The Declassified 28 Pages on 9/11 Are Here

Here are the missing 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report.

An analysis from Zero Hedge:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

by Tyler Durden
July 15, 2016

Unleash the revisionist history. Congress released on Friday a long-classified report exploring the alleged ties of the Saudi Arabian government to the 9/11 hijackers.

The missing 28 pages from the 9/11 report begins as follows:

“While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government…”

The “28 pages,” the secret document was part of a 2002 congressional investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks and has been classified since the report’s completion. As CNN reports, former Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the committee that carried out the investigation and has been pushing the White House to release the pages, said Thursday he was “very pleased” that the documents would be released.

The pages, sent to Congress by the Obama administration, have been the subject of much speculation over what they might reveal about the Saudi government’s involvement in the attacks masterminded by terrorist Osama bin Laden when he led al-Qaeda.The pages were used by the 9/11 Commission as part of its investigation into the intelligence failures leading up to the attacks.

A telephone number found in the phone book of al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaida, who was captured in Pakistan in March 2002, was for an Aspen, Colo., corporation that managed the “affairs of the Colorado residence of the Saudi Ambassador Bandar,” the documents show.

 Osama Bassnan, who the documents identify as a financial supporter of two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego, received money from Bandar, and Bassnan’s wife also got money from Bandar’s wife. “One at least one occasion,” the documents show, “Bassnan received a check directly from Prince Bandar’s account. According to the FBI, on May 14, 1998, Bassnan cashed a check from Bandar in the amount of $15,000. Bassnan’s wife also received at least one check directly from Bandar.”

The top two members of the House Intelligence Committee cautioned that much of the information in the newly released pages were not “vetted conclusions.”

It’s important to note that this section does not put forward vetted conclusions, but rather unverified leads that were later fully investigated by the Intelligence Community,” said Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. and the committee chairman, in a statement. “Many of the Intelligence Community’s findings were included in the 9/11 Commission report as well as in a newly declassified executive summary of a CIA-FBI joint assessment that will soon be released by the Director of National Intelligence.”

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the panel’s senior Democrat, said he hopes the newly released pages will reduce the continued speculation over Saudi involvement. “I hope that the release of these pages, with appropriate redactions necessary to protect our nation’s intelligence sources and methods, will diminish speculation that they contain proof of official Saudi Government or senior Saudi official involvement in the 9/11 attacks,” Schiff said in a statement. “The Intelligence Community and the 9/11 Commission…investigated the questions they raised and was never able to find sufficient evidence to support them.  I know that the release of these pages will not end debate over the issue, but it will quiet rumors over their contents — as is often the case, the reality is less damaging than the uncertainty.”

Actually, a quick skim of the report indicates precisely the opposite.

The 9/11 Commission did not actually write the newly released pages. Instead, the pages were part of the material the panel reviewed. The commission’s chairmen have described the pages in the past as information based almost entirely on raw, unvetted material received by the FBI and handed over to House and Senate intelligence committees in 2002 as part of an earlier investigation of 9/11.

Current and former members of Congress have been calling for the pages to be declassified and released for more than a decade.

The 9/11 Commission concluded in its report that senior Saudi officials did not knowingly support the terrorist plot to attack the United States. The panel also found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” al-Qaeda.While the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that senior Saudi officials were involved in the 9/11 attack, the report did criticize the Saudi government for tolerating and sometimes fanning the flames of radical Islam by funding schools and mosques around the world that spread extreme ideology. The report also noted that some rich Saudis gave money to charities with terrorist links.

To be sure, what the report does provide is much circumstantial evidence that the Saudis were most certainly involved in 9/11, sufficient to convince any rational man, but perhaps not enough to launch a lawsuit against, say, the King.

The Saudi government itself has repeated called for the pages to be made public so that it can respond to any allegations, which it has long called unfounded.

“We’ve been saying since 2003 that the pages should be released,” said Nail Al-Jubeir, director of communications for the Saudi Embassy, ahead of Friday’s developments. “They will show everyone that there is no there there.”

Moments after the release, Saudi Arabia has already issued its prepared press release:

* * *

Here are some real-time annotations of the report:

 

While we have yet to read the full document, one section caught our eye – the use of Saudi “charitable organizations” to finance terorrism:


And then this:

That names sounded familiar, and then we remembered this WMD article:

The lawmakers noted Huma Abedin “has three family members – her late father, mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the secretary and to policymaking.” Last week, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner, who admitted he hadn’t read the letters, defended Abedin, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the accusations “sinister” and “nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant.”

 

* * *

Now it has emerged that Huma [Abedin] served on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs’s editorial board from 2002 to 2008. Documents obtained by author Walid Shoebat reveal that Naseef served on the board with Huma from at least December 2002 to December 2003.

 

Naseef’s sudden departure from the board in December 2003 coincides with the time at which various charities led by Naseef’s Muslim World League were declared illegal terrorism fronts worldwide, including by the U.S. and U.N.

 

The MWL, founded in Mecca in 1962, bills itself as one of the largest Islamic non-governmental organizations. But according to U.S. government documents and testimony from the charity’s own officials, it is heavily financed by the Saudi government.

 

The MWL has been accused of terrorist ties, as have its various offshoots, including the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO, and Al Haramain, which was declared by the U.S. and U.N. as a terror financing front.

 

Indeed, the Treasury Department, in a September 2004 press release, alleged Al Haramain had “direct links” with Osama bin Laden. The group is now banned worldwide by United Nations Security Council Committee 1267.

