Local Time

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

9/11 Experts Leaders Agree -911 Was A Hoax

Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force, aircraft accident investigator:

“I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident… The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from view .. with all the evidence readilty available at the pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged .. the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.

Here are 40 distinguished leaders and experts sounding-off in short quotes about their misgivings with the 9/11 commission and the questions that are still smoldering [NB: Don’t miss the concluding quote]…

Summarized from http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003:
“I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye… It is a national scandal… this White House wants to cover [9/11] up.”

Senator Mark Dayton - Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security:
“[NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission…the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence”

Congressman Ron Paul - Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee:
“The [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation”

Congressman Curt Weldon:
“[9/11 Commission] there’s something very sinister going on here… something desperately wrong… This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people”

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney - Member of the House Armed Services Committee:
“The [9/11] Commission ran up against obstruction by the administration and non-cooperation from government agencies… the errors and omissions immediately jumped out at us”

Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh:
“[9/11 Commission findings] raise serious challenges to the commission’s credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself”

Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, PhD:
“Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 “terrorist attack” has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East… We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false”

Assistant Secretary of Housing, Catherine Austin Fitts:
“The official story could not possibly have happened… It’s not possible. It’s not operationally feasible… The Commission was a whitewash. ”

U.S. Army Intelligence officer, Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice, John Loftus:
“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”

Foreign Service Officer, George Kenney:
“I cannot believe, much as I might like to, the standard account of 9/11″

Foreign Service Officer, J. Michael Springman:
“Fifteen of the nineteen people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA Consulate at Jeddah”

Deputy Attorney General, State of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, Esquire:
“The official story of what actually took place on 0/11 is a lie. ”

Major General U.S. Army, Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Albert Stubblebine [his specialty â•„ analyzing satellite photos]:
“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, â•?The plane does not fit in that hole. So what did hit the Pentagon?â•?â•?

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center:
“I’m astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that’s accurate.”

Col. Robert Bowman, U.S. Air Force, Director of Advanced Space Programs, PhD Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering:
“The official 9/11 story is impossible .. There is a cover up… high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened… highly placed individuals in the administration…Dick Cheney…the very kindest thing we can say about George W Bush…is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder.”

Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force, aircraft accident investigator:
“I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident… The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from view .. with all the evidence readilty available at the pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged .. the most heinous conspiracy in outr country’s history.”

Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army:
[Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001] “When you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.”

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force, fighter pilot, commercial pilot flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777s. Had previously flown Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC:
“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple…[Regarding Flight 77]”The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane wonââ?¬â=¢t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles… The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77″

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense, staff of the Director of the National Security Agency:
“It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics…There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked Pentagon, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage one would expect from the impact of a large airliner… this visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘ missile ‘ … I saw nothing of significance at the point of contact ~ no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon .. all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected was not evident .. the same is true with regard to the damage we expected .. but I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 0r 40 minutes, with the roof remaining relatively straight .. The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would have expected if a missile had struck the Pentagon ”

Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, Barbara Honegger, MS:
“The US military, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11…A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high-speed 270-degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the “Friendly” signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building…Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system”

Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer:
“I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. … [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers’ names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2…and WTC7…not hit by an airplane…the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon”

Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army, Intelligence officer:
“I view the 911 event …as a matter that implies either…A) passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down or B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East”

Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the Presidentâ•?s Daily Brief, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, Raymond L. McGovern:
“I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke…just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11…making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11…that’s certainly an impeachable offense…But compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited.”

National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis, William Christison:
“there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them…this all was totally an inside job. I have since decided that… at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen… The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions… I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all… It’s a monstrous crime.”

U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, case officer CIA. Robert David Steele:
“I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others…This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism…I’m absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I’m concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated. There’s no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition.”

CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations, Awarded Career Intelligence Medal, Robert Baer:
[Regarding the opinion there was an aspect of ‘inside job’ to 9/11 within the U.S. Government], “There is that possibility, the evidence points at it.”

Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the federal Aviation Administration. Team leader of the FAA’s Red (Terrorism) Team in the Federal Air Marshall program, Coast Guard officer, Bogdan Dzakovic:
“At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous.”

Minister of Justice, West Germany, Horst Ehmke, PhD:
“Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service.”

State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Defense, West Germany, Andreas von Buelow, PhD:
“The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one…This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.”

President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga:
“[9/11] could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

General Leonid Ivashov, Chief of Staff, Russian armed forces, Ministry of Defense:
“Only secret services and their current chiefs - or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations - have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation [9/11] of such magnitude…Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda” cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders.”

Foreign Minister of Egypt, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal:
“Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation [9/11] of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaida as if it was ‘Nazi’ Germany or the communist party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaida has been penetrated by American intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence -
let alone MOSSAD ! They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and sophistication.”

Chief of Staff, Pakistani Army, General Mirza Aslam Beg:
“The information which is now coming up, goes to prove that involvement by the “rogue elements” of the U.S. military and intelligence organization is getting more obvious. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda definitely do not have the knowhow and the capability to launch such operations involving such high precision coordination, based on information and expertise.”

European Parliament, Committee on Security and Defense, Giulietto Chiesa:
“Billions of people were given only one explanation….which is entirely false….everyone who dares to question it is treated as if he was a fool.”

French Army Intelligence and artillery officer, Col. Pierre-Henri Bunel, Expert in the effects of artillery weapons and explosives:
“Image of the impact on the Pentagon is very instructive as to the nature of the explosion. … It corresponds to a detonation of an explosive with high energetic power. The explosion does not correspond to a deflagration of kerosene…suggests a single engine flying vehicle much smaller in size than an airliner…resembles the effects of anti-concrete hollow charges that I have been able to observe on a number of battlefields…lead me therefore to think that the detonation that struck the building was that of a high-powered hollow charge used to destroy hardened buildings and carried by an aerial vehicle, a missile.”

Safety Engineer and accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority, Finland, Heikki Kurttila, PhD: “Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. … The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.”

Counter-Terrorism Officer, MI5 (Britain), David Shayler:
“The available evidence indicates that people in key positions in the FBI, the State Department, the CIA and so on were not loyal to the Constitution; that they saw an opportunity in plans laid down by genuine Islamic terrorists to carry out an operation that would shock the world and would therefore justify U.S. adventurism in the middle East, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean, Former Governor of New Jersey:
“FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue…We, to this day, don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us…It was just so far from the truth.”

Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Homeland Security Advisory Council:
“we got started late; we had a very short time frame…we did not have enough money…We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. … So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail.”

9/11 Commissioner, Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
“That panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon’s inspector general…We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting.”

Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission, John J. Farmer, Jr., Former Attorney General, NJ, Former Commissioner of the State Commission of Investigations:
[Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public] - “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described…The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.”


