Israel and 9/11 - An Introduction :o

By Anonymous - Posting #196

Secret CIA Documents on Mossad was published in 1982 by CounterSpy magazine. It is purportedly an appraisal of the Israeli Secret Services by the CIA captured by Iranian students when the US embassy was taken. It was published in Iran, and portions were later published in the US not only by CounterSpy but also by the Washington Post (see the CounterSpy Introduction).

It belongs in the archives of the 9/11 Truth Movement and on the internet. [.zip here]

It contains the following passages related to the connection between Zim Shipping and the Mossad:

Other Israeli governement organizations that provide support to the intelligence and security community are the Ministries of Finance (Customs and Excise, Investment and Securities) and tourism, the national airline, El Al, and the national shipping line, Zim. Unofficial Zionist organizations based in Israel and Jewish communities throughout the world also give aid to Israel operations when needed.

The function of intelligence officers under cover of diplomatic establishments is to arrange information exchanges with officials of local services, manage communications, serve as accommodation addresses and funding channels, and direct agents toward targets of interest. Official organizations used for cover are Israeli Purchasing Missions and Israeli Government Tourist, El Al and Zim offices, Israeli constrution firms, industrial groups and international trade organizations also provide nonofficial cover. Individuals working under deep or illegal cover are normally charged with penetrating objectives that require a long-range, more subtle approach, or with actvities in which the Israeli Government can never admit complicity.

It contains the following passage related to false-flag recruitment:

The Israelis have used false-flag recruitment pitches extensively and successfully. In several cases they approached citizens of Western European nations under the cover of a national NATO intellegence organization for operations in Arab target countries.

It contains the following passages related to the ability of Israeli security services to recruit and control Arab agents:

Arabic-speaking IDF interrogators sometimes pose as Arab officers and circulate among prisoners to elicit information. These techniques usually produce a large quantity of information from captured enemy personnel.

Some younger Mossad officers, who may be weak in certain fields of higher education or languages, are sent to universities abroad, where their pursuit of an advanced degree simultaneously serves as cover for their extracurricular operational activities. One of the established goals of the intelligence and security services is that each officer be fluent in Arabic. A nine-month, intensive Arabic language course is given annually in the Tel Aviv area to students from each service.

Mossad officers who are going into Arab operations take the same Arabic language training as Shin Beth officers. As further training, these Mossad officers work in the Administered Territories [i.e., the West Bank — ed.] for two years to sharpen their language skills before being posted abroad. During this period they usually serve in the Sinai and often run Bedouin agents into Egypt in conjunction with Military Intelligence.

Many Israelis have come from Arab countries where they were born and educated and appear more Arab than Israeli in speech, demeanor, and attitude. By forging passports and identity documents of Arab and western countries and providing sound background legends and cover, Mossad has successfully sent into Egypt and other Arab countries Israelis disguised and documented as Arabs or citizens of European countries.

There are numerous persons in Israel who have a thorough area and language knowledge of any area of interest to the intelligence services. These area experts can render extremely valuable assistance in analyzing intelligence information and formulating country requirements, thus contributing to the total operational potential since they enable Israeli intelligence officers to estimate rapidly the efficiency and reliability of their agents and informants. These persons are also useful for their ability to pass completely for a citizen of the nation in question The Israeli talent for counterfeiting or forging passports and documents ably supports the agent's authenticity.

Through the use of informants, who may be local Arabs or Oriental Jews posing as Arabs, Shin Beth has penetrated subversive Arab elements including communist cells and Arab nationalist groups. They have also picked up local Arab espionage agents on their way back to neighboring countries and doubled them in coordination with Military Intelligence.

It contains the following passages relating to Mossad's ability to operate clandestinely in North America, and its propensity to "create disturbances" with a view to the psychological impact of those disturbances:

Individuals working under deep or illegal cover are normally charged with penetrating objectives that require a long-range, more subtle approach, or with activities in which the Israeli Government can never admit complicity.

Mossad directs clandestine operations throughout Europe, including the USSR and East European countries; North and South America; the Near East; Africa; and the Far East, including South East Asia. Mossad activities are generally conducted through Israeli official and semiofficial establishments, deep cover enterprises in the form of firms and organizations, some especially created for, or adaptable to, a specific objective, and penetrations effected within non-Zionist national and international Jewish organizations.

Mossad also is charged with inciting disturbances calculated to create mutual distrust among the Arabs and to draw Western sympathy away from the Arab cause.

In brief, the document shows that everything that the Israeli secret services would have had to do, in order to accomplish the criminal acts of September 11, 2001, the CIA had evidence to suppose that the Israelis either had done or were capable of doing prior to 1982.

Editor's Comment

Positive evidence for Israeli involvement in 9/11 is patchy. There is the fact that on 9/11 the Twin Towers were owned by two men with Israeli loyalties: Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy. There are the five dancing schlomos. There is Benjamin Netanyahu's statement that the 9/11 attack was "very good" for Israel. In addition to 9/11 providing a pretext for the U.S. government to nullify domestic civil liberties it also provided a pretext for the U.S. to declare a "war on terror" which in practice has been a war on Arab countries with strategic economic assets such as oil or could provide an oil pipeline. This has suited Israel just fine, because it is surrounded by Arab countries who (rightly) despise it and would be delighted if the state of Israel ceased to exist.

In a false-flag operation — that is, an operation in which the identity of the real or primary perpetrator is concealed and some other agent is made to appear as the (sole) perpetrator — it is common to use patsies: people who may or may not participate in the operation (whether or not they understand their true roles) and who may publicly be blamed as soon as the dust settles.

The attack on the Twin Towers had 19 patsies. These were the people whom the FBI announced (together with their pictures), soon after the event, were the Arab terrorists who allegedly were responsible (this became the official story). Some of these may have had no connection with the operation, but some (in particular "Mohammad Atta" — or the two "Mohammad Attas", one in the US and one in Germany) may have been recruited for their roles. Mossad would have had no trouble in finding such people.

Although some patsies may have had roles to play (e.g., to be captured on video when catching a connecting flight from Portland (Maine) to Boston on the morning of 9/11), or even actually to have been passengers on some or all of the four Boeing airliners allegedly used in the attacks, it is doubtful that any had a hand in the work on the Twin Towers required for their controlled demolition.

That the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition follows from the fact that it is highly unlikely that the impacts of the airliners and the resulting fires were sufficient to bring them down. The impacts did not cause them to fall because they were still standing 56 minutes (South Tower) and 1 hour and 44 minutes (North Tower) after impact, and no other steel-structure building has ever collapsed as a result of fire (see here). In late August 2011 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth released a documentary video in which numerous highly qualified engineers denied that the official explanation for the collapse of the three buildings (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7) was at all credible. These engineers strongly suggest that the collapse of the three buildings was actually a controlled demolition, but it is unlikely that Israel itself — or any US company (with or without connections to Israel) — possessed the necessary expertise in controlled demolition (of 100-storey buildings no less) to bring this about.

