From gold vaults and insurance policies to recovered hard drives and advance trades, the 9/11 money trail is one of the most fascinating and under-explored aspects of the false flag events of September 11, 2001. Join James for this important 25th anniversary 9/11 podcast on the mysteries of the 9/11 financial anomalies.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
WATCH ON: / / / / / or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
TRANSCRIPT
In late 2004, enticed by a review in The Japan Times that praised the lucid prose and the dramatic recounting of events contained in The 9/11 Commission Report, I found myself purchasing that now-infamous document from the local bookstore and reading it cover to cover.
Of course, 9/11 researchers will know by now that The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States is a tissue of lies and that any information garnered from that report has to be taken with Herculean helpings of sodium chloride.
We know, for example, that the Commission's deeply conflicted Executive Director, Philip Zelikow, had, along with his senior advisor Ernest May, written an outline of that final report, complete with "chapter headings, subheadings and sub-subheadings" before the Commission had convened even a single staff meeting, a move so outrageous that, when it was eventually discovered by commission staffers, caused those staffers to mock the point by creating their own parody document, "The Warren Commision Report—Preemptive Outline," which included the chapter heading "Single Bullet: We Haven't Seen the Evidence Yet. But Really. We're Sure."
We know that the 9/11 Commission Report was constructed from legally inadmissible lies, with a full 25% of the report's footnotes sourcing back to illegally extracted torture confessions, the records of which were then illegally destroyed by the CIA against court order.
And we know that even the 9/11 Commissioners themselves knew that it was a cover up from top-to-bottom and that the entire Commission was "set up to fail."
In their book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, and in press conferences and interviews at the time the report was released, Kean and Hamilton famously remarked that the commission had been “set up to fail.”
EVAN SOLOMON: Even Lee Hamilton, the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission itself, admits to us that the process he headed up was seriously flawed.
LEE HAMILTON: So there are all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We got started late. We had a very short time frame; indeed we had to get it extended. We did not have enough money. They were afraid we were going to hang somebody.
SOURCE: 9/11 Commission “Failed” – Lee Hamilton – CBC
THOMAS KEAN: But it was very difficult. And Lee and I write in our book that we think the commission in many ways was set up to fail.
SOURCE: Hamilton and Kean on September 11 Terrorist Attacks
As it turns out, the majority of the commissioners felt that the commission had been lied to, deliberately obstructed, undermined by the White House, or set up with staff that had conflicts of interest in the investigation.
One of these concerned commissioners, Max Cleland, resigned because the commission had been “deliberately compromised by the President of the United States.”
Commissioner John Lehman, meanwhile, admitted on NBC Nightly News that the Commission had to go through Karl Rove and other senior White House members to access key documents in their investigation and that “[w]e purposely put together a staff that had—in a way—conflicts of interest,” stressing, lest there be any doubt, that “[a]ll of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest.”
Commission members even considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military’s complete lack of response on that day.
But perhaps the most cryptic of all the dissenting commissioners was Bob Kerrey. In 2009 he remarked that 9/11 was a “30-year old conspiracy,” but no mainstream reporter has ever followed up with him to clarify this statement.
JEREMY ROTHE-KUSHEL: Do you support a criminal investigation into 9/11? Because I know yours was an exposition. It was not a criminal investigation.
BOB KERREY: I don’t think so, but I don’t know. I mean, I do support a permanent commission to examine not just that but lots of other things in this area.
ROTHE-KUSHEL: But if it’s a permanent cover-up then it’s—I mean, if it is an act of war and it’s hiding things—which everyone on your Commission knew, that the Pentagon was changing their stories, lying to you—then it’s a cover-up of an act of war, and under Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution, it’s treason. So unless we get to the very bottom of it then we’re still talking a treasonous exposition.
KERREY: This is a longer conversation, I’m not sure we’ll ever get to the bottom of it.
ROTHE-KUSHEL: We have to or we can’t save our country, sir.
KERREY: I don’t think—well, if that’s the condition upon which we’re going to be saving our country—because the problem is, it’s a 30-year-old conspiracy.
ROTHE-KUSHEL: No, I’m talking about 9/11.
KERREY: That’s what I’m talking about.
ROTHE-KUSHEL: Oh, you are. You mean . . .
KERREY: Anyway, I gotta run.
SOURCE: 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses 9-11 Commission could not do it’s job – Part 3 of 3
SOURCE: 9/11 Whistleblowers
But sitting in my Japanese apartment in January 2005, I knew none of these things. At that time, wrapped in the bubble of ignorance that decades of statist indoctrination and establishment media had blown around me and having done no independent research into the topic myself, I was prepared to take the Commission and its pronouncements more or less at face value.
But even so, there was one passage in particular that jumped out at me: "To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."
Even to me, a then-credulous reader of a report that came with the imprimatur of a national commission and the full backing of the US government and establishment media, the passage struck me as odd. When have we ever heard a pronouncement that the question of the funding of a crime is of "little practical significance"?
On the contrary. Haven't we all heard the phrase, popularized in All the President's Men and repeated ad nauseum ever since, that the golden rule of any criminal investigation is that we must "follow the money"?
DEEP THROAT: Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is these are not very bright guys and things got out of hand.
WOODWARD: Hunt's come in from the cold. Supposedly he's got a lawyer with $25,000 in a brown paper bag.
DEEP THROAT: Follow the money.
WOODWARD: What do you mean? Where?
DEEP THROAT: Oh, I can't tell you that.
WOODWARD: But you could tell me that.
DEEP THROAT: No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know and I'll confirm. I'll keep you in the right direction if I can, but that's all. Just follow the money
SOURCE: All the President's Men | Follow The Money Scene | Warner Bros. Entertainment
Why, then, did the 9/11 Commission exhort us not to adhere to this investigative dictum?
And, even more puzzlingly, why has the 9/11 Truth movement—a movement whose very existence is predicated on the debunking of every lie propounded by the 9/11 Commission and all the other official government sources of information about the events of September 11, 2001—seemingly agreed with the 9/11 Commission Report on this point? Why has there been so little attention paid to this, the most glaring and obvious loose string in the tapestry of lies that is the Official Story of 9/11?
It's not like there is a lack of fascinating stories to be investigated.
Of course, the first and most obvious lie would be the 9/11 Commission Report's profession of ignorance about the "origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks." We now know, for example, that US government investigators did know about the funds and other material aid provided to Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar by Omar al-Bayoumi, and that this was specifically being done "at the behest of the CIA through the Saudi intelligence service."
But, to be fair, this is the false 9/11 money trail that is meant to be discovered in order to draw would-be money trail researchers into the limited hangout of 9/11. This tantalizing money trail, dutifully documented in court filings from the Office of Military Commission, serves a triple purpose.
Firstly, it is meant to buttress the lie that the alleged hijackers actually were in control of the planes on 9/11 and actually were responsible for those spectacular attacks, instead of—as they were—patsies whose legends were carefully constructed by the intelligence agencies in order to create a plausible cookie crumb trail leading well-meaning government investigators to blame the false flag events of September 11th on "Al Qaeda."
Secondly, it is meant to be part of the ongoing blackmail that the US government holds over the Saudis, another one of the tantalizing pieces of information buried in redacted pages and obscure court documents that on a moment's notice, could be suddenly "discovered" by a government official and dutifully reported by an establishment press in order to whip the public into hysteria over the Saudi menace, conveniently omitting the fact that these patsies were being run "at the behest of the CIA."
Thirdly, it is meant as the final escape hatch for the 9/11 perpetrators should 9/11 Truth make any serious headway in the quest to bring those perpetrators to justice. "Yes,...
