Wednesday 22nd of September 2021

the smoke of 9/11...


"A really bad idea, embraced by millions of people, is still a really bad idea.” ~ Tony Blauer


A personal creative idea outside the box can still be a really bad idea" — Gus Leonisky




Here we follow a couple of videos on YouTube. 


One is by John Cleese about creativity for managers. 

John Cleese claims that creativity is not a special talent. People are either in an ‘open’ or ‘closed’ state of mind. The closed mode enables people to apply themselves to tasks with vigour and concentration; the open mode is more relaxed and conducive to creative thinking. Cleese talks about how leaders can induce an open mode in their team members and establish confidence in them to accept that there is a succession of learning steps on the road to total quality. The sting is at the end of the “lecture” at which point Cleese tells his audience not to teach the technique to subordinates, otherwise they might become too clever and upset your little game so to speak.



The other video is by Paul Ruikens.

Paul Ruikens is an expert in achieving big goals in the easiest, fastest and most elegant way possible. Originally trained as a chemical engineer, he has moved his focus to the fascinating field of high performance. His work is based on his knowledge and experience about the practical application of behavioral psychology, neuroscience and especially common sense. He currently works worldwide to make successful people, teams and organizations even more successful. He lives with his wife and two children in Maastricht. 


Yep… The lecture by Ruikens starts with someone reproaching Professor Einstein to give the same exam question to students, year after year… Professor Einstein's view was that the question may be the same, but the answer was DIFFERENT each year due to new knowledge… Cute. 


Thinking outside the box is Gus’s bread and butter daily… I may be deluded about this. My box may be just be a tiny bit bigger and my paint box a bit too messy. But the world is complicated out there... So from time to time one needs to revalue the purpose and value of what is achieved or not. 


Ruikens is generous by giving that 95 per cent of what we do is “on automatic”… I have suggested before, that 99 per cent is our “on automatic” proportion. Even getting older is a change we do “on automatic”… Trying to avoid getting old is like a frantic search for the fountain of youth...


Having new ideas — or ideas different to the majority of people — does not mean they are good and that one is a genius — Trump excepted (sarcasm here). In general civilisations progress because ideas of one (or several people) — good or bad — are adopted by the majority and this does not change the quality of the idea much. Some ideas that have propelled civilisation are idiotic like religious ideals — but they define a common purpose to build cathedrals and castles for divine kings. We get taken by the flotsam and jetsam of the majority. We join the boy scouts...


I don’t remember what I write or think. But I know I did think or wrote about certain subjects. So I sometimes re-read my own opinions to limit my confusion. In regard to images, I nearly remember all of them, including the hundred (thousands) of individual Christmas cards I painted and sent to people on birthdays. 


Memory and delusions, as well as delusive memories can affect our understanding outside the box. Here is a diversion:


Beta-blockers block the effects of stress hormones. As a result, they can also reduce the physical symptoms of anxiety, such as trembling and sweating. 


Although they do not have approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating anxiety, doctors may prescribe them off-label for this purpose.


Gus does not take any drugs.. Hum, not any apart from Red Ned, Chardonnay, Cognac and the occasional Porto… Should I indulge too much in these, I might then take one aspirin. Apparently Sir Nigel Hawthorne of the “Yes Minister” series took some Beta Blockers once to reduce anxiety at not remembering his complicated convoluted lines of the script, and ended “floating” a bit. As far as the public was concerned, the gibberish that was written for him could have been delivered in any order or with more gibberish added without us noticing. It would have made no difference. 


If you wonder where I am going, don’t panic… Here comes the official version versus versions outside the box in regard to events and why we should be prepared to assess the validity of both argument. Imagine Margaret Thatcher, yes the iron lady that never rust, indulging in a bit of creativity outside the box of politics. As mentioned before, politics is the art of marketing politics… That is to say making the public at large swallow the relative pill of “what’s good for them”. Anyway, it came to light that Margaret was an avid fan of the “Yes Minister” show… This imprimatur gave headaches to the writers. The idea of the show was to demonstrate the way government worked (or did not) despite the politicians marketing their own brands of politics. And then of all things extraordinary, Nigel (Humphrey Appleby) and Paul Eddington (Jim Hacker) got a summons to play with Margaret Thatcher in a short sketch that SHE HAD WRITTEN for the show. They were all stunned, but after deliberation “they” — by that time both were playing in different shows in the West end — went with it. 


