ZERO, an investigation into 9/11

This brand new feature documentary from Italian production company Telemaco explores the latest scientific evidence and reveals dramatic new witness testimony, which directly conflicts with the US Government’s account.

Featuring presentations from intellectual heavy weights; Gore Vidal, and Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo, the film challenges assumptions surrounding the attacks. In the words of the Italian daily newspaper, Il Corriere de da Sera, “What results is a sequence of contradictions, gaps, and omissions of stunning gravity.”

The importance of this film can not be overstated. If its thesis is correct, the justification for going to war in Iraq is built on a series of outrageous lies.

On Tuesday 26th February, Europarlementarian Guilietto Chiesa invited his colleagues and the press to attend the screening and debate of the Italian-produced documentary named ‘ZERO, an investigation into the events of 9/11’. Object of the screening was to create political awareness of the faulty official investigation into the events by the 9/11 Commission.

Besides Mr Chiesa, the panel consisted of Japanese parlementarian Fujita, Dr David Ray Griffin, film distributor Tim Sparke & the director and producers of the film.

After his opening statements, Mr Chiesa welcomed his guest speakers, including the producers, director and distributor of the documentary. Mr Chiesa pointed out that he was unable to find any distributor in his native country of Italy and was happy to find a company in the UK, led by Mr Tim Sparke, to handle worldwide distribution of this important film. ‘It is important to realize,’ he emphasized ‘that the movie was made thanks to contribution and donations of hundreds of citizens who feel a new investigation is more than warranted.’ No less than 450 people worked on this documentary on a voluntary basis. They never received any kind of payment. Their reward is the movie itself, which they feel is an instrument to create awareness and a means to provoke a political debate in Europe.

ZERO, Enquête sur le 11 Septembre

Basé sur une enquête de Giulietto Chiesa.

Cette investigation journalistique approfondie s’appuie sur des interviews, filmées dans plusieurs pays, avec des survivants et témoins du 11 Septembre, ainsi que divers techniciens, scientifiques, chercheurs, journalistes et experts qui donnent toute sa crédibilité à l’enquête.

Y figurent en outre des enregistrements sonores et vidéo inédits et exclusifs, des documents officiels ainsi que des modélisations informatiques inédites.

Trois personnalités hors pair, Giulietto Chiesa, Dario Fo, et Gore Vidal, interviennent dans ce documentaire et guident le spectateur tout au long des moments clés du film.

JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick

The who, how & why of the JFK assassination. Taken from an historical perspective starting around world war 1 leading to present day. We hope after watching this video you will know more about what happened in the past and how the world is run today. The Facts only the Facts.

9/11 – The Mother Of All Big Lies

image

By Stephen LENDMAN

They’re an American tradition. They date from the republic’s inception. Notable ones began in the mid-19th century.

They facilitated annexing Texas. Half of Mexico followed. America became Cuba’s colonial power.

Controlling the Philippines, Guam, Samoa, Hawaii, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Canal Zone, Puerto Rico and other territories followed.

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson manipulated public sentiment. He did so with Big Lies.

They turned most Americans into raging German haters. Big Lies work this way. Wilson got the war he wanted.

FDR manipulated Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Doing so let him wage war.

He had to convince Congress and a pacifist public to go along.
What better way than by manufacturing terror.

Washington and Seoul conspired against Pyongyang. Numerous 1949/1950 cross-border incursions provoked its June response. Truman got the war he wanted.

War against North Vietnam followed the fake August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Doing so authorized war without declaring it.

Reagan’s 1983 Grenada invasion had nothing to do with rescuing US medical students. It was about replacing leftist New Jewel Movement governance with pro-Western stooge allies.

In December 1989, manufactured incidents precipitated America’s Panama invasion. Former US ally Manuel Noriega was deposed. At issue was forgetting who’s boss.

In August 1990, Washington colluded with Kuwait’s al-Sabah monarchy. Saddam Hussein was entrapped to invade.

In January 1991, the Gulf War followed. Over two decades of sanctions, war, occupation, and destruction of the “cradle of civilization” followed.

It bears repeating. 9/11 is the mother of all Big Lies. Thirteen years of imperial wars followed.

They continue. One country after another is targeted. Ravaging, destroying, colonizing, exploiting and controlling them reflect official US policy.

Homeland wars target Muslims, people of color, Latino immigrants and working Americans.

Award-winning author David Ray Griffin researched 9/11 exhaustively. He did so in 10 books, many articles and lectures. He provided vital evidence too important to ignore.

