Back to Articles Index

Intelligence, Espionage and the 9/11/2001 Events

By Servando Gonzalez

Beginning with the seminal documentary Loose Change by Dylan Avery,[1] one of the earliest attempts at clarifying what really happened on September 11th, 2001, to the recently appeared 9/11: Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out, by Richard Gage and the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, innumerable attempts have been made, either from the point of view of conspiracy theory or by the scientific analysis of the evidence, to find the truth about the event that was used as a pretext to change America into a totalitarian dictatorship.

In this article I will add a new approach. This is not an analysis from the point of view of conspiracies or science, but from the point of view of intelligence and espionage.

What is Intelligence?

In the field of intelligence and espionage, intelligence is the final product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, analysis, and interpretation of available information[2] after it has been properly evaluated. As a matter of fact, the official American definition of intelligence is “evaluated information.”

In its advisory report to the U.S. Government, the 1955 task force on Intelligence Activities of the second Herbert Hoover Commission stated: “Intelligence deals with all the things which should be known in advance of initiating a course of action.”[3] A similar definition was given more than 2000 years ago by a true expert. According to Sun Tzu, “the reason why the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievement surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge [intelligence].”[4]

Though the definition of intelligence is very simple and straightforward, most authors dealing with the subject confuse it. Some of them use the terms information and intelligence as synonyms, when it is obvious that they are not. Others, even use the term “raw intelligence” as a synonym for information, but, as we will see below, contrary to information (which might contain misinformation and disinformation), intelligence is a very elaborated product; there is nothing raw on it.

The Evaluation of Information

The evaluation of information, also known as appraisal, has to do with the analysis of a piece of information in terms of credibility, reliability, pertinence, accuracy, to change it into intelligence. The evaluation of information is accomplished at several stages within the intelligence cycle[5] with progressively different contexts.
The evaluation or appraisal of a particular item of information is indicated by a conventional letter-number system.

The evaluation simultaneously takes into consideration both the credibility of the information itself — a process involving a check against intelligence already in hand and an educated guess as to the accuracy of the new information based on how well it dovetails with the previous intelligence[6] — and the reliability of the source based on its previous performance. Though independent, the two aspects cannot be totally separated from each other.

The authoritativeness of the source, which may not necessarily coincide with its reliability, can never be ignored, though it is sometimes overrated in the light of the credibility of the information —something that has to do with the expectations of the people involved in the evaluation process. People, however, including intelligence analysts, tend to believe what they suspect or expect to be true, or what better fits their personal needs.

It must be emphasized that both evaluations must be entirely independent of each other, and they are indicated in accordance with the system shown above. Thus, information judged to be “probably true” received from a source considered to be “usually reliable” is designated as “B2”.

The question of what is authoritative and what is not is very relative. A highly authoritative source may produce credible information, but the intelligence officer must always ask himself the question “Why?” The higher the authoritativeness of the source, the higher the possibility that it may be biased or had been compromised and, therefore, the higher the danger of disinformation. Highly authoritative sources from totalitarian governments may not always tell the truth, to say the least, but highly authoritative sources from democratic countries may not be very reliable either. There is evidence that the CIA has been involved in recruiting scholars at the most prestigious American universities, and journalists in the most influential American media. Also, there is suspicion that the KGB, the Mossad, and even the Cuban intelligence services, among others, have done a good job penetrating American universities and media.

From the point of view of intelligence, a stolen document is often more valuable than a gratuitously conveyed secret one from whatever source, since it diminishes, though not totally eliminates, the risk of deliberately misleading information. The “why?,” however, applies not only to the danger of planted disinformation. It must also be asked of the source, even of the one whose bona fides is beyond question. The danger here is of an intelligence service believing what it wants to believe —a problem that has affected all the world’s intelligence services at one time or another. The problem of the bias of the evaluator is one that is unavoidable in intelligence; it extends even to information of fullest credibility from the most reliable sources.

Bias in evaluation can never be fully overcome in an intelligence service and, more importantly, in high government circles, and it can only be compounded by creating evaluators to evaluate the evaluators. Within the intelligence establishment, the only effective safeguard lies in the individual competence and quality of its members as well as their intellectual honesty and personal courage to face pressures from above.

