In News on February 25, 2013 at 9:18 PM
Alex Jones welcomes investigative journalist and author Wayne Madsen to analyze the mysterious alleged murder-suicide of 9/11 conspiracy author and expert pilot Philip Marshall.
Madsen stated unequivocally that Marshall and his family were victims of a professional hit.
As evidence, he cited the close proximity of Marshall’s neighbors, who certainly would have heard any gunshots not muffled by a silencer. Marshall owned a gun but no silencer and, according to friends, no ammo either, Madsen reported.
He also pointed out that Marshall, a right-handed man, was found with a fatal gunshot wound to the left side of his head.
In addition, a door was unlocked even though Marshall was known to secure his home at night, the crime scene was thoroughly cleaned shortly after the initial investigation, and unusual vehicles were spotted around the house following the crime, Madsen explained.
He suggested that Marshall was murdered because of explosive information to be released in an upcoming book.
Rare Interview w/ Philip Marshall
White House Petition: Have the Justice Department investigate the murder of author Philip Marshall and his son and daughter in Murphys, CA.
As I’ve always suspected, heard from officials in the know — a must-read by Kurt Eichenwald in NYT on the Bush administration’s scandalous negligence of the Bin Laden threat because it was obsessed with Saddam:
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
And then people laugh when you suggest Bush should have been impeached. In fact, it’s him and his senior team (Rice, Cheney, Hadley, Rumsfeld etc.) who should be held to account. It’s still not too late, 11 years after the attacks.
The following is Ken Loach’s contribution to 11’09″01 September 11 a film in which French director Alain Brigand invited leading film makers from 11 different nations to provide their own impression of the September 11 attacks in 11 minutes, 9 seconds and one frame. Loach’s contribution won the the International Federation of Film Critics (FIPRESCI) Prize for Best Short Film. source
by Keren Carmeli on September 11, 2011
“So looking back, how did we benefit from September 11th?” my teacher with the lazy eye asked as we all sat around in a circle in my 9th grade classroom in Or-Akiva on the first anniversary of the event. I’d been going to Israeli schools since my family relocated to Caesarea when I was four years old and as such those around me would often forget the fact that I was half-American.
I was appalled. How could she ask that? Who the hell was she? Who even thinks about benefiting from such a disaster, even if it is true?
Yes, Israel did benefit from September 11th. Just like the riding instructor at my barn said while the towers were falling, as we all sat on the floor of the nearby restaurant watching CNN International: “now those Americans will know how it feels.” And we felt it- in a big way.
Suddenly it was Us, Americans, Israelis, Europeans, against Them. Dark skinned people with outdated laws and obscure traditions. Those people with their terrible dictators (who we of course had no hand in appointing) and fanatic, merciless ideology. Them.
A new level of “understanding” was forged between Americans and the Israeli people; “they’ve lived in terror for years”, “their children are scared”, “how do they cope?” “trains, buses, cafés- we’re next if we don’t do something about this NOW!”
And we loaded our sons and daughters into air crafts and waved and saluted them as they took off, then saluted them again when they returned in coffins.
“I think it’s disgusting to think about what we’ve gained as the result of such a tragedy.”
Did I really just say that? I spoke up?
My teacher’s eye looked at the wall behind me, which let me know that in her mind she was addressing me. She’s embarrassed. She must have forgotten there was an American in her class. Now she’ll pay, I think to myself.
“How does anyone benefit from thousands of deaths?”
“Well, I just meant politically, ever since the attack Israel’s popularity abroad has increased, there’s no denying that. George Bush’s government has pledged more support for Israel than ever before.”
“How can you say that? So many people are dead.”
A guy who later on in the year would ask me out for my first date began arguing with me. He said that objectively, realistically, Israel was benefiting from the aftermath.
I knew it was true but how could you admit it out loud and discuss it in a group setting, in a classroom, so academically, so matter-of-fact? Like we were discussing a chapter in a history book which in a way we were. A chapter that was being written as we spoke and which would later appear in every history textbook. But why now? Why so soon, when the graves were still fresh and widows and children were still waking up believing it had all been a terrible dream?
“Did you cry when the buildings fell?” he asks.
I’m taken aback. I think I did. Did I? I remember being shocked. First watching like it was just a movie, a scene from Power Rangers, filmed in Japan. Those weren’t the twin towers, they were little cardboard constructions that were routinely torn down by monsters with elaborate headdresses and tentacles and which magically reappeared unscathed in next week’s episode.
Then I saw people. Little specks of people, waving out windows then jumping. And Slavoj Zizek announced that Americans were finally “Welcomed to the Desert of the Real”.
Did I cry? I don’t remember. Is that so important? If I shed one tear as opposed to three, does that make me a bad person? If I cried for twenty seconds or twenty minutes or twenty days, does that mean anything? Does it change anything?
Do I cry now, years later when people continue to die in the name of September 11th? People who had nothing to do with that day, some who weren’t even born when those attacks occurred?
Do you cry?
Did I cry when my cross-eyed teacher’s husband died in a helicopter accident during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, leaving her and three young children behind?
Teach hate. Teach greed. Teach apathy. Teach to look for the potential advantages that can be gained from the deaths of thousands.
See where it gets you.
And I’ll keep watching on TV, as figures and charts and diagrams appear, and specialists argue and bicker and news casters get younger and more attractive as the news table is removed so that we can catch a glimpse of the new reporter’s legs in her increasingly shorter skirts. I’ll stare and feel nothing. It’s not the news, it’s Power Rangers.
Keren Carmeli is a recent graduate from State University of New York Geneseo with a degree in Media Studies. Carmeli grew up in Israel.