9/11 Missing Links - How Israel Did 9/11 video - Controversies & government corruption

Yes. But the how is important. Regardless of what conspiracy theories say, I will point out again that the story began like this:

Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights.com, ‘North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet’, 11 July 2015:

[...] As it would turn out - to use game theory terminology - it was the Islamists who defected first. Going back to the early 1990s, there was an imperative in the United States and United Kingdom to develop the energy supplies that would give the world market a greater diversity of supply and reduce the level of dependence on the Middle East. This would afford the market a buffer against oil shocks that tended historically to be trigged by political problems in that region.

Part of the solution to this, was a collection of plans to move oil across pipelines in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, into Pakistan, with the exit being at the port of Gwadar. These plans were proposed by Unocal Corporation, and supported by Delta Oil, Crescent Group and Gazprom. The problem they were having was that Afghanistan was in turmoil because of a civil war that was being waged in the country. Pakistan had previously been supporting the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the Cold War, and after the end of the Cold War they had been persuaded that they should actually go as far as to support the Taliban, as a type of ‘pipeline police’.

The Taliban were to be tolerated as ‘pipeline police’ because there was the view that the Northern Alliance was supported by India and Iran, and that if they built the pipeline with the Northern Alliance still in Kabul, they’d obstruct the construction process or destroy that section of the pipeline. For this reason, the consortium of oil companies along with the North Atlantic and Pakistan, more or less publicly supported Mullah Omar and the Taliban, against Ahmad Shah Masood who led the Northern Alliance.

Within the Islamic world, this had consequences that the Taliban reacted to in a way that was entirely treacherous and not without precedent. After the Taliban was enjoying more or less cordial relations with the developed world in 1996 after they had seized Kabul, Mullah Omar found himself exposed to something that all politicians are exposed to, namely journalism and public opinion. Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir visited and asked him questions about what was happening. When Mir met Mullah Omar in Kandahar, it is said that Omar asked Mir “why is it that you are writing against me?” And Mir responded that he did so because Omar “was supporting the Americans”.

Mullah Omar then responded, “If I fix your meeting with a big enemy of America, then will you write that I am not an American agent?”

Hamid Mir asked who that enemy was.

“Osama bin Laden.” was Mullah Omar’s response.

[...]

The rest is broadly known to all. Al-Qaeda moved on the planning the ‘Bojinka plot’, which looked like this:

Wikipedia, ‘Bojinka Plot: Targeted Flights’:

Targeted flights

- Dennis Piszkiewicz, author of Terrorism’s War with America: A History, said that “Zyed” was probably the codename of Ramzi Yousef. “Zyed” was to attack a Northwest Airlines Manila-Seoul-Los Angeles flight, then a United Airlines Seoul-Taipei-Honolulu flight, and then a United Taipei-Bangkok-San Francisco flight. Zyed would then flee to Karachi, Pakistan after disembarking in Bangkok.[15]

- “Majbos” was to attack a United Airlines Taipei-Tokyo-Los Angeles flight, with him disembarking in Tokyo, and then proceed to a United Tokyo-Hong Kong-New York flight. After disembarking in Hong Kong, he would have fled to Karachi, Pakistan.[15]

- “Maroka” was to attack a Northwest Airlines Manila-Tokyo-Chicago flight, with him disembarking in Tokyo, and then proceed to a Northwest Tokyo-Hong Kong-New York flight. After disembarking in Hong Kong he would have escaped to Karachi.[15]

- “Mirqas” was to attack a United Airlines Manila-Seoul-San Francisco flight, with him disembarking in Seoul, and then proceed to a Delta Air Lines Seoul-Taipei-Bangkok flight. After disembarking in Taipei he would have escaped to Karachi.[16]

- “Obaida” was to attack a United Singapore-Hong Kong-Los Angeles flight and a United Los Angeles-Hong Kong-Singapore flight which would become a Singapore-Hong Kong-San Francisco flight. After arriving in Singapore, Obaida was to flee to Pakistan.[15]

That was all too complex for them to carry out though, so they opted to scale it down later.

See here:

Nytimes.com, ‘Portrait of 9/11 ‘Jackal’ Emerges as He Awaits Trial’, 14 November 2009:

[...] It was not until the mid-1990s that American counterterrorism experts began to understand Mr. Mohammed’s significance to the cause of global jihad, after a thwarted plot to blow up 12 American commercial aircraft in midair. The so-called Bojinka plot, hatched in a Manila apartment with his nephew, the World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, was Mr. Mohammed’s first inspiration for using airliners as ballistic missiles against civilian targets, according to the 9/11 commission report and recently declassified C.I.A. documents.

In 1996, Mr. Mohammed traveled to Afghanistan to sell Mr. bin Laden on an idea: simultaneously hijacking 10 aircraft and flying them into different prominent civilian targets in the United States. He would be on the one plane not to crash, and after the plane landed would emerge and deliver a speech condemning American policy on Israel.

Mr. bin Laden dismissed the idea as impractical, but three years later he changed his mind and summoned Mr. Mohammed to Kandahar to begin planning a scaled-down version of the plot, which would eventually become the Sept. 11 attacks.

[...]

And then some time passed, and the people who were to become the 11 September 2001 hijackers migrated into the United States, repeatedly gamed the weakly enforced American visa system, and began preparing for the attacks that were going to take place.

