Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.
The tag '9/11' is associated with 547 posts.

How Did Donald Trump Observe The 20th Anniversary of 9/11?

In numer­ous pro­grams, we have not­ed that the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church–founded by Rev­erend Sun Myung Moon–may very well be an exten­sion of the Japan­ese Patri­ot­ic and Nation­al­ist Soci­eties around the world and down through the decades. It is alto­geth­er in char­ac­ter that Don­ald Trump spent the 20th anniver­sary of the 9/11 attacks giv­ing a vir­tu­al address to this orga­ni­za­tion. ” . . . . In the past Hyung Jin ‘Sean’ Moon, the son of the Moons, cam­paigned for Mr Trump and attend­ed the US Capi­tol insur­rec­tion on 6 Jan­u­ary. . . .” Ear­li­er in the year, for­mer Vice-Pres­i­dent Mike Pence and for­mer CIA direc­tor and State Depart­ment chief Mike Pom­peo gave talks to the same group. ” . . . . the the­ol­o­gy pushed by the Moons and their devo­tees chal­lenges the basic Chris­tian­i­ty embraced by so many con­ser­v­a­tives. The Moons’ claim to be the mes­si­ahs, of course, runs counter to main­stream Chris­tian­i­ty. And one Uni­fi­ca­tion tenet pro­mot­ed by a senior per­son in the move­ment is that Chris­tian­i­ty is essen­tial­ly over. . . .” WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.


Failure

In the first two pro­grams after the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Emory pre­sent­ed excerpts from his pro­grams which direct­ly fore­shad­owed the attacks. That event and those that fol­lowed embody the fail­ure of Amer­i­can soci­ety. Serge Schme­mann wrote the lead arti­cle for “The New York Times” the day after the attack. He also craft­ed a “hit-piece” review of Christo­pher Simp­son’s “Blow­back.” That is not sur­pris­ing, giv­en Schme­man­n’s back­ground and some of the “Gray Lady’s” hir­ing prac­tices. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.


Reflections on the Collapse in Afghanistan

The Afghan col­lapse was not a sur­prise. Emblem­at­ic of the fail­ure of the mil­i­tary effort was the Bush admin­is­tra­tion’s evac­u­a­tion of Al-Qae­da and Tal­iban com­bat­ants so they could escape U.S. mil­i­tary encir­clement. In the last pro­gram Mr. Emory did in 1999, he exam­ined George W. Bush’s polit­i­cal CV and her­itage, in order to gain per­spec­tive on what a Bush pres­i­den­cy might be like. Side 1 of the pro­gram began with dis­cus­sion of the Bin Laden fam­i­ly’s financ­ing of George W. Bush’s first ener­gy com­pa­ny. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.


FTR#1191 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 10: “A Politically Useful Tool”

The pro­gram begins with an excerpt that comes from the con­sum­mate­ly impor­tant Whit­ney Webb arti­cle he has used on many occa­sions.

The Project For A New Amer­i­can Cen­tu­ry’s Rebuild­ing Amer­i­ca’s Defens­es argues that bio­log­i­cal warfare–particularly when twined with genet­ic engineering–can become a “polit­i­cal­ly use­ful tool.”

Indeed, as we have said so many times, if one is going to detach the sec­ond-largest econ­o­my from the world and alien­ate that coun­try from oth­ers, the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic is, indeed, “a polit­i­cal­ly use­ful tool” for so doing.

(In FTR#1190, we exam­ined the PNAC agen­da, its cod­i­fi­ca­tion in nation­al secu­ri­ty pol­i­cy in a doc­u­ment large­ly craft­ed by Philip Zelikow. Zelikow head­ed the 9/11 Com­mis­sion and was cen­tral­ly involved in writ­ing its flawed report, the sys­tem­at­ic short­com­ings of which could be said to char­ac­ter­ize the com­mis­sion as “The Omis­sion Com­mis­sion.) 

Zelikow is now head­ing a com­mis­sion to exam­ine the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, includ­ing the so-called “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis.”

The pro­gram ref­er­ences this excerpt, des­ig­nat­ing Covid-19 as a “polit­i­cal­ly use­ful tool.”

As seen below, there are indi­ca­tions that the DARPA pro­gram was, indeed, look­ing at the exploita­tion of genet­ics in the appli­ca­tion of bio­log­i­cal war­fare.

Next, we high­light an excerpt from an arti­cle that is fea­tured in FTR#‘s 686 and 1115. ” . . . . The pro­duc­tion of vac­cine against a stock­piled BW weapon must be con­sid­ered an offen­sive BW project Accord­ing to MIT sci­en­tists Harlee Strauss and Jonathan King, ‘These steps—the gen­er­a­tion of a poten­tial BW agent, devel­op­ment of a vac­cine against it, test­ing of the effi­ca­cy of the vaccine—are all com­po­nents that would be asso­ci­at­ed with an offen­sive BW program.’27 Clear­ly, with­out an anti­dote or vac­cine to pro­tect attack­ing troops, the util­i­ty of a stock­piled BW agent would be seri­ous­ly lim­it­ed. . . .”

We then review mate­r­i­al from FTR#1166, among oth­er pro­grams, look­ing at the devel­op­ment of Mod­er­na’s vac­cine, the drug remde­sivir and mil­i­tary dom­i­na­tion of the Oper­a­tion Warp Speed Covid vac­cine pro­gram.

They key con­sid­er­a­tion is: do these devel­op­ments indi­cate the dynam­ic Strauss and King cite above?

At a min­i­mum, they are no more than the prover­bial six degrees of sep­a­ra­tion from being part of an offen­sive bio­log­i­cal war­fare pro­gram.

In pre­vi­ous posts and pro­grams, we have not­ed that Mod­er­na’s vac­cine work has been financed by DARPA. We have also not­ed that the over­all head of Oper­a­tion Warp Speed is Mon­cef Slaoui, for­mer­ly in charge of prod­uct devel­op­ment for Mod­er­na!

Of great sig­nif­i­cance is the cen­tral role of the mil­i­tary in the devel­op­ment of treat­ment for Covid-19:

