 9/11 is designed as cover for US terrorism and to reinforce and strengthen the rule and sway of the war mongers.

The lessons of September 11 from Chile, the US & Australia

god help america .....

rope-a-dope .....

rope-a-dope ....

You don't need a PhD to understand how terrorism works. It's in its name. By creating terror. The central point of terrorism is not the bombs or the explosions or the killings.

Terrorism is a calculated, rational tactic to create an emotional response. The best answer to terrorism is calm rationality, to refuse to co-operate with the enemy.

A great power cannot be provoked unless it allows itself to be.

The central flaw in the US response to the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks of 10 years ago was that it gave America's enemies exactly what they sought.

The US allowed emotion to overwhelm calm analysis.

''We should not take ourselves psychological hostage,'' said Adam Garfinkle, editor of the American Interest magazine and a former speechwriter for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

''Alas, that's precisely what the administration did allow.''

George Bush's deputy secretary of state at the time of the attacks, Richard Armitage, said the US abandoned its traditional hope and optimism: ''After 9/11 we found ourselves exporting something foreign from America: fear and anger.''

The greatest harm to America came not from the direct strike by the terrorists; it was self-inflicted by ill-judged US policy.

The costs were moral, strategic and economic.

As president, Bush made a speech declaring that ''torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere''. He deplored ''rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit . . . The US is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.''

A CIA interrogator who'd been questioning a suspected al-Qaeda member wrote of the Bush statement: ''I found this speech infuriating. I knew what we were doing; our actions soiled what it meant to be American, perverted our oath, and betrayed our flag.''

The interrogator, Glenn Carle, had been required by his CIA superiors to send his prisoner to a friendly country to be tortured. Carle, after 23 years with the agency, has recorded his experience in a memoir, The Interrogator: A CIA Agent's true story.

But what of the claim by the US vice-president of the time, Dick Cheney, that ''enhanced interrogation techniques'' had extracted valuable intelligence from terrorists and saved lives? He is ''flat wrong'', according to Carle.

''In almost every case, the 'intelligence' obtained was faulty and subsequently discredited or suspect, or of secondary importance. The after-action assessments have mostly, albeit very quietly, found that we obtained little of critical benefit.''

Winning At A High Moral Cost


more than twice as long as world war II...


Eleven years after the horrible spectacle of the World Trade Center towers being struck by one 767 airliner and then another, then collapsing into nothingness, continues to capture our imagination like a fragment from a recurring nightmare.

Almost 3,000 lives were lost in New York City, Washington DC and on a lonely field in Pennsylvania. Had it stopped there we would by now have begun to move on and have rejected as mere hubris the claim that 9/11 changed everything.

Sadly the lives lost that day were just the beginning. The consequences of the 9/11 attacks, and our reactions to them, continue to ripple through communities around the world. Diligent intelligence work has helped prevent further attacks in the US and has thwarted numerous attempted attacks across the UK Europe and even Australia. But Al Qaeda and the ideas associated with Al Qaeda have not gone away and lives continue to be lost at an alarming rate. The magnitude of this often escapes us – while the West has been scarred by the spectre of terrorism, the vast majority of its victims are Muslims.


see image at top...


still going on...


A US judge has dismissed claims against Saudi Arabia by families of victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks, who accused the country of providing material support to al-Qaeda.

US District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan, New York, said Saudi Arabia had sovereign immunity from damage claims by families of nearly 3,000 people killed in the attacks, and from insurers that covered losses suffered by building owners and businesses. 

"The allegations in the complaint alone do not provide this court with a basis to assert jurisdiction over defendants," Daniels wrote.

The victims had sought to supplement their case with new allegations to avoid that result, including based on testimony they secured from Zacarias Moussaoui, a former al-Qaeda operative imprisoned for his role in the attacks, Reuters reported.

Daniels said even if he allowed the plaintiffs to assert those new claims, doing so would be "futile, however, because the additional allegations do not strip defendants of sovereign immunity".

Classified evidence

Saudi Arabia was dropped as a defendant before as judges said it was protected by sovereign immunity, but a federal appeals court in December 2013 reinstated it, saying a legal exception existed and the circumstances were extraordinary.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they would appeal. Sean Carter, one the lawyers, said he believed the ruling was also the consequence of the US government's decision to keep classified evidence that could be favourable to their cause.