One has to say that the deliberate sentences of the show that had become funny clichés, were damn awful coming from Margaret. The sketch was a ridiculous parody making politics even too odious and real. And this is were we're arriving too. What is read and what is not in the domain of official government explanations of events. From the Unz review via Russia Insider


Sure enough, the quantitative results came out exactly the way I knew they would, and I was quite pleased with my resulting cover story “The Myth of Hispanic Crime” that ran in the March 2010 issue of The American Conservative. Not only did my detailed analysis eventually win over Prof. Rushton and most of my more thoughtful critics, but it also sparked an enormous Internet debate, and probably had widespread influence. I was puzzled at the time that such simple calculations had not previously been undertaken by America’s vast army of pro-immigrant academics and journalists, and could only wonder whether they had deliberately avoided investigating the issue for fear that the claims of their anti-immigrant opponents would prove entirely correct.


Regardless of the cause, for years afterward whenever I Googled “Hispanic Crime” or “Latino Crime”, the search engine would turn up many tens of millions of web pages, but my own article was generally listed in the top five or six results, quite often in the top two or three. Even today, nearly a decade later, copies of my article still rank remarkably high in such searches on Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.


Was my controversial analysis actually correct? Well, when I moved to Palo Alto in 1992, neighboring East Palo Alto had America’s highest per capita murder rate, which obviously made people here rather nervous. But then over the next 25 years, a vast flood of Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, swept into the region, and the city became overwhelmingly Latino and immigrant.

Perhaps coincidentally, the homicide rate fell by some 99%, with the last two years marred by only a single killing, a murder-suicide involving a couple of elderly white lesbians, while all other crime rates have also plummeted. Palo Alto is home to the CEOs of Google, Facebook, Apple, and numerous other leading tech companies, so perhaps rightwing activists should be less than totally mystified why their anti-immigrant zealotry has generally fallen on rather deaf ears within the Silicon Valley business community.

Although immigration and Hispanic crime were perennial topics in that HBD group, for a few years after the 9/11 attacks the latter issue was almost entirely displaced by feverish exchanges on Muslim terrorism and the accompanying Clash of Civilizations. Once again, I was invariably on the short end of a 99-to-1 divide, with nearly all the others in the group claiming that destruction of the World Trade Center conclusively proved that we needed to close our borders to foreign immigrants.


Is this the view of a bad bloke, Unz, as explained by his Wikipedia entry?...


So, are we once more ready for the high jump in regard to the 9/11 various conspiracies? We will be adventurous outside the box, but this does not mean that this adventure is correct, being in the “conspiracy theory” domain. Is there a creative element in explaining a situation from a different view point, with arguments that stack up well together, while the official narrative, most of it hidden from public view, is full of holes like Swiss cheese...



Meanwhile, after the murder of Bin Laden by Obama’s pup seal army, CounterPunch provided this:


But save for one doubtful video, Bin Laden never took credit for 9/11. In fact, he repeatedly denied any responsibility for those mass murders. On September 28, 2001, he was interviewed by the Karachi Ummat, an Urdu language newspaper. The US Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a component of the CIA, translated:




BIN LADEN: … [?] I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. [GusNote: many Muslim lie in the same way as Christians are hypocrites. Religions are deceit in themselves]. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya, and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies [of Muslims]. The US has no friends, nor it wants to keep one because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates [?] Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed [?] The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive [?] Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of $40 billion. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other US President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks [?]…



 CounterPunch continues


This week, our government decided, finally, to kill off the Bin Laden apparition. Since the United States had supposedly been after him since 1998, you would think they’d hang on to their man a bit longer after they got him, if they got him, but within hours of finding her public enemy number one, America got rid of Bin Laden!

Less than six hours after news came that he had been killed, it was announced that Bin Laden had already been buried at sea. The official explanation: The US must respect the Islamic tradition that a corpse be buried within 24 hours, and since no country was willing to be his final host, not even Saudi Arabia, his homeland, Bin Laden had to be dumped where he could never be exhumed. How convenient. Case closed!





Gus: So where to from now on? Let’s go and visit “conspiracy theories” territory…


Seeking 9/11 Truth After Twenty Years



First who is Ron Unz? According to Wikipedia — which on politics, as we know can be editorialised by anti-this or that, so we have to take some of this with a beta-blocker pill — Ron is bad...


Ron Keeva Unz (born September 20, 1961) is the editor-in-chief and publisher of The Unz Review, a website that promotes antisemitismHolocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and white supremacist material.[1][2][3] In addition to Unz's own writings, the site has hosted pieces by white supremacist Jared Taylor, among others.[4]

A former businessman, Unz unsuccessfully ran for governor in the California gubernatorial election in 1994. He has sponsored multiple propositions promoting structured English immersion education. He was publisher of The American Conservative from March 2007 to August 2013.


