9/11 :Terrorism or Power Grab?

Adelaide Conservative Speakers' Club

4 July 2005

Ladies and gentlemen, ironically this talk is being held on American Independence Day, which commemorates the birth of liberties in the United States, yet 9/11 commemorates another stage in the progressive abolition of American liberties. It would make the American Founding Fathers turn in their graves.

Benjamin Franklinís warning is still valid today: "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What were the forces behind 9/11? Well, ladies and gentlemen, weíve heard the official explanation: according to that, out of the blue, an attack by terrorists organized by Osama Bin Laden led to airliners being hijacked, and slammed into the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. According to the usual story, this was a completely unexpected event, one that caused the American government, not only to attack Afghanistan, claimed to be the force behind the attack, but also to pass legislation such as the USA Patriot Act and to create the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to defend American liberties.

Afghanistan was first claimed to be behind this attack, yet, before the US attacked Iraq, the Iraqis were claimed to also be behind 9/11 and this allegedly justified and explained the invasion.

Now, even if this explanation were correct, which it is not, it still does not make sense. I mentioned this in a previous talk, 'Insanity Fair', that war is the ultimate act of terrorism, and using this ultimate act of terrorism to destroy terrorism, just does not make sense. As if this were not enough, it makes more terrorism, because the act of killing people in war leads to retaliation from others, who seek to avenge them, so that more terrorism is created, not less. There is also the factor of "blowback", mentioned by a former CIA operative, Chalmers Johnson, where he mentions that CIA intervention in other countries creates a hostile response that need not be felt in the same country where the intervention occurred, but spreads out to others. This tendency to retaliate, which the CIA calls "blowback" could be summarized as the law of reaping and sowing. "Whatsoever a man sows, that will he also reap." That applies to nations also. Invading Muslim countries generates hatred within those countries and makes an Islamic jihad possible. If allowed to continue, the end result of it could be World War III.

There is also the anomaly that the USA Patriot Act, ostensibly passed to preserve freedom, actually destroys it. It trashes the US Constitution and alienates the inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights. Does it make sense to destroy freedom in order to save it? It makes no sense, but do not adjust your mind: the fault lies in reality. This is double-mindedness. It is said that "a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways". There is a dangerous instability in those who say one thing and do another, but the instruction from Jesus Christ is to judge people not by what they say, but by what they do. Their actions show they mean to crush liberty, even while they say they are saving it.

The orthodox explanation does not make sense. It was actually a pre-planned attempt to make a naked grab for power and to move towards goals that predate 9/11 by many years. 9/11 was not a "bolt from the blue", but a carefully engineered gimmick designed to sell America into slavery.

Research is still going on into the cause and effects of 9/11 and there may be room to dispute the details, but the general information is clear enough.

The way to examine what led up to 9/11 and the consequences of it, is to treat it as an historian does, to examine the root causes of it, because knowing how it was created and who created us, gives us a clue about its purposes.

Once we do, evidence indicates that this cannot have been a "surprise attack" as claimed in the official version, because Bush and Blair knew about it in advance. It was evidently planned in advance and the administration knew all about it: it was an act of national treason known in the highest echelons of government who allowed it to happen and suppressed investigations that would have exposed them.

When we examine a videotape of what George W. Bush did when told about 9/11, he showed none of the concern or surprise that would be expected from a surprise attack, but while he was reading a book in a schoolroom continued to do so for half an hour without apparent worry. Why would he do that, unless he was expecting this attack?

In UK, Tony Blair at once chimed in with the US explanation and did not call for an independent investigation, suggesting preplanning at the highest level.

The case for it being a Muslim attack was weakened by several factors, including the fact that 8 of the alleged hijackers supposedly involved when the planes crashed into the Towers in the 9/11 assault were seen alive and well afterwards.  http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html

A passport of a supposed Arab suspect was allegedly found blocks from the crime scene, having survived the building meltdown, surely a physical impossibility.

The way the attack went through was also suspect. Why was there no challenge from NORAD jets, which could have scrambled in minutes to intercept any aircraft? Yet, two planes were allowed to slam into the buildings. One DVD on 9/11 says that war games were being played on that day which served to divert attention from the scene of New York and Washington. Was that coincidence or part of a deliberate ploy?