In April 2006, he discussed “9/11: The Myth and the Reality,” saying:
“It would seem, for many reasons, that the official story of 9/11, which has served as a religious Myth in the intervening years (and still does), is a myth in the pejorative sense of a story that does not correspond to reality.”
In September 2008, Griffin headlined “September 11, 2001: 21 Reasons to Question the Official Story about 9/11.”
The FBI admitted it “ha(d) no hard evidence connecting” 9/11 to bin Laden.

So-called devout Muslim alleged hijackers drank heavily, frequented strip clubs and paid for sex.

Technology in 2001 made cell phone calls made from above 30,000 feet impossible.

The FBI lied claiming Mohamed Atta’s left behind luggage contained “decisive evidence” about Al Qaeda responsibility for the attacks.

Passports allegedly found at United 93’s crash site were fake.

Alleged hijackers weren’t aboard the four fateful flights.

Standing operating intercept procedures weren’t followed.

Then Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said Dick Cheney “apparently confirmed a stand-down order” prior to an alleged plane striking the Pentagon.
The 9/11 whitewash Commission deleted Mineta’s comment from its official report.

Secret Service agents let Bush remain at a Sarasota, FL school for 30 minutes after learning about the second twin tower strike.

Standard procedure calls for securing his safety immediately in case of potential danger.

Jet fuel doesn’t heat high enough to melt or cause rigid steel columns to crumble.

Doing so is “scientifically impossible.” Controlled demolitions destroyed both towers. Building 7 fell the same way. Griffin explained other Big Lies.

He concluded saying growing numbers of “physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, pilots, former military officers, and former intelligence officers reject the official 9/11 myth.”

In June 2010, he headlined “Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?”
Asking is verboten. It’s “off-limits,” said Griffin. It’s “not to be raised in polite company, and certainly not in the mainstream media.”

It’s forbidden “to ask whether the original invasion was justified by the 9/11 attacks.”

No evidence linked them to Afghanistan. Attacking a country posing America no threat is lawless aggression.

Continue reading

CIA Leak Gives ‘Incontrovertible Evidence’ That 9/11 WAS STATE SPONSORED

image

The millenium report

If you have ever questioned the official narrative for the September 11th attacks then you have, without a doubt, been dubbed a conspiracy nut by the establishment media and those who hang on their every word. Like the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination, the 9/11 Report assembled by a Congressional investigation is unraveling and being revealed for what it really is – nothing more than a cover story. This is no longer a conspiracy theory… it’s conspiracy fact.

After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors. But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals. It was kept secret and remains so today. President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks. … Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally. The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

The New York Post investigation reveals that Saudi agents, officials and operatives in Virginia, Florida, California and D.C. provided direct support by way funding or intelligence to those involved in bringing down the towers. Karl Denninger at the Market Ticker succinctly argues that this was, in fact, an act of war:

It’s obvious given what happened, the logistical and funding requirements and where the hijackers came from along with inexplicable actions immediately following the attacks – unless our government explicitly let certain people flee. Yet we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan while helping the Saudis — the very people who attacked us. And Obama, to this day, kisses the Saudi King.

Continue reading

“U.S. Knew About 9/11 Warning, Staged Egypt Revolution”: Ex Egypt Interior Minister

image

Ex Egypt Interior Minister Habib Al-Adly

By Brandon Turbeville, ActivistPost

Over the weekend, the former Egyptian Interior Minister under Hosni Mubarak, Habib El-Adly, gave a speech at his own retrial in Cairo, Egypt. Among a number of generic statements, El-Adly made at least two bombshell claims during his testimony that have received little to no coverage in the Western press.

One of these claims was that the United States was behind the 2011 Egyptian revolution which overthrew Hosni Mubarak. The other, however, was that the Egyptian intelligence agencies and Interior Ministry received information regarding a developing terrorist operation against the United States in September, 2001 and that the Egyptians warned the United States twice ahead of time. According to El-Adly, these warnings were completely ignored.

NOTE: The translation provided below is a rough translation of the statements, not a professional one.

In his televised testimony, El-Adly stated,

In May 2001, we received information that a very huge terrorist attack will happen in the USA. How? The source of the information was inside the lair of Al-Qaeda. And we verified it, that there were preparations for the attack.

I talked to the President (Mubarak) and I told him that I have information that a huge terrorist attack will happen in the USA, and I asked him if we should tell them [the Americans]. He said “OK.”

We contacted the CIA and FBI and told them about the information, they said “Thanks.”

On August of the same year we received the information that the (operation) entered its course of implementation (is entering its final steps).
An operation like this takes time, preparations and arrangements, etc.