1.–The pro­gram notes that: ” . . . . Remde­sivir pre­dates this pan­dem­ic. It was first con­sid­ered as a poten­tial treat­ment for Ebo­la, and was devel­oped through a long­stand­ing part­ner­ship between the U.S. Army and the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion. . . .”
2.–Jonathan King, who has chaired the micro­bial phys­i­ol­o­gy study sec­tion for the NIH has sound­ed the alarm about “vac­cine research” mask­ing offen­sive bio­log­i­cal war­fare research: “. . . . King, who has chaired the micro­bial phys­i­ol­o­gy study sec­tion for the NIH, believes that with­out inten­sive inde­pen­dent scruti­ny, the Pen­ta­gon is free to obscure its true goals. ‘The Defense Depart­ment appears to be pur­su­ing many nar­row, applied goals that are by nature offen­sive, such as the genet­ic ‘improve­ment’ of BW agents,’ King says. ‘But to achieve polit­i­cal accept­abil­i­ty, they mask these inten­tions under forms of research, such as vac­cine devel­op­ment, which sound defen­sive. . . .”
3.–Moderna’s vac­cine devel­op­ment was over­seen by an unnamed Pen­ta­gon offi­cial: ” . . . . Moderna’s team was head­ed by a Defense Depart­ment offi­cial whom com­pa­ny exec­u­tives described only as ‘the major,’ say­ing they don’t know if his name is sup­posed to be a secret. . . . .”
4.–The per­va­sive role of the mil­i­tary in Oper­a­tion Warp Speed (the Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s vac­cine devel­op­ment pro­gram) has gen­er­at­ed alarm in civil­ian par­tic­i­pants:”. . . . Scores of Defense Depart­ment employ­ees are laced through the gov­ern­ment offices involved in the effort, mak­ing up a large por­tion of the fed­er­al per­son­nel devot­ed to the effort.  Those num­bers have led some cur­rent and for­mer offi­cials at the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion to pri­vate­ly grum­ble that the military’s role in Oper­a­tion Warp Speed was too large for a task that is, at its core, a pub­lic health cam­paign. . . .”
5.–General Gus­tave Perna–one of the prin­ci­pals in Oper­a­tion Warp Speed–has cho­sen a retired Lieu­tenant Gen­er­al to over­see much of the pro­gram: ” . . . . ‘Frankly, it has been breath­tak­ing to watch,’ said Paul Ostrows­ki, the direc­tor of sup­ply, pro­duc­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion for Oper­a­tion Warp Speed. He is a retired Army lieu­tenant gen­er­al who was select­ed to man­age logis­tics for the pro­gram by Gen. Gus­tave F. Per­na, the chief oper­at­ing offi­cer for Oper­a­tion Warp Speed. . . .”
6.–The mil­i­tary will be able to trace the des­ti­na­tion and admin­is­tra­tion of each dose: ” . . . . Mil­i­tary offi­cials also came up with the clever idea — if it works — to coor­di­nate the deliv­ery of vac­cines to drug­stores, med­ical cen­ters and oth­er immu­niza­tion sites by send­ing kits full of nee­dles, syringes and alco­hol wipes. Vac­cine mak­ers will be alert­ed when the kits arrive at an immu­niza­tion site so they know to ship dos­es. Once the first dose is giv­en, the man­u­fac­tur­er will be noti­fied so it can send the sec­ond dose with a patient’s name attached sev­er­al weeks lat­er. The mil­i­tary will also mon­i­tor vac­cine dis­tri­b­u­tion through an oper­a­tions cen­ter. ‘They will know where every vac­cine dose is,’ Mr. [Paul] Man­go said on a call with reporters. . . .”

Cen­tral to the inquiry about a lab­o­ra­to­ry gen­e­sis for the virus is Ralph Bar­ic. In the con­text of some of his actions in con­junc­tion with the devel­op­ment of vac­cines and pro­phy­lac­tic mea­sures in con­nec­tion with bio­log­i­cal war­fare, we note that:

1.–Baric’s mod­i­fi­ca­tion of a horse­shoe bat virus to make it more infec­tious (in col­lab­o­ra­tion with Shi Zhengli and in an Eco­Health Alliance affil­i­at­ed project) took place in North Car­oli­na, not Wuhan. “. . . . Crit­ics have jumped on this paper as evi­dence that Shi was con­duct­ing “gain of func­tion” exper­i­ments that could have cre­at­ed a super­bug, but Shi denies it. The research cit­ed in the paper was con­duct­ed in North Car­oli­na. . . .”
2.–Baric has been using relat­ed tech­niques to text remde­sivir (in 2017) and the Mod­er­na vac­cine. This places him in a milieu inex­tri­ca­bly linked to the mil­i­tary and pre-dat­ing the pan­dem­ic. ” . . . . Using a sim­i­lar tech­nique, in 2017, Baric’s lab showed that remde­sivir — cur­rent­ly the only licensed drug for treat­ing covid — could be use­ful in fight­ing coro­n­avirus infec­tions. Bar­ic also helped test the Mod­er­na covid vac­cine and a lead­ing new drug can­di­date against covid. . . .”

The flim­sy evi­den­tiary foun­da­tion of the Trump/Biden “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy” did it charge is evi­denced by a new alle­ga­tion com­ing from David Ash­er, senior fel­low at the right-wing Hud­son Insti­tute and the for­mer State Depart­ment advis­er who co-authored a fact sheet last Jan­u­ary on activ­i­ty inside the lab as described in Kather­ine Eban’s “Van­i­ty Fair” piece.

Note that:

1.–Asher report­ed­ly told NBC News that he is “con­fi­dent” that the Chi­nese mil­i­tary was fund­ing a “secret pro­gram” that involved Shi Zhengli’s coro­n­avirus research at the WIV.
2.–Shi report­ed­ly worked with two mil­i­tary sci­en­tists at the lab. (Not sur­pris­ing giv­en that the vast bulk of BW research is inher­ent­ly “dual-use.”
3.–Asher claims he was told this by sev­er­al for­eign researchers who worked at the WIV who saw some per­son­nel there in mil­i­tary garb.
4.–IF true, the [alleged] mem­bers of this secret Chi­nese mil­i­tary biowar­fare research team appar­ent­ly didn’t think it was impor­tant to not wear mil­i­tary cloth­ing dur­ing their secret research at a research facil­i­ty intend­ed for civil­ian use only.
5.–We aren’t told the iden­ti­ty of these for­eign researchers who alleged­ly saw this.
6.–We aren’t told if Ash­er meant “for­eign researchers”–non-Chinese researchers work­ing at the WIV (so for­eign to Chi­na) or Chi­nese researchers work­ing at the WIV (so for­eign to Ash­er). 
7.–Shi’s research could be char­ac­ter­ized as fund­ed by the US mil­i­tary through the Eco­Health Alliance col­lab­o­ra­tion. 
8.–Keep in mind that this remark­able claim is based on anony­mous sources that may not exist but are are claimed by Ash­er to exist. 

Ash­er’s anony­mous­ly-sourced alle­ga­tions con­trast with infor­ma­tion from a Bloomberg News arti­cle about Danielle Ander­son, a bat-borne virus expert who worked at the WIV as late as Novem­ber 2019

Note that:

1.–Anderson would have been at WIV dur­ing the peri­od when an out­break from the WIV would pre­sum­ably have tak­en place under a lab-leak sce­nario.
2.–Anderson is described as the only for­eign researcher work­ing at the WIV.
3.–If Ander­son was the lone for­eign researcher at the WIV, who are Ash­er’s “sev­er­al anony­mous for­eign WIV researchers?”

A chill­ing arti­cle may fore­cast the poten­tial deploy­ment of even dead­lier pan­demics, as oper­a­tional dis­guise for bio­log­i­cal war­fare and geno­cide.

Note that the sub-head­ing refer­ring to the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis is fol­lowed by no men­tion of the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis, per se.

Is this a between-the-lines ref­er­ence to impend­ing bio­log­i­cal war­fare devel­op­ment and the deploy­ment of anoth­er pan­dem­ic?

