Tuesday, August 16, 2005

True Lies of 9/11: Amanda & Atta

The 9/11 Minority Report: Part 3
True Lies: "This mixture of comedy and super-agent spectacle works well at first. But the plot becomes increasingly ridiculous and overwrought." - Desson Thomson, Washington Post [Source]
by Fintan Dunne & KathyMcMahon,
BreakForNews.com 16th August, 2005

And so it is with great honour that we nominate Ms. Amanda Keller, reputed long-term girlfriend of 9/11 'mastermind', Mohammed Atta for the award in the category of 'Best Supporting Actress in a 9/11 Coverup.'

But that's no guarantee she will win this busy category in which she faces a lot of stiff competition. Especially as her leading man, who plays a reputed terrorist, was written out of the movie very early on -leaving Amanda to carry the action forward on her own.

If you've been following the story so far [Part 1 & 2], you know that an 'Orgy of Evidence' was deliberately built into the 9/11 operation, as a smokescreen. This meticuluously planned evidence has been a fountain of time-consuming false trails, which has also provided the CIA Internet Fakes with an array of 'talking points', to fill countless hours of internet radio, articles, blogs and books. It's been a red herring cornucopia.

Among the most legendary of all these 'discoveries' by internet researchers, was the tracking down of Amanda Keller, by Daniel Hopsicker. In an exclusive to-camera interview --at an 'undisclosed location'-- she paints a stunning portrait of a cocaine-sodden Atta; strewing money about; partying and meeting shadowy drug contacts in Key West.

As Hopsicker comments in an introduction to one set of clips from that interview, it's just like something out of an episode of Miami Vice.

Which is the very point on which we now question the touting of the Keller story as some kind of 9/11 motherlode which disproves the official line that Atta was a simple suicidal fanatic.


It now seems a long, long time ago, but it was on 4th October, 2001 --in the second of our investigative articles on the attacks that I wrote something which is just as apt today as it was then, just 21 days after 9/11:
"Let's stop reacting and stop overreacting. Does the WTC attack feel like a movie? It does? Well of course it does! It has been specifically written as a movie script. Are you getting the picture? You are witnessing a cathartic and intense psychological operation. It is designed to alter your perceptions and hence your politics. It's a classic PsyOp.

It's a made-for-TV movie with all the cliché blockbuster elements. It has mayhem, evil warlords and subtle hints of a military coup. It has terrorists who wrestle for control of Flight 93 with Die Hard have-a-go Bruce Willis clones.

This entire sequence of: hijack; first plane; second plane; Pentagon ;WTC collapse; phone calls from the planes; copy of the Koran; more attempted hijackings; arrests; plucky passengers; etc., etc., has been scripted by a crew of cynical planners...."

Wag the WTC: The Bockbuster 4th Oct, 2001.

These people are in the business of pushing your emotional buttons. And they didn't stop pushing them just because the dust had settled over the WTC complex. The 9/11 PsyOp was planned to extends years after the event itsef. They've been pushing emotional buttons ever since. That's how they got G.W. Bush re-elected.

The mainstream right media and the left fakes were both pushing everybody's buttons so hard on the threat of a Bush-orchestrated, pre-election 'terror' attack that we left it to Kerry's lawyers to cover the bases on simple election theft. And we know how that worked out.

That Bush would surely steal 2004 exactly as he stole 2000 --in the vote tally-- was a no-bainer. That's why the Tommy Franks' distraction warning of martial law if terrorists did attack. They pushed our emotional buttons. It took our eyes off the ball. It worked.

If we are to get anywhere decoding the truth of 9/11, we must learn the lesson and disconnect our buttons.


The other key point in my 2001 comments was that reference to the 9/11 PsyOp being like a cliché-ridden B-movie script. In a way, it was a rerun of the infamous terror-inspiring Orson Wells radio broadcast. It seems farcical that people actually bought those fake news reports of mayhem following an alien invasion of the U.S.A. --but they did.

It was a product of its time, no matter how farcical and laughable that fabricated report now seems in retrospect, these many years later.

The same can be said of Amanda Keller's performance in the filmed interview presented by Hopsicker. It was a product of its time, no matter how farcical and laughable that fabricated report now seems in retrospect.

Because, like those lurid tales of rampaging Martians, the Keller interview is by now side-splittingly funny. How she managed to keep a straight face throughout, is surely tribute to the iron acting will of a true pro.

But like the greatest comedy, it treads such a fine line that you only catch on to how exactly funny it is, when someone else laughs or points it out to you. It's the same fine line trodden by Mel Brooks in his over-the-top comedy 'The Producers' [aka Springtime for Hitler], starring Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder.

In the pivotal scene of the movie, Brooks shows us a theatre audience --their emotional buttons fully pushed-- struck dumb by the sight of an onstage, prancing Adolph Hitler -until someone laughs out loud and turns the doomed stageplay into a hit comedy.