And then on 11 September 2001, the event happened, and that event basically looked like this:

Wikipedia, ‘September 11 attacks’:

[...]The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11)[nb 1] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage[2][3] and $3 trillion in total costs.[4]

Four passenger airliners operated by two major U.S. passenger air carriers (United Airlines and American Airlines) — all of which departed from airports on the northeastern United States bound for California — were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within an hour and 42 minutes, both 110-story towers collapsed, with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the World Trade Center complex, including the 47-story 7 World Trade Center tower, as well as significant damage to ten other large surrounding structures. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense) in Arlington County, Virginia, leading to a partial collapse of the building’s western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, initially was steered toward Washington, D.C., but crashed into a field in Stonycreek Township near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers.
[...]

Why am I quoting from Wikipedia? Because everything contained in that quotation is true. That’s basically what happened on the day of the event.

Shaping the response

Where things get interesting is in the aftermath of the attack, which is where the tussle for influence over the way in which the response to the attack would be formulated, was to take place.

The War in Afghanistan was an expected response, and does not need to be covered here. The War in Iraq was the wildcard. Theguardian.com

In 2003, we know that Israel did attempt to shape the response of the United States to the attacks, in a way that would complement its interests in the region. Theguardian.com

Saudi Arabia also had an interest in shaping the response, so as to cover over their apparent role in facilitating the operation of the Islamist clearing-houses that gave rise to the attacks. Majorityrights.com

There are of course other countries who also wanted to ‘stay close to America’ for the purpose of influencing its behaviour, but I don’t want to unnecessarily widen the scope here, in what is only intended to be a short post, so I’ll leave them aside for now.

In terms of the mechanics of how Israel’s influence was actuated, it would be completely wrong to say that they staged the operation. That is simply a conspiracy theory stemming from overly-simplistic thinking. The world has to be seen through the mental framework of an interlocking set of relationship matrices, association matrices, activities matrices, and time event charts (examples of what those tend to look like are embedded as links). Majorityrights.com
Majorityrights.com
Majorityrights.com

A failure to include everything may lead to people arriving at silly conclusions. The reality is that just because Israel was able to shape the response at key intervals that led to the Iraq War becoming possible, does not mean that everything that happened prior to that moment was somehow ‘faked’.

A key moment

In fact, if you look at the PBS.org piece (of all things) titled “A Secret History of ISIS”, they actually reveal the precise moment at which Israel injected itself into the decision-making process in the lead up to the Iraq War in 2003, and thus shaped the outcome to their advantage.

From 11min 40sec onward in that video, the transcript:

COLIN POWELL: The speech, supposedly, had been prepared in the White House and in the NSC. But when we were given what had been prepared, it was totally inadequate and we couldn’t track anything in it. And when I asked Condi Rice, the National Security Advisor, “Where did this come from?”, it turns out the Vice-President’s office had written it.

NARRATOR: Powell would turn to the CIA to vet the speech.

NADA BAKOS: We [the CIA] had a copy of the speech that was sent over from the White House that Powell was preparing, and one of our senior analysts was working on it, editing, working on the language to ensure that it reflected our analysis.

NARRATOR: Just days later, Powell arrived at the United Nations.

POWELL: Walking into that room is always a daunting experience, but I had been there before. And we had projectors and all sorts of technology to help us make the case.

KAREN DEYOUNG: Powell was very nervous. Powell doesn’t like to read speeches; he likes to have a few note cards and then do his Powell thing. But this one he read from the text, every word.

NARRATOR: At the Counterterrorism Centre, Bakos was watching carefully to see what Powell would say about Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein.

BAKOS: We’re sitting in our room at CTC watching the television with a copy of the speech in our hand. When he got to our portion, it went off our script fairly quickly. And we were looking around at each other saying, “Where’s he at, where’s he at?” We’re flipping through pages. And so, you know, right away, we could tell that this wasn’t reflecting the language that we had used.

NARRATOR: Powell used Zarqawi to make the connection between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

BAKOS: It drew conclusions in language that we would not use. So we were very, very, very careful about describing the relationship as we saw it, and it seemed to overinflate and not reflect our analysis.

INTERVIEWER: How did that happen, Nada?

BAKOS: Within the process of how it went, you know, where it went back to the White House and who worked on it after that, I don’t know how it was changed, or by who.

If anyone should want to know what happened at that crucial point, and how, the place to look would be at the office of the Chief of the Staff to the Vice President of the United States, who at the time was Scooter Libby.

If you understand that Scooter Libby was to **** Cheney as **** Cheney was to George W. Bush, then suddenly you become capable of seeing how it could be possible for the changes that Bakos is referring to, to have been made in the Vice-President’s office by Scooter Libby and his network of very Zionist associates.

In summary

There is no need for any a 9/11 conspiracy theory to explain what happened in Iraq. Instead the conspiracy's can explain how 9/11 was carried out, how its evidence was covered up, other key actors that supported it and benefited from it.

The explanation has been right in front of everyone’s face from day one. The office of the Chief of the Staff to the Vice President of the United States was compromised by Israel, and as such, all decision-making processes that flowed through there were subject to having Israeli policy preferences injected into them.

It is not the only node that was compromised, but it is the most pivotal and significant one in this situation. I hope that clears up all possible questions and that everyone can draw a line under that issue.

The US is really bad at keeping secrets, its one of the most transparent foreign & domestic policy making govt apparatus in the world afterall, so theres tons of coincidences, evidence that contradicts the mainstream narrative and whistleblowers that give out more pieces of the puzzle if anyone is interested: Moddb.com

There is alot of evidence to suggest it - foreknowledge being one of the biggest. Odigo Says Workers Were Warned of 9/11 Attacks - Whatreallyhappened.com

See Also alot of proof that they (((Mossad))) where caught with explosives on the day of 9/11 with a Mural Van with a picture of a plane hitting two towers:
Moddb.com
Moddb.com
Moddb.com
Moddb.com
Banned Fox coverage:
Youtube.com
Archive.org