Note that the Army sci­en­tist quot­ed in the con­clu­sion offers an obser­va­tion that is very close to a Don­ald Rums­feld quote reit­er­at­ed by Peter Daszak in an arti­cle we ref­er­ence in FTR#1170.

1.–From the Defense One arti­cle: ” . . . . ‘We don’t want to just treat what’s in front of us now,’  [Dr. Dim­i­tra] Stratis-Cul­lum said. ‘I think we real­ly need to be resilient. From an Army per­spec­tive. We need to be agile, we need to adapt to the threat that we don’t know that’s com­ing.’ . . .”
2.–From the arti­cle from Inde­pen­dent Sci­ence News: ” . . . . ‘There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we don’t know we don’t know.’ (This Rums­feld quote is in fact from a news con­fer­ence) . . . . In the sub­se­quent online dis­cus­sion, Daszak empha­sized the par­al­lels between his own cru­sade and Rumsfeld’s, since, accord­ing to Daszak, the ‘poten­tial for unknown attacks’ is ‘the same for virus­es’. . . .”

We con­clude with anoth­er “look back look­ing for­ward.”

In FTR#456, we not­ed the eerie fore­shad­ow­ing the the 9/11 attacks by Turn­er Diaries author William Luther Pierce. Key aspects of that book, in turn, fore­shad­ow aspects of the 9/11 attacks.

In 1998, the author of that tome,–William Luther Pierce–explicitly fore­shad­owed the 9/11 attacks which defined and cement­ed Dubya’s admin­is­tra­tion. “ . . . . In one chill­ing com­men­tary Pierce, (after not­ing that Bin Laden and the rest of the lost gen­er­a­tion of angry Moslem youth had it with their par­ents’ com­pro­mis­es and were hell bent on revenge against infi­del Amer­i­ca) issued this stark, prophet­ic warn­ing in a 1998 radio address titled, ‘Stay Out of Tall Build­ings.’ ‘New York­ers who work in tall office build­ings any­thing close to the size of the World Trade Cen­ter might con­sid­er wear­ing hard hats . . .’ Pierce warned.’ . . . The run­ning theme in Pierce’s com­men­taries is—to para­phrase his hero Hitler—that Osama Bin Laden’s warn­ing to Amer­i­ca is ‘I Am Com­ing.’ And so is bio-ter­ror­ism.’ . . .”

In that con­text, we note that Chi­na is dev­as­tat­ed by a WMD/Third World War in Turn­er Diaries.


FTR#1190 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 9: Covid-19 and The American Deep State, Part 3

Con­tin­u­ing analy­sis of the prop­a­ga­tion of the “Lab-Leak The­o­ry” of the ori­gin of Covid-19 in the con­text of what Mr. Emory calls “The Full-Court Press Against Chi­na,” this pro­gram high­lights how what the bril­liant Peter Dale Scott has termed “The Amer­i­can Deep State” is pro­ceed­ing with the insti­tu­tion­al­iza­tion of the anti-Chi­na effort, blam­ing that coun­try for the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, in par­tic­u­lar.

After not­ing that the (pri­mar­i­ly Pen­ta­gon and USAID-fund­ed) Eco­Health Alliance cut-out has used Defense Depart­ment mon­ey to research organ­isms that can be used as bio­log­i­cal-war­fare weapons, we dis­cuss Steve Ban­non and Peter Thiel’s anti-Chi­nese chau­vin­ism with regard to the Sil­i­con Val­ley.

Even as lib­er­al com­men­ta­tors lament the spread of anti-Asian racism, the gen­e­sis of the phe­nom­e­non is not hard to fath­om.

Next, we review the insti­tu­tion­al­iza­tion of the anti-Chi­na scare by Steve Ban­non, uti­liz­ing allies like the Falun Gong cult and Uighur jihadis, now main­stays of the Full-Court Press strat­e­gy.

Although Ban­non and com­pa­ny are now being dimin­ished as “crack­pots, xeno­phobes, extrem­ists” etc., the poli­cies they have ini­ti­at­ed are now being car­ried for­ward by the “respectable” Biden admin­is­tra­tion.

” . . . . Fear of Chi­na has spread across the gov­ern­ment, from the White House to Con­gress to fed­er­al agen­cies, where Beijing’s rise is unques­tion­ing­ly viewed as an eco­nom­ic and nation­al secu­ri­ty threat and the defin­ing chal­lenge of the 21st cen­tu­ry. . . .”

It is this con­ti­nu­ity, that illus­trates and embod­ies the func­tion­ing of the Deep State.

Return­ing to a very impor­tant (albeit heav­i­ly “spun”), mod­i­fied lim­it­ed hang­out arti­cle from Van­i­ty Fair arti­cle, we fur­ther devel­op the con­ti­nu­ity between the “extrem­ist” Trump admin­is­tra­tion and the “respectable” Biden admin­is­tra­tion.

Devel­oped by Trump nation­al secu­ri­ty aide Math­ew Pot­tinger and Mike Pompeo’s State Depart­ment, the Lab-Leak hypoth­e­sis was eclipsed by offi­cials wor­ried about expo­sure of the very Pen­ta­gon, USAID fund­ing of bat-borne coro­n­avirus research and gain-of-func­tion manip­u­la­tions at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy and else­where in Chi­na.

As it gains momen­tum under the “respectable” Biden admin­is­tra­tion, the sup­pres­sion of the Lab-Leak hypoth­e­sis is being spun as an attempt to avoid using that hypoth­e­sis as an extrem­ist, chau­vin­ist polit­i­cal cud­gel. (This is iron­ic, because that is pre­cise­ly what it is intend­ed to be!)

Key aspects of the Van­i­ty Fair arti­cle:

1.–Pompeo State Depart­ment offi­cials pur­su­ing the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis were told to cov­er it up lest it shed light on U.S. gov­ern­ment fund­ing of research at the “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy!”: ” . . . . In one State Depart­ment meet­ing, offi­cials seek­ing to demand trans­paren­cy from the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment say they were explic­it­ly told by col­leagues not to explore the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virology’s gain-of-func­tion research, because it would bring unwel­come atten­tion to U.S. gov­ern­ment fund­ing of it. . . . .In an inter­nal memo obtained by ‘Van­i­ty Fair’, Thomas DiNan­no, for­mer act­ing assis­tant sec­re­tary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Con­trol, Ver­i­fi­ca­tion, and Com­pli­ance, wrote that. . .  staff from two bureaus . . . ‘warned’ lead­ers with­in his bureau ‘not to pur­sue an inves­ti­ga­tion into the ori­gin of COVID-19’ because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it con­tin­ued.’ . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak sce­nario, among oth­er pos­si­bil­i­ties, its mem­bers were repeat­ed­ly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four for­mer State Depart­ment offi­cials inter­viewed by ‘Van­i­ty Fair’. . . .”
2.–The Van­i­ty Fair arti­cle paints Trump, Ban­non and com­pa­ny as loonies, where­as they were fun­da­men­tal to the begin­ning of the full-court press against Chi­na: “. . . . At times, it seemed the only oth­er peo­ple enter­tain­ing the lab-leak the­o­ry were crack­pots or polit­i­cal hacks hop­ing to wield COVID-19 as a cud­gel against Chi­na. Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s for­mer polit­i­cal advis­er Steve Ban­non, for instance, joined forces with an exiled Chi­nese bil­lion­aire named Guo Wen­gui to fuel claims that Chi­na had devel­oped the dis­ease as a bioweapon and pur­pose­ful­ly unleashed it on the world. . . .”
3.–Matthew Pot­tinger, a Chi­na hawk in the Trump admin­is­tra­tion, head­ed up a team to inves­ti­gate the Wuhan lab leak hypoth­e­sis. Note that the gain-of-func­tion milieu in the U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment was a retard­ing fac­tor in the inquiry: ” . . . . By then, Matthew Pot­tinger had approved a COVID-19 ori­gins team, run by the NSC direc­torate that over­saw issues relat­ed to weapons of mass destruc­tion. A long­time Asia expert and for­mer jour­nal­ist, Pot­tinger pur­pose­ful­ly kept the team small . . . . In addi­tion, many lead­ing experts had either received or approved fund­ing for gain-of-func­tion research. Their ‘con­flict­ed’ sta­tus, said Pot­tinger, ‘played a pro­found role in mud­dy­ing the waters and con­t­a­m­i­nat­ing the shot at hav­ing an impar­tial inquiry.’  . . . .”
4.–Note that Lawrence Liv­er­more sci­en­tists were involved with the gen­e­sis of the “Chi­na did it” hypoth­e­sis, after alleged­ly being alert­ed by a for­eign source to look into their own files. ” . . . . An intel­li­gence ana­lyst work­ing with David Ash­er sift­ed through clas­si­fied chan­nels and turned up a report that out­lined why the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis was plau­si­ble. It had been writ­ten in May by researchers at the Lawrence Liv­er­more Nation­al Lab­o­ra­to­ry, which per­forms nation­al secu­ri­ty research for the Depart­ment of Ener­gy. But it appeared to have been buried with­in the clas­si­fied col­lec­tions sys­tem. . . .”
5.–Note, also, that Chris Ford, a Chi­na hawk, was work­ing to sup­press the Wuhan lab leak hypoth­e­sis: ” . . . . Their frus­tra­tion crest­ed in Decem­ber, when they final­ly briefed Chris Ford, act­ing under­sec­re­tary for Arms Con­trol and Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty. He seemed so hos­tile to their probe that they viewed him as a blink­ered func­tionary bent on white­wash­ing China’s malfea­sance. But Ford, who had years of expe­ri­ence in nuclear non­pro­lif­er­a­tion, had long been a Chi­na hawk. . . .”
6.–Ford spins his obfus­ca­tion of the “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy” link to the U.S. as not want­i­ng to rein­force right-wing crack­pots with­in the Trump admin­is­tra­tion: ” . . . . Ford told ‘Van­i­ty Fair’ that he saw his job as pro­tect­ing the integri­ty of any inquiry into COVID-19’s ori­gins that fell under his purview. Going with ‘stuff that makes us look like the crack­pot brigade’ would back­fire, he believed. There was anoth­er rea­son for his hos­til­i­ty. He’d already heard about the inves­ti­ga­tion from inter­a­gency col­leagues, rather than from the team itself, and the secre­cy left him with a ‘spidey sense’ that the process was a form of ‘creepy free­lanc­ing.’ He won­dered: Had some­one launched an unac­count­able inves­ti­ga­tion with the goal of achiev­ing a desired result? . . . .”
7.–The “Chi­na did it/Wuhan lab leak” hypoth­e­sis sur­vived from the Trump admin­is­tra­tion and Mike Pom­peo’s State Depart­ment to the Biden admin­is­tra­tion: ” . . . .The state­ment with­stood ‘aggres­sive sus­pi­cion,’ as one for­mer State Depart­ment offi­cial said, and the Biden admin­is­tra­tion has not walked it back. ‘I was very pleased to see Pompeo’s state­ment come through,’ said Chris Ford, who per­son­al­ly signed off on a draft of the fact sheet before leav­ing the State Depart­ment. ‘I was so relieved that they were using real report­ing that had been vet­ted and cleared.’ . . . .”
8.–Avril Haines, whom we have cit­ed in this series as a key par­tic­i­pant in the Deep State shep­herd­ing of the “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis,” looms large in the inquiry into the per­pet­u­a­tion of this pro­pa­gan­da meme: ” . . . . Inside the U.S. gov­ern­ment, mean­while, the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis had sur­vived the tran­si­tion from Trump to Biden. On April 15, Direc­tor of Nation­al Intel­li­gence Avril Haines told the House Intel­li­gence Com­mit­tee that two ‘plau­si­ble the­o­ries’ were being weighed: a lab acci­dent or nat­ur­al emer­gence. . . .”

In what may be shap­ing up to be a dis­turb­ing reprise of Philip Zelikow’s role in the events sur­round­ing the 9/11 attacks and the result­ing inva­sion of Iraq, Zelikow is posi­tioned to pre­side over a com­mis­sion to “inves­ti­gate” the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, ” . . . . an exam­i­na­tion of the ori­gins of the virus—including the con­tentious ‘lab leak’ the­o­ry. . . .”

We note that:

1.–The finan­cial back­ers of the project include: ” . . . . Schmidt Futures, found­ed by Mr. Schmidt and his wife Wendy; Stand Togeth­er, which is backed by the lib­er­tar­i­an-lean­ing phil­an­thropist Charles Koch; the Skoll Foun­da­tion, found­ed by the eBay pio­neer Jeff Skoll; and the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion. . . .”
2.–Former CIA and State Depart­ment chief under Trump Mike Pom­peo is a pro­tege of the Koch broth­ers.
3.–Zelikow’s 9/11 Com­mis­sion presided over sig­nif­i­cant over­sights and omis­sions: ” . . . . There is now evi­dence, much of it sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly sup­pressed by the 9/11 Com­mis­sion, that before 9/11, CIA offi­cers Richard Blee and Tom Wilshire inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit along with FBI agents such as Dina Cor­si, were pro­tect­ing from inves­ti­ga­tion and arrest two of the even­tu­al alleged hijack­ers on 9/11, Khalid al-Mid­har and Nawaf al-Hazmi—much as the FBI had pro­tect­ed Ali Mohamed from arrest in 1993. . . .”
4.–PNAC (The Project for a New Amer­i­can Cen­tu­ry) called for Rebuild­ing Amer­i­ca’s Defens­es: ” . . . . ‘The process of trans­for­ma­tion,’ it report­ed, “even if it brings rev­o­lu­tion­ary change, is like­ly to be a long one absent some cat­a­stroph­ic and cat­alyz­ing event—like a new Pearl Har­bor.’ This was only one instance of a wide­ly accept­ed tru­ism: that it would take some­thing like a Pearl Har­bor to get Amer­i­ca to accept an aggres­sive war.  So the ques­tion to be asked is whether Cheney, Rums­feld, or any oth­ers whose projects depend­ed on ‘a new Pearl Har­bor’ were par­tic­i­pants in help­ing to cre­ate one. . . .”
5.–Zelikow helped draft the 2002 doc­u­ment that con­cretized the PNAC strate­gic goals: ” . . . . In 2002, the PNAC goals of unchal­lenged mil­i­tary dom­i­nance, plus the right to launch pre­emp­tive strikes any­where, were embod­ied in the new Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Strat­e­gy of Sep­tem­ber 2002 (known as ‘NSS 2002’). (A key fig­ure in draft­ing this doc­u­ment was Philip Zelikow, who lat­er became the prin­ci­pal author of the 9/11 Com­mis­sion Report.) . . . .”
6.–PNAC’s paper fore­shad­owed what we feel under­lies the pan­dem­ic: ” . . . . In what is arguably the think tank’s most con­tro­ver­sial doc­u­ment, titled ‘Rebuild­ing America’s Defens­es,’ there are a few pas­sages that open­ly dis­cuss the util­i­ty of bioweapons, includ­ing the fol­low­ing sen­tences: ‘…com­bat like­ly will take place in new dimen­sions: in space, ‘cyber-space,’ and per­haps the world of microbes…advanced forms of bio­log­i­cal war­fare that can ‘tar­get’ spe­cif­ic geno­types may trans­form bio­log­i­cal war­fare from the realm of ter­ror to a polit­i­cal­ly use­ful tool.’ . . .”
7.–There are indi­ca­tions that the anthrax attacks that occurred in the same time peri­od as the 9/11 attacks may well have been a provo­ca­tion aimed at jus­ti­fy­ing the inva­sion of Iraq and spurring the devel­op­ment off bio­log­i­cal weapons, as advo­cat­ed in the PNAC doc­u­ment. Ft. Det­rick insid­er Steven Hat­fill was a sus­pect in the attack, although he appears to have worn “oper­a­tional Teflon.” “. . . . Steven Hat­fill was now look­ing to me like a sus­pect, or at least, as the F.B.I. would denote him eight months lat­er, ‘a per­son of inter­est.’ When I lined up Hat­fil­l’s known move­ments with the post­mark loca­tions of report­ed bio­threats, those hoax anthrax attacks appeared to trail him like a vapor cloud. But in Feb­ru­ary 2002, short­ly after I advanced his can­di­da­cy to my con­tact at F.B.I. head­quar­ters, I was told that Mr. Hat­fill had a good ali­bi. A month lat­er, when I pressed the issue, I was told, ‘Look, Don, maybe you’re spend­ing too much time on this.’ Good peo­ple in the Depart­ment of Defense, C.I.A., and State Depart­ment, not to men­tion Bill Patrick, had vouched for Hat­fill. . . . In Decem­ber 2001, Dr. Bar­bara Hatch Rosen­berg, a not­ed bioweapons expert, deliv­ered a paper con­tend­ing that the per­pe­tra­tor of the anthrax crimes was an Amer­i­can micro­bi­ol­o­gist whose train­ing and pos­ses­sion of Ames-strain pow­der point­ed to a gov­ern­ment insid­er with expe­ri­ence in a U.S. mil­i­tary lab. . . . Hat­fill at the time was build­ing a mobile germ lab out of an old truck chas­sis, and after S.A.I.C. fired him he con­tin­ued work on it using his own mon­ey. When the F.B.I. want­ed to con­fis­cate the mobile lab to test it for anthrax spores, the army resist­ed, mov­ing the trail­er to Fort Bragg, North Car­oli­na, where it was used to train Spe­cial Forces in prepa­ra­tion for the war on Iraq. The class­es were taught by Steve Hat­fill and Bill Patrick. . . . Mean­while, friends of Fort Det­rick were leak­ing to the press new pieces of dis­in­for­ma­tion indi­cat­ing that the mailed anthrax prob­a­bly came from Iraq. The leaks includ­ed false alle­ga­tions that the Daschle anthrax includ­ed addi­tives dis­tinc­tive to the Iraqi arms pro­gram and that it had been dried using an atom­iz­er spray dry­er sold by Den­mark to Iraq. . . .”
8.–Two key Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors were tar­get­ed by weapons-grade anthrax let­ters pri­or to chang­ing their oppo­si­tion to the Patri­ot Act: “. . . . We should not for­get that the Patri­ot Act was only passed after lethal weapons-grade anthrax let­ters were mailed to two cru­cial Demo­c­ra­t­ic Senators—Senators Daschle and Leahy—who had ini­tial­ly ques­tioned the bill. After the anthrax let­ters, how­ev­er, they with­drew their ini­tial oppo­si­tion. Someone—we still do not know who—must have planned those anthrax let­ters well in advance. We should not for­get, either, that some gov­ern­ment experts ini­tial­ly blamed those attacks on Iraq. . . .”
The “Lab Leak The­o­ry” has been pro­mul­gat­ed by Michael R. Gor­don, who was instru­men­tal in advanc­ing the Sad­dam Hus­sein WMD con­nec­tion which helped lay the pro­pa­gan­da foun­da­tion for the Iraq War.

Will the “Zelikow Pan­dem­ic Com­mis­sion’s” treat­ment of the Lab-Leak The­o­ry func­tion in such a way as to pave the way for U.S. war with Chi­na, by focus­ing blame for the pan­dem­ic on what Mr. Emory has called “The Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy”?


Encore for Philip Zelikow? (UPDATED ON 6/20/2021 and 6/21/2021)

In what may be shap­ing up to be a dis­turb­ing reprise of Philip Zelikow’s role in the events sur­round­ing the 9/11 attacks and the result­ing inva­sion of Iraq, Zelikow is posi­tioned to pre­side over a com­mis­sion to “inves­ti­gate” the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, ” . . . . an exam­i­na­tion of the ori­gins of the virus—including the con­tentious ‘lab leak’ the­o­ry. . . .” Back­ers of the project include the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion and a David Koch NGO (Ex-CIA chief and Sec­re­tary of State Mike Pom­peo is a Koch Broth­ers pro­tege.) Zelikow’s 9/11 Com­mis­sion presided over sig­nif­i­cant over­sights and omis­sions: ” . . . . There is now evi­dence, much of it sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly sup­pressed by the 9/11 Com­mis­sion, that before 9/11, CIA offi­cers Richard Blee and Tom Wilshire inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit along with FBI agents such as Dina Cor­si, were pro­tect­ing from inves­ti­ga­tion and arrest two of the even­tu­al alleged hijack­ers on 9/11, Khalid al-Mid­har and Nawaf al-Hazmi—much as the FBI had pro­tect­ed Ali Mohamed from arrest in 1993. . . .” PNAC (The Project for a New Amer­i­can Cen­tu­ry) called for Rebuild­ing Amer­i­ca’s Defens­es: ” . . . . ‘The process of trans­for­ma­tion,’ it report­ed, ‘even if it brings rev­o­lu­tion­ary change, is like­ly to be a long one absent some cat­a­stroph­ic and cat­alyz­ing event—like a new Pearl Har­bor.’ Zelikow helped draft the 2002 doc­u­ment that con­cretized the PNAC strate­gic goals: ” . . . . In 2002, the PNAC goals of unchal­lenged mil­i­tary dom­i­nance, plus the right to launch pre­emp­tive strikes any­where, were embod­ied in the new Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Strat­e­gy of Sep­tem­ber 2002 (known as ‘NSS 2002’). (A key fig­ure in draft­ing this doc­u­ment was Philip Zelikow, who lat­er became the prin­ci­pal author of the 9/11 Com­mis­sion Report.) . . . .” ” . . . . In what is arguably the think tank’s most con­tro­ver­sial doc­u­ment, titled ‘Rebuild­ing America’s Defens­es,’ there are a few pas­sages that open­ly dis­cuss the util­i­ty of bioweapons, includ­ing the fol­low­ing sen­tences: ‘…com­bat like­ly will take place in new dimen­sions: in space, ‘cyber-space,’ and per­haps the world of microbes…advanced forms of bio­log­i­cal war­fare that can ‘tar­get’ spe­cif­ic geno­types may trans­form bio­log­i­cal war­fare from the realm of ter­ror to a polit­i­cal­ly use­ful tool.’ . . .” There are indi­ca­tions that the anthrax attacks that occurred in the same time peri­od as the 9/11 attacks may well have been a provo­ca­tion aimed at jus­ti­fy­ing the inva­sion of Iraq and spurring the devel­op­ment off bio­log­i­cal weapons, as advo­cat­ed in the PNAC doc­u­ment. Ft. Det­rick insid­er Steven Hat­fill was a sus­pect in the attack, although he appears to have worn “oper­a­tional Teflon.” “. . . . Steven Hat­fill was now look­ing to me like a sus­pect, or at least, as the F.B.I. would denote him eight months lat­er, ‘a per­son of inter­est.’ When I lined up Hat­fil­l’s known move­ments with the post­mark loca­tions of report­ed bio­threats, those hoax anthrax attacks appeared to trail him like a vapor cloud. But in Feb­ru­ary 2002, short­ly after I advanced his can­di­da­cy to my con­tact at F.B.I. head­quar­ters, I was told that Mr. Hat­fill had a good ali­bi. . . . In Decem­ber 2001, Dr. Bar­bara Hatch Rosen­berg, a not­ed bioweapons expert, deliv­ered a paper con­tend­ing that the per­pe­tra­tor of the anthrax crimes was an Amer­i­can micro­bi­ol­o­gist whose train­ing and pos­ses­sion of Ames-strain pow­der point­ed to a gov­ern­ment insid­er with expe­ri­ence in a U.S. mil­i­tary lab. . . .Hat­fill at the time was build­ing a mobile germ lab out of an old truck chas­sis, and after S.A.I.C. fired him he con­tin­ued work on it using his own mon­ey. When the F.B.I. want­ed to con­fis­cate the mobile lab to test it for anthrax spores, the army resist­ed, mov­ing the trail­er to Fort Bragg, North Car­oli­na, where it was used to train Spe­cial Forces in prepa­ra­tion for the war on Iraq. The class­es were taught by Steve Hat­fill and Bill Patrick. . . .” Two key Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tors were tar­get­ed by weapons-grade anthrax let­ters pri­or to chang­ing their oppo­si­tion to the Patri­ot Act: “. . . . We should not for­get that the Patri­ot Act was only passed after lethal weapons-grade anthrax let­ters were mailed to two cru­cial Demo­c­ra­t­ic Senators—Senators Daschle and Leahy—who had ini­tial­ly ques­tioned the bill. After the anthrax let­ters, how­ev­er, they with­drew their ini­tial oppo­si­tion. Someone—we still do not know who—must have planned those anthrax let­ters well in advance. We should not for­get, either, that some gov­ern­ment experts ini­tial­ly blamed those attacks on Iraq. . . .” The “Lab Leak The­o­ry” has been pro­mul­gat­ed by Michael R. Gor­don, who was instru­men­tal in advanc­ing the Sad­dam Hus­sein WMD con­nec­tion which helped lay the pro­pa­gan­da foun­da­tion for the Iraq War. Will Zelikow’s inves­ti­ga­tion help prime the pump for war with Chi­na? Will this be done by point­ing blame for the pan­dem­ic on what Mr. Emory has called “The Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy”?


FTR#1182 Terror, the Afghanistan War and The American Deep State, Part 2

The pro­gram begins with mate­r­i­al over­lapped from our pre­vi­ous pro­gram, delin­eat­ing U.S. gov­ern­ment pro­tec­tion of Jihadist ele­ments, in order that they could be used as proxy war­riors in ongo­ing covert oper­a­tions.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The FBI’s lim­it­ing of the inves­ti­ga­tion of the assas­si­na­tion of extrem­ist Rab­bi Meir Kahane; the fact that the lim­it­ing of that inves­ti­ga­tion per­mit­ted Ali Mohamed, Mah­moud Abouli­hama and Mohammed Salameh to par­tic­i­pate in future ter­ror­ist attacks, includ­ing the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing and the 1998 Nairo­bi Embassy bomb­ing; the FBI’s blam­ing of the atten­u­a­tion of the inves­ti­ga­tion of the Kahane mur­der on New York DA Robert Mor­gen­thau; Morgenthau’s pre­vi­ous inves­ti­ga­tion of the CIA-linked BCCI; the FBI’s shield­ing of Army Spe­cial Forces oper­a­tive Ali Mohamed in the1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing; the FBI’s shield­ing of Mohamed in the 1995 “Land­marks Case”—the plot to blow up the Unit­ed Nations, the George Wash­ing­ton Bridge and both the Lin­coln and Hol­land Tun­nels; the prob­a­bil­i­ty that Mohamed’s util­i­ty as a train­er of muja­hadeen for covert oper­a­tions in Afghanistan, Bosnia and parts of the for­mer Sovi­et Union was the cause of his invi­o­la­bil­i­ty.

The next sec­tion of the pro­gram presents infor­ma­tion about the gen­e­sis of Ali Mohamed as a U.S. agent and train­er of muja­hadeen.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: Zbig­niew Brzezinski’s cre­ation of the muja­hadeen train­ing and recruit­ment orga­ni­za­tion at the out­set of the Afghan war against the Sovi­et Union; the train­ing of Egypt­ian pres­i­dent Anwar Sadat’s elite per­son­al guard (of which Ali Mohamed was a mem­ber) by J.J. Capuc­ci and Asso­ciates, head­ed by “ex” CIA-agent Edwin Wil­son and Theodore Shack­ley; the hand­ing over of the train­ing of Sadat’s guard to the CIA fol­low­ing Brzezinski’s vis­it to Egypt in 1980; Ali Mohamed’s train­ing at Fort Bragg in the U.S. by Spe­cial Forces; Mohamed’s net­work­ing with and alle­giance to both Sheikh Rah­man (involved with the Al-Kifah Cen­ter muja­hadeen effort, the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing and the Land­marks case) and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man and even­tu­al suc­ces­sor.

Next, we dol­ly back and exam­ine the con­tin­ued domes­tic and for­eign oper­a­tions of the Al-Kifah Cen­ter milieu, includ­ing oper­a­tions involv­ing drug traf­fick­ing and oth­er crim­i­nal activ­i­ty, sup­port for the Al-Kifah Cen­ter by Sau­di Ara­bia and the Cen­ter’s involve­ment in covert oper­a­tions in Xin­jiang Province in Chi­na, Chech­nya in Rus­sia, Uzbek­istan and oth­er for­mer parts of the Sovi­et Union and the Balka­ns.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The tran­si­tion of Ali Mohamed’s muja­hadeen-train­ing pro­gram from send­ing fight­ers to Afghanistan to send­ing fight­ers to Bosnia; the Sau­di government’s par­tial financ­ing of Sheikh Rahman’s defense fund (Rah­man was indict­ed in the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing); Al-Kifah trainees’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in covert oper­a­tions in Chech­nya, Tajik­istan and fight­ing along­side the Uighurs in Xin­jiang province; Al-Qaeda’s alliance with the Islam­ic Move­ment of Uzbek­istan; the Al-Qaeda/IMU use of hero­in traf­fick­ing to finance com­bat and ter­ror oper­a­tions; the 9/11 Com­mis­sion Report’s dis­missal of the ver­i­fi­able fact that Al-Qae­da helped finance its oper­a­tions with the Afghan drug trade; the Al-Kifah Cen­ter milieu’s involve­ment in the drug trade, as well as arson-for-hire and coun­ter­feit­ing; Mujahid Abdulqaadir Menep­ta, a Mus­lim sus­pect in both the 9/11 case and the Okla­homa City bomb­ing; Menepta’s alleged involve­ment in orga­nized crime and drug traf­fick­ing; the Al-Kifah Center’s joint oper­a­tions with the Saud­is; Sphinx Trading’s link to the Al-Kifah oper­a­tion; the pro­tec­tion of Sphinx Trad­ing even after 9/11.

Flesh­ing out the jihadist milieu, we note bin Laden rel­a­tives and their involve­ment in Al-Qae­da fronts and the cov­er-up of their activ­i­ties by the Deep State milieu.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: the World Assem­bly of Mus­lim Youth and its links to muja­hadeen and ter­ror­ism; Abdul­lah bin Laden’s lead­er­ship of the WAMY; Abdul­lah bin Laden’s evac­u­a­tion by jet along with oth­er Saud­is and mem­bers of the bin Laden fam­i­ly after 9/11; the Gold­en Chain let­ter dis­cov­ered in the IIRO office in Bosnia, con­tain­ing the names of key Al-Qae­da financiers; the pres­ence in the “Gold­en Chain’ of Khalid bin Mah­fouz, the top banker in Sau­di Ara­bia; the IIRO’s found­ing by Jamal Kali­fa, Osama bin Laden’s nephew.

The last part of our pro­gram reviews two ele­ments pre­sent­ed in FTR#1181.

In the tri­al of Ramzi Yousef, a lay-out of the ter­ror sce­nario that became the 9/11 attacks was on Youse­f’s lap­top, yet was nev­er brought to light.

Like­wise, the name of Khalid Shaikh Mohamed–dubbed the mas­ter­mind of the 9/11 and cur­rent­ly the focal point of ongo­ing legal proceedings–was all but omit­ted from Youse­f’s tri­al, despite his par­tic­i­pa­tion in the abort­ed “Oper­a­tion Bojin­ka” plot to blow up a num­ber of air­lin­ers over the Pacif­ic.

In our series, we note the exclu­sion of key par­tic­i­pants in the mur­der of extrem­ist Rab­bi Meir Kahane, which per­mit­ted co-con­spir­a­tors to par­tic­i­pate in the first World Trade Cen­ter attack in 1993 and Nairo­bi U.S. Embassy bomb­ings in 1998.

Among the prob­a­ble motives for these key, dead­ly omis­sions is the use of these Al-Qae­da, Mus­lim-Broth­er­hood derived ter­ror­ist ele­ments as proxy war­riors in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chech­nya and Uzbek­istan.

We con­clude by review­ing how cyn­i­cal the Deep State can be, act­ing with a com­plete dis­re­gard for Amer­i­can com­bat mil­i­tary per­son­nel.


FTR #1181 Terror, The Afghanistan War and the American Deep State, Part 1

With Pres­i­dent Biden hav­ing announced the with­draw­al of U.S. com­bat forces from Afghanistan, we con­tem­plate the events that led to that involve­ment, espe­cial­ly ter­ror­ist inci­dents cul­mi­nat­ing in the 9/11 attack.

We rely on research done by the bril­liant, ven­er­a­ble Peter Dale Scott.

We begin by not­ing how cyn­i­cal the Deep State can be, act­ing with a com­plete dis­re­gard for Amer­i­can com­bat mil­i­tary per­son­nel: ” . . . . Just how sub­or­di­nat­ed offi­cial pol­i­cy could become to deep state needs was demon­strat­ed in Novem­ber 2001, when Cheney, at the request of [Pakistan’s head of state] Mushar­raf and the ISI [Pakistan’s pri­ma­ry intel­li­gence ser­vice], approved secret air­lifts to fer­ry sur­round­ed Pak­istani and high-lev­el al-Qae­da fight­ers out of Afghanistan, to safe­ty in Pak­istan. . . .”

In the tri­al of Ramzi Yousef, a lay-out of the ter­ror sce­nario that became the 9/11 attacks was on Youse­f’s lap­top, yet was nev­er brought to light.

Like­wise, the name of Khalid Shaikh Mohamed–dubbed the mas­ter­mind of the 9/11 and cur­rent­ly the focal point of ongo­ing legal proceedings–was all but omit­ted from Youse­f’s tri­al, despite his par­tic­i­pa­tion in the abort­ed “Oper­a­tion Bojin­ka” plot to blow up a num­ber of air­lin­ers over the Pacif­ic.

In our series, we note the exclu­sion of key par­tic­i­pants in the mur­der of extrem­ist Rab­bi Meir Kahane, which per­mit­ted co-con­spir­a­tors to par­tic­i­pate in the first World Trade Cen­ter attack in 1993 and Nairo­bi U.S. Embassy bomb­ings in 1998.

Among the prob­a­ble motives for these key, dead­ly omis­sions is the use of these Al-Qae­da, Mus­lim-Broth­er­hood derived ter­ror­ist ele­ments as proxy war­riors in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chech­nya and Uzbek­istan.

“. . . . In Triple Cross, Peter Lance, who does not men­tion KSM’s escape from Qatar, focus­es instead on the way that, lat­er in the same year, U.S. fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tors kept his name out of the tri­al of Ramzi Yousef in con­nec­tion with the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing: “Assis­tant U.S. Attor­neys Mike Gar­cia and Diet­rich Snell pre­sent­ed a riv­et­ing, evi­dence-dri­ven case . . . and char­ac­ter­ized the mate­r­i­al retrieved from Ramzi’s Toshi­ba lap­top as ‘the most dev­as­tat­ing evi­dence of all. . . .’ . . . While Yousef’s lap­top . . . con­tained the full details of the plot lat­er exe­cut­ed on 9/11, not a word of that sce­nario was men­tioned dur­ing tri­al . . . . Most sur­pris­ing, dur­ing the entire sum­mer-long tri­al, the name of the fourth Bojin­ka con­spir­a­tor, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed . . . . was men­tioned by name only once, in ref­er­ence to a let­ter found in [Yousef’s apart­ment] . . . .”

Illus­trat­ing the machi­na­tions of what Pro­fes­sor Scott terms “The Amer­i­can Deep State” are the inter­ac­tions between Big Oil, Sul­li­van & Cromwell, the Dulles broth­ers and the Eisen­how­er admin­is­tra­tion to desta­bi­lize the Mossad­eq regime in Iran.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: A let­ter writ­ten by Sul­li­van & Cromwell attor­ney John Fos­ter Dulles in the 1930s to a British col­league, cel­e­brat­ing car­tels and the tri­umph of inter­na­tion­al busi­ness­men in over­com­ing bar­ri­ers to geopo­lit­i­cal maneu­ver­ing erect­ed by “nation­al­ist” politi­cians; col­lab­o­ra­tion by the “Sev­en Sis­ters” of Big Oil (Stan­dard Oil of New Jer­sey [now Exxon], Stan­dard Oil of New York [now Mobil], Stan­dard Oil of Cal­i­for­nia [now Chevron], Gulf Oil, Tex­a­co, Roy­al Dutch Shell and Anglo-Iran­ian [now BP] in con­trol­ling the inter­na­tion­al oil busi­ness; a coop­er­a­tive effort by the Sev­en Sis­ters to suc­cess­ful­ly reduce Iran­ian oil pro­duc­tion from 241 mil­lion bar­rels a year in 1950 to 10.6 mil­lion bar­rels a year in 1952 in order to desta­bi­lize pre­mier Mossad­eq; Pro­fes­sor Scott’s point that the CIA’s over­throw of Mossad­eq in 1953 rep­re­sent­ed a “Deep State” real­iza­tion of the goal of the oil car­tel; the role of ARAMCO in the stran­gling of Iran­ian oil pro­duc­tion, off­set­ting the drop in Iran­ian pro­duc­tion by increas­ing its own; change of a Jus­tice Depart­ment suit against Big Oil from a crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ing to a civ­il suit pros­e­cut­ed by the Depart­ment of State; the pre­dictable res­o­lu­tion of that suit in favor of big oil; the fact that the oil car­tel was rep­re­sent­ed in that suit by Sul­li­van & Cromwell and John Fos­ter Dulles was in charge of the State Depart­ment; the fact that John Fos­ter Dulles’ broth­er and Sul­li­van & Cromwell asso­ciate Allen was in charge of the CIA at the same time and over­saw the removal of Mossad­eq; Allen Dulles’ suc­cess­ful gam­bit to side­step Pres­i­dent Eisen­how­er by secur­ing British Prime Min­is­ter Harold MacMil­lan as an exec­u­tive author­i­ty to dis­patch U‑2 flights..

The pro­gram con­cludes with delin­eation of U.S. gov­ern­ment pro­tec­tion of Jihadist ele­ments so that they could be used as proxy war­riors in ongo­ing covert oper­a­tions.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: U.S. gov­ern­ment pro­tec­tion for Ali Mohamed, an al-Qae­da oper­a­tive who dou­bled as a Spe­cial Forces oper­a­tive train­ing muja­hadeen for com­bat oper­a­tions in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chech­nya among oth­er places; FBI agent John Zent’s com­mu­ni­ca­tion to the RCMP in Van­cou­ver, lead­ing to Mohamed’s release from cus­tody; Mohamed’s train­ing of muja­hadeen at the Al-Kifah Refugee Cen­ter in Brook­lyn; the assas­si­na­tion of extrem­ist Rab­bi Meir Kahane by trainees of Mohamed’s includ­ing El Sayyid Nosair; the FBI and New York Police Department’s cov­er-up of the par­tic­i­pa­tion in the Kahane killing of Nosair/Mohamed asso­ciates; the even­tu­al par­tic­i­pa­tion of some of those asso­ciates in the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing; the FBI’s sab­o­tage of New York Coun­ty Dis­trict Attor­ney Robert Morgenthau’s attempts to widen the inves­ti­ga­tion of the Al-Kifah milieu; the cen­tral role of Ali Mohamed’s Al-Kifah trainees in the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing.


Afghan Overture

In a series of pro­grams we are record­ing, we high­light the vital research of the bril­liant, ven­er­a­ble Berke­ley researcher Peter Dale Scott, who has chron­i­cled the shock­ing behav­ior of ele­ments of our gov­ern­ment, cov­er­ing up the involve­ment in ter­ror­ist inci­dents of indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions that, if prop­er­ly pur­sued, could have pre­vent­ed the 9/11 attacks–the event that pre­cip­i­tat­ed our entry into that con­flict. “. . . . In Triple Cross, Peter Lance, who does not men­tion [9/11 mas­ter­mind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s] escape from Qatar, focus­es instead on the way that, lat­er in the same year, U.S. fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tors kept his name out of the tri­al of Ramzi Yousef in con­nec­tion with the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing: ‘Assis­tant U.S. Attor­neys Mike Gar­cia and Diet­rich Snell pre­sent­ed a riv­et­ing, evi­dence-dri­ven case . . . and char­ac­ter­ized the mate­r­i­al retrieved from Ramzi’s Toshi­ba lap­top as ‘the most dev­as­tat­ing evi­dence of all. . . .’ . . . While Yousef’s lap­top . . . con­tained the full details of the plot lat­er exe­cut­ed on 9/11, not a word of that sce­nario was men­tioned dur­ing tri­al . . . . Most sur­pris­ing, dur­ing the entire sum­mer-long tri­al, the name of the fourth Bojin­ka con­spir­a­tor, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed . . . . was men­tioned by name only once, in ref­er­ence to a let­ter found in [Yousef’s apart­ment] . . . .”


Representative, Crystallized Moment in the Afghan War

We have cov­ered the deba­cle of U.S. pol­i­cy in Afghanistan in FTR#‘s 678, 680, 683 and 685. High-rank­ing mil­i­tary offi­cers expressed their dis­sat­is­fac­tion with Afghan pol­i­cy in a “Wash­ing­ton Post” sto­ry. As Biden piv­ots from “For­ev­er War,” as epit­o­mized by the war in Afghanistan, to what may very well be World War III, in sup­port of the OUN/B‑dominated nation­al secu­ri­ty appa­ra­tus of con­tem­po­rary Ukraine, it is worth con­tem­plat­ing the stun­ning lack of regard the “Deep State” in this coun­try has for its men and women in uni­form. ” . . . . . . . . Just how sub­or­di­nat­ed offi­cial pol­i­cy could become to deep state needs was demon­strat­ed in Novem­ber 2001, when Cheney, at the request of [Pakistan’s head of state] Mushar­raf and the ISI [Pakistan’s pri­ma­ry intel­li­gence ser­vice], approved secret air­lifts to fer­ry sur­round­ed Pak­istani and high-lev­el al-Qae­da fight­ers out of Afghanistan, to safe­ty in Pak­istan. . . .”