Barrett
Welcome to
Truth Jihad Radio...My first hour guest is Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, the former Director of Studies of the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College...
and he's well-known
— and in some quarters notorious (laughter)
— for laying it on the line and saying, "Hey, Mossad did 9/11, with some help from Cheney and Rumsfeld and those guys, but basically this was a Mossad operation." And there are people who just don't want to hear that. And you can imagine why. But I appreciate that kind of straightforward, pull-no-punches straight talk. Truth-telling, laying it on the line, telling it like it is...that's what I like, and that's why I like Dr. Alan Sabrosky. Welcome, Alan, to Truth Jihad Radio.
Sabrosky
Thank you Kevin, how are you doing?
Barrett
I'm doing well today, looking forward to this show. It's been awhile...was it about a year ago or so that you were last on?
Sabrosky
Yes it was, and it was entirely my fault. I had gone thirty years in a row without having any physical injuries, and then three in a row in a period of four months, ending up with a torn rotator cuff in my left shoulder, which is not a joy. It takes awhile to get back from that sort of thing. But yes, I'm back, you saw my latest article, and I have three more coming out over the next three weeks.
Barrett
That's fantastic. The print version (of the latest article) is in
Veterans Today, quite an extraordinary veterans publication...what's with
Veterans Today, Alan? You've been hanging around Gordon Duff and the people at
Veterans Today for a while. How in the world did America's leading veterans' publication turn into such a strident 9/11 truth, and truth-telling in general, kind of operation?
Sabrosky
Well, first of all, I wouldn't say it's strident...
Barrett
Okay, that's the wrong adjective.
Sabrosky
Yeah, and it's not focusing on 9/11. It's actually an attempt — and I'm going to say this as someone who, while I'm an editor, I have not been actively involved in the planning and structure of Veterans Today. But this is my impression: It's an attempt to bring together at least two of the major themes in the community that is in opposition to the whole host of Israeli-Zionist bits of militarism, activities, and actions. One is in the United States and mostly focused on 9/11. And although people might not like to hear this, for almost all Americans, even if they knew what the Israelis were doing to Palestine, most of them wouldn't care. They really wouldn't. They, like most other people, are mostly concerned with what is done to them. And that's 9/11, which is an open wound, and the wars that came from it.
Internationally, it's the reverse. People there are obviously aware of 9/11, they understand the implications for the United States, but when I speak with friends in Germany or Britain or France or various Latin American countries — for them it's Palestine and Gaza. And 9/11 is sort of a secondary issue. And what I see in Veterans Today is a powerful set of writings, some by editors and more-or-less-regular contributors, others outside of it, who put both of them side by side. So that the readership of Veterans Today will get good arguments on 9/11, but they'll also get good arguments on Israeli policy and its manipulation of American governmental policy on Palestine and collateral issues. And that I think is important.
Barrett
Very well-put. And as an American Muslim, I'm concerned with Palestine, I'm concerned with the US, I'm concerned with 9/11
— it's an open wound in more ways than one for those of us who are Muslims
and American citizens. And I'm also concerned with false-flag terror being blamed on Muslims everywhere you go. Everyone from
Hosni Mubarak in Alexandria to DEA-CIA agent David Headley over
in India...everywhere you go it seems that somebody's blowing something up and killing people and blaming Muslims. And I'm sick of it.
Sabrosky
Well...I certainly agree with you. And I think those of us who look at the issues understand the linkage between them. And when I say "those of us" I don't mean just you and me, I mean those of us in the community...I'm not going to use the word "activist" because I truly hate it. But those of us who are concerned about what America is in the world, the American place in the world, the extent to which Israelis dominate and manipulate American governmental policy...and whether it's manifested in a 9/11 cover-up, or a cover-up of their actions in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, or third parts of the world, we're aware of it.
But the general public in any given country really isn't that differentiated. And if the information were there, if we said listen, we're going to really show you what the Israelis did in Cast Lead, most people would say "Yep, too bad" and get on with their lives. The thing that has been a constant concern of mine, and this — with the "9/11 truth issue" as well as the general anti-Zionist perspective — is that we have all been sort of like a gaggle of duck hunters standing in a circle, blasting birdshot outward and upward in a thousand different directions and on a thousand or more issues, in so much detail that not only do none of us really understand it, the general public in America and elsewhere doesn't even know that these are issues, and is hopelessly confused at best, and totally turned-off at worst.
And that is the generic problem. It affects the 9/11 debate. It affects the debate on Gaza. It affects the debate on issues outside of that, as you mentioned. And there's an absence of focus. There's an absence of a sense of what German strategists called the Schwerpunkt: the strategic center of gravity. And it's on that that we need to focus. And none of us is really doing that. And when I say "us" I'm including myself. And I have been trying, in part with the piece I sent off to you, and more specifically in the ones that are coming after that, to try to develop a kind of strategic focus. And I believe I've done that. There is a little syllogism that I have come up with that I think really explains this, or at least explains it to me — and that may be a sign of my lack of understanding — but it goes something like this:
The gate to containing Israeli ambitions, and to uncovering Israeli crimes, and thus saving Palestine, is in the United States, and not in Jerusalem or Gaza or Ramallah. And second, the lock to that gate is not in Washington DC or New York City, which are the centers of Zionist power, but in the heartland of the United States where they're generally weak. And third: The key to that gate is 9/11.
That is the issue. And not all the other issues that people talk about: Academic freedom on the campuses — yes, it's important, but it's not the core issue. 9/11 is the Schwerpunkt of this entire exercise. This is the one that turns the United States around in its approach to the world. This is the one that's an open wound. This, and the wars which came from it, are the ones that concern Americans today. Bodies don't come home in coffins because of a lack of academic freedom or the suppression of Norman Finklestein. Bodies come home because of the wars. The wars evolved from 9/11. Pin 9/11 on the Israelis, and this entire exercise begins to unravel for them. My personal conviction — and you understand as a former Marine, I always pull my punches and speak in a very wishy-washy way (laughter)...
Barrett
You and Gordon (Duff) both have that problem.
Sabrosky
Our former men always thought, "there's a real softie up there," you know. Though I have to say, if one of my former Marines saw me walking around with one of my kittens on my shoulder, they'd probably say "we never really knew him." (laughter) But here's my conclusion on this. If — and I acknowledge it's a big if — a classic grass-roots approach, something like the so-called Tea Party used, could persuade enough people at the local level in the United States, that Israel and its supporters here orchestrated 9/11, and thus the wars that ensued from 9/11, and are therefore responsible for the lives and treasure and loss of personal freedom Americans have experienced — that doesn't even count what we've done to others — then AIPAC and company are dead meat figuratively, politically, and quite possibly literally as well. And I think that applies to people who've supported them. And I tell you very frankly, at that point, the Israelis wouldn't just have to worry about a loss of US vetoes and military aid, they would very likely have to start dusting off their contingency plans for the Fifth and Sixth US fleets and associated US Air Force units. And they might want to start reflecting on pictures of Dresden and Tokyo and just how (Israel) would look afterwards.
Barrett
These kind of images, Alan, are what scare some Americans, and not just hard-core Zionists, away from looking into this scenario. Here in Madison, Wisconsin, I've been trying to convince people in Madison to look into 9/11, and I've been kind of nudging them to look at Israel's role, for years. And the liberal academic establishment, the government workers, the people who are now staging the Wisconsin Revolution...a lot of them will look into it, but the Israeli part has actually been a major hindrance. It certainly whipped up a lot of hatred of me, personally, as well as resistance to the truth movement. How do we get over that?
Sabrosky
Well, a lot of that has occurred because so much of the 9/11 truth movement is so diffuse, and the constant calls for "proof, proof, where's the proof, we need more proof, we need more evidence"...and, dear God, the evidence is there in abundance! As I mentioned in that piece I sent you, we've got everything but a public confession. And if you take the
Dancing Israelis' interview on Israeli television when they got back, you've got an acknowledgment if not a confession. It's that no one here, no large number of people here, really accept the Israeli role in 9/11. It's one of so many possible interpretations out there. The 9/11 truth movement, or what's loosely called that, has an awful lot of people who spend an awful lot of time presenting fairly ridiculous hypotheses. I've read one, you know, that it was really the Martians, it truly was
—(laughter)
Barrett
That was probably Alfred Webre.
Sabrosky
—all under the same umbrella, and with a remarkable lack of consensus, and talking about everything from the composition of a building to cruise missiles into the Pentagon and onward. The people can't deal with that. No public can. Not an American public which is remarkably ahistorical. But I don't think a general public anywhere can. The Zionists have a much better sense of how to do these things. They understand that slogans and street theater are not a substitute for strategy.
Barrett
Let me stop you for just a second here, because I think there is a consensus in the truth movement, in the sense that looking at the neocons — Cheney and Rumsfeld and Cheney's advisors, the PNAC people, Project for a New American Century — everybody's pointing at those people. And then the question is: When you say "This looks like a Mossad operation, here's the evidence," which I have been doing for years, you get a lot of psychological resistance, for various reasons. But ultimately they end up saying "How could a small country like Israel do something like this? Wasn't it the big American empire? And aren't these neocons and PNAC people agents of the big American empire, and therefore isn't it mean and nasty and anti-Semitic to blame the Israelis?"
Sabrosky
All you have to do is — and I'm saying "all" with quotation marks, and I want to get back to your images in just a second — but all that's really necessary at that point is to look at domination of the media...I just finished, for example, looking at and posting on youtube about a ten-minute mp4 of real-time audio and video clips from 9/11, on the site. And (we heard) constantly, from multiple networks, multiple emergency response people, multiple survivors, about the secondary explosions on the ground level. You can hear them going off. That did not reach the American people after that first day. Look at who controls the media. Take that little chart that I gave you, that I included in that:
This was the media in 2001-2002, this is what it is today, that's why you can't hear it.
(Editor's note: Every single person on the above list is Jewish and Zionist, with the exception of Rupert Murdoch, who may only be half-Jewish but is 101% Zionist. Former New York Times reporter Philip Weiss, an uncommonly honest and courageous man who identifies strongly as a Jew and has spent his life in the media, explains that Jews dominate American media, and do their jobs in such a way as to protect Israel. Why do Americans allow an ethnic group making up less than 2% of the population, whose members tend to be partial to, if not fanatical agents of, a foreign power, to so completely dominate their media?! To hell with Gays In the Military — maybe its time to "gin up" a civil rights struggle for Goys In the Media! -KB)
Money. Campaign contributions. And it could be done by anyone. It's just that they do it.
If the Arab countries, particularly the wealthier oil-producing countries, had decided to put less funds into modernization and luxuries, and put the same amount of money into building a complementary equivalent to AIPAC, and buying out the media on the open market, they could be doing it too. They just haven't.
But money and media are the two key parts. And that degree of leverage is not at all unusual. I mean, I could imagine someone several hundred years ago saying, "How could one small city on the hills overlooking the Tiber rule this empire? There's got to be something else there."
And you know, for images, Kevin — and I understand those images, and I use those particular images (of the US bombing Israel in retaliation for 9/11) very cautiously — one thing we know, that we need to think about — and I am very aware of some of the comments that you got after our interview a year ago — if in fact (and let's put this hypothetically at this point) — if in fact Israel, working with its neocon supporters and whoever else might have been involved within the United States, did in fact orchestrate 9/11 — let's take that as a hypothesis — then they, the Israelis, are directly or indirectly responsible for 67,000 Americans dead and wounded to date, and God knows how many people killed, wounded, dispossessed, made refugees in other countries...and they're trying to do it to a third country, Iran. They deserve, as a matter of justice, something more than a rhetorical slap on the wrist and an injunction not to do it again.
Barrett
Well, I can't disagree with that. This is Kevin Barrett talking with Alan Sabrosky. Back in a minute.
(commercial break)
* * *
Barrett (over fading bumper music: Poker Face, "I'd Rather Die than Be Your Slave")
That was Poker Face, the great rock and roll band that tells the truth about 9/11 and the Israeli-Zionist connection to 9/11, in no uncertain terms
— like my guest today, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who is the author of a new article at
Veterans Today: "
Israel's Hidden Faces: A Long Day's Night for Us All" which outlines what he's been saying today. Alan, the last time you were on, the biggest reaction I got from people who weren't on board with it was: "Is this really proof?" I think they're scared off by...well, we're all taught that Jewish people have been falsely blamed for all sorts of things, and ruthlessly persecuted. And when they hear you saying these things, and saying "God knows what might happen to these AIPAC people once Americans figure this out," the reaction is: "We don't want to blame the Israeli Mossadnik Zionists unless we have really strong proof." Where is that proof?
Sabrosky
Well, I think in a very direct way, it's in
WTC-7. As I remarked to someone, this is not a smoking gun, it's a smoking artillery brigade. When I was running through the analysis on this
— and by the way, there's my very detailed look at 9/11 in one of the three pieces that are coming out over the next three weeks
— I almost postponed this interview so we could wait until they were out. So this is a little anticipatory. So I sat down and I said, "What would it take for anyone..." Not starting off by saying "it was Mossad, let's prove it's Mossad," that's a silly point of view. If you wanted to start off to prove Mother Goose did something, you could probably fabricate enough stuff to point to the poor Goose lady. But you look at this and you say, what would it take for anyone (to do 9/11). Well, obviously the first thing it takes is some sort of motivation or incentive. And the sad thing about it is, there are an awful lot of people out in the world now, and an awful lot countries and an awful lot of movements who hate the United States, and unfortunately they have very good reason to do so. But for most of them, the motivation would be negative. They would want revenge, they would want to hurt the United States, they would want to acquire retribution for some actual or assumed acts of the United States in the past. But they're essentially negative and punitive. The only country out there that would have a positive incentive to do it was Israel. And that was in keeping with the basic PNAC thesis, that there needs to be a catalytic event to mobilize the American people.
I always thought the (PNAC) project was mis-named. The Project for a New American Century? It was really the Project for a New ISRAELI Century, and America's Role in It.
Barrett
That's a good point. There's the earlier document the same (PNAC) people put out for Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Defending the Realm." And it's obvious whose realm they're talking about defending.
Sabrosky
Exactly. Exactly. And for whom they wrote it.
Barrett
Netanyahu.
Sabrosky
Right. So Israel had a positive incentive to do it.
What about organizations within the American government: the CIA, the Pentagon? And I think it's important, whenever people think about the CIA or the Pentagon, (to take into consideration that) there's an enormous difference between the actions of a small compartment of people within an organization, and an interest or determination or need on the part of the organization as a whole to do something. Let me give you an example on the military side of that. In the 1980s when I was at the Army War College. Almost all of us there, military and civilian, were veterans, mostly of Vietnam. And the primary focus of the US Army was on the Soviet Union, and particularly on NATO. And I remember sitting with some of the officers there in a seminar. And one of the colonels who had just gotten back a short time before from brigade command in Germany said, regarding the Soviets who had just gone into Afghanistan: "God I feel sorry for those poor bastards." He said, "Can you imagine? Afghanistan!" I don't think you could find a serving officer in the United States Armed Forces, outside perhaps of the controllers' office, but certainly no combat veterans, who would participate in a plot to give themselves the opportunity to invade Afghanistan.
Barrett
The graveyard of empires.
Sabrosky
It's just not one of the top 500 countries on the list. Well, if you run out after Antarctica, maybe, if there was nothing else left.
But for countries, governments and organizations that are used to execute their policy, Israel is the only one that had a positive incentive. They had something to gain from it, from the American response to it. Whereas for everyone else, they could hurt us, but they might themselves be the subject of retribution afterwards, and there's nothing positive coming out of it.
So that's one. Second is expertise. There's lots of expertise out there. Looking at
WTC-7 as a controlled demolition
— and no matter how you look at that building, from no matter what angle you look at it, it goes straight down in about seven seconds. It isn't knocked over. The face looking at World Trade Center 1 and 2 isn't shattered by falling debris, isn't pushed on its side
— that isn't how it goes down. It goes
straight down. Controlled demolition? Many, many people have looked at that video and said, yeah, that's it, you can't go any other way. It goes from the bottom down. And that's it.
There are a lot of people out there who can do it. There are a lot of people in the private sector who make money doing it, and a lot of people in assorted government agencies anywhere in the world who could openly do this. The expertise is there. But one thing I can tell you: Neither those 19 named Arabs, nor any of their supporters on the ground in America or elsewhere, had that expertise. If they did, the Green Zone in Baghdad would have been a pile of rubble. They would have taken the bloody thing down. They don't do that. Their expertise, when it comes to explosives, is tying something around themselves and detonating it, or packing it into a truck or a car and ramming it into something, or planting a device alongside the road and either having someone run over it, or maybe detonating it with a wire.
Barrett
So the Bin Laden Construction Company doesn't take down skyscrapers?
Sabrosky
No, it does not. It does take down one-room mud huts. It's very good at that. But there's a slight difference of scale between a one-room mud hut and a 1400 foot building. So they didn't have the expertise. Lots of others did. But they weren't one of them.
Third is access.
I am not a demolitions expert. I do not bring down buildings. I threw grenades into them when I was in Vietnam. But I do not bring down large buildings. I'm not a trained engineer. And so I'm hostage to people whose work I've been able to read and study who
are trained civil engineers. And demolitions experts. And it's very clear that what it requires to bring down a large building, like one of the World Trade Center buildings, is not going to be a quick fifteen-minute dash around inside the basement of the building patching things up the side and then running out. It's an extremely sophisticated process.
Danny Jowenko (top European controlled demolition expert) said thirty to forty people doing various things. I couldn't prove that one way or the other, but it seems plausible.
Kroll Associates was the security company at the World Trade Center. Electronic security, put security, 24/7. I cannot, on any side of this earth, imagine anyone associated with that company, or the World Trade Center management, casually letting a couple of hundred Arabs, run around the basement of three World Trade Center buildings, cutting open the walls, planting demolition charges, stringing cable and detonators, hooking them up electronically, and then leaving. It's not possible. I can't even imagine them letting an American agency do it, without the cooperation, collusion and endorsement of the Israelis.
Barrett
Why the Israelis, necessarily? What was their role at the World Trade Center complex, their role as far as having power over the World Trade Center?
Sabrosky
I should tell you, by the way, that one of the things that caused me, in the years immediately after 9/11, to be reluctant to go in this direction, is that I found it very difficult to conceive of American citizens — and I knew many of the senior PNAC people! I met Wolfowitz a number of times, I worked with Dov Zakheim and Doug Feith on a number of occasions, I knew and had the misfortune to be around Richard Perle a few times, and a lot of the other (PNAC) people. I knew them. And this was at a time when we were working against the Soviets, and these guys and I were on the same sheet of music against the Soviet Union. And I really found it difficult to accept that (these people orchestrated 9/11). But with what I've read and studied and learned since then...I
think it's very possible—more than possible. But I know this. The Israelis had something to gain from this, and al-Qaeda and the other Arab terrorist organizations or liberation organizations as you wish, didn't have the expertise or access to bring (the World Trade Center) down. You come down in the end to only one possible suspect. But to me, the kicker on this is the response, or the non-response, of the media to what happened. I am astonished by the number of records and documents on 9/11 that just disappeared: The BBC's records ("lost them, don't have the back-ups!"); the FAA controllers' files ("well hush my mouth! just can't find 'em!")...and then the silence, the virtual silence of the mainstream media as to what was being broadcast live, on the ground, on 9/11, by people who were reporting the secondary explosions and who were talking to other people on live camera and you hear the explosion at ground level. Planes impacting at 800 feet above the ground are not going to create secondary explosions at ground level. It isn't possible. Maybe a B-52 that opened its bomb bays and dropped its load just before (hitting the Towers) would create something down there. But certainly not a civilian airliner. It's not possible. And the thing that struck me about that is that I got more and more into the role, or the non-role, of the media.
Very quickly after 9/11, the mainstream media launched essentially a three-pronged attack. First: To effectively endorse the official government position. Second: To deflect attention from anything except the Arabs: That the (alleged hijacker) pilots couldn't have flown the planes, things like this; a guy's passport ending up intact after an 800-plus-foot fall. I don't think a brick could fall that far in New York winds and not move a couple of blocks over. Third, to disparage and mock those who question it.
Barrett
No question about that. I think the whole truth movement would agree with you on this—not necessarily that it's largely Zionist sentiments in the media that are responsible for (the media coverup). But that's certainly a major factor. We'll be back in a moment.
(Commercial break)
Barrett
Welcome back...This is Kevin Barrett with Alan Sabrosky. It's great to have Alan back on the show. Alan, I agree that most of what you're saying is pretty well backed up by the evidence. I've looked at all different kinds of evidence around 9/11. There's some evidence that Cheney and Rumsfeld were working on an alternate, non-Constitutional secret line of succession from the Ford Administration on up through 9/11. Peter Dale Scott discusses this in The Road to 9/11. I think that's an important angle. 9/11 may have been welcomed by a certain group of right-wing generals, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, etcetera, who were not primarily Zionist. But I think you're right that the Mossad is the primary suspect as the main on-the-ground actor. And the question is, how can we get this to the heartland? You're saying we need to focus on this and convey it to people in the heartland. Well, here I am sitting in the heartland. Tell me how to do it.