An excerpt from an authentic interview of our supposed enemy, criminal mastermind and arch-villain Usama bin Laden himself (as opposed to the fake tapes released by the CIA)…

Source: Ummat, Urdu-language daily newspaper based in Karachi, Pakistan - Friday, 28 September 2001 - pages 1, 7.
Source: BBC Monitoring Service. - Source: http://www.khilafah.com/1421/category.php?DocumentID=2392&TagID=2

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States… I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do 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 even 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…

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 U.S. systemâ•œthose who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity
They can be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia

Then there are intelligence agencies in the U.S., 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

You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion dollars. 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 U.S. secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 carried out the attacks

I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American-Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word

The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which makes us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness…

- Usama bin Laden

“A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it’s going to get.”
– Ian Williams Goddard



The 9-11 Attack on the World Trade Centre (World Trade Center) - Was Mossad behind it, to get the West to fight Islam for it? Was the CIA implicated, to legitimate a push for empire?

Peter Myers, October 3, 2001; update April 15, 2006. My comments are shown {thus}
You are at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/wtc.html.

This website does not specialise in 9/11, but does provide background information, and links to specialist sites.

We are told that the hijackers had only learned to fly Cessnas. They had received Simulator lessons on bigger planes, yet on 9/11 took over the controls of 767s or similar, and expertly flew them into the WTC.
Would we issue a commercial pilot’s licence to someone who had so little training?
This is like saying that someone who had only driven a Corolla, but had simulator lessons for driving a semi-trailer, could take control of a fully-laden semi-trailer and drive it expertly down the highway. How credible is that?
Most likely, by the time the planes were heading for the WTC, they were being remotely controlled. In that case, no-one on board, not even hijackers, could have prevented the planes being flown into the WTC.
There are 3 sorts of conspiracy theories:
1. The CIA did it, for oil, to consolidate the Anglo-American Empire.
2. Mossad did it - perhaps using Arabs who not know the overall plan - because Israel wants to expand its borders to fulfil 1 Kings 4:21, Genesis 15:18; Exodus 23:30-31; Deut 11:24; Josh 1:4 (see tmf.html), and because it wants to build the Third Temple where the Dome of the Rock now stands (dome.html). These goals require war with Islam - why not get the US to do it for them, using the oil issue as a smokescreen to hide the religious motive?
3. Arabs did it, and the CIA knew about it and let it happen (as with Pearl Harbor).

I believe that the 2nd type of theory is correct.

The Washington Times published an article on September 10, 2001, which says that Mossad is capable of attacking Western targets and making it look as if others (Palestinians etc) did it: http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.html.
I recommend the following book:
Stranger Than Fiction: An Independent Investigation of the True Culprits Behind 9-11
By: Dr. Albert D. Pastore Phd. http://www.voxfux.com/features/stranger_than_fiction.htm.
Published by Dandelion Books: http://www.dandelionbooks.net.
Israeli spies impersonating Egyptian terrorists - in 1954:
The Jews of Iraq, by Naeim Giladi
April - May 1998 The Link - Volume 31, Issue 2
also at http://www.inminds.co.uk/jews-of-iraq.html
“In 1954, it seemed that America was getting less critical of Nasser. Then during a three-week period in July, several terrorist bombs were set off: at the United States Information Agency offices in Cairo and Alexandria, a British-owned theater, and the central post office in Cairo. An attempt to firebomb a cinema in Alexandria failed when the bomb went off in the pocket of one of the perpetrators. That led to the discovery that the terrorists were not anti-Western Egyptians, but were instead Israeli spies bent on souring the warming relationship between Egypt and the United States in what came to be known as the Lavon Affair.”
For up-to-date analysis of 9-11 and the war against Islam, please see the following sites:

Physics 911 (a panel of scientists): http://physics911.net/
AntiWar.Com: http://www.antiwar.com/

No War For Israel: http://www.nowarforisrael.com/

The attack on the Pentagon: “Damage pattern has no relationship to profile of 757″: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/

Photos - evidence of demolition: http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715

Feral News: http://www.feralnews.com/

911 WTC War Without End: http://www.itszone.co.uk/

The Complete 9/11 Timeline: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

Feral News Weblog: http://www.feralnews.com/weblog/index.php

The Information Clearing House: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE): http://www.physics911.org/

9-11 Visibility Project: http://www.septembereleventh.org/

Dick Eastman: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm

Within one week of 9/11, Jared Israel of Emperor’s Clothes was denying the possibility that Mossad might have been behind 9/11. He wants to pin all blame on the “Empire”.

* A man intending suicide brings a suitcase (why bother?)
* the suitcase contains incriminating material (yet the overall plan is meticulous)
* the suitcase is not loaded onto the plane (in which case it would have been destroyed), but left at the airport (where it will be found).
* US courts deliberate for months over a single murder case, allowing appeals and counter-appeals to higher courts, yet doubts about the cause of nearly 3,000 deaths in New York & Washington are swept under the carpet. Thousands of Afghanis later died when the West intervened, and thousands more, perhaps millions, are about to die as the West invades the Islamic world. Yet the champions of the “Rule of Law” have no interest in investigating anomalies over 9-11.

Who won? Bin-Laden is probably dead, the Taliban routed; the US, on the other hand, has gained the High Moral Ground, a priceless asset in war.
Before 9-11, the US & Israel were looking “Aggressors”, Islam the “Defendant”. Now, the roles are reversed: the US is the “Defendant”. It can now wage war for years, using 9-11 to remind the world who the “aggressors” are.
Videos in which Bin Laden admits organizing 9-11 should be treated with caution, because this material can be “doctored” by intelligence agencies such as Mossad or the CIA.
Mossad’s warning in advance, whilst possibly genuine, could also have been an attempt to ensure that Bin Laden was blamed for the attack, to pre-empt the finger-pointing.
(33) The Age of Synthetic Terror, by Professor A. K. Dewdney of Physics 911
Date: 10 Apr 2006 06:45:15 -0000 From: Physics 911
Welcome to the World of Synthetic Terror http://physics911.net/syntheticterrorfourup.jpg
April 5th, 2006 (http://physics911.net
- The evidence is in, the analyses have been made, and conclusions have been drawn by scientists, engineers and other experts: the so-called terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were faked. There is, moreover, independent evidence from multiple credible sources that Al Qaeda is the creation of western spy agencies.
If you have any questions concerning these assertions, visit http://www.physics911.net/
The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven has formed around this website. The Panel consists of over thirty experts in the fields of science, engineering, architecture, intelligence, the military, medicine, Islamic studies and other disciplines. The members are willing to stand up and be counted, even the ones with the highest public profiles. You will find them on the members list, accessible from the button near the top of this page.
Of course, the Physics 911 website is hardly alone in cyberspace. There are now literally hundreds of skeptical websites on the internet (with only a handful of dissenting sites defending the official story). There are other working groups with websites, as well, not to mention thousands of people doing their own inquiries into 911 and millions of people skeptical of the official story (including 48% of New Yorkers, according to a Zogby poll taken in 2005).
We are now living in what has been called the Age of Synthetic Terror. In contrast to the corporate media line, “terrorism” is the brainchild and product of western intelligence agencies. Its purpose is to foment domesticanger at Muslims in order to justify a program of a) invasion of sovereign nations, b) seizure of their oil resources, c) mass murder designed to look like sectarian violence, d) establishing permanent military bases and e) the installation of puppet governments in the countries so affected.
It follows that the mass murder of 9/11, blamed on Arab/Muslim patsies, was but the opening scene of a drama that would have many acts, with hundreds of thousands of murders to follow.
There is one and only one way to bring this program of synthetic terror to an end. The knowledge that we have acquired must be made public and made public soon. The next massive military operation may be against Iran. Such an attack would require a triggering episode in which a handful of Muslims, Iranian this time, would be blamed for the bombing of a western target, possibly involving a nuclear device, given the (pretended) concern over Iran’s nuclear program. (Think Iraq. Think WMDs.)
How long will it take members of the corporate media to break free with this story? Their colleagues may be unaware that the country of Venezuela has undertaken an international inquiry into 9/11. They may be unaware that Charlie Sheen’s allegations are but the tip of an iceberg or unaware of the deception in Iraq or that the Osama tapes are faked.
The story is yours.
A. K. Dewdney Coordinator Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
Comment (Peter M):
Welcome as the scientific report is, the political interpretation it espouses seems to take its cue from Jared Israel.
The problem is that he “writes out” any Israeli, i.e. Mossad, connection. Just as Noam Chomsky and other Gatekeepers want to discredit the Mearsheimer-Walt report.
But Physics 911 replies as follows:

“As a descendant of Russian Jews, I consider it a particularly important personal civic responsibility to expose the deception and danger of Zionism and its terrorist agency, the Mossad …”
- Leland Lehrman, Webmaster of Physics 911

In his reply, Leland Lehrman refers to three important articles at Physics 911.
Leland Lehrman’s position, that Mossad helped plan 911, through its agents in Arab groups, is similar to mine. Although I do not have time to study 911 in detail, my naive position is that Arab hijackers were themselves hijacked - probably by Mossad - and flown into the towers. - Peter M.

Physics 911 Webmaster says “We do not write out Mossad”
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:56:29 -0600 From: “Leland Lehrman”
We do not write out Mossad, in fact we finger them explicitly, check the website:
http://physics911.net/nuclearfalseflag.htm which is my article and also read the German Intelligence Report:
http://physics911.net/germanintel.htm and the DEA Report
Please distribute this message with links intact to your readers.
Leland Lehrman Webmaster, physics911.net
(32) Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, by Robert B. Stinnett
FDR and Pearl Harbor
J.R. Nyquist 07.10.01
In a remarkable attempt to invert our understanding of history, Robert B. Stinnett has written a book arguing that Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was no surprise at all. No surprise, that is, for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The book’s title is “Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor.”
The basic outline of Stinnett’s thesis is not new. What he offers, however, are previously unknown details to support the notion that FDR intentionally provoked the Japanese and then, knowing that war was sure to follow, allowed Pearl Harbor to become the main target — purposely setting the U.S. battleships out as bait, clearing a path for Japan’s carriers across the North Pacific.
According to Stinnett’s research, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, came up with an eight-point plan in October, 1940, for getting the United States into World War II. Stinnett calls this “FDR’s back door to war.”


Perhaps the most shocking of Roosevelt’s actions was the deployment of American cruisers and submarines to the Far East, adjacent to Japan’s vital shipping lanes. But in strategic terms, the significant discovery was Stinnett’s documentation of how Roosevelt conspired to clear the Northern Pacific of American ships and planes to shield the advance of the Japanese Navy against detection. Had the Japanese been detected, they might have withdrawn their carrier strike force and refused to start a conflict without the advantage of surprise.

In 1986 I had the opportunity to ask President Roosevelt’s son, James Roosevelt, about the strategy the U.S. government had followed in 1941. James had worked on his father’s staff at the time, and openly admitted that Japan was provoked intentionally with the embargo (Japan had almost no other sources of oil).
“Why did your father provoke Japan with the blockade,” I asked, “when all Japan had to do was attack Britian and the Dutch East Indies, leaving our forces alone?”
James Roosevelt smiled faintly and replied, “We were confident how they would react.”
This answer puzzled me at the time, but after reading Stinnett’s book the answer falls neatly into place. The Japanese militarists were fools who did not understand America’s isolationist character. President Roosevelt’s intelligence officers, on the U.S. side, had intercepted all of Japan’s vital communications. If the Japanese did not understand us, we certainly understood them. Japan’s codes had been broken. The White House was reading the Imperial mind, anticipating every Japanese move.
Japan’s intelligence failure was fatal to her miltiary ambition. If Stinnett is right, the United States led Japan into a trap which also caught up Hitler and Mussolini, destroying the Axis completely. All that was left of the dictatorships was Stalin, who had fallen out with Hitler in 1941 and ended up joining the Allies.
Was Roosevelt an evil man for the way he conducted U.S. foreign policy in 1941?
Do the ends justify the means?
This is something Americans will have to think about.

In September 1944, John T. Flynn launched Pearl Harbor revisionism when he published a forty-six page booklet entitled The Truth about Pearl Harbor. Flynn argued that Roosevelt and his cronies had been plotting war against Japan at least since January 1941. The Administration continued needlessly to provoke the Japanese government throughout the rest of the year, and on November 26, 1941, delivered a diplomatic ultimatum that no government could possibly accept. Flynn also suggested that Kimmel and Short were given the wrong instructions from Washington headquarters, thus aborting the taking of effective measures at the base.
In early 1945, a thirty-year-old historian, William L. Neumann, published a brochure, The Genesis of Pearl Harbor. He reviewed the diplomatic background to the outbreak of the war and pointed out how the Roosevelt Administration had launched an economic war against Japan in the summer and fall of 1941. Neumann concluded that both sides were responsible, but that Washington could not have been surprised by the attack at Pearl Harbor, given FDR’s diplomatic activities in the months and days preceding December 7th.

