We call them ‘the 9/11 wars’ – the seemingly unending destruction of the Middle East and North Africa which has been going on for the last seventeen years. As revealed by Gen. Wesley Clark, these wars were already anticipated in September 2001[1]. The legal foundation for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been challenged in several countries. The best known is the Chilcot Inquiry in the UK, which began in 2009 and concluded in a report in 2016. The inquiry was not about the legality of military action, but the British government was strongly criticized for not having provided a legal

In most 9/11 circles, the thought that any part of the mainstream media could allow a thoughtful discussion about the events of September 11 is viewed as an antiquated ideal – foreclosed by the media consolidation that, it appears, the deep state found necessary after the media brought the pointless carnage in Vietnam into America’s living rooms – and tuned America against that war.

However, local newspapers have more flexibility in their ability to report on controversial topics – although community standards and prevailing sentiments may limit the depth of the stories they report on and the positions that they take on the topic. A good example of this additional flexibility is a community newspaper in lower Manhattan called Westview News. This “little newspaper that could” has been following the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry’s presentation of their petition last April.

Following the presentation the petition, the editor of the WestView News hosted attorney Mick Harrison, Julio Gomez, Dave Meiswinkle, and a dozen others supporters at the home and office of the publication. The WestView home office is frequently a “salon” for people of social or intellectual distinction to discuss mattes of the day.

Originally Published by TruePublica at https://truepublica.org.uk/global/some-interesting-new-information-about-9-11/

TruePublica Editor: We have published almost nothing about 9/11 on TruePublica. When independent news outlets do, they are immediately branded by the mainstream media and so-called ‘fact-checkers’ as conspiracy theorists. The BBC makes this point precisely in a 2018 article that starts like this – “On 11 September 2001, four passenger planes were hijacked by radical Islamist terrorists – almost 3,000 people were killed as the aircraft were flown into the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field. Just hours after the collapse of New York’s Twin Towers, a conspiracy theory surfaced online which persists more than 16 years later.”

When it comes to the events of 9/11/2001, certain concerned citizens, having realized that the government’s explanations are wrong, have been trying to figure out what happened and who did it for nearly 20 years. During that time, a significant volume of evidence has been gathered and analyzed. With respect to “what happened?,” an abundance of high-quality evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that three buildings were blown apart (of course, unreasonable doubt still flourishes). With respect to “who did it?,” however, the evidence is not as ironclad but is nonetheless highly suggestive of an inside job. Made-it-happen-on-purpose (“MIHOP”) is supported by an abundance of circumstantial evidence, some physical evidence, a logic test (“cui bono?”), and the classic crime-suspect test (“means, motive, and opportunity”). Though more work needs to be done to establish the “inside job” hypothesis as a certainty on par with the certainty of the reality of controlled demolition, for the purpose of this article, the inside-job hypothesis is accepted.

Originally appeared at Global Research  Editor's note: It is imperative to recognize unstated motives that drive policies in order to bring attention to them. Otherwise those motives provide a dangerous undercurrent that could lead to a future False Flag deception.  For example, the Project for a New American Century laid out the motivations for a "New Pearl Harbor like" event and the lack of exposure allowed it to be operationalized in secret before exploding onto the scene.

At first glance, the dispute between the US and China revolves around unfair competition and theft of intellectual property. On closer inspection it