Perspectives on 9/11

George W Bush and Condoleezza Rice both went to great lengths to explain to the American public that no-one, within the administration, anticipated that planes would be used as weapons in the manner of the 9/11 attacks. Their claims were clearly false on the basis of numerous reports in the public domain.

Furthermore, in the weeks and months leading up to 9/11, the US intelligence community was not only aware of the 9/11 threat but was pressurising the Iraqi government to disclose any information or intelligence they might have on the impending attacks. Clearly, 9/11 did not come "out of the blue" as the 9/11 Commission Report claims - there was no "failure of intelligence".

"Cui bono" or who benefited from 9/11? Evidence revealed insider trading and of course the military-intelligence-media-academic complex (MIMAC) has benefited hugely in terms of both wealth and power from the resulting wars of the 21st century - MIMAC is controlled by the Structural Elite who've achieved much greater dominance in the aftermath of 9/11.

We also know how "Lucky" Larry Silverstein made money from insurance (double payout) on his timely acquisition of buildings in the world trade centre complex - he already owned WTC7 and had plans for its redevelopment well before its controlled demolition on the day. But who knows of Frank Lowy and his involvement not just in 9/11 but in Australian and UK politics to further his own and Israel's interests?

Frank Lowy, Zionism and 9/11
Fifty days before 9/11, Larry Silverstein's Silverstein Properties and Frank Lowy's Westfield America secured a 99-year lease on World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five. Silverstein already owned Building Seven, aka the Salomon building. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey handed over control of the World Trade Center to Silverstein and Lowy on July 24, 2001, an "historic" agreement and "one of the largest privatization initiatives in history."


0 #2 Clive Menzies 2016-03-19 18:46
The suggestion that plans for rebuilding WTC7 predate 9/11 is not the most significant piece of information in the post and should be treated with circumspection.

However, if the assertion is true "that Silverstein misspoke", why the contradiction between reports of the first design meetings taking place in late 2001 and the suggestion that he may be alluding to 2002 (he refers to April)? - both cannot be true. The more likely explanation is that the design was started prior to demolition but reports of when the design process started were put out to create a timeline which obscured the possibility of prior knowledge.

Layers of misinformation are commonplace but what is unequivocal is his slip that they should "pull it" - clearly WTC7 was rigged for demolition.
0 #1 Ian 2016-03-19 17:28
Not that the following negates all the evidence of controlled demolition on WTC7 of course but there is evidence planning of the rebuild started after 9/11 (see below). That said these links talk of the first DESIGN meeting. There are often planning meetings before the design stage is reached.

For example, in this article -- ntext=crer -- Silverstein wrote, "We held our first design meeting for 7 World Trade Center less than a month after 9/11." (See p.5 of the pdf.)

Similarly, on p. 5 of this Silverstein Properties document -- r.pdf -- it states that the "[f]irst design meeting" for the new WTC 7 was held in "late 2001.

Info from ....

Please register to post comments