Donald Trump: Only Explosives Could Have Brought Down World Trade Towers on 9/11

In an interview on September 11, 2001 swaggering-real estate mogul Donald Trump and present Republican presidential candidate remarked that the World Trade Center Twin Towers were likely brought down through controlled demolition.

trump-trade-center-ii

Standing to a model called Twin Towers II, Trump in 2005 said plans to build the Freedom Tower should be scrapped. PHOTO: The Age

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP_Today – Source: James F. Tracy


This prescient observation has been intentionally overlooked by major media in the wake of 9/11′s fifteenth anniversary.

screen-shot-2016-09-15-at-10-17-39-am

Many corporate news outlets chose instead to single out a off-handed comment by Trump early on in the exchange where he momentarily ‘bragged’ that he ‘owned the tallest building’ in Manhattan next to the WTC– while failing to recognize and highlight his much more important expert opinion a few moments later concerning the World Trade Center’s fate alongside those of its inhabitants.

“At one point during the nearly 10-minute interview,” Washington Post political reporter Jenna Johnson writes, “Trump mentioned that his building in the Financial District was now the tallest.

“Forty Wall St. actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was, actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest,” Trump said in an interview with WWOR-TV in New York when asked whether his building had been damaged. “And then when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest, and now it’s the tallest.”

The Huffington Post likewise took the statement out of context to carry on the now-routine Trump-bashing campaign.

“Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has been widely criticized for bragging, after the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001, that his building at 40 Wall Street was now the tallest skyscraper in lower Manhattan.”

“Not only was Trump’s boast despicable, coming as it did just hours after nearly 3,000 people lost their lives ― it was also a lie, according to architectural reports reviewed by The Huffington Post.”

The above suggests an effort to mislead and confuse political reportage in an attempt to suppress any meaningful discussion of and plea for a true investigation of the most significant historical and geopolitical event in the past half century.

Image result for 9/11

Trump’s ‘boast’ took place at around the two-minute mark. Yet here is Trump’s key remark from that discussion that begin at 5:30, following the interviewer’s suggestion that explosives may have been the cause of the WTC Towers’ destruction and Trump explaining his understanding of the buildings’ architectural components:

“I happen to think they had not only a plane but bombs that exploded almost simultaneously, because I can’t imagine anything being able to go through that wall. Most buildings are built where the steel is on the inside around the elevator shaft. This one was built from the outside, which is the strongest structure you can have, and it [came down] almost just like a can of soup.”

Americans live in the ‘United States of Amnesia,’ as Michael Eric Dyson once put it, largely because of deceptive media and educational institutions, both of which airbrush history for the Inner Party, much as in  Soviet Russia or Orwell’s 1984.

Image result for 9/11

In fact, Trump’s September 11, 2001 observation eerily corroborates the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth version of the World Trade Center towers free fall. Trump recognized from first hand knowledge the Towers “very strong structures” and maintained only powerful explosives could have taken them down in such a fashion. He dismissed cartoon physics and remarked that an aluminum plane could not have sliced through the steel-girded exterior.

Advertisements

BBC: Al-Qaeda Never Existed… Proof It Was Invented by CIA

BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“: Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time.

Image result for BBC: Al-Qaeda Never Existed.

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP_Today – Sources: Humans Are Free


The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after.

This video documentary is off the hook, unfortunately BBC blocked it from YouTube.

Instead, I propose you the following short series from The Corbett Report

Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist 1/3

Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist 2/3

Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist 3/3


Proof that Osama bin Laden died/was killed in 2001

In the November 02, 2007 interview with David Frost, Benazir Bhutto was asked about the previous attempt to assassinate her in October. Her response is well worth a second listen in the wake of her death. It seems that Ms. Bhutto suspected the involvement of Pakistan’s security services and told President Musharraf as much.

Image result for BBC: Al-Qaeda Never Existed... Proof It Was Invented by CIA

After she received a letter from Mr. Musharraf warning her of the various terrorist organizations who were planning to target her for assassination, she wrote back stating her view that “…while these [terrorist] groups may be used, i thought it was more important to go after the people who supported them, who organized them, who could possibly be the financiers… for those groups.”

