Israeli involvement in 9/11 and spying on the U.S.

[Robert Wagner]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote: AMDOCS generates billing data for virtually every call made in the United States, ... the concern by U.S. law enforcement was that the information that these companies have could be compromised.That's like saying Microsoft generates edited text for 80% of documents made in the United States, .. the concern by U.S. law enforcement was that the information that Microsoft has could be compromised. AMDOCS software handles billing data for 60-70%, not virtually all, of US phone calls, but the data resides in phone company databases in the US. AMDOCS doesn't have the data. Both Microsoft and AMDOCS access the computer to update software. Why aren't we worried Microsoft will surreptitiously compromise documents, financial records and web pages while they're connected? Come to think of it, one of Microsoft's three R&D centers is in Israel. It's the one that handles security and communications. Yikes! Quick, pull the network plug. Now encrypt everything, but don't use PGP or another RSA product; it was once an Israeli company. For sure, don't use anything from Microsoft.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:AIPAC’s Role in Spying & U.S. Foreign Interventionhttp://www.americanfreepress.net/html/aipac_ro ... tmlWritten by James Traficant, former US Representative from Ohio, who was ejected by the Ethics Committee (first time since 1980), convicted on ten felony counts of bribery, racketeering and tax evasion, served seven years in federal prison, some in solitary for being a troublemaker, released in 2009, friend of David Duke, now talking like a Tea Bagger. Don't kill the messenger because of the message. Even people like David Duke could have done questionable things or been a part of questionable organizations in the past. I think David Duke speaks the truth regarding Zionist influence in our government and media. Just because he's "David Duke" doesn't refute what he says. The same goes for James Traficant. His reputation does not refute what he's saying. Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Here’s a good documentary on the subject of this topic.http://www.911missinglinks.com/This web site is a must read gem. It says the 911 truth movement is an Israeli plot to make conspiracy theorists look foolish. It says Alex Jones, Jim Marrs and many others are disinformation agents who deliberately direct blame at the wrong parties. Perhaps it should be called Truth About Truth or Recursive Paranoia. Taken to its logical conclusion, you won't trust yourself. LOLAgain, you're passing over the information regarding Israeli or Zionist influence in our government and their obvious involvement in 9/11.Regarding Jim Marrs, if they spoke negatively about him in the Missing Links documentary, I'm pretty sure the information is past tense. Regarding Alex Jones, I don't remember what they said, but if he is one of those people who stands in the way of rational discussion about Israeli involvement in 9/11, then shame on him too. All I can say is this. There are a lot of 9/11 truth movements that won't even DISCUSS Israeli involvement in 9/11 even if it's just to REFUTE those claims. It also seems that in my personal experience, here in California, many of those same people who are leading the supposed 9/11 truth movements out here happen to be of the Jewish persuasion. Maybe they don't want to discuss the Israeli thing because they take personally. I don't know. Maybe it really is a form of what we call CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. Controlled opposition is a disinformation technique where the perpetrators make themselves APPEAR like they're leaders in a truth movement, but instead they help lead that movement in the wrong direction. What is more important is the information they present about Israeli involvement in our government and in 9/11.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:$200 million for what? To just REMOVE the asbestos? To remove the asbestos from the tunnels underground? To remove the asbestos and retrofit the buildings with acceptable fire retardant? It's such a simple question, and you can't seem to find the answer for it. Can't you explain your own sources? I provided a link to the only primary source on the topic: the lengthy court case in which Port Authority sued 17 insurance companies for asbestos remediation. If you had read it, you would know $200M was total cost for WTC. The total for all properties owned by Port Authority was $600M. The article in newswithviews, which I quoted here, said the same thing.Your one billion estimate was incorrect. You lose.Nope. I didn't lose at all. You're simply splitting hairs with me about the cost of retrofitting those buildings because of the outdated asbestos that was in them. The POINT is that it would have been VERY expensive. Your own link that you