There are strange things about the events of 9/11 that need determining. Why is it, for example, that the buildings collapsed to the ground in what looks like a controlled demolition? The New York Fire Brigade mentioned that this was the only time that a jetliner which crashed into a building had brought down the entire building. Photos of 9/11 at the WTC show girders being blasted out from it, suggesting an explosion. Eyewitnesses reported several explosions, and the buildings came down in what looks like a controlled demolition pattern. Again, this is part of evidence preplanning and not some kind of unexpected attack, in which case this would not have happened. One video analysis claims that one of the cluster of buildings around the World Trade Center, labelled Building 7, had a homing device on it that directed the flight paths of the plane slamming into the other buildings. Despite the fact that Building 7 showed only minor fires towards the top of the building, it fell down in what was clearly also a controlled demolition. The evidence, after all, had to be destroyed, and it was.

Osama Bin Laden was claimed to be the mastermind behind this, although he denied it. Later, a video purporting to be from Osama Bin Laden was found, although the figure on the screen, allegedly Bin Laden, bore only a superficial likeness to him. Independent assessment of the Arab comments on the video showed that he was not saying what the English translators claimed that he said.

It was claimed that girders had melted from jet fuel sprayed into the skyscraper, yet steel does not melt at the temperature that fuel burns at. Nevertheless, evidence, including steel girders, was removed from the scene of the crime by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) before independent investigators could look at it. President Bush blocked public investigations of 9/11  - www.bushoccupation. com/welcolumn.html - and the Commission into 9/11, conducted many years later, was a whitewash job, assuming the truth of the official explanation, and not assessing the work of critics who had challenged the official explanation.

As time goes on, the official line becomes too much of a fairy tale even for some government officials. On June 8th, 2005, a former Bush team member, Morgan Reynolds, during his first administration voiced his doubts about the collapse of the twin towers, saying that a controlled demolition destroyed the World Trade Center and the adjacent Building 7. He said that: "if demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11,then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling." http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm Exactly!

As for the alleged attack on the Pentagon, it has been pointed out that the holes in the Pentagon where the plane allegedly entered were too small to let a plane enter. The lawn in front of the Pentagon is undisturbed, whereas it would have been ploughed up by the entry of a plane. We also have to ask why a terrorist would choose to enter the Pentagon at a virtually abandoned part, and not hit the main offices. The size of the holes in the Pentagon suggests to some that it was hit by a pilotless aircraft such as a Global Hawk, which was destroyed by a missile and exploded. Pentagon staff were seen probing the lawn in front of the Pentagon to remove signs of this evidence, showing that a passenger aircraft had not hit the building. The debris left behind was less than 4 tons, rather than 60 tons, as one would expect if a passenger aircraft crashed into it.

The decision was made to blame Bin Laden for it and to invade Afghanistan in a supposed hunt for him, yet historical investigation shows roots well before 9/11. In an earlier talk, "Insanity Fair", I mentioned a book by Zbigniew Brezinski, a national security advisor to three Presidents: Carter, Reagan and Bush Senior, who wrote in his book, The Grand Chessboard, that there was a need to construct a pipeline through Turkmenistan, via Afghanistan to Pakistan. It is not mere coincidence that this has now been created. As a writer, he also favoured the U.S. developing world hegemony and complained that "democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation" (p. 35, The Grand Chessboard, He was saying that democracy was a nuisance that had to be disposed of to create a U.S. World empire, which is now in process of construction. This means creating a garrison state, now being formed in the United States.

In June, 2001, the Taliban in Afghanistan were told they would have to agree to construction of a pipeline across Afghanistan to Pakistan to take crude oil from the Caspian Sea. Since the Taliban would not agree to it, they had to go. It is evident that the invasion of Afghanistan was planned before 9/11 and the events of that day were a pretext to justify invasion to suit the oil companiesí profits.