Less than two months after this interview, on December 27th 2007, Bhutto was assassinated while leaving a campaign rally for the PPP at Liaquat National Bagh, where she had given a spirited address to party supporters in the run-up to the January 2008 parliamentary elections.

After entering her bulletproof vehicle, Bhutto stood up through its sunroof to wave to the crowds. At this point, a gunman fired shots at her and subsequently explosives were detonated near the vehicle killing approximately 20 people. Bhutto was critically wounded and was rushed to Rawalpindi General Hospital. She was taken into surgery at 17:35 local time, and pronounced dead at 18:16.

Russia Accuses Obama Of Supporting Al Qaeda In Syria

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP_Today


(RINF) On May 4th, Russia’s Sputnik news agency headlined “Lavrov: US Tried to Include Al-Nusra Front Positions in ‘Silent’ Period”, and reported that Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, speaking in Moscow about the lengthy negotiations between himself and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to agree on conditions for a Syrian ceasefire and peace talks to take place between Syria’s government and Syria’s rebels, said,

“During the negotiations, our US partners actually tried to draw the borders of this ‘zone of silence’ to include a significant number of positions occupied by al-Nusra [Front]. We managed to exclude this as it is absolutely unacceptable.”

Al Qaeda in Syria calls itself “Al Nusra.”

The “zone of silence” or “silent period” (and there are other phrases for it) refers to the areas in Syria that would be excluded from the ceasefire.

In other words: Lavrov was saying that whereas Russia’s President Putin refuses to stop military action in Syria to kill Syria’s Al Qaeda, America’s President Obama has been continuing, ever since the U.S.-Russian negotiations for a ceasefire in Syria started in January of this year, to insist that Russia must stop bombing those jihadists. Russia’s Foreign Minister was saying that Obama has been trying to protect Al Nusra.

Here is a chronological presentation of the reporting in the Western press, about U.S. President Obama’s efforts on behalf of Syria’s Al Qaeda (Al Nusra):

On 7 January 2016, Seymour Hersh reported in the London Review of Books

Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are ‘moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration’s fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China. …

The military’s resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya. …

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the opposition. …

On 20 January 2016, the AP headlined “Kerry, Lavrov try to settle differences over Syrian talks”, and reported,

Differences over which Syrian opposition groups should be labeled terrorists and barred from the negotiations and the ceasefire have led to concerns that the talks may have to be postponed. Russia and Iran, which back Assad, have immense differences with Saudi Arabia, other Arab states, the United States and Europe over which opposition groups should be considered terrorists and therefore excluded.

On 12 February 2016, the New York Times bannered, “In Syria, Skepticism That Cease-Fire Will Stop Fighting”, and reported that,

With the proviso that the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, can still be bombed, Russia puts the United States in a difficult position; the insurgent groups it [i.e., the U.S.] supports cooperate in some places with the well-armed, well-financed Nusra in what they [i.e., the U.S. government] say is a tactical alliance of necessity[with Nusra] against [Syrian] government forces. So Russia can argue that many of them [by which the NYT journalist refers to anti-Assad fighters] are, in effect, Nusra affiliates.

On 16 February 2016, independent journalist Gareth Porter headlined “Obama’s ‘Moderate’ Syrian Deception”, and reported that,

Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces is engaged in a military structure controlled by Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it.

That reporter, unlike some others, assumes that Obama’s support of Syria’s Al Qaeda is due to Obama’s weakness in adhering to the desires of haters of Russia, both in the U.S. and among America’s allies abroad:

President Obama is under pressure from these domestic critics as well as from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other GCC allies to oppose any gains by the Russians and the Assad regime as a loss for the United States.

Mr. Porter presents no evidence backing up his assumption that President Obama is reluctant to adhere to this obsession against Russia. Seymour Hersh had reported, in his 7 January 2016 LRBreport, facts that contradict Mr. Porter’s assumption:

General Dempsey and his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff kept their dissent out of bureaucratic channels, and survived in office. General Michael Flynn did not. ‘Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria,’ said Patrick Lang, a retired army colonel who served for nearly a decade as the chief Middle East civilian intelligence officer for the DIA. ‘He thought truth was the best thing and they shoved him out.’