There are four possible ways in which the Twin Towers may have been demolished:

* Self-demolition capability:

It is not impossible that the Twin Towers were constructed in the early 1970s with such a capability, but this is unlikely because the controlled demolition expertise required did not exist at that time, and in any case it is likely that the architect intended them to last 100 years or more, and had no thought of their ever needing to be destroyed. But it is not impossible that a self-destruct mechanism might have been built in sometime in the 1990s after the first attack, but there is no evidence of this.

* Chemical explosives:

Since the Twin Towers exploded (they did not just collapse) this is an obvious possibility, but it is unlikely because of the amount of explosive material that would be needed and the amount of time and effort that would be required to rig the towers for this effect. It has recently been suggested that nanothermite was the explosive used. This hypothesis suffers from the defect that it has never been shown that nanothermite has sufficient explosive power to produce the effects which were witnessed on 9/11 (see here).

* Mini H-bombs:

When one thinks of H-bombs one tends to think of the massive explosions seen in Pacific atoll tests in the 1950s. However, in the forty years 1960-2000 huge amounts of money, time and intellectual ability were invested by the US in the development by the Pentagon of atomic weapons technology, and one possible result of this would be mini H-bombs. One of these in the basement of each of the Twin Towers might have been sufficient (due to the extremely high temperatures produced in a thermonuclear explosion) to vaporize most of the steel (resulting in the huge amounts of dust observed). For more on this see here.

* Black technology:

This term refers to technological capabilities developed in secret (in particular, by the Pentagon) about which nothing has ever been published. This includes so-called directed energy weapons. Since there is no public information confirming the existence of such capabilities this possibility remains speculative.

This editor inclines to the view that the Twin Towers were brought down by the use of mini H-bombs, and that the assertion that nanothermite was responsible is a red herring, intended to distract attention from the possible use of mini H-bombs or black technology, both of which would implicate the Pentagon.

Thus although it is entirely plausible that Israel was involved in the attacks of 9/11 the principal perpetrators must have been elements within (or closely connected to) the US Administration

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References:

Secret CIA Documents on Mossad

Counterspy - An Introduction

Israeli Company Mum About WTC Pullout

Who Destroyed the WTC? (Connect the dots)

Frank Lowy, Zionism and 9/11

Five Dancing Arrested Celebrating MOSSAD's 9/11 False Flag

Netanyahu Says 9/11 Was Good For Israel

Wars for Oil

America's Pipe Dream

Tracking the 19 Hijackers

The Official Story: The Twin Towers

MOHAMED ATTA WORKED FOR ELITE U.S.

Mohamed Atta:Terrorist, Patsy, or Scapegoat?

Evidence that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 Did Not Exist on 9/11

Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

Architects & Engineers for 9/11

Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?

Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?

Military Expert on 9/11

The Journal of 9/11 Research (See SAIC)

The Perpetrators

Bush’s Crusades and the Carlyle Group

The Military Industrial Complex Government Staff :o

By Anonymous :o - Posting #195

Members of US Government Connected To The Top 5 Company's of the Military Industrial Complex

The People: David Kay "Honorable Mention"

Rozanne L. Ridgway Asst. Secy. of State for Europe, 1985-89
James O. Ellis, Jr. C-in-C of US Strategic Command, 2001-02
John T. Chain C-in-C, Strategic Air Command, 1986-91
Charles R. Larson C-in-C, US Pacific Command, 1991-94
Walter F. Doran C-in-C, US Pacific Fleet, 2002-05
Thomas Pickering Career US Ambassador
Nicholas D. Chabraja CEO of General Dynamics
James R. Mellor CEO of General Dynamics, 1994-97
Lester Crown CEO of Henry Crown & Co.
Vance D. Coffman CEO of Lockheed Martin, 1998-2004
Douglas C. Yearley CEO of Phelps Dodge, 1989-99
Kenneth C. Dahlberg CEO of SAIC
Richard Myers Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2001-05
Carlisle Trost Chief of Naval Operations, 1986-90
John Deutch CIA Director, 1995-96
Lester L. Lyles Commander, USAF Materiel Command, 2000-03
Gwendolyn S. King Commissioner of Social Security, 1989-92
Norm Mineta Congressman from California, 1975-95
Vic Fazio Congressman from California, 1979-99
Robert F. Ellsworth Congressman from Kansas, 1961-67
Robin Beard Congressman from Tennessee, 1973-83
John N. McMahon Deputy Director CIA, 1982-86
James Comey Deputy US Attorney General, 2003-05
William J. Haynes II DOD General Counsel, 2001-08
Joseph J. Sisco Kissinger's Mideast Deputy
William O. Studeman NSA Director, 1988-92
Vannevar Bush Pre-internet visionary
Ken Duberstein Reagan's Chief of Staff, 1988-89
William R. Spivey Retired AT&T executive
Robert Walmsley Retired Royal Navy Admiral
Thomas A. Corcoran Senior Advisor, Carlyle Group
Walter M. Oliver Senior VP at General Dynamics
George A. Joulwan Supreme Allied Commander, 1993-97
Joseph W. Ralston Supreme Allied Commander, 2000-03
Lawrence J. Korb The Joint Chiefs of Staff
Pete Aldridge Under Secretary of Defense, 2001-03
Theodore L. Eliot, Jr. US Ambassador to Afghanistan, 1973-78
L. Craig Johnstone US Ambassador to Algeria, 1985-88
Barbara M. Barrett US Ambassador to Finland
John B. Craig US Ambassador to Oman, 1998-2001
John M. Keane US Army Vice Chief of Staff, 1999-2003
Jay L. Johnson US Chief of Naval Operations, 1996-2000
Vernon E. Clark US Chief of Naval Operations, 2000-05
James M. Loy US Coast Guard Commandant, 1998-2002
Gordon R. England US Deputy Secretary of Defense
Richard Armitage US Deputy Secretary of State, 2001-05
James Thomas Lynn US HUD Secretary, 1973-75
James L. Jones US National Security Advisor, 2009-10
William J. Crowe, Jr. US Navy Admiral
William M. Daley US Secretary of Commerce, 1997-2000
Frank Carlucci US Secretary of Defense, 1987-89
Michael W. Wynne US Secretary of the Air Force, 2005-08
Donald C. Winter US Secretary of the Navy, 2006-09
Anthony J. Principi US Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 2001-05
Warren Rudman US Senator from New Hampshire, 1980-93
Carl E. Mundy, Jr. USMC Commandant, 1991-95
Eugene F. Murphy Vice Chairman of GE, 1997-99

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References: Top Secret America

Washington Technology Top 100 US Defense Contractors (2011)

Weapons R Us: Making Warbirds Instead of Thunderbirds

Behind The Pentagon’s Budget Cuts :o

Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense [.pdf]

SAIC - The one "They" don't talk about :o SAholesIC

Boeing

General Dynamics

Lockheed Martin

Northrop Grumman

Raytheon

The FBIdiot's Secretive Practice of "Blackballing" FOIA Files

By Jason Leopold - Posting #194 :o

Have you ever filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FBI and received a written response from the agency stating that it could not locate records responsive to your request?