Army and Navy Reports Released

After VJ-Day, President Harry Truman permitted the release of the Army and Navy special investigations of the Pearl Harbor attack. The Navy Court of Inquiry, headed by Admiral Orin G. Murfin, met from July 24-September 27, 1944. They concluded that Admiral Harold R. Stark, the Chief of Naval Operations, had failed to provide Admiral Kimmel all of the information possessed in Washington, thereby denying the Hawaii command a more complete picture of the situation. Kimmel was exonerated. His plans were judged “sound,” but were dependent on “advance knowledge that an attack was to be expected.” And given his limited military resources, Kimmel had conducted long-range aerial reconnaissance appropriate to the intelligence he had been given and the number of aircraft available.
Lt. General George Grunert chaired the Army Pearl Harbor Board, which met from July 20-October 20, 1944. Evidence from 151 witnesses was collected in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Hawaii. While the Board was critical of General Short, for the first time attention was directed toward General George Marshall and the War Department. Marshall was censured for failing to keep Short fully apprised of the deteriorating state of U.S.-Japanese relations; of failing to correct Short’s “sabotage alert” preparations at Pearl Harbor (U.S. aircraft were bunched wing-tip to wing-tip on December 7th, because Washington had told Short to guard against sabotage. Had he been alerted to a possible air attack, the planes would have been scattered and sheltered in revetments to guard against bomb blast); of failing to send critical information to short on the evening of December 6th and the morning of December 7th; of failing to determine if the state of readiness at Pearl Harbor was commensurate with the potential threats to the base’s security. General Leonard Gerow, the Chief of the Army’s War Plans Division, was also reproved, He had failed, the Board concluded, to keep the Hawaiian command inform ed about Japanese moves that were known in Washington; of failing to make the November 27th warning clear and concise; and of failing to see that joint Army-Navy plans were properly effected.
Needless to say, Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Navy Secretary James Forrestal were alarmed that blame for the success of the Japanese attack had been shifted from the local commanders to their superiors in Washington. To supplement the report of the Army Pearl Harbor Board, Major Henry Clausen was selected to head a one-man investigation. But no public report was issued. Forrestal had Admiral W. Kent Hewitt continues to investigate Pearl Harbor. No separate report was issued, but on August 29, 1945, Forrestal announced that, on the basis of Hewitt’s inquiries, “Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Admiral Harold R. Stark, particularly during the period 27 November to 7 December, 1941, failed to demonstrate the superior judgment necessary to exercising command commensurate with their rank and assigned duties.”
The Army and Navy Reports provided fresh ammunition to the redoubtable John T. Flynn, who, in September 1945, issued a fifteen-page report entitled The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor. Flynn’s findings were not limited to review by a small circle of interested friends, but were given wide circulation thanks to the Chicago Tribune, which highlighted his work. Flynn concluded that Franklin Roosevelt was to blame for diplomatic mismanagement; for keeping the Pacific fleet stationed at the insecure Pearl Harbor base; and for stripping Pearl Harbor of needed defensive equipment.
Reviewing the diplomatic prelude to the attack, Flynn explained that FDR undermined the position of Japanese moderates and so orchestrated events that General Tojo and the “War Agitators” took power in Tokyo. Despite provocations, it became clear that Germany was not going to declare war against the United States. It was at this point, said Flynn, that Roosevelt turned the screws on the Japanese.
Flynn went on to note the “Gift from the Gods” that the cracking of the Japanese diplomatic codes represented. Flynn was under the impression that the British had first broken the Japanese code and supplied Washington with copies of messages between Tokyo and foreign representatives. He underscored the significance of the fact that Washington was aware that Japan had given its diplomats a November 25th deadline to reach an understanding with the U.S.
In a section, “The Fog at Pearl Harbor,” Flynn emphasized that the commanders at Pearl Harbor were told “literally nothing” about the intercepted Japanese messages and the rapidly deteriorating state of affairs. Short was ordered to guard against sabotage and internal disorder from the large Japanese population in Hawaii, and warned that Japanese military operations could be expected soon, but against such targets as the Kra Peninsula, Guam, Singapore, and Malay. And Flynn re-emphasized a point that is still too often obscured in discussions of the attack, namely, “that Kimmel’s fleet was not there to protect Pearl Harbor. The harbor was there merely as a fuel and supply base for it. The fleet had a task assigned to it in case of war. The protection of the base would be the duty of the Army and the base naval installa tions.”
In his discussion of “The Night Before Pearl Harbor” Flynn charged that the story given the public about Roosevelt being surprised by the attack on Pearl Harbor was “utterly fraudulent.” Based on the intercepted messages, FDR knew that hostilities were soon to commence. What “warnings” were finally sent to Hawaii were deliberately delivered by the slowest possible means as a face-saving measure.
Flynn went on to show how blame for the disaster was cleverly shifted from Washington to the Hawaiian commanders, Kimmel and Short. He further discussed how the fleet had come to be based at Pearl Harbor over the objections of Kimmel’s predecessor, Admiral Richardson, who was con vinced that any ships berthed there would be an easy target. [*]
In his summary of the tragedy, Flynn reiterated his view that Roosevelt had decided to go to war with Japan, despite his public pledges to the American people not to make their sons fight in foreign wars, and that he had promised the British to fight long before December 7th. When the attack came at Pearl Harbor, the “amateur Commander-in-Chief” tried to place the blame on Kimmel and Short. “Now,” he concluded, “if there is a shred of decency left in the American people, they will de mand that Congress open the whole ugly business to the light of day. [**]

The Congressional Hearings

A concurrent resolution of Congress brought into being the Joint Congressional Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack. The Administration hoped that the Committee, which had a majority of Democrats, would satisfy public curiosity while safeguarding the standing of the political party in power. Senator Alben Barkley (D-Kentucky) served as chairman. The five other Democrats included Senator Walter F. George (Georgia), Senator Scott Lucas (Illinois), Rep. J. Bayard Clark (North Carolina), Rep. John W. Murphy (Pennsylvania), and Rep. Jere Cooper (Tennessee), who was Vice Chairman. The Democrats selected the legal staff.
Four Republicans were on the Committee: Senator Owen Brewster (Maine), Senator Homer Ferguson (Michigan), Rep. Bertrand Gearhart (California), and Rep. Frank B. Keefe (Wisconsin). The Republican Minority were not provided with their own staff. However, John T. Flynn raised funds from private sources to permit Percy Greaves, a former associate research director for the Republican National Committee, to assist the Republican members of the Joint Congressional Committee. Without Greaves’s able work, much of the Pearl Harbor story would have remained hidden from the public.
The Committee sat from November 15, 1945 to May 31, 1946. The Democratic majority managed to steer the hearings in such a manner as to deflect as much criticism as they could from the late President Roosevelt. Thanks to the persistence of Senator Ferguson, aided by Greaves, “inconvenient” testimony was extracted from a number of the witnesses, and evidence that contradicted the Roberts Commission Report was placed on the record. The evidence, exhibits, hearings, and concluding report came to some forty volumes.
The “Majority Report” concluded that Japan’s brilliantly planned attack had been entirely unprovoked and there was no evidence that the Roosevelt cabinet had maneuvered Japan into launching a first strike in order to force Congress into declaring war. Indeed, the Democrats asserted that Roosevelt, Hull, and Stimson had done everything they could possibly do to avoid war with Japan. The disaster at Pearl Harbor was due to the failure of the local commanders to take adequate measures to detect a possible attack and maintain proper readiness to meet likely threats. The report did suggest that the War Department should have notified Gen. Short that his “sabotage alert” measures were not enough. In addition, Army and Navy intelligence should have realized the significance of Japanese efforts to keep abreast of the location of U.S. war ships berthed at Pearl Harbor (the “Bomb Plot” messages that military intelligence had decoded). Finally, during the forty eight hours prior to the attack, the War and Navy Departments should have kept on a higher state of alert and notified Pearl Harbor about the impending diplomatic break that the Japanese had scheduled to take effect from 1 p.m. Washington time on December 7th.
A “Minority Report” was issued under the signatures of Senators Brewster and Ferguson. They listed some twenty “conclusions of Fact and Responsibility.” President Roosevelt was held “responsible for the failure to enforce continuous, efficient, and appropriate cooperation among the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Staff (General Marshall), and the Chief of Naval Operations (Admiral Stark) in evaluating information and dispatching clear and positive orders to the Hawaiian commanders as events indicated the growing imminence of war.” Roosevelt was especially at fault, between Saturday night December 6th, and Sunday morning, the 7th, for failing “to take that quick and instant executive action which was required by the occasion.”
Rep. Frank Keefe submitted his own “Additional Views” after having, with Republican Rep. Gearhart (who was in a tough re-election campaign) signed the “Majority Report.” Keefe admitted that the “concept of an ‘incident’ as a factor which would unify public opinion behind an all-out war effort either in the Atlantic or Pacific had influenced the thinking of officials in Washington for a long time.” As early as October 1940, Roosevelt had considered blockading Japan. Keefe also found it significant that just days before the attack on Pearl Harbor Roosevelt personally ordered the Navy to dispatch three small vessels from the Philippines into the path of Japanese warships then steaming towards Southeast Asia. The Congressman felt that this singular action was intended to provoke an “overt” Japanese attack on American ships that could serve as the incident needed to bring the United States officially into the war.