In other words: Despite the opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Obama was determined to help Nusra replace the Assad government. Despite what Mr. Porter assumed, Barack Obama was not a weak President, but instead a very determined President, a President who fired people in his Administration who advised him against continuing his attempt to replace al-Assad by al-Nusra. Russia insisted on bombing them, and reluctantly — and in fits and starts — U.S. President Obama accepted Russia’s condition.

On 19 February 2016, the Washington Post bannered “U.S., Russia hold Syria cease-fire talks as deadline passes without action”, and reported that,

Russia was said to have rejected a U.S. proposal to leave Jabhat al-Nusra off-limits to bombing as part of a cease-fire.

This report even included an indication that President Obama’s current Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who had started his job on 17 February 2015, after the war against Syria was already well under way and Obama had replaced the people on his team who were opposed to it, is, if anything, even more obsessive against Russia than Obama himself is:

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter was said to have opposed the high-level contact with the Russians, at least initially.

In other words: when Obama replaced Chuck Hagel by Ashton Carter, he was replacing someone whom he held to be insufficiently anti-Russian, by a person, Carter, who is so extremely hostile toward Russians, as to have since been restrained by Obama from pursuing this hostility as forcefully as he wishes to. The only Cabinet member mentioned there as having persuaded Obama not to follow Carter’s more aggressive stance against Russia was Obama’s second-term Secretary of State, John Kerry.

On 20 February 2016, Reuters headlined “Syrian opposition says temporary truce possible, but deal seems far off”, and, under the sub-head “Nusra Front in Spotlight,” reported that,

A source close to peace talks earlier told Reuters Syria’s opposition had agreed to the idea of a two- to three-week truce.

The truce would be renewable and supported by all parties except Islamic State, the source said.

It would be conditional on the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front no longer being attacked by Syrian government forces and their allies.

Of course, “Syria’s opposition” there included the United States; and so the U.S. President was, at that time, still insisting upon rejecting the Russian President’s demand that Nusra be included in the “zone of silence,” the locations where the war would continue uninterrupted during the otherwise-ceasefire.

That report went on:

The spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Peskov, said on Saturday: “Russia is sticking to its consistent policy of rendering assistance and aid to the armed forces of Syria in their offensive actions against terrorists and against terrorist organisations.”

The source close to peace talks described the opposition’s insistence on the Nusra Front no longer being targeted as “the elephant in the room”.

Obama, like King Saud, Emir Thani, Tayyip Erdogan, and the other enemies of Russia, still stood firm that Nusra not be destroyed.

Therefore, the issue of whether Putin would be allowed to continue bombing Nusra was a heavy topic of disagreement between Obama’s pro-al-Qaeda-in-Syria alliance, versus Putin’s anti-al-Qaeda-in-Syria alliance.

Seymour Hersh’s 7 January 2016 LRB article concluded:

Obama now has a more compliant Pentagon. There will be no more indirect challenges from the military leadership to his policy of disdain for Assad and support for Erdoğan. Dempsey and his associates remain mystified by Obama’s continued public defence of Erdoğan, given the American intelligence community’s strong case against him – and the evidence that Obama, in private, accepts that case.

Even though Obama accepts the case that Turkey’s leader, Erdoğan, is a dangerous man to be allied with, Obama moves forward with what is perhaps the most rabidly hostile toward Russia U.S. Administration ever. And this is after the USSR, and its NATO-mirror organization, the Warsaw Pact, were terminated by Russia in 1991, and after Al Qaeda perpetrated not only 9/11 but many other terrorist attacks, not only in the U.S., but in many of America’s allied countries — not to mention in Russia itself.

Furthermore, Seymour Hersh, in his 4 April 2014 article in LRB, “The Red Line and the Rat Line”, said that,

The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway [of weapons from Gaddafi’s stockpiles in Libya] into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. 

And, even prior to that, on 7 October 2013, Christof Lehmann at his site nsnbc.me, headlined “Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria”, and opened by summarizing:

Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry.

