The first sign that 9/11 would be exploited to advance various agendas came from Binyamin Netanyahu, who was quoted in the New York Times as saying the attacks would be good for Israel:

Asked tonight [September 11, 2001] what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, ”It’s very good.” Then he edited himself: ”Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” He predicted that the attack would ”strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.”

Netanyahu subsequently reiterated his views about 9/11, quoted here in Haaretz.

And, of course, ever since 9/11 the “pro-Israel” lobby has successfully used it to build support for right-wing Israeli policies in the United States.

But the lobby isn’t alone.

It is just one of the components of an orchestrated and well-financed effort to make Americans fear and hate Muslims and Arabs.

I have to admit, however, that until I read a report published today by the Center for American Progress (CAP), I had no idea just how orchestrated and well-financed this movement was.

The report, “Fear Inc: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” demonstrates that a small group of self-proclaimed experts (Frank Gaffney, David Yerushalmi, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, and Steve Emerson) backed by a host of foundations and donors (many of which also fund the lobby) have put Islamophobia on the map.

To put it simply, without these “experts,” their donors, and Fox News (their media mouthpiece) you would never have heard that a Muslim community center (the “Ground Zero Mosque”) was being constructed in New York City. And the center certainly would not have become a major news story. Nor would Republican (and even a few Democratic) candidates for president, Congress, and even village councils be called upon to condemn Islam and “Sharia Law” or face being labeled a supporter of terrorism. Nor would Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum have made hatred of American Muslims such an integral part of their campaigns.

It all starts with the money. According to CAP:

A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam-in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.

Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:

• Donors Capital Fund
• Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
• Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
• Russell Berrie Foundation
• Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
• Fairbrook Foundation

Most of these are new to me, although when I worked at AIPAC it was hard to miss the fact that some of them supported both AIPAC and its think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The amazing thing about the CAP report is that it exposes people who try very hard to cover their tracks. It is one thing to be known for supporting AIPAC, but it is quite another to be identified with the likes of Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes, and Pam Geller, who appears in the CAP report as only a second-tier hater but whose anti-Muslim vehemence is nothing short of disgusting. (She rationalised the killing of the kids in Norway by pointing out that the camp they attended was associated with Norway’s Labor Party, which she claims is anti-Israel!)

The hate funders are particularly determined to lay low since the slaughter of 76 people in Norway in July by a self-described Christian conservative named Anders Breivik, who said that he was influenced by Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and David Horowitz (another prominent propagandist against Muslims and beneficiary of the various anti-Islam foundations).

But CAP followed the money, went behind the innocent-sounding foundation names, and cross-referenced them. And now we have it: the hate network exposed.

It’s pretty ugly. Jews whose main concern is Israel align themselves with Christian rightists who don’t like Jews. There are even a few Muslims who are dispatched by the network to tell audiences at churches and synagogues just how bad their people are. It’s weird.

But it’s also very dangerous, as the Norway slaughter attests.

The strangest thing about the killings is that they happened in Norway. Reading this report, you have to wonder why it hasn’t happened here. Yet.

The post Who Funds Muslim-Baiting in the US? appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

The idea that the alleged hijackers had support from within the United States is well known. The story of Anwar al-Alwlaki, for the most part, was also known to us, as was “Al-Qaeda’s” base in Arizona, and the story of Omar Al-Bayoumi.

Although the report did talk about the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, and Saudi Arabia’s possible involvement in the attacks, it failed to mention Prince Bandar’s wife’s alleged role in financing the two alleged hijackers in San Diego.  

Even though I was surprised to see mention of Abdussattar Shaikh, the report neglected to mention people like Wally Hilliard, Rudy Dekkers, and Steven Butler.  

The report did talk a little bit about Alec Station, but failed to really delve into that whole story.  I very much recommend the writings of Kevin Fenton with regard to that issue. What the CIA knew about the 2 alleged hijackers in San Diego was also barely touched on.

After I read this report from Fox News that said, “the network was never disrupted — so there is every reason to believe it remains in place,” I instantly thought that this was going to be a fear mongering report from Fox.  It did have those aspects to it, but it wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be. The report talked about Anwar al-Alwlaki as being the next Osama Bin Laden, but that role has already been given to Saif al Adel.

The first questions that popped into my mind were, “if it was “never disrupted,” then why should we take the “War Of Terror” seriously if you’re not even going to take care of it in our own backyard? Why was it “never disrupted?” Who should be held accountable for not disrupting it? Why did the Pentagon lawyers redact the guest list from the lunch?”

Again, people need to be held accountable for 9/11.  That is also a story that has been known to us.

At the end of the report, the Fox News reporter said, “there are strong reasons to look back, and continue the investigation into the secrets of 9/11.”  I couldn’t agree more.

The post Thoughts on FOX News Special "The Secrets of 9/11" appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Only one person in the United States — Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker — has been tried and convicted for the murder of over 3,000 Americans. But, as you will see, there were others — some still living here — who helped 19 men fly planes into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Fox News reveals new details of a support network, here in America for decades.

In this shocking special, we investigate the associates of the 9/11 terrorists, including American-born cleric Anwar Awlaki, who is now on the CIA’s capture or kill list. By digging deep into thousands of government records from the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the FBI, Fox News fills in some of the blanks about who really helped the hijackers across America.

And, in a Fox News exclusive, why was Anwar Awlaki invited to the Pentagon for lunch after 9/11 when the FBI knew of his relationship with three of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77?

As we show in this program, there are compelling reasons to continue to investigate the largest attack on American soil and the secrets of 9/11.

The post Fox News Reporting: Secrets of 9/11 appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

On the November 23 edition of The Alex Jones Show, Napolitano said that it’s “hard for me to believe that” World Trade Center building 7 “came down by itself” – a central tenet of 9/11 conspiracy theories – and claimed that “twenty years from now, people will look at 9/11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.”

Napolitano’s remarks were posted on Bolling’s Facebook page, which prompted Bolling to respond to one commenter yesterday:

Bobby… I did research.. all the funerals I attended. The comforting of families of my co-workers and the fundraisers I did for the first responders. I watched the plane fly into my place of work… take this “truther” crap and shove it..

Bolling – whose Fox Business show airs after Napolitano’s – wrote a separate post about the topic this morning, in which referenced Napolitano and called 9/11 Trutherism “B.S.” that is “hurtful to those of us who lost loved ones & co-workers. Go elsewhere.” From Bolling’s November 26 Facebook post:

Judge is a very smart man & great friend.. on this, however, I know more than him, Geraldo, Alex Jones. I was one of a handful who had access to the site immediately after the terror attacks. I spent the next seven years there..feet from the burning rubble. I KNOW what happened. Radical Muslims killed my friends. NOT MY GOVT! Your B.S. is hurtful to those of us who lost loved ones & co-workers. Go elsewhere.

When Media Matters drew attention to Napolitano’s 9/11 Truth views, we noted that his position contrasts sharply with his Fox News colleagues, who have condemned 9/11 Truthers and those associated with them. Will other Fox Newsers like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Brian Kilmeade condemn Napolitano as they have with other truthers?

UPDATE: On his Facebook page this afternoon, Bolling now denies that he was attacking Napolitano. Bolling states that “the liberal media took my response to a comment here and tried (but failed) to make it look like an attack on The Judge.”

The post Bolling: "Your BS is hurtful to those of us who lost loved ones" appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Napolitano visited controversial radio host Alex Jones‘ program recently and– not for the first time– suggested that the September 11th attacks “couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.” Olbermann doesn’t take any particular issue with the comment, noting with some apathy, “I don’t have to agree with him, you don’t have to disagree with him.” In fact, Olbermann doesn’t even give Napolitano a coveted “Worsts” medal– that honor goes to his boss, Roger Ailes, for not firing Napolitano.

So why does Olbermann want someone whose comments he doesn’t mind to lose his job, which happens to be hosting a show in the same genre and in the same time slot as Olbermann? For the sake of consistency. “Put your outrage where you money is,” he told Ailes, noting that other Fox News personalities like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity had called for Van Jones to be fired and Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf to lose his license to open an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan for similar comments. Imam Rauf wasn’t even the source of his own offensive comments– it was an underling. Since others on Fox News criticized these individuals for 9/11 “truth”-related comments, Olbermann concludes, Napolitano merits the same treatment.

The difference, of course, between individuals like Jones and Rauf and television personalities like Judge Napolitano is that the latter has no direct influence on government or policy. The job conservatives were so upset to see Jones hold gave him the power to advice the nation’s chief executive. Imam Rauf– knee-deep in controversy for issues having nothing to do with trutherism– is in charge of a major downtown Manhattan project. Judge Napolitano, on the other hand, is paid for his opinions. He is not paid to generate policy or execute projects based on those opinions– his only responsibility is to be interesting and, for the picky cable news viewer, consistent. There is nothing inconsistent about someone whose philosophical foundation is distrust in the government to express unease with certain statements the government has made. To Olbermann’s credit, he takes no issue with Napolitano himself. But to dump Napolitano in the same boat as Van Jones is to thoroughly misunderstand the arguments that Beck, O’Reilly, et al made during the “Czar” saga. So long as Napolitano doesn’t find himself in the President’s cabinet, there is little reason for his colleagues to demand a pink slip.

The segment from tonight’s “Worsts” via MSNBC below:

The post Olbermann: Fire Napolitano for 9/11 Comments appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

“It’s hard for me to believe that it came down by itself…I am gratified to see that people across the board are interested. I think twenty years from now, people will look at 9/11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.”

Napolitano recently discussed WTC 7 on his “Freedom Watch” program with fellow FOX host Geraldo Rivera and has also hosted Anthony Shaffer to discuss the Able Danger cover up.

The news of Napolitano’s 9/11 statements was first reported in a derogatory piece by Media Matters and then picked up by the staunchly anti-9/11 truth Huffington Post – perhaps in an attempt to make FOX look worse. As one commenter on the Huffington Post story noted “What’s interesting is that this article centers on a ‘FOX Host’ and not the families, engineers and architects requesting a new investigation.”