If so, there's a chance the FBI may have found some documents, but for unknown reasons, the agency's FOIA analysts determined it was not responsive and "blackballed" the file, crucial information the FBI withholds from a requester when it issues a "no records" response.

The FBI's practice of "blackballing" files has never been publicly disclosed before. With the exception of one open government expert, a half-dozen others contacted by Truthout said they were unfamiliar with the process of "blackballing" and had never heard of the term.

Trevor Griffey learned about "blackballing" last year when he filed a FOIA/Privacy Act request with the FBI to determine whether Manning Marable, a Columbia University professor who founded the Institute for Research in African-American Studies, sought the FBI's files on Malcolm X under FOIA. At the time of his death last April, Marable had just finished writing an exhaustive biography on the late civil rights activist. Griffey filed the FOIA hoping he would receive records to assist him with research related to a long-term civil rights project he has been working on.

In a letter the agency sent in response to his FOIA, the FBI told Griffey that it could not locate "main file records" on Marable responsive to his request. Last November, in response to a FOIA request Truthout filed with the FBI for a wide-range of documents on the Occupy Wall Street, the agency also said it was unable to "identify main file records responsive to [our] FOIA," despite the fact that internal FBI documents related to the protest movement had already been posted on the Internet. The FBI has been criticized in the past for responding to more than half of the FOIA requests the agency had received by claiming it could not locate responsive files.

Griffey, who also teaches US history at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, and is co-editor of the book, "Black Power at Work: Community Control, Affirmative Action and the Construction Industry," was baffled. He found it difficult to believe that Marable would not have filed a FOIA for Malcolm X's FBI file. So, he sent an email to an FBI FOIA analyst asking for clarification.

The FBI FOIA analyst responded to Griffey in an email, asking him to supply additional "keywords" to assist in a search of the agency's main file records for documents on Marable responsive to his FOIA request. The analyst then disclosed to Griffey, perhaps mistakenly, that a search for previous requests for records on Marable turned up a single file that was "blackballed" per the agency's "standard operating procedure."

So last May, Griffey again turned to FOIA, this time to try and gain insight into the blackballing process. He filed a FOIA request with the FBI seeking a copy of the agency's standard operating procedure for "blackballing" files.

Two months later, he received five pages from an untitled and undated PowerPoint presentation that outlined procedures for blackballing files from FOIA requests. The FBI cited three exemptions under the law to justify withholding a complete and unredacted copy of the PowerPoint:

(b)(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(b)(7) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information:

C. Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

E. Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law ...

Griffey appealed the FBI's decision to withhold information contained in the PowerPoint under the (b)(7)(E) exemption, but it was denied.

Still, the PowerPoint pages the FBI did turn over to Griffey provide insight into the "blackballing" process. On a page titled, "Blackball Files," it says files identified as 190 and 197 "main files," which are FBI classifications pertaining to FOIA/Privacy Act requests for files on people and civil litigation, are blackballed unless "specifically ask[ed] for" by the requester when an initial FOIA request is made.

Moreover, the agency deems certain "control files," "separate files which relate to a specific matter and is used as an administrative means of managing, or 'controlling' a certain program or investigative matter," that pop up and are unresponsive to a FOIA to be ripe for blackballing. However, a FOIA analyst must first get permission from a supervisor before a "control file" can be blackballed.

Finally, according to the PowerPoint, some files are automatically blackballed by an FBI FOIA analyst, but the public is not permitted to know the classification of files that fall into that category because the FBI redacted that part of the PowerPoint, claiming disclosure would reveal "techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations and procedures."

"Not only are we not told when the FBI withholds material from FOIA requests, but we are not even allowed to know all of the kinds of material it withholds," Griffey told Truthout. "The law itself and not just its enforcement, is now effectively secret."

But Bill Carter, an FBI spokesman, told Truthout in an interview that "blackballing" is not about secrecy nor is the process used in any way to conceal responsive records, which the Justice Department revealed it has been doing for more than two decades in certain cases.

"Blackball is a term of art used by the [FBI's] FOIA section people in the records management division," he said. "It's an unfortunate term. It applies to people and events. It means that we pulled a file that initially looked responsive but after a review it turned out it wasn't because the file didn't match the requesters' specific request" for records.

Carter sent Truthout an email that contained an explanation of the blackballing process as provided to him by Dennis Argall, the assistant section chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section, FBI's Records Management Division:

"[B]lackball" is a term we typically use to describe a file (not a request) that initially looked responsive but upon review we find it's for a different guy or event. It can also be used to describe a file that we won't process because, i.e., a guy makes a request for his "FBI file" in 2005 and [we] process it for him. When he makes another request for his "FBI file" in 2011, we will only process his "records" but will not process the file that was created to respond to the 2005 FOIA request, which is 190 file series [the classification the FBI uses for files requested on people].

That's exactly how the FBI described the blackballing process to attorney Kel McClanahan, executive director of Arlington, Virginia-based National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm.

McClanahan told Truthout in an email interview that he first learned about blackballing when the term was used in a set of FBI "processing notes" he requested from the agency to determine how FBI FOIA analysts had handled one of his FOIA requests.

Although McClanahan believes there is "definitely a place for blackballing in the FOIA process" he said the way the FBI "does blackballing leaves a lot to be desired."

"First of all, even though [the FBI] may blackball 50 records and release 3, they never tell the requester about the 50," McClanahan said, hitting on Griffey's main complaint about blackballing. "They never mention word one about 'and we found other records that we deemed non-responsive.' The requester is left to wonder why the FBI only found 3 records about the subject in question and he will never know that they found 50 others that they ultimately deemed non-responsive unless he has the foresight to FOIA the FBI's processing notes for his request. Knowledge like that is very important when a requester is trying to decide whether or not to tie up [the FBI's Office of Information Policy] with an administrative appeal, let alone litigation."

McClanahan said his concerns would largely be addressed if the FBI "only blackballed records for good reasons."

"If I could trust the FBI only to blackball things that were clearly non-responsive, I don't need to know that they found completely unrelated records," he added. "However, that's not what the FBI does. I have seen it blackball records because they 'weren't FBI records,' even though they were in FBI files (they were FBI copies of other agencies' records, which any FOIA person worth his salt knows are still responsive to a FOIA request made to FBI). I've seen it blackball records because the request asked for 'internal FBI records' and the records in question were sent outside of the FBI, based on a strained interpretation of the word 'internal.'"

The FBI will be forced to make a choice "if it wants to apply FOIA correctly," McClanahan said.

"The agency can either limit its blackballing to records that nobody would think are responsive (e.g. different people with the same name, records outside a set time frame); or it can tell requesters in the administrative stage that it determined that certain records were non-responsive and why," he said. "Failing to do either, however, is bad FOIA."