He said that, regarding the 21 August 2013 sarin gas attack, which Obama claims crossed his “red line” to launch an invasion of Syria to overthrow Assad, and which Hersh and others report to have been based actually on Obama’s and his allies’ “Rat Line” of weapons from Libya into Syria, the initial decision was made by the Saudi agent in Syria, Zahran Alloush:

The final decision, made by Zahran Alloush may in fact have been predetermined together with his U.S. – Saudi liaison officers.

Launching a chemical weapons attack would allow the USA, UK and France, to call for military strikes against Syria and to turn the tide.

Zahran Alloush was killed by a Russian missile on Christmas Day 2015, and his nephew and close associate Mohammed Alloush was chosen by King Salman al-Saud (actually by his son Prince Salman al-Saud) to lead the Syrian opposition in the peace talks on the Syrian war. Zahran Alloush, like the Saud family, favored extermination of Shiites (including Assad), and so does Mohammed Alloush, which (besides the Alloushes’ support of foreign jihad generally) is perhaps the main reason why the Sauds had selected him to lead the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-Turkish side in these peace negotiations against Syria. However, the Alloushes also greatly admire Osama bin Laden, who founded Al Qaeda; and, so, in total, there can be little if any doubt that what Lavrov was reported on May 4th to have said about Obama’s support for Syria’s Al Qaeda makes sense, even though Obama himself had arranged for bin Laden to be killed.

It seems that, at least after Obama’s success at killing off many of Al Qaeda’s leaders, he is determined to support Al Qaeda’s original jihad, which had been against the Soviet Union, and which continues now against Russia and its ally Assad. Obama therefore protects, and helps to arm, Al Qaeda in Syria, so as to eliminate, if possible, yet another ally of Russia (after Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Viktor Yanukovych): this time Bashar al-Assad.

Whereas the U.S. and its allies will not likely affirm what Lavrov said, the facts do — even some that have been reported in the Western press — not only in non-Western media.

EXPOSED: CIA Director Works for Saudi Arabia

CIA Director John Brennan said Sunday that 28 classified pages of a bipartisan commission’s report on the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks contains “uncorroborated, unvetted information” that some could seize upon to claim Saudi Arabian involvement in the attacks.

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP_Today


Brennan, speaking on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” said such claims would be “very, very inaccurate.”http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/…


9/11 investigation will expose CIA, Mossad role: Scholar

CIA Director John Brennan is afraid of that a serious investigation into the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks will expose the role Israeli and American intelligence played in the 9/11 coup d’état, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003.

Dr. Barrett, a founding member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11, made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Monday, after Brennan said that it would be a mistake to release the 28 classified pages from the 9/11 Commission report because they contain “un-vetted” information that could implicate Saudi Arabia in the terrorist attacks.

“This chapter was kept out because of concerns about sensitive methods, investigative actions, and the investigation of 9/11 was still underway in 2002,” Brennan told NBC News on Sunday.

The CIA chief said releasing the 28-page classified document would give ammunition to those who want to tie the terrorist attacks to Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Barrett said “the real reason that [Brennan] is opposed to opening this can of worms is that the Intelligence Community has got a serious problem on their hands here, because the fact is, as a top level official told the New York Times that in 2001, ‘9/11 was not an intelligence failure, 9/11 was an intelligence success.’”

“I am not sure why they considered this an intelligence success at the time, but we certainly saw all kinds of celebrations going on in high levels American places after 9/11. We had President [George W.] Bush smoking a cigar with his adopted cousin Bandar ‘Bush’, the leading Saudi representative in the United States, on the White House balcony – I think it was September 12th when two of them shared a celebratory cigar. “We had Bush calling a huge party at the CIA, I think, a week or ten days after 9/11. Again it was a celebration!”

“I don’t know precisely what the details were, but what we know overall about September 11th was that it was a coup d’état by the neoconservative wing of the US power structure. It probably was operated through intelligence assets, primarily the Israeli Mossad, which must have played the lead role, but apparently the top of the American command chain was complicit as well,” Dr. Barrett said.

“So this is the real picture here. And the fact is that the CIA or elements of the CIA did participate in the coup d’état of September 11, 2001, they brought those so-called Saudi nationals over into the United States as CIA assets – that is they were not Saudi, they were American assets,” he pointed out.

“They were brought over to the United States over CIA snitch visas – a particular kind of pseudo work visa that is given to Saudi CIA assets as a reward for their service,” he stated.