George Morgenstern Enters the Fray

The Congressional Hearings, memoirs of diplomats and military officers, and other inquiries provided enough evidence to allow a serious student of the attack to obtain a fairly clear picture of what had happened. George Morgenstern, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Chicago who had served as a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps during the war, combed through the available material and wrote what remains today perhaps the best account of the episode, Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War, published in 1947 by the Devin-Adair Company.
Morgenstern, who was by then working as an editorial-page editor for the Chicago Tribune, rattled the defenders of Roosevelt’s innocence. Subject to severe attack by some, or simply given the silent treatment, Morgenstern’s scholarship won plaudits from others who were not partisans of the Democratic political establishment. The venerable Charles A. Beard stated that his book would long remain “a permanent contribution to the quest for an understanding of the tragedy of Pearl Harbor.” A former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Asiatic Fleet, Admiral H.E. Yarnell, said that the author “is to be congratulated on marshalling the available facts of this tragedy in such a manner as to make it clear to every reader where the responsibility lies.” Georgetown University historian Charles Callan Tansill felt that Morgenstern “discloses with great ability the lessons of secret diplomacy and national betrayal.”
Morgenstern opened his book with a description of the Japanese attack, and noted that a 1932 U.S. Navy exercise showed that Pearl Harbor was open to air attack by carrier based planes. An entire chapter was devoted to the question of why the fleet came to be home-based at Pearl Harbor from May 1940. The author cited the testimony of the former commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral J.O. Richardson, who, in October 1940, protested Roosevelt’s decision to move the fleet from the protected waters of the American west coast to the vulnerable base at Hawaii. Richardson was relieved of his command four months after his meeting with FDR and was replaced by Rear Admiral Kimmel.
“For years before Pearl Harbor Mr. Roosevelt had talked of peace. For months he had schemed for war. His deeds belied his words,” the author asserted in his chapter dealing with the “Back Door To War.” Herein he listed the chain of events, from Roosevelt’s October 1937 “quarantine the aggressors” speech to his arming of the British at the expense of the U.S. armed forces and the “undeclared war” he waged in the Atlantic. Morgenstern demonstrated that the United States had no great economic or political interests with China, which was at war with Japan. Indeed, while China accounted for less than 3 percent of U.S. foreign trade, Japan was America’s third best customer. If Japan was a “threat” to any interests, it was those of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, holders of vast Asian colonies.
The diplomatic prelude to the attack was reviewed. In “The Last of the Japanese Moderates,” Morgenstern emphasized that “diplomacy failed because diplomacy was not employed to avert war, but to make certain its coming.” Citing U.S. Ambassador to Japan Joseph C. Grew, the author revealed how Premier Konoye’s sincere peace proposals were spurned by Roosevelt, leading to Konoye’s replacement by General Tojo, who pledged to do whatever was necessary to break the economic stranglehold America had inflicted since the summer of 1941.
The Joint Congressional Hearings brought out the extent to which American cryptographers managed to read secret Japanese diplomatic messages. This “MAGIC,” as it was called, enabled Washington to know what the Japanese had in mind and, most importantly, what their timetable was for on-going diplomatic efforts, the failure of which would inevitably lead to military action. By November 14, 1941, Roosevelt knew that war would come if negotiations collapsed; on November 19th Tokyo warned that a complete breakdown was near and, in a special message to its Washington embassy, issued the now famous “Winds” instruction, which provided that:

In case of emergency (danger of cutting off our diplomatic relations), and the cutting off of international communications, the following warning will be added in the middle of the daily Japanese language short wave news broadcast:

1. In case of Japan-U.S. relations endangered: Higashi no kaze ame (east wind, rain).
2. Japan-U.S.S.R. relations: Kita no kaze kumori (north wind, cloudy).
3. Japan-British relations: Nishi no kaze hare (west wind, clear).

On November 22, Tokyo informed its special envoys to the United States, Kichisaburo Nomura and Saburo Kurusu, that if an agreement was not reached with the U.S., British, and Dutch by November 29th, “the deadline absolutely cannot be changed. After that things are automatically going to happen.”
In another
[The text is missing from here to the bottom of Page 440]
Page 441
[Text missing from start of page to “failed to disclose:”]

….the part played in bringing about the result of December 7 by its campaign of economic warfare, its secret diplomacy, its covert military alliances, the submission of demands which Japan found “humiliating,” and its own complete abandonment of neutrality in favor of nondeclared war…
When it became apparent, a few days after Pearl Harbor, that the manifest failures which contributed to the crushing defeat at Oahu could not be blamed solely on the Japanese, Roosevelt and his associates in the civilian government and high command in vented some new villains to divert the guilt from themselves. For the defeat at Pearl Harbor the blame — all of the blame, not part of it — was apportioned between Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short.

Later, as the war drew to an end and new doubts were raised, President Truman shifted blame from Washington to the American people as a whole. Said Truman, “The country was not ready for preparedness … I think the country is as much to blame as any individual in this final situation that developed in Pearl Harbor.” But it was not the American people who had waged economic warfare against Japan. And it was not the public that had shipped weapons to Britain and Russia at the expense of the U.S. armed forces.
Morgenstern rejected Truman’s arrogant charge and instead directed the blame precisely where the evidence indicated that it lay:

The United States was neither informed nor alerted when Roosevelt and the men whose intentions coincided with his (because their fortunes rode with him) were warping the nation into war in 1941. The motives of these men are to this day obscure. They are never more obscure in the light of the default of all promises concerning the objectives of World War II… All of these men must answer for much. With absolute knowledge of war, they refused to communicate that knowledge, clearly, unequivocally, and in time, to the men in the field upon whom the blow would fall. the silence in Washington can yield to no other explanation than a desire to do nothing that would deter or forestall the attack which would produce the overt act so long and so fervently sought. when the price of silence proved to be 2,326 lives, it was necessary to add two more victims to the list — Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short … they failed — with calculation — to keep the United States out of war and to avoid a clash with Japan … the “warnings” they sent to Hawaii failed — and were so phrased and so handled as to insure failure.
Pearl Harbor was the first action of the acknowledge war, and the last battle of a secret war upon which the administra tion had long since embarked. the secret war was waged against nations which the leadership of this country has chosen as enemies months before they became formal enemies by a declaration of war. It was waged also, by psychological means, by propaganda, and deception, against the American people, who were thought by their leaders to be laggard in embracing war. The people were told that acts which were equivalent to war were intended to keep the nation out of war. Constitutional processes existed only to be circumvented, until finally the war-making power of Congress was reduced to the act of ratifying an accomplished fact.

It is encouraging to report that George Morgenstern’s classic account of the Pearl Harbor tragedy is at long last being reprinted (by the IHR). Despite the passage of time, and the disclosure of new evidence, Morgenstern’s basic thesis remains unshaken.

