[THS] !!!! Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent: REALLY 9/11

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/05/senior-bbc-mideast-correspondent-heres.html

Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent: 
   "Here's what may have REALLY happened on 9/11"!

McFarland, WI 5/26/2010

Breaking his self-imposed rule against talking about 9/11, former Senior BBC Mideast
Correspondent and author  Alan Hart described what he thinks may have really
happened on that fateful day on yesterday's Kevin Barrett show.

Hart, who got to know Yasser Arafat and Golda Meir while serving as a Security
Council-briefed Mideast peace negotiator, said that he has been assured by a top-
level demolitions/engineering expert who wishes to remain anonymous that the three
World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolitions, not plane
crashes and fires. (For the names of more than 1000 experts willing to go on the
record with the same opinion, see http://www.ae911truth.org).

During the hour-long interview, Hart discussed Israel's record of engaging in
outrageous attacks on friend and foe alike, and spreading even more outrageous lies
to cover them up. (Around the midpoint of the show he explained the real reason
Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967.)

Regarding 9/11, Hart suggested that while there may have been some original
terrorist plot conceived by fellow-travelers of Osama Bin Laden, the Israeli Mossad,
with its near-total penetration of Middle Eastern governments and terrorist groups
alike, would have quickly detected and hijacked the operation to its own ends,
orchestrating a spectacularly successful attack on America designed to be blamed on
its Arab and Muslim enemies. Hart added that the Mossad operation that became
9/11 would have been aided and abetted by certain corrupt American leaders.

Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-
instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon
stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the "loose nukes" rogue operation of August,
2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the
ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war--which Hart is convinced the Zionists
are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

When a warning this serious is delivered by a messenger with the stature of Alan
Hart, the American people had better find a way around the news blackout imposed
by the Zionist-dominated corporate and pseudo-alternative media. The only thing
standing in the way of an Israeli false-flag nuclear attack on America, a disastrous US
war on Iran, and a horrendous acceleration of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, is
the awareness of the American people. Please copy, post, and mass-email this story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[by THS]
Check out this film clip from Spielberg's MUNICH
DivX, best quality:
http://rapidshare.com/files/371858286/Spielberg_9-11.divx
or .wmv Windows Media, smaller file but faulty widescreen aspect:
http://rapidshare.com/files/371851507/Spielberg_9-11.wmv

This is the final scene, in which Geoffrey Rush, playing a top Mossad agent "Ephraim", has come to Brooklyn where Avner Kaufman (played by Eric Bana) has been living since he finished his Mossad-directed task of leading the team that exacted revenge against the Palestinians designated responsible for the 1976 Munich Olympics killings. For safety, Avner's wife and child had moved to Brooklyn previously, and Avner joined them there to take some time off after his job, but is having trouble reconciling his actions.

Ephraim has come to try to convince the hero of the Munich revenge operation to come home, and continue his work for Israel, for there are many more projects to be tackled by Israeli intelligence "on the road to peace." Avner refuses, Ephraim leaves, and the camera finally pans south to lower Manhattan (the scene has been shot from a park on the East River).

Now remember, this movie was shot in 2004, long after 9/11. Yet the camera pan finally comes to rest with the World Trade Center twin towers dead center, and stays there for the rolling of the credits. The towers had to be digitally superimposed on this film, for at the time of shooting they no longer existed.

Why would Spielberg bother to do this? Just for historical accuracy? He hardly needed to make this the final scene, which could have been shot elsewhere. And the towers really had nothing to do with anything else in the film, why should they be exhibited so prominently for so long, and as a final shot? And certainly it was no accident - the towers had to be digitally added to the film.

A review by David Corn in THE NATION [see below] asks whether the film is a post-9/11 "cautionary tale." But provides no mention or analysis of the final scene's central objects.

Another rather nasty and ignorant review [also below] from January 2010 asks, "Will Spielberg’s 9/11 Documentary Take Up Where Israel-Bashing “Munich” Left Off?" Here the final scene is mentioned: "For all his apparent impartial objectivity, Spielberg pronounces a fatal sentence against Israel in the final seconds of his film. His camera abandons the remorseful, haunted Jewish executioner in his empty field and pans the New York skyline until it rests on
of course, our Towers, the next escalation in the war Israel started by having the stone-age reaction of self-preservation."

A much better review is
http://www.slate.com/id/2133050/
Death of a Hit Man
Steven Spielberg's Munich and the hell of getting even.
By David Edelstein

But no mention of the final scene here either.

The tie-in that shows what Spielberg is saying is the plot of this last scene: Avner is being implored to come home and continue his work for Israeli intelligence. There are many more projects in the pipeline...

A Mossad tie-in to the 9/11 acts is supported by the recorded facts about the Israeli "students" in a mini-van over on the New Jersey shore caught and arrested as the towers were coming down. They apparently were filming it, and dancing for joy: 
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11
As the world watched in disbelief and asked the question...
...Mossad operatives were seen dancing with joy.
A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.
The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video
cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen
congratulating one another afterwards. (1)
Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-
eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and
mockery. (2) [much more at the url above]
~~~~~~~~~~~~

The 9/11 coverup and resistance to any further investigation are also indicative of the possibility that any new investigation might turn up evidence of Israeli involvement, and thus the power of AIPAC may well be the main factor in stifling further investigation, discrediting the 9/11 truth movement, preventing the media from honest reporting on either the events or the coverup or the evidence such as the recently confirmed presence of nano-thermites in WTC dust - just the latest in a long series of facts to come to light about 9/11. [see http://www.bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm
also
http://www.prisonplanet.com/unexploded-nanothermite-found-in-wtc-dust.html
and
http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=6&ved=0CCIQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911blogger.com%2Fnode%2F18935&ei=yHe4S8-yDo7AmQOVtu2gDQ&usg=AFQjCNFQrauLPhqsE53iQZLLKkcpYsdNRQ&sig2=zeXe7l-6Y573dDAEA6Tx_Q]
and Google wtc nanothermite

So, a mere "cautionary tale" about revenge and its consequences, which could be related to any number of recent historical events, and in MUNICH related to the 9/11 "attacks" and America's "revenge" only whilst the credits rolled, out of context with the plot of the last scene and having nothing to do with the movie, or a signal from Spielberg about how Israel has put the "free world" through a ringer and hung it out to dry?

See here, already in 2002 the truth had begun to be recognised:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030802.html

March 8, 2002
9/11: THE TRUTH COMES OUT
Israel's 9/11 connection exposed ­ and you read it here first!

by Justin Raimondo

In late November, the Washington Post ran a story that stopped me dead in my
tracks: "60 Israelis on Tourist Visas Detained Since Sept. 11," but it was the subhead
that really got my attention: "Government Calls Several Cases 'of Special Interest,'
Meaning Related to Post-Attacks Investigation." In addition to the 1000-plus Middle
Easterners of the Muslim persuasion swept up in Ashcroft's post-9/11 dragnet, it
seems, some 60 Israelis were in custody. And these were no ordinary tourists: INS
officials testified in immigration court hearings that this group was "of special interest
to the government" ­ the same argument used to justify the detention of Arabs in
connection with the investigation into 9/11. Shortly thereafter, in a column dated
11/28/01, I asked: "What, exactly, is the meaning of this?" Today, I am relieved to
note, the rest of the media is finally catching up to Antiwar.com and asking the same
question. [much longer article at url]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames/42787

Spielberg's Munich: A Post-9/11 Cautionary Tale?
posted by David Corn on 12/15/2005

Should Stephen Spielberg be preparing himself for crucifixion? Last night I attended
a screening of his new film, Munich, which is soon to open. It's a taut and engaging
psychological thriller. Psychological in the sense that it examines the mental and
moral tribulations of a covert Israeli assassin. It also explores the psychology of
revenge, retribution and survival in the post-9/11 age of terrorism. And because
Spielberg not only second-guesses the Mossad and glancingly gives Palestinians a say
in the film but also dares to question the effectiveness of an eye-for-an-eye response
in the struggle against terrorists, conservatives will pounce on him. (Question: who
will be the first ideological critic to tie Munich--which is "inspired," not "based on" real
events--to Munich, as in Neville Chamberlain?)

Here's the plot: Black September, a Palestinian terrorist group, takes Israeli athletes
hostage at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich. There had been acts of terrorism
before but this foul deed was the first episode, as I recall it, that gathered attention
throughout the world, as people gazed at television sets or huddled around radios to
see what would be the outcome. (I remember sobbing on my parent's bed when the
news came.) The outcome was tragic. All the Israelis ended up dead, after a rescue
operation at the airport went awry. Most of the Palestinian terrorists--or was it all of
them?--were killed as well. This all happens in the first minutes of the film.

Spielberg is less intent on recreating that nightmare--though he does show scenes
from it throughout the film--as is he is on reviewing what came next. An Israeli
security agent is tasked to find 11 Palestinians who his superiors say were the
intellectual authors of this attack and others. The agent, played soulfully by Eric
Bana, and his team scour Europe looking for their targets and then eliminating them
with bombs and bullets. Along the way, they debate and discuss the morality of their
exercise--but not in any heavy-handed or didactic fashion. While the moral
justification for their actions is a topic for their (and the viewer's) consideration, the
more pointed conversation between them (and between Spielberg and the audience)
regards a less lofty subject: is this working?

As the agent and his team--the muscle guy, the bombmaker, the forger, the cleanup
man--pick off the Palestinian leaders, they see that these officials are replaced by
others who advocate even more violent attacks on Israel and Jews and that Black
September is stepping up its terror campaign. Are their assassinations prompting this
awful response that is leading to the death of hundreds elsewhere? As one character
notes, it is expensive to kill Palestinians--and not just because the team has to spend
millions of dollars to locate and then kill their prey.

By the end, the Israeli agent assassinates a majority of the Palestinians on the list--as
well as one of the targets' replacement and a beautiful Dutch female assassin. (Hey,
this is a Hollywood movie). But he also loses members of his team. And he is
tormented throughout. Back home, he is regarded as a hero. But he wants none of
that. In fact, he rejects Israel and moves to Brooklyn--a damn serious step in a film in
which the motivation driving all (the Israelis and the Palestinians) is the desire for a
homeland. There the agent even comes to believe--with cause or not--that Mossad
might be pondering his untimely death. And when his case officer--played by
Geoffrey Rush--comes calling, the agent demands to see actual evidence that his
victims were involved in killing Israelis. He wants to know--to believe--that he is not a
murderer. The case officer can only provide that's-what-the-intelligence-says
assurances. The agent is not assured. Still, he asks the case officer to come to his
new home for dinner, clumsily citing a Jewish tradition of offering food to travelers.
The case officer turns him down and departs. The agent--who killed to protect his
homeland--has abandoned that home and has been rejected by its representative.

This film is not only about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which the screenplay,
written by Tony Kushner (who penned Angels in America) and Eric Roth, deftly
handles. The Palestinian thugs at Munich are never humanized, nor are their
murderous actions and motivations explained. But later in the film another Palestinian
speaks for the cause of a Palestinian homeland. Conservative pro-Israel hawks will be
peeved by this. But what prowar hawks might find more offensive is the ambiguity
that Spielberg assigns to the results of the Israelis' just-kill-them approach. The
costs--including the alienation and disenchantment of the agent--are high, and it's
clear that these actions, while perhaps morally justified, are not going to do anything
to address the longterm and deeper challenges. Spielberg offers not much of an
alternative. But at the minimum, he suggests this sort of work, even if necessary, is
dirty and troubling business that cannot go unquestioned in both moral and
pragmatic terms. It might even be too difficult for good people--or people who aspire
to be good.

Such gray could well upset those who depict the war on terror in white-hats/black
hats style. Spielberg's insistence on facing the difficult and hard-to-resolve
ambiguities in the struggle against violent extremists will be read by some as a sign of
weakness--or worse. New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser writes:

Spielberg proves two things in his film, due in theaters just in time for Hanukkah:

1. Steven Spielberg is too dumb, too left and too Hollywood (or is that redundant?) to
