Whilst we shouldn't necessarily dwell on the past, we surely must have a collective responsibility to be aware of history so that we can avoid making the same mistakes. The past is frought with examples of governmental foul play and merely scratching at the surface tells us that what is happening today draws disturbing parrallels with other major documented events in history. Before exploring those parrallels, though, it is important to obtain some perspective.
September 11th and the War on Terror
As we all rembember only too well, on September 11th, 2001 an event occurred which would change our lives forever. Within hours of this event Al Qaeda, and in particular Osama bin Laden, were identified as the perpertators. Within days, the hijackers' photographs were displayed on television screens across the globe and we were subsequently warned by Bush that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" in the "War on Terror". The alleged mastermind, bin Laden, was promised he would be taken "dead or alive".
Fast forward to today and it is easy amidst the constant media bombardment of the "War on Terror" to lose sight of how we came to be where we are and to apply some perspective and objectivity to the numerous media reports that fill our collective consciousness. When we do ask questions, the answers are often denied us for the sake of of national security. We are, therefore, expected to trust our government and intelligence agencies as they are doing everything they can to protect us and ensure our wellbeing - this is in spite of the numerous occasions in which they have been wrong, and in certain cases, have cynically lied to us.
We all know about the sexed up "dodgy dossier" upon which the case for war in Iraq was based and the subsequent chaos and death that continues to ensue as a result of that intelligence report, which was no more than an internet cut-and-paste job. The war in Afghanistan also continues to rage, with more troops recently deployed to the country. In addition, the rhetoric surrounding Iran's nuclear intentions has increased, with military action not ruled out as an option sometime in the future. Only too often have we seen what the results of "not ruling out military action" tend to be.
We are now in an unprecendent time where war is waged preemptively and we are being led to believe by our governments that the "War on Terror" could last the next hundred years. Surely, given this alleged major threat to civilisation, it is vital that
the intelligence upon which decisions to reduce our freedoms and go to war is based is real, accurate and subject to close scrutiny. This, unfortunately, remains a mere pipe dream.
The Media and the Public Myth
One of the great public myths in society is that if there were any serious doubts with regards the official version of the events of 9/11, the media would expose it. Many of us haven't the time to read the 571 page Official 9/11 Commission report, let alone search and review the mass of omitted evidence and testimonies. We rely on our media to seek out and provide information for us and to represent it accurately and with impartiality. We place our trust in them and, therefore, have a dependence upon their ability to bring real facts about important issues to our attention. Unfortunately, at least with regards to 9/11, nothing could be further from the truth.
Whilst 9/11 is used as justification by our governments to pursue wars and to increase government surveillance and security domestically, thereby eroding our civil liberties, the true facts surrounding the most shocking and influential attack in modern history continue to be ignored by our media. By exploring this and other listed websites, you will come to understand how our governments and the corporate media have chosen either to ignore or cover up some of the most obvious fundamental flaws and contradictions in the official version of 9/11.
The following are just a few examples of the media's refusal to acknowledge facts that completely fly in the face of the official account, thereby casting doubt over Osama bin Laden's involvement in the attacks.
The FBI's embarrassing admission
Firstly, the FBI recently admitted that they have "no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11". Given that this was the reason for the war in Afghanistan and was the ignition in the "War on Terror", why is this not national news? We have already established that we were lied to over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - that's two wars in recent years, both without justifcation. What kind of freedom promoting democracy insisists on going to war, subsequently killing many thousands of innocent people, based on information that wouldn't convict in a court of law?
The Osama bin Laden confessions
Here is a photo of the real Osama (right), compared to a still capture of the man in the alleged confession tape. As you can see from the largely differing facial structure, this is unquestionably not the real Osama, yet this video tape was presented to us in the media and used to help garner public acceptance of the view that Osama was responsible for 9/11. The media ignore the fact that this video, conveniently found in a house in Afghanistan, does not show the real Osama bin Laden.
Additionally, this confession contradicts other reported words from Osama himself as broadcast on Al-jazeera just a few days after 9/11:
"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation,"
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle"
Whilst these facts do not exonorate Osama from any participation in the attacks on September 11th, their existence does cast doubt over whether he was indeed involved. The fact that our media and government continue to push the myth that Osama bin Laden was responsible in light of these fundamental contradictions, is a cause for great concern. At the very least, it suggests that at a time when we most need them we cannot assume that our media will address this vital issue. At worst, it suggests they are complicit in the cover up.
Regardless of whether our media is knowingly covering up the truth of 9/11, these cases alone highlight the need for a further investigation into 9/11, yet the false admissions are still accepted by the media and, subsequently, the general public as proof of Osama bin Laden's guilt.
