Webster Tarpley has a long background of service in international journalism. His lengthy record of service in the field has provided him with many contacts, which he uses judiciously, as well as an international perspective, enabling him to see well beyond the smoke and mirrors generated by governments functioning as self-serving mechanisms. Tarpley, who received richly deserved praise for an earlier unauthorized biography of George Bush the Elder, which exposed the family's involvement in providing funding for Hitler's Third Reich, has delivered a prolifically researched and dramatic work detailing the real causes of 9/11. Tarpley makes the same basic points that have been consistently made here regarding who is actually in charge and how the ruling Junta developed. He notes that a shadow government would never entrust strategic decision making to a "moron" such as George W. Bush. He sees the sage of Halliburton and the oil-military axis, Dick Cheney, as a major spokesperson but takes one significant step beyond this perspective. In tracing the events of 9/11, Tarpley naturally covers the bizarre and fearful behavior of George W. Bush in Sarasota, where America could have been facing a nuclear threat or coup, only to see the putative chief executive continue a photo opportunity session with an elementary school girl reading "My Pet Goat." He probes the reader's mind, however, with where he proceeds from there. 9/11 Synthetic Terror can be purchased at ProgressivePress.com. It supplies a needed wakeup call to Americans at a pivotal period of history when the maniacal and predatory actions of neoconservatives, with many focused in the ranks of the Project for the New American Century, threaten the world with nuclear extinction. As Tarpley indicates, it is time to remove the "nuclear football" from the clutches of the ruling Junta in the same way that, in the final days of the Nixon Administration in 1974, Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger removed that deadly option from a highly disturbed, paranoiac American leader. The current bloodthirsty, power mad Washington neocons need to be stopped before it is too late. Americans need to vigilantly demand answers to important questions that have heretofore been swept under the rug. KEYWORDS: Webster Tarpley, 9-11 Coverup, 9-11 Truth Commission, Dick Cheney, Dr. Bob Bowman, Bush's Conduct on 9-11, 9-11 Coup Possibility Prominent Indian author Arundhati Roy uttered my favorite quote from 9/11 Synthetic Terror. On August 16, 2004, Roy told the American Sociological Association in San Francisco: "Terrorism is the privatization of war" and that "terrorists are the free marketers of war." Webster Tarpley has extended his efforts beyond the research and writing of this comprehensive work on 9/11 to the realm of cohesive action. He is currently interacting with others to seek answers to questions being dodged rather than inve

a veteran investigator with far more experience in the field than you possess, to delve into this area among others is not surprising at all. To dismiss everything he might say or write in any other field because of this is anti-intellectualism to a sad and dangerous degree. An investigator is always willing to look at the facts if investigation is the true goal. In this instance it appears to be a case of ego enhancement to the extent of "I'm right and that is that!" ----------- If you are one of the many skeptics of the pat explanation provided by the government and the 9/11 Commission that the attacks on that fateful day were all interlinked with the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden, a genius of mythical proportions controlling the world from an Afghanistan cave, this book will loom as a welcome and illuminating volume of reason and penetrating insight. Tarpley debunks this prevailing myth with precise insight. The reason why this issue exceeds all others in importance is that, until the network behind the Cheney-Bush Junta is fully exposed, a group or groups representing the same line of thought will remain in Washington. As Tarpley points out, evicting the ruling Junta from office is imperative to eliminate the dire and imminent threat of nuclear war, as evidenced by the truculent stands of neoconservatives in the Middle East, with Syria looming close on the prospective nuclear radar screen. Tarpley makes the same basic points that have been consistently made here regarding who is actually in charge and how the ruling Junta developed. He notes that a shadow government would never entrust strategic decision making to a "moron" such as George W. Bush. He sees the sage of Halliburton and the oil-military axis, Dick Cheney, as a major spokesperson but takes one significant step beyond this perspective

World War 2, 1939-1945: A U-boat torpedo hit the ocean liner Athenia near Britain with some 1100 passengers, of which 311 were Americans. The sea was calm and only 118 people on board lost their lives. The ship was sunk because it behaved like a military transport, blackened out and zigzagging. This incident wasn't enough to precipitate war, and the Germans also refused to be provoked by several American acts of war. Americans confiscated German merchant ships, and Americans started to support the British with various lend-lease items, US volunteer pilots joined the RAF and some RAF pilots were trained in the US, US gave the British 50 old but usable WW1 destroyers and 20 modern torpedo boats, tanks, light bombers, fighter aircraft like P-40s and so on. American destroyers also escorted the convoys bound to Britain, and attacked German U-boats even far away from those convoys. The US did not maintain a neutral stance attitude towards the warring nations. The US naval intelligence, chief of Japan desk planned and suggested "8 insults", which should bring Japan into war with the US. President Roosevelt executed this plan immediately and also added some other insults, enraging the Japan. The most serious one was a total blockade of Japanese oil imports, as agreed between the Americans, British and the Dutch. FDR also declared an all-out embargo against the Japan and forbade them the use of Panama canal, impeding Japan's access to Venezuelan oil. The Flying Tigers volunteer air group successfully fighting the Japanese in China with some 90 fairly modern P-40Bs was another effective provocation that is not generally acknowledged by historical accounts of World War 2, most of which fail to mention any air combat action prior to 7th December 1941. But at that time the Japanese had already had lost about 100 military aircraft, mostly bombers, to the Tigers. After Pearl Harbor these squadrons were some of the the hardest-hitting ones in the US service. The Americans knew what was going to happen, when and where, but the president did not dispatch this information to Pearl Harbor. Americans even gave their friends the British 3 Magic decrypting machines which automatically opened encrypted Japanese military traffic. But this same information was not available to the commanders of Hawaii. The movement of the fleet was also visible in the very effective radio direction finding network. Japan had an alliance with Germany, and the Germans upheld their promises by declaring the war against the USA right after the Japanese declaration. Two scapegoats, the navy commander Admiral Husband Kimmel, and the army commander Lt. General Walter Short were found incompetent and demoted as they were allowed to retire. Short died 1949 and Kimmel 1958. In 1995, the US Congress re-examined this decision and endorsed it. Then in 2000 some archive information came to light and the US Senate passed a resolution stating that both hadserved in Hawaii "competently and professionally". In 1941 they were denied vital information, and even on presidential orders purposefully mislead into believing that the Japanese feet could be expected from the southwest. These commanders have yet to be rehabilited by the Pentagon. Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan invasion), 7.10.2001-: Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, a Saudi-Arabian Osama bin Laden was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the WTC and the Pentagon. Such a complex operation, if actually executed which it was not, in this case would be much beyond the capabilities of anything in Afghanistan. Only some top ten intelligence services in the world could hope to be successful in such an operation involving forgery, infiltration, living "underground" in a foreign non-Muslim country, coordination of moves, illegal arms, hi-quality flight training, accurate aircraft navigation in no-visibility conditions and so on. Perhaps even less, because the friends of the US (at that time, still most of the world) would also have been interested in stopping the attack. Enduring Justice (Second Gulf war), 20.3.2003-: later known with less irony as Operation Iraqi Freedom The claimed reason of the attack was that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US with wmd's available within less than an hour after the decision to assemble them has been made. Since no wmd's were found, and after the Iraqi also scrapped some 800 long range Scud style missiles before the US coalition attack, the reason for the invasion was changed into "bringing the democracy into Iraq".

Congress Reads `My Pet Goat' as Planes Hit the Twin Towers in New York At approximately 8:48 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center were broadcast on live television. The news anchors, reporters, and viewers had little idea what had happened in lower Manhattan, but there were some people who did know. By that time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Secret Service, and Canada's Strategic Command all knew that three commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown deliberately into the World Trade Center's North Tower; a second plane was wildly off course and also heading toward Manhattan; and a third plane had abruptly turned around over Ohio and was flying back toward Washington, DC. So why, at 9:03 a.m.—fifteen minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack—did President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute pre-planned photo op? No one knows the answer to that question. In fact, no one has even asked Bush about it. Bush's actions on September 11 have been the subject of lively debate, mostly on the internet. Details reported that day and in the week after the attacks—both the media reports and accounts given by Bush himself—have changed radically over the past 18 months. Culling hundreds of reports from newspapers, magazines, and the internet has only made finding the "truth" of what happened and when it happened more confusing. In the changed political climate after 9/11, few have dared raise challenging questions about Bush's actions. A journalist who said Bush was "flying around the country like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mother's bed after having a nightmare" and another who said Bush "skedaddled" were fired. [Washington Post, 9/29/01 (B)] We should have a concise record of where President Bush was throughout the day the US was attacked, but we do not. --------------------------------- Peace activists often ask why the 9/11 truth movement insists on making the truth about terrorism a central component of anti-war agitation. One answer is that we bring up 9/11 frequently because Bush and Cheney do -- they incessantly parrot slogans about the "global war on terror" and "the lessons of 9/11." Bush claims that he is fighting terrorists in Iraq so that the US will not have to fight them over here. He raves that, if US forces pull out of Iraq, the terrorists will follow them back home and launch attacks on US territory. There can be no doubt that 9/11 is the foundation of Bush's castle of warmonger lying -- the fountainhead, motivation, and legitimation of the entire policy of unilateral aggression. To ignore the centrality of 9/11 to Bush's every move is like trying to fight Hitler without mentioning anti-Semitism. Attacks on Bush that do not include 9/11 truth are simply impotent, and will not be effective.

