Espionage and the 9/11/2001 Events
By Servando Gonzalez
Beginning with the seminal documentary Loose
Change by Dylan Avery, 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
after it has been properly evaluated. As a matter of fact, the
official American definition of intelligence is “evaluated
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.”
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
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 with progressively different
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 —
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
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. 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.
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. 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
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
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
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
Moreover, the fact that the 9/11 served as a God-given pretext
to carry out policies decided way in advance 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
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. 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,  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
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.
 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
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
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 http://www.servandogonzalez.org.
His book, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The
Secret War Against the American People appeared in late 2010
and is available at Amazon.com.
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 Amazon.com.
Servando's new book (in Spanish) La CIA,
Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, just
appeared, and is available at Amazon.com
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.