The Unz Foundation, of which he is president, has donated to individuals and organizations which are alleged by the ADL to have published or expressed opinions that are antisemitic or, in the case of Norman Finkelstein, are anti-Israel. In 2009, 2010 and 2011, it gave Paul Craig Roberts $108,000, $74,000 to Philip Giraldi, $75,000 to Finkelstein, $80,000 to CounterPunch and $60,000 to Philip Weiss, co-editor of the Mondoweiss website.[20][33] In addition, the Unz Foundation has given grants to Alison Weir, founder of If Americans Knew.[20] He has donated tens of thousands of dollars to VDARE, which he admits is a "quasi-white nationalist" website, but has said "they write interesting things".[34][35][25] In 2017, he was a keynote speaker at VDARE's first national conference.[36]

In 2017, The Unz Review received public attention when former CIA operative Valerie Plame was criticized after tweeting an article by a columnist, counter-terrorism specialist Philip Giraldi, titled "America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars" published in the webzine.[37][38] As a result, Giraldi was fired from writing articles for The American Conservative.[39]




Here is some of Seeking 9/11 Truth After Twenty Years




When utterly astonishing claims of an extremely controversial nature are made over a period of many years by numerous seemingly reputable academics and other experts, and they are entirely ignored or suppressed but never effectively rebutted, reasonable conclusions seem to point in an obvious direction. Based on my very recent readings in this topic, the total number of huge flaws in the official 9/11 story has now grown extremely long, probably numbering in the many dozens. Most of these individual items seem reasonably likely and if we decide that even just two or three of them are correct, we must totally reject the official narrative that so many of us have believed for so long.


Now I am merely just an amateur in the complex intelligence craft of extracting nuggets of truth from a mountain of manufactured falsehood. Although the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement seem quite persuasive to me, I would obviously have felt much more comfortable if they were seconded by an experienced professional, such as a top CIA analyst. A few years ago, I was shocked to discover that was indeed the case.


William Christison had spent 29 years at the CIA, rising to become one of its senior figures as Director of its Office of Regional and Political Analysis, with 200 research analysts serving under him. In August 2006, he published a remarkable 2,700 word article explaining why he no longer believed the official 9/11 story and felt sure that the 9/11 Commission Report constituted a cover-up, with the truth being quite different. The following year, he provided a forceful endorsement to one of Griffin’s books, writing that “[There’s] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” And Christison’s extreme 9/11 skepticism was seconded by that of many other highly regarded former US intelligence professionals.


We might expect that if a former CIA intelligence officer of Christison’s rank were to denounce the official 9/11 report as a fraud and a cover-up, such a story would constitute front-page news. But it was never reported anywhere in our mainstream media, and I only stumbled upon it a decade later.


Even our supposed “alternative” media outlets were nearly as silent. Throughout the 2000s, Christison and his wife Kathleen, also a former CIA analyst, had been regular contributors to Counterpunch, publishing many dozens of articles there and certainly being its most highly credentialed writers on intelligence and national security matters. But editor Alexander Cockburn refused to publish any of their 9/11 skepticism, so it never came to my attention at the time. Indeed, when I mentioned Christison’s views to current Counterpunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair a couple of years ago, he was stunned to discover that the friend he had regarded so very highly had actually become a “9/11 Truther.” When media organs serve as ideological gatekeepers, a condition of widespread ignorance becomes unavoidable.




Gus: Read more of why the official version about 9/11 does not stack up and most of it has been hidden from view for the last 20 years. Knowing what REALLY happen won’t change what happen. But like in sciences, we need to ask questions. Even if it is the SAME QUESTION, the answer might be different from year to year onwards… Who knows...


Let’s wait for the “secret papers” to be released by Joe Biden. By now there would have been plenty of time for the graphic department of the CIA to fudge fake acceptable documents, unlike those badly made documents that sunk Valerie Plame… 






Gus Leonisky


Truth-seeker on a part time basis…


MORE TO COME: why the official version makes sense....


FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the official version...


Judaism and Psychology



Jews have engaged with and steered psychological inquiry since its inception.





Jewish psychologists and the influence of Jewish tradition have been instrumental in creating the field of modern psychology. The fundaments of several psychological movements can be traced directly to Jewish values, ideas, and practices, and Jews in the 20th century were at the forefront of research about the psyche and the varieties of human behavior.

Jewish psychologists founded several branches of psychological inquiry. All of the major theorists of the Gestalt school, except Wolfgang Kohler, were Jews. Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, Kurt Lewin, and Kurt Goldstein posited theories of perception and understanding based on holistic understanding, rather than a previous model based on the computation of parts.

