9/11: Politicans Suspect Prior Knowledge

9/11: Politicans Suspect Prior Knowledge

Paul Lannoye - European Parliamentarian

Statement on www.911truthorg.

"I implore legislators, parliamentarians, and citizens worldwide to become involved in the global 9-11 Truth Movement by signing up at www.911Visibility.org and www.911Truth.org. These organizations have worked with 9-11 family members, and citizens worldwide to lobby government, media, and the 9-11 Commission to demand truth, and to hold public actions to educate the world about the apparent 9-11 cover up"

24 May 2004

Dear World Legislators, Parliamentarians, and World Citizens,

We have watched with alarm that the sad and tragic events of 9-11 (11 September, 2001) have resulted in two wars and a global rollback in civil liberties. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, yet it has been attacked in the name of them. People in countries worldwide have suffered reduced civil liberties in the name of 9-11, and intelligence surveillance of ordinary citizens has expanded dramatically.

I submit to you that before any more wars are launched or liberties are lost in the name of the "war on terror" launched by the Bush Administration after 9-11, a full international inquiry into the events leading up to and on 9-11 be held, which includes 9-11 victims' family members from the U.S. and other nations.

The National Green Party of the United States has requested an open independent 9-11 investigation that would involve 9-11 victims' family members. This is a good start, but it must also be an international inquiry in addition that includes 9-11 family members from nations worldwide who lost loved ones in the 9-11 attacks.

We need this to occur because many, including the 9-11 Family Steering Committee (U.S.), are growing increasingly frustrated with the stunning lack of hard questions for witnesses appearing before the 9-11 Commission. Until these hard questions are asked and fully answered, we should refuse more wars, and renounce reduced liberty worldwide in the name of 9-11 and its resultant war on terror.

A few of these questions are:

1) Who made the insider stock trades against United and American Airlines the day before the attacks? And why did the head of AB Brown Trust (an institution once headed by the current Executive Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard), where $5 million of those stock "winnings" were made, quietly resign on 11, Sept., 2001, and why is $2.5 million of that winning still unclaimed?

2) Why were there no fighter interceptor jets dispatched on 9-11 until it was too late on 9-11, after 4 commercial jets flew hijacked for an hour and a half, ending with the last one crashing into the worlds' most highly protected building, the Pentagon?

3) Why did the CIA Station Chief in Dubai meet with Bin Laden weeks before 9-11 at a U.S. Army Hospital? Why did the Pakistani Intelligence Chief, who was in Washington on 9-11 meeting with top Bush officials, wire lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta $100,000 weeks before the 9-11 attacks?

These are but a few questions needing answers. (Read "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin to further explore the disturbing unanswered questions of 9-11.)

I implore legislators, parliamentarians, and citizens worldwide to become involved in the global 9-11 Truth Movement by signing up at www.911Visibility.org and www.911Truth.org. These organizations have worked with 9-11 family members, and citizens worldwide to lobby government, media, and the 9-11 Commission to demand truth, and to hold public actions to educate the world about the apparent 9-11 cover up.

Warm regards,

Paul Lannoye, European Union Parliamentarian

Bio >>

Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney is a lone voice on capital Hill still asking the tough questions on 9/11.

GOP politicizes 9/11 for its gain, McKinney says

by David Ho

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, Sept 10, 2004

Original Link

sourced from www.septembereleventh.org

NEW YORK � Former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney accused Republicans on Thursday of exploiting the memory of Sept. 11, 2001, for political gain and repeated her implication that truths about the attacks remain untold.

The DeKalb County Democrat, who is running to reclaim the 4th District congressional seat, was voted out two years ago after making controversial comments about the Sept. 11 attacks during a radio interview. She implied that the Bush administration had known the attacks were coming but did nothing to prevent them.

On Thursday, she chaired a hearing staged by activist groups and researchers who say the government has covered up information related to the hijackings.

"No organization, no administration, no forces, no powers that be are going to crush the truth of what happened on Sept. 11 to the ground," she vowed.

She said the New York event, dubbed the "Omissions Hearings," had "no political agenda other than the truth." By contrast, she said, the Republicans who came to Manhattan to hold their national convention last week "stormed into New York City, their words dripping with the politicization of an American tragedy."