A Growing Debate

The Revisionist case was firmly grounded in evidence made available during the Congressional Hearings and in other post war disclosures. this did not silence the defenders of Roosevelt and the “New World Order” that had been forged at Teheran, Yalta, Potsdam, and San Francisco. Far from it. A stream of books defending, “explaining” and excusing Roosevelt and his chief aides rolled off the presses to the accolades of the Establishment press. Representative examples of this literature were The Road to Pearl Harbor, by Herbert Feis (Princeton University Press, 1950); Roosevelt: From Munich to Pearl Harbor by Basil Rauch (Creative Age Press, 1950); and the The Challenge to Isolation (Harper and Brothers, 1952) and The Undeclared War (Harper and Brothers, 1953), both by William L. Langer and S. Everett Gleason.
If George Morgenstern’s Pearl Harbor remained the best answer to the Establishment’s version of the attack, other writers were taking a closer look at the New Deal and placing the Japanese attack on Hawaii within the context of American foreign and domestic policies during the Roosevelt Era. Of especial note are studies by Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941: A Study in appearances and Realities (Yale University Press, 1948); William Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade(Henry Regnery, 1950); Frederick R. Sanborn, Design for War: A Study of Secret Politics, 1937-1941 (Devin Adair, 1951); and Charles Callan Tansill, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 (Henry Regnery, 1952). The volumes by Beard and Tansill were especially unwelcome among the defenders of Roosevelt’s policies, as Beard had been one of the pre-eminent historians of the first half of the twentieth century, while Tansill was a distinguished Georgetown University professor of American diplomatic history. All of the above-mentioned titles are still worth reading, not only from the historiographical standpoint, but for their factual disclosures and interpreta tions of events.

The Barnes Symposium

Harry Elmer Barnes (1889-1968) was a scholar of immense range who had been a path-finder in world War I revisionism. later a critic of New Deal policies, he wrote on diplomatic history and international relations and gave generous encouragement to others to explore various aspects of recent history. He saw this “quest for truth” as not a mere intellectual exercise, but as an endeavor that might help bring justice and peace to a troubled world.
In 1953, under Barnes’ editorship, Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace (The Caxton Printers, Ltd.) appeared. Here Barnes assembled leading critics in a survey and appraisal of the development, course, and consequences of American foreign policy during Roosevelt’s presidency. He was confident that the views expressed in this volume could withstand whatever rejoinder Roosevelt’s defenders might deliver, observing:

There is no probability that later evidence will require any moderation of the indictment of our foreign policy since 1914, and, especially since 1933. If there were any still secret material which would brighten the record of the Roosevelt and Truman foreign polices, we may rest assured that their court historians and publicity agents would have revealed it to the public long ere this.

The symposium opened with an introduction to “Revisionism and the Historical Blackout,” wherein Professor Barnes explained how dissident views were suppressed by the very elements which claimed to defend the First Amendment to the Constitution. Had not the small firms Henry Regnery and Devin-Adair been willing to publish Revisionist books, it is doubtful whether Morgenstern, Sanborn, Tansill and others would have managed to get their most significant work in print. In his essay, “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” Dr. Tansill discussed the European background of the origins of World War II, as well as Japanese- American relations up to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Frederick R. San born considered the origins of Roosevelt’s interventionism and the failure of his un-natural policies toward Hitler, in “Roosevelt Is Frustrated In Europe.” Professor William L. Neumann drew attention to “How American Policy Toward Japan Contributed to War in the Pacific.”
Two essays dealt with Pearl Harbor and its aftermath; “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” by George Morgenstern, which summarized and updated the case he had made in his full length book, and “The Pearl Harbor Investigations,” by Percy L. Greaves, Jr. Greaves took a look at the nine Pearl Harbor in quiries and showed how blame has been redirected away from the real culprits. He revealed how General Marshall was forced to make a series of damaging admissions under sharp questioning by Senator Homer Ferguson, among them how the United States had secretly initiated military agreements with the British and Dutch, directed against the Japanese, and that the agreements had gone into effect before the Pearl Harbor attack. Nevertheless, the campaign to protect those who were responsible for the Pearl Harbor debacle continued. As he observed:

Those who have participated in this great conspiracy against the American people undoubtedly believe that the end justifies the means. They probably all join the editors of Life [magazine], who tell us in their Picture History of World War II that “In retrospect Pearl Harbor seemed clearly the best than that could have happened to the U.S.”

William Henry Chamberlin reminded us that none of the stated goals that the United Nations were supposed to be fighting for were realized by war’s end. In his essay, “The Bankruptcy of a Policy,” he argued that the Roosevelt foreign policy was a catastrophe, the dire consequences of which would endure for decades to come. The final essay chapter, by Professor George A. Lundberg, considered “American Foreign Policy in the Light of National Interest at Mid-Century.” Here he compared internationalism and interventionism with what had been our traditional policy of continentalism before our involvement in the First World War. Under the old policy, the United States had been safe and grew prosperous. The New Internationalism had made us less free, less safe, less secure.
Nearly forty years after they were first published, the articles in Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace have indeed withstood the test of time and are still well worth reading. No one since Barnes has attempted, in a single volume, to cover the history reviewed therein. Regrettably, it is unlikely that such a project could be undertaken today, as there are not enough scholars working on those topics to fill a large volume of essays.

The Admirals Speak up

Thanks to the Roosevelt apologists, including the biased Roberts Commission, Majority Report of the Joint Congressional Committee, and the pro-Administration books, it is no wonder that the public was confused about which branch of the service was responsible for the security of Pearl Harbor (a condition that continues even today). The various investigations established that it was the Army, not the Navy, that was charged with the defense of the Pacific Fleet when it was in port. Thus, the chain of command in 1941 went through the Army Chief of Staff, General Marshall, the his commander at Hawaii, Lt. Gen. Short. Admiral Kimmel was supposed to cooperate with the Army, which at that time also included the Air Force (which was, throughout World War II was actually the Army Air Force). Kimmel’s job was to take care of naval operations.
Over the decades that the debate over Pearl Harbor has raged, a number of observers have noted that, by and large, it has been Navy men who have taken an especial interest in seeking the truth about the attack. Gen. Short never published his own memoirs. Nor have men close to Marshall given an “inside” account of those fateful days.
Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald was commander of the Pacific Fleet’s destroyers at the time of the attack and was at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Later he was commander of the Northern Pacific Force. At the time of his retirement from active duty he was Commandant of the First Naval District.
Theobald assisted Kimmel in his testimony before the Roberts Commission. After his retirement, he devoted years to studying the attack and its aftermath. The results of his research were first published in March 1954, when Devin Adair released The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor: The Washington Contribution to the Japanese Attack.
It was Admiral Theobald’s finding that from the fall of France, in June 1940, Roosevelt was convinced that the U.S. must fight on Britain’s side and that the primary objective remained the defeat of Germany. On September 27, 1940, Germany, Italy, and Japan entered into the Tripartite Pact, which provided that each would declare war on any third party that went to war against one of the three (this did not affect Germany and Japan’s relations with the U.S.S.R.). From this date, then, war with Japan meant war with Germany and Italy, and this came to play an increasingly important role in Roosevelt’s maneuvers.
In an effort to circumvent the American public’s reluctance to enter the war, Roosevelt took a number of steps that Theobald went into considerable detail explaining. In brief, they were:

1. Introduced a massive arms buildup;
2. Repeatedly provoked Germany through an undeclared naval war in the Atlantic;
3. Applied increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Japan, reaching a climax in late July, 1941, when the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets. Japan lost 75 per cent of its foreign trade and 90 per cent of its oil supply;
4. In August 1941 met with Churchill at Newfoundland, where FDR promised that any Japanese attack on British or Dutch possessions would bring the United States into the war;
5. Had Secretary of State Hull delivered an insulting diplomatic ultimatum to the Japanese government on November 26, 1941, “which gave Japan no choice but sur render or war”;
6. He “retained a weak Pacific fleet in Hawaiian waters, despite contrary naval advice, where it served only one diplomatic purpose, an invitation to a Japanese surprise attack”;
7. “Furthered that surprise by causing the Hawaiian Commanders to be denied invaluable information from decoded Japanese dispatches concerning the rapid approach to the war and the strong probability that the attack would be directed at Pearl Harbor.”

Theobald, in his review of the MAGIC diplomatic decrypts that were available in Washington, emphasized that this vital material was not passed along, that there had been an “almost complete denial of information, during the three months preceding the Pearl Harbor attack.” Then he posed a series of questions that Roosevelt’s defenders have yet to answer satisfactorily: “Why was such irrefutable evidence of the coming attack so withheld? Why did Washington contribute so completely to the surprise feature of that attack?” Theobald reasoned, “There can be only one answer — because President Roosevelt wanted it that way!”
The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor also reviews the findings of the various post-attack investigations, including a point-by point refutation of the Majority Conclusion of the Joint Congressional Committee, which he dismissed as “the last act in the attempt to preserve the Pearl Harbor Secret.”
The American moves leading up to the Japanese attack are summarized in his final chapter, in which he re-emphasizes that:

… the recurrent fact of the true Pearl Harbor story has been the repeated withholding of information from Admiral Kimmel and General Short … The denial to the Hawaiian Commanders of all knowledge of Magic was vital to the plan for enticing Japan to deliver a surprise attack upon the Fleet … because as late as Saturday, December 6, Admiral Kimmel could have caused that attack to be canceled by taking his fleet to sea and disappearing beyond land- based human ken.

Evidence placed on the record indicated to Theobald that:

Everything that happened in Washington on Saturday and Sunday, December 6 and 7, supports the belief that President Roosevelt had directed that no message be sent to the Hawaiian Commanders before noon on Sunday, Washington time … Never before in recorded history had a field commander been denied information that his country would be at war in a matter of hours, and that everything pointed to a sur prise attack upon his forces shortly after sunrise.

Nevertheless, Theobald was forced to concede, Roosevelt’s strategy accomplished its purpose: a united people rallied behind the president’s war effort. The author left it up to his readers to ponder the ethics of that statecraft.

After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for USA-Israeli relations. He said: “It’s very good.” Then he corrected himself, adding: “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans].” If Israel’s closest ally felt the collective pain of mass civilian deaths at the hands of terrorists, then Israel would have an unbreakable bond with the world’s only hyperpower and an effective free hand in dealing with the Palestinian terrorists who had been murdering its innocent civilians as the second Intifada dragged on throughout 2001.
It’s not surprising that the New Jersey housewife who first spotted the five Israelis and their white van wants to preserve her anonymity. She’s insisted that she only be identified as Maria. A neighbour in her apartment building had called her just after the first strike on the Twin Towers. Maria grabbed a pair of binoculars and, like millions across the world, she watched the horror of the day unfold. As she gazed at the burning towers, she noticed a group of men kneeling on the roof of a white van in her parking lot. Here’s her recollection: “They seemed to be taking a movie. They were like happy, you know they didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was strange.”

Maria jotted down the van’s registration and called the police. The FBI was alerted and soon there was a state-wide all points bulletin put out for the apprehension of the van and its occupants. The cops traced the number, establishing that it belonged to a company called Urban Moving. Police Chief John Schmidig said: “We got an alert to be on the lookout for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side. Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down.”

By 4pm on the afternoon of September 11, the van was spotted near New Jersey’s Giants stadium. A squad car pulled it over and inside were five men in their 20s. They were hustled out of the car with guns levelled at their heads and handcuffed. In the car was $4700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters ? the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers who’d flown jetliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon just hours before. There were also fresh pictures of the men standing with the smouldering wreckage of the Twin Towers in the background. One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert.
The driver of the van then told the arresting officers: “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” His name was Sivan Kurzberg. The other four passengers were Kurzberg’s brother Paul, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. The men were dragged off to prison and transferred out of the custody of the FBI’s Criminal Division and into the hands of their Foreign Counterintelligence Section ? the bureau’s anti-espionage squad.
A warrant was issued for a search of the Urban Moving premises in Weehawken in New Jersey. Boxes of papers and computers were removed. The FBI questioned the firm’s Israeli owner, Dominik Otto Suter, but when agents returned to re-interview him a few days later, he was gone. An employee of Urban Moving said his co-workers had laughed about the Manhattan attacks the day they happened. “I was in tears,” the man said. “These guys were joking and that bothered me. These guys were like, Now America knows what we go through.’”

Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the CIA, says the red flag went up among investigators when it was discovered that some of the Israelis’ names were found in a search of the national intelligence database. Cannistraro says many in the USA intelligence community believed that some of the Israelis were working for Mossad and there was speculation over whether Urban Moving had been “set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists”. This makes it clear that there was no suggestion whatsoever from within American intelligence that the Israelis were colluding with the 9/11 hijackers ? simply that the possibility remains that they knew the attacks were going to happen, but effectively did nothing to help stop them.
After the owner vanished, the offices of Urban Moving looked as if they’d been closed down in a big hurry. Mobile phones were littered about, the office phones were still connected and the property of at least a dozen clients were stacked up in the warehouse. The owner had cleared out his family home in New Jersey and returned to Israel.

Two weeks after their arrest, the Israelis were still in detention, held on immigration charges. Then a judge ruled that they should be deported. But the CIA scuppered the deal and the five remained in custody for another two months. Some went into solitary confinement, all underwent two polygraph tests and at least one underwent up to seven lie detector sessions before they were eventually deported at the end of November 2001. Paul Kurzberg refused to take a lie detector test for 10 weeks, but then failed it. His lawyer said he was reluctant to take the test as he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country.

Would friends of the USA jump for joy at the murder of thousands of its citizens?
The respected New York Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported in March 2002, however, that it had received a briefing on the case of the five Israelis from a USA official who was regularly updated by law enforcement agencies. This is what he told The Forward: “The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it.” He added that “the conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs”, but the men were released because they “did not know anything about 9/11″.
Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment: “The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.” But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?