 

The MWL in 1988 founded the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, developing chapters in about 50 countries, including for a time in Oregon until it was designated a terrorist organization.

 

In the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that the foundation was funding Islamist militants in Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian militant ties.

 

The U.S. Treasury designated Al Haramain’s offices in Kenya and Tanzania as sponsors of terrorism for their role in planning and funding the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. The Comoros Islands office was also designated because it “was used as a staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings.”

 

The New York Times reported in 2003 that Al Haramain had provided funds to the Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people. The Indonesia office was later designated a terrorist entity by the Treasury.

 

In February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department froze all Al Haramain’s financial assets pending an investigation, leading the Saudi government to disband the charity and fold it into another group, the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad.

 

In September 2004, the U.S. designated Al-Haramain a terrorist organization. In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the terrorist designation to the entire Al-Haramain organization worldwide

In other words, the US government knew about this terrorist front all the way back in 2001, even as Hillary’s right hand (wo)man was working for an affiliated entity for years later? We hope to find out more after reading the full document shortly, although sadly we are convinced the important sections will be fully redacted.

avatar
For news tips on media censorship, medical breakthroughs, alternative energy and more, contact Andrew Meyer, WeAreChange’s Editor-In-Chief. You can email him at Andrew@WeAreChange.org and follow him on Twitter @TheAndrewMeyer, and at TheAndrewMeyer.com

How the FBI Creates It’s Own Terror Plots

Inside the Terror Factory an Award-winning journalist digs deep into the FBI’s massive efforts to create fake terrorist plots.

The right-wing domestic terror plot you didn’t hear about this week

 Editor’s note: This story is adapted from The Terror Factory, Trevor Aaronson’s new book documenting how the Federal Bureau of Investigation  FBI has built a vast network of informants to infiltrate Muslim communities and, in some cases, cultivate phony terrorist plots. The book grew from Aaronson’s award-winning Mother Jones cover story “The Informants” and his research in the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkeley.

Quazi Mohammad Nafis was a 21-year-old student living in Queens, New York, when the US government helped turn him into a terrorist.

His transformation began on July 5, when Nafis, a Bangladeshi citizen who’d come to the United States on a student visa that January, shared aspirations with a man he believed he could trust. Nafis told this man in a phone call that he wanted to wage jihad in the United States, that he enjoyed reading Al Qaeda propaganda, and that he admired “Sheikh O,” or Osama bin Laden. Who this confidant was and how Nafis came to meet him remain unclear; what we know from public documents is that the man told Nafis he could introduce him to an Al Qaeda operative.

It was a hot, sunny day in Central Park on July 24 when Nafis met with Kareem, who said he was with Al Qaeda. Nafis, who had a slight build, mop of black hair, and a feebly grown beard, told Kareem that he was “ready for action.”

“What I really mean is that I don’t want something that’s, like, small,” Nafis said. “I just want something big. Something very big. Very, very, very, very big, that will shake the whole country.”


US Gov’t Agents Involved In Almost Every Major Terror Plot Since 9/11


Nafis said he wanted to bomb the New York Stock Exchange, and with help from his new Al Qaeda contact, he surveilled the iconic building at 11 Wall Street. “We are going to need a lot of TNT or dynamite,” Nafis told Kareem. But Nafis didn’t have any explosives, and, as court records indicate, he didn’t know anyone who could sell him explosives, let alone have the money to purchase such materials. His father, a banker in Bangladesh, had spent his entire life savings to send Nafis to the United States after his son, who was described to journalists as dim by people who knew him in his native country, had flunked out of North South University in Bangladesh.

Kareem suggested they rent a storage facility to stash the material they’d need for a car bomb. He said he’d put up the money for it, and get the materials. Nafis dutifully agreed, and suggested a new target: the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Nafis later met Kareem at a storage facility, where Nafis poured the materials Kareem had brought into trash bins, believing he was creating a 1,000-pound car bomb that could level a city block.

In truth, the stuff was inert. And Kareem was an undercover FBI agent, tipped off by the man who Nafis had believed was a confidant—an FBI informant. The FBI had secretly provided everything Nafis needed for his attack: not only the storage facility and supposed explosives, but also the detonator and the van that Nafis believed would deliver the bomb.

On the morning of October 17, Nafis and Kareem drove the van to Lower Manhattan and parked it in front of the Federal Reserve Bank on Liberty Street. Then they walked to a nearby hotel room, where Nafis dialed on his cellphone the number he believed would trigger the bomb, but nothing happened. He dialed again, and again. The only result was Nafis’ apprehension by federal agents.

“The defendant thought he was striking a blow to the American economy,” US Attorney Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement after the arrest. “At every turn, he was wrong, and his extensive efforts to strike at the heart of the nation’s financial system were foiled by effective law enforcement. We will use all of the tools at our disposal to stop any such attack before it can occur.”

How many of these would-be terrorists would have acted were it not for an FBI agent provocateur helping them? Is it possible that the FBI is creating the very enemy we fear?

Federal officials say they are protecting Americans with these operations—but from whom? Real terrorists, or dupes like Nafis, who appear unlikely to have the capacity for terrorism were it not for FBI agents providing the opportunity and means?