The post Judge Napolitano for 9/11 Truth appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Granted, that media was Fox News host Geraldo Rivera, who in a former iteration ran a Jerry Springer-like daytime talk show.

Still, at the end of his serious-yet-brief treatment of questions surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), Rivera admitted that the activists had made him “much more open minded” about questions surrounding 9/11.

And all it took was the proper message.

That message, which was playing in 30-second bytes on screens all around New York City, does not focus on conspiracy theories. It does not feature hip-hop beats in the background or winded, red-faced protesters dressed in black shouting at reporters. It doesn’t even mention President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney or the systemic failures in America’s air defenses.

Instead, it puts the spotlight on people who lost family members in the 2001 attacks. Patriotic background music plays as viewers are gently reminded that not two, but three buildings collapsed on 9/11.

“Although the official explanation is that fire brought down building seven, over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there’s more to the story,” they say.

Then they implore viewers to help them seek justice, for their families, simply by visiting a web site: buildingwhat.org.

Their campaign’s name, “Building What?” was allegedly taken from the response offered by New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner, when asked if he knew about WTC 7.

Watch:

“Up until now, only those considered nutjobs questioned the official conclusion, that office fires caused by the nearby catastrophe of the towers collapsing brought down building number seven,” Geraldo said before introducing his guests.

Cue a clip of Rosie O’Donnell.

“If explosives were involved,” he continued, “that would mean the most obnoxious protesters in recent years … were right.”

Geraldo called the new television ad “not so easy to dismiss as those demonstrators were.”

The ad is being sponsored by donations to the groups New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911) and others. They’re calling for the New York City council to launch an investigation into the collapse of building seven.

NYC CAN, a nonpartisan association of over 100 9/11 family members, is the same group behind a 2009 ballot initiative requesting a new 9/11 investigation. It secured more than enough support to qualify for the ballot but the city ultimately blocked it from going before the voters, citing improperly collected signatures.

At time of this writing, AE911 said it had among its members, “1,346 verified architectural and engineering professionals who have put their professional reputations on the line to publicly voice their disagreement with NIST’s findings.”

One of Geraldo’s guests, Bob McIlvaine, whose son was killed on 9/11, also appeared in a longer, web-exclusive ad released in March after the delivery of a petition and information packets to members of the New York City council.

“What caught my eye was their claim that 1,300 architects and engineers examined the evidence about building seven’s collapse and disagree with the official report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).”

NIST’s report, released years after the 9/11 Commission Report, ostensibly proved the “new phenomenon” of thermal expansion bringing down a steel frame structure. The scientists added that their findings made them worry numerous other structures could be prone to the same style of collapse.

In spite of their conclusions, the only three skyscrapers are known to have officially collapsed from hydrocarbon fires weakening steel supports, and all of them fell on Sept. 11, 2001.

Oddly enough, that same day the BBC reported that building seven had fallen some 23 minutes before it went down and featured a reporter speaking about the third dose of tragedy even as the tower remained standing behind her. Discovery of the mistaken and ill-timed reportage has since fueled talk of an international conspiracy, but the network has adamantly denied allegations that it received advance notice of the collapse.

Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer who appeared on Fox News with McIlvaine, explained that “Building seven came down, went into a sudden collapse across the full width and length of the building, for 2.25 seconds, which amounted to 105 feet or eight stories, eight 13-foot-tall stories — it was in full free-fall acceleration. That is impossible because, in a natural collapse, columns would have to buckle. When columns buckle, there is a minimum resistance. … It would slow down.”

“What are you suggesting brought it down?” Geraldo asked.

“I’m suggesting there was some form of demolition devices in that building,” he replied. “… I’m not saying I know what it is. I’m saying that it was at freefall acceleration and the NIST admitted to that.”

Geraldo agreed that it looked like a structure “being demolished by the professionals who can actually collapse a building right into its own footprint”.

“Why do you think they’re lying about it?” he asked, inviting his guest to speculate.

Szamboti didn’t take the bait.

“I don’t really know all the details of why they’re lying about it,” he said, affirming his position without dipping into the conspiratorial nature of the various 9/11 theories. “I can’t read their minds. All I can say is, scientifically, it’s impossible for fire to have done what we say.”

Geraldo said the new NYC CAN campaign and the serious individuals behind it had made him “much more open minded” about 9/11 activism.

This video was broadcast by Fox News on Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010.

The post Geraldo: "Much More Open-Minded" About 9/11 appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Rivera, who told a rowdy crowd of 9/11 activists to “get a life” two years ago, seemed very supportive of the call for an investigation and closed the segment by saying “It’s an intriguing topic. I certainly am much more open-minded about it than I was and it’s because of the involvement of the 9/11 families and all these engineers and architects”.

The segment from Geraldo At Large:

The post Geraldo Rivera Focuses on World Trade Center 7 appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.