Jim Margolin, an FBI spokesman in New York, implied that the public would never know the truth, saying: “If we found evidence of unauthorised intelligence operations that would be classified material.” Yet, Israel has long been known, according to USA administration sources, for “conducting the most aggressive espionage operations against the USA of any USA ally”. Seventeen years ago, Jonathan Pollard, a civilian working for the American Navy, was jailed for life for passing secrets to Israel. At first, Israel claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but the government later took responsibility for his work.
It has always been a long-accepted agreement among allies ? such as Britain and America or America and Israel ? that neither country will jail a “friendly spy” nor shame the allied country for espionage. Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Boston’s Political Research Associates and an expert in intelligence, says: “It’s a backdoor agreement between allies that says that if one of your spies gets caught and didn’t do too much harm, he goes home. It goes on all the time. The official reason is always visa violation.”

What we are left with, then, is fact sullied by innuendo. Certainly, it seems, Israel was spying within the borders of the United States and it is equally certain that the targets were Islamic extremists probably linked to September 11. But did Israel know in advance that the Twin Towers would be hit and the world plunged into a war without end; a war which would give Israel the power to strike its enemies almost without limit? That’s a conspiracy theory too far, perhaps. But the unpleasant feeling that, in this age of spin and secrets, we do not know the full and unadulterated truth won’t go away. Maybe we can guess, but it’s for the history books to discover and decide.

Wednesday, November 5th, 2003 - 01:26pm GMT Article courtesy of Scottish-based Herald Newspapers

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:59:52 -0700 From: Phil Eversoul Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
> It is quite clear that the CIA or some other elements in the US government
> knew in advance about 9-11.
It’s also clear that the Mossad knew about it. They gave a generalized type of warning to the US government.
> That they planned or carried out the attacks is pure speculation
> although certainly not out of the question, and it is likely
> that one of the more of
> the intelligence agencies penetrated
> the group and perhaps encouraged the final outcome.
Surely you don’t think Al Qaeda was capable of the “Stand-down” order to the US Air Force, do you? And surely you don’t think that a Boeing jumbo jet hit the Pentagon, do you?
Or maybe you believe that Al Qaeda members learned to fly jumbo jets at US flight schools by taking a few lessons on Cessnas.
> But we have no proof.

There’s plenty of evidence that points back to the CIA and the Mossad.

There is no credible evidence that Al Qaeda did the deed. Or perhaps you believe the government’s assertion that Mohammed Atta’s passport fell out of the sky and was picked up on the streets on New York. And of course, assassins on a suicide mission on a domestic flight that does not require passports are all going to carry passports anyway, just to make sure they’re properly identified as hostile Moslem terrorists, right?
> Your suggestion that Al-Queda is a fake I shouldn’t dignify
> by an answer, but I will take Robert’s Fisk’s word and his
> experiences above your fantasies.

Al Qaeda was originally created by the CIA. This is a known fact that no one disputes. When did Al Qaeda STOP being a CIA asset and under what circumstances, Jeff? Does Robert Fisk give us the answer to that one?

It is beginning to make more sense that our government, in its complicity to create 9-11, employed the Mossad. Utilizing them would allow the government officials to circumvent enlisting perhaps all but a few–if any–FBI and CIA personnel. And, too, how many of our own could be part of such a thing?

Israel stood to gain by getting US backing against the Palestinians and other Middle Eastern states. However, I do not blame Jewry for such, just the Zionists.

I was visiting my native New Jersey, directly across the Hudson from The Towers, on 9-11. In the days that followed, I read several interesting stories in the newspaper for which I once wrote–The Bergen Record–about Israeli celebrations, one at Liberty Park, which is at land’s end and offers a spectacular view of The Towers and New York Bay. You don’t go “through” Liberty Park. If you’re there, it’s for a reason, so those individuals knew what was to come.
There were no raging infernos in either tower. A fire that was of such a nature and which burned for 19 hours, repelling firemen–unlike the Towers in which the firemen did get close to the “manageable” fires–was the Meridian Plaza fire of 1991.
A true account of the way steel and concrete behave in intense and prolonged fire can be accessed at the this URL: http://www.firetactics.com/meridian.pdf.
Under “Structural Conditions Observed” (pg. 19), it reads: “After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted–some as much as three feet–under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordianary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.”

If you are going to have an inferno, you’re probably better off not using jet fuel–which is kerosene and doesn’t flame for very long. Also, firemen know their business. Their experience and training gave them every reason to believe they were not in peril regarding a collapse. Explosives downed those buildings, and I am now suspecting that the Mossad were the perps.
For what it’s worth …

Israelis and 911
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:34:34 +0500 From: Simon Jones
One Israel died in the WTC, 2 (possibly Mossad agents) on two of the planes. Total = THREE. This is the number on the official Israeli 911 memorial site. (They have no shame!) see http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/11/WTC_DeathRoll2.html
And of course the warnings (see below), which have been public knowledge all along and are a smoking gun if there ever was one. Curiously, apparently Mossad gave info to CIA re 200 ‘al Qaida’ suspects prior to 911, including the supposed highjackers. If you’re right, then al Qaida is a Mossad terrorist front group. Either that or it is being masterfully manipulated by Mossad.
Wednesday, September 03, 2003 Ha’aretz
Odigo says workers were warned of attack By Yuval Dror
Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.
Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company’s management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.
“I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don’t know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don’t know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made,” said Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya.
As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only to people on their “buddy” list, as is the case with ICQ, the other well-known Israeli instant messaging application.
Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.


• 9-11 Attacks: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11
The Five Dancing Israelis. Arrested On 9-11 … was later confirmed that the five detained Israelis were in fact Mossad agents (21) …
www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html - 25k - Cached - More from this site
• 9-11 Attacks: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11
The Five Dancing “Israelis” Arrested On 9-11 … that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September were conducting a …
www.todayscatholicworld.com/mossad-agents-911.htm - 24k - Cached - More from this site
Steven Gordon was the lawyer who volunteered to represent the five Israelis. … it was revealed that the dancing Israelis were smiling in the foreground of …
the7thfire.com/9-11/…/chapter_2–dancing_Israelis.htm - 60k - Cached - More from this site
• Picasso Dreams: Five Dancing Israelis
… 02 November 2003 Five Israelis were seen filming as … Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Five Dancing Israelis: Comments. Post a comment …
karmakat.typepad.com/picasso_dreams/2003/12/five_dancing_is.html - 62k - Cached - More from this site
• Killtown: The Dancing Israelis on 9/11
The five Israelis were held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, … The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11 - WRH. Labels: Israelis, Mossad, WTC …
killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html - 118k - Cached - More from this site
• indymedia beirut | The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11 |
Indymedia Infos on: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11 … was later confirmed that the five detained Israelis were in fact Mossad agents (21) …
beirut.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/6287.shtml - 20k - Cached - More from this site

Pax Americana
Bush planned Iraq ‘regime change’ before becoming President
By Neil Mackay
Sunday Herald Scotland Sunday 15th September 2002
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, 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), George W Bush’s younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative 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: ‘The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. 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 document supports a ‘blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests’.
This ‘American grand strategy’ must be advanced for ‘as far into the future as possible’, the report says. It also calls for the US to ‘fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars’ as a ‘core mission’.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as ‘the cavalry on the new American frontier’. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must ‘discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’. …

see: http://www.ihr.org/




English to Arabic to English Dictionary
Find word:
Exact Word / Starting Word Sub Word

Please Feel Free to Donate