Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


9/11 Makes Front Page News In Norwegian Paper

Recommended Posts

Front page news

Translated from the July 1, 2006 Norwegian Le Monde Diplomatique

9/11TRUTH: More and more people in the USA are convinced that the American authorities are concealing their involvement in the September 11th tragedy. Statements from witnesses, marked confidential for several years, now show that controlled demolition may have taken place. The US government had long anticipated such an incident – as the Republican document from 2000 Rebuilding America’s defenses indicates. The 9/11Truth organisation believes that the USA probably orchestrated an incident of this type in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the curtailing of civil liberties within the US through the introduction of The Patriot Act. It has now emerged that the America’s most senior military leader in 1962 devised a plan for a premeditated attack on Americans, which would have involved shooting down a passenger plane, so that the blame could be cast on Cuba. So why should this be excluded today? Many also believe that Pakistani intelligence cooperated with the CIA and Al-Qaida because the former transferred significant sums of money to the hijacker Mohammed Atta in the days leading up to the 11th of September. They even had Bin Laden under surveillance during the time of his treatment in a military hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan in September 2001.

Most of us would think it strange if the impact of a passenger plane wasn’t sufficient to cause a skyscraper to collapse. So there were few who doubted what it was that hit the Twin Towers on the 11th of September 2001 or the identities of the perpetrators. However, in the intervening years, several individuals and groups, both in North America and in Europe, began to doubt whether this necessarily constitutes accuracy. For them, a set of contradictory circumstances surrounding the attacks do not correspond with the explanations of the American authorities and the Congress-appointed 9/11 Commission. A key reason for this doubt could be that there are witnesses and participants in September 11th who describe events that do not tally with events in the official story. An example is provided by onlookers who heard and saw what they believed to be explosions around the Twin Towers before they were struck by the planes. Policemen thought it looked like “planned implosion”. Fireman Richard Banaciski reported that: “It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory claimed:


“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” – Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

Another controversial witness statement came from maintenance worker, William Rodriguez who was working in the North Tower on the 11th of September. In an interview with New York Magazine he claimed that he first heard a huge explosion when he was in one of the sub-basements of the skyscraper and witnessed the appearance of victims, the skin burnt off their arms by fires in the lift shaft. After the explosion in the sub-basement he heard another one from above. It was a Boeing 767. William was the last survivor to be rescued from the World Trade Center’s Ground Zero. He was hailed as a hero and invited to visit George Bush and the White House. Later, when he attempted to publicize his story about the sub-basement explosion, it was rejected by the American authorities. He has now filed a lawsuit against these same authorities under the RICO Statute, a legal ruling originally designed to prosecute Mafia families.

Besides witness statements describing a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers with explosives, critics of the Bush administration believe there are several sets of circumstances around September 11th that give good reason to suspect the official story is incorrect. It is a fact that none of the four hijacked planes were intercepted by fighter planes. That this did not happen, combined with the fact that the majority of the air force was engaged in military exercises, has given weight to suspicion that the American air defense force gave the order to “stand down” so that the terrorist attacks could proceed unhindered. Another suspicious circumstance is that WTC 7- also known as Building 7 – a 47-storey skyscraper, collapsed without having been hit by any of the planes. Conversely, the buildings that stood adjacent are still intact.

When it comes to any forewarning of the attacks, claims that the NSA monitored fully translated conversations in the summer of 2001 – in real-time – between Mohammed Atta and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed have raised concern. In one of the conversations, Atta purportedly gave Mohammed the green light for the attacks; NSA therefore should have been forewarned.

In relation to an investigation that could have led to the apprehension of the hijackers, FBI agent Colleen Rowley claims that the FBI’s directors intentionally obstructed her investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui – at the time he was attending flight school in Minneapolis. They did this despite having received warnings from French intelligence. Rowley believes that, had the FBI approved the investigation, they could have uncovered Moussaoui’s plans as well as those of several other hijackers enrolled in flight schools. That Pakistani intelligence (ISI) transferred significant sums of money to Mohammed Atta in the days leading up to the 11th of September, some believe, is evidence of cooperation between the ISI, CIA and Al-Qaida.

It may also seem suspicious that George Bush has maintained that American authorities have stepped down the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the main suspect behind September 11th. General Richard Myers also stated that the war in Afghanistan was not about finding bin Laden. A former CIA agent, Gary Berntsen, has furthermore claimed that the Bush administration let bin Laden escape when he was cornered in a pocket of the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan in 2001. It is also known that American intelligence were fully aware of bin Laden’s whereabouts as early as July 2001 when he was treated for a kidney condition at an American hospital in Dubai, The United Arab Emirates. A few months later in September, he also received treatment in a military hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan under the surveillance of Pakistani intelligence.

THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES and witness accounts that contradict aspects of the official story has led some individuals and groups to search for alternative explanations for what happened on the 11th of September 2001. Consequently, a veritable jungle of theories about what really happened in the US five years ago has sprung up. The theories unfurl in several, interconnected directions. A comparison of different opinions is presented in the book The New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush-Administration and 9/11 (2004), by David Ray Griffin, Professor of Theology and the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California. A key premise he presents in the book is that the responsibility for the attacks of September 11th can, to a large extent, be attributed to former members of the Neo-Conservative think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC), who are now key players in the Bush administration. In the document Rebuilding Amercia’s defenses: strategies, forces and resources for a New American Century (2000), written by PNACs members, it is claimed that:

no way can they continue to ignore calls for a full independent investigation by a sizable number of people around the world and I want to know why our media and politicians are saying nothing, after all they have more power than we do and if they don’t act then the people will and that will get very ugly and then it will be too late for our MP's to say we didn't know.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

BLICK, the biggest Newspaper of Switzerland and its Cover Story: "Bush-Clan is behind 9/11"

Full details but not in english


Yet another countries media breaks the chains of world government censorship and says what many people are thinking.

2973 humans died in the events of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "al-Queda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed him. In the meantime, even scientists doubt the Bush version. Also the Swiss University lecturers, Albert A. Stahel (63) and Daniele Ganser (34), now ask hot questions.

"Something is not right", says strategy expert, Stahel, in the "World Week", and he refers to the "incomplete" official 9/11-Report of the US Government of 2004.

In response to BLICK the university professor confirms the criticism:

Osama Ben Laden cannot be "the grand godfather" behind the events. He could not have had enough means of communication.

Stahel doubts that a passenger airline hit the Pentagon: "For flight beginners it would have been actually impossible to target the building so exactly."

Seven hours after the twin Towers collapsed, beside it, the World Trade Center 7 collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Stahel: "nothing at all is clear."

Stahel goes further than historian, Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich. He also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory": "There are 3 theories, which should we treat equally?":

* "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and al-Qaeda implemented the events.

* "Let it happen intentionally" - parts of the US Government knew of al-Queda's plans. They did not react, in order to legitimize a series of wars.

* "It was intentionally played out" - the events were implemented by the Pentagon and/or secret services. The Bin Laden videos were falsified. 3000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests.

Ganser: "The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version." It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. "Bush already lied so much! And it already occured in 1962 that the Pentagon had a plan to sacrifice innocent US citizens for its own interests." Stahel does not go as far as Ganser: "I have only questions."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?

      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.