The laws of physics fail, and the world watches in awe as asymmetrical damage and scattered low temperature fires cause steel-framed buildings to collapse symmetrically through their own mass at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

by Paul Craig Roberts

( September 11, 2015, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) Millions of refugees from Washington’s wars are currently over-running Europe. Washington’s 14-year and ongoing slaughter of Muslims and destruction of their countries are war crimes for which the US government’s official 9/11 conspiracy theory was the catalyst. Factual evidence and science do not support Washington’s conspiracy theory. The 9/11 Commission did not conduct an investigation. It was not permitted to investigate. The Commission sat and listened to the government’s story and wrote it down. Afterwards, the chairman and cochairman of the Commission said that the Commission “was set up to fail.” For a factual explanation of 9/11, watch this film.

Here is a presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Here is an extensive examination of many of the aspects of 9/11.

Phil Restino of the Central Florida chapter of Veterans For Peace wants to know why national antiwar organizations buy into the official 9/11 story when the official story is the basis for the wars that antiwar organizations oppose. Some are beginning to wonder if ineffectual peace groups are really Homeland Security or CIA fronts?

The account below of the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory reads like a parody, but in fact is an accurate summary of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. It was posted as a comment in the online UK Telegraph on September 12, 2009, in response to Charlie Sheen’s request to President Obama to conduct a real investigation into what happened on September 11, 2001.

The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this:

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah. 

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes.

And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defence system the slip.

Unfazed by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely.

The laws of physics fail, and the world watches in awe as asymmetrical damage and scattered low temperature fires cause steel-framed buildings to collapse symmetrically through their own mass at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite their dastardly cunning and superb planning, they give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the destruction of steel and concrete and fall to the ground where they are quickly discovered lying on top of the mass of debris.

Meanwhile in Washington

Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a jet airliner. 

Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little. 

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the Pentagon. 
Without ruining the nicely mowed lawn and at a speed just too fast to capture on video.

In the skies above Pennsylvania

Desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that would not be possible until several years later.

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, the airliner crashes into a Pennsylvania field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard issue Muslim terrorist bandana.

During these events President Bush continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class of primary school children.


In New York 

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously.

In Washington

The Neoconservatives are overjoyed by the arrival of the “New Pearl Harbor,” the necessary catalyst for launching their pre-planned wars.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.




Note: picture at top Gus Leonisky from a picture taken by Gus in 1988.


9/11 and the saudis...

A bill that would allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government has passed a key hurdle in the US Senate.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) now moves to the House of Representatives.

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister warned that the move could cause his government to withdraw US investments.

President Barack Obama said he will veto the bill, but a Democratic senator is "confident" he'd be overruled.

If it became law the legislation would allow victims' families to sue any member of the government of Saudi Arabia thought to have played a role in any element of the attack.

Saudi Arabia denies any involvement in the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

read more:


See also:

questioning the official deceitful somnolence...

It’s ten to one you read in my title the opener to a much cited quote about Nazi Germany. And two to one that even if you couldn’t identify the author, Pastor Martin Niemöller, you could give an approximation of how the rest of it goes: I did not speak out because I was not a socialist…a trade unionist…a Jew…

Though anchored in time and place, in history at its darkest, the pastor’s remorse – he was not speaking rhetorically but in penitence – points to a truth neither finite nor spatially bound but universal: what goes around comes around. To look the other way as others are cruelly treated is not only cowardly and immoral. It is dangerously myopic. No man, opined one of England’s finest poets, is an island. Ask not for whom the bell tolls.

Then they came for the intellectuals…

Mao targeted these. So, in more distilled and chilling form, did Pol Pot. And long before Hitler’s doctors injected the disabled – life unworthy of the name – with benzene prior to graduating to carbon monoxide in sealed vans, and longer still before his inner circle drew up its plans for a final solution to The Jewish Problem, thinkers were ridiculed, purged and if need be liquidated by the Third Reich. All regimes strive to channel, to set limits to acceptable thought within, their intelligentsia.

All regimes.

This, for reasons I’ll go into another time, is not hard. Independence of mind is rare, academia not excepted. Scholars have competence in forms of symbolic discourse learned by way of apprenticeships that confer useful reasoning tools and, at best, an obligation of truthfulness through evidence based argument. They do little, however, to nurture originality, far less a stance of fearless independence.

