Posts Tagged ‘9/11 attacks’



Article is from Truthdig, which I’ve had some problems with over their 9/11 denialism. The 9/11 attacks led to this whole fiasco, but here you go…

Thought Police for the 21st Century

In late April and early May the World Socialist Web Site, which identifies itself as a Trotskyite group that focuses on the crimes of capitalism, the plight of the working class and imperialism, began to see a steep decline in readership. The decline persisted into June. Search traffic to the World Socialist Web Site has been reduced by 75 percent overall. And the site is not alone. AlterNet’s search traffic is down 71 percent, Consortium News is down 72 percent, Global Research and Truthdig have seen declines. And the situation appears to be growing worse.

The reductions coincided with the introduction of algorithms imposed by Google to fight “fake news.” Google said the algorithms are designed to elevate “more authoritative content” and marginalize “blatantly misleading, low quality, offensive or downright false information.” It soon became apparent, however, that in the name of combating “fake news,” Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are censoring left-wing, progressive and anti-war sites. The 150 most popular search terms that brought readers to the World Socialist Web Site, including “socialism,” “Russian Revolution” and “inequality,” today elicit little or no traffic.

Remember: The foundation-funded “left” also censors content, such as legitimate facts about the 9/11 attacks and the Treason at the heart of it. It’s kind of difficult to be sympathetic to Truthdig’s readership problems when they have been censoring 9/11 activists such as myself since the beginning. Further, they are too cowardly to debate their ignorant positions. That’s why this blog exists, btw.




One of the mainstream media’s gatekeepers presents himself as a champion of truth over at The Intercept. I ain’t buying it for a second.

The Biggest Secret [Sic, “Bullshit”]

Risen, how can you present yourself as an authority on CIA and the “war on terror” and never acknowledge that CIA knew Al Qaeda terrorists were in the country for 16 months prior to 9/11? This is confirmed in the 2005 CIA Inspector General Report (you should know) as well as by Richard Clarke, the “Counter-Terrorism Czar” on 9/11. CIA did absolutely nothing to stop the attacks and conversely obstructed the FBI efforts to do so, as we learned from numerous FBI agents who complained about it.

How can you present the CIA with a straight face and never tell readers about the arguable HIGH TREASON that allowed the attacks to happen? There is a significant movement fighting against your brand of limited hangout, the suppression of vital facts surrounding 9/11. You, of course, make no mention of other aspects of the cover up, such as the suppression of FBI surveillance in Sarasota, and the ongoing legal battle to expose what the FBI counter-terrorism (intelligence) section also knew before the attacks.

What you present is journalistic malfeasance in order to sell books. If you called out CIA for its apparent HIGH TREASON in aiding and abetting Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, you wouldn’t be so welcome across the media to promote your wares.

I’m disgusted utterly that you don’t even bother mentioning the revelations about the Saudis, those 28 pages which you apparently couldn’t be bothered to read. The word “Saudi” appears zero times above, and that should tell readers how much stock to place in your insider expose…



Was Mueller, possibly on orders from President George W. Bush, colluding with the Saudis to cover up their role? 

Why Did Robert Mueller Obstruct Congress’s 9/11 Probe?

After they boarded the plane in Phoenix, they began asking the flight attendants technical questions about the flight that the flight attendants found suspicious. When the plane was in flight, al-Qudhaeein asked where the bathroom was; one of the flight attendants pointed him to the back of the plane. Nevertheless, al-Qudhaeein went to the front of the plane and attempted on two occasions to enter the cockpit.

The reaction of the pilots was clearly “Islamophobic” – they carried out an emergency landing in Ohio, where the duo was arrested, handcuffed, and taken in for questioning. Luckily for the Saudi conspirators, the FBI decided their behavior was no big deal and let them go. It was only later that our Keystone Kops discovered that “a suspect in a counterterrorism investigation in Phoenix was driving Shalawi’s car” and this “student” had “trained at terrorist camps in Afghanistan and had received explosives training to perform attacks on American targets.” As for Qudhaeein, the FBI concluded he “was a Saudi intelligence agent, based on his frequent contact with Saudi officials.”