posted says so as well. By the way, just so we're on the same page here, is "asbestos remediation" the same as removing all the asbestos and retrofitting those buildings with a safer and legal fire retardant? In any event, the link that YOU provided earlier says that the asbestos was an expensive issue. According to this article that you, Robert Wagner, provided for us, we can clearly see the issue with the towers and how Larry Silverstein, and the defense industry, profited from their demolition.The article is called "KILLING SEVERAL BIRDS WITH ONE STONE" written by Deanna SpingolaApril 16, 2006. http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/d ... m#_ftn26In pertinent part, she writes the following:"The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been losing money on the towers for years because of low tenancy. The financial loss was the real issue. There was also another vital issue – asbestos! The towers had become an albatross sitting on the most valuable piece of real estate in the world. The Port Authority had three choices: sell or lease them, pay for expensive asbestos removal or demolish them. The Authority had tried for years but were unable to sell the buildings – after all, what fool would take on the liability of asbestos? They couldn’t demolish it. The health hazard of asbestos powder blanketing New York was legally unthinkable and totally out of the question. Expensive asbestos removal seemed to be the only option."She asked the following question in the paragraph above: "...what fool would take on the liability of asbestos?" My answer. Someone who could insure those buildings for terrorist attacks and then make legal insurance claims based on those supposed "terrorist" attacks on those buildings and therefore get the money to "rebuild," and ALSO make the "expensive" asbestos removal a non-issue. Assuming that Silverstein took part in creating the 9/11 attacks and destruction on those buildings, it amounts to common insurance fraud. It's that simple. To get the media to go to sleep on the issue, all you need is like-minded people who also CONTROL the media, and who can also CONTROL the supposed investigation of the event. Now you're talking literally about an organized crime network that is massive in size, an organized crime network that includes major portions of the mainstream media, certain government factions, as well as the defense industry and their BANKERS. Websites like rediscover911.com and the documentary Missing Links, addresses some of the questions above and very effectively. Who dominates the media? What is their affiliation or ethnicity? Who are the people in key positions in government? What are their affiliations? http://rediscover911.com/http://www.911 ... links.com/(You can even watch the Missing Links documentary right on their website.)If your own link says that the asbestos removal was "expensive," why try and deny it? The REMOVAL of the asbestos was expensive enough. Those buildings also needed retrofitting with a safe and legal type of fire retardant. That costs money too. Maybe that's where I got the 1 Billion estimate. I know I heard it from a good source.

[Robert Wagner]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:By the way, just so we're on the same page here, is "asbestos remediation" the same as removing all the asbestos and retrofitting those buildings with a safer and legal fire retardant? Yes. See translation note below.Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:She asked the following question in the paragraph above: "...what fool would take on the liability of asbestos?" The other three bidders, who bid about the same as Silverstein. The original high bidder was Vornado Realty Trust, whose CEO is named Michael D. Fascitelli. Had they prevailed, we'd be talking about an Italian solution -- towers would lean four degrees, like their sister structure in Pisa. Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:If your own link says that the asbestos removal was "expensive," why try and deny it? The REMOVAL of the asbestos was expensive enough. Those buildings also needed retrofitting with a safe and legal type of fire retardant. That costs money too. Maybe that's where I got the 1 Billion estimate. I know I heard it from a good source.A good source isn't wrong by a factor of five. The source you cited, "I heard," might be better than your other sources such as "It has been estimated" and "It only stands to reason that," but is not a good source and no amount of word twisting will make it one. It may be a translation error from this:Per quest’ultima fonte altre parlano di una spesa pari a 200 milioni di dollari ed altre ancora di 600 milioni di dollari per l'abbattimento dell'amianto di entrambe le torri…[On this issue, some say the cost will be 200 million dollars while others say 600 million for asbestos abatement. Translator's note: abbattimento usually translates to slaughter or deletion; in