There are exceptions. Over decades half in/half out of academia I’ve known professors, and more junior academics, I deem astute and independent thinkers. They are a minority though. Academics are seldom stupid – though a few have left me wondering – but not always that bright either. Not in the terms I’ve set out, of truly independent mindedness and the capacity to set aside a-priori assumptions; to take risks, and think with startling originality.

(That capacity demands heart and soul as well as brain, and for the most mundane of reasons. Our institutionally fostered careerism, intensified by the marketisation of academia, begets cynicism. Which in turn begets, by way of strategies to ease cognitive dissonance, diminished rigour. First it comes for your promotional aspirations. Then for your critical faculties …)

All of which makes Professor Piers Robinson special in my book. Connected in more ways than one – he works at University of Sheffield, where I taught (without our paths crossing), and he too reviewed for OffGuardian the recently published 9/11 Unmasked – we met over coffee for the first and so far only time back in October.

It was a good meeting: cordial, focused and wide ranging within a coherent framework. We’d read one another’s work and, while his knowledge of our topics – Syria, 9/11 and corporate media – far exceeds mine, he was appreciative and supportive of those like me who seek to synthesise and popularise views and facts subversive of dominant messages too useful to vested interests, and with too many incongruities and roaring silences, for acceptance at face value by the critically minded.

In the hour and a half we spent together, before I had to dash for a train to London, his detailed grasp of those three topics at times left me struggling to keep up. We agreed on parting to make these meetings a monthly event, though my November move to Nottingham has put this on the back burner.

What I remembered most clearly was his severally repeated insistence that things are worse than we realise. He may have said this in respect of Syria. He certainly said it in respect of 9/11. Most of all though he said it in respect of corporate media, addressing a conclusion long held by me: that the false narratives on Russia and the middle east may be aggravated by the career cynicism (similar to that in academia) and lazy credulity of journalists, but has at root more to do with the limits of dissent set by market forces.

Though I don’t recall him disagreeing, he finds that view – of journalists as credulous rather than consciously propagandist – too charitable.[1] Nor is he the only one to say so. I’ve been taken to task on this by BTL comments on OffGuardian pieces I’ve written, and by a Media Lens editor who wondered if pulled punches on George Monbiot betray a mild form of Stockholm Syndrome. At any rate, this recurring claim by Piers Robinson – that things are worse than we realise – is what I most recollect from our espresso fuelled engagement in October.

(In referring, amongst other things, to media infiltration by intelligence services, he cited his own experience. That said, unswerving backing by BBC and Guardian – Independent to lesser extent – of the West’s wars on the global south, and relentless Russia baiting, should in any case caution the open minded against slamming the door on such a possibility.)

I took it personally, therefore, when I was alerted – through a FB post by Elizabeth Woodworth, co-author of two books reviewed by me on this site and in OffGuardian, to a Huffington Post assault on Piers Robinson three days ago, on December 7. Indeed, the vitriolic tone – coupled with too many appeals to authority, too few to evidence – would have had me penning a swifter response, on this site and on the day, had I not been taken up with concerns that have kept me from writing for too long. Fortunately, Elizabeth has published her own on-the-day response, in the form of this open letter to HuffPo editor Jess Brammar and feature writer Chris York.

I do not know what happened on September 11, 2001, Robinson’s position on which is the thrust of HuffPo’s attack. I do know I was way too quick to condemn, on logical rather than empirical grounds, all 9/11 Truthers. Most inexcusably, I confused a marxist view – that conspiracy is not needed to explain the demonic logic of capital in the age of imperialism – with the non sequitur that 9/11 could not have been a false flag operation.

I ain’t saying it was, mind. Just that I can no longer – due to Elizabeth Woodworth’s and David Ray Griffin’s book on the subject[2] – rule it out. Actually that’s too weak. I can say emphatically that whatever did happen on 9/11, the official account by the National Institute of Standards & Technology – a US government inquiry accorded impartial and unimpeachable status by the HuffPo hatchet piece – is so riddled with flaws, inconsistencies and refusals to address hard evidence (indeed, in places with active concealment of the stuff) as to invite accusations of “coincidence theorist” and “pathologically credulous” on those who see NIST as fair-minded investigation, Truthism as the preserve of a lunatic fringe.

But back to that HuffPo piece. Do read it. And Elizabeth Woodworth’s open letter. Then, if you’re in the mood for more, try the Media Lens book, reviewed here, Propaganda Blitz. Might I draw your particular attention to its definition of propaganda blitzes?