Nafis is one of more than 150 men since 9/11 who have been caught in FBI terrorism stings, some of whom have received 25 years or more in prison. In these cases, the FBI uses one of its more than 15,000 registered informants—many of them criminals, others trying to stay in the country following immigration violations—to identify potential terrorists. It then provides the means necessary for these would-be terrorists to move forward with a plot—in some cases even planting specific ideas for attacks. The FBI now spends $3 billion on counterterrorism annually, the largest portion of its budget. Our nation’s top law enforcement agency, traditionally focused on investigating crimes after they occur, now operates more as an intelligence organization that tries to preempt crimes before they occur. But how many of these would-be terrorists would have acted were it not for an FBI agent provocateur helping them? Is it possible that the FBI is creating the very enemy we fear?

Those are the questions I set out to explore beginning in 2010. With the help of a research assistant, I built a database of more than 500 terrorism prosecutions since 9/11, looking closely and critically at every terrorism case brought into federal courts during the past decade. We pored through thousands of pages of court records, and found that nearly half of all terrorism cases since 9/11 involved informants, many of them paid as much as $100,000 per assignment by the FBI. At the time of the story’s publication in Mother Jones in August 2011, 49 defendants had participated in plots led by an FBI agent provocateur, and that number has continued to rise since.

Historically, media coverage of these operations—begun under George W. Bush and continuing apace under Barack Obama—was mostly uncritical. With their aggressive tactics essentially unknown to the public, the FBI and Justice Department controlled the narrative: another dangerous terrorist apprehended by vigilant federal agents!

But in late 2011, the conversation began to shift. A couple of months after my story in Mother Jones and following the announcement of a far-fetched sting in which a Massachusetts man believed he’d been poised to destroy the US Capitol building using grenade-laden, remote-controlled airplanes, TPM Muckraker published a story headlined: “The Five Most Bizarre Terror Plots Hatched Under the FBI’s Watch.” Author David K. Shipler, in an April 2012 New York Times editorial, questioned the legitimacy of terrorism stings involving people who appeared to have no wherewithal to commit acts of terror: “Some threats are real, others less so. In terrorism, it’s not easy to tell the difference.” Stories in other major news outlets followed suit, and by October 2012, a post in Foreign Policy was asking: “How many idiot jihadis can the FBI fool?

Which brings us back to Nafis. “The case appears to be the latest to fit a model in which, in the process of flushing out people they believe present a risk of terrorism, federal law enforcement officials have played the role of enabler,” reported the New York Times, after the Justice Department announced Nafis’ arrest. “Though these operations have almost always held up in court, they have come under increasing criticism from those who believe that many of the subjects, even some who openly espoused violence, would have been unable to execute such plots without substantial assistance from the government.”

In the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal law enforcement profile of a terrorist has changed dramatically. The men responsible for downing the World Trade Center were disciplined and patient; they were also living and training in the United States with money from an Al Qaeda cell led by Kuwaiti-born Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. In the days and weeks following 9/11, federal officials anxiously awaited a second wave of attacks, which would be launched, they believed at the time, by several sleeper cells around the country.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born, high-ranking Al Qaeda official became something of the terrorist group’s Dear Abby. Have a question about Islam? Ask Anwar!

But the feared second wave never crashed ashore. Instead, the United States and allied nations invaded Afghanistan, Al Qaeda’s home base, and forced Osama bin Laden and his deputies into hiding. Bruised and hunted, Al Qaeda no longer had the capability to train terrorists and send them to the United States.

In response, Al Qaeda’s leaders moved to what FBI officials describe as a “franchise model.” If you can’t run Al Qaeda as a hierarchal, centrally organized outfit, the theory went, run it as a franchise. In other words, export ideas—not terrorists. Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations went online, setting up websites and forums dedicated to instilling their beliefs in disenfranchised Muslims already living in Western nations. A slickly designed magazine, appropriately titled Inspire, quickly followed. Article headlines included “I Am Proud to Be a Traitor to America,” and “Why Did I Choose Al-Qaeda?”

Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born, high-ranking Al Qaeda official who was killed in a US drone strike in Yemen on September 30, 2011, became something of the terrorist group’s Dear Abby. Have a question about Islam? Ask Anwar! Muslim men in nations throughout the Western world would email him questions, and Awlaki would reply dutifully, and in English, encouraging many of his electronic pen pals to violent action. Awlaki also kept a blog and a Facebook page, and regularly posted recruitment videos to YouTube. He said in one video:

I specifically invite the youth to either fight in the West or join their brothers in the fronts of jihad: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. I invite them to join us in our new front, Yemen, the base from which the great jihad of the Arabian Peninsula will begin, the base from which the greatest army of Islam will march forth.

Al Qaeda’s move to a franchise model met with some success. US Army Major Nadal Hassan, for example, corresponded with Awlaki before he killed 13 people and wounded 29 others in the Fort Hood shootings in 2009. Antonio Martinez, a Baltimore man and recent convert to Islam who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for trying to bomb a military recruiting office, sent Awlaki messages and watched Al Qaeda propaganda videos online before getting wrapped up in an FBI sting operation.

The FBI has a term for Nafis, Martinez, and other alleged terrorists like them: lone wolf. Officials at the Bureau now believe that the next terrorist attack will likely come from a lone wolf, and this belief is at the core of a federal law enforcement policy known variously as preemption, prevention, and disruption. FBI counterterrorism agents want to catch terrorists before they act, and to accomplish this, federal law enforcement officials have in the decade since 9/11 created the largest domestic spying network ever to exist in the United States.