Viewed as a piece of straight acting, Keller's performance seems earnest, even heartfelt. But, viewed as a hilarious attempt to paint Atta as a B-movie-style 'Miami Vice' villan, it just gets funnier and funnier the more times you see it. It's a hand-wringing, chain-smoking comedic performance.

Check it out at madcowprod.com, or view directly here WinMedia or here Qtime.

Disconnect your emotional buttons. And watch a real pro at work. And save a copy. They can't leave this online. The truth has never been this funny.

If you have seen some of the early Keller video clips before, this later compilation will wow you. Earlier segments published by Hopsicker featured a restrained performance by Keller which lent credibility to the material. But in this later compilation, Keller shows off her subtle comedic star quality.

Actually they can leave it online. It's all part of the tactic I wrote about previously. For over a year, the credibility of the 9/11 internet 'heroes' has been is being deliberately notched lower month by month. Carefully undermined to drive 9/11 skeptics away in disillusion and to lower the image of 'conspiracy theories' with the public.

They pulled the same trick to drive off stolen election campaigners, when Bev Harris' and a pre-planned implosion on Airamerica's Randi Rhodes Show. Start with good material to boost credibility and get activists on board, then nosedive to oblivion. A tired tactic by now, but still reasonably effective. Expecially if people are not aware of the gameplan.

Which you now are.

Script Extract. True Lies (1994) :
Harry: [reading phone tap log of wife Helen] Give me the page!
Gib: What?
Harry: This jumps from page 9 to page 11.
Gib: [looks at paper] Must be a typo.
So who is lying and why? What is really going on here beneath the spin, with this Keller story? According to Hopsicker -nothing at all. He's happy to buy Keller's tale and sell it on.

Hopsicker says 9/11 was a high-stakes drug war attack, in a Bush v. Bin Ladin battle for control of the international drug trade. And he says this interpetation of events is totally consistent with hints from Sibel Edmonds' --based on her time in the FBI translation unit. But Edmonds could be called the 'Dog-Whistleblower', because due to a court gag order, her whistleblowing is thus far, well beyond the range of human hearing.

And an opportunistic drug war strike doesn't even come close to explaining a fraction of the slick 9/11 operation, nor why three steel-framed buildings then fell straight down. We see many clear signs of a high-powered PsyOp on 9/11. These don't square with a drug turf war. That dog don't even leave the kennell. Hopsicker's insistence seems inexplicable.

So let's take view more common among 9/11 skeptics -which sees Atta as a patsy, pre-positioned to take the blame for 9/11. You babysit such a patsy as if he were a Ming Vase. In classic patsy theory, his behaviour would be managed to show an image consistent with his being a fanatical suicide attacker. He would be keeping just high enough a profile to leave the right impression.

Instead we have reports --from other than just Keller-- of parties, public arguments and even plotting in public. Not to mention unashamed consumption of alcohol.

Well, perhaps he was under orders to get noticed -and then some. Why?

What possible benefit would offset the severe weakening of the 'Islamic fanatics' cover story? And why on Earth would Atta be let hang out with a woman whom Hopsicker hints he is being charitable in describing as a lingerie model. It blows the 'fanatics' cover out of the water. What is going on here?


The early 90's minor-hit Schwartzenneger movie vehicle"True Lies", featured a spy pretending to be a workaday regular guy(Arnie); a regular guy pretending to be a spy; and the woman between them(Jamie Lee Curtis) --who is married to the real spy but doesn't know it and having an affair with the fake one --not realizing that either. It also controversially featured Arab terrorists bent on nuking the USA.

Arnie didn't win any awards. Despite some punchy one-liners, he only rose a notch above wooden. Jamie was... well, ...Jamie. Which is: good enough to make it all just watchable.

The movie finds echoes in Atta and Amanda Keller. Mohammed Atta's stern visage is a new icon of woodenness. The now silent actor left it to Amanda to do all the real acting. Was Atta her minder? Or was Amanda the spy-minder for Mohammed? Who is fake and who is for real?

The answer comes from understanding the underlying design of 'Tabloid 9/11' : the plucky passengers of Flight 93; the Bush speech amid the WTC rubble; the turbanned Osama. Recall that all this is a movie. It has to be.

The shared cultural ground of the tabloid, celluloid movie world makes 9/11 communicable as a cultural zeitgeist. 9/11 is by necessity a tabloid movie. As tabloid as the catchphrase 'War on Terror'. 9/11 could only be sold to the masses at the lowest common denominator of mass psychology. The quintessentially propagandist themes must be rooted in a cartoonish movie fantasy.

So if that is what the supposedly staid mainstream is like, the conspiracy theories must be inflated so as to be far, far wilder --least they stand out as sensible. If the conspiracy theories were to be intellectually superior, the intellectuals --particularly left intellectuals-- would naturally gravitate to them. A dangerous development for those who staged it all.

Now you know why Alex Joes is so over the top. He scares off the left. Now you know why French researchers waded in with the 'Hunt the Boeing' angle. Or why the big focus on a supposed missile attached to a pod under the plane which struck the second WTC tower. Sensational claims. The more the merrier.