…fast moving attacks … communicated with high emotional intensity and moral outrage, apparently supported by an informed corporate media/academic/expert consensus [and] reinforced by damning condemnation of anyone daring even to question the apparent consensus.

Which is as much as I have to say on the matter. For now.

  1. I’m inclining to the view that media conditions – in the context of declining revenues, of permanent war on the global south, and of looming strife at home – beget a third and hybrid position; an uneasy blend of naive but self serving acceptance of authority, with cultivated distaste for any line of inquiry that might challenge its core premises.
  2. A further nail in the coffin of my refusal to give Truthism time of day was encountered just days ago. I consider the chapter on put-option, call-option and short selling in the days prior to 9/11 the weakest link in the powerful case assembled by Griffin and Woodworth. That chapter is in my view too slim to make the case. More detailed consideration of this aspect, however, is given in two linked pieces written in 2011 for Foreign Policy Journal by Mark Gaffney. Highly recommended for its impeccable substantiation. As, indeed, is G & W’s book
Read more:

meanwhile in 1960s new york...

new york

Image from the Glorious Useless Gus' Picture Library (250,000 pictures)...


Read from top.

this is law and order in 2016 america...


Almost four years after Sandra Bland was stopped by a Texas state trooper and then found dead in a jail cell three days later, cellphone video of the encounter taken by Bland herself has been released for the very first time, leading her family to call for a new investigation.

On July 10, 2015, the 28-year-old Chicago native was driving from Illinois to Texas to start a new job at Prairie View A&M University, her alma mater, when she was pulled over 50 miles northwest of Houston in Waller County by state trooper Brian Encinia for improperly signaling a lane change.

​She was detained after being arrested for allegedly becoming confrontational and posing a threat to Encinia's safety. Three days later, she was found hanged in her Houston jail cell. Her death was deemed a suicide, although her family maintains that Bland wouldn't have killed herself.

Before Bland's cellphone footage was released by Dallas television station WFAA-TV and the Investigative Network Monday, the only video evidence of the encounter was dashboard camera video from Encinia's car.

In the 39-second video from Bland's vantage point, she can be heard asking Encinia, "Why am I being apprehended?" as she attempts to film him. Moments later, Encinia aggressively opens Bland's car door, draws his stun gun and repeatedly yells at her to "get out of the car" while threatening to "light [her] up" for not putting out a cigarette she was smoking.

​After Bland exits her car, she continues recording Encinia. Her recording captures no actions that could be construed as a threat to Encinia's safety, as he claimed at the time.

"My safety was in jeopardy at more than one time… I had a feeling that anything could've been either retrieved or hidden within her area of control. My primary concern was with that purse, with her console, as far as being any kinds of weapons or drugs," Encinia said at the time.

However, the footage Bland captured makes it glaringly clear that she didn't reach for anything in the car during their encounter, as she was using her hands to hold her phone to tape Encinia. In fact, it appears the opposite, with Bland's life the one in danger. 

After Bland exits the car, Encinia demands she get off her phone, while still pointing the stun gun at her.

"I'm not on the phone. I have a right to record. This is my property," Bland responds, which reveals that Encinia knew at the time that he was being recorded by Bland.

The end of the video from Bland's point of view shows her filming the ground and her feet, before she abruptly stops recording. Footage taken from Encinia's dashboard shows her putting her phone down on her car before the video ends.

Following the incident, Bland's family filed a wrongful death suit against Waller County and the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), reaching a $1.9 million settlement in 2016.

In January 2016, a grand jury charged Encinia with making a false statement on Bland's arrest report, which could have earned him up to one year in jail. However, the charge was later dropped when he promised to surrender his law enforcement license and "not pursue or engage in employment, in any capacity, with law enforcement," Sputnik previously reported.

The Investigative Network also released a video showing Bland's family and their attorney, Cannon Lambert, watching the cellphone footage for the first time


Read more:



Read from top.

adding crystal-ball fuel to the sauce...

Futurist Who ‘Predicted’ 9/11 Says Trump Would Win 2020 In Time for ‘Global Crash’© AP Photo / David Goldman



An Australian national who claims to have predicted many international political and financial events, also predicts the world will see an assassination of an undisclosed world leader using drone technology in the next three years.

The next US president will most likely face a “global crash,” says Dr. Richard Hames – an Australian man who describes himself as an “anticipatory futurist” and claims that in 1998 he predicted the 9/11 plane attacks on the World Trade Center. 