Psychoanalysis was founded by Sigmund Freud and, with the notable exception of Carl Jung, most of its early proponents were also Jews.


Why the Jews?

Some intellectual historians speculate that it was particular Jewish personality and cultural traits that led Jews to lead the field of psychology in its early days.


In a social psychology study of Jewish families, researchers F.M. Herz and E.J. Rosen found that in contrast to some other ethnic groups, Jews on the whole tend to choose verbal expression as a way of expressing emotions, particularly negative or painful experiences. Historical circumstances of oppression, segregation, and confined living conditions often resulted in close-knit communities of Jews who felt their pain deeply and expressed it to one another plainly.

According to studies conducted by Mark Zborowski, an anthropologist who investigated cultural aspects of pain, Jews respond more quickly to physical discomfort than non-Jews. Jewish families often discuss issues and problems in great detail, and suffering individuals are encouraged to “let out” their feelings and achieve catharsis through communication.

According to Peter Langman, “Jews differ from many cultural groups in that they place less value on self-reliance and are less suspicious of taking their problems to professionals.” Thus, the traditional role of rabbi/rebbe involves extensive counseling or psychotherapy.

Traditionally, there was even what today we would call an “intake.” The gabai (rebbe”s assistant) met with people before they met with the rebbe, and then:

After interviewing the supplicant about his family, his background and his troubles, the gabai delivers the kvitl [written description of the presenting problem] and an oral report to the rebbe. (Zborowski & Herzog, 1995, p. 172)


Psychoanalysis and Freud

But it took Josef Breuer, an assimilated Jewish doctor living in Berlin, to apply this “talking cure” with his Jewish patient, Bertha Pappenheim, to ignite the practice of psychoanalysis. These two understood that when they talked about her symptoms, and particularly their origin and emotional side effects, she would feel better. Pappenheim, a notable figure on the scene of Berlin’s intellectual salons, is also well-known as Freud’s case study about Anna O.

Sigmund Freud’s Jewishness is a hotly debated subject. He always described his father’s background as Hasidic, and his mother was raised traditionally Jewish. Though by the time he was growing up the family had partially assimilated, Freud acknowledged how influenced he was by Jewish thought, and the mystical tradition in particular.

David Bakan, in his 1958 book, Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition showed that Freud was familiar with, and interested in Kabbalah. Bakan advanced the idea that Freud’s psychoanalysis was a secularization of Jewish mysticism.

According to Langman and Dana Beth Wasserman (1990), Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams was based on interpretive methods used to understand dreams in the Talmud . The aspects of Freudian dream psychology that seemed perhaps shocking to the gentile public were already part of Jewish text: symbolism, word play, enactment of taboos, and numerology

Psychoanalysis, as it then developed into a standardized practice, was dominated by Jewish men; Sandor Ferenczi, Karl Abraham, Max Eitingon, and Hans Sachs were a few of the 17 initial members of the Psychoanalytic Society in Vienna. Peter Langman has written that, contrary to a prevailing notion of this group’s secular orientation, “the analysts were aware of their Jewishness and frequently maintained a sense of Jewish purpose and solidarity.”

Later contributors to the practice of psychoanalysis also included a disproportionate number of Jews: Alfred Adler, Erik Erikson, Erich Fromm, Otto Rank and Bruno Bettelheim.

In fact, the practice had become so dominated by Jews that Sigmund Freud based his decision to hand over leadership of the movement to Carl Jung partially because he was not Jewish and would therefore refute the position that psychoanalysis was a Jewish conspiracy. Jung, however, became very interested in Kabbalah and continued to pursue this interest, ultimately linking kabbalistic beliefs with his understanding of the “collective unconscious.”


Other Major Contributors

Erich Fromm evinced a particularly Jewish ethos in his studies of ethics, love, and human freedom. Fromm had studied Talmud extensively in his youth in Germany, and was guided by his father and grandfather, both rabbis. Though he became largely secular in his interpretations of Hebrew scripture, the influence of biblical stories, particularly in Genesis, greatly impacted his work.

In the realm of popular psychology, Joseph Jastrow, whose father authored the well-known Talmud dictionary, was the first recipient of an American Ph.D. in psychology in 1898 and established a psychology lab at the University of Wisconsin. With a syndicated advice column and a talk radio show, he was the first psychologist to stir up public interest in psychological inquiry.

During the same time period, Hugo Munsterberg founded American applied psychology and became a well-known figure in America with his numerous books and magazine articles. Boris Sidis pioneered personality studies, entertaining the public with his spectacular cases of split personalities.