this case it means abatement or replacement. rw]From the same publication, quoting another:“The WTC's original owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, had been concerned about asbestos-abatement issues for many years prior to 9/11. According to Karl Schwarz and other writers, the Port Authority in 1991 filed suit in U.S. District Court against insurers in the hope of recovering funds to help pay for needed asbestos-abatement work at the WTC and one of the region's airports. In the suit, "Port Authority of NY vs. Affiliated FM Insurance Co.," the Port Authority sought between 500 million and 1 billion dollars from the insurers.”Karl Schwarz, "PANY & NJ," February 7, 2006, at [non-functioning link]They sought $600 billion for all property owned by the Port Authority. The WTC contributed $200 billion of that amount. http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules ... _id=173595

[Robert Wagner]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Regarding Jim Marrs, if they spoke negatively about him in the Missing Links documentary, I'm pretty sure the information is past tense. Regarding Alex Jones, I don't remember what they said, but if he is one of those people who stands in the way of rational discussion about Israeli involvement in 9/11, then shame on him too. Information is in text below the video. They say:Marrs is the author of a ridiculous Jewish propaganda book called The Rise of the Fourth Reich, which promotes the ludicrous idea that the Nazis were not destroyed during WW II, but have been slowly gaining control of America since the wars end, by means of prominent families, secret societies, and financial institutions, with the goal of converting the world into their fascist empire.This book is the nail in the coffin for Marrs, clearly he is a tool helping to conceal the machinations of the Jews.Jones has several established connections that clearly illustrate whose side he is really on. First we have the accusation that his wife is indeed Jewish. This alone would explain his ferocious denial of the existence of the Jews and its machinations. Second, is the overwhelming fact that a majority of his sponsors are also Jews.Third is a startling discovery that he shares the same lawyer as Holly Bronfman Lev, the younger sister of Edgar Bronfman Jr, one of the most prominent Jew families in the world.Couple this with the self admission that he has “many Jewish friends in Hollywood”, alongside his heavy promotion by the mainstream media, he’s made appearances on Jewish controlled media outlets..It’s pretty much set in stone, Alex Jones is an agent of the Jews.One of the most publicized figures in the 9/11 truth movement has been Luke Rudkowski and his organization We Are Change, Rudkowski is a Jew who was one of the key figures that distracted the world for the past 4-5 years, by bull horning “9/11 was an inside job” all day long.Harassing politicians about their attendance at Bilderberg Group meetings, this clown is known to ban people from his website who dare mention the Jews, and is a close associate of Alex Jones and Loosechange, both disinfo agents of the Jews, he fits right in.This Jewish controlled dissent power structure is composed of Alex Jones at the head with Loose Change & We Are Change as the two wings. Below them are the hordes of brainwashed fanboy minions who absorb anything the aforementioned shills can conjure, and then parrot this contrived malarkey to unsuspecting cattle.Quick. Call your lawyer. Ask whether he has any rich Jewish clients. If so, fire him before they make a startling discovery about you. While you're at it, interview your doctor and dentist, as well.Bronfman ditched Seagram's and now runs Warner Music Group. Get rid of any recordings published by Atlantic, Warner or Rhino, lest you be called a fanboy.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Robert Wagner wrote:The other three bidders, who bid about the same as Silverstein. The original high bidder was Vornado Realty Trust, whose CEO is named Michael D. Fascitelli. Had they prevailed, we'd be talking about an Italian solution -- towers would lean four degrees, like their sister structure in Pisa. Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:If your own link says that the asbestos removal was "expensive," why try and deny it? The REMOVAL of the asbestos was expensive enough. Those buildings also needed retrofitting with a safe and legal type of fire retardant. That costs money too. Maybe that's where I got the 1 Billion estimate. I know I heard it from a good source.A good source isn't wrong by a factor of five. The source you cited, "I heard," might be better than your other sources such as "It has been estimated" and "It only stands to reason that," but is not a good source and no amount of word twisting will make it one. Okay, I'm still going to stick by YOUR source that you brought to this discussion. You know. It's the source