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References:

Trevor Griffey

Manning http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifMarable

Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention

Pacific Northwest. Labor and Civil Rights Projects

FBI Claims It Does Not Have Any Documents on Occupy Wall Street

Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPD

2009 Rosemary Award for Worst FOIA Performance Goes to FBI

Black Power at Work: Community Control, Affirmative Action, and the Construction Industry

Is The File A Blackball File?

FOIA Exemptions

§ 552. Public Information; Agency Rules, Opinions

Current FBI File Classification List

What Do They "Think" They Know About You?

DOJ Lies about Its FOIA Lies

National Security Counselors

The Real Terrorits - Assassination of a Iranian Nuclear Scientist

By Finian Cunningham - Posting #193

It’s not just an act of war; it’s a taunt for response

The US covert war against Iran raised the stakes even higher today with the assassination of yet another nuclear scientist, with some analysts saying that the Islamic Republic is being pushed into a corner to either back down in its confrontation with the US or retaliate – the latter most certainly triggering an all-out war.

Thirty-two-year-old chemical engineer Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was inside his small Peugeot car when two assailants on motorbike rode up alongside and planted a magnetic bomb on his vehicle in the capital, Tehran. The scientist was killed instantly by the explosion. His driver died later from injuries. And elderly bystander was also killed in the attack.

Roshan was head of technical procurements at Iran’s first uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. His killing bears all the hallmarks of a targeted assassination by foreign covert military agents. Iranian state-owned media and parliamentarians immediately denounced “Mossad”, “Zionists” and the Western proxy-terrorist group, the Mujahedine-e Khalq Organisation (MKO), for having a role in the murder.

Such involvement is likely true, but ultimately the author must have been Washington. None of the groups would dare carry out this high-profile hit without clearance from handlers in Washington. Noticeably, Iranian sources shied away from articulating this obvious conclusion, perhaps realizing the gravity of the consequences.

For the past two years at least it is an open secret that Washington (along with British MI6, Mossad and local proxies) has been orchestrating a campaign of terrorist subversion in Iran – the ultimate aim being to overthrow the 33-year-old Islamic Republic, which replaced the West’s favourite client, the Shah of Iran in 1979. This is the real reason for the contrived confrontation over Iran’s nuclear activities.

Dozens of Iranian scientists, engineers and academics have either been abducted or assassinated by US-led covert ops. Most of them have been closely involved in Iran’s nuclear research. Two years ago, Professor Massoud Ali Mohammed was killed when a booby-trapped motorcycle exploded outside his home in Tehran. Last year, in an attack identical to the latest, nuclear scientist Majid Shahriari was murdered when motorcyclists planted magnetic bombs on his car. Another scientist, Fereydoun Abbassi, who is now head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, was seriously wounded in a simultaneous attack.

On 12 November last year, a massive explosion ripped through a military installation at Bid Kaneh, near Tehran, killing 17 personnel, including Brigadier Hassan Moghadam who is believed to have been a senior missile technician. In that attack, there is suspicion that the explosive payload may have been fired from a CIA aerial drone. Then two weeks later, another explosion hit a nuclear facility in Isfahan, Western Iran.

Combined with CIA cyber-attacks on Iranian research networks and increasing drone incursions into Iranian territory, it is clear that the cold-blooded murder of the country’s nuclear experts is part of a deliberate cover campaign of terrorist subversion – orchestrated by Washington.

The latest assassination in Tehran comes only two days after an Iranian court sentenced a former US marine to death after he was convicted of operating in Iran as a CIA spy. That announcement provoked condemnation from the White House and an irate response in the American media. A US state department spokeswoman lashed out at the Iranian regime accusing it of committing routine political abductions of American citizens.

The details on the convicted man, Amir Mirzae Hekmati (28) from Flint, Michigan, seem murky. But it appears that he was given due process since his arrest in August, including access to a lawyer. He has 20 days to appeal the verdict. It should be noted that three other American citizens arrested previously in Iran on suspicion of espionage were eventually released by the Iranian authorities. It has been mooted that the government in Tehran released those detainees as a gesture for diplomatic dialogue with the Obama administration. The rebuff from Washington may have hardened Tehran to push for the full prosecution in the case of Hekmati.

But the wider context is the concerted efforts by Washington to overthrow the Islamic Republic’s government headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The sentencing of Hekmati is another twist in the spiraling tensions between Iran and the US and its Western allies – tensions that have escalated because of relentless Western aggression over unsubstantiated claims about Iran’s nuclear programme. According to Tehran and undisputed by countless UN inspections, Iran’s nuclear programme is for civilian energy and medical applications and is legitimately within the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

With tightening US-led sanctions bearing down on Iran’s Central Bank and oil industry, the naval war of nerves in the Strait of Hormuz, and the constantly amplified, provocative threats of pre-emptive military strikes against Iran, it is any wonder that Tehran needs to show defiance and assert its sovereign rights with regards to foreign nationals suspected of covert operations.

However, in the climate of hostility, any such move by Tehran is immediately portrayed as a provocation – just as its warning was last week over the closing of territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz to oil trans-shipments if the West proceeds with sanctions. If the murder of the Iranian scientist is a US strike over the sentencing of the alleged CIA spy, then the Iranians are being told that they have no room for manoeuvre – even when the manoeuvre is covered by a claim to sovereign rights.

It seems that the near decade-long Western confrontation with Iran has now shifted gear to an irrevocable vicious cycle where war is all but inevitable.

The latest murder of a senior Iranian scientist seems to be a trenchant ultimatum dispatched from Washington to Iran. The assassination campaign on Iranian territory against its citizens and scientific experts is not just as an act of war. It is a premeditated taunt for a response.

Finian Cunningham is Global Research’s Middle East and East Africa correspondent cunninghamfinian@gmail.com

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References:

[1] Iran and the Terrorism Game

[2] 'Terrorism, Ductile Term For Israel, US'

[3] 'Nuclear assassinations disgrace IAEA'

[4] War Plan Iran: The US Finally Admits Its Criminal Bankruptcy

[5] The Next War on Washington’s Agenda

[6] UK, Israel 'Share' Iran Terror Agenda?

[7] 'Marines Urinating on Taliban' - Behavior Of Terrorists

[8] BFP - “Heroes” – A Poem by Gary Corseri

What's Really Behind The U.S. Sword Rattling With Iran ? ? ?

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - Posting #192

Would the US be defeated in the Persian Gulf in a War with Iran?

Providing precious insight into the dynamics around the Iran-US standoff playing out in the strategically crucial Strait of Hormuz, Nazemroaya describes a situation that inevitably brings to mind the story of David and Goliath. With geography and international law standing resolutely on the side of Iran, we may be in store for a similarly amazing ending.

After years of U.S. threats, Iran has started to take very public steps to demonstrate that it is willing and capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz. On December 24, 2011 Iran started its Velayat-90 naval drills in and around the Strait of Hormuz and extending from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman (Oman Sea) to the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean. Since these drills took place there has been a growing war of words between Washington and Tehran. Nothing the Obama Administration or the Pentagon had done or said deterred Tehran from continuing the naval drills.