McKinney's Republican opponent, Catherine Davis, said in a telephone interview that it is "really unfortunate that the former congresswoman from Georgia has not been able to bring herself to stand with our government, with our troops when we have an open declaration of war against the terrorists."

McKinney said she would not back off the issue just because she's trying to reclaim her former office.

"I'm not going to become a different person," she said. "It would be a betrayal to my constituents and to all of the supporters."

The hearing was sponsored by 9/11 CitizensWatch and 911truth.org, groups that say the official Sept. 11 commission report contains "egregious omissions, discrepancies and distortions." They told an audience of about 100 that the investigations must continue.

"The 9/11 commission report failed to answer the majority of questions posed by victims' family members," said Kyle Hence, communications director of 9/11 CitizensWatch. He said unanswered questions concerning the attacks include those about "multiple specific warnings from overseas, the spiking of FBI investigations, terrorist financing, the lack of defensive air response and the inadequately explained breakdown of the national chain of command that morning."

The hearing's speakers included a broad group of critics who blame the Bush administration for the attacks and the handling of the aftermath. Their positions ranged from accusations of neglect to outright involvement in the hijackings.

Hence cited a Zogby International poll that 9/11truth.org sponsored and released on the eve of the Republican convention that found 49 percent of New York City residents said some U.S. leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."

McKinney praised New Yorkers for "not being bamboozled into submission by questionable, insider, back-room characters who want to take away our freedoms."

She said more public hearings are needed to explore issues the Sept. 11 commission and the Bush administration have failed to address.

Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA Involvement in 9/11:

Alex Jones Interviews Andreas Von Buelow

Original Link>>

Please understand that this is a transcript made directly from a live radio interview. It may not conform to exeplary standards of grammar. Mr. Von Buelow's first language is German. To hear the interview, go to http://www.prisonplanet.com/020804vonbuelow.html

Alex Jones: All right my friends. We are already into the third and final hour of this global transmission against tyranny. And, in the last hour we had Hutton Gibson, expert on the New World Order and of course father of Mel Gibson, on talking about the different key issues. In this hour, we are joined by Andreas von Bulow and he was the federal Minister of Defense, or the equivalent of our Secretary of Defense, been in the German government since the 70s. And up until just a few years ago he was also the Minister of Technology and he has written a book that according to Reuters is the best seller in Germany that translates into �9 11 and the CIA.' And he's not the only German minister who has said we are looking at world fascism here and a powerful military industrial complex institution engineering terror attacks to scare us into submission. And, Andre von Bulow, err Andreas von Bulow, we are so honored to have a man of your stature and obvious intelligence and your courage on this show. Thank you for joining us.

Andreas von Bulow: Hello and it's wonderful speaking, yes.

AJ: Uh, we're going to break here in a few minutes and come back in a longer segment but for those who just joined us, tell us a little bit more about yourself and your book please.

AvB: Well I...I have spent over twenty-five years in politics and now I am out. And in the end I was Minister of Technology before I was Secretary of Defense. Then I had to deal in a commission on East-West transactions about the secret service of East Germany. And this was very interesting inside story because of the Western side doing deals violating the laws in Eastern Eur, err, East Germany, European Community and the United States. It was always two parts dealing with East and West and this bought me a lot of insights in the secret service business.

AJ: And in fact I remember reading about the huge investigations you did that was massive international headlines concerning the Stasi and how different governments had actually been working with these people. If you would like you are of course welcome to get into that as well. Again folks, the equivalent secretary of defense, minister of defense of Germany, and of course technology, the head of that. Just absolutely amazing. Your best selling book, and I wish there was an English translation because I would certainly buy one. My wife does read German. But please, tell us about your book.

AvB: Well I was writing another book and then 9 11 happened. And it was strange to me watching- we all were horrified what was going on and said well that's impossible, how could a crew of people manage do such horrible things? At the first hours, we didn't know who was it, then within hours it came out that probably Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda was behind it. And then within two or three days these 19 people came out. And my objection was- my looking at it- to whom does it bring good? And I found out that it is rather damaging to the Islamic world and perhaps it might be not only be a terrorist attack but perhaps it might be a covert operation. I watched the scenery, what was going on, what the American government-

AJ: Minister, minister, we've got to break; we'll be back in three minutes. Absolutely, we'll go into this in great detail. We are honored to have you. We're talking to Andreas von Bulow. We'll be back. (Fade to bumper music)

(Commercial Break)

AJ: That's right my friends it's eight minutes ten seconds into this 3rd hour of global transmission. I am so honored to have on Andreas von Bulow former German defense minister, head of their defense department and of course until just a few years ago, head of their technology system which is, that is a very high level post, just as high level as defense minister there in Deutschland. And he's written a best selling book and I've read some quotes out of it that have been translated into English. And the title translated is �911 and the CIA.' And he lays out the evidence of the military-industrial complex carrying out the attacks. Also we have lined up Michael Micher. And he of course was the English environmental minister who resigned over Tony Blair's fraud. He has written articles saying that if they didn't carry it out, they certainly funded and allowed them to take place. So, if you've got a brain, it's clear, and Mr. von Bulow, very intelligent individual has gone over this. So, sir, you've said that on the day of the event you began to look at it, you began to research it. And, from your specific expertise in intelligence and military and technology, you know heading up entire sectors of the world's third largest economy. Please discuss for us your research and how you wrote the book and what really happened on 9 11.

AvB: Err, 9 11, I just watched the scenery. And I said there must have- gone something very [wrong]. I watched the TV for example and in the same minute that the TV showed the planes driving into the World Trade Center, you found these Palestinians dancing and laughing. And a few days later one could find out that this was fake. It was made by a TV crew of the defense ministry in Israel and they gave candies to the people and they laughed about it. And, nobody told it. And the question for me was who brought this TV stuff right in time into the national networks like CNN and CBS and so on and so on. And then we look for the, the story came out that this had been done by bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda and these 19 people of Muslim background, which did this. And you could watch the Persian journalist, and nobody showed up. Not one Arabic name was showing up there. And then one is interested to see video because all these 19 passengers must have passed the video, a lot of video cameras in Dallas, and New York, and Logan in Boston, and Portland in the North. You don't get this stuff. And then we're looking for the black boxes and we don't get them. And the story how these, these World Trade Center buildings broke down, they were constructed against an approach by airplanes. And, the firemen of New York, they were able to come to the floor where the fires were burning, and they said, the fire commander said he needed two teams, small, to fight these fires and then it's finished. So the heat, it is impossible that the heat was as high as it has been written in the papers and in all the media.

AJ: And then, and then the feds declared that all firefighter tapes malfunctioned, turns out that wasn't true; we've got copies of them. And it did say that the firefighters said the fires were out or almost out. There is video of people standing in the holes of the buildings with no fire around them. And we're going to go over the evidence that's in your book, sir, and why you came to these educated conclusions.

AvB: Yeah.

AJ: But, first I want to ask you: have you heard the new developments, the owner of the World Trade Center slipped up on TV and said that they blew Building Seven up. The forty-seven story building that wasn't even hit by an aircraft. This just broke two weeks ago, have you heard this?

AvB: Sure, I have heard this. I follow the whole scenery. Normally, it's coming out in Germany, but it's coming out in your country. It's a fascinating background to, to do research via Internet because all this stuff is broadly spread over the Internet. So it's very easy to follow, but in the main media you don't get to hear about this.

AJ: Well tell you what, later this hour, it's only three minutes of audio clips, we will air from the PBS documentary �America Rebuilding,' where they admit they blew up WTC 7. Now, that's important because they said that building fell from fire even though it wasn't hit by a plane. And now, he slips up and says we decided to demolish it on 9-11, but then the mainstream media just ignores that. This is a public admission, sir.

AvB: Yeah, yeah especially that the CIA headquarters in New York was in, was within this building. I think the- how do you call it- the emergency center for the governor, the major, err, mayor was-

AJ: Mayor and governor.

AvB: -mayor was in this building. So, it was not hit by a plane, and the fire was very low. And the surrounding steel constructions were left over and didn't collapse. But, the Building 7 collapsed in late afternoon at 5 o' clock I think.

AJ: Well, from our internal sources, they were running the attacks sir, out of the building and so conveniently got rid of the evidence in one fell swoop.

AvB: This is one theory, it might be. It's convincing but one has to get the whole proof. But the problem is that the elements for proof are destroyed.

AJ: Also-

AvB: You will find them in Japanese cars and in ships of the American Navy.

AJ: Also, sir, we have NORAD standing down for an hour and twenty five minutes but when we had the golfer Payne Stewart went off course for fifteen minutes, he was surrounded in eighteen minutes by five F-16s so why did NORAD stand down?

AvB: Well, this is a big question because it happened in 2001 more than 60 times. That, fighter[s] went up to clear what has been done to airplanes that showed some irregularities. At 9 11, four planes for two hours were able to drive around, fly around even one hour in the direction going toward the west and then turn around and then comeback. The military air force was not able to interdict them. It's [un]imaginable. And the whole story is totally unclear what happened between the Federal Aviation Agency (Administration) and NORAD.

AJ: Absolutely, now I don't know if you've seen the associated press but the CIA was running a drill 15 miles from the World Trade Center that day of flying jets into buildings in New York and DC. My internal sources inside the Pentagon, the lawyers who represent them have said on this show that they were told to stand down because it was quote �just a drill.' That's how you get the good military to stand down; you tell them it's just a drill. And, that drill was going on at 830 in the morning. Is that not obvious, sir?

AvB: It's quite obvious, yeah. It's quite, it's so strange and the most strange thing for me is that after two years you don't have a white book which is documenting everything. If you are looking for the timetable for example you have to make a medium between two or three or five newspapers and radio and TV announcements. So everything is unclear. On the other hand, the American government is running as the call it a world war against possibly sixty nations without really showing the background of 9/11. It's- for me, it's impossible.

AJ: Now by that they admit that nine of the nineteen hijackers, the BBC says seven but it's nine, are still alive. Bin Laden has not been convicted, bin Laden is known CIA, you've got [George H. W.] Bush meeting with the head bin Laden that morning in DC at the Ritz Carleton, you've got the General of Pakistan, the head of their intelligence, meeting with the House and Senate chairs of the intelligence committee at 8:30 that morning, his second trip in his life to the United States. You've got the FBI paying for the houses, the cars, the credit cards of the supposed hijackers. I mean, sir, you start- you've got public officials, Mayor Willie Brown, Joint Chiefs of Staff told not to fly to New York that day. That's all admitted; what do you say to that?

AvB: Well, it's all admitted. So for me, since the official version- it's not credible at all, it's totally incredible. The second solution for me is a covert operation. And this is a way to influence, to brainwash the American people into long, long, ongoing conflict with the Muslim world and all that you get to, for example the oil companies, the last oil reserves which we need for the next decades before the oil age is going out. And probably behind this is a geopolitical thinking that finally China has to be taken out. China is too big and you have to be able to- this is put down in the New American Century, which has been written by a lot of people who are now in government like Cheney, like Rumsfeld and others.

AJ: And now, sir, we've got to break. We're going to get into the Project for a New American Century and Operation Northwoods. Were you aware of a US government plan to carry out 9 11 style attacks?

AvB: You mean, Northwoods?

AJ: Yes, sir.

AvB: Yeah sure I know.

AJ: Is that not a key piece of evidence?

AvB: Well, this is a key piece, a key piece of evidence of the thinking of probably the military in dialogue with politics. Probably, I think Kennedy decided not to do it but I think it was, it was all of the-

AJ: Tell you what, stay there. We've got to break; we'll be right back folks. (Fade to music)

(Commercial Break)

AJ: All right my friends, I'm Alex Jones your host. For the rest of the hour we are honored to have Andreas von Bulow, former Defense Secretary and former head of technology, Department of Technology in Germany. And he's just gotten out of government a few years ago and he's just written a best selling book �9 11 and the CIA' and we have info on that at Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. We will also be posting this interview on the Website in the next few days as well. There are so many facets to this- Mr. von Bulow, continuing with you waking up to what happened on 9 11 and researching it, what are some of the other key points that clearly show that it is impossible that these nineteen people did this; we know that is a fraud. It is a conspiracy theory to say that they did it alone. From your intensive research and your understanding of high-level government activities, what do you think really happened on 9 11?

AvB: Well, nobody can prove what happened 9 11 directly because it has been a covert operation and you don't find proof; you will find only indications. And one of the indications- the indication that everything is right with these nineteen people and Usama bin Laden is that the government is free to show all the prove that is on the table that is on the street that lays on the ground of the World Trade Center and so on and so on. If you have a covert operation the probability is always that the leftover pieces of proof are taken away immediately and a lot of secrecy, a band of secrecy, has taken over everything. And, this has happened with 9 11.

AJ: And that also happened- where you aware the New York Times and Chicago Tribune reported this in �93, the FBI cooked the bomb and trained the driver[s] and had an Egyptian security agent doing it for them, had two retarded Muslims, literally retarded, drive the truck and park it, let the bombing go forward. At Oklahoma City, the same company that destroyed the remnants of the World Trade Center, blew up the remnants of Oklahoma City [and] had that buried under machine gun guard at a private landfill to this day. And they hauled the rubble away from the W T C to China! They wouldn't let you take photographs. Yes, exactly.

AvB: Yeah, then at the beginning the engineers weren't allowed to go up to the steel truss [debris] and had a lot of problems- there was very scarce money. And you know, to clear up the story with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, the Republican majority gave out sixty million dollars, I think it's seventy now, and they started out with 600 000 dollars to try to figure out what happened on 9 11. And, they were taken away from doing research and so on and so on and they are upset. And, Fire Engineer Magazine said it was totally unbelievable what happened with this examination of 9 11.

AJ: Well, they say it was a criminal cover up and now, sir, we've turned into a police state. They can secretly arrest citizens, secretly execute us. They are building admitted prison camps all over the country, this is in our news. We're turning into something like the Soviet Union here.

AvB: Well, I can't comment on this but what's going on in Guantanamo is like that. I think the problem is that if you put people, who ever you like in Guantanamo in Cuba, you take them away for one or two years without letting a lawyer to them, without showing them what you are reprising to them, without having contact from their family- they tell in all court processes what the FBI is wanting from them-

AJ: Well, sir-

AvB: And so you get fake evidence from these kinds of people, if you behave like that.

AJ: And sir, sir. Our mainstream news says that torture is good and they say they are torturing people, that's the Washington Post. Is that a concern that our government now admits it's torturing?

AvB: Well, I'm informed- I don't know whether they are torturing, keeping them is a kind of a torture, but I am told there is an agreement with a lot of states to put these people to Egypt and other states where torture is accepted and is done and you get the final outcome of this torture and you can produce this in front of German courts and American courts and try to bring about final judgment.

AJ: Well that's it. We'll be back; long segment coming up and we'll get more into your book. We're honored to have you, Andreas von Bulow. Stay with us. (Fade)

(Commercial Break)

AJ: All right folks. We're talking with Andreas von Bulow and to make this clear, up until about two years ago he was the head minister over the Department of Technology and before that he was the head of his party's group on defense. Now, we're going to take calls coming up here in just a few minutes, your chance to talk to Andreas von Bulow and the toll free number to join us on air is 1 800 259 9231. And if you read German, speak German, you can go online just type into a search engine or go to the Website and link though and buy a copy of �9 11 and the CIA.' Now, if you want my videos, 9 11 Road to Tyranny, Masters of Terror, my book �9 11 Descent into Tyranny,' go to Infowars.com, go to PrisonPlanet.com and get them. This story is so important that I authorize you to make copies of my films for not for profit, not for sale educational purposes. I want you to get them, I want you to make copies, I want you to put them on the Internet. If you've done that, I want you to air them on local community television stations which has happened on over four hundred now. Go to Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, get 9 11 Road to Tyranny, get Masters of Terror, get my book �Descent into Tyranny,' get Paul Watson's book �Order Out of Chaos' that I've published, they're excellent. The toll free number to order is 1 888 253 3139. Because, if we don't expose the Globalists who clearly carried the attacks out, they're going to carry out more terror. And, they are setting up this police state; the survival of America and frankly the world is at stake because if the Globalists can use our military as their arm to attack sixty-three countries, it's over. So again, that's 1 888 253 3139. The films are 25.95 a piece, twenty buck if you buy three or more, my book is twelve dollars. Again: Inforwars.com or �net or 1 888 253 3139. Now, going back to Andreas von Bulow, sir, we were talking during the break and I said what are some of the other key points that you would like to go over. You mentioned the CIA and insider trading and the Anthrax attacks. Please discuss it.

AvB: Well, the insider trading, everybody knows that there [was] news about insider trading. I think altogether fifteen billion dollars. And, there was speculation about going down, of United Airlines and American Airlines; both airlines which were attacked by 9 11 and other things. So, normally you could find out because I think the American- the CIA together with the financial department, the Treasury, they developed this � watching the markets to find out speculation about going on terrorist attacks. So, they could immediately find out if there were something going on- and they could find out. And, in this case, they- 9 11- the NSA people which are the guys watching via satellites the whole of the transactions going on, on Earth, they said, they told the people to destroy the tapes. They had tapes about this interior trading and they said they had to destroy them so they are not any longer proof.

AJ: Now again, interior trading that's a good term for it, insider trading. So again, insider trading or interior trading going on here and fifteen billion dollars, I think that's a low estimate. It came out the first week, Germany reported on it, France reported on it, the US, �we're going to catch them!' Record put options against United and American; not against other airlines but specifically against these and it leads back to the CIA and suddenly they destroy the evidence. Again, again another smoking gun. Then, you get into anthrax attacks; Bush on Cipro, the most weaponized anthrax ever seen. Tell us about that.

AvB: Well, there the question just is who has the responsibility for this! You know, it overlaid the whole public debate of what was the background and reason for 9 11 for weeks because these attacks were going on for weeks and weeks and weeks. And, finally nothing came out. We have no report on who was responsible, who did it and this again is amazing. I think it belongs probably to the cover up of the psychological cover-up of the whole scenery. And then, the vice-President and the President asking Congress not to go into too much detail about the background of 9 11. What does this mean? And until now it's what the President knew before 9 11 is a total secret. I think there is no secret service around the world which gave no hints to the American secret service community, the CIA, the DIA and so on and so on. They did nothing out of it. The most disturbing thing is that these guys that knew about something in coming up 9 11, were cutout before. I mean the local level of the FBI offices, they knew quite a lot and they tried to force the central organization to go into the details about Arabs taking lessons in flight schools and so on. And, the guy who decided on top, I think the second man who was in the FBI he [said] �no we don't do this' and he got promoted after 9 11.

AJ: By the way, the US embassies that allowed supposed Al- Qaeda back in got record cash bonuses. The FBI agents who ordered other FBI agents not to stop Al-Qaeda, they go bonuses. Bush signed W199I months before 9 11 ordering FBI not to stop Al-Qaeda. They threatened to arrest FBI Robert Wright if he tells us what he knows. I've interviewed his lawyer David Schippers who knew about the attacks beforehand. He went to Bush; Bush wouldn't talk to him, Ashcroft wouldn't talk to him. And you said something very astute, sir, you talked about the anthrax being a psychological cover-up of the scenery. That is, all these questions coming out in the early days about 9 11 got blacked out by the anthrax attacks and that's absolutely why that happened. We've tracked that back to Fort Detrick, Maryland. And they said it wasn't weaponized anthrax, it turned out it was the most weaponized ever seen.

AvB: Yeah, that's absolutely correct and the wars which were reasoned to be fights against terrorism, the war against Afghanistan to put out the Taliban it was decided long before and I think in June before 9 11. The Afghanistan government- no, the Pakistan government and the Indian government [were] told there would be an intervention in October.

AJ: Also, 44 000 US troops, 18 000 US troops were in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Bush had the battle launch orders on his desk two days before 9 11.

AvB: That's exact, that's exactly-

AJ: And sir, I want to digress back to torture for a minute because you have been, you've impressed by, I mean you know so much about this, you've researched it so well- On the torture issue, General Rick Baucus quit Guantanamo because he quote �refused to torture the people there' and the CIA section chief bragged in the Washington Post that they fly them to foreign countries and then the CIA tortures them themselves so they do admit the torture.

AvB: (Pause) Sure. I can't comment on this [but] it's obvious; all the court proceedings against for example against Moussaui I think it was the 20th nominally- it was supposed in each aircraft to have five hijackers and this one was taken into prison by the FBI. I think the process was made in Alexandria, Virginia and I think the judge said that if you don't give the proof [of] these guys who are running Al- Qaeda and give these people for cross-examination then I can deliver a judgment. The same is true in Germany; we have people who are related to Al-Qaeda-and probably Al-Qaeda is an artificial, err, [de]nomination of-

AJ: CIA fiction.

AvB:- a ruse of elements of Islamic people. In Hamburg, the trials are failing because the American government is not delivering the proof.

AJ: Absolutely and look, we've had military officers and many others on, it is clear that Al Qaeda is a CIA creation. A foggy boogie man so the military-industrial complex can carry out attacks and then pin it on them and I mean we know when bin Laden blows up a building supposedly, our government pays his family to rebuild it.

AvB: Yeah.

AJ: I mean there's the payoff right out in the open.

AvB: Yeah, the whole background of- the whole personalities like bin Laden, like Al Qaeda, like Taliban, even Saddam Hussein, these are all figures that were handled by the CIA in former times. So probably they are recycled in the system now as bad guys. Before, they were the good guys taking away the Russians out of Afghanistan and dealing with this, getting money for this, getting paid for this now they are used as bad guys. Usama bin Laden has been, in '95, in the Balkans in an operation the Americans were with the UKG in Albania. You find these guys all over; you find these guys in Chechnya for example. There are also �former Afghanis' as they are called and they are [driven] in loaded planes of the CIA for example.

AJ: Absolutely so they provide the crisis so Big Brother could provide the police state solution. Andreas von Bulow it is clear that if we do not expose at least who stands to gain from this terror and who was involved in it, that is the large financial interests that own our government, they are going to be able to use America as the engine of quote imperial mobilization and world domination. As Zbigniew

Brzezinski and the PNAC documents said, how important is it to expose this for the future of free humanity?

AvB: I think it's, for everybody outside of the United States it's extremely important because it's a question of whether democracy will survive and whether the state of law is kept up or we'll be driven by public relations and financial interest. And I think the main thing for the Americans is who pays for all this. Because, if the oil companies get more cheap oil and make their money out of it, the American taxpayer has to pay for the military machine. The oil companies aren't paying for that. It's not the military-industrial complex paying for that, it is the American taxpayer so it's extremely important.

AJ: Absolutely and now we are paying record amounts for fuel for petrol in this country while they have record supplies and the oil companies are posting record profits. I want to get into W T C 7 because I want people to hear these clips. These are from the PBS documentary, and this will just take a minute sir, and then I want to get your comment on it, where they describe how Building 7 fell and how they removed it first because quote �nobody died in it.' It's the owner, Larry Silverstein who pulled it, gave the order to demolish it on the afternoon of September 11th, so, Mark, go ahead and hit that clip for us please.

PBS Documentary (narrator): World Trade Center 7 had always been considered the starting point for rebuilding. Located north of the slurry wall, Building 7 had been cleared faster than the rest of the site. There had been no bodies to recover. Pelted by debris when the North Tower collapsed, Seven burned into the late afternoon allowing occupants to evacuate to safety.

PBS Documentary (Silverstein): I remember getting a call from the, err, Fire Department commander telling me that they were not sure they would be able to contain the fire. I thought we had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do was, was pull it, and they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

AJ: We made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse. Now here's Dan Rather, seconds after it collapses and this is what Dan Rather had to say and then we'll get von Bulow's comment.

(Voice of Dan Rather): What you are seeing are high shots, now here we're going to show you a videotape of the collapse itself. Now we go to videotape of the collapse of this building. (Associate- �it's amazing') Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.