Abraham Arden Brill and Isador Coriat brought Freud beyond the European urban centers by translating his work into English. Influential psychoanalyst Alfred Adler also fed the public’s hunger for in-depth knowledge of their inner lives by going on lecture tours and giving numerous interviews in which he was helped by his translator, the psychiatrist Walter Beran Wolfe.


Jewish Texts and Ideas

All of these psychologists received a solid Jewish education, at least during their childhood years, and for some of them, this exposure to Jewish mores and stories influenced their later work by providing archetypal human relationships, such as the conflict between son and father, represented in Abraham and Isaac, and the lament of childless women like Sarah.

In particular, Adler used the original family networks of the Torah to illuminate contemporary family dynamics. Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, along with other forefathers and mothers, provided models for kinship behavior.

Furthermore, Jewish involvement in the development of psychology in the early 20th century helped to create a more tolerant culture than in Western Europe. As Jewish psychologists participated in researching and defining human nature, they also sought scientific justifications of the role of the Jew in modern society.

Many of them popularized aspects of their studies and advocated against prevailing conceptions about hereditary intelligence, ethnic stereotypes, and particularly Christian interpretations of the unconscious. They also delved into previously taboo aspects of human behavior, producing classic studies of the social psychology of sexuality, deviance, and immorality.

Capitalizing on the wide appeal of their ideas, Jewish psychologists articulated a state of mental health and social cohesion that served the dual purpose of benefiting the Jewish and other immigrant communities, particularly in America.

Jewish understanding of the roots of human behavior as communicated in the Talmud are often more in tune with the revelations of psychological science than other religious frameworks. In Jewish tradition, the impulse to do good, the yetzer hatov, is balanced out by the yetzer hara, the evil inclination. This complex idea that every individual embodies productive and destructive instincts allows for a more nuanced self-development process than a moral compass that sees the pure individual tainted by sin and in need of salvation.


Issues in Jewish Psychology Today

Some Jews have since seized upon the insights of modern psychology to address issues of mental illness in the Jewish community. Their specifically Jewish psychology infuses a scientific understanding of the functioning of the mind and emotions with an appreciation of God and Jewish history.

Rabbi Abraham Twerski, for example, has done much to educate these communities about addiction and domestic abuse, even drawing specific parallels to the practices of Alcoholics Anonymous and wisdom in the Talmud. Other practitioners like Rabbi Harold Kushner and Dr. Joyce Brothers have applied Jewish wisdom and insight to modern relationships, and have gained a huge following among Jews and non-Jews alike.

And yet many observant Jewish communities have been slow to take on the insights of psychology, remaining in denial about specific mental health issues. This might be because psychological theories can conflict with traditional Jewish ideas. The Jewish system of mitzvot, commandments, presumes that individuals have agency and free will. Classical psychological concepts like the unconscious and contemporary approaches that stress psychopharmacology and the physiology of psychological disorders may challenge traditional Jewish notions of “freedom.”

In the secular world, however, Jews have assumed a central role in the formation of new psychological theories and applications to this day, and the continuing contribution of Jews to the field of psychology is a testament to the perceptive position of the Jewish people and the emotionally astute cultural heritage that binds them.




Now to Brainwashing…



Brainwashing, also called Coercive Persuasion, systematic effort to persuade nonbelievers to accept a certain allegiance, command, or doctrine. A colloquial term, it is more generally applied to any technique designed to manipulate human thought or action against the desire, will, or knowledge of the individual. By controlling the physical and social environment, an attempt is made to destroy loyalties to any unfavourable groups or individuals, to demonstrate to the individual that his attitudes and patterns of thinking are incorrect and must be changed, and to develop loyalty and unquestioning obedience to the ruling party.





Gus: Excellent you are still with me… 



We need to connect some dots. In Ron Unz views, the Jewish cabal could be responsible for 9/11:



Admittedly, I’d occasionally heard of some considerable oddities regarding the 9/11 attacks here and there, and these certainly raised some suspicions. Most days I would glance at the front page, and it seemed that some Israeli Mossad agents had been caught while filming that plane attacks in NYC, while a much larger Mossad “art student” spy operation around the country had also been broken up around the same time. Apparently, FoxNews had even broadcast a multi-part series on the latter topic before that expose was scuttled and “disappeared” under ADL pressure.


Although I wasn’t entirely sure about the credibility of those claims, it did seem plausible that Mossad had known of the attacks in advance and allowed them to proceed, recognizing the huge benefits that Israel would derive from the anti-Arab backlash. I think I was vaguely aware that editorial director Justin Raimondo had published The Terror Enigma, a short book about some of those strange facts, bearing the provocative subtitle “9/11 and the Israeli Connection,” but I never considered reading it. 