The Geo-Political Nature of the Strait of Hormuz

Besides the fact that it is a vital transit point for global energy resources and a strategic chokepoint, two additional things should be noted in regards to the Strait of Hormuz’s relationship to Iran. The first point is about the geography of the Strait of Hormuz. The second point is about the role of Iran in co-managing the strategic strait on the basis of international law and its sovereign rights.

The maritime traffic that goes through the Strait of Hormuz has always been in contact with Iranian naval forces, which are predominately composed of the Iranian Regular Force Navy and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy. In fact, Iranian naval forces monitor and police the Strait of Hormuz along with the Sultanate of Oman via the Omani enclave of Musandam. More importantly, to go through the Strait of Hormuz all maritime traffic, including the U.S. Navy, sails through Iranian territory. No country can enter the Persian Gulf and transit the Strait of Hormuz without sailing through Iranian waters and territory. Almost all entrances into the Persian Gulf are made through Iranian waters and most exits are through Omani waters.

Iran allows foreign ships to use its territorial waters in good faith and on the basis of Part III of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea’s maritime transit passage provisions that stipulate that vessels are free to sail through the Strait of Hormuz and similar bodies of water on the basis of speedy and continuous navigation between an open port and the high seas. Although Tehran in custom follows the navigation practices of the Law of the Sea, Tehran is not legally bound by them. Like Washington, Tehran signed this international treaty, but never ratified it.

American-Iranian Tensions in the Persian Gulf

Now the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) is re-evaluating the use of Iranian waters at the Strait of Hormuz. Legislation is being proposed by Iranian parliamentarians to block any foreign warships from being able to use Iranian territorial waters to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian permission; the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee is currently studying legislating this as an official Iranian posture on the basis of Iranian strategic interests and national security. [1]

On December 30, 2011, the U.S.S. John C. Stennis passed through the area where Iran was conducting its naval drills. The Commander of the Iranian Regular Forces, Major-General Ataollah Salehi, advised the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and other U.S. Navy vessels not to return to the Persian Gulf while Iran was doing its drills, saying that Iran is not in the habit of repeating a warning twice. [2] Shortly after the stern Iranian warning to Washington, the Pentagon’s press secretary responded by making a statement saying: “No one in this government seeks confrontation [with Iran] over the Strait of Hormuz. It’s important to lower the temperature.” [3]

In an actual scenario of military conflict with Iran it is very likely that U.S. aircraft carriers would actually operate from outside of the Persian Gulf and from the southern Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Unless the missile systems that Washington is erecting in the petro-sheikhdoms of the southern Persian Gulf are fully capable and active, the deployment of large U.S. warships may be unlikely in the Persian Gulf. The reasons for this are tied to geographic realities and the defensive capabilities of Iran.

Geography is against the Pentagon: U.S. Naval Strength has limits in the Persian Gulf

U.S. naval strength, which predominately includes the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, essentially has primacy over all the other navies and maritime forces in the world. Its deep sea or oceanic capabilities are unparalleled or unmatched by any other naval power. Nevertheless, primacy does not mean invincibility. U.S. naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are very vulnerable to Iran.

Despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against U.S. naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. Figuratively speaking, the aircraft carriers and warships of the U.S. are confined to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf.

This is where the Iranian military’s advanced missile capabilities come into play. The Iranian missile and torpedo arsenal would make short work of U.S. naval assets in the waters of the Persian Gulf where U.S. vessels are constricted. This is why the U.S. has been busily erecting a missile shield system in the Persian Gulf amongst the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in the last few years.

Even the small Iranian patrol boats in the Persian Gulf, which appear pitiable and insignificant against a U.S. aircraft carrier or destroyer, threaten U.S. warships. Looks can be deceiving; these Iranian patrol boats can easily launch a barrage of missiles that could significantly damage and effectively sink large U.S. warships. Iranian small patrol boats are also hardly detectable and hard to target.

Iranian forces could also attack U.S. naval capabilities merely by launching missile attacks from the Iranian mainland on the northern shores of the Persian Gulf. Even in 2008 the Washington Institute for Near East Policy acknowledged the threat from Iran’s mobile coastal missile batteries, anti-ship missiles, and missile-armed small ships. [4] Other Iranian naval assets like aerial drones, hovercraft, mines, diver teams, and mini-submarines could also be used in asymmetrical naval warfare against the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

Even the Pentagon’s own war simulations have shown that a war in the Persian Gulf with Iran would spell disaster for the United States and its military. One key example is the Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) war game in the Persian Gulf, which was conducted from July 24, 2002 to August 15, 2002 and took almost two years to prepare. This mammoth drill was amongst the largest and most expensive war games ever held by the Pentagon. Millennium Challenge 2002 was held shortly after the Pentagon had decided that it would continue the momentum of the war in Afghanistan by targeting Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and finishing off with the big prize of Iran in a broad military campaign to ensure U.S. primacy in the new millennium.

After Millennium Challenge 2002 was finished, the war game was presented as a simulation of a war against Iraq under the rule of President Saddam Hussein, but this cannot be true. [5] The U.S. had already made assessments for the upcoming Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Moreover, Iraq had no naval capabilities that would merit such large-scale use of the U.S. Navy.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was conducted to simulate a war with Iran, which was codenamed “Red” and referred to as an unknown Middle Eastern rogue enemy state in the Persian Gulf. Other than Iran, no other country could meet the perimeters and characteristics of “Red” and its military forces, from the patrol boats to the motorcycle units. The war simulation took place because Washington was planning on attacking Iran soon after invading Iraq in 2003.

The scenario in the 2002 war game started with the U.S., codenamed “Blue,” giving Iran a one-day ultimatum to surrender in the year 2007. The war game’s date of 2007 would chronologically correspond to U.S. plans to attack Iran after the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, which was suppose to expand into a broader war against Syria too. The war against Lebanon, however, did not go as planned and the U.S. and Israel realized that if Hezbollah could challenge them in Lebanon then an expanded war with Syria and Iran would be a disaster.

In Millennium Challenge 2002’s war scenario, Iran would react to U.S. aggression by launching a massive barrage of missiles that would overwhelm the U.S. and destroy sixteen U.S. naval vessels – an aircraft carrier, ten cruisers, and five amphibious ships. It is estimated that if this happened in reality, more than 20,000 U.S. servicemen would have been dead after the attack within a single day. [6] Next, Iran would send its small patrol boats – the ones that look insignificant in comparison to the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and other large U.S. warships – to overwhelm the remainder of the Pentagon’s naval forces in the Persian Gulf, which would result in the damaging and sinking of most of the U.S. Fifth Fleet and the defeat of the United States. After the U.S. defeat, the war games were started over again, but “Red” had to operate under handicapping restraints so that U.S. forces would be allowed to emerge victorious from the drill. [7] This would hide the reality of the fact that the U.S. would be overwhelmed as an outcome of a conventional war with Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Hence, the formidable naval power of Washington is handicapped by geography coupled with Iranian military capabilities when it comes to fighting Tehran in the Persian Gulf or even in much of the Gulf of Oman. Without open waters, like in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. will have to fight under significantly reduced response times and, more importantly, will not be able to fight from a stand-off (militarily safe) distance. Thus, entire tool boxes of U.S. naval defensive systems, which were designed for combat in open waters using stand-off ranges, are rendered unpractical in the Persian Gulf.

Making the Strait of Hormuz Redundant to Weaken Iran?

The entire world knows the importance of the Strait of Hormuz and Washington and its allies are very well aware that the Iranians can militarily close it for a significant period of time. This is why the U.S. has been working with the GCC countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the U.A.E. – to re-route their oil through pipelines bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and channelling GCC oil directly to the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, or Mediterranean Sea. Washington has also been pushing Iraq to seek alternative routes in talks with Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Both Israel and Turkey have also been very interested in this strategic project. Ankara has had discussions with Qatar about setting up an oil terminal that would reach Turkey via Iraq. The Turkish government has attempted to get Iraq to link its southern oil fields, like Iraq’s northern oil fields, to the transit routes running through Turkey. This is all tied to Turkey’s visions of being an energy corridor and important lynchpin of transit.

The aims of re-routing oil away from the Persian Gulf would remove an important element of strategic leverage Iran has against Washington and its allies. It would effectively reduce the importance of the Strait of Hormuz. It could very well be a prerequisite to war preparations and a war led by the United States against Tehran and its allies.

It is within this framework that the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline or the Hashan-Fujairah Oil Pipeline is being fostered by the United Arab Emirates to bypass the maritime route in the Persian Gulf going through the Strait of Hormuz. The project design was put together in 2006, the contract was issued in 2007, and construction was started in 2008. [8] This pipeline goes straight from Abdu Dhabi to the port of Fujairah on the shore of the Arabian Sea. In other words it will give oil exports from the U.A.E. direct access to the Indian Ocean. It has openly been presented as a means to ensure energy security by bypassing Hormuz and attempting to avoid the Iranian military. Along with the construction of this pipeline, the erection of a strategic oil reservoir at Fujairah was also envisaged to also maintain the flow of oil to the international market should the Persian Gulf be closed off. [9]

Aside from the Petroline (East-West Saudi Pipeline), Saudi Arabia has also been looking at alternative transit routes and examining the ports of it southern neighbours in the Arabian Peninsula, Oman and Yemen. The Yemenite port of Mukalla on the shores of the Gulf of Aden has been of particular interest to Riyadh. In 2007, Israeli sources reported with some fanfare that a pipeline project was in the works that would connect the Saudi oil fields with Fujairah in the U.A.E., Muscat in Oman, and finally to Mukalla in Yemen. The reopening of the Iraq-Saudi Arabia Pipeline (IPSA), which was ironically built by Saddam Hussein to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and Iran, has also been a subject of discussion for the Saudis with the Iraqi government in Baghdad.

If Syria and Lebanon were converted into Washington’s clients, then the defunct Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) could also be reactivated, along with other alternative routes going from the Arabian Peninsula to the coast of the Mediterranean Sea via the Levant. Chronologically, this would also fit into Washington’s efforts to overrun Lebanon and Syria in an attempt to isolate Iran before any possible showdown with Tehran.

The Iranian Velayat-90 naval drills, which extended in close proximity to the entrance of the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aden off the territorial waters of Yemen, also took place in the Gulf of Oman facing the coast of Oman and the eastern shores of the United Arab Emirates. Amongst other things, Velayat-90 should be understood as a signal that Tehran is ready to operate outside of the Persian Gulf and can even strike or block the pipelines trying to bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

Geography again is on Iran’s side in this case too. Bypassing the Strait of Hormuz still does not change the fact that most of the oil fields belonging to GCC countries are located in the Persian Gulf or near its shores, which means they are all situated within close proximity to Iran and therefore close Iranian striking distance. Like in the case of the Hashan-Fujairah Pipeline, the Iranians could easily disable the flow of oil from the point of origin. Tehran could launch missile and aerial attacks or deploy its ground, sea, air, and amphibious forces into these areas as well. It does not necessarily need to block the Strait of Hormuz; after all preventing the flow of energy is the main purpose of the Iranian threats.

The American-Iranian Cold War

Washington has been on the offensive against Iran using any means at its disposal. The tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf are just one front in a dangerous multi-front regional cold war between Tehran and Washington in the broader Middle East. Since 2001, the Pentagon has also been restructuring its military to wage unconventional wars with enemies like Iran. [10] Nonetheless, geography has always worked against the Pentagon and the U.S. has not found a solution for its naval dilemma in the Persian Gulf. Instead of a conventional war, Washington has had to resort to waging a covert, economic, and diplomatic war against Iran.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References: Sanctions Do More Harm Than Good

1] Fars News Agency, “Foreign Warships Will Need Iran’s Permission to Pass through Strait of Hormoz,” January 4, 2011.

[2] Fars News Agency, “Iran Warns US against Sending Back Aircraft Carrier to Persian Gulf,” January 4, 2011.

[3] Parisa Hafezi, “Iran threatens U.S. Navy as sanctions hit economy,” Reuters, January 4, 2012.

[4] Fariborz Haghshenass, “Iran’s Asymmetric Naval Warfare,” Policy Focus, no.87 (Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, September 2010).

[5] Julian Borger, “Wake-up call,” The Guardian, September 6, 2002.

[6] Neil R. McCown, Developing Intuitive Decision-Making In Modern Military Leadership (Newport, R.I.: Naval War College, October 27, 2010), p.9.

[7] Sean D. Naylor, “War games rigged? General says Millennium Challenge ‘02 ‘was almost entirely scripted,’” Army Times, April 6, 2002.

[8] Himendra Mohan Kumar, “Fujairah poised to become oil export hub,” Gulf News, June 12, 2011.

[9] Ibid.

[10] John Arquilla, “The New Rules of War,” Foreign Policy, 178 (March-April, 2010): pp.60-67.

[11] Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline - Link (B) (C)

[12] Kazakh-China Pipeline - Link (B) (C) :o

[13] Habshan-Fujairah Oil Pipeline - Link (B)

[14] Petroline (East-West Saudi Pipeline)

[15] Iraq-Saudi Arabia Pipeline (IPSA) - Link (B)

[16] Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) - Link (B)

[17] Pipeline projects in the Middle East

[18] Persian Gulf Oil & Gas Exports Fact Sheet

[19] All Active and Planned Pipelines in Middle East and Africa

New York Times Misleads On Iran's Nuclear Program

By Judy Miller - Posting #191 - The Obama Deception

Weapons Of Mass Deception

It's deja vu all over again. AIPAC is trying to trick America into another catastrophic war with a Middle Eastern country on behalf of the Likud Party's colonial ambitions, and the New York Times is misleading its readers about allegations that said country is developing "weapons of mass destruction."