One must always bear in mind that no source can ever be regarded as infallible, and no single bit of information can ever be regarded as totally accurate. Whatever the case, the chances for error, misinterpretation, misunderstanding and deceit are too high to blindly trust any information.

Superpatriots, doctrinaire partisans, court historians, bureaucratic climbers, people of provincial outlook, enemy moles —all of them are potential dangers to sound information evaluation. Perspective, perspicacity, worldliness, a soundly philosophical outlook, the knowledge and sense of history, and perhaps a bit of skepticism and a sense of humor — these are the qualities of an intelligence analyst that minimize error in the interpretation and evaluation of information.

The 9/11, 2001, Events

All the initial information the American people received about the 9/11 events cam from a single source: the American government. This initial information was later reinforced by the 9/11 Commission Report.[7] With the single exception of Congresswoman Cynthia MacKinney, who since the very beginning questioned the U.S. Government’s version of the events, nobody in the two branches of the Repucratic Party or the mainstream media questioned it.[8]

But the U.S. Government, like all governments around the world, is made out of politicians, and politicians have never been a source of truthful information.[9] Moreover, currently the U.S. Government is fully under the control of the CFR conspirators, whose goal is destroying America and implementing a communo-fascist totalitarian government they call the New World Order. Consequently, I will qualify the only source of the information about the 9/11 information, that is, CFR secret agents in the U.S. Government, with a D: Not usually reliable.

Now I will take a look at the accuracy of the information itself.

Probably the main characteristic of a truthful information is that in the past similar information has proved to be true. Of course, there is a first time for everything, and the fact that an event has never happened is no sure indication that it cannot happen.

Consequently, the evaluation of the information itself in the case of historical events is a process involving a check against intelligence already in hand about similar events before and an educated guess as to the accuracy of the information related to the event based on how well it fits with this intelligence.

In the case of the 9/11 events, the evidence shows that, first, never before 9/11/2001, a skyscraper with a steel structure has collapsed due to a fire.

For example, on July 28, 1945, a B-25 bomber crashed against the Empire State building, at the time the tallest skyscraper in Manhattan. The fire destroyed floors 78, 79 and 90, and it took several hours for the firefighters to extinguish the fire, but the building didn’t collapse.

Secondly, never before 9/11/2001, a skyscraper has collapsed on its own footprint except as the result of controlled demolition. This is why companies who do controlled demolition are paid large amounts of money to do their highly specialized job.

If buildings, particularly buildings with a steel structure, could usually fall on their own footprint when demolished, these companies would be superfluous — but they are not. Nevertheless, CFR agents in the U.S. Government want us to believe that, exceptionally, on September 11, 2001, not one, or two, but three skyscrapers with steel structure collapsed on their own footprint, allegedly as the result of fires.

But, in the analysis of historical events, we have the added advantage that we can add to the evaluation of the information the occurrence of similar events in which the information has proved to be true, after the one in question. In the case of the 9/11 events, the evidence shows that, ten years after 9/11/2001, no skyscraper with a steel structure has collapsed due to a fire. Examples abound.

On October, 2004, a violent fire destroyed the 20 top floors of one of the tallest skyscrapers in Caracas, Venezuela, but the building didn’t collapse.

On February 2005, a fire started in one of the tallest buildings in Madrid, Spain. After a whole day trying to control it, the firefighters extinguished the fire, which consumed 30 of the top floors, but the building didn’t collapse.

On September, 2010, a 28 stories apartment building in Shanghai, China, was totally destroyed by fire, but the steel structure was not affected and the building didn’t collapse.

On April, 2012, a fire started in a tall building still under construction in Moscow. When the firefighters managed to control the fire, it has destroyed most of the top floors, but the building did not collapse.

Moreover, ten years after 9/11/2001, not a single skyscraper has collapsed on its own footprint except as the result of controlled demolition.

Therefore, extrapolating from this verifiable information, any serious intelligence analyst would conclude that the accuracy of the information itself provided by the CFR agents in the U.S. Government can be fairly qualified as a 5, that is, improbable.

Consequently, an intelligence evaluation of the 9/11 events would produce something close to a D5: that is, source not usually reliable, accuracy of the information improbable. For the same reasons, we can safely surmise that, based on the evaluation of the information about the 9/11 events provided by the CFR agents in the U.S. Government, most intelligence services in the world interpreted it as a sloppy, disingenuous attempt to pass disinformation disguised as true intelligence.