He also says that an unnamed prominent world leader will be assassinated using drone technology within three years, and it will spark a global outcry, according to a report by

Hames says he is “surprised [drone assassination] hasn’t happened already,” the report says, citing last year’s event, in which a drone rigged with explosives almost killed Venezuela’s President Nicholas Maduro.

“There is now the technology to really monitor almost anyone in the world at any time, especially if you’re carrying a mobile phone, and deliver a toxic poison to anyone at all,” he says, according to the report.

“I think we’re going to see that very soon, especially given the antagonism between some world leaders and the difficulties between Israel and Palestine and now Iran and the US. The Middle East is just ripe for such an event.”

According to the self-described futurist, US President Donald Trump is likely to win the next presidential election and continue to lead the US in his characteristic ways. Hames justifies his prediction by pointing out that the Dems are in disarray and that the US economy is “going better than anyone expected.”

“At this stage Donald Trump will probably win the 2020 election and continue in his current manner of tough talk in the form of bluff and counterbluff,” he says.

Speaking on Trump and the Middle East, he also says that a war with Iran is possible but “hinges on two factors,” those being “whether John Bolton is ruthless enough to organize a false flag attack on US assets, and whether pressure from Netanyahu persuades Trump to turn Iran into a failed state at war with itself along ethnic and sectarian lines so that it no longer poses a threat to Israel.”

Trump’s victory, however, is going to come right ahead of a “second financial crisis,” which Hames believes is the consequence of the same dynamics that led to the 2008 global financial crisis, the report says.

“Since the global financial crisis, none of the structural dynamics have changed, in fact I think they’re getting worse,” Hames said. “There is going to be a global crash by the end of next year.”

On his website, Hames is said to have predicted a possible plane attack on World Trade Center in New York, as well as such major global events as the Arab Spring and the Global Financial Crisis. The website says Hames provides consulting to “governments and business corporations.” His newest predictions are a promotion of his tour around Australia that will take place between July and August this year, the says.


Read more:


Read frojm top.

Read from top.


Any fool can predict something bad will come out of what we do. Why? Because we are fools and we know our limits and the parameters of our lunacy. This is religious hubris exploited with an economic and political artistic buggery. But one thing for sure is (or is it?). With Donald trump at the helm of USS Titanica, we only can hope that Rand Paul will do a wedgie to Donald's undies. In terms of US presidents being assassinated or nearly assassinated, the figures are predictable for the next ones... Basically, secretly, all US presidents have been targeted and the proportion of success is around 9 percent. 

The timing of the next war is impossible to gauge because Trump is a loonatic working on gut instinct whether he had prunes for dessert or not, the night before. Yes, technology of drone and poisoned umbrellas, like the "Game of Drones" has changed the dynamics of how to assassinate someone, but the counter-actions have also improved. Donald delivered the 4th July address from behind bullet-proof glass (or was it polycarbonate?) for good reasons. He did not trust the secret service to eliminate all threat directed at his dorky person... Yes, we know, Democrat Presidents are easier to top off.

Putin warned Bush about impeding attack TWO DAYS before 9/11...

Putin warned Bush about impeding attack TWO DAYS before 9/11 – ex-CIA analyst

Russian President Vladimir Putin had called his US counterpart George W. Bush two days before the 9/11 attacks in 2001, warning about an imminent terrorist plot coming from Afghanistan, a former CIA analyst has revealed.

The urgent warning coming from the Russian leader is mentioned in the book ‘The Russia Trap: How Our Shadow War with Russia Could Spiral into Nuclear Catastrophe,’ released earlier this week and written by by George Beebee, a senior Bush-era CIA analyst.

Putin had telephoned President Bush two days before the attacks to warn that Russian intelligence has detected signs of an incipient terrorist campaign, ‘something long in preparation,’ coming out of Afghanistan.

The revelation by the former CIA operative appears to be yet another proof that Washington has been repeatedly warned about the attacks that ultimately happened on September 11, 2001.

While the existence of a warning from Moscow has been public knowledge for years – senior Russian intelligence officials spoke about them shortly after the attacks – Beebee’s book suggests that it was not limited to exchange between the intelligence agencies, and that Bush was warned by Putin personally.


Read more:





Read from top.

fabricated phoney evidences?...