When it comes to the invasion of Iraq, that too was linked with 9/11 as a pretext for invasion, the excuse being that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Again, as I mentioned in an earlier speech, "Insanity Fair", there is something curious about this WMD thesis, even apart from the fact that no WMD have been found in Iraq ,and that is, if the United States was so horrified about Weapons of Mass Destruction, then it should have been dismantling their own, because they had the largest collection of WMD in the world and their ally, Israel, had sole possession in the Middle East of multi-megaton nuclear weapons. While pointing the finger of accusation against Iraq, they neglected to first of all cast huge motes out of their own eyes. It is all part of a hypocritical Doublethink that afflicts the Zionist tail that wags the American dog and its American poodles.

Now, any time you mention the Jewish connection, there seems to be a scream of "anti-Semitism", which is a terrible horror. And so Iíd like to mention two sources that are not likely to be "anti-Semitic", for the claim that Jews run America. The first is Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel. And the second is Israel Radio or Kol Yisrael which is no doubt pro-Jewish. He is quoted as saying, at a Tel Aviv Cabinet meeting, according to Israel Radio, "I want to tell you something very clear, donít worry about America. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." So there are two anti-anti-Semitic sources for saying that.

This year (2005) a document was leaked in the press, which has become known as the Downing Street Memorandum, which is simply an official account of a British security cabinet meeting in July,2002. It reveals that Bush was searching for a pretext to invade Iraq and invented lies to suit that goal. While doing so, he lied about his intentions for war.

In actual fact, he was thinking about invading Iraq before he even became President. In 1999, he was thinking about the invasion. Hew regarded the mark of a successful Presidency as winning a war. He said, "one of the keys to being a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief." www.tompaine.com/print/why_george_went_to_war.php

This thinking heavily predated 9/11, predated his presidency and also predated the neocons who had their own reasons for invading Iraq, seeing it as a stage towards a Greater Israel. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist, Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. This is mentioned in Richard Clarkeís book, Against All Enemies and Bob Woodwardís Bush At War. Bush, in effect, believed his invasion of Iraq made him, in his own words, "a great President." In fact, his invasion of Iraq and its continued occupation has to be counted as a national disaster and a factor in the decline of the United States.

As time goes on, the official line becomes too much of a fairy tale even for some government officials. On June 8th, 2005, a former Bush team member, Morgan Reynolds, during his first administration voiced his doubts about the collapse of the twin towers, saying that a controlled demolition destroyed the World Trade Center and the adjacent Building 7. He said that: "if demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11,then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling." http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm Exactly. Not surprisingly, there are calls in the U.S. for an independent investigation into 9/11 and government involvement .

A public opinion poll conducted three years after 9/11, in 2004, showed half the residents of New York City believe U.S. Leaders had foreknowledge and consciously failed to prevent the disasters, while two in three want a new investigation of the unanswered questions - www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_mysteries.html

There are clear indications of this foreknowledge. For example, the Department of Homeland Security was planned way before 9/11. In the Bush administration, the measures used to announce Presidential decisions on national security measures are called National Security Presidential Directives (NSPDs)

The first directive, dated 13 February,2001, was formally approved for release by the National Security Council staff on 13 March, 2001. www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_homeland.htm . There are actually six secret NSPDs www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/index.html These were the forerunner to the announcement of the first of a new series of Homeland Security Presidential Directives (NSPDs) www.fas.org/ irp/ offdocs/nspd/index.html . But this, in itself, also built on the National Infrastructure Protection Center, (NIPC) created on May 22,1998, by President Clinton, to eliminate vulnerability to physical and cyber attacks on the national infrastructure. (www.fbi.gov/ contact/fo/mb/cfraud.htm .

The USA Patriot Act was written and ready to go before 9/11.USA PATRIOT was a misleading title, an acronym whose initials stood for " Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001."

Similar anti-terrorism legislation was enacted in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, which were declared unconstitutional and were ready to be repealed when 9/11 happened.

James X. Dempsey and David Cole state in their book, Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security, that the most troubling provisions of the pre-USAPA anti-terrorism laws, enacted in 1996, following the Oklahoma City Bombing, and expanded now by the USAPA, "were developed long before the bombings that triggered their final enactment".