tackle such complex and polarizing themes as Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish
survival.

2. Spielberg is a decent enough filmmaker to persuade some people that Israel has
outlived its usefulness and should--as enemies in Iran maintain--be wiped off the
face of the earth.

The backlash has begun. The Jewish Action Alliance has already called for a boycott
of "Munich."

Oh, it's going to be a pain to be Stephen Spielberg, in a way, for a little while. He's
going to be accused of being a self-hating Jew and Israel-basher. The less hateful of
his critics will see this movie and ask of the agent (and Spielberg), why all the
handwringing? Why all the worry? It's us-versus-them. In a fight for survival, you do
what you have to do. You kill them. You do what it takes. But Munich notes, it's just
not that simple.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/19/will-spielbergs-911-documentary-take-up-where-israel-bashing-munich-left-off-4/


Will Spielberg’s 9/11 Documentary Take Up Where Israel-Bashing “Munich” Left Off?
2010 January 19

by Jeanette Pryor

tags: 2001, Black September, Islamic Terrorism, Munich, September 11, Steven
Spielberg

Avner hunted Black September operatives involved in the 1972 slaughter of eleven
Israeli Olympians. He began his mission as a believer, convinced that he was securing
his people and bringing their enemies to justice.

Now, Avner is confused, conflicted. For every Terrorist secretly killed, Islamic
retaliation eliminated an embassy, a team, a close friend. He lives in fear of being
hunted, realizing that this fear, as a new shadow, will cleave to him until death.

Avner stands in an empty New York City field. His Mossad handler requests that the
young man return to Israel, a metaphor, of course, for calling him back to his original
disposition towards hunting the killers of innocent Jewish people. Avner’s conscience
cries out, “What have I accomplished? For every man I have killed, another has taken
his place. Where will it end?”

“I cut off my fingernails,” retorts the callous elder, “even though they will grow
back.” The agent departs, refusing to break bread with the exile. The audience
watches the “abandoned Jew” a moment longer, long enough to ask, “Who is right?”
Should cold-blooded murderers be hunted and destroyed before they can kill again,
or is this the road to endless bloodshed and mutual hatred?

Steven Spielberg, who wove this story of the Israeli pursuit of Black September for
his 2005 film, Munich, will force his answer on the audience. The Director had
addressed the audience in an unusual, taped “Personal Message” rolled before the
feature played in theaters. Spielberg presented himself as the mature, impartial
poser of a question. “My movie is not intended to be a statement about the actions of
Israel. I merely ask if countries intend the consequences of policies they feel
compelled to adopt.”

For all his apparent impartial objectivity, Spielberg pronounces a fatal sentence
against Israel in the final seconds of his film. His camera abandons the remorseful,
haunted Jewish executioner in his empty field and pans the New York skyline until it
rests on
of course, our Towers, the next escalation in the war Israel started by
having the stone-age reaction of self-preservation.

“Violence” begets only violence, anguish, personal and social destruction.” It is trite.
It is contrived. It is cruel. Spielberg offers no solution, only a moment of silly
Hollywood propaganda. Munich was irresponsible and transparent. It fueled the anti-
War left and afforded viewers an opportunity to revel in their own moral superiority.
Why, only the enlightened elite can witness, in a plush seat with Dolby sound, the
butchery of Israeli youth and remain true to the cause of real pacifism!

On January 15, Spielberg announced his intention to produce a documentary for the
Discovery Chanel on the reconstruction of the new World Trade Center Towers,
including a special commemoration of those who were killed there in 2001. While the
new Tower rises, Spielberg will be reconstructing our national understanding of what
actually occurred on September 11. We can be certain the Islamic Terrorists will be
but a negligible chorus. The stars will be President Bush, stumbling about in all his
culpable splendor. We will descend into Machiavellian puppetry with a leering Cheney
and watch Madam the National Security Advisor against a backdrop of spider-webs.
>From the comfort of the cutting room and the clear skies of Los Angeles, Mr.
Spielberg will sanitize the inhuman vaporizing of three thousand friends and family
members and, in keeping with the final message of Munich, make sure we leave
convinced that we deserved the attacks because of the part America plays in the
endless cycle of terror.