This conversation was recorded between us and the source. I called the President and told him the information is confirmed, “Should we tell them?” He said “Tell them.” We called the people in the USA and told them that the operation entered the course of implementation. They said “OK” and “Thanks.”
Then the attack on the WTC happened. This was the operation. Do you see how cooperative we were?!?! This is why I am furious and enraged. I cooperated with them, and in return they hit my organization and destroyed (ruined) the country (Egypt)!!!

El-Adly then continued discussing how, according to him, in 2002, Mubarak questioned President Bush about the fact that the United States was warned about the impending attack but failed to act. El-Adly stated,

President Mubarak traveled to America in 2002. When there, he told President Bush, “We told you about this attack and you didn’t pay attention.” He [Bush]said “What attack?” And How?
Bush denied that they heard about that and Mubarak insisted that they did. Mubarak called me to confirm that we informed them about the information. He asked me who did I tell? I said “The CIA people.” He said “Ok” and told Bush. It seems the CIA people told Bush that they didn’t receive any news, and Mubarak told him “no, we informed you this and that.” Then they said “Oh, yes it happened but it was only told verbally.”
What Verbally?! It seems as if they wanted to receive some written memo “we received the news blah blah blah that blah blah blah would happen.”


Continue reading

John W. Whitehead: The US Electoral System is Thoroughly Corrupt

John W. Whitehead

TEHRAN (FNA)- A prominent American constitutional attorney says that the US citizens have lost many of their rights and civil liberties, especially following the 9/11 attacks.

According to John W. Whitehead, the American people have been subject to the disturbing consequences of the rise and growth of military-industrial complex, which the former US President Dwight Eisenhower had warned against back in 1961.

“In his final address to the nation, President Eisenhower warned the American people of the rise of the military-industrial complex. We didn’t listen. Our economy is now largely fueled by war, military spending, and arms production. There are obviously better things we could be spending our time, money, and energy on, but there are many powerful corporations and powerful government institutions which depend on this production to maintain their influence,” said Whitehead in an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency.

On the influence of the interest groups and corporations on the media in the United States which drives Washington to more wars and military confrontations, John Whitehead said, “There is definitely a strain of entertainment in America which glorifies violence and war. This is in part because corporations that produce military products are also entertainment products. This is also in part because the Department of Defense actually influences the content of movies and TV shows by re-writing scripts or disapproving certain content if it’s not to their liking.”

John W. Whitehead is the President of The Rutherford Institute and the author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.” Whitehead founded The Rutherford Institute in 1982, and is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people, whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated.

Mr. Whitehead took part in an interview with FNA to present his viewpoints regarding the police state and the lack of democracy in the US, the restrictions imposed on the American citizens following the 9/11 events and the costs the American taxpayers pay for the US government’s military expeditions across the world. What follows is the text of the interview.

Q: Mr. Whitehead; you’ve argued that the United States is becoming a police state in which the civil liberties are restricted, the phone calls, emails and transactions are spied on, the financial transactions are monitored, the legal types of protesting are criminalized and the innocent citizens are killed in shooting rampages. These are the realities which exist in the American society, but there are many people in the Third World countries, who tend to think of the United States as a utopia in which everything is orderly, perfect and freedom is unrestricted and at its highest level. Is it really the case? What’s your response to such people?

A: Americans do enjoy a significant amount of freedom in some respects compared to people in other countries. Obviously Americans are freer than, say, people in North Korea, but that is just an extreme example. Americans have largely ceded their rights and freedoms to the federal government, particularly since September 11, 2001, and every day we’re giving up more and more of our individual freedoms to the government. Furthermore, our electoral system is thoroughly corrupt, such that the average American has no real chance of affecting government policy. I would agree that Americans are in some respects more free than people in other nations, but if we don’t take note of our quickly eroding freedoms, that won’t be the case for long.

Q: You once cited the Bureau of Justice Statistics as reporting that some 400 to 500 innocent citizens are killed by the police officers in the United States every year. This is a considerable figure, but is rarely mentioned in the US mainstream media. Why is it so?

A: Police officers in the United States tend to receive extreme deference, both among regular people and in the media. They are generally treated as heroes. When examples of corruption or illegal activity come to light, the accused officers are generally treated as bad apples, exceptions to the rule of good policing. However, people are now becoming more cognizant of the manner in which police agencies across the country have become unaccountable to the public. Combined with increasing media attention on police militarization, there is a significant portion of the public that is beginning to question the central role given to police in American society.

Q: It’s noted that since its declaration of independence, the United States has taken part, either directly or indirectly, in more than 50 military expeditions and wars that have claimed the lives of millions of innocent civilians. Why does the United States, as you write in your articles, spend so much lavishly and extravagantly on wars and military adventures? Why should the United States make up nearly 80 percent of the global arms export market?

A: In his final address to the nation, President Eisenhower warned the American people of the rise of the military-industrial complex. We didn’t listen. Our economy is now largely fueled by war, military spending, and arms production. There are obviously better things we could be spending our time, money, and energy on, but there are many powerful corporations and powerful government institutions which depend on this production to maintain their influence. It would take a bold, mass movement to bring down American military spending to more appropriate levels.

Q: What’s your viewpoint regarding the contribution of the entertainment industry to the growth of the culture of violence and warmongering in the United States, especially among the children and young adults who are most likely to be influenced by the Hollywood “blockbusters” and as Nick Turse puts it, the productions of the defense contractors like Sony, Samsung, Panasonic or Toshiba?

A: There is definitely a strain of entertainment in America which glorifies violence and war. This is in part because corporations that produce military products are also entertainment products. This is also in part because the Department of Defense actually influences the content of movies and TV shows by re-writing scripts or disapproving certain content if it’s not to their liking. This usually happens when movie producers want to use actual military equipment or military locations to shoot their films. We could certainly stand to have a less violent culture.

Q: You’ve extensively written about the US government’s use of drones and unpiloted aerial vehicles to purportedly target the Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and also for reconnaissance missions inside the United States. Is this extensive use of drones which regularly results in the killing of innocent civilians legal and compliant with the international law?

A: The use of drones to assassinate certain high value military targets, particularly American citizens, is a blatant violation of international law. The precedent which America has set in this arena will become more troublesome as more nations acquire drones and begin using them for the same reasons that the American government has purported to use them.

As far as their use inside the United States, the constant surveillance of American citizens is a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Unfortunately, the precedent for mass surveillance has been set by the NSA’s wiretapping of various American communications, so there does not seem to be much hope that the courts or legislatures will work to reel in their use until the American people demand it.

Q: The seminal ideology of War on Terror initiated by President George W. Bush was to eradicate the Al-Qaeda terrorists and the extremists who posed a threat to the US national security; however, this project has got expanded in the recent years and is now turned into an all-out confrontation between the United States and the Muslim world in general. Is it fair to punish all the Muslim nations economically, politically and militarily simply because it is alleged those who attacked the World Trade Center towers were Muslims?

A: It’s obvious that whatever mandate the American government had in the days after 9/11 to bring to justice the group which perpetrated that attack has spun out of control. America is now occupying a number of countries in the Middle East and Africa, at a great cost to the American taxpayer and the lives and well-being of people in those countries. I think there is a strand of the American public which is becoming increasingly vocal in regard to wanting to pull out of these various military engagements, and only use the military for its true purpose: protecting the continental United States.

Q: Would you please explain about the recent laws and constitutional double standards in the United States which prohibit the Americans from gathering to protest at the elected officials for their policies, gives immunity to police officers who shoot unarmed civilians, and as you note, “gives government agents carte blanche access to Americans’ communications and activities?” How are these infringements upon the rights of the American citizens justified?

A: Most of the justifications for stamping out free speech and conducting mass surveillance relate to the War on Terror mindset which has gripped the nation since September 11. The government says they are enacting these policies to protect us, but there is very little evidence that they actually contribute to our safety. And even if they did, we as Americans cannot allow all of our rights and freedoms to go out the window in the name of safety.

Q: In some of your writings, you talk about the economic inequality pervasive in the United States and the fact that there is a large underrepresented, underprivileged majority that is in no way equal to the powerful, affluent minority in terms of income and the facilities it has. You say that the deprived majority works and makes money for the influential minority, and the influential minority spends what is earned for waging wars and militarizing the nation’s civil institutions. Doesn’t this inequality undermine the values which the US politicians have always boasted lay out the basis of the American society?

A: There is no doubt that extreme economic inequality harms the quality of life of all Americans, and seriously threatens our freedoms. With only a few people calling the shots in government and business, the rest of America simply must do what they can to get by while the economic elite continue to put forth abusive policies which most Americans are not in favor of. A forthcoming study to be published in the academic journal “Perspectives on Politics” confirms that a small economic elite controls public policy in America. As the authors put it, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Q: As a final question, do you think that the United States government is currently providing its citizens with the absolute, unrestricted and unconditional freedoms and civil liberties, as the freedom of speech and press freedom, which the mainstream media and the Hollywood movies usually depict and claim?

A: No, the United States government is not living up to the standards and laws as set out in the Constitution, which the officials in the American government are sworn to uphold.

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari

Source: Fars News