In 2007, Counterpunch itself published a fascinating follow-up story about the arrest of that group of Israeli Mossad agents in NYC, who were caught filming and apparently celebrating the plane attacks on that fateful day, and the Mossad activity seemed to be far larger than I had previously realized. But all these details remained a little fuzzy in my mind next to my overriding concerns about wars in Iraq and Iran.

However, by the end of 2008 my focus had begun to change. Bush was leaving office without having started an Iranian war, and America had successfully dodged the bullet of an even more dangerous John McCain administration. I assumed that Barack Obama would be a terrible president and he proved worse than my expectations, but I still breathed a huge sigh of relief every day that he was in the White House.

Moreover, around that same time I’d stumbled across an astonishing detail of the 9/11 attacks that demonstrated the remarkable depths of my own ignorance. In a Counterpunch article, I’d discovered that immediately following the attacks, the supposed terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden had publicly denied any involvement, even declaring that no good Muslim would have committed such deeds.





So, the question has to be asked: would jews commit suicide to pilot planes into the towers?. The simple answer is no. The next question is how long would it take for a Jew disguised as an Arab to convince a group of 30 or so Muslim fanatics to commit suicide by flying planes into the towers? Five minutes? Two hours? Or less? "Look guys, here is the plan..."


We do not have to go into far-fetched territory. The Muslims fanatics ARE ALREADY BRAINWASHED by their own beliefs. It would not take much psychological manipulation (BY ANYONE, including the Saudis) to give them an extraordinary role in killing “infidels” and striking at the heart of infidel territory. So the theory that the Jews (not all of them obviously, but some devious enough, say MOSSAD) could have be responsible for 9/11 can hold some water…









The 9/11 Trial: Why Is It Taking So Long?… I KNOW ! I know… Let’s blame the CORONAVIRUS !!!!!!



The trial of five men accused of plotting the attacks had been scheduled for early next year — almost 20 years after the hijackings. Now even that schedule won’t be met. Here are the reasons.


By Carol Rosenberg


April 17, 2020


This article was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.


WASHINGTON — Next year is the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings that killed 2,976 people in New York, at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. For much of those two decades, the United States has been holding five men accused of helping plot the attacks.


But they have yet to come to trial. The military’s legal proceedings at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have lurched from setback to setback, disappointing the families of the victims who have watched in frustration and dismay. Then over the summer, a military judge finally set a timetable toward a trial that envisioned a start date early next year.


Now, that schedule has suffered a one-two punch that promises more delay. First, the coronavirus crisis has cut off most access to Guantánamo Bay, complicating the work of the prosecutors, defense teams, judiciary and support staff who shuttle between the base and the mainland. Then the judge abruptly announced last month that he was retiring from the Air Force and would leave the case next week.


Most pretrial work, including legal meetings, is on hold. The prison at Guantánamo does not allow the five defendants to meet with their lawyers by telephone or video link.

The departing judge, Col. W. Shane Cohen, has postponed his plan to begin the trial on Jan. 11, 2021, by at least two months. But it will be up to the next judge — who, when chosen, will be the fourth since 2012 — to work out when to start what is envisioned to be a yearlong trial.


The events of the last month are only the latest obstacles. Here are 10 key reasons it has taken so long.


The Black Sites


The prisoners were held out of reach of the courts for years in the belief that they might have information that could stop another attack, help disrupt the Qaeda terrorist network and lead them to Osama bin Laden. Rather than take the defendants to New York to trial after their captures in Pakistan in 2002 and 2003, the United States dispatched them to a secret network of prisons run overseas by the C.I.A.


“C.I.A. was never interested in prosecuting,” one of the architects of the interrogation program, James E. Mitchell, testified this year at Guantánamo.


“That, I think was the core conflict between the C.I.A. and F.B.I.” in the black sites where defendants were held, Dr. Mitchell said. “The C.I.A. was not going to let them set off another catastrophic attack in the United States. They were going to walk right up to the line of what was legal, put their toes on it, and lean forward.”

It was not until September 2006 that President George W. Bush had the defendants transferred to Guantánamo for trial.


The Legacy of Torture


The years the defendants spent in C.I.A. custody complicated — some say contaminated — everything that would follow. During that period, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, accused of being the architect of the attacks, was waterboarded 183 times. All five defendants were brutalized, isolated and kept incommunicado.


What they told their interrogators was inadmissible in court. So, to prosecute Mr. Mohammed and the others, the Justice Department had F.B.I. agents question them again at Guantánamo in 2007 in an effort to obtain confessions untainted by torture.