Saying it has released every scrap of information it can about a Sarasota terrorism investigation it once hid from both Congress and the 9/11 Commission, the FBI went to court twice in the last two weeks to block any further disclosures…

FBI asks two courts to block further disclosures about its 9/11 investigation of Sarasota Saudis
To keep 9/11 records secret, the FBI has even invoked privacy rights on behalf of major terrorist figures.



News groups ask appeals court to protect Americans’ Freedom of Information Act rights


You’re not going to fucking believe this one. Are you ready?

The FBI argues in court that it’s concerned about the privacy rights of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and that’s the real reason it won’t release information about the 9/11 plot.

I shit you not.

Appeal: How much information about 9/11 must FBI share with public?

“Only then did the FBI locate and produce records responsive to the Bulldog’s requests, but in dribs and drabs, spread across a year of litigation. Rather than withhold information judiciously, the FBI redacted every word for which it could make a colorable argument – even if that meant claiming a record could not be released because its disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a senior member of al Qaeda,” the brief says.

The referenceas to the FBI’s assertion of privacy rights for alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and fellow “high-value” Guantanamo detainee Mustafa al-Hawsawi in withholding PowerPoint slides detailing their credit card information…

Other pages from the overview also were redacted, including slides about the funding of the 9/11 attacks – information of keen interest to the families of 9/11 victims seeking to hold Saudi Arabia responsible in federal civil court in New York.

…2012 FBI report that shows agents and prosecutors in New York were then actively exploring filing charges against a suspectfor providing material support for two of the five 9/11 terrorists – Saudis Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar —  who crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

The FBI redacted the report citing national security, privacy and other reasons.



Crime and Punishment

Harpers is now a disgrace, pretending to investigate while providing only Andrew Cockburn’s opinion into the glaring Treason at CIA:

“The degree of cumulative incompetence was breathtaking.”

No. It wasn’t. It wasn’t incompetence at all, and that is a propaganda meme to deflect attention from the CRIMINALITY. The CIA allowed Al Qaeda terrorists into the country and shielded them from discovery for 16 months. Orders from the White House went to FBI that they had to back off from investigating Saudis.

“Most egregiously, the CIA had been well aware that two known Al Qaeda operatives, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, were en route to the United States, but the agency had refused to tell the FBI.”

They also refused to round them up while pretending to warn the Bush White House of “spectacular attacks.” Andrew Cockburn is a gullible fool and unable to comment seriously on the subject. You can’t hide the perpetrators from arrest while warning they will attack. How much cognitive dissonance can he expect people to entertain? Cockburn parrots the CIA’s own talking points, its “plausible deniability” machinations rather than challenging them.

Thanks to a combination of court decisions, congressional action, and the disclosure of long-sequestered government records, it appears increasingly likely that our supposed friend and peerless weapons customer will finally face its accusers in court.

Mr. Gullibility doesn’t comprehend that bringing down the Saudis brings down the CIA that allowed them to operate inside the USA. His spin does more damage than good.

The “incompetence” is from simplistic journalists, whom the CIA plays like a Mighty Wurlitzer. Cockburn is peddling a lie that was discredited by 2005 and that Richard Clarke no longer even believes:

There’s plenty of “incompetence,” but it’s primarily in the corporate media which tightly controls what can and cannot be said.

I should compile a list for Andrew Cockburn of 20 relevant facts that he is blissfully unaware of. He apparently lives in a world where the CIA cannot be accused of wrongdoing, and his bias had preordained the conclusion “incompetence,” not Treason. In his world the CIA didn’t blow Kennedy’s head off in broad daylight, rewrite history, and cover it up for 54 years ongoing…