Month: July 2016 – כ״ח בסיון תשע״ו

Was 9/11 a False Flag Operation?

7 Reasons 9/11 Could NOT Have Been An Inside Job

Posted on April 4, 2016 by WashingtonsBlog

Below, we’ll show that 9/11 could NOT have been an inside job …

I. The 9/11 Commission and Congressional Investigation Into 9/11 All Disproved Any Conspiracy

9/11 was thoroughly and exhaustively investigated by the 9/11 Commission, Congress and U.S. scientific agencies.

This horse has already been beat to death, and anyone who raises questions is a nutjob.

True, the 9/11 Commission didn’t believe that the government told the truth about 9/11,  and said the government obstructed their investigation.

For example:

  • The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”
  • 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 . . . .”
  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said“At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

Some examples of obstruction of justice into the 9/11 investigation include:

  • An FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, 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. As the New York Times notes:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

  • The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this)
  • The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements
  • 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) [broken link] and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times
  • As reported by ACLU, FireDogLake, RawStory, and many others, declassified documents shows that Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

The CIA also videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.

9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

The chief lawyer for Guantanamo litigation – Vijay Padmanabhan – said that torture of 9/11 suspects was widespread.

And Susan J. Crawford – the senior Pentagon official overseeing the military commissions at Guantánamo told Bob Woodward:

We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture.

Indeed, some of the main sources of information were tortured right up to the point of death.

Moreover, the type of torture used by the U.S. on the Guantanamo suspects is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating false confessions. (and see this, this, this and this).

And according to NBC News:

  • Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
  • At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”
  • One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
  • The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves

Indeed, the Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 (Bob Graham)  and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “PERMANENT 9/11 commission” or a NEW 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.

But hey … nothing’s perfect.  We should just let bygones be bygones.

II. No One Could Have Foreseen 9/11

No one could have foreseen the diabolical 9/11 plan. After all, America has not been directly attacked for centuries.

And crashing planes into buildings?  No one could have imagined such an out-of-the-blue attack.

True, overwhelming evidence shows that 9/11 was foreseeable. And Al Qaeda crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was itself foreseeable. (even the chair of the 9/11 Commission said that the attack was preventable).

And a top NSA whistleblower says that the NSA had all of the information it needed prior to 9/11 to stop the attacks. The only reason NSA didn’t share that information with other agencies is because of corruption … in an effort to consolidate power. And widespread spying by the U.S. government onAmericans began before 9/11 (confirmed here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). And the government tapped the 9/11 hijackers’ phones, and heard the 9/11 hijackers’ plans from their own mouths.

But our government officials were busy at the time … and maybe they just took their eyes off the ball.

Anyway, knowing it could happen doesn’t mean that they let it happen on purpose.

Continue reading…

From Washington’s Blog. [Defunct]

סקרים ושקרים

ציטוט מתוך “קו ישר”:

התחזיות שוב נכשלו בחיזוי תוצאות משאל העם בבריטנה.

בימים שלפני ההצבעה חזו מרבית התחזיות יתרון קל ל”נשארים”.

אתמול בלילה, בשעה 1.00 אחר חצות, אחרי סגירת הקלפיות, כאשר כבר היו מדגמים עדיין אמרו: “4% יתרון לנשארים”.

אל תאמינו לתחזיות פוליטיות, משאלי דעת קהל ומדגמים. העושים את התחזיות מושפעים ממה שהם רוצים לראות, מהתוצאה הרצויה להם, מבחינה אידאולוגית. אין כזה דבר “תחזית אובייקטיבית”. וכול החזאים למיניהם נמצאים בצד אחד בלבד של המחלוקת האידאולוגית. אחידות הדעין האידאולוגית של התקשורת, האקדמיה והאליטות (המנותקים מהעם) היא תופעה מוזרה ומדהימה.

כול משאלי דעת הקהל והתחזיות הן חרטא-ברטא, כלומר – ניחוש מבוסס על נטיות אידאולוגיות. (ראו גם כאן).

Kabbalah – Avoiding Public Displays

Askinu seudasa – The minhog NOT to say/sing it – אתקינו סעודתא – המנהג שלא לומר או לזמר אותו

אתקינו סעודתא, a Kabbalistic zemer in Aramaic from the Arizal, which is a few hundred years old,  is widely sung these days at Shabbos seudos, even in some non Chassidic places. Especially at סעודה שלישית. How many people understand it is another matter.

It  may be less well known that there are those who specifically have refrained from, or opposed such a practice.

It is hard for people to abstain when a group is singing something, with a lively tune, especially in our culture that puts such value on being part of a tzibbur and going along with the group. But people should know that there are differences of opinion about this practice.

What if your minhog is not to sing it? What if your father didn’t? Which is the case I found myself in. I felt that it was not my minhog, but didn’t fully understand why (beyond perhaps a vague feeling that ‘we don’t get into that heavy Kabbalistic stuff’, at least not in public). And then some could say, hey, your father didn’t sing it, but was he opposed to it, or maybe he just didn’t grow up with it? Is abstaining from something a minhog davka (specifically) not to do it, or just a neutral stance, no minhog on the matter either way, which would not be in opposition to someone adopting it if he wishes?

Recently, while glancing at a Torah journal by the name of צפונות, from ארץ ישראל in תשמ”ט, א, לד-ה, I noticed a piece there with a תשובה (responsum) from the  מהר”ם שיק, senior talmid of the חתם סופר, who was asked if it should be said.

The  מהר”ם שיק says that he doesn’t say it and neither did the חתם סופר. The reason he gives is that we are not on that level, just as it is brought down in Shulchan Aruch (שו”ע או”ח סימן ג, הלכה א)  that we nowadays do not say התכבדו מכובדים before entering the בית הכסא, so kal vachomer this שיר, which is even holier.

I asked רב בנימין שלמה המבורגר שליט”א about it and he furnished me with additional information on the matter, as follows.

The Chasam Sofer’s son, Rav Shimon Sofer, the מכתב סופר, reported that the Chasam Sofer did not say the zemiros of the Arizal אסדר לסעודתא, אזמר בשבחין, ובני היכלא because “עס איסט צו פיעל ארויסגעזאגט”  it expresses too much openly of matters that should be more hidden (brought in באר מרים introduction to מכתב סופר). Esoteric, Kabbalistic manners are not for every person. One should be on a high level, a holy person to get involved with such things.

מהר”ם א”ש, the famous talmid of the Chasam Sofer and Rav of Ungvar, didn’t say it either, as brought down here, a little less than halfway down the page, in the paragraph starting קודם סעודת צהרים, where it states לא מלאו לבו לומר האתקינו סעודתא ולומר דא היא סעודתא.

The בן איש חי brings (בן איש חי, שנה ב’, פרשת חיי שרה, סעיף יג) that even among Sepharadic mekubbalim there were those that refrained from saying it due to פחד. And he concludes by saying that ‘we are not נוהג to say it at all‘!. And he was a great מקובל!

Western European Sepharadim, in London and Amsterdam, also didn’t say it, as reported in sefer כתר שם טוב of רב שם טוב גאגין, חלק א’ עמוד רא

So quite a line up of gedolim there who didn’t say it, for various reasons. So there are definite grounds for a practice/מנהג to refrain. And if you refrain from it for the reasons mentioned by the above גדולי עולם, I dare say that you are definitely מקבל שכר על הפרישה (are rewarded for refraining).

From Treasures of Ashkenaz, here.

Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna Was a Real Boy!

I don’t know about you, but it’s hard for me to relate to scholars whose only surviving words are written in the impersonal, judicial or exegetical voice. And if I can’t relate I cannot hope to emulate.

Want to get a sense for the Gaon’s personality? His works have a “distant” tone. The hagiography makes it even worse. What to do? See this excellent post by Rabbi Avi Grossman here. Rabbi Grossman highlights evidence of “humanity” in the personal letter by the Gaon to his family. (His point is different.) Short and sweet.

P.S. A whole book on our heroes could probably be written in this manner. A word to the wise…