The best way to avoid substantial questions about the 9/11 events is to overlay the issues with plenty of additional 'sensationalized' diversionary issues. These sensational elements were built into the 9/11 operation from the start. Which has allowed the CIA Internet Fakes to selectively construct their own sensational 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Now you know why Mohammed Atta was found, so sensationally, to be dating a... stripper! And why Amamda Keller had even further sensational tales to tell about Mohammed. The lurid tales she recounts are fully consistent with CIA objectives as to how 9/11 'conspiracy theories' are presented to the world.

We are getting somewhere.


Early mainstream media reports said that Pakistani intelligence had wired funds to Mohammed Atta, and he was soon credited as the operational mastermind of the attacks. So when Daniel Hopsicker's first reports about Atta are published, it seems like a breakthrough that holes have quickly emerged in one central aspect of the official story.

The JFK conspiracy theory featured a key patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald --who never lived to defend himself. History repeats, so they say. And by playing into our expectations, this can be exploited. It's a technique known as 'framing': the subtle construction of a context which seems appropriate. And so, the conspiracy theory media have bought into the idea of Atta as a kind of modern Oswald.

But, what hard evidence connects this drug-linked, flight school circus in Florida to the actual attacks on the day of 9/11? A passport found in the street? An easily faked CCTV image? FBI assurances that these were the culpits?

Let's reverse the psychology. Suppose the whole Mohammed Atta, Florida flight schools story is a prepared package. As you unwrap this package you find items that were placed there earlier. Are you discovering things? Or are you are being led to find what you half-expected?

When Atta and the other alleged hijackers turn out to have links to figures connected to international drug trafficing, is that a breakthrough finding or just more breadcrumbs leading us further down the Atta/Florida/Drugs trail? Leading us to Al-Qaida and the Balkans. Leading us to Afghanistan. To the heroin trade.

The biggest crime scene of 9/11 is undoubtedly the World Trade Center. Yet here we are discussing the finer details of the drug trade thousands of miles away. It's sensational, but is it relevant? Or is it just our buttons being pushed?

Is this is 'True Lies' twice over? What if Atta and Amanda were an intelligence tag team. A 9/11 Laurel and Hardy. Foil and counterfoil.

Does that explain their very public rows? Yes. Does that explain Atta's over-the-top behaviour? Yes. Does that explain Keller's wild tales about Atta? Yes. Does that explain why Atta ran around Florida playing attack mastermind? Yes. Does that explain why he is not around any more? Yes. Does that explain why the mainstream fingered him early on? Yes. Does that explain why he was out of circulation for years? Yes.

And does all that explain why we are down in Florida, thousands of miles from the major crime scene? Yes, because the whole thing is a diversion. With an outer layer aimed at the mainstream and an inner layer targetted at the alternative media.

If that's true, it might help explain somethng that happened just after the London bombings. We know that the real perpetrators of such attacks don't just pin the blame on a few alleged terrorists. They also like to bolster the 'Muslims-did-it' case with spurious claims of responsibility and suitable rethoric from Muslims expressing their admiration for the attack. It helps outrage public opinion and reinforce the war divide.

In such a classic manouver, Muslim stooges are often wheeled out to make the inflammatory statements.

So, here's our July 21st report about such an interview:
"In an extraordinary interview with CNN, Mohammed Atta's father has praised the London bombings. During the extremely inflammatory interview --which sounds suspiciously like the work of a professional provocateur-- Mohammed el-Amir vowed to do anything within his power to encourage more attacks. He even demanded $5,000 for another interview --which he promised to donate towards carrying out another terror attack.

"Was all this being hammed-up for the camera? CNN's camera, by the way. Maybe this is a good time to rethink exactly what role Mohammed Atta and his father are playing in all this?
Which is an interesting development, to say the least.


It's time people asked themselves why a more skeptical view of Florida's flying circus has not already been articulated by leading conspiracy investigators. Are we supposed to just take Amanda Keller and Sibel Edmonds at face value?

In our first 9/11 investigative article, published seven days after the attacks, we asked why the South Tower fell first? Due to the angle at which the plane came in, the bulk of the jet fuel punched through the corner of the building and emerged to explode in the giant fireball we all saw. By comparison, the North Tower was struck earlier and took a full fuel load directly into the building.

The wrong tower fell first. And that pokes a big hole in the official explanation about raging internal fires causing the collapse. Funny how the conspiracy media never picked up on that point.

Issues like that seem more relevant than an uncorroborated tale about nasty Mohamed Atta killing all of Amanda Keller's kittens. But maybe we are just not with the plot. If the CIA Fakes network is screaming about stuff, it must be important, eh?

In the face of the well-organized coverup of 9/11, we are starving for breakthroughs. That makes us all potential suckers for a few tossed breadcrumbs.

Or so it seems to us, anyway.
But we're a bit wierd like that.

View or Make Comments