The 19 alleged hijackers involved in 9-11 — a narrative propagated by the six mainstream media companies
by Dee McLachlan
The mainstream media (MSM) reported last week that Victoria’s Islamic Council wants young Muslims to have access to taxpayer-funded “safe spaces” in which they can make “inflammatory” comments. These would be “rage rooms” where young Muslims could express themselves openly.
Victoria’s Premier, Daniel Andrews, says he’s “very troubled” by the suggestion for safe spaces where Muslim youth “could be radical”, and said “There is no safe way to rail against the West.”
That’s right. Now with many radical youth under constant surveillance, even a glib remark could later lead to life imprisonment.
Now I put this question: is there an “Islamic rage”? (Just because someone says there is does not mean there is.) How should we categorize the plethora of “terrorist attacks” against Western targets – did those events occur as reported? Are the guilty parties Muslim?
Now I put this question: are the increasing number of “terrorist attacks” a form of blow-back? Are Muslims running around bombing Western cities in reaction to what we have done in the Middle East?
CNN Fast Facts:
“Nineteen men hijacked four fuel-loaded US commercial airplanes bound for west coast destinations. A total of 2,977 people were killed in New York City, Washington, DC and outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The attack was orchestrated by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.”
But there is a problem with this story. None of it is true. The official narrative is all a LIE.
After reviewing all the evidence — the physics of the collapsing buildings, the drills, the Intel from various whistle-blowers — one can only come to the conclusion that 9-11 was a false flag.
What a dilemma for Western politicians!
How could they possibly admit now that these wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were a terrible mistake. Osama bin Laden (he is a Saudi, not an Afghan!) was reportedly hiding in Tora Bora — which justified the invasion there.
A year and a half later, the West invaded Iraq “to prevent Saddam Hussein from using WMDs, and also to free the people from tyranny.” Oh boy! Dr David Kelly, a British scientist, who worked as a weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), was an expert in Iraq’s weapons programs. He questioned the validity of WMD narrative — and was then murdered.
Robin Cook, the Speaker of the House of Commons and a former UK foreign secretary, resigned from government in protest over the prime minister’s stance on Iraq. But even though some politicians spoke out, the overwhelming coverage from the media allowed the wars to unfold.
Supporting a War Agenda
As a result of the invasion there were over a million deaths in Iraq alone.
Even those who still believe that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9-11 attacks, know that the invasion of Iraq was a lie.
How did this happen? The MSM propagated the official narrative. They became part of the war machine.
The Beginnings of Al Qaeda and ISIS
Today we continue to attack countries in the Middle East. But now we no longer say it is retaliation for 9-11. We say it is to suppress those rebels or insurgents or whatever you call it. ISIS or any new group like “al Qaeda.”
But let’s try to be honest. Al Qaeda came off the drawing boards of western military. I note that the former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention in 1979.
And as we have many times quoted at GumshoeNews, Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor) admitted that the US’s secret training of radicals (the Mujahadin from Pakistan) was an excellent idea, as it had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap.
Are We Also Creating “ISIS”?
When Sheikh Nabil Naiem was interviewed on Syrian television (2014) he described how Abu Bakr Baghdadi was a US agent and was set up to liberate Syria (and Iraq).
After Baghdadi was released from prison (in 2006), he established the first ISIS camps in Jordan.
The Sheikh claims these camps were supervised by the Marines, and the arming of ISIS was all American. The Sheikh said he was in charge of a camp of 120 men, and was spending thousands of thousands of dollars on food, weapons, munition, and training.
But let us not take the Sheikh’s word on that. Let us rely on what the the once Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO (1997 to 2000), Ret. General Wesley Clark told us.
In 2007 Clark revealed, in an interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodwin, that he was shown a secret memo when he visited the Pentagon in 2001. (I’m sorry I sound like a stuck record, but this is for new visitors to the site, and for the MSM who will not report this.)
The “Destruction” Memo
This secret memo revealed the ‘the neocon plan’ to destroy 7 countries in 5 years. An extract:
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: So I came back to see him a few weeks later (2001), and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
Why destroy these countries? This is the explanation provided to Clark.
“I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments… I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
That is the explanation provided to the staff at the Pentagon, but the plan was a well orchestrated geopolitical take over of banking and resources for total global power.
The London 2005 False Flag
False flags (organised by shadow governments) are generally exceptionally well planned and orchestrated.
The official narrative for the 7/7/2005 attack on London’s Underground (and a bus) network claims that four youths — British suicide bombers — were inspired by al-Qaeda, and orchestrated a four prong attack that killed 52 people.
But the narrative does not stand up to scrutiny.
The realization that there was a drill planned at the same tube stations at exactly the same time is a red flag — that the attack was a false flag.
Later that day (7th July 2005), information emerged that a private company was running a terror rehearsal drill in London when the real explosions were reported,
These revelations came directly from the Managing Director (Peter Power) of Visor Consultants — the private firm running the terror rehearsal operation. Mr Power happened to get on BBC Radio 5 Live’s Drivetime program. An extract of the transcript below:
POWER: …at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for… a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!
PETER ALLEN: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?
POWER: Precisely… Peter Power’s Radio 5 Live Drivetime Interview
Peter Power then had a television interview on ITV news (at 20:20 on 7/7) which revealed a little more about the nature of the operation.
POWER: Today we were running an exercise for a company… And the most peculiar thing was, we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from ‘fictional’ to ‘real’…
INTERVIEWER: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?
POWER: Er, almost precisely… And we chose a scenario – with their assistance – which is based on a terrorist attack because they’re very close to, er, a property occupied by Jewish businessmen…
Solomon: But it is a coincidence.
Power: It’s a coincidence, and it’s a spooky coincidence. Our scenario was very similar – it wasn’t totally identical, but it was based on bombs going off, to the time, the locations, all this sort of stuff… there was a few seconds when the audience didn’t realise whether it was real or not.
Locations of the London bombings
I am not quite sure why Peter Power was “allowed” to disclose this information. Maybe to prove to us that the powers that be are so powerful — that even when these type of details are exposed, the MSM will rally behind the official narrative. A show of defiance?
What did our governments think would happen when they invaded these countries with the awful “shock and awe” campaign in the Middle East?
Webster’s Dictionary defines hate as “an intense hostility and aversion — usually deriving from fear, anger or a sense of injury.” One on-line definitions hate as “a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action.”
And now the hatred is being exported.
The recent attacks seem more random and scattered than the big false flags.
The Political Rhetoric
On the recent Manchester attack, Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said this in Question Time (in Parliament):
…that the Manchester concert attack was a “vile”, “criminal” and “an attack on innocence.”
“This is an attack on innocence. Surely, there is no crime more reprehensible than the murder of children.”
Yes — there is no crime more reprehensible than the murder of children. Turnbull then said:
We stand with our allies as we always have and always will — “steadfast allies for freedom’s cause.”
The number of children that died in Iraq as a result of sanctions (before the conflict) was estimated at 500,000.
“But we think the price is worth it” Madeleine Albright.
Is it any wonder hatred is stirred and shaken when forces of such magnitude decide to destroy cultures and countries!
But again I must ask, are the latest group of attacks really an expression of emotion by Muslims? Or something else?
Newton’s third law is “Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction.”
With apparent logic, the violence in Europe that seems to be coming from Muslims is called “blow-back.”. That is, we stirred up a genuine religious or nationalist anger. Deliberately? Hmm.
Here is a timeline of recent attacks in France.
If it is correct to call this blow-back, one might say that the recipe for these disasters was cooked up years ago, and the lid of the pressure cooker has popped off.
The question is how do you put a lid on hatred… now?
Forget “safe rooms” — I recommend that the way to sort it out would be to identify the real war criminals — and the MSM protecting them.
Do you agree?