The independent commission?
It is worth noting that the 9/11 Commission had many obvious conflicts of interest. The most serious of these, inexplicably, was that it's contents and lines of enquiry were chosen by the Executive Director, Philip Zelikow, who had worked for both Bush administrations and who also had worked and co-written a book with Condoleezza Rice. Secretary of State, Rice, was herself to be interviewed in the so called investigations whilst Zelikow was also to go before the commission in relation to information to which he was privvy during his time working with intelligence around the time of 9/11. How is it acceptable that an investigation into the most serious terrorist attack in history is headed by a Bushite, who himself is required to be investigated as part of the proceedings and who has clearly had a close relationship with a key witness?
It is also important to note that Dick Cheney and George Bush agreed to testify in front of the Commission only if they were together in a closed-door session with a select few members of the team, that they not be under oath and that no stenographer was present, thereby preventing official records from being kept. They also requested that the enquiry be limited. These conditions were met, however, this kind of behaviour seems somewhat peculiar for a government with nothing to hide.
The amount of key areas of enquiry that were either ignored or glossed over is startling. Please take some time view the rest of this website and other links, where you will find a mass of evidence, eyewitness testimony and video footage that completely contradicts the offical version of events.
The media area of this website area contains links to many free to view documentaries that you can access online immediately.
For those that have done little or no research into the facts of 9/11, World Trade Centre Building 7 is a good starting point. Ignored by the 9/11 Commission report and the media, this building was only the third steel framed high rise building ever to have collapsed due to fire - the first two were World Trade Centres 1 & 2. Never in history has a total collapse of a steel framed high rise building been attributable to anything other than a controlled demolition. Carbon fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel, let alone create a sudden, symmetrical collapse at virtually free-fall speed and into its own footprint.
Subsequently, the testimony of the then-newly acquired leaseholder of the World Trade Centre, Larry Silverstein, admitted that he had spoken with the fire department that afternoon who had made the decision to pull the building. The term to "pull" is used in the controlled demolition industry to refer to the bringing down of a building by explosives.
A controlled demolition, incidentally, would usually take weeks of preparation to carry out, making it inconceivable to suggest Al Qaeda could have carried out such a task alone.
In addition to the mass of other key lines of enquiry, the 9/11 Commission Report chose to ignore Building 7 and Larry Silverstein's statement. Rather than explain its collapse - an unprecedented event - it chose to leave it out completely, therefore, avoiding the problem of explaining the demolition. To this day, we have no official explanation for the collapse of this building, although the reason appears allarmingly obvious to anybody who isn't visually impaired.
The avoidance of this contradiction to the official account is typical of the 9/11 Commission and strictly speaking, it is difficult to see how proceedings can even be classed as an investigation given that the Commission's lines of enquiry were limited to only those that would reinforce the already held assumption that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were responsible for the attacks. Key lines of investigation were, and continue to be, ignored. Therefore,
the belief that 9/11 Commission was independent and a full and factual account is completely without foundation and merely another myth.
Plans for war pre 9/11, PNAC and the need for a new Pearl Harbor
It is now widely known that the US had planned to invade Afghanistan months in advance of September 11th. Osama bin Laden was declared responsible for 9/11 within hours of the event, yet it is accepted that we have "no hard evidence" 5 years later. We also discovered that Bush and Blair had long discussed invading Iraq and, according to the leaked White House Memo, George Bush and Tony Blair discussed using an American Spyplane in UN colours to lure Saddam Hussain into war. Although this particular scenario never transpired, their war was eventually acheived on the basis of blatantly inaccurate information such as that contained in the aforementioned "dodgy dossier".
Interestingly, the year before 9/11, a number of high level members of the Bush administration to include Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Chief of Staff Lewis Libby were part of a neo-conservative thinktank called Project for the New American Century who, in a document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" envisioned a greater US role in the world.
The PNAC philosophy, formed in repsonse to the ending of the Cold War and the emergence of the US as the world's only preeminent superpower, called for a massive increase in military spending and a stronger presence in the Middle East.
The document says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” It goes on to say the “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” but that “the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Emphasis added]
Given this publicly available information it is apparent that it is not only Osama bin Laden that would appear to have a motive for the attacks on the World Trade Centre.
These other motives, however, were completely ignored by the official commission, again, one can only assume because the commission only chose to pursue lines of enquiry that implicated Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The mass of evidence and eye witness testimony that contradicts this assumption was merely ignored or falsified.