Moreover, the fact that the 9/11 served as a God-given pretext to carry out policies decided way in advance[10] is a true index that most likely it actually was not a God-given but a CFR-given one. As some conspirators’ agents have shamelessly declared, never put a good crisis to waste — particularly an artificially created crisis.

The More Things Change …

The new puppet the CFR conspirators installed in the White House has been seamlessly continuing the same policies of the previous puppet but at an accelerated pace. Unfortunately, most Americans don’t realize that we are facing a new paradigm, and this is not politics as usual anymore. My only hope is that they wake up before it is too late, but, having experienced first hand exactly the same process in Cuba, by force I have to be very pessimistic.

The fact that the above methodology to evaluate information and turn it into usable intelligence is still currently employed by CIA analysts may perhaps explain why some CIA employees are highly critical of the 9/11 official explanation, and dissention is growing inside the Agency. Contrary to what some professional disinformers want us to believe, however, CIA dissenters are not America’s enemies.[11] Actually, they have, perhaps unknowingly, become enemies of America’s true secret enemies.

This may also explain the radical about-face taken by the Russian government — one of the few governments in the world not fully under the control of the NWO conspirators. The Russian government may have logically concluded that, if the U.S. Government can do something like 9/11 to its own people, [12] there is no limits to what they can do to other peoples, and are preparing themselves to protect their country and its people from the CFR’s eugenicist madmen.


1. There is a Second Edition of Loose Change by Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Bermas.

2. The concept of information is elusive, to the point that there is no agreement among scientists about what information really is. The fact explains why Shannon and Weaver, the creators of information theory decided to call it “communication theory.”

3. Quoted in Allen Dulles, The Craft of Intelligence (New York: Signet, 1965) , p. 11.

4. Sun Tzu, The Art of War - translated by Samuel B. Griffin (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 144.
5. Intelligence Cycle: The process by which information is acquired, converted into intelligence, and made available to policymakers. There are usually five steps which constitute the intelligence cycle: planning and direction, collection, processing, evaluation and analysis, and dissemination.

6. According to communication theory, the amount of information is directly proportional to the unexpectedness of the message. This also applies to the field of intelligence and espionage.

[7] The 9/11 Commission Report, fully under the control of the CFR conspirators, fully endorsed the initial fairy tale provided by the U.S. Government, to the point that it didn’t mention the collapse of WTC building 7.

8. The American mainstream media has stopped acting as a watchdog. As a whole it accepted the Government’s version of the events and became an obedient mouthpiece parroting it over and over Actually, the only dissenting source of information about 9/11 has been the Internet, and books and DVDs published by minor independent presses.

9. See, i.e., David Wise, The Politics of Lying (New York: Random House, 1973).

10. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” a Report reminiscent of Hitler’s Mein Kampf produced by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an organization formed mostly by so-called “neocons” supporters of the Bush administration, called for an era of open, uncontested global American imperialism based on brute military force. In stark cynicism, the authors of the Report mention that, in order to transform the U.S. military for the new challenges it will face, the process of transformation, “… even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” (Emphasis added). See, Project for the New American Century, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” September, 2000, p. 51. Notice that this report was written exactly a year before the 9/ 11 events.

11. See, i.e., Rowan Scarborough, Sabotage: America’s Enemies Within the CIA (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2007).

12. In the summer of 2001, the Russian intelligence notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots have been specifically trained for suicide missions. In August, Russian President Putin told Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government “in the strongest possible terms” of an imminent attack on airports and government buildings” (MS-NBC interview, Sept., 15, 2001).


Servando Gonzalez is a Cuban-born American writer, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución fidelista, The Secret Fidel Castro, The Nuclear Deception and La madre de todas las conspiraciones, all available at

He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro, California, both available at the author's site at

His book, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People appeared in late 2010 and is available at Or download a .pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer or i-Pad. His book, OBAMANIA: The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at

Servando's new book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, just appeared, and is available at and other bookstores online. He is already working on his next book, The Council on Foreign Relations and the Betrayal of the American People: A Chronology of Treason, which he plans to have ready by the end of this year.




 ----------------- ----------------------------------