In addition to the manipulation of the official 9/11 story by lawyers, earlier the U.S. mass-media had spun the array of in-flight 9/11 cellular telephone calls so comprehensively that even U.S. prosecutor Raskin believed that they had occurred. He expounded them to the jury, and the Associated Press passed on his words to the world. Yet his Moussaoui trial evidence proved that many of the cell- phone calls he brandished had not taken place. The U.S. prosecutor was deluded and the government’s conspiracy theory lay in shreds on the court-room floor.

This was in spite of the showmanship used at the trial. For example, prosecutors played to the jury the cockpit voice recording (CVR) alleged to have been retrieved from the mangled and buried wreckage of Flight 93 (that nobody outside the secret state had seen). Passenger voices were heard shouting outside the cockpit (although normally only the pilots’ voices were recorded). The drama of shouting pilots and their chillingly cool rogue replacements was played out on high-tech equipment: “As jurors heard the cockpit recording Wednesday, they watched a color video showing a transcript, synchronized with the voices and the plane's instrument readings of its speed, altitude, pitch and headings.” There was no mention of the culminating eight minutes of the recording transcript that were mostly marked “unintelligible”. No mention of the original view that the CVR recording solved nothing. No one explained to the jury how Flight 93’s rogue pilot could have obtained permission from Reagan International airport air-traffic controllers to change the flight plan and fly towards Washington D.C.


Read more:



Read from top. 

preventing 9-11?...


From Kevin Ryan


In my book Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects, a case is made for the investigation of nineteen people who were in position to do everything that was needed to affect the crimes. These legitimate suspects can be compared to the nineteen young Arabs who were accused of the crimes yet who did not have the means or opportunity to accomplish most of what happened that day.

The following seven questions should be asked when considering suspects. For each question, my nominees are described.