Defense lawyers have been challenging those F.B.I. interrogations in lengthy court proceedings, essentially a minitrial before a jury is chosen. The lawyers argue that the prisoners had been conditioned by the C.I.A. to tell future interrogators what they wanted to hear and want the judge to exclude their statements to the F.B.I.


A Slow Start


Before the prisoners could be charged at Guantánamo, Congress had to approve new military commissions to replace a format the Supreme Court had shut down as unconstitutional. To normalize their detentions, the Pentagon gave each defendant a status hearing and first International Red Cross visit. Even then, years into their custody, the defendants were denied lawyers.


The five defendants were formally charged for the first time at Guantánamo in June 2008, more than five years after their capture. The death penalty case drew swift criticism as sacrificing due process for national security interests.


Then questions arose about the mental competence of one defendant and whether a manifesto attributed to all five — claiming responsibility for the attacks — could be the basis of a guilty plea. In a capital case, the rules of the war court required a military jury to hear evidence and then deliberate a punishment in a two-step process.

Obama Intervenes


President Barack Obama, who had come to office promising to close Guantánamo, suspended the military trials for a period of review. One part of the administration revamped the military commissions with Congress while, on a separate track, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. concluded that the Sept. 11 case should be tried in New York. The plan met with fierce resistance.


Some New Yorkers feared a trial of that magnitude would snarl traffic in Lower Manhattan, harm business and put a terrorist target on New York City. Congress passed legislation forbidding federal trials for Guantánamo prisoners.


The case started anew on May 5, 2012, with new charges and a new law that gave war crimes defendants protections similar to those offered in national security trials in federal court.


Capital Case Complexities


A prosecution decision to try the five men together in a capital punishment case added layers of complexity and lengthened the process.


By law, each defendant gets a qualified death penalty defender, known as a learned counsel, who is paid by the Pentagon. These seasoned criminal defense lawyers demanded experts, consultants, more lawyers and information that might help them argue against the death penalty, known as mitigation evidence.


In a joint trial, a setback in one defense team slows progress for all. In 2014, the first judge split off the case of one defendant when an ethical issue arose over the F.B.I. turning a defense team member into a confidential informant. But the prosecutors insisted on reuniting the cases, adding months to the litigation.


C.I.A. Involvement


The C.I.A. and prosecutors, invoking national security protections, have refused to turn over trial preparation materials to the defense lawyers or were slow to do so.

Initially, the lawyers said, the prosecutors provided the same evidence that they had prepared for the lower standard Bush administration-era trials. Lengthy pretrial proceedings — discovery requests, motions, hearings — ensued, with defense lawyers demanding, and the judges sometimes agreeing, that they get access to the kind of evidence they would see in a federal case.


As they did, the defense teams began complaining of government intrusions into their work, including the mysterious appearance of a former C.I.A. contract interpreter on a defense team and the discovery of eavesdropping equipment in their meeting rooms. The developments forced the trial judges to take testimony to try to resolve a series of ethical issues confounding fair trial rights.


Enduring Secrecy


Prosecutors declared last Nov. 1 that they had given the defense lawyers all the pretrial evidence they were entitled to see. But in the months that followed, they continued to turn over hundreds of documents, in part because of changing classification rules.


Years before, the chief prosecutor predicted that a White House decision to declassify a Senate Intelligence Committee study on the C.I.A. black site program would provide the defense lawyers with the information they needed for a fair trial. It did not. The 500-page, partly redacted summary that was released in December 2014 served as a road map for what information defense lawyers would seek to prepare for trial. Litigation continues on access to evidence.


Transcripts of public hearings are released to the public with portions blacked out, suggesting that something said aloud in court has been retroactively classified.


Legal Quandaries


The years the men spent in C.I.A. custody raised questions about admissibility of evidence with no real precedent in American jurisprudence. The military judge’s job includes balancing what the government contends are the national security secrets of the case against the right of the men to a fair trial, a complex juggling act.


Because it is a national security case, a judge cannot order the government or its intelligence agencies to disclose information. Instead, the judge has the option of suspending a trial until they do — or dismissing the case.

Pretrial hearings and appeals courts have also had to address some basic legal questions confronting the hybrid federal-military court — like the definition of a war crime and how much international law applies to when the war on terrorism began. Prosecution and defense lawyers have been calling witnesses, making legal arguments and filing multiple briefs on these issues.


Location, location, location


The crude court compound the Pentagon built at Guantánamo as a temporary outpost of the war on terrorism turned out to be expensive and inadequate.


Everyone but the men accused of the crime commute to Guantánamo from Washington, and points beyond for one- to three-week hearing sessions that have been plagued by flight delays, cancellations, mold-damaged offices and communications failures.