“So this is the sort of thing that will come out if there is a serious investigation, and the 28 pages will point at the so-called hijackers who were actually patsies, who were not even on the planes, how they were brought over and set up by the CIA.”

What kind of role Saudis played in 9/11?

“The actual document points at the Saudis, and that’s of course because the CIA and Mossad intentionally arranged and made sure that there would be Saudi funding traces to these patsies so that Saudi Arabia could be blamed after 9/11 and pressured,” Dr. Barrett said.

“And that’s what they are doing now. They are pressuring Saudi Arabia because of the differences between the US and the Saudis right now,” he added.

“If this can of worms gets opened up, and there is some kind of honest investigation it would quickly show that the Saudis only played a minor role in 9/11, and they did so under orders from the real power structure in the world which is the Zionist banker power structure that rules the United States, and it is often more concerned about Israel than about the United States,” the analyst stated.

“So Brennan clearly doesn’t want to take a chance that this is all going to blow up in his face, and that we’re going to have war crimes trials here in the United States, treason trials, and we’re going to discover that our government has been essentially taken over by traitors and stooges of Israel,” the scholar concluded.


Former FBI Agent Mark Rossini Driven to Expose CIA’s 9/11 Secret

In 2000, then-FBI agent Mark Rossini was a witness to perhaps the most disastrous and consequential incident in the history of the U.S. intelligence community—one he believes is ultimately the only reason why al Qaeda was able to kill 2,977 people on September 11, 2001 and unleash a chain of worldwide aftershocks that continue to this day.

Rossini told 28Pages.org about the CIA’s intentional obstruction of a warning about a future 9/11 hijacker, and the agency secret that he thinks lies behind it.

In January 2000, Mark Rossini and Doug Miller were FBI agents with an unusual assignment: They worked in the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, code-named “Alec Station.”

That month, the CIA learned that known Al Qaeda terrorist Khalid al-Midhar—who had been linked to a pair of devastating attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa and who had just attended a terrorist summit in Malaysia—had obtained a multi-entry visa enabling him to travel to the United States.

To alert his FBI superiors that a known “bad actor” was now equipped to travel to the homeland—the FBI’s jurisdiction—Miller dutifully drafted a Central Intelligence Report, or CIR. To the astonishment of Miller and Rossini, however, the message was stopped in its tracks.

A CIA supervisor, responding via the computer system that managed the flow of CIRs, wrote: “pls hold off on CIR for now per Tom Wilshire.” Wilshire was Alec Station’s deputy chief.

Bewildered and alarmed, given what was at stake, Miller turned to Rossini who, as the senior of the two, took it upon himself to follow up with the supervisor. In his interview with 28Pages.org, Rossini would not name this person—whose name is still considered classified—and instead referred to her using the pseudonym “Michelle.” Elsewhere, however, it’s been reported that the CIA supervisor was a woman named Michael Anne Casey.

In a heated exchange, Rossini says Casey told him, “You are not to tell the FBI about it. When and if we want the FBI to know about it, we will.”

Had the FBI been alerted, Rossini says, “(FBI counter-terror chief) John O’Neill would have assembled a whole team to come to the agency and demanded a meeting and ask how do you know about this information, why do you know about this information, and for how long?”

The questions would have been followed by decisive action. “If they come here, we’re going to follow them and put them on every watch list, put them in a computer system, tickler the NSA because the NSA monitors all their travel and tickets and everything. They’re coming to America? Great. We’ll have people there that day to follow them in America,” he says. Given such scrutiny, it seems likely the broader plot could have been detected and foiled.

But because of Wilshire’s directive and its enforcement by Casey, none of that happened. Instead, on September 11, al-Midhar helped hijack American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon and killed 64 people on the aircraft and 125 on the ground.

The CIA incident—and the thought of what would have happened if he or Doug had disobeyed the order—has weighed heavily on Rossini ever since.

Today, Rossini is a man on a mission—a mission to expose what he believes was an illegal CIA operation that was the reason for the agency’s interference: “I’m trying to prove circumstantially, for the rest of my life, there was a recruitment op that went bad.”