There are questions marks about what actually happened at the Oklahoma City Bombing, in which Timothy McVeigh and Nichols were blamed for the bombing which occurred at Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/ okc_coverup.htm .There are indications that Nichols and McVeigh were fall guys, that federal, local and state authorities had prior knowledge of the bombing and a hand in it http://www.apfn. Org/apfn/ OKC_update.htm . It has been suggested that a fertilizer bomb would not have been enough to totally bring down the building, and that several high-powered explosives collapsed it. http://serendipity. nofadz. Com/more/ ok_bomb. html . And hereís an interesting thing, ladies and gentlemen, the company that carted away the rubble from the Oklahoma City bombing was called "Controlled Demolition", the very same company that took away the debris from the World Trade Center disaster. http://serendipity.nofadz.com/more/ok_bomb.html#controlled_demolition . So it looks as if the same people that had a hand in the Oklahoma City bombing then applied their talents to the World Trade Center. A policeman called Yeakey and some other individuals who knew too much about the Oklahoma bombing were murdered in strange circumstances http://www.americanfreepress.net/ html/ federal_ murder.html .

John Kaminskiís "Ghosts of Oklahoma City" http://serendipity. nofadz. com/more/ghosts_of_okc.htm makes some important observations comparing the Oklahoma City bombing to 9/11:

Shortly after the Oklahoma City blast, Retired Air Force Gen. Benton K. Partin wrote that he had conclusive proof that the Murrah Federal Building was not destroyed by Timothy McVeigh's truck bomb, but by four demolition charges placed at critical structural points on the third floor.

The retired general also noted "the effort required to bomb the Murrah Federal Building pales in comparison to the effort to cover up evidence in Oklahoma ... "

Just as the demolished World Trade Center site was blocked from independent forensic investigators, so was Gen. Partin's recommendation ignored and the Murrah building demolished before explosives experts could properly examine the building.

Now the 9/11 probe is proceeding along the same lines of planted stories, premature conclusions and stonewalled evasions.

In a letter to 72 members of Congress, Partin also urged lawmakers "to defer action ... on so-called anti-terrorism legislation that has serious civil liberties implications, and which would not be passed except for the Oklahoma City bombing ... " Part of the reason for the bombing was apparently to destroy records of the Waco Massacre in 1993. http://serendipity.nofadz.com/more/ok_bomb.html#controlled_demolition. But of course, another goal was to establish oppressive "counter-terror" legislation. .

The troublesome provisions of this legislation pushed in 1996 and later blocked, included guilt by association, association as grounds for exclusion or deportation, the ban on supporting lawful activities of groups labelled terrorist, the use of secret evidence, and the empowerment of the Secretary of State to designate groups as terrorist organizations, without judicial or congressional review (the general pattern of so-called "anti-terrorist" laws since, including those in Australia) These laws were about to be rejected before September 11. 9/11 gave the proponents of these laws the impetus to push it through Congress (www.apfn.org/apfn/ WTC_homeland.htm because, you see, you need a crisis to show it is "necessary". If one does not exist, it can be invented.

And history was repeating itself. The American people were opposed to going to war, until Pearl Harbour, planned for by FDR, provided a pretext for involvement in the war. 9/11 was Pearl Harbour II.

The Homeland Security Bill and the Patriot Act were pushed through Congress with blinding speed. The Homeland Security Bill, which has 484 pages, was forced through Congress in less than 24 hours. Politicians didnít have time to read it. Rules were used to limit debate and amendments.

Now isnít that strange, ladies and gentlemen. We were told that the US government acted to preserve freedom and protect the citizen, yet what we see is that successive US governments were enacting more and more draconian legislation designed to crush freedom. And what they did was a power grab that laid the basis for tyranny.

That same pattern has been repeated in other countries, such as UK and Australia, following the same pretext of 9/11 as an excuse for denying basic rights and freedoms, allegedly to protect people, but in reality to enslave the population and prepare them for a New World Order takeover. The plans are far advanced in these and other countries to destroy civil liberties and deny democracy. Itís a Claytonís democracy: the democracy you have when you donít have democracy.

Why did the American government do it? Surely a major factor was the enhancement of the military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned was taking over the U.S. What developed after WWII was an economy geared to war, to guns rather than butter, which suited the profiteering of big corporations such as Lockheed Martin , and the profits of Halliburton who took over Iraq. The policy for the present Bush administration was planned back in 1977, when the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was formed, led by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol etc., most of them Zionists.