In an article attributed to Steven Erlanger on January 4 ("Europe Takes Bold Step Toward a Ban on Iranian Oil"), this paragraph appeared:

The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign. [my emphasis]

The claim that there is "a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective" is not true.

As Washington Post Ombudsman Patrick Pexton noted on December 9,

But the IAEA report does not say Iran has a bomb, nor does it say it is building one, only that its multiyear effort pursuing nuclear technology is sophisticated and broad enough that it could be consistent with building a bomb.

Indeed, if you try now to find the offending paragraph on the New York Times website, you can't. They took it down. But there is no note, like there is supposed to be, acknowledging that they changed the article, and that there was something wrong with it before. Sneaky, huh?

But you can still find the original here.

Indeed, at this writing, if you go to the New York Times website, and search on the phrase, "military objective," the article pops right up. But if you open the article, the text is gone. But again, there is no explanatory note saying that they changed the text.

This is not an isolated example in the Times' reporting. The very same day -- January 4 -- the New York Times published another article, attributed to Clifford Krauss ("Oil Price Would Skyrocket if Iran Closed the Strait of Hormuz "), that contained the following paragraph.

Various Iranian officials in recent weeks have said they would blockade the strait, which is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, if the United States and Europe imposed a tight oil embargo on their country in an effort to thwart its development of nuclear weapons. [my emphasis]

At this writing, that text is still on the New York Times website.

Of course, referring to Iran's "development of nuclear weapons" without qualification implies that it is a known fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But it is not a known fact. It is an allegation. Indeed, when U.S. officials are speaking publicly for the record, they say the opposite.

As Washington Post Ombudsman Patrick Pexton noted on December 9,

This is what the U.S. director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March: "We continue to assess [that] Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.

To demand a correction, you can write to the New York Times here. To write a letter to the editor, you can write to the New York Times here. To complain to the New York Times' Public Editor, you write him here.

UPDATE: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has an alert here.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References: The Manipulation of Fear

Imminent Iran Nuclear Threat? A Timeline Of Warnings Since 1979

Why Is Britain Ramping Up Sanctions Against Iran?

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: Bush’s “big lie” and the crisis of American imperialism

Getting Ahead Of The Facts On Iran

Europe Nears Embargo On Iran Oil

Oil Price Would Skyrocket if Iran Closed the Strait of Hormuz

NYT Misleads Readers on Iran Crisis

The Small World of 9/11 Players: LS2, Vidient and AMEC

By Kevin Ryan - Posting #190 - Awesome Mr. Ryan !!!

Detailed investigation reveals unexpected connections among people who played critical roles related to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Earlier articles have covered some of those connections with respect to the World Trade Center (WTC) and the official reports which were produced to explain the WTC events.[1] This article will begin to outline a wider set of connections that encompasses more aspects of 9/11. Readers may find that, with respect to the 9/11 attacks and those who were responsible for protecting us from terrorism, it is a small world after all.

Barry McDaniel came to the WTC security company Stratesec, in 1998, to become its Chief Operating Officer. In the years before 9/11, Stratesec had contracts to provide security services not only for the WTC, but also for United Airlines, which owned two of the planes hijacked on 9/11, and Dulles Airport, where American Airlines Flight 77 took off that day.

At the WTC, McDaniel was in charge of the security operation in terms of what he called a “completion contract,” to provide services “up to the day the buildings fell down.”[2] McDaniel came to Stratesec directly from BDM International, where he had been Vice President for nine years. BDM was a major subsidiary of The Carlyle Group for most of that time. When Barry McDaniel started at BDM, the company began getting a large amount of government business “in an area the Navy called Black Projects,” or budgets that were kept secret.[3]

The company that McDaniel now leads is called Lancaster Systems & Solutions (LS2). As CEO at LS2, McDaniel has a board of directors which is led by Bruce Bradley.[4] This is an astounding connection due to the fact that Bradley is the founder of Bradley Woods, where Dick Cheney got his start. Cheney worked for Bradley Woods as Vice President during intermittent periods between the times he and Donald Rumsfeld were working for Nixon and running the Ford White House.

It seems an incredible coincidence that the “number two” man for Barry McDaniel today was formerly the closest of colleague of Dick Cheney forty years ago. Of course, people who have studied the attacks in detail no longer believe in coincidences related to 9/11.

It is also odd that LS2 is a company that is so focused on the “response” to 9/11. In fact, few companies are more focused on the 9/11 aftermath than LS2, whose mission is to “deliver a diversified suite of responsive defense solutions to government organizations and multinational corporations who provide military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and emergency response operations across the globe.”[5] The company’s subsidiary, Global Service and Trade, provides equipment for police state operations around the world.

Between the years that he worked with Cheney and McDaniel, Bradley was a director for UBS (mentioned in the review of WTC connections) and Legg Mason, where he was a colleague of Cheryl Krongard, the wife of CIA Executive Director, Buzzy Krongard.

The board of directors which Bradley leads for McDaniel at LS2 includes another former VP of BDM, Ronald Riggin, and several other very interesting people. One such person is Larry Johnson, a former CIA employee and State Department official. Johnson was a paramilitary CIA officer from 1985 to 1989, but he also directed crisis management for hijackings and helped investigate the Lockerbie Bombing (Pan Am 103).

In 1994, Johnson started scripting Special Operations exercises for the State Department. From 1996 to 2006, as Deputy Director of Counterterrorism within the State Department, he led terrorism training for senior-level government officials and served as an expert witness in cases against al Qaeda suspects.[6]

Another director working with Bradley and McDaniel at LS2 is David Pillor, the former director and Executive VP of InVision Technologies (InVision). As the leading provider of bomb detecting equipment for airports, InVision had an interesting history which included installation of its equipment at most major airports prior to 9/11, including those from which the hijacked planes took off.

Sergio Magistri was the CEO of InVision from 1992 through 2004. In a court case related to this period, InVision was charged “with authorizing improper payments to foreign government officials in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).”[7] The case represented the first, and perhaps only, time that the U.S. Department of Justice decided to not prosecute a company which had violated the FCPA.

Magistri and LS2’s Pillor are now both board members at Vidient Systems, Inc (Vidient), a video surveillance company that serves the “homeland security” industry. Vidient is in strategic partnership with Autonomy Corp, where we find the “Prince of Darkness,” Richard Perle. Fellow directors at Vidient include several people who played critical roles related to the events of September 11.