In fact, the FBI today has 10 times as many informants as it did in the 1960s, when former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover made the Bureau infamous for inserting spies into organizations as varied as Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King’s and the Ku Klux Klan. Modern FBI informants aren’t burrowing into political groups, however; they are focused on identifying today the terrorist of tomorrow. US government officials acknowledge that while terrorist threats do exist from domestic organizations, such as white supremacist groups and the sovereign citizen movement, they believe the greatest threat comes from within American Muslim communities.

The FBI’s vast army of spies, located today in every community in the United States with enough Muslims to support a mosque, has one primary function: identify the next lone wolf, likely to be a single male age 16 to 35, according to the Bureau. Informants and their FBI handlers are on the lookout for young Muslims who espouse radical beliefs, are vocal about their disapproval of American foreign policy, or have expressed sympathy for international terrorist groups. If they find anyone who meets the criteria, they move him to the next stage: the sting operation.

The terrorism sting operations are an evolution of an FBI tactic that has long captured the imaginations of Hollywood filmmakers: undercover drug busts.

On a cold February morning in 2011, I met with Peter Ahearn, a retired FBI special agent who directed the Western New York Joint Terrorism Task Force, in a coffee shop outside Washington, DC, to talk about how the FBI runs its sting operations. Ahearn was in the bureau’s vanguard as it transformed into a counterterrorism organization in the wake of 9/11. An average-built man with a small dimple on his chin and close-cropped brown hair receding in the front, Ahearn oversaw one of the earliest post-9/11 terrorism investigations, involving the so-called Lackawanna Six—a group of six Yemeni American men living outside Buffalo, New York, who attended a training camp in Afghanistan and were convicted of providing material support to Al Qaeda. “If you’re doing a sting right, you’re offering the target multiple chances to back out,” Ahearn told me. “Real people don’t say, ‘Yeah, let’s go bomb that place.’ Real people call the cops.”

Indeed, while terrorism sting operations are a new practice for the bureau, they are an evolution of an FBI tactic that has for decades captured the imaginations of Hollywood filmmakers. In 1982, as the illegal drug trade overwhelmed local police resources nationwide and funded an increase in violent crime, President Ronald Reagan’s first attorney general, William French Smith, gave the FBI jurisdiction over federal drug crimes, which previously had been the exclusive domain of the US Drug Enforcement Administration. Eager to show up their DEA rivals, FBI agents began aggressively sending undercover agents into America’s cities. This was relatively new territory for the FBI, which during Hoover’s 37-year stewardship had mandated that agents wear a suit and tie at all times, federal law enforcement badge easily accessible from the coat pocket. But an increasingly powerful Mafia and the bloody drug war forced the FBI to begin enforcing federal laws from the street level. In searching for drug crimes, FBI agents hunted sellers as well as buyers, and soon learned one of the best strategies was to become part of the action.

At its most cliché, the Hollywood version of this scene is set in a Miami high-rise apartment, its floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the cresting waves of the Atlantic Ocean. There’s a man seated at the dining table; he’s longhaired, with a scruffy face, and he has a briefcase next to him. Hidden on the other side of the room is a grainy black-and-white camera recording the entire scene. The apartment’s door swings open and two men saunter in, the camera recording their every move and word. The two men hand over bundles of cash, and the scruffy man then hands over the briefcase. But instead of finding pounds of cocaine inside it, the two guests are shocked to find the briefcase is empty—and then FBI agents rush in, guns drawn for the takedown.

Federal law enforcement officials call this type of sting operation a “no-dope bust,” and its the direct predecessor to today’s terrorism sting. Instead of empty briefcases, the FBI today uses inert bombs and disabled assault rifles (and now that counterterrorism is the bureau’s top priority, the investigation of major drug crimes has largely fallen back to the DEA). While the assumptions behind both types of stings are similar, there is a fundamental flaw as applied to terrorism stings. In drug stings, federal law enforcement officials assume that any buyer caught in a sting would have been able to buy or sell drugs elsewhere had they not fallen into the FBI trap. The numbers support this assumption. In 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, the DEA seized 29,179 kilograms, or 64,328 pounds, of cocaine in the United States.

In terrorism stings, however, federal law enforcement officials assume that any would-be terrorists caught would have been able to acquire the means elsewhere to carry out their violent plans had they not been ensnared by the FBI. The problem with this assumption is that no data exists to support it—and in fact what data is available often suggests the opposite.

Few of the more than 150 defendants indicted and convicted this way since 9/11 had any connection to terrorists, evidence showed, and those that did have connections, however tangential, lacked the capacity to launch attacks on their own. Of the more that 150 defendants, an FBI informant not only led one of every three terrorist plots, but also provided all the necessary weapons, money, and transportation.

The informant goaded them on the whole time, encouraging the pair with lines like: “We will teach these bastards a good lesson.” For his work on the case, he received $100,000 from the FBI.

The FBI’s logic to support the use of terrorism stings goes something like this: By catching a lone wolf before he strikes, federal law enforcement can take him off the streets before he meets a real terrorist who can provide him with weapons and munitions. However, to this day, no example exists of a lone wolf, by himself unable to launch an attack, becoming operational through meeting an actual terrorist in the United States. In the terrorism sting operations since 9/11, the would-be terrorists are usually uneducated, unsophisticated, and economically desperate—not the attributes for someone likely to plan and launch a sophisticated, violent attack without significant help.

This isn’t to say there have not been deadly and potentially deadly terrorist attacks and threats in the United States since 9/11. Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian, opened fire on the El-Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport on July 4, 2002, killing two and wounding four. Afghan American Najibullah Zazi, who trained with Al Qaeda in Pakistan in 2008, came close to attacking the New York City subway system in September 2009, with a plan to place backpack bombs on crowded trains coming to and from Grand Central and Times Square stations. Faisal Shahzad, who trained with terrorists in the tribal regions of Pakistan, attempted but failed to detonate a crude car bomb in Times Square on May 1, 2010. While all three were dangerous lone wolves, none fit the profile of would-be terrorists targeted today in FBI terrorism sting operations. Unlike those caught in FBI stings, these three terrorists had international connections and the ability to carry out attacks on their own, however unsuccessful those attacks might have been for Zazi and Shahzad.

By contrast, consider another New York City terrorism conspiracy—the so-called Herald Square bomb plot. Shahawar Matin Siraj, a 22-year-old Pakistani American, struck up a friendship with a seemingly elderly and knowledgeable Islamic scholar named Dawadi at his uncle’s Islamic Books and Tapes shop in Brooklyn. Dawadi was an FBI informant, Osama Eldawoody, who was put on the government payroll in September 2003 to stoke Siraj’s extremist inclinations. Siraj asked if Eldawoody could help him build a nuclear weapon and volunteered that he and a friend, James Elshafay, wanted to detonate a car bomb on one of New York’s bridges. “He’s a terrorist. He wants to harm the country and the people of the country. That’s what I thought immediately,” Eldawoody said in court testimony.

Siraj introduced Dawadi to Elshafay, who had drawn schematics of police stations and bridges on napkins with the hopes of plotting a terrorist attack. Elshafay’s crude drawings prompted Siraj to hatch a new plan that involved the three men, Dawadi’s supposed international connections, and an attack on New York’s Herald Square subway station. The two young men discussed how they’d grown to hate the United States for invading Iraq and torturing prisoners. In Eldawoody’s car, the three of them talked about carrying 20- to 30-pound backpack bombs into the Herald Square subway station and leaving them on the train platform. Their conversations were recorded from a secret camera in the car’s dashboard. From April to August 2004, the men considered targets, surveilled the subway, checked security, and drew diagrams of the station. The informant goaded them on the whole time, encouraging the pair with lines like: “We will teach these bastards a good lesson.” For his work on the case, Eldawoody received $100,000 from the FBI.

The evidence from the sting was enough to win convictions, and Siraj was sentenced to 30 years in prison and Elshafay 5 years. But it was also clear from the trial that Siraj was a dimwitted social recluse—a mother’s boy with little capacity to steal a car on his own, let alone bomb a subway station as part of a spectacular terrorist attack. In fact, Siraj was recorded during the sting operation as saying: “Everyone thinks I’m stupid.”

During Obama’s first term in office, the Justice Department prosecuted more than 75 targets of terrorism stings.

The question underlying the Herald Square case can be asked in dozens of other similar sting operations: Could the defendants have become terrorists had they never met the FBI informant? The answer haunts Martin Stolar, the lawyer who represented Siraj at trial and fully expected to win an acquittal through an entrapment defense. “The problem with the cases we’re talking about is that defendants would not have done anything if not kicked in the ass by government agents,” Stolar said. “They’re creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror.”

The practice is only growing. Though developed under the Bush administration, terrorism stings have become even more common under President Obama. While the Bush administration used terrorism stings to its greatest degree in 2006 and 2007—60 defendants were prosecuted and convicted from terrorism stings during those two years—the Justice Department began to shy away from the practice toward the end of Bush’s second term in office. In 2008, Bush’s last year as president, the US didn’t prosecute anyone from a terrorism sting. But when Obama became president in January 2009, the use of sting operations resumed and increased in frequency. During Obama’s first term in office, the Justice Department prosecuted more than 75 targets of terrorism stings.

Obama has been an aggressive president when it comes to national security, successfully disarming the long-standing perception that Democrats are weak on that front. He launched the daring raid that took out Osama bin Laden, has conducted secret wars in Yemen and Somalia, and stepped up extrajudicial killings of terrorist suspects overseas using military drones, for which he has come under sharp criticism from some on the political left. Public opinion polls during his fourth year as president showed that most Americans gave him high marks on national security.

That may help explain why the Obama administration has been so determined to pursue terrorism stings as well. Addressing a gathering of Muslim leaders near San Francisco in December 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder described how the administration believes the ends justify the means. “These types of operations have proven to be an essential law enforcement tool in uncovering and preventing potential terror attacks…And in those terrorism cases where undercover sting operations have been used, there is a lengthy record of convictions,” the attorney general said, adding that “our nation’s law enforcement professionals have consistently demonstrated not just their effectiveness, but also their commitment to the highest standards of professional conduct, integrity, and fairness.”

Today, federal prosecutors announce arrests from terrorism stings at a rate of about one every 60 days, suggesting either that there are a lot of ineffective terrorists in the United States, or that the FBI has become effective at creating the very enemy it is hunting.

avatar
Danny F. Quest, is an artist, blogger, journalist, and media personality. Co. Founder of TheTruther.us and author of “120 characters or less’ the guide to winning a debate in the digital age”. Danny now works as a Freelance journalist and graphic designer for WeAreChange.org. Danny’s next big project is “30 days in Gaza” a documentary bringing light to the current conditions of the Palestinian people living under Israeli occupation.