Rossini is convinced that the CIA, in an effort to get more information on al Qaeda, was trying to recruit al-Midhar or, less likely, his close associate, Nawaf al-Hazmi—in other words, to turn one or both of them into a source that would share the terror organization’s secrets. Doing so on U.S. soil without consulting the FBI is prohibited. Bush counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who was also kept in the dark, embraces the same theory.

More Suspicious Behavior…and a Cover-Up

According to a revealing 2011 story by Rory O’Connor and Ray Nowosielski in Salon, although Casey prevented Miller and Rossini from alerting the FBI, she sent out a message—or cable, in CIA parlance—to others in the CIA saying the FBI had been notified. And she sent that message two days before the heated conversation with Rossini.

Casey’s supervisor, identified by O’Connor and Nowosielski as Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, would later tell investigators working for the 2002 joint congressional intelligence inquiry into 9/11 that she had personally delivered al-Midhar’s visa information to FBI headquarters, a statement proven false when the investigators checked the FBI visitor log.

That congressional inquiry, a precursor to the 9/11 Commission, is the same one that produced the famously classified, 28-page chapter documenting foreign government ties to 9/11.

Rossini says that, before the inquiry’s investigators arrived, the word was put out: “You’re not to talk about anything going on here. Those (joint inquiry investigators) are not cleared to know about the operations going on here, so just keep your mouth shut. No one said ‘lie,’ but it was put in my head that they’re after somebody to put in jail. And I wasn’t allowed to have an attorney present,” says Rossini.

While Rossini didn’t have an attorney, someone else was present in the interview: A CIA monitor, taking notes. “Every question I was asked, she would just look at me in the eye and stare at me while I talked,” says Rossini, whose repeated responses of “I don’t know” and “I don’t remember” made for a very brief discussion: “Maybe 15 minutes at most.”

Looking back now and asked to characterize the CIA’s approach to the joint inquiry, Rossini replies, “Obstruction. And fear. An assurance that questions would just hit roadblocks.” Those roadblocks were so effective that the 9/11 Commission skipped Miller and Rossini altogether.

It wasn’t until the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) conducted its own 9/11 inquiries—with an assurance that participants needn’t worry about being prosecuted, found civilly liable or losing their jobs—that Rossini finally felt comfortable fully exposing the CIA’s stifling of the warning about al-Midhar.

The OPR interviews took place in a conference room filled with executives and staff members. “We came in one by one, and you sat at the end of the table. It was like a Senate hearing and they peppered you with questions.” Rossini was near one of seven audio recorders arrayed around the table. The FBI’s assistant director of OPR, Candice Will, was seated next to him.

Then came the question he yearned to answer: “Mark, why do you think Doug’s memo didn’t go?”

“I can be a little cheeky,” says Rossini. “I tapped the recorder and looked at Candice Will in the eye and said, ‘This thing on?’ She smiled and said ‘yes’ and I said, ‘Well, let me tell you a little story…’”

The Unasked, Unanswered Question: “Why Did You Write That?”

Though Rossini has told his story, what’s missing, he says, is the rationale behind the message that halted Miller’s CIR: “pls hold off for now on CIR per Tom Wilshire.”

“No one’s ever drilled down on the person who wrote it and found out why. Not to my knowledge. The 9/11 Commission certainly didn’t do it,” says Rossini. “We need to know why she wrote that, and why (Tom Wilshire) told her to tell that to Doug. And what was said between those two people. The answer to that is the reason 9/11 happened. No other issue. No other thing.”

“Tell me why. Why you hold off on sending a CIR to the FBI that evil people that you took the time and effort to follow halfway around the globe, you hold off on telling the bureau that they have visas to come to the USA. There’s no logical reason. None, other than they wanted to recruit somebody or try to and they didn’t want the FBI in the form of John O’Neill messing up their operation and they didn’t want the FBI to cause embarrassment to the Saudi regime.”

Rossini said that, to protect Saudi Arabia from embarrassment, the CIA and its Saudi Arabian counterparts had something of a gentleman’s agreement—one that can help explain why the CIA wouldn’t want the FBI to know a prominent al-Qaeda member was poised to travel to the United States.

