Monday, March 26, 2007

WHO's Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy?

Defenders of the official 9/11 story argue that those who question the government are giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" (and here).

Are they right?


First, let's look at the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

As reported by the New York Times, the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 world trade center bombing, but had -- at the last minute -- cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake power for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view). See also this TV news report.

And the CIA is alleged to have met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11.

Indeed, the government appears to have trained a number of the hijackers at military bases.

Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

And an organization virtually controlled by the CIA provided funding to the 9/11 hijackers.

Moreover, it is undisputed that the administration had numerous warnings of a specific nature about the attacks, and yet failed to take any real action to stop the attacks.

Didn't these government acts give aid and comfort to the enemy?


The evidence is overwhelming that the government allowed the attacks to succeed (if you don't believe that, skip ahead and read up about the 9/11 Commission, and then come back to this section).

Indeed, elements of the government may even have actively carried out the attacks.

Didn't that give aid and comfort to the enemy?

The Investigation

After the attacks, the government engaged in a cover-up and whitewash of epic proportions. For example:

Military officials lied to the Commission, and the Commissioners considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

• The co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

• Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

• The former head of the FBI said there was a cover-up by the 9/11 Commission

• The very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now "question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report", and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and "suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts".

• A former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated".

• The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times.

• There are indications that false evidence was planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.

Didn't the fact that the investigation was an obvious farce give aid and comfort to the enemy?


The anthrax attacks -- which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists -- used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility, the Fort Detrick military base. Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong"; and see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer; and this statement by a distinguished law professor and bioterror expert. It is also interesting that the only congress people mailed anthrax-containing letters were key democrats, and that the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing Patriot Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of congress into passing that act without even reading it. And it might be coincidence, but White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks occurred.

And the CIA commander in charge of the capture stated that the U.S. LET Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan.

Don't those acts of treason give aid and comfort to the enemy?

Another False Flag Attack

Many very smart people are saying that elements within the U.S. government are planning to carry out a false flag attack and blame it on Iran, in order to justify war against that country. For example:

• A current Republican Congressman has said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran".

• A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

• A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

• The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

• A member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

And, as General Tommy Franks has said, if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government" . Likewise, Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

Wouldn't that give aid and comfort to the enemy?

Indeed, a wide variety of very high-level U.S. military officers, congress people, and other patriotic Americans believe from across the political spectrum believe that not questioning 9/11 gives aid and comfort to the enemies.

In the final analysis, the real question is whether the most dangerous enemies are "inside the gate" or somewhere on the other side of the world. Anyone who enables the biggest criminals is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If the most ruthless killers are, indeed, inside our country, than the talking heads and shills who support their lies are the ones giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I am not saying that there are not some radical Islamic terrorists. There might be a handful. However, as everyone from the Los Angeles Times to the BBC have shown, the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype). Indeed, a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".

according to to the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the massacre against Vietnamese civilians, high-level U.S. government officials are currently helping to fund Al-Qaeda.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

On 9-10-2001 Donald Rumsfeld admitted to CBS News that 2.3 trillion dollars of Pentagon spending could not be traced. The DOD office in charge of recovering the missing trillions was located next to the Counter terrorism Center. On-9-11-2001 Robert Andrews, a former Green Beret, was the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense in charge of all Special Forces worldwide. At 9:32 he saw and heard a bomb destroy the offices of the Pentagon auditors. 40 military officers investigating the missing money were killed. The CTC was destroyed too. You can read more here: It seems that the 9-11 Truth movement cares more for those killed at the Pentagon than do the people who tow the party line.
My latest article on the folly of attacking Iran is here: .

3:57 PM  
Anonymous Magmak1 said...

DARPA's "Future" AI-based War Machine ... 20 minutes

"Why the Facts of 9/11 Must Be Suppressed" (John McMurty) ...

links to audio streaming, pdf and html

7:11 PM  
Blogger crusader bunnypants said...

2,020 days since WMD said he'd catch Weekend at Osama's dead or alive??? There is such a rabid minority of Americans that will never admit the truth to themselves about WMD and Nine Eleven, they are like the Sunni Terrorists in Iraq! The USA will eventually fall into Revolution or Civil War after the bigtime!

1:54 PM  
Blogger Stanneh said...

those who try to promote the official story/lies of 911 are aiding the real enemy when america realises that the ones who have commited that crime will be held to account like those who supported the nazis during ww2.

2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?

The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like "America Deceived" from Wiki, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.

How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?

In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?

The gov't lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov't lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov't lied about 9/11?

Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

5:21 AM  
Blogger ISRAOIL said...

Sorry to tell the author that none were arabs. The 19 ones that did it--GW Bush, Marvin Bush, Chenny, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Chertoff, Emanual,George Tenant,Gonzolotus, Sharon,Nutahawho,Wolfe Blitzer. O'Reiley, Rush Lambaigh,Pelosi .
Jewalanie,Rupert Murdick, Silverstink, Hillary.

8:30 AM  
Blogger b. j. edwards said...

9/11 Conspiracy News the Mainstream Media Missed

6:22 AM  
Blogger liberal journal man said...

"If the gov't lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov't lied about 9/11?"

That's the question I ask all the time of sheeple and never get a good answer to.

They don't want to believe that our government is that sinister. Their logic goes...sure, we can kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but kill 3,000 US citizens--no, never that...

12:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home