Saudi Arabia Declares 9/11 Was An Inside Job

The Saudi press is still furious over the U.S. Senate’s unanimous vote approving a bill that allows the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

Bush-Saudi-Arabia

This time, the London-based Al-Hayat daily has claimed that the U.S. planned the attacks on the World Trade Center in order to create a global war on terror. 

The article, written by Saudi legal expert Katib al-Shammari and translated by MEMRI, claims that American threats to expose documents that prove Saudi involvement in the attacks are part of a long-standing U.S. policy that he calls “victory by means of archives.”

Al-Shammari claims that the U.S. chooses to keep some cards close to its chest in order to use them at a later date. One example is choosing not to invade Iraq in the 1990s and keeping its leader, Saddam Hussein, alive to use as “a bargaining chip” against other Gulf States. Only once Shi’ism threatened to sweep the region did America act to get rid of Hussein “since they no longer saw him as an ace up their sleeve.”

He claims that the 9/11 attacks were another such card, enabling the U.S. to blame whoever suited its needs at a particular time; first it blamed Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and now Saudi Arabia.

September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings. … Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions.

The intention of the attacks, writes al-Shammari in his conspiracy article, was to create “an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes” and that would provide justification for any “dirty operation” in other countries.

The terror label was applied to Muslims even though it was Muslims who helped America defeat the Soviets and bring an end to the Cold War, he writes. The problem, asserts al-Shammari, is that the U.S. must always find a new impetus to have an adversary, for “the nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy.”

Al-Shammari’s article comes amid a torrent of vociferous articles in the Saudi press that range from accusing the U.S. of being “schizophrenic” and in cahoots with Iran to publishing warnings that if passed, the “Satanic” bill would “open the gates of hell.”

SOURCE: http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/22/saudi-press-u-s-blew-up-world-trade-center-to-create-war-on-terror/

RELATED: 

Media Implicates Saudis in Plotting of 9/11, Distracts From U.S. and Israel Involvement

‘Saudis Did 9/11’ is a Zionist Ruse’

15 Saudi ‘hijackers’ were CIA agents working for US: Scholar 


SnapChat: LukeWeAreChangelogo595x300
fbook: https://facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange

Instagram: http://instagram.com/lukewearechange


HELP GIVE Luke a Trip To Germany -JOIN-

OPERATION INVESTIGATE BILDERBERG -2016-

Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news

for Just 1$ a month you can help Grow We are change
patreonWe use Bitcoin Too !  
12HdLgeeuA87t2JU8m4tbRo247Yj5u2TVP
Wearechange.org/donate
Visit The Gear Store Wearechange.org/gear

 

avatar
Danny F. Quest, is an artist, blogger, journalist, and media personality. Co. Founder of TheTruther.us and author of “120 characters or less’ the guide to winning a debate in the digital age”. Danny now works as a Freelance journalist and graphic designer for WeAreChange.org. Danny’s next big project is “30 days in Gaza” a documentary bringing light to the current conditions of the Palestinian people living under Israeli occupation.

Jeremy Corbyn says that 9/11 attacks were ‘manipulated’ to make Osama Bin Laden look responsible.

 Jeremy Corbyn, leaving his home in London today to visit Labour Party Conference in Brightonwith his wife Laura Alvarez, said 9/11 was manipulated by Bush and Blair

Jeremy Corbyn, leaving his home in London today to visit Labour Party Conference in Brighton with his wife Laura Alvarez, said 9/11 was manipulated by Bush and Blair

Jeremy Corbyn: 9/11 was ‘manipulated’

  • Jeremy Corbyn UK’s Labour leader claimed Tony Blair and George W Bush used 9/11 to go to war
  • Wrote articles  claiming that 9/11 was part of a ‘New World Order’ 
  • It comes as MPs expected to publicly state party is un-electable under him

Jeremy Corbyn claimed the 9/11 attacks were ‘manipulated’ by the West so it could go to war in Afghanistan in an article he wrote 12 years ago.

Jeremy Corbyn is NOT a 9/11 Truther but he DOES make a point

The Labor leader made the assertions in a number of written pieces where he criticized Tony Blair and George W Bush for using the September 11 attacks in New York to go to war.

He claims Osama bin Laden was made to look responsible to send the US to rage a Globalist war.

In the 2003 piece for The Morning Star, he wrote: ‘Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months, The Telegraph reports.

‘After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.

‘This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into a regime change’


SnapChat: LukeWeAreChangelogo595x300
fbook: https://facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange

Instagram: http://instagram.com/lukewearechange


Prior to that, he wrote a series of articles which appear to have endorsed the ‘New World Order’ theory. 

The revelations come ahead of Mr Corbyn’s first Labour conference as leader where a number of MPs are expected to state the party is unelectable under him.

Labour grandee Lord Mandelson has already warned MPs against making an early move to oust Jeremy Corbyn – but insisted the party could not win with the 66-year-old ‘loser’ in charge.

The former business secretary said the party had ‘stuck two fingers up’ at the country by choosing Mr Corbyn as leader but, in a leaked memo, he said Mr Corbyn couldn’t be replaced until he had shown how unpopular he is at the polls.

The articles, including one for ‘Labour Briefing’ in 1991, Mr Corbyn wrote that the Gulf War was a ‘curtain raiser’ for the New World Order, stating at the rich and powerful and ‘white and western’ could maintain economic order with the ‘free use of all the weapons’.