  1. Who could have prevented U.S. intelligence agencies from tracking down and stopping the alleged hijackers before 9/11?
    • Louis Freeh was Director of the FBI for the nine years leading up to 9/11. Under Freeh’s leadership, the FBI failed miserably at preventing terrorism when preventing terrorism was the FBI’s primary goal. During this time the actions of FBI management suggest that it was facilitating and covering-up acts of terrorism. After 9/11, Freeh went on to become the personal attorney for Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar and a director for a company linked to 9/11 insider trading.
    • As Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCI) from 1997 to 2004, George Tenet led an agency that botched and bungled its duties related to counterterrorism. The evidence suggests that, as with Louis Freeh and the FBI, at least some of those failures were intentional. Tenet had developed secret paths of communication with Saudi authorities and he appears to have disrupted plans to capture or investigate al Qaeda suspects.
    • Richard Clarke was appointed U.S. “Counterterrorism Czar” by President George H.W. Bush in1992 and he held that position until after the 9/11 attacks. Clarke was also a member of the highly secret Continuity of Government planning group along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and he implemented that secret plan for the first time on 9/11. He was a personal representative of the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country that financed terrorism and had many ties to 9/11. Clarke predicted terrorist attacks on Washington and New York and, through tipping off his friends in the UAE, was behind the failure of two CIA attempts to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. On 9/11, he led the secure White House videoconference that failed to respond to the attacks.
    • Richard Armitage was a special operations soldier, long-time covert operative, and a member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). On 9/11, Armitage was Deputy Secretary of State and, in this role, he implemented an express approval program that provided visas to the alleged 9/11 hijackers. On 9/11, he was involved in the secure videoconference run by Richard Clarke that failed to respond to the hijacked airliners.
  1. Who could have disabled the systems in place to prevent hijackings that should have been effective?
    • On 9/11, General Michael Canavan was in the role of hijack coordinator for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) but he was mysteriously missing that morning. Canavan’s role was most responsible for communications between the FAA and the military and his absence was critical to the failure of air defenses. Having only started as FAA’s hijack coordinator just months earlier, Canavan left the position in October 2001. According to an FAA intelligence employee, Canavan started his job by running training exercises that were “pretty damn close to the 9/11 plot.”
    • Duane Andrews, a long time protégé of Dick Cheney, was a leading expert on the defense systems that failed on 9/11. At the time, he led the company Science Applications International (SAIC) that created the national databases to track and identify terrorists, supplied U.S. airports with terrorism screening equipment, predicted and investigated terrorist attacks against U.S. infrastructure including national defense networks and the WTC, helped create the official account for what happened at the WTC both in 1993 and after 9/11, was a leader in research on thermitic materials like those found in the WTC dust, led the robotics team that scoured the pile at Ground Zero using equipment capable of eliminating explosives, and provided the information to capture the alleged mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
    • Benedict Sliney was the FAA’s Command Center national operations manager on 9/11. It was his first day in the job, having just left a lucrative law career defending Wall Street financiers. Despite his lack of experience, his FAA superiors deferred to him as the attacks proceeded and allowed him to take charge of the response to the hijacked airliners. Sliney’s failure to respond effectively on the day of the attacks, allegedly not even knowing how to respond, contributed significantly to the failure of the national air defenses.
  1. Who could have disabled the U.S. chain of command that should have immediately responded to the attacks but did not?
    • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was in charge of U.S. defenses on 9/11. After the Pentagon was hit, Rumsfeld wandered out to the parking lot for approximately 30 minutes. His presence there showed that he was not concerned about other planes that were reported as hijacked, as if he knew what to expect. Rumsfeld did not concern himself with the work of his direct subordinate, NORAD Commander Ralph Eberhart, and he did not do his job to ensure the nation’s air defenses. Rumsfeld and his Defense department later failed to cooperate with 9/11 investigations.
    • Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge at the White House on 9/11 and is known to have been the primary decision maker that day. In the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, Cheney gave instructions that appear to have directed a stand down of air defenses as well as an order to shoot down United Flight 93. Cheney later worked to prevent any investigation into 9/11 and led a campaign of lies to start the Iraq War.
  1. Who could have disabled the U.S. national air defenses that should have responded effectively and intercepted some, if not all, of the hijacked aircraft?
    • Ralph Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on 9/11, sponsored the highly coincidental military exercises (i.e. war games) that obstructed the military response. Twelve hours before the attacks, Eberhart apparently ordered the defense readiness alert system Infocon to its least protective level, making it easier to hack or compromise the defense computer networks. Failing in his duties to protect the nation while giving orders that further prevented response, Eberhart later lied to Congress about the military’s knowledge of the hijackings.
    • As a special agent in charge for the Secret Service, Carl Truscott supervised all protective matters relating to the president, the first family, and the White House. The response of the Secret Service to the 9/11 attacks suggests foreknowledge of the events because the agency failed to protect the president from the obvious danger posed by terrorists. Combined with the failure of the Secret Service to follow-up on offers of air support from Andrews Air Force Base, this led to the suspicion that the agency was complicit in the attacks.
  1. Who could have caused three WTC skyscrapers to fall through the path of what should have been the most resistance?
    • Brian Michael Jenkins, as deputy chairman of Crisis Management for Kroll Associates, played a leading role in planning for terrorist events at the WTC, including having reviewed the possibility of airliner crashes into the towers. A special operations soldier and long-time right-wing political advisor, Jenkins had been accused of implementing a “terror war” in Central America during the 1980s.
    • Wirt Walker was named a 9/11 insider trading suspect in previously classified 9/11 Commission documents. Walker’s company Stratesec provided security services for the WTC, United Airlines (which owned two of the planes hijacked on 9/11), and Dulles Airport (where American Airlines Flight 77 took off that day). Stratesec held its annual meetings in offices leased by Saudi Arabia and Walker also ran an aviation company in Oklahoma at an airport that was associated with the alleged hijackers.
    • Barry McDaniel was the chief operating officer of Stratesec. McDaniel was in charge of WTC security in terms of what he called a completion contract, to provide services up to the day the buildings fell down. He is also an Iran-Contra suspect and previously worked for companies that conducted covert operations, like Sears World Trade and The Vinnell Corporation. After 9/11, McDaniel went on to start a business with Dick Cheney’s former business partner, Bruce Bradley.
    • Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of New York City on 9/11. He and his staff had foreknowledge that the WTC Towers would fall when no one could have predicted such a thing. Giuliani was also responsible for the destruction of critical WTC evidence at Ground Zero. In a crime that continues to take lives, he told people in the area that the air was safe to breathe, when it was not, in order to speed the removal of evidence.
    • L. Paul Bremer’s career with the State Department and as managing director of Kissinger Associates led to him becoming, like Jenkins, one of few leading experts on terrorism before 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Bremer had an office in the South Tower of the WTC and was working for Marsh & McLennan, a company that occupied all the impact floors in the North Tower. Also associated with a company that had patented a thermite demolition device, Bremer was one of the first people to provide the official account for what happened on television that morning.
  1. Who could have coordinated an attack against the Pentagon that struck the exact spot that had just been renovated while allowing all Pentagon leadership to escape unharmed?

Read more: