Interview 1206 – Michel Chossudovsky on 9/11 and the War on Terror

09/11/20167 Comments

via grtv: As we reach the 15th anniversary of 9/11, the establishment is attempting to derail 9/11 truth with disinformation about Saudi Arabia. But as Prof Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research points out, if we ever hope to derail the never-ending war on terror, we must be absolutely clear that neither Al Qaeda nor Saudi Arabia could have pulled off the attacks of that day.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. RobinHood77 says:

    Chossudovsky’s succint opening statements in this clip are a fantastic springboard for explaining to people why 9/11 is still important.
    Great work! Both of you.

  2. tgmolitor says:

    As always, Chossudovsky sees the forest for the trees.

  3. rltmlt says:

    I fully agree with Prof Chossudovsky but We have allowed the 9/11 tragedy to linger too long without a firm resolution. A generation of Americans have reached the age of reason that weren’t even alive in 2001. I can understand this young groups complacency over this event as I was born three years after the Pearl Harbor attack and that event, as troubling as it was, was something that was part of my parent’s generation, not mine. To me the biggest problem has always been the total silence of that large group of individuals that were required to pull off a project of this size and scope ! Washington has rarely been able to completely hide those acts carried out by only a few individuals that conflicted with the laws of this country. Even Watergate fell apart within three years and the president paid the ultimate price. After over fifty years, some of the unknowns of the Kennedy Assassination were answered in part by various death bed confessions. By the time those confessions were made known to the public, complacency had already taken charge leaving only a small minority of dedicated and determined individuals speaking to an empty house !

  4. Cu Chulainn says:

    may be a mistake to base everything on the controlled demolition hypothesis; there are other, perhaps stronger arguments

    https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/12/screw-loose-change-respond-to-jones-et-al/

    • Catte says:

      Have to correct you. That link to our site does not contain an “other stronger possibility”, it contains a very poor attempt at rebutting the recent Jones et al fifteenth anniversary paper. We’re publishing both sides of the argument as much as possible on OffGuardian in pursuit of giving our readers a good overview of the strengths of the rival claims. This is the best rebuttal we have found so far, but it is riddled with inaccuracy.

      A persistent failure to successfully rebut of course tells its own story.

  5. Cu Chulainn says:

    thanks for the great work at OffGuardian

    my comment was addressed to Corbett/Chussodovosky; perso i am not convinced by controlled demolition simply because lacking the scientific qualifications to make any independent judgment; the many circumstantial and other arguments Corbett has advanced are more powerful to me.

    Catte, i hope you will publish a detailed refutation of the “screw loose” rebuttal

  6. Cu Chulainn says:

    PS a friend, Princeton trained architect practicing in NY at the time, told me that when WTC was built (early 70s) it was a known scandal that, due to Rockefeller connections, strict NYC building code was not followed and the building was liable to collapse.

    if true, this knowledge would have been available to Silverstein & co.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top