Skip to content

9/11 Ten Years Later: Part Two

by on September 22, 2011

The United Nations is in session for  its annual meeting, so it must be time for some sparring rhetoric between Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the United States.  Beyond the usual clash of rhetoric, “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that as an engineer he’s sure the twin towers were not brought down by jetliners.  Ahmadinejad, in an interview with The Associated Press, says it would have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply by hitting them.  He says some kind of planned explosion must have taken place.”

At some point, we’ll return to the discussion of what caused the towers to fall.  The North and South towers were each hit by a plane. At 8:46:40 – 47 minutes after takeoff – American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.  The plane was hijacked about fifteen minutes into the flight; in the duration of the flight two stewardesses kept contact with the ground by phone. At 9:03:11 United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.  It took off at 8:14 and was hijacked about thirty minutes later. Did the planes cause each building to fall?

Two more planes were hijacked and two more planes crashed that day.  Whether these two planes that were hijacked were the same planes as the ones that crashed will delight the discussion of those who pay attention to basic laws of nature for years to come.  “At 9:37:46 American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 mph.”  However, as will be discussed in the anonymously authored report at a later time, and as you could find for yourself, the hole created is much smaller than the size of a jumbo jet.  Whatever the reality is, damage was done to the Pentagon, and the anonymous report will later look at why.

“The hijackers had planned to take flights scheduled to depart at 7:45 (American 11), 8:00 (United 175 and United 93), and 8:10 (American 77).  Three of the flights had actually taken off within 10 to 15 minutes of their planned departure times.  United 93 would ordinarily have taken off about 15 minutes after pulling away from the gate.  When it left the ground at 8:42, the flight was running more than 25 minutes late.”  The names of the four flights of September 11th have become engrained in our cultural memory; not least United Flight 93.  It appears to be the only story of successful resistance by passengers to the hijacking, if dying in a field is to be considered success.

Over the past decade the world has “seen the emergence of two major terrorist groups – Osama Bin Laden’s ‘Al Qaeda’ and more recently, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  Terrorist incidents around the globe have been attributed to both groups, with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi establishing global notoriety with the video-taped beheading of three hostages in Iraq.”  Just after the video-taped beheading of Nicholas Berg, Eugene Armstrong, and Nick Hensley, al-Zarqawi swore allegiance to Bin Laden, although they had always been reported as rivals.  This created “the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq that helped justify the US invasion – a link that could not be proven, until someone created it and drew world attention to it.”

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi comes from an impoverished and uneducated background.  Osama Bin Laden came from a wealthy and well-educated family.  However, “if funding is a prerequisite to the level of activity supported by terrorists, one is forced to conclude that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is funded from some unknown source.  One is also forced to conclude that al-Zarqawi had access to passport forgery capabilities, and that he had significant connections for the purchase of weapons, explosives, chemicals and more. More simply, the newer, more public Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq represented a mature, sophisticated intelligence operation.”  Of course, “CIA and British intelligence made Osama the success he is, and as long as he threatened the stability of Iran, or the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, he received all the arms and money he required.”  It should be obvious that al-Zarqawi required the same advantages, if he was to be the same kind of operative.  How does this relate to the beheadings al-Zarqawi is accused of?

A careful review of the facts which surround these executions suggests that little is at is appears. An alternative interpretation of the events is suggested:

    1. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is most likely a Mossad (Israeli intelligence) counter-espionage front (Whether this group is the original al-Zarqawi, or someone assuming his identity becomes immaterial.) This front was probably established under the direction of General Meir Dagan, current head of the Mossad who was responsible for setting up an Israel intelligence network in Iraq after the Iraqi-Kuwait War
    2. The executed hostages of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were probably not innocent bystanders and victims, but rather players in the world of espionage. To that point, a number of other, less publicized beheadings were broadcast as the executions of CIA agents. (In passing, one should note that no “Israeli” agents have been publicly executed by this group, although it is reported that Dagan did set up a network in Iraq.)
    3. The hostages executed in Iraq were most likely executed by the Mossad for five reasons: 1) to create publicity and credibility for their Muslim front in Iraq, 2) to create American support for Israel against the Muslim threat to Israel’s existence, 3)to clean-up loose ends in their own intelligence world, 4) to send a message to other operatives and intelligence trespassers that the Middle East belongs to the Mossad,and that Mossad deals with its enemies harshly, and 5) to foster divisiveness amongst the Iraqi Muslim population, ultimately resulting in break-up of Iraq into smaller countries – a Balkanization of Iraq.
    4. There are, in all likelihood, two arms to the Mossad: one of which is patriotic and public-service oriented, with another that is a more-or-less a rogue operation, heavily infiltrated by Russian mafia, ex-KGB and ex-Israeli Special Forces. This latter side is the ‘dark side’. This group has extensive connections to the international black market in armaments originating from former Soviet republics. It is linked to the conservative right-wing of Israeli politics: Sharon and the Likud Party. The different sides of the Mossad work together when it serves their own purposes – but neither controls the other

However incredible this may seem, a review of the public record suggests this interpretation is far more credible than the current, common view that the Muslim terrorists are fanatics striking out against America…The probability that the level of sophistication demonstrated by Musab al-Zarqawi is not the product of a well-established intelligence organization is pretty slim.
The contention that Musab al-Zarqawi is a “front” for a Western ally is not isolated to this terrorist group. As shall later be shown, this contention is consistent with the reports that show that most of the Muslim terrorist groups which ring the former Soviet Union (the “Islamic Liberation Party, the World Wide Islamic Front, the Defenders of the Shariat, the Mukhadjiri movement, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and Al Qaeda) are funded and controlled out of Western capitals by Western diplomats.

 

This is Part Two of a many part series, synthesizing the stories of 9/11, its aftermath, and our future.

Advertisements

From → 9/11 Report

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: