The FBI is instructing local police departments and "communities against terrorism" to consider anyone who harbors "conspiracy theories" about 9/11 to be a potential terrorist, in a circular released to local police departments. The circular thus adds 9/11 official story skeptics to a growing list of targets described by federal law enforcement to be security threats, such as those who express"libertarian philosophies,""Second Amendment-oriented views," interest in"self-sufficiency,""fears of Big Brother or big government," and "Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties."
A newly released national poll shows that 48% of Americans either have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, or do not believe it at all.
The FBI circular entitled "Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Sleepers" says that people who should be 'considered suspicious' of possible involvement in "terrorist activity" include those who hold the "attitude" described as"Conspiracy theories about Westerners." The circular continues: "e.g. (sic) the CIA arranged for 9/11 to legitimize the invasion of foreign lands."
Section of FBI circular to local police, "Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Sleepers."
"Sleepers" refers to "sleeper cells," in FBI jargon, which are terrorists awaiting orders to be activated into terrorist activity.
In 1998 it was declassified by the Pentagon that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had approved a plan, in 1962, to attack and kill US citizens to "provide justifications for US military intervention in Cuba." The plan was code-named Operation Northwoods, the face page of the declassified document is below.
The plan was signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Lyman Lemnitzer. It was rejected by President John F. Kennedy, who demoted Lemnitzer.
According to the polling firm YouGov, 38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it.
"Excusing violence against Americans on the grounds that American actions provoked the problem."
The latter is an apparent reference to thinking such as the "blowback" doctrine, which criticizes US foreign policy and links alleged errors in that policy, such as the invasion of iraq, to terrorist activity.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
US Army Major General Albert Stubblebine
The document cites "fury" at the "global policies of the U.S."
Among well-known doubters of the official 9/11 account are many military officers, law enforcement personnel, firefighters, and pilots, all working through affinity groups. One is US Army Major General Albert Stubblebine, who has said of the three buildings which fell on 9/11:
"They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition."
This September 11th a group of citizens, architects, and engineers, led by families of 9/11 victims, unveiled an international ad campaign questioning the official version of 9/11. The campaign is sponsoring signs and billboards around the world which ask the question: "Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?"
http://rethink911.org Rethink911.org billboard in Dallas.
The 9/11 issue has been actively pursued on the Internet, and largely excluded by the major media. However, news organizations such as Time have covered the architects and engineers billboard campaign, sponsored by a group called 2,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Bloggers and other citizens have long argued that the science employed by the official story is impossible, and that the three towers must have been destroyed by some other means. As the FBI circular states, some argue that 9/11 was planned by a covert, relatively small but well-placed coup faction within the US government "to legitimize the invasion of foreign lands," notably Iraq and the Middle East. In 2005 General Wesley Clark, former presidential candidate, said that he was given a copy of a memo by a ranking member of the Bush administration that revealed that war hawks in the Pentagon planned on attacking "seven countries in five years," with Iraq only the beginning.
Other federal law enforcement agencies have been criticized for sweeping characterizations of potential terrorists, which demonize Constitutionally protected activity. In 2011, 18-year law enforcement veteran James Wesley Rawles warned that the Department of Homeland Security was being trained to consider as potential terrorists, among other people, those who had expressed "libertarian philosophies, "Second Amendment-oriented views," "Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies,) "Fear of economic collapse," "fears of Big Brother or big government," and "Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties." Since Hurricane Katrina, food stockpiling consultants and merchants have reported greater-than-ever activity and interest in storing long-term supplies of non-perishable food and water supplies.
Investigators believe the CIA used Saudi Arabia as a go-between to recruit the two hijackers' in order to circumvent laws forbidding the Agency from conducting spy operations on U.S. soil.... declassified court filing has appeared to confirm what Infowars has long ago reported: the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated in part by U.S. government assets (and Israel).
A court filing from the Guantanamo Military Commission, the court considering the cases of defendants accused of carrying out the terrorist attacks in New York on September 11, 2001, reveal that the CIA was closely monitoring two of the hijackers, and may have even recruited them before they flew planes into the World Trade Center buildings.
The filing was originally published in July 2021 but was heavily redacted. Now a “unexpurgated” copy has been provided by independent researchers, according to RT’s Felix Livshitz.
The document details DEA veteran Don Canestraro’s investigation of potential Saudi government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, conducted at the request of the defendants’ lawyers.
Canesraro and numerous FBI agents in the investigation appear to conclude that the CIA obstructed official investigations ostensibly to conceal its infiltration of Al Qaeda.
Of the great many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks still unresolved over two decades later, perhaps the biggest and gravest relate to the activities of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar in the 18 months leading up to that fateful day. The pair traveled to the US on multi-entry visas in January 2000, despite having repeatedly been flagged by the CIA and NSA previously as likely Al Qaeda terrorists.
Mere days before their arrival, they attended an Al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, during which key details of the 9/11 attacks are likely to have been discussed and agreed. The meeting was secretly photographed and videotaped by Malaysian authorities at the direct request of the CIA’s Alec Station, a special unit set up to track Osama bin Laden, although oddly, no audio was captured.
Still, this background should’ve been sufficient to prevent Hazmi and Midhar from entering the US – or at least enough for the FBI to be informed of their presence in the country. As it was, they were admitted for a six-month period at Los Angeles International airport without incident, and Bureau representatives within Alec Station were blocked from sharing this information with their superiors by the CIA.
When a member of the CIA’s Alex Station suggested informing the FBI about the two hijackers obtaining visas to the U.S., he was shut down.
“We’ve got to tell the Bureau about this. These guys clearly are bad. One of them, at least, has a multiple-entry visa to the US. We’ve got to tell the FBI,” Mark Rossini, a member of Alec Station, recalled telling his colleagues. “[But the CIA] said to me, ‘No, it’s not the FBI’s case, not the FBI’s jurisdiction.’”
The FBI agents in the files claimed the CIA also concealed information from the bureau about the two hijackers’ main U.S. contact, Omar al-Bayoumi, who was under FBI investigation.
Additionally, they believe the CIA used Saudi Arabia as a go-between to recruit the two hijackers’ in order to circumvent laws forbidding the Agency from conducting spy operations on U.S. soil.
Though the lead investigator Canestraro doesn’t assert the reason behind the CIA’s decision to withhold information from the FBI that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, the nature of the CIA’s clandestine Alec Station suggests nefarious motives.
“Canestraro does not make any conclusions as to why the CIA concealed vital information from the FBI prior to the attacks, which potentially could have prevented their execution, and why the Bureau subsequently played along with the Agency’s coverup. Although one answer is provided by the unusual nature of Alec Station’s setup,” Livshitz wrote.
“Namely, that far from infiltrating an Al Qaeda cell to avert terrorism, the Agency was seeking to influence and direct its activities in order to cause terrorism, outside standard recruitment channels. Having stumbled upon such a monstrous connivance, the FBI would’ve known well to leave the entire subject well alone.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski said in his 1997 book that ‘the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being’.
The ‘economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts’, he wrote.
In other words, people in general don’t want war, death and destruction and so they have to be manipulated to accept it as a necessary evil in their own perceived interests. Or, as the cold, callous and heartless Brzezinski put it:
Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.
His words mirrored in theme those of the Rothschild Zionist created and controlled Project for the New American Century (PNAC) which included Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, both vehement supporters of Israel.
It called in September 2000 for American forces to ‘fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars’ against countries including Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and North Korea, and called for the imposition of regime change in China (World War III). Once again, and echoing the words of Brzezinski three years earlier, the PNAC wrote:
… [This] process of transformation ... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
Four years before and one year before the attacks, Brzezinski and the Project for the New American Century were talking about the same thing … 9/11.
This was the catalyst for all that has followed both in terms of overseas wars and invasions and the domestic demolition of basic rights and freedoms. What is happening in Syria today is the continuation of the plan that was instigated on September 11th, 2001.
Given this vital role of 9/11 in all that has followed, and given the warning by Brzezinski and the Project for the New American Century that none of it was likely happen without a perceived external threat like a ‘new Pearl Harbor’, is there anyone with even a modicum of brain-cell activity who can’t see that 9/11 was staged by the very forces that would use it as the excuse to begin to tick-off the countries on their must-have list?
Yet the mainstream media, mainstream academia and much of the global population continues to be in child-like denial of the patently bloody obvious.
“How easy is it for you to shift your belief system from ‘I totally believe in my government’ to ‘Oh My God! What’s going on?’ That’s exactly where I went in all of this.” – Albert N. Stubblebine III
Albert N. Stubblebine III is a retired Major General in the United States Army. He was the commanding general of the United States ArmyIntelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984. In this compelling interview, Stubblemine reveals the following information (what he calls dots) about the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001:
Stubblebine initially believed the official story regarding 9/11.
Then, he saw the hole in the Pentagon. He can prove that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757. DOT.
All of the sensors around the Pentagon were turned off except one. That one sensor captured an image of the object the hit the Pentagon. It looked like a missile. But, after he went public, the imagery was changed to look like a plane. DOT.
The collapse of the twin towers was caused by controlled demolition – not the fuel from the airplane. DOT.
Larry Silverstein, the lease holder of the WTC complex, admitted that that building 7, which was not hit by a plane and had only a small fire, was intentionally “pulled” – which is phraseology used for controlled demolition. DOT.
All of the air defense systems around Washington DC were turned off that day. DOT.
Also on 9/11, there was an exercise designed to mimic an attack on the towers by airplanes. DOT.
When you connect the DOTs, the picture says that what we were told by the media was not the real story.
Stubblebine, visibly upset, describes how he felt when he realized the truth about his government after having a strong belief in his country since early childhood: “My belief system was so strong from age five when I could remember standing on a parade ground at attention with not anybody telling me to do that – at West Point.”
High Ranking US Major General Exposes 911 official version untrue
Below are some notes from the interview including a partial transcript. (Be sure to watch all the way to the the end, where you can see the deep hurt on his face when he recalled the moment that he realized that his government, the government that he proudly served for over 30 years, was not what he thought was):
5:15 Stubblebine hears about the 9/11 attacks: “We’re at war.”
6:00 Stubblebine said there must have been intelligence information to know that an attack was coming and we didn’t see the signals. Somebody missed it.
6:35 He initially believed that it was terrorist attack done by other forces: “Not my government.”
7:45 Stubblebine then saw a photo of the Pentagon showing the hole in the Pentagon supposedly made by a Boeing 757. ”Something’s wrong. There is something wrong with this picture…”
8:30 “Well there was something wrong. And, so I analyzed it not just photographically, I did measurements… I checked the plane, the length of the nose, where the wings were… I took measurements of the Pentagon – the depth of the destruction in the Pentagon.”
The very modest “hit point” and the clean, clear Pentagon lawn
9:05 “Conclusion: airplane did not make that hole.” 9:10” I went public at the time. I am the highest ranking officer, I believe, that has ever gone public… The official story was not true.”
9:25 “I was very careful to not say what it was because I couldn’t prove it. I was careful to say that it was not the airplane that did that, because I can prove that it was not the airplane.”
9:45 “In the hole, however, was a turbine that looked like a turbine from the missile… I can’t prove that, I don’t know. But there was something there that did not look like the engine from an airplane, but did look like a turbine from a missile.”
10:10 “Later I saw another photograph taken by one of the sensors on the outside of the Pentagon. Now, all of the sensors had been turned off, which is kind of interesting – isn’t it? That day, why would all of the sensors around the Pentagon be turned off? That’s strange. I don’t care what the excuse is. That’s strange. There happened to be one that apparently did not get turned off. And in that picture, coming in, flying into the Pentagon, you see this object, and it obviously hits the Pentagon. When you look at it, it does NOT look like an airplane. Sometime later, after I’d gone public, that imagery was changed. It got a new suit around it that now looked like an airplane. But, when you take the suit off, it looks more like a missile – not like an airplane.”
911 Pentagon CNN Reporter questions if a Plane hit the Pentagon only aired once
11:30 “Let me go back to the next very important piece of information. The amount of energy to melt the girders – the steel in the tower – cannot be gotten to a melt point with the fuel that was in the airplane. Not possible! So, any melting did not occur as a result of the hit from the airplane. Point. I call it dot. OK? DOT.”
12:10 “When you look at the tower coming down, what you see at each floor is successive puffs of smoke: puff, puff, puff, puff… all the way down. What are the puffs of smoke coming from? Well, they claim that they are from the collapsing floors… No. No. No. Those puffs of smoke are controlled demolitions. That’s exactly what they are, because that’s exactly how they work. And so, the fact that the airplane hit, it did, it did not cause that collapse of the building. The collapse of the building was caused by controlled demolition.”
13:05 “Fact: Building 7 – Silverberg, I believe is the name of the owner…” (his name is actually Larry Silverstein), “…was on a video and you could see Building 7. And, there was a fire in Building 7, there’s no doubt about that. No airplane hit it. I assume that the fire came from some debris, but I’m not even sure of that. But, in the lower right-hand corner of the building was a fire – not a very big fire. It didn’t appear to be out of control. It certainly was in a small part of the building. But, then he is heard on the video and he says Pull it. Then, the building collapsed. What does pull it mean? Let me tell you. That’s the order for controlled demolition. That is the phraseology that’s used for blowing up something.”CLN
[Editorial note: Stubblebine got mixed up with his facts regarding the Siverstein video, which you can see here. The video is a PBS interview with Silverstein that was shot sometime after 9/11. The footage of Building 7 going down is historical footage, not live during the interview. Nonetheless, Silverstein does say that he gave the order to “pull it.”]
15:00 All of the air defense systems in that part of the country had been turned off that day. All of the air defense systems had been turned off… Why would you turn off all of the air defense systems on that particular day unless you knew that something was going to happen? It’s a dot. It’s information. But, it’s strange that everything got turned off that day. DOT.”
15:50 There was an exercise that was designed for the air defense systems that was an attack on the towers by airplanes. Isn’t that strange that we had an exercise that mimicked what really happened? Strange that we had planned an exercise that was exactly what happened. And, at the same time, the air defense systems were turned off. Don’t you find that strange? I find that really strange? DOT. Just a piece of information.
16:50 “But how does it correlate with everything else? So, you see the dots. You have all of these dots. They’re just bits of information. But, that’s exactly how the intelligence world works. You get a bit of information here. A bit here, and a bit here. And, pretty soon you’ve got a picture. To me, what does the picture say? The picture says that what we heard and were told in the newspapers, the media, was not the real story. There’s enough doubt in the official story where the story is absolutely not consistent with what happened. They paint a different picture than the one that was given to the media.”
17:45 “How easy is it for you to shift your belief system from ‘I totally believe in my government’ to ‘Oh My God! What’s going on?’ That’s exactly where I went in all of this.Because, my belief system was so strong from age five when I could remember standing on a parade ground at attention with not anybody telling me to do that – at West Point. I did it because I wanted to do it – because I believed! And then going to the military academy and serving, defending…
18:30 The real story was, I have a question I guess. The real story to me is: who was the real enemy? Who participated in this? Who planned this attack? Why was it planned? Were the real terrorists the people in Arab clothing? Or, were the real people that planned this the people sitting in the authority in the White House?
The plane in the Pentagon frame was too small to be a Boeing 757
Physical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony That A Missile Hit The Pentagon – NOT a Boeing 757
The following physical evidence and eyewitness testimony is presented in detail below, most of which is video footage:
Analysis of the physical damage to the Pentagon and lack of debris. You can’t fit a 125 foot wide Boeing 757 into a hole 16 feet wide. The theory that the plane vaporized is idiotic. And, what happened to the wings that allegedly sheared off? DOT
The official story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour is absurd. A Boeing 757 could not possibly perform that maneuver according to experts. DOT
AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.” DOT
No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon. The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would have been allowed to approach the Pentagon. DOT
CNN reporter on the scene shortly after the impact saying that there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. DOT
Aerial footage showing no debris (confirming the report by the CNN reporter), plus more analysis showing the size of a Boeing 757 compared to the size of the hole in the Pentagon. Recall also that the initial hole was only 16 feet wide and the CNN reporter said that the Pentagon structure did not collapse until about 45 minutes after impact. DOT
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 Commission Member Timothy Roemer both saying that a MISSILE was used on the Pentagon. DOT
Analysis of the Pentagon video footage of the alleged Boeing 757 (it certainly doesn’t look like a Boeing 757) hitting the Pentagon that concludes it was faked. DOT
A leaked video showing a missile hitting the Pentagon. DOT
Expert testimony that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicated that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used” DOT
Two witnesses who were at the Pentagon who said there was no debris or jet fuel, and another witness who “was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” DOT
KEY POINT. Many people reported seeing a low-flying plane heading towards the Pentagon. Thanks to a series of videotaped interviews with multiple witnesses by the Citizens Investigation Team, we find out that: (a) a plane did approach the Pentagon, but it was smaller than a Boeing 757, and it approached from a different angle than reported by the 9/11 commission; (b) the plane did not actually hit the Pentagon, but instead flew past the Pentagon at under 200 feet – immediately after the missile hit; (c) the downed flag poles at the Pentagon were staged, which was admitted by the taxi driver whose taxi was supposedly hit by one of the falling poles. DOT
Connecting the dots, a very clear picture emerges: (a) American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) disappeared from radar and never re-appeared; (b) instead, a smaller military craft appeared on radar 36 minutes later that was capable of performing a difficult maneuver and could approach the Pentagon without being shot down; (c) a low-flying military craft approached the Pentagon but merely flew past the Pentagon immediately after the Pentagon was struck by a missile.
You Can’t Fit a Boeing 757 into Hole that is Only 16 Feet Wide
Watch this 10-minute segment of the outstanding Italian documentary titled Zero: An Investigation into 9/11, which includes analysis by Stubblebine and addresses many of the serious problems with the official account of what happened at the Pentagon:
Zero : An Investigation Into 9-11- part 4
The discrepancies that are addressed in the above video include the following:
There is no airplane debris visible anywhere in front of the Pentagon. Examples of what you would expect to see at a plane crash site are shown. Captain Russ Whittemberg, a pilot with over 30 years in military and civil aviation, said: “I have been at some accident investigation sites in the Air Force. And I have never come across any accident scene where there is no tell-tale evidence of the plane that crashed.”
There is no evidence that either the airplane engines or the wings impacted the building. Instead, we are supposed to believe that the 38 meter (125 feet) wide Boeing 757 fit into a hole that is only 5 meters (16 feet) wide. We are supposed to believe that the wings folded up like those of a dragon fly and squeeze into the 5 meter wide hole.
Major General Albert Stubblebine: “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”
One theory is that the Boeing 757 was vaporized due to the speed and the force of the crash. The engines are made of a titanium steel alloy that would not vaporize unless they hit a temperature of 3,286 degrees Centigrade. That did not happen. Plus, the engines would have caused significant damage upon impact. Yet, there is no indication that the engines impacted the Pentagon.
After a period of time, various photos of airplane debris began to appear in newspapers and on the web did not appear in any photos shown in the days following the event.
The Pentagon had numerous cameras that had complete and separate recordings of the incident. The FBI was immediately on the scene and confiscated many video tapes from the Pentagon and nearby buildings. Yet only four videos were released after 2006 when FOIA requests compelled them to release them. Only two showed any useful information. But most experts believe the white image in the videos is too small to be a 757.
The story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon is absurd – by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour.
AA Flight 77 Was Lost From Radar For 36 Minutes, Then a Smaller Military Plane Appeared On Radar That Was NOT AA Flight 77
Please continue watching the next segment of the documentary Zero: An Investigation into 9/11:
Zero : An Investigation Into 9-11- part 5
According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by AA Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. Hanjour was known as “a terrible pilot,” who could not even fly a small airplane.
An experienced pilot with thousands of hours would probably require 10-20 attempts to pull off the maneuver that was performed with the Boeing 757 on its way to the Pentagon. “You just can’t do that with one of those big airplanes.” –Robin Hordon, flight controller and flight instructor
AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.”
No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon. The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would be allowed to approach the Pentagon.
The official report of the final half mile of Flight 77 before it allegedly hit the Pentagon is aerodynamically impossible. “I challenge any pilot, any pilot anywhere: give him a Boeing 757 and tell him to do 400 knots 20 feet above the ground for half a mile. CAN’T Do. It’s aerodynamically impossible.” – Nila Sagadevan, pilot and aeronautical engineer.
The alleged hijackers had difficulty flying small aircraft, which means that there is a zero possibility that they could pull off an impossible maneuver on the first try.
CNN Reporter: “There is NO Evidence of a Plane Having Crashed Anywhere Near the Pentagon”
Jamie Mcintyre, CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent at the time, was at the Pentagon shortly after it was hit. Here’s what he reported: “From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon… The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately, it wasn’t until almost about forty-five minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”.
