15th May 2014
By Zen Gardner
Contributing Writer for Wake Up World
The overwhelming evidence that the events of 9/11 could have in no way been perpetrated without inside complicity is irrefutable. Whether the impossibility of those two massively over-designed structures being pulverized and another dropped into its own footprint, or the abject lack of response by the most defended airspace in the world, the events of that day had to have been at least aided and guided, if not co-perpetrated, by inside, complicit forces.
The least bit of open minded investigation will lead anyone to that conclusion.
The only alternative is to blindly trust the staged media narrative, carefully reinforced by a belated congressional report that clearly ignored important evidence – another government report based on scant clues, planned conjecture, and a lot of falsified, deleted and diluted information.
What’s remarkable, and may explain much of the hysteria that accompanied those events, is that all of this was carefully performed after many years of building the demonization of an extremist Muslim uprising, an external enemy of a vague yet suddenly appearing world threatening nature. The perfect target for suspicion in any ensuing violent event.
And the public bought and swallowed the whole enchilada.
Laying the Groundwork
When you trace the pattern, this run up of so-called terrorist events then begs many questions: Was the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, immediately attributed to al Qaida, really done by 2 local Arab youth in a tiny boat causing an explosion that blew out the hull of a major naval vessel and killing 17? Or is there another explanation? The 4/11 London bombings is another scenario that doesn’t hold a drop of water. Going even further back, was the horrific 1983 blasting of the US barracks in Lebanon really carried out by radical Muslim “insurgents”? Or were the various embassy bombings similar “attacks”, or were they inside jobs? The list of likely false flags over the years is long.
The prime example is the stage-setting 1993 bombing of the WTC, proven to be set up and executed by the FBI and their patsies, yet the image in the public mind was virtually set in stone: Muslim terrorists are capable of infiltrating NYC and bombing a major landmark.
If you need an even earlier precedent, the admitted “insider” bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 paving the way for regional and otherwise false flag terrorism has been openly boasted of by complicit Zionists and should serve as a very strong clue as to just what’s behind this staging of an invasion of the middle east. In fact, you’ll find Israel’s handiwork throughout these false flag events, culminating in their deep involvement in 9/11.
After all, cui bono? Who benefits?
The narrative was laid down for years preparing Americans and much of the world to believe there were Muslim terrorists afoot, and that these terrorists were eventually attached to a then newly arisen figure named Osama bin Laden and another new phenomenon called “al Qaida”. When the events of 9/11 took place the mainstream media was blaming this same Osama bin Laden and al Qaida within minutes of the towers coming down, following the narrative laid down for the years preceding.
An easy sell at that point.
Odd that this same Osama just happened to be from the same mega wealthy Saudi family very close to the Bushes and whose family business was subsequently contracted to build the many US bases in the Mideast region. A renegade son? Or a staged trade-off of some sort. Something to ponder amongst the plethora of other abnormalities. But does the mainstain news even mention this or anything else contrary to the party line?
On to Afghanistan and the Russia Connection
It was claimed bin Laden was masterminding 9/11 while hiding out in a cave deep in the mountains of Afghanistan, a country then run by the Taliban, a by product of the Mujahadeen, an inserted insurgency trained by the US and its CIA to bait and counter the Russians many years prior. Al Qaida literally means “the base”, and is said to be the name of the database of trained insurgents placed there by the CIA. There is much to substantiate this.
Some Historical Perspective
“US aid to the armed Mujahadeen Islamic insurgency started six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with the intention of making it more likely for the USSR to attack Afghanistan to support its puppet government. Brzezinski admitted as much in a 1998 interview:
“According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap…. The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter “We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.”
“Brzezinski got his wish, and once the Soviets invaded he sprung into action.
“We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.”
“In that same 1998 interview referred to above, Brzezinski recognized that his policies brought about the Taliban and said it was worth it.”
“What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”
9/11 and the March Through Eurasia Were Planned and Staged in Plain Sight
Perhaps the most obvious and damning evidence is in these planners’ and own words. Oddly enough, and perhaps part of the dynamic in some macabre way, these same perpetrators lay out their plans for all to see. Globalist advisor to 5 US Presidents (including Obama) Zbigniew Brzezinski has written whole books on the subject. One in particular is called “The Grand Chessboard” where he lays out the plan for global hegemony, even listing those countries that need to be subjugated as the imperialists surround the powers of Russia and China.
Interestingly, they include not just the Middle Eastern countries we’ve already seen toppled, but he particularly and ultimately targets the strategic Eurasian region surrounding Russia, including Ukraine. Note the reference to Pearl Harbor. The book was written in 1997.
“The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power) (p. xiii)
“But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)
“The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)
“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia — and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)
The Globalist Attitude Toward Democratic Peoples and How to Herd Them:
Zbigniew Brzezinski continues…
“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (p.35)
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” (p. 211)
Zbigniew on the Ultimate Objective, Encircling Russia on the Eurasian Front:
“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above.” (p. 40) [emphasis mine]
“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)
“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55) (Source)
All being blatantly fulfilled before our eyes.