AJ: Now, again, the seismographs show multiple explosions, the firefighters were told to get back. Von Bulow, how important is this piece of evidence?

AvB: The explosions, well the government has to explain it! They have to prove their case. They have to this conspiracy theory that these nineteen Muslims under the direction of Usama bin Laden. It's not my business; it's only �if there are explosions, if it's true, can it be that the heat out of kerosene is able to destroy these huge buildings in a manner that they are collapsing in a�

AJ: Symmetrical.

AvB: �free-fall in a very short- in a few seconds, that they broke together. It's nearly impossible. So everything that is on the table is telling that the government story is not true. And there must be another story and it must be explosions and the spikes in geological institutions in five states, 2.2 on the Richter scale, you have to find out what's the background. And five or seven days later the temperature on the ground was five hundred degrees, or a little bit more than 450, if just fires were-

AJ: We've got to break. We'll be right back.

(Commercial Break)

AJ: We're talking with Andreas von Bulow. Former minister at the highest levels of the German government. Former Technology Minister. And I know we have a lot of callers but we only have time to take maybe one or two, Dan in Oklahoma. I just want to commend Andreas von Bulow for writing this book 9 11 and the CIA and I would hope a publisher would get a hold of it and translate it and publish it here because I would definitely carry it. You can find information on the book for those who read and speak German at Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. Andreas von Bulow let's take a call, let's talk to Dan in Oklahoma. Dan, you're on the air go ahead.

Dan: Yes, thanks Alex. Mr. von Bulow my question is following this disaster of 9 1 1, I understand Germany, France, and Russia and why they didn't want to get involved because of the money they had invested with Iraq. With the military-industrial complex like it is, what do you understand the New World Order to be especially since they said they could us this event to-

AJ: Yes, who are, who are the forces behind government-sponsored terror?

AvB: Who are the forces behind government? I do not understand this.

AJ: Well we know this global government is forming. We know that powerful financial interests are engineering terror attacks, who are the forces behind the military industrial complex?

AvB: Well, it's always interesting. If you look at who owns the munitions factory in the East-West conflict or the Near-East conflict, they are always trying to sell their material to both sides. And, they are always interested in conflict and they would like after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, the noble thing would be to cut down this military-industrial complex, which costs the American taxpayer a huge amount of money. Exactly the same time the Soviet Union breaks down, this new terror thing comes up. The first terrorist attacks were I think the World Trade Center one and you find out the leading guy of this bombing, this time an agricultural bomb, he was going immediately to FBI and saying �I'll tell you everything about this' and they agreed finally twenty-four hours before the attack in 1993, they would change the powder, the dangerous powder against the [non] dangerous powder and the FBI didn't come up to do this so-

AJ: Yeah, they cooked the bomb and trained the drivers and that's another patsy.

AvB:-people were [injured] and six people were dead. In Oklahoma you had nearly the same thing. You had two attacks. One was perhaps McViegh and this other guy but there was another attack much more strong than this agricultural bomb and there is an American general, an Air Force general who for I think ten years or fifteen years in charge of this explosive institute and he said never could this agrarian bomb bring about such damage. There must be something else and they found that within the building there were demolition charges.

AJ: Absolutely, Dan thanks for the call. I hope we can get you on in the future again, Andreas von Bulow, you've been so kind. You have such amazing courage to stand up and tell the truth and we've been honored to have you on the show from Germany. God bless you.

AvB: Thank you.

AJ: Thank you very much and have a good evening.

Michael Meacher is Labour M.P. for Oldham West and Royton. He was the U.K. Environment Minister from May 1997 to October 2003 and has had thirty year career in politics. He wrote the foreword to David Ray Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Click here for radio interview.

This war on terrorism is bogus

Michael Meacher M.P.

The Guardian 6, September 2003

Original Link>>

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".

The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.

The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.

This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

I'm also a believer in the cock up theory

Matthew Tempest

The Guardian

29 July 2004

Michael Meacher courted much controversy with his 'difficult' questions about 9/11 and the war on terror, but, he tells Matthew Tempest, he is absolutely not a conspiracy theorist.

article>>