One director at Vidient is Richard Clarke, the former “Counterterrorism Czar,” whose job for nine years prior to 9/11 was to protect the United States from a terrorist attack. There are many important questions that need to be answered regarding Clarke and his associations and actions leading up to 9/11.[8] Clarke’s role in the international failure to respond to the Rwandan genocide of 1994 is another matter that needs further investigation.[9]

At Vidient we also find The Lord Paul Condon. In September 2000, Condon became a director at the British security company, Securicor (now G4S). Three months later, in December 2000, Securicor bought a company called Argenbright which ran security on 9/11 at Dulles and Newark airports where Flight 77 and Flight 93, respectively, took off that day. Argenbright also managed some, perhaps unrelated, security checkpoints at Logan Airport in Boston, where the two other 9/11 planes took off.

The year before 9/11, Securicor was allowing criminals to operate security, and three of its executives pled guilty to conspiracy.[10] And prior to 9/11, Argenbright pled guilty to falsifying employee records so that it could hire those convicted of drug possession and assault.[11] These facts are startling considering that, just weeks after 9/11, officials were evaluating the possibility that the hijackings might have been “inside jobs” in that “the hijackers may have had accomplices deep within the ‘secure’ areas of airports.”[12]

Securicor faced about 30 lawsuits from victim’s families after 9/11. Another director that Condon supervised at Securicor, Trevor Dighton, said of the company’s liability – “I’m not worried about it (the litigation) one little bit. The two planes involved weren’t those that crashed into the towers – that’s the first thing.” Dighton’s confidence might have had something to do with his opinion of Condon, whom Dighton said was “brilliant and knows what he’s doing.”[13]

Vidient director Condon came to Securicor directly from having served as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London for seven years. Corruption was rampant in Condon’s police force during the time he led it.[14] Condon himself was accused of being a racist and of withholding evidence related to the death of Princess Diana. Although the official report on the racism accusations (The MacPherson Report) found that the police force that Condon led for years was “institutionally racist,” British Home Secretary Jack Straw refused to fire Condon.

Another Vidient director working with Pillor, Clarke and Condon is Michael Sheehan, the former U.S. State Department Ambassador at Large for Counterterrorism. Sheehan was a long time member of the U.S. Army Special Forces. He also served on the National Security Council for two presidents, George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1992, and Clinton from 1995 to 1997. After 9/11, Sheehan became the Deputy Commissioner of Counter Terrorism for the New York City police department.

Today, Sheehan is primarily associated with Torch Hill Investments. Recently, Stephen Kappes, the “unusually powerful deputy CIA director” who was also the CIA’s Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence from 2000 to 2002, joined Torch Hill. When signing on with Sheehan, Kappes claimed that — “Many of the al-Qaeda seniors still maintain that another crippling blow to New York City will cripple the United States. They think that this is the key.”[15]

Hopefully, Kappes is not as good at predicting these things as Sheehan has been. After the bombing of the USS Cole, Sheehan asked Richard Clarke –“What’s it going to take to get them to hit al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al-Qaeda have to hit the Pentagon?”[16] That certainly seems like a prescient statement considering that, less than one year later, that was exactly what happened.

Speaking of the Pentagon, the little discussed British company called AMEC had some interesting personnel. It was AMEC’s subsidiary AMEC Construction NA that was responsible for reconstructing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon just before (and after) Flight 77 hit that exact spot in the building. AMEC Construction NA was also immediately hired to clean-up the WTC site at Ground Zero, within hours of the destruction there.[17]

The British parent company, AMEC, provides “engineering and project management services to the world’s energy, power and process industries.”[18] It is a major international player in the oil and gas industry, as well as in other natural resource industries. AMEC had a significant presence in Saudi Arabia dating back to the late 1970s, providing support to the national oil company Saudi Aramco, which is by far the richest company in the world.[19] Executives and board members at AMEC included former directors of NM Rothschild, Kellogg Brown and Root (now Halliburton), and SG Warburg.

AMEC Construction NA was run out of Toronto, Ontario by a man named Peter Janson. The company had offices in New York, Fort Lauderdale, and Phoenix.

From 1990 to 2001, Janson was a fellow director of Donald Rumsfeld at the Swiss-Swedish engineering company, ABB. For the 11 years prior to 9/11, Rumsfeld was the only American director at ABB. In an alarming turnabout, Rumsfeld helped ABB sell nuclear technology to North Korea in 2000 and, two years later, declared the same country a terrorist state and part of the “axis of evil.”[20]

Janson had been the president and CEO of an ABB predecessor, the Swedish company ASEA. Interestingly, ASEA had used the swastika as its company logo until the 1930s. Today, Janson is enjoying the fruits of the “War on Terror” as a director of Teekay Corporation, an oil and gas transport company that operates throughout the world. Additionally, he “reports to the Prime Minister of Canada in his role as a member of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology.”[21]

There will be more about AMEC and the Pentagon renovation project in future articles, but it is sufficient to say that much has been left uncovered in the official investigations into 9/11. A simple review of the people whose roles were critical to the success of the attacks, and their associations before and after 9/11, brings to light surprising connections between companies that were responsible for security and construction, and the people most responsible for protecting the nation.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References:

[1] Kevin R. Ryan, “Demolition Access to the World Trade Center”

The Top Ten Connection Between NIST and Nanothermite,” Journal of 9/11 Studies

[2] History Commons page for Stratesec

[3] The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of The Carlyle Group p. 35.

[4] Website for LS2 A

[5]Website for LS2 B

[6] Website for Berg Associates, profile for Larry C. Johnson

[7] U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Litigation Release No. 19078

[8] Kevin R. Ryan, “Questions for Richard Clarke on COG, the UAE, and BCCI

[9] “9/11 Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke and the Rwandan Genocide

[10] Audrey Gillan and Stuart Millar, “Securicor could face legal claims over hijack airports

[11] Michele Orlecklin, “Airlines: Why Argenbright Sets Off Alarms”

[12] Sally Donnelly, “TIME Exclusive: An Inside Job?” Time, September 22, 2001,

[13] Tom Berry, “The Financial Director interview – Making crime pay,”

continued........###

Change We Can Believe In - Obama Signs The NDAA Act

By Huffington Post - Posting #189 - Happy New Year Amerika

Hitler's Reichstag speech promoting the bill:

The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) was passed by Germany's Reichstag and signed by President Paul von Hindenburg on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step, after the Reichstag Fire Decree, through which Chancellor Adolf Hitler legally obtained plenary powers and became Führer.

The Act granted the Cabinet the authority to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag for four years. The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (English: "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation").

In "Parallel" with Nazi Gernmany the United States government has made into law the following Acts since 11 September 2001:

* The USA PATRIOT Act 2001

* The Military Commission Act 2006

* The John Warner Act 2007

* The Protect America Act of 2007

* National Defense Authorization Act 2011

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References: How Congress Has Signed Its Own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest Act

Who Voted Yes In Congress

Who Voted Yes In The Senate

United States Constitution

United States Bill of Rights

Legislation Related to the Attack of September 11, 2001

U.S. ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS

Top 10 Government Changes Since 9/11

Civil Liberties and the War on Terror: The First Decade (2009)

2011 Another Hard Year For Muslims in America

OLier Signs Defense Bill Despite 'Serious Disillusions'