Regardless, as we have seen above, the FBI now admits that they have no hard evidence to support this previous assumption, a startling admission that completely contradicts public understanding and serves as admittance that we still do not know the truth about those responsible for the attacks on 9/11, the new Pearl Harbor.
The Nazis, the Reichstag Fire and the Enabling Act
So, of the parrallels in history that were referred to earlier. Merely scratching at the surface of history shows us what can happen when the state acquires arbitrary power to do as it pleases — Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia are examples of a state acquiring complete power to do anything it wants to. In the case of Hitler, he gained power in a Germany after the defeat of World War I and used propaganda to instil a heightened sense of nationalism and anti-semitism, subsequently establishing a fascist dictatorship. In order for a government to aquire totalitarian power, a threat - if one doesn't already exist - needs to be created: Problem, Reaction, Solution.
Soon after the passing of The Enabling Act all other political parties were dissolved, trade unions were liquidated and opposition clergy were arrested. With no political opposition and with control of the media for propaganda, the Nazi's were able to pursue their quest for global dominance without political obstruction domestically and with the support of much of the German population.
Our history books tell us about Hitler and the Nazi's actions, and how they impacted upon the world. Only after the Nuremberg trials did the German population realise that they had been manipulated by their government and media's promotion of a false threat. By then, of course, it was too late.
Operation Northwoods - a warning?
For those that find it difficult to believe that other major western governments could even consider adopting the tactics of the Nazis by using false flag operations in order to acheive public support for the pursuit of geostrategic objectives, please consider Operation Northwoods, a 1962 plan that was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.
The plan, whilst never implemented, was sent to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara for approval in response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project.
Declassified in 1998, the document suggests various staged terrorist attacks, which could be blamed on Cuba and used to garner public support for a military action against the country.
Suggested operations included, amongst others, destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday", firebombing and sinking an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base,
destroying an American aircraft and blaming it on Cuban forces or staging a "terror campaign" including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees.
Thankfully, none of these events occurred due to Kennedy's refusal of the plan. However, the very existence of this document, and the types of operations suggested, should act as a warning to us all that this kind of thinking has existed in US government and only requires a nod rather than a shake of the head from a US President for it to come into force.
FBI involvement in World Trade Centre Bombing, 1993
More recently, in the course of the trial after the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, which killed 6 and injured 1,042, it was revealed that the FBI informant, an Egyptian man named Ehmad Salem claimed to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992.
Initially believing that this was going to be a sting operation, he stated that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder rather than actual explosives to build their bomb, but that the FBI insisted he supply them with real explosives. He substantiated his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings. These recordings remain in possession of the FBI.
In one of the recordings Emad A. Salem made of a telephone conversation he had with one of his FBI handlers, FBI Special Agent John Anticev, Emad A. Salem admits to building the bomb which exploded in the World Trade Center with the supervision of the FBI and the District Attorney of the City of New York. In the recording, FBI Special Agent John Anticev does not disagree with Emad A. Salem's account of the bombing.
Whilst the narrative in this section of the website is extremely suggestive, it's purpose is not to imply a particular scenario rather it is to provide some perspective and to dispell the myths surrounding the events of 9/11, thereby encouraging others to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.
Whilst there are many differring theories regarding 9/11, the need for a new investigation into 9/11 is not in debate. Only a truly independent commission with full subpoena powers will establish this truth. A handpicked commission with a Republican at the helm, limited and obstructed lines of enquiry and Busy and Cheney not under Oath, does not constitute an independent commission.
As we are already aware, it only requires people with the necessary lack of integrity and complete power over its population, as in the case of Nazi Germany, to initiate worldwide catastrophe.
In todays nuclear environment we surely cannot wait until the next post-war trial to establish whether 9/11 was another Reichstag fire.
Our group
We are a local 9/11 truth group, part of the 9/11 Truth Campaign (UK & Ireland) and the wider global movement, whose aim is to increase awareness of the need for a new investigation into 9/11.
The 9/11 Truth Movement is growing at an overwhelming rate. In many countries local groups continue to be set up, often with little or no financial help, with the aim of bringing about a truly independent investigation into the events of that tragic day. Our government and media are failing us. With so much at stake, and with our freedoms being eroded, the time has come for us to pull together and demand answers.
We will be holding regular events at which we will show 9/11 related documentaries, invite guest speakers and hold question and answers sessions. If you would like
to keep informed of any upcoming local events, please click here.
We will also be holding regular meetings which are an open invitation to all. We do not operate
on a membership basis and individuals are free to attend as much or as little as they wish. However, if you would like to help the group in spreading local awareness about 9/11, click here.
