Part 1

 Part 2

 Part 3

 Hello, this is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Len Bracken, he is the author of six books including the “Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror”, he is also a specialist in international affairs and international relations, and an accredited journalist. This is part 4 of an interview in progress.

 Who gave you that warning? Can you tell us?

 I can tell you that the same verbatim words were spoken to me twice by two different people in the course of one week when I was writing the book in the summer of 2002 and my apartment was opened, I would come home two days in a row and the front door would be open. So I was given these very direct, but not too ominous messages, I would have to say that (How can I put it?), I was scared but, you know, I survived. I don’t think I’m particularly brave, I’m not particularly brave, I would not be the first one to say that there is a lot of other people out there who have gone further with all of this and I think about somebody like a family member named Beverly Eckert who died in a plane crash herself, and she was one of those people who did not accept the money, and was trying to get to the bottom of what really happened. For me I just tried to make an early case and sort of pulled back and only very rarely do I speak about this publicly. And just I look to others who have done probably better work than I have. I don’t want your listeners to get the wrong impression that my book has the last word on 9/11 and that I know exactly what happened in World Trade Center. It deals a lot more with the diplomatic history and the circumstances that would have led up to justify the attack.

 Don’t detract from yourself, everybody is doing a small part, everybody is covering certain angles. I mean, it is so big, I think it is impossible to cover everything: the technical, chemical angle, structural engineering angles, I mean, everything together, I mean, the points to the fact that this was a very carefully staged and planned event. And it wasn’t planned by some Islamic terrorists in a cave.

 We certainly agree on that. There was a report in the summer of 2002 coming out of France, Le Figaro that said Osama bin Laden was being treated in the American hospital in Dubai in the summer of 2001.

 That is true, he was there. I think he was, if I’m correct, the day after he was still in the hospital and the CIA came in there, he was being operated and there was like five CIA doctors or something, if I remember right.

 Yeah, and of course there was a denial from the CIA.

 Do you remember, it lives only in memory, I think now, there might be some references somewhere on the Internet, do you remember Osama bin Laden’s initial statement?

 There was a denial, it is issued in a paper.

 Right, he said: ‘I had nothing to do with this, Al Qaeda had nothing to do with this’.

 Exactly and yet that would have never been repeated. So you would think that just for the sake of fare journalism that the denial and you can sort of dispute the denial, you can rebut the denial, but you would at least allow the other side to have their say. But instead what do we get? We get these doctored videos.

 Right, he is wearing a US army code, he had a wedding ring on his left hand which Muslims wouldn’t have, and I think he was left-handed but in the video he was right-handed, all kinds of things like that. The main thing is that I think that your message could be one thing I really would like you to talk about because you are one of the few people that I’ve heard that is willing to even broach this topic- governments using terrorism and shadow governments using terrorism. Can you expand a little on that so called ‘war on terror’?

 Historically it’s been used predominantly to bring about wars. I think that there was even an admission by the NSA regarding the Gulf of Tonkin to justify the war with Vietnam. This was in 1964. So you even have the government coming out and saying: ‘Hey, at least in this one instance there was a provocation’.

 What would you say to people who say: ‘Why do this, why to start a war on terror?’ I mean, that is not a reason to kill 3,000 people. To start as hyper security state and strip away civil rights. That is not a reason. What would you say to people who say that?

 You know, it is a great question and it is a great question because I always say that the question ‘why?’ is always fraud with epistemological dilemmas and danger. We will never gonna know why. You know, you can tell me why you called me today and that might be the real reason why and there might be some other reason that you don’t even know, some subconscious reason why. The whole question ‘why?’ is one of these things that I say: ‘Don’t ask why’. There is The Doors’ song ‘Don’t ask why’. But I mean, of course, you can ask why but you never really gonna know. That is not satisfying but I think that is the reality.

 With 9/11 all these events would you agree with the premise that one is going to look who benefits from it and you will find the guilty party? Would you agree with that?

 I would say did we give probably the best indication. You know, I was engaged in Marxist debates and we had this dialogue to go logic for many years, now I’m working in legal journalism, and I appreciate legal logic and it is the logical application. And what is the logical application of all of this evidence that we’ve talked about now and, of course, you and I both know there is much more. The logical implication is that the States were involved.

 Who benefited from 426 children being bloodily murdered in latocuous seria? Who would have benefited from it in your opinion?

 The people that have the blood on their hands and aiming to kill Christians and other whites and people that are different from them even if it’s just at a flattest degree, the mad men..

 Would you say that this would be the perfect story yet for caring out like, let’s call them, black operations?

 You are getting into this area, this forth category I mentioned, this indirect offensive attack. I’m working on that now, I’m trying to develop it, I see a lot of problems with it, because it requires that you have a lot of subcategories and it gets to the point where I really even ask myself – is this type of categorization really useful and beneficial in terms of sort of theory of terrorism? I’m working on it but I recognize there are limitations even of my own research.

 Indirect offensive attack would be exactly what?

 For example, the Brits dressed as Muslims that were found in Syria. They are pretending to be someone else and they are staging these attacks, making it look like Assad’s troops had done it, for example, or people who are sympathetic to Assad, it is sort of my conception.

 I see. I like the way you divide things up into different categories, it makes much more sense, it is more logical to my mind. Thanks a lot, take care, buddy.

 That was part 4 of an interview in progress. You can find the rest of that interview at our website Voiceofrussia.com. Thanks for listening and as always I wish you the best wherever you may be. Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_06/United-States-were-involved-in-9-11-events-Len-Bracken-3818/