“(Former CIA officer) Bruce Reidel says that, essentially, the U.S. government had an agreement with the Saudi GID—the General Intelligence Directorate, their version of a combined FBI/CIA—that if and when we identify wayward Saudis around the globe, boys that had lost their moral compass, if you will, rather than embarrassing the regime and arresting them with big splashy headlines like we’re prone to do, we would get them back home to be reprogrammed. Or—we use the term in the FBI—‘rechromed,”’ said Rossini. “If you screw up in the FBI, they’ll send you to headquarters for two years to be rechromed, and you come out like a fresh new Cadillac.”

The kingdom’s extreme fear of embarrassment—which Rossini says flows from its self-perceived position as the promoter of pure Islam and the keeper of the religion’s two holiest sites—obstructed the FBI before, in the wake of the 1996 bombing of a housing complex in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemembers.

“This all ties in to Khobar Towers and the FBI trying to go over there and interview the people and the Saudis executed them before they even got a chance to talk to them. Because they don’t want to be embarrassed,” says Rossini. “‘You can’t interview them, they’re dead.’”

“In my opinion, I think the person that was most logically recruited or intended to be recruited was Khalid al-Midhar, for the simple reason that he had a wife and children back in Yemen. Remember, he was allowed to go back home, get a new passport and come back to America,” says Rossini.

Connecting that CIA-GID understanding to his circumstantial case against the CIA, Rossini continued, “So when Khalid al-Midhar was identified, rather than making a big splashy headline, rather than letting my colleague’s memo go to the FBI and have John O’Neill and us go follow him and then maybe arrest him, the CIA said let him be rechromed, let him go back home to Yemen to see his wife, let him go get a new passport. And in that passport they put a chip or a code identifying him as someone who is to be watched.”

Rossini says the CIA’s feelings about O’Neill figured heavily in the agency’s behavior. “They feared John O’Neill being a loose cannon because they hated O’Neill and they feared O’Neill and they thought wrongly of O’Neill. And they feared O’Neill going in and arresting them and embarrassing the Saudis,” he says.

In a terrible twist, O’Neill was killed on September 11 in New York City, where he served as chief of security for the World Trade Center after leaving the FBI.

The CIA may also have realized they would likely clash on priorities. “The bureau, first of all, would never have given a damn about recruiting them. The first thing the bureau would have done is follow them. And monitor them and get a FISA and then maybe try to recruit them,” says Rossini.

Eventually, the CIA and FBI would talk—to a limited extent. In August of 2001, the CIA had a sudden change of attitude, calling a meeting with the FBI in New York to ask for the bureau’s help in tracking down al-Midhar and al-Hazmi. Notably, Rossini wasn’t invited, and the CIA wouldn’t tell the FBI exactly why they were looking for them.

To Rossini, the shift bolsters the proposition that the CIA had tried to recruit al-Midhar or al-Hazmi—but that something went very wrong.

“What happened in Yemen, when he was there? When he went back home, when he left America. Did someone talk to him, try to speak to him? That’s the thing we need to know. And why was he allowed to come back to America, on July 4th of all days? And then why did the CIA come running up to the FBI and saying ‘you gotta find these guys’? Why? Did Khalid al-Midhar tell them to go pound sand? Did he turn around and say I’m not going to talk to you anymore? Did he stop communicating and they couldn’t find him? That’s really it, that’s what we need to know,” said Rossini.

Footnote 44

Given the history-altering nature of the CIA’s silencing of Miller and Rossini, and the documented dishonesty of CIA supervisors that followed it, one would expect the incident to command an entire chapter within the 9/11 Commission Report—ostensibly a definitive accounting of the attacks and the government’s failure to thwart them. Instead, it’s relegated to a single endnote, buried deep within 116 pages of tiny print in the back of the book.

The 9/11 Commission Report's Full Treatment of the Doug Miller CIR Incident: Footnote 44, Chapter 6

Mr. Strada is not a footnote and neither is anybody else who died that day,” says Rossini with disgust. “I’m not a footnote, and you’re not a footnote. And to be treated like a footnote is sickening in a government that’s by the people for the people.”

There was a time when, so very fatefully, Mark Rossini was silenced. Today, he is speaking out forcefully and repeatedly, determined to help expose the secret buried somewhere behind footnote 44.