Judges have also canceled hearings because of hurricanes, health issues, higher court challenges and, recently, the coronavirus.


Revolving personnel


Two of the three military officers who presided as judges in the case chose to retire from service and leave the case; the third left the bench for a prestigious position in the Marine Corps.


Military defense lawyers typically spend two or three years on the case and then go back to the legal offices within their respective services to advance their careers, and earn promotions. Some court contractors find the pace of travel and crude conditions at Guantánamo too difficult and move on.


A 75-year-old capital defense lawyer who had been on the case for eight years is leaving for health reasons. His successor needs a security clearance, to meet the prisoner and time to read and absorb eight years of litigation, all hindered by restrictions stemming from the coronavirus.




So here we are… We’re none the wiser. We know nothing. And not only this, engineering reports are conflicting as to why the towers fell. 


My own flimsy explanation (already posted on this site) relies on my metallurgy studies back in the 1960s: At 750 degrees Celsius, instead of expanding, STEEL CONTRACTS, then expands again. This apparently is due to the atoms of carbon realigning themselves into a different lattice under heat. My theory is simplistic: some of the vertical beams were expanding while others were contracting. This difference within the few remaining beams after impact would be enough not to be able to support the weight of the stories above the impact. 


As well, due to the heat, and vaporisation of the aluminium of the plane, some rust, dust and the disintegrating plasterboards would eventually combine into THERMITE dust in various places. Thermite burns at over 4000 degrees Celsius… This would have melted the beams into liquid giving the impression of sheer cuts at floor level as if cut by oxyacetylene. Once the top collapses, the weight engenders the domino effect of floor after floor popping down. No need to have placed explosives to demolish the buildings at priori. 


Awaiting the secret files releases by Joe Biden, with boredom already... Note, there is no official version until these files are released...


We might get a surprise...


FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

redacted titbits....


The FBI has released a newly declassified document related to logistical support given to two of the Saudi hijackers in the run-up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The document details contacts the hijackers had with Saudi associates in the US but does not provide proof that senior Saudi government officials were complicit in the plot.

Released on the 20th anniversary of the attacks, the document is the first investigative record to be disclosed since President Joe Biden ordered a declassification review of materials that for years have remained out of public view.


The 16-page document is a summary of an FBI interview done in 2015 with a man who had frequent contact with Saudi nationals in the US and who supported the first hijackers to arrive in the country before the attacks.

Biden last week ordered the Justice Department and other agencies to conduct a declassification review and release what documents they can over the next six months.

Much remains hidden

He had encountered pressure from victims’ families, who have long sought the records as they pursue a lawsuit in New York alleging that Saudi government officials supported the hijackers.

The heavily redacted document was disclosed on Saturday night, hours after Biden attended September 11 memorial events in New York, Pennsylvania and northern Virginia.

Victims’ relatives had earlier objected to Biden’s presence at ceremonial events as long as the documents remained classified.

The Saudi government has long denied any involvement in the attacks.

The Saudi Embassy in Washington has said it supported the full declassification of all records as a way to “end the baseless allegations against the Kingdom once and for all.”

The embassy said that any allegation that Saudi Arabia was complicit was “categorically false.”


The trove of documents is being released at a politically delicate time for the US and Saudi Arabia, two nations that have forged a strategic – if often difficult – alliance, particularly on counterterrorism matters.

The Biden administration in February released an intelligence assessment implicating Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the 2018 killing of US-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi, but drew criticism from Democrats for avoiding a direct punishment of the crown prince himself.

Saudis accused of complicity

Victims’ relatives cheered the document’s release as a significant step in their effort to connect the attacks to Saudi Arabia.

“The findings and conclusions in this FBI investigation validate the arguments we have made in the litigation regarding the Saudi government’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks,” Jim Kreindler, a lawyer for the victims’ relatives, said in a statement.

“This document, together with the public evidence gathered to date, provides a blueprint for how (al-Qaeda) operated inside the US with the active, knowing support of the Saudi government.”

That includes, he added, Saudi officials exchanging phone calls among themselves and al-Qaeda operatives and then having “accidental meetings” with the hijackers while providing them with assistance to get settled and find flight schools.

Regarding September 11, there has been speculation of official involvement since shortly after the attacks, when it was revealed that 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudis. Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda at the time, was from a prominent family in the kingdom.

The US investigated some Saudi diplomats and others with Saudi government ties who knew hijackers after they arrived in the US, according to documents that have already been declassified.

Still, the 9/11 Commission report found in 2004 “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” the attacks that al-Qaeda masterminded, though it noted Saudi-linked charities could have diverted money to the group.



Read more:



Read from top.