Sabrosky
Okay. I'm going to transition from the discussion we just had on the media, as a lead-in to where I think we should go. It's something that I commented on in that last piece: That the only reason the mainstream media, given its ownership, didn't rip the government case apart, is because they either knew, suspected, or feared that the evidentiary trail would lead to Israel and its supporters. Otherwise they would have shredded it, without any question. Now, the fact is that the center of Zionist power, not just on 9/11 but generically, is in Washington, DC and New York. Attempts to try to fight them in their own strongholds will be futile or counterproductive. I don't think there's a single member of Congress, Democrat, Republican or Independent, who would stand up on behalf of (9/11 truth) and criticize Israel. Certainly the control of the mainstream media is that strong. So we can't look at Washington and New York, we can't look at traditional centers of power.
I put together
that piece I originally sent you as a slide show, and I think you got the slide show attachment. And I put that slide-show together with a very specific audience and purpose in mind. And it's going to be referenced in the third of the three pieces that are coming out in the next few weeks. And the intention was to distribute it
— and the distribution, by the way, is already starting
— to local Veterans Chapters: VFW, American Legion, Navy League, and others. Not the national office. I expect it's been compromised, just like other national offices have been. It's in Washington, and I would not be at all surprised if AIPAC is a regular visitor there.
Not even necessarily state offices. But the local chapters. Take it to the local chapters. Military people receive briefings by slide-shows all the time, when they're in the service. They're used to the medium. They've often given them. It's just a standard briefing. This is a briefing taking as background what the Israelis have done to the United States, to what they have done to the Palestinians with the collusion of the American government, why they have been able to do it, what it has cost us, and then where to go.
Get it to the local veterans chapters. Have an individual take it to whoever is in charge of a local veterans chapter, and on a one-to-one basis, show it to them.
A lot of them won't want to see it. The ones who see it are probably going to be far more receptive to it than many other audiences out there. The ones I have shown it to in this area (are receptive) and are not happy with the conclusions that come out of it. I don't mean "not happy" in the sense that they dismiss them. It's more like, "Oh...my...God...It's not like anything we see on television, read in the major newspapers, or pick up on in Time, Newsweek, or US News and World Report."
(The major media) just don't get it. So it would start with local chapters of veterans organizations. And from there, go to the local town meetings of members of Congress, both houses, both parties. They do show up among their local constituencies, in their Districts, in their states. And the local media, at least down here and in the other states I've lived in, have their own agenda. And their agenda is not the agenda of the Washington Post or the New York Times. They have their own agenda, they may have their own alternative candidates, they may have an interest in something like this.
So pin them. Pin them on these issues in their local constituencies. Because the local media will largely carry it. And the people who are at those meetings will hear it. Do it at that level. Start with the veterans organizations, carry it into town hall meetings of the local congressional representatives, and take it from there.
And that's the place to start. I don't mean "take it from there" in a dismissive sense. I mean where it goes from there depends on the reaction at the first two levels.
Barrett
That sounds like a plan, Alan. It actually makes a lot of sense. I'll try and get on that here. I imagine it might be easier for people who are veterans themselves —
Sabrosky
Yep.
Barrett
—and hang out with these groups, to do this. Me, for example, if I come in there (to the local VFW) and say hi, I'm a university teacher and a Muslim...(laughter)...so naturally I'm going to be blaming Israel for everything. But I'll give it a shot.
Sabrosky
What I've done already, I've just been exchanging emails on this with nine veterans, all Vietnam era types. And that's because we're sort of in that generational thing. And they're all willing to talk—
Barrett
Well, Alan, we're at the end here. Where can people go to find this slide show?
Sabrosky
Barrett
Thank you, Alan Sabrosky. It's been wonderful as always. Hang in there.
Sabrosky
Thank you very much, Kevin.
Labels: 9/11, 9/11 activism, 9/11 truth, Alan Sabrosky, false-flag, inside job, Israel, Israel's hidden faces, Kevin Barrett, Palestine, Zionism