CIA DIRECTOR: 28 PAGE 9/11 REPORT IS HEARSAY

Secret agency already trying to cover up 28 pages before even being released


References:

28pages.org –  PressTV – The Alex Jones Channel – Prison Planet

Never Before Seen Photos from 9/11 RELEASED

It has been over 15 years since the tragic day of 9/11 and many who have survived that horrendous day are still having a hard time coping with everything that happened. One of those people affected is Ricki, a survivor who lived through the worst of that day and is still suffering physically and mentally from the trauma.

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP Today – Source: We Are Change


He has explained to us the shell shock and post traumatic stress he goes through almost everyday that made him close off and not develop the photos that he took that day. In an exclusive interview he gave WeAreChange, Ricki has entrusted us with those photos and told us to publish them. We are releasing all the photos that we were given for you, 14 years later that no one else has seen.

Ricki still has other photos that have not been released, these are the photos that we are given and we are letting you make up your own mind about them. Please also note Ricki is not a professional photographer and grabbed what he could to take these photos.

Watch The Original Video Here To Get The Full Story.

2ndStageCollapseExplosionPrematureRevealed

1TowerIIJustHitZoom2Before-Tower2CollapseGiveAwayPlaneFlyingByPic309112001

002_5-Copy-2

2ndStageCollapseExplosionPrematureRevealedZoom2

2ndStageCollapseExplosionPrematureRevealedZoom3

2ndStageCollapseExplosionPrematureRevealedZoom4

003_6-Copy-2

004_7-Copy-2

006_9-Copy-2

011_14-Copy

012_15

013_16-Copy

014_17

015_18

016_19

018_21

019_22

020_23

021_24

022_25

022_25

023_1

024_2

025_3

026_4

027_9

028_10

029_11

030_12

031_5

033_7

034_8

035_13

037_15

038_16

039_17

040_18

041_19

042_20

043_21

044_22

045_23

046_24

001_4

032_6

New Evidence Links Saudi Arabia Embassy To 9/11 Attacks

Explosive new evidence has been released that directly connects the Saudi Arabia government to the 9/11 terror attacks, on the day that President Barack Obama arrived in Riyadh for an awkward meeting with the Saudi regime.

By Nerti U. Qatja@VOP_Today – Source: Daily Mail

The flight certificate belonging to Al-Qaeda bomb maker Ghassan Al-Sharbi has been discovered secretly hidden away in an envelope inside the Saudi embassy in Washington. The document, discovered by the FBI, offers compelling evidence that Saudi Arabia were involved in the orchestration of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

They were only brought to the public’s attention when an activist discovered them and wrote about them on his website earlier this week.

The release has fueled concerns the Saudi government may have been linked to the coordinated attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people and come at a particularly sensitive time.

President Obama has just arrived in the country amid mounting pressure to declassify a 28-page section of a Congressional report which many believe will point to Saudi involvement in the 9/11 plane hijackings.

Activist Brian McGlinchey claimed the details of the flight certificate would lead to people questioning the extent government individuals were involved, according to The Times.

He said:

The envelope points to the fundamental question hanging over us today: to what extent was the 9/11 plot facilitated by individuals at the highest levels of the Saudi government?”

The claims are highly significant as President Obama arrived in Saudi Arabia this morning so he could meet with officials.

The talks come at a critical time in the U.S.-Saudi relationship, with 9/11 victims’ families again pushing Congress for the right to sue Saudi Arabia over the death of their loved ones.

Previous court decisions have ruled that there is insufficient evidence to find Saudi Arabia culpable in the terror attacks, which is why they are now calling for the release of 28 classified pages from the 9/11 congressional report which is believed to show a stronger connection to Saudi funding of the attacks.

This has put Obama in a difficult position, with 9/11 families accusing him of siding with the Kingdom and Saudi officials threatening to sell hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets if Congress passes a bill that would allow the government to be sued over the attacks.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has said his country would sell up to $750 billion in US treasury securities and other assets before the bill puts them in jeopardy.

The administration has tried to stop Congress from passing the legislation, a bipartisan Senate bill. Earlier this week, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary indicated that President Obama would veto any such legislation.