Jewish journalists frighten 9/11 "investigator"

From:"Martin Webster"

To:"Ian Henshall"
CC:
"Tony Hancock"

"Mr. Henshall,

Why did you thank me for my interest in your new book ["9/11: The New Evidence"] when you then proceeded to tell me that my interest was surplus to your requirements in that it might bring down on your head the wrath of left wing pro-Zionist Jewish journalists?

It would have been more honest of you to say: "Eff off -- your interest in my book might compromise my standing with the Establishment media, especially powerful Jewish commentators."I note -- and connect with the above -- your assertion that you feel the Mossad had a minor involvement in the 9/11 affair.

This will lead the ignorant to wonder who on earth was the principal beneficiary of the operation, when the answer to that question is all too obvious to anybody with perception and the guts.Isn't it a classic and quite reputable way of analysing historical events by asking the question: "Who benefits?"

No doubt in your new book you have carefully explained away the incident at the time of the 9/11 attack when a large number of Israeli nationals were arrested overlooking New York and who were (according to local police who made the arrests) sight-seeing the attack and jumping up and down with glee, hugging each other with delight.All these Israelis, believed to be Mossad agents (I think posing as removal men or shipping agents) were whisked out of the USA to Israel with great speed by order of the U.S. government.

No serious questioning of them was allowed to take place.

If my memory serves me correctly, this is only one element of a significant "Israel link" to the attack which stampeded America and much of "the West" to accept the Zionist/Neo-Con promoted "Clash of Civilisations" concept.That concept was devised to mobilise "the West" to take up arms against the Muslim/Arab world in a war which would secure Israel's future and expansion.The idea that the Iraq war was launched (as so many Zionist-propaganda intimidated lefty/liberals would have it) "so that America could grab Iraq's oil" is grotesque and pathetic.

The gigantic amount of cash that American has squandered on the invasion, "pacification" and reconstruction of Iraq is so huge that it represents the most expensive oil purchase of all time. The figures indicate that the war CANNOT have been fought "for oil".

The only credible explanation for the invasion of Iraq and other proposed wars in that region (such as the impending war against Iran) is the safeguarding of Israel.

I don't say that the Israelis planned and organised the 9/11 attack -- and I don't say they didn't.

I don't have all the full facts (nor do you) to be able to come to a definite conclusion.However, I advance as a credible working hypothesis the following: Israeli intelligence services (said to be the best in the world) became aware of the Islamist fanatics' plan, realised its potential in mobilising "the West" against Israel's enemies, and did not warn America of the impending attack.

Don't say the Zionists would not behave in such a ghastly and cynical way against their American "friends", "allies" and chief financial sponsors.

Don't you recollect the attack on the U.S.S. 'Liberty' at the outset of the 1967 war?

This signals intelligence ship, was fully decked-out as part of the U.S. Navy. It was in international waters. It was attacked without warning and bombed by Israeli aircraft. After the bombers had done their worst, Israeli fighters arrived to machine-gun the crew as they struggled in the water.

The 'Liberty' was undoubtedly collecting intelligence on Israeli military communications traffic.

This would have established immediately what has only relatively-recently become established: that Israel, not Egypt and its allies, started that war for the purpose of expanding its borders in accordance with long-established and freely-admitted Zionist ambitions.

The then U.S. President, Lyndon B. Johnson, (one of the most corrupt men ever to hold that office) ordered his nation's navy NOT to go to the assistance of the 'Liberty' (in terms of fighting-off its attackers) and ordered senior U.S. Navy commanders to keep the incident secret if they were to keep their jobs and pensions and avoid prosecution.

All the details have been revealed by U.S. Admiral Moorer on his web site (but too late to affect the historical outcome). Google-up U.S.S. Liberty and Admiral Moorer and see what you find.

British governments have been equally craven in the face of Zionist war crimes.

Only during the last few days there have been two instances of this.

Last Tuesday the BBC News web site reported the outcome of an incident which has been hushed-up for the past couple of years: An Israeli Major-General, Doron Almog, against whom an arrest-warrant has been issued in respect of alleged crimes against humanity he perpetrated in Gaza, had landed at London's Heathrow Airport.

Police were sent to effect his arrest, but he had been tipped-off and refused to leave the plane.

Police feared to enter into the plane for fear of being shot by Israeli "Air Marshalls" who were on board, so Almog was allowed to fly out.

Last Thursday, under the headline "How Labour used the law to keep criticism of Israel secret - Concern over nuclear arsenal removed from Iraq dossier", The Guardian reported that it had seen the full text and a witness statement from a senior Foreign Official official who had argued behind closed doors that any public mention in the Iraq Weapons Dossier of a candid reference to Israel's illegal development of nuclear weapons "would seriously damage UK/Israeli relations".

What has your and my doubts about the official account of the 9/11 attack -- and certainly my deprication of Israel's activities in Palestine, which increasingly resemble "racist, Nazi-style genocide in a scramble for lebensraum" -- got to do with the issue of the WW2 "Holocaust"?

Whenever Israel, the Zionists or Jewry in general are caught red-handed in political corruption, financial swindles or other crimes, or perpetrating crimes against humanity (as in Lebonan in July 2006 or in the West Bank and Gaza at this very moment), then all they need to do is shout "Anti-Semitism!!" or "Holocaust Denial!" for people like you to go into knee-jerk mode and scurry to the nearest parapet for cover.