Furthermore, in Socialist Campaign Group News the same year, he wrote: ‘The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.’

Mr Corbyn stormed to victory in the Labour leadership contest with 60 per cent of the vote, despite being unknown outside Westminster.

But the nation’s first impression of the 66-year-old is far from positive in an IpsosMORI poll.

Mr Corbyn was on minus 3 per cent, with 33 per cent satisfied with the way he is doing his job and 36 per cent dissatisfied.


(Sources)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249892/Corbyn-s-conspiracy-theory-9-11-attacks-manipulated-make-look-like-Osama-Bin-Laden-responsible.html#ixzz48tNmUrb7
Follow  @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


-LIKE-COMMENT-SHARE-

SUPPORT WE ARE CHANGE ALTERNATIVE NEWS NETWORK!

Enroll Today to learn how to be an Independent Journalist

Change Media University  HELP Send Luke To Germany -JOIN-

OPERATION INVESTIGATE BILDERBERG -2016-

WeAreChange.org is currently looking for Sponsors to Help Support the Effort to get @Luke Rudkowski  out to Germany to coverBilderberg 2016

Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news

for Just 1$ a month you can help support We are change

http://store.wearechange.org/

 BITCOIN 
12HdLgeeuA87t2JU8m4tbRo247Yj5u2TVP

logo-new-3

avatar
Danny F. Quest, is an artist, blogger, journalist, and media personality. Co. Founder of TheTruther.us and author of “120 characters or less’ the guide to winning a debate in the digital age”. Danny now works as a Freelance journalist and graphic designer for WeAreChange.org. Danny’s next big project is “30 days in Gaza” a documentary bringing light to the current conditions of the Palestinian people living under Israeli occupation.

Media Implicates Saudis in Plotting of 9/11, Distracts From U.S. and Israel Involvement

This article is published with permission, and linked attribution to  of  Non-Aligned Media

Recently the mainstream media has been plastered with headlines exposing how Saudi Arabia was instrumental in implementing the attacks on 9/11, and how it had been “classified” originally only because of Saudi backmail. The recent wave of stories points to the House of Saud as the true architects of 9/11, not Osama Bin Laden and the CIA backed Taliban jihadist fighters hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Allegedly, the reason the government covered the Saudi involvement originally was because of “financial pressure” from the Gulf state.  The New York Times ran a story claiming that the Saudis threatened to sell $750 billion in U.S. treasury bills if the congress passed the 9/11 bill. The New York Post published a story headlined “How U.S. covered up Saudi’s role in 9/11” which lays out the supposed smoking gun evidence that members of the Saudi regime and royal family bankrolled some of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi they now constantly remind us.

At the time of the 9/11 attacks, Saudi prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al Saud  owned 7-9% of News corporation, and was the second-largest voting shareholder in 21st Century Fox. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, Al-Waleed gave a check for $10 million dollars to New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In August 2011, Al-Waleed announced that his company had contracted Bin Laden Group to build the tallest building in the world.


wnd1

brietbartNYPart1

 

 

 

NYTart1

 

 

 

 

 


This barrage of stories may be designed to shift public scrutiny of 9/11 away from the Neo-conservative/Zionists that controlled the U.S. government during 9/11, and onto the Saudi Arabian government. Not only do these stories infer that the Saudi regime sponsored the 9/11 attacks, but they also implant the idea that the Saudis were responsible for the U.S. government’s cover-up of what happened. The result is a picture painted in the public’s mind of a dominating Saudi Arabia overpowering a helpless and innocent U.S., while obscuring the evidence of U.S. and Israeli involvement.

bush saudi meme

Then President George W. Bush and then Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud walk amid the blue bonnets of Crawford, TX in 2005

This narrative benefits the same neo-conservative/Zionist interests who have dominated U.S. foreign policy since the events of September 11th. AIPAC sponsors and their American politician puppets have had ample time and motive to both lobby for 9/11 Truth and justice, or to cover up their involvement.
Two of the most hard line AIPAC-aligned US Senators, Chuck Schumer and Ted Cruz, are both backing the bill currently before congress which would open the Saudis up to scrutiny. Even Nancy Pelosi wants the 28 pages on 9/11 declassified.

So, why are these establishment AIPAC-puppet politicians coming out now, demanding that these 28 pages be released, 13 years after they were classified?

This disinformation frenzy likely has one main purpose: to mislead the public about who actually planned, carried out and benefited from 9/11. As documented in his book Grand Deceptions, the nation which benefited most from 9/11 was Israel. Benajmin Netanyahu said the attacks were good for Israel, and 9/11 has been wielded by the US and Israel as a “one size fits all excuse to invade” and conquer Arab and Muslim countries that the Israeli-American imperialists want to control.


 


HERE’S WHAT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE 9/11 “28 PAGES”

The Saudi government was sued by thousands of 9/11 victim’s family members due to the suspicion that Saudi Arabia helped to finance Al Qaeda. The Saudis hired the law firm of Bush Administration insider James Baker to defend them in that lawsuit. The 9/11 families’ lawsuit against Saudi royals was thrown out on a technicality related to the ability to sue a foreign government and, later, the Obama Administration backed the Saudis during the appeal.


Saudi-Arabia-Is-Admitting-Guilt-By-Threatening-To-Sell-Treasury-Bonds

The ‘Saudis did it’ angle depends on the claim that 19 hijackers commandeered and crashed four planes into the Twin Towers, Pentagon and a field in Shanksville  —  regardless of the fact that many of these “hijackers” turned up alive and well in the Middle East protesting their innocence. As Brandon Martinez writes,

It is highly doubtful that those claimed to have been behind the controls of the 9/11 planes could have performed this incredible feat when they were known to be terrible pilots with limited experience on commercial planes. What of the miraculous unvarnished passport discovered near the World Trade Center adorning the name and picture of Saudi national Satam al-Suqami? Was this laughable impossibility the handiwork of the Saudi government conspirators in an inexplicable attempt to frame themselves? Somebody planted it there, and it obviously was not any agent of Saudi Arabia.”

Saudis-Passport

The Saudi rulers – as corrupt, autocratic and reprehensible as they are – are little more than middle-mangers of the U.S. and Israeli war machine that has invaded country after country in the middle east following 9/11.  Middle-managers cannot organize the biggest conspiracy of the 21st century, hoodwinking the world’s foremost superpower and somehow managing to get away with it.

The Saudi men were ‘patsies’

“We know that the 15 hijackers who were Saudis, the alleged hijackers, because they were not on those planes – not one of the 19 hijackers, or any Arabs, were on any of the four planes, according to the Flight records passenger list, and according to all of the evidence that would be there if they were on the planes, but has not been produced,” said Dr.  Kevin Barrett “And all 15 of these guys had that visa.”

That shows that they were in fact Central Intelligence Agency agents. Some of them were living with FBI people in California. So these 15 Saudis were not working against the United States government, they were working for the United States government, and they were set up so that Saudi Arabia could be potentially blamed for the September 11 attacks, which were actually perpetrated by Israel and its American assets. If there were no actual Arab hijackers on 9/11 and the whole thing is a frame up and farce, then the Saudis can’t be considered responsible for financing a terrorist operation that was conducted by others. Whether they were cognizant of it or not, the Saudis financed nothing more than a group of patsies who were selected as fall guys for a highly sophisticated false flag operation organized at the highest levels of US and Israeli intelligence. If there was any blackmail or unseen coercion involved, the Saudis were on the receiving end of it, not the other way around. The empire doesn’t take orders from low-level sheiks in Arabia, only high-level US officials could have organized the stand-down at the Pentagon, the Saudis could not have possibly managed to disable US air defenses and NORAD, nor could they have organized the terror drills that simultaneously mimicked the attacks. Since the formation of OPEC and founding of the petrol-dollar, the US and the Royal Saudi family have been working together with the Globalist Zionist banking elites to help push the secular world government. Since the Oil money is drying up, OPEC is Going Broke, and the IMF Say’s Saudi Arabia Could Be Bankrupt By 2020, it would appear that the west is willing to sacrifice the weakest link of the 9/11 conspiracy to public opinion, effectively setting up the fall guy to let the true perpetrators get off scotfree.” Brandon Martinez

The fact is; whatever is in those 28 pages, it should be considered nothing more than a red herring artifice to steal our attention away from the real captains of terror in Washington DC, and Tel Aviv, Israel.


BmA large portion of this article attributed to Brandon Martinez  author of –

Grand Deceptions: Zionist Intrigue in the 20th and 21st Centuries. 

A short, concise study of Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks, Zionist influence over US foreign policy (particularly the central role of pro-Israel neoconservatives in dragging the US into the war in Iraq), the fraud of the post-9/11 “war on terror,” and other Zionist political intrigues in the 20th and 21st centuries. This book explores the role of Zionists in helping foment World Wars I and II as a means of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, the extensive collusion between Nazis and Zionists, the hidden history of bloody Bolshevism, and the fabrications and distortions of official World War II historiography, designed to advance the victors’ post-war agenda of re-shaping Europe and the Middle East.

 Available at – Amazon.com Barnes&Noble.com Books-A-Million IndieBound 


In this video Luke Rudkowski breaks down the real truth behind the push by the establishment to release the 28 pages. We go over recent geopolitical moves around the petrodollar and how there is a bigger play here. The U.S seems to be threatening Saudi Arabia with old information that everyone was aware of and people need to ask why this is happening now. Support our work by investing in us on http://wearechange.org/donate/ and make sure do the job of the main stream media better then they ever can.

Related: Former Senator Claims “9/11 Attackers Had Support Within the United States” On CBS Nightly News 

logo-new-3

-LIKE-COMMENT-SHARE-

SUPPORT WE ARE CHANGE ALTERNATIVE NEWS NETWORK!

Enroll Today to learn how to be an Independent Journalist

Change Media University 

HELP Send Luke To Germany 

-JOIN-

OPERATION INVESTIGATE BILDERBERG -2016-

WeAreChange.org is currently looking for Sponsors to Help Support the Effort to get @Luke Rudkowski  out to Germany to cover Bilderberg 2016

Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news

patreon

Don’t forget to visit

http://store.wearechange.org/

to get you hands on the latest WRC Gear !

avatar
Danny F. Quest, is an artist, blogger, journalist, and media personality. Co. Founder of TheTruther.us and author of “120 characters or less’ the guide to winning a debate in the digital age”. Danny now works as a Freelance journalist and graphic designer for WeAreChange.org. Danny’s next big project is “30 days in Gaza” a documentary bringing light to the current conditions of the Palestinian people living under Israeli occupation.

Pin It on Pinterest