that said the asbestos issue was "expensive." So, my point is still valid. Robert Wagner wrote:It may be a translation error from this:Per quest’ultima fonte altre parlano di una spesa pari a 200 milioni di dollari ed altre ancora di 600 milioni di dollari per l'abbattimento dell'amianto di entrambe le torri…[On this issue, some say the cost will be 200 million dollars while others say 600 million for asbestos abatement. Translator's note: abbattimento usually translates to slaughter or deletion; in this case it means abatement or replacement. rw]From the same publication, quoting another:“The WTC's original owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, had been concerned about asbestos-abatement issues for many years prior to 9/11. According to Karl Schwarz and other writers, the Port Authority in 1991 filed suit in U.S. District Court against insurers in the hope of recovering funds to help pay for needed asbestos-abatement work at the WTC and one of the region's airports. In the suit, "Port Authority of NY vs. Affiliated FM Insurance Co.," the Port Authority sought between 500 million and 1 billion dollars from the insurers.”Karl Schwarz, "PANY & NJ," February 7, 2006, at [non-functioning link]They sought $600 billion for all property owned by the Port Authority. The WTC contributed $200 billion of that amount. Nice Italian translation there. Coming from someone who grew up speaking Italian, your paragraph in Italian seems a little too clean and proper, kind of like you used one of those internet sites that translates words and sentences into other languages. I speak a Napolitan dialect of Italian fluently because I grew up with Italian parents. I'm guessing that you used an internet translator to write that little paragraph in Italian because it's just to clean and proper. Oh, wait! Let me guess. You're going to claim you speak Italian too, right? Anyway, back onto the discussion...again, the cost was still very high. Instead of having to PAY for the "expensive" asbestos issue, it seems that Silverstein was able to collect insurance money from the supposed "terrorist" attacks, eh? The 9/11 event allowed Silverstein to simply collect insurance money and making the asbestos removal a non-issue. Again, this is from YOUR source that you brought to this discussion. It's a gift that just keeps on giving. According to this article that you, Robert Wagner, provided for us, we can clearly see the issue with the towers and how Larry Silverstein, and the defense industry, profited from their demolition.The article is called "KILLING SEVERAL BIRDS WITH ONE STONE" written by Deanna SpingolaApril 16, 2006.http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/d ... htm#_ftn26In pertinent part, she writes the following:"The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been losing money on the towers for years because of low tenancy. The financial loss was the real issue. There was also another vital issue – asbestos! The towers had become an albatross sitting on the most valuable piece of real estate in the world. The Port Authority had three choices: sell or lease them, pay for expensive asbestos removal or demolish them. The Authority had tried for years but were unable to sell the buildings – after all, what fool would take on the liability of asbestos? They couldn’t demolish it. The health hazard of asbestos powder blanketing New York was legally unthinkable and totally out of the question. Expensive asbestos removal seemed to be the only option."She asked the following question in the paragraph above: "...what fool would take on the liability of asbestos?"My answer. Someone who could insure those buildings for terrorist attacks and then make legal insurance claims based on those supposed "terrorist" attacks on those buildings and therefore get the money to "rebuild," and ALSO make the "expensive" asbestos removal a non-issue.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Regarding Jim Marrs, if they spoke negatively about him in the Missing Links documentary, I'm pretty sure the information is past tense. Regarding Alex Jones, I don't remember what they said, but if he is one of those people who stands in the way of rational discussion about Israeli involvement in 9/11, then shame on him too. Information is in text below the video. They say:Marrs is the author of a ridiculous Jewish propaganda book called The Rise of the Fourth Reich, which promotes the ludicrous idea that the Nazis were not destroyed during WW II, but have been slowly gaining control of America since the wars end, by means of prominent families, secret societies, and financial institutions, with the goal of converting the world into their fascist empire.This book is the nail in the coffin for Marrs, clearly he is a tool helping to conceal the machinations of the Jews.Jones has several established connections that clearly illustrate whose side he is really on. First we have the accusation that his wife is indeed Jewish. This alone would explain his ferocious denial of the existence of the Jews and its machinations. Second, is the overwhelming fact that a majority of his sponsors are also Jews.Third is a startling discovery that he shares the same lawyer as Holly Bronfman Lev, the younger sister of Edgar Bronfman Jr, one of the most prominent Jew families in the world.Couple this with the self admission that he has “many Jewish friends in Hollywood”, alongside his heavy promotion by the mainstream media, he’s made appearances on Jewish controlled media outlets..It’s pretty much set in stone, Alex Jones is an agent of the Jews.One of the most publicized figures in the 9/11 truth movement has been Luke Rudkowski and his organization We Are Change, Rudkowski is a Jew who was one of the key figures that distracted the world for the past 4-5 years, by bull horning “9/11 was an inside job” all day long.Harassing politicians about their attendance at Bilderberg Group meetings, this clown is known to ban people from his website who dare mention the Jews, and is a close associate of Alex Jones and Loosechange, both disinfo agents of the Jews, he fits right in.This Jewish controlled dissent power structure is composed of Alex Jones at the head with Loose Change & We Are Change as the two wings. Below them are the hordes of brainwashed fanboy minions who absorb anything the aforementioned shills can conjure, and then parrot this contrived malarkey to unsuspecting cattle.Quick. Call your lawyer. Ask whether he has any rich Jewish clients. If so, fire him before they make a startling discovery about you. While you're at it, interview your doctor and dentist, as well.Bronfman ditched Seagram's and now runs Warner Music Group. Get rid of any recordings published by Atlantic, Warner or Rhino, lest you be called a fanboy.I think Jim Marrs is great. I have no problem with him at all. Still, what you wrote above does not refute the information and evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11. What "startling discoveries" are you talking about? As many of my friends here know, I'm a fully licensed private investigator. It's my job to make "startling discoveries" about people sometimes, no matter who they're affiliated with and no matter how much noise they make. I'm not going away, and I won't stop telling the truth. I'm kosher like that.

[Robert Wagner]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote:It may be a translation error from this:Per quest’ultima fonte altre parlano di una spesa pari a 200 milioni di dollari ed altre ancora di 600 milioni di dollari per l'abbattimento dell'amianto di entrambe le torri…[On this issue, some say the cost will be 200 million dollars while others say 600 million for asbestos abatement. Translator's note: abbattimento usually translates to slaughter or deletion; in this case it means abatement or replacement. rw]Nice Italian translation there. Coming from someone who grew up speaking Italian, your paragraph in Italian seems a little too clean and proper, kind of like you used one of those internet sites that translates words and sentences into other languages. I speak a Napolitan dialect of Italian fluently because I grew up with Italian parents. I'm guessing that you used an internet translator to write that little paragraph in Italian because it's just to clean and proper. Oh, wait! Let me guess. You're going to claim you speak Italian too, right? I got a word-for-word translation from an internet site, then rephrased it into standard English. I don't speak Italian, although I was fluent in Latin as a schoolboy.I thought your understanding that abatement meant removal might be caused by the translation of abbattimento, which means slaughter or demolition. The English loanword abattoir means disposal of animal carcasses. The word abatement correctly means reduction or relief of a nuisance or burden. In this case, it is misused to mean replacement. It is an example of some boomer misusing a word in an attempt to flaunt his college education. Do they teach amphiboly in college? Beats me; I'm a high school dropout. Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:The article is called "KILLING SEVERAL BIRDS WITH ONE STONE" written by Deanna SpingolaIs Spingola an Italian code word? I find it hard to believe "thorn in throat" is a legitimate name.Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:She asked the following question in the paragraph above: "...what fool would take on the liability of asbestos?"My answer. Someone who could insure those buildings for terrorist attacks and then make legal insurance claims based on those supposed "terrorist" attacks on those buildings and therefore get the money to "rebuild," and ALSO make the "expensive" asbestos removal a non-issue.Ask the other bidders -- Vornado Realty Trust, Brookfield Properties and Boston Properties -- which false terrorists were in their business plans.

[Robert Wagner]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:As many of my friends here know, I'm a fully licensed private investigator. It's my job to make "startling discoveries" about people sometimes, no matter who they're affiliated with and no matter how much noise they make. In your professional opinion, how many teams were there, who did each and how was piloting done? It seems to me there were four teams:1. Hijack2. Piloting3. Demolition4. Cover-upI first thought planes were flown by autopilot. Hijackers' job was to get into the cockpit and insert a navigation CD containing the building as a waypoint. That hypothesis was dismissed by a friend who was a well-known flight simulator developer. He said the planes were definitely flown manually; an autopilot would have made maneuvers differently. Later I found out the cockpit door never opened on the plane that hit the Pentagon, according to its Flight Data Recorder. Pilots Tor 911 Truth revealed a little known S-band data link that could have been used to fly the plane, and could not be turned off by pilots flipping circuit breakers.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Robert Wagner wrote:I got a word-for-word translation from an internet site, then rephrased it into standard English. I don't speak Italian, although I was fluent in Latin as a schoolboy.Thank you for your honesty. We also have something in common. I studied Latin in high school. While everyone else was studying Spanish or French, me and one other classmate took Latin. Robert Wagner wrote:I thought your understanding that abatement meant removal might be caused by the translation of abbattimento, which means slaughter or demolition. The English loanword abattoir means disposal of animal carcasses. The word abatement correctly means reduction or relief of a nuisance or burden. In this case, it is misused to mean replacement. It is an example of some boomer misusing a word in an attempt to flaunt his college education. Do they teach amphiboly in college? Beats me; I'm a high school dropout. The definition of abatement I am used to is "the termination of a nuisance." The definition of "abate" that I'm going by is "to remove." Unless another definition is being used, the use of "abatement" in the case of the asbestos in the WTC means just that, to remove. It doesn't include "replacement" costs, as in putting in a proper and safer fire retardant than asbestos which causes health problems. As for you claiming to be high school dropout, I find that hard to believe. I'll take your word for it. Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:The article is called "KILLING SEVERAL BIRDS WITH ONE STONE" written by Deanna SpingolaIs Spingola an Italian code word? I find it hard to believe "thorn in throat" is a legitimate name.I've seen Spingola used as an Italian name. I went to school with someone with that same last name. Sometimes the Americanized version of Italian names are spelled wrong. More often than that, they are pronounced wrong too. Someone like me who grew up speaking Italian can tell right away in normal conversation whether the other person actually speaks Italian or not. For example, the most common mistake made by some people is mispronouncing their own name. The name Bugliosi, for example, is pronounced with a silent "g." People who don't know Italian might pronounce it with the "g" sound. Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:She asked the following question in the paragraph above: "...what fool would take on the liability of asbestos?"My answer. Someone who could insure those buildings for terrorist attacks and then make legal insurance claims based on those supposed "terrorist" attacks on those buildings and therefore get the money to "rebuild," and ALSO make the "expensive" asbestos removal a non-issue.Ask the other bidders -- Vornado Realty Trust, Brookfield Properties and Boston Properties -- which false terrorists were in their business plans.I don't need to ask them. The information that you provided in your link, your source, helps to prove my point about the asbestos issue. It would have been "expensive" to remove the asbestos in those buildings and then REPLACE that asbestos with another more acceptable alternative. It was far less "expensive," it seems, that those buildings were demolished by a supposed terrorist attack and that Silverstein made billions off of the insurance money.So, it looks like that part of the 9/11 event, besides being a false flag operation that launched the U.S. into two wars, was also an insurance fraud scheme. That's what it looks like to me.