I will not waste my money on buying your book -- nor will I recommend it -- now that I have found out more about it and you.

You can send a copy of this e-mail to all those Jewish journalists who have spooked you so badly. You might ingratiate yourself with them and earn good reviews. That's the way to achieve "success" these days.

Ask Nick Griffin.

Martin Webster.

==========================================
From: Ian Henshall To: Martin Webster , Tony Hancock Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:49 PM

Subject: Re: Ian Henshall's new book

Hello Martin Webster,

Thanks for your interest.

Actually the book is available in most bookshops, or should be.

My reading of the 911 attacks is that it was a network from various agencies, probably led by people in the area of the State Department and the CIA, calling on contacts in Pakistan's ISI, Saudi intel and Mossad.

The main attack on the 911 Truth movement is that we are "holocaust deniers" ie anti-semitic and it is amazing to note the key media people who have attacked us are Johan Hari, Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, George Monbiot, Mathew Rothschild.

Although I am always keen to sell my book I think it would be bad tactics to be linked to your networks, because it would give these people more ammunition.

Also I do not think Mossad played the major part, so it's a hiding to nothing so to speak.

As it happens Tony at the Print Factory is an old acquaintance, although I suspect we may have profound political differences in some areas.

Ian Henshall

At 20:35 20/02/2008, Martin Webster wrote:From: Martin Webster To: Ian Henshall Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:20 PM
Subject: "9/11: The New Evidence"

Dear Ian,

My apologies for not attending your book-launch meeting yesterday evening. Mondays are always very busy for me and I need rather more than six days notice to re-schedule.

I do hope the event was well-supported, that the discussion was lively and that you were able to sell and autograph lots of copies of "9/11: The New Evidence".I would like to buy a copy myself.

Can I do so through you directly?

If so, please let me have a price including postage and an address to which I should send my order and cheque. If you can inscribe it, that would be great. If not, can you recommend a shop in London which has it in stock?

I will also put in a requisition for the book with Wandsworth Borough Public Library. For this purpose, please give me the name and address of the publisher, ISBN number and any other details I might need to put on the form.I will also copy this e-mail to Tony Hancock at The Print Factory in Uckfield, East Sussex. He runs a thriving mail order book sales department supported by a web site and regular mailings to his client base and may be interested.

Do keep in touch with developments.

Regards,Martin.

(Martin Webster)

-----Original Message-----From: Ian Henshall To: Ian Henshall Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:40 AM

Subject: "9/11: The New Evidence" Public meeting with author Ian Henshall
London 9/11 Truth presents:"9/11: The New Evidence"

An evening with Ian Henshall, author of the recently-published book of the same title, and fellow-campaigners.
Monday 18th February, 7.30 pm
Mahatma Gandhi Hall, Indian YMCA, 41 Fitzroy Square, London W1(tube Warren St)Admission Free

Ian will be signing copies of his book and answering questions.Introducing his talk Ian will say"The drip drip of new evidence continues to strengthen the case for scepticism over the official story of the 911 attacks."Several elements of the new picture were highlighted in 911 The New Evidence.

These are:* the admission that there was a anti-hijack exercise running at the same time as the "real" attacks,* the admission that the 911 Commission was, as two of its members later said, "set up to fail",* the failure to provide any explanation for the collapse of WTC7 (which was not hit by a plane),* the release of the official flight recorder data from Flt 77 showing that it could not have hit the PentagonIn 911 The New Evidence Henshall presented many more details which are not widely known, even to 911 sceptics*

At the trial of alleged 20th hijacker Moussaoui the FBI mysteriously withheld the US visa applications of the alleged hijacker leaders (Atta, Shehi, Jarrah, Hanjour). These would have been issued through the US Berlin embassy.

David Edger, the CIA operations chief there, later admitted that they were aware of the hijackers. Edger is an expert on politically targeted intelligence operations and was active in Chile during the US led coup which took place on September 11 1973.* The original 2002 FEMA report timed the aircraft crashes in New York to 20 seconds AFTER the explosions which eyewitnesses say they heard in the basement of the buildings and which were picked on the seismic records.*

The FEMA report noted unexplained traces on sulphur and its experts commented on the signs of vaporisation of the WTC sections. Both these reports, indicating the use of explosives, have been ignored in subsequent inquiries.* a close reading of the various limited transcripts that have been released shows that air traffic controllers thought the apparently hijacked planes were part of the Pentagon's anti-hijack exercise.*

Condoleeza Rice and George Tenet both lied on oath to the 911 Commission.

Since The New Evidence was published last autumn there have been more developments.* The Sunday Times revelations from FBI translator Sibel Edmonds confirm early reports that four Israelis arrested after a tip-off after they were seen celebrating and filming the collapse of the Towers were indeed operatives and were released under pressure from top Washington neocons.* another deadline for the promised report on the collapse of WTC7 has silently slipped by* a new book based on leaks to a New York Times writer has highlighted the improper relations between the 911 Commission's executive director Philip Zelikow and his close associates in the White House.* ex Italian President Cossiga, who exposed the US/UK Gladio operation in Europe has now denounced 911 as a false flag operation in the mainstream Italian media.

In an eerie parallel to 911, Gladio used front organisations to carry out false flag terror attacks as a political weapon.

The most notable example was the Bologna bombing.*

Opposition leaders in Japan have raised questions over the 911 attacks in Parliament there.

Ends