Webster Griffin Tarpley 9/11 synthetic terror 9-11 myth of the century cover-up false flag invisible government gladio Webster Griffin Tarpley is a historian, author, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the military industrial complex. He envisions a model of false flag terror operated by a rogue network of independent operatives in the privatized military intelligence sector and corporate media

Webster Griffin Tarpley 9/11 synthetic terror 9-11 myth of the century cover-up false flag invisible government gladio Webster Griffin Tarpley is a historian, author, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the military industrial complex. He envisions a model of false flag terror operated by a rogue network of independent operatives in the privatized military intelligence sector and corporate media.

Webster Griffin Tarpley 9/11 synthetic terror 9-11 myth of the century cover-up false flag invisible government gladio Webster Griffin Tarpley is a historian, author, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the military industrial complex. He envisions a model of false flag terror operated by a rogue network of independent operatives in the privatized military intelligence sector and corporate media.

Webster Griffin Tarpley 9/11 synthetic terror 9-11 myth of the century cover-up false flag invisible government gladio Webster Griffin Tarpley is a historian, author, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the military industrial complex. He envisions a model of false flag terror operated by a rogue network of independent operatives in the privatized military intelligence sector and corporate media.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke. the controlled demolition hypothesis is unambiguously rejected by mainstream investigators and structural engineers.[1] Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was among the first to offer an explanation of the collapses, mentions the controlled demolition hypothesis in passing in a 2007 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the mainstream consensus as presented in the NIST report, Bažant and Verdure note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. They trace "strange ideas" about, among other things, controlled demolition, to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. While, strictly speaking, superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Moreover, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not in fact two separate modes of failure.[1] KENNEBUNKPORT ? Rumors of controlled demolition began to circulate immediately following the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. Today, the hypothesis is normally proposed as part of an argument for insider complicity in the September 11 attacks, or what is often called a "9/11 conspiracy theory". On this view, the destruction of the World Trade Center was a carefully organized spectacle or false flag intended to justify the prosecution of wars abroad and the curtailment of freedoms at home. Because it would be difficult to explain how terrorists were able to plant the necessary explosives, it is argued, the aircraft impacts were deemed necessary to suggest a more plausible external cause of structural damage. The plausibility of this cause is precisely what the controlled demolition hypothesis questions. It proposes that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate collapse and that the buildings would in any case not have collapsed as completely, symmetrically, and quickly as they did without an additional source of destructive energy to undermine their structure. Various sources of this energy have been proposed; thermite and explosives is the most common suggestion being made today.[6][7] Controlled demolition proponents cite mainstream news reports on the day of the attacks that suggested explosions and secondary devices. Journalist and experts commenting on the events as they happened speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planted explosives.[8] Many of these suggestions would later be retracted or revised. In a notable example, the Albuquerque Journal quoted an engineer who said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that "some explosive devices inside ... caused the towers to collapse," speculating that the collision of the planes into the towers was a diversionary attack intended to attract emergency personnel to the scene, followed by the detonation of "a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points" of the towers as the primary attack.[9] He soon withdrew this assessment[10] and later said he had been misquoted: "I only said that that's what it looked like."[11] Engineers were in fact initially surprised by the collapses[12][13][14] and some originally believed that explosives had been involved.[15] The broad outlines of an explanation that did not involve such explosives quickly emerged, however, and took it current shape in the 2005 NIST report.[16] [7] It has come to be known as "the official account" among proponents of controlled demolition.[citation needed] As late as September 2007, however, engineers were still looking for a "credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began", allowing speculations about controlled demolition to develop. Such an explanation is now about to be published.[17][18] An early book-length treatment of the hypothesis[19] inspired both David Ray Griffin's critical inquiry[20] as well as the Popular Mechanics investigation of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[11] In late 2005, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven Jones made his own pursuit of the hypothesis public.[6] Even before publication of the article in 2006,[21] his interest in the hypothesis brought a measure of scientific credibility and media exposure to the theory. BYU responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave in September, 2006.[22][23] Shortly thereafter, Jones accepted BYU's offer of early retirement.

maddox gulf of tonkin false flag