The plan was for PNAC to gain control of the Bush administration, which proved easy after 9/11. PNAC was behind the National Security Strategy promulgated by the Bush administration in 2002, which assumed world hegemony for the United States, maintaining permanent war plans, suppressing other countries that looked like a challenge, and making the US the worldís policeman. Back in 1992, Wolfowitz, part of the cabal, planned on attacking Iraq. The grounds for the Iraqi attack were laid before George W. Bush came to power.

Itís good for business in the U.S. to promote war, and therefore itís not too surprising to read an account that the US war with Iran, according to Scott Ritter, has already begun. www.information clearinghouse.info/article9199.htm. The invasion of Iraq "officially" started in March, 2003, but actually began in 2002 when President Bush authorized bombing of Iraq and was already planning to remove Saddam from power. He was following a hypocritical pattern that speaks of "peaceful resolution" of problems while preparing for war. A similar pattern is being followed in Iran, as the neocons move into Iran. Orwellian Doublespeak is used, as the neocons speak of "liberation" and the spread of "democracy" while preparing for war and slavery in conquered territory. According to Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, the invasion of Iran began in June, 2005, before an official declaration of war. www.information clearinghouse. info/ article9199.htm.

What was created in the US was a kind of template that could be used overseas to kill off personal freedom, now an ongoing effort. In 2004, there occurred in Australia, the 150th anniversary of the Eureka Stockade. Some people implied that the freedoms won during the Eureka Stockade had remained in place: they did not mention the way this kind of autocratic growth had legislated enslavement.

Nowadays, the kind of autocracy established after 9/11 is spreading worldwide as part of a globalist campaign. In the interests of preventing terrorism, a terrorist state is being created. A further stage may occur if the government creates another terror bombing as a pretext to put the country under martial law, and once again we will be told it is to safeguard freedom, while destroying it.

This Doublethink applies in Australia, too, where we have seen enacted so-called anti-terror laws that suppress basic rights, such as trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, right to silence and allows arrest on "suspicion" to hold suspects without trial. It is a purely authoritarian and totalitarian control, a move towards a globalist agenda and it may yet culminate in World War III. In the meantime, I believe part of the ultimate goal is to create rule by anonymous informers that will spy on their fellow citizens, the kind of State that Stalin had. Enjoy what freedoms you have, ladies and gentlemen, even the freedom to attend these talks, because the time may eventually come when you will have no freedom at all. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Postscript:

Just after this talk on 4th July,2005, on 9/11, the attack on London occurred on 7th August, 2005, and can be called 7/7. Although this came too late for the talk, some general comments can be added about this later attack.

Ariel Sharon correctly identified the US as being under Zionist control, but neglected to mention UK and Australia also being under Zionist control, so it is not too surprising that there are some similarities between 9/11 and 7/7.

There are anomalies in 7/7 http://xymphora.blogspot.com/ 2005/07/birth-of-london-bomb-official-story.html (just as there are with 9/11) and a database has been compiled that will doubtless be added to (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/londonarchive.html

There are indications that Scotland Yard received advanced warnings of the bombings, and informed the Israeli Embassy who advised Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Foreign Minister, not to go to the area of the bomb sites, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? Context=view Article&code=20050707&articleId=657 so this deserves a "please explain". If there is no inside job and no government collusion, why didnít Scotland Yard, the Israeli Embassy or Benjamin Netanyahu, warn the intended victims of the bombing?

A likely scenario of what happened is given at http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705teneasysteps.htm which suggests that, as "drills" had been carried out on London transport for weeks, four - if that is the correct number of alleged "bombers" - were given rucksacks to carry and told this was part of the "drill", only to have them detonated later. These were Muslim individuals, used to make Muslims seem liable for the blasts.

All this is the tip of the iceberg. 7/7 itself deserves separate analysis, but it is just as suspect as 9/11 and follows the same pattern of blaming Muslims for it, and will be used for the same purpose of suppressing personal freedom and imposing government control. And it even has a spinoff in Australia, with John Howard using it as a pretext for a national ID card which could not, in itself, stop a bombing, but will serve the expected purpose of clamping down more government control as a further move towards globalist tyranny.

 

After the event Geoff Muirden and Fredrick TŲben reminisce at Glenelg Beach

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute