The Phantom Truck
* 17 March 1992 In a busy street of Buenos Aires, in the early afternoon, a three-story Israeli embassy was entirely demolished: ‘a pickup truck driven by a suicide bomber and loaded with explosives smashed into the front of the Israeli Embassy located on the corner of Arroyo and Suipacha, and detonated. The embassy, a Catholic church, and a nearby school building were destroyed.’ – or, that is Wikipedia’s story. In fact, we shall here argue, no trace of any such car-bomb has ever been found, or suicide bomber, nor has any witness testified to seeing it; nor were other buildings adjacent destroyed, they merely had windows broken. Quoting from a more reliable source:
although the shock wave broke glass windows and plaster of practically all the buildings across the street from the Embassy – even blowing in a vitreaux of a church across the street, which sadly fell on a priest and killed him – the only building structurally affected was the Embassy itself.
A car bomb soon became the official story, but do you really want to believe that its blast could have worked in so selective a manner? We quote further from this expert (Salbuchi), below.
* Two years later, a seven-story building nearby was reduced to rubble, belonging to AMIA, l’Association Mutelle Israélite Argentine. Again, a car-bomb was alleged as the cause, but a US explosives expert who was part of the investigation, Charles Hunter, identified “major discrepancies” between the car-bomb thesis put forward and the blast pattern recorded in photos. A report drafted two weeks later noted that, in the wake of the bombing, merchandise in a store immediately to the right of AMIA was tightly packed against its front windows and merchandise in another shop had been blown out onto the street—suggesting that the blast came from inside rather than outside. Hunter also could not understand how the building across the street could still be standing if the bomb had exploded in front of AMIA.
The AMIA building blew up killing 85 innocent Argentinean civilians and 230 wounded. Once again the casualties were mainly Argentineans and only a few Jews. Those killed were all Argentine citizens, and the whole tragedy fell strictly under Argentine jurisdiction. None of the Israeli personnel in charge of security were killed in either of the two terrorist attacks.
On the day the first explosion took place, President Carlos Menem officially requested the assistance of the FBI and CIA from the United States and the Mossad intelligence service and the armed forces of Israel. Why, how very thoughtful of the President. Years later, these same guys somehow turned up immediately after the Bali bomb in Jakarta to ‘investigate’ it – and that was without even having been invited.
Car bombs were alleged for both of these events, despite a complete absence of witness testimony. A court hearing in 2004 continued to insist on the car bomb thesis despite the testimony of at least a dozen witnesses, who swore blind that there was no car bomb. This was dealt with in a section of the report headed “Those who didn’t notice it”[i.e.the car bomb]. Eg, Gabriel Alberto Villalba: “He related that…..his glance being directed towards the police patrol car in front of AMIA, he saw suddenly an explosion which came out of the main entrance of the building, from the inside outwards, which covered everything,” and “a ball of fire which came from the building towards the street”.
Another witness, Juan Carlos Alvarez, was a street cleaner standing in front of the main entrance just where the car bomb was meant to have passed- he would have been knocked over by it – when the explosion happened. Miraculously, he survived, the doorman with whom he had been speaking only seconds before dying instantly. He also failed to “notice” the car bomb, laden with 300 kilos of explosive, turn at speed, its breaks screeching as it came straight at him. He paid a heavy price for his insistence: in an article which appeared in October 2006 he recounts how his treatment at the hands of the prosecutors nearly lead him to suicide. He suffered terrible after-effects from the bombing and now lives in poverty in Buenos Aires without the medical support that he needs. Effectively, the court claimed that the failure of these witnesses to see the car bomb was attributable to post-traumatic stress rather than to the more obvious explanation that it simply wasn’t there.
The investigation of the 1994 bombing by the Argentine judiciary, which had no political independence from the executive branch, has had little credibility with the public, because of a bribe by the lead judge to a key witness and a pattern of deceptive accounts based on false testimony (Source)
Security Staff Unhurt
1996: Towards the end of the year a document entitled “Buenos Aires police are being scapegoated” is circulated, presumed to come from within the Federal Police. It questioned, in an ironic manner, the car bomb thesis, listing all the witnesses who say that there was no car bomb. It mockingly questioned how the car bomb managed to make it to the fourth floor, the epicenter of the 1994 explosion, and points out the exceedingly suspicious circumstance that none of the Israeli personnel in charge of security were killed in either of the two terrorist attacks.
May, 1997 The report of the National Academy of Engineers, commissioned by the Supreme Court, is heard. On the insistence of Beraja and DAIA this was held behind closed doors. However, the 77-page document came into the possession of Libre Opinion, who published a summary on their web site. In their report, these experts expressed their absolute certainty that the explosions at the Israeli Embassy came from bombs within the building.
“The day after this session, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires deplored these conclusions and accused the Supreme Court of anti-semitism.” Absolutely no witness recalled seeing the Renault van. The Israeli army turned up after the event, planted a flag in the rubble, and then one soldier ‘found’ a twisted fragment of Renault van. The existence of this phantom van has become central to such arguments. The final death toll was 29 killed, and 242 wounded. Several Israelis died, but most of the victims were Argentine civilians, many children.
The Israeli military Shin Beth may have been the actual bombers. They held complete security at the embassy and a bomb that size could never have been brought in. The Shin Beth also refused to allow an independent investigation of the embassy, only allowing Mossad allowed access to the site. The 1994 destruction of the seven-story AMIA building had some similarities to the Oklahoma City bomb two years later.
JF: What similarities do you find with other attacks in the US on 9/11, in the UK on 7/7, and in Madrid on 3/11?(interview by Jim Fetzer with Adrian Salbuchi on 13.10.09.)
AS: Well, they all seem to have the same “fingerprint” so to speak. As I say above:
• these false flag events all had near-perfect technical performance, where the buildings they wanted to be blown up and collapse, always did so – reflecting massive technological support and planning;
• but they left “loose ends” that were impossible to explain-away – their lies ended up showing glaringly;
• they all had episodes of planted evidence;
• the “right people” – common workers – died, while top brass – ambassadors, CEOs, governors, billionaires – were “luckily” out of the buildings at the time; and,
• finally, they all served to support the “Global War on Islamic Terror”.
Argentina here needs philosophers – not politicians, lawyers or journalists – who are able to tell the difference between what is real and what is not. The media sneer at these, as ‘conspiracy theorists.’ Media hacks have sold their souls to Corporate Untruth and so are annoyed to come across persons who have not done this. Analogies with the Oklahoma bombing of the Murray federal building, where the local FBI lived, are relevant: none were present in the building when it blew up, and the FBI received an increase in funding after the event. Those perpetrating false-flag terror normally get an increase in funding as a consequence of the event. This is partly to ensure that everyone stays loyal and quiet. Blame at Oklahoma was meant to fall upon some local Muslims, but this didn’t go according to plan. The judge at the enquiry insisted upon the ‘lone nut’ explanation, a certain Mr Timothy McVeigh, and all other testimony was ignored – and lost. Its up to Argentinians to try and prevent this from happening and rescue the true and relevant facts – before they vanish down the Memory Hole.
‘9/11 was an inside job’ is a slogan, a motto, that is relevant to both Argentine terror-events. The bomb(s) were placed inside, not outside. If the two events of 1992 and 1994 were both ‘inside jobs’, then the two buildings both completely destroyed were wrecked from within – not by an external cause, viz a Renault truck packed with explosives. If they were ‘inside jobs’, then the hypothesis would have to be, that Shin Beth the Israel army perpetrated the event and then (in 1994) planted the fragment of a Renault van.
The turning-point of the investigation has to be the publication in May 1997 of the National Academy of Engineers report, which determined that the Israeli embassy explosion had originated from within the building. It is important that the full text of this report be published and circulated around science departments.
There are analogies with the London Israel embassy bombing ten days after the 1994 event in Buenos Aires. Here the blame was assigned to Palestinian sources. These two embassy bombings were both successfully blamed upon enemies of Israel. The London embassy was blown up by a car bomb (without excluding the option of a bomb also having gone off within the embassy). If a mere ten days separated the these two events, in Buenos Aires and London, is it not likely that the same agency was involved? 85 were killed in one event, none in the other. The latter was phantom terror in the sense that no-one was badly hurt. Phantom terror is cheaper, but it has to ride on the back of real terror. It aims to produce fear and terror, by reawakening the memory of what happened earlier.
In this new millennium, what called itself the ‘Truth’ movement came into existence, in the wake of 9/11. This looks at the global extent of false-flag terror, by those who seek to control our world: the Vampire Elite. Argentine philosophers need to use the insights gained by this movement, to acquire a proper perspective on things, and remedy the ghastly mistake that their country has made, of blaming Iran. A Mexican viewpoint could be relevant…
JF: These events appear to me to have been orchestrated with the objective of undermining technical and scientific cooperation between Argentina and Iran in relation to the development of peaceful atomic energy.
Background: IranCen in 1987–88 signed three agreements with Argentina’s National Atomic Energy Commission. The first Iranian-Argentine agreement involved help in converting the U.S. supplied Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) research reactor from highly enriched fuel to 19.75% low-enriched uranium, and to supply the low-enriched uranium to Iran. The uranium was delivered in 1993. The second and third agreements were for technical assistance, including components, for the building of pilot plants for uranium-dioxide conversion and fuel fabrication. Under US pressure, assistance under second and third agreements was reduced
In December 1991, according to the detailed account in the report, the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires informed Argentina’s foreign ministry that the United States could not accept the continuation of the contracts on nuclear cooperation with Iran. In January, Argentina announced the suspension of the shipments of nuclear materials to Iran.
Feb 1993: The IAEA confirms that a shipment of nearly 20 percent enriched uranium from Argentina will arrive in Iran within the year. 1989 Argentina replaces the core of Iran’s research reactor at TNRC. 1988 Nuclear Fuel reports that Argentina has contracts to supply 115.8 kg of nearly 20 percent enriched uranium to Iran, which must by filled by mid-1990. Argentina was continuing to provide Iran with low-grade enriched uranium and the two countries were in serious negotiations on broader nuclear cooperation when the bombing occurred.(2)
2002: The arrest warrants for former Iranian president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and six other former top Iranian officials were issued only after the United States had applied diplomatic pressure, according to a Nov. 3 report by Marc Perelman in the Jewish daily Forward. Perelman also reported that the George W. Bush administration was going to cite the indictment as part of its campaign to get Russia and China to support a Security Council resolution on sanctions against Iran.
The main theory about Iran’s motive for ordering the bombing of the headquarters of the Jewish organisation AMIA on Jul. 18, 1994, is that Iran wanted to retaliate against Argentina for its decision to cut off exports of nuclear materials. That motive was asserted by former Iranian intelligence officer Abdolghassem Mesbahi in a 2002 deposition and repeated in a report by the Argentine intelligence service, SIDE, in September 2002.
Argentina has a Spanish ancestry, and so after 2004 some turned to the Madrid bombing, (Chapter 14 of ToT) to help make sense of the horror: ‘If you study the works of the Spanish investigator Del Pino, you can find out uncanny similarity to the attack in Atocha. Would you like to meet the twin sister of the false Ford truck used in the attack on the Embassy of Israel and the false Traffic used in the attack on AMIA? Meet the False Backpack that the “silly terrorists left behind” in the Spanish station Vallecas’. item (5) In the early hours of the morning after terror struck the Madrid train stations, a planted rucksack was ‘found’ nearby and it had ‘clues’ that led the police straight to some hapless Muslims.
Why would Iran, thousands of miles away from Argentina, wish to cause this horror? Arrest warrants were issued in Argentina for top Iranian politicians with no scrap of real evidence, but instead only an allegation. The allegation concerned a supposed bitterness of Iran, over the cancellation of a civil nuclear-power program. In 1991 Argentina was instructed by America to cease this exchange program, after it had signed several binding contracts with Iran and was thereby put into a quite stressful situation. But, this program was evidently still ongoing, in that enriched-uranium was being exchanged, over the key period 1992-4. Iran was benefitting from this, it really needed that collaboration. No way could it have deliberately engineered such a bomb outrage, to terminate the collaboration. Is it not more likely that ve been
The US ambassador to Argentina at the time, James Cheek, commented in a 2008 article: “To my knowledge, there was never any real evidence of [Iranian responsibility]. They never came up with anything.”
Voltaire Network commented: ‘While trying to provide grounds for the accusations against Muslims, the US are attempting to exploit the memory of the attacks perpetrated in 1992 and 1994 in the city of Buenos Aires. In fact, most encyclopedias continue to attribute those crimes to Hezbollah or Iran. Despite that, no one believes in those accusations anymore, and the Argentinean justice itself is currently turning towards an Israeli lead. Consequently, Washington is putting pressure to end an investigation that is becoming uncomfortable.’ T. Meyssane
AS: ‘The case for a car bomb melted away when the State Prosecutor and the Court hearing on this case invited technical specialist surveyors from the Argentine National Engineers Academy to determine what caused the Israeli Embassy building to collapse. Their conclusion was that the explosion took place from inside the building and was not caused by an alleged car-bomb. To make matters worse for Zionist pressure groups, a passer-by had filmed from several blocks away the mushroom cloud that rose from that explosion, a characteristic effect that also pointed to an internal explosion….strong rumours surfaced that what actually blew up was an arsenal that the Israelis apparently had housed in the building’s basement.
AS: ‘The in-fighting among Zionists had as one of its bloody episodes the bombing of the Israeli Embassy and later the AMIA building in Argentina, which was perceived by the Zionist Nazis at the time as a symbol of Labour’s stronghold. Why Buenos Aires, you might ask? Simple – because Argentine public security has always been, and still is, very weak, thus making both terror operations relatively easy with Argentine targets. … The problem with Argentina is that over the past forty years our Nation-State has eroded so badly that it has ceased being a Sovereign Institution and become a highly dependent Colonial Administration entity. Now, how can you expect a totally dependent nation like Argentina to have an “independent judiciary”? No way. Our judiciary does the bidding for those people who really control and run the country, where a global power network of think tanks, NGO’s, lobbies and pressure groups has the final say.
‘This network includes not just entities like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Conference, and Chatham House, but also embedded within it are The World Jewish Council, AIPAC, the B’Nai B’Rith Masonic Lodge, the World Zionist Organization, the ADL, and the American Jewish Congress, among many, many others. It is this power network that calls the shots and twists our government’s arms! … Naturally, the global think-tank network also drafts what the global media should report and say. They are those who decide who will appear as “good guys” and who as “bad guys” on CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, and so on. More still, they are the ones who decide what is and what isn’t news!
A Mexican Clue
The Congress Hall of Mexico, Mexico City, 11 October, 2001: Two Israelis sneak past security into the Chamber of Deputies, Mexico’s parliament, posing as cameramen. But they arouse suspicion, and security guards frisk them. It turns out, they were armed with: 9-mm plastic Glock pistols (undetectable by metal detectors) nine grenades, several sticks of explosives, three detonators and 58 cartridges. Two terrorists, Ben Zvi and Smecke, have been caught red-handed, so what is their punishment? This is Guy Fawkes, plotting to blow up Parliament! Guy Fawkes and his gang were hung, drawn and quartered, for attempting so heinous a crime. But these guys – just went back home! Let’s quote John Leonard – in what is arguably the sole English-language account published of this event: ‘In a flurry of damage control, the Israeli embassy interceded, Sharon sent a special envoy, strings were pulled, the story was spiked, and everyone went home.’ (1) This edifying tale seems to have completely disappeared not only from the media but also from the web. You can only find it today on Rense. Thank God for Rense!
What was the motive for this foiled attempt at false-flag terror? There was no personal or evidently- national motive, no revenge called for – only a global strategy. Mexicans, and South Americans in general were not reckoned to be keen on the forthcoming war with Iraq. In fact they saw it as totally pointless. This act of terror would supposedly have gotten them in the mood for it – according to the schemes of the Vampire Elite. It is an axiom of false-flag terror, that it always strengthens the position of the far-right – who devised the act in the first place. But, we ask, how could the tiny state of Israel have extended its hand as far as Mexico, plucking away the guilty culprits, and then have the influence to crush media debate? And, who could ever be so wicked, as to want to do such a thing?
The Zion Mafia
Does the Old Testament help us to answer these issues? ‘I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter.’ (Exodus 23:27) In the Book of Deuteronomy, somebody is explaining the tactics of deception to the Hebrews (20:10-13) ‘When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.’ Let’s refrain from quoting any further from these still-shocking texts…and just ask, does there exist a far-reaching ‘Zion Mafia’ in our modern world, inspired by such ethics? Here are some helpful attempts to describe it, by a colleague (I have made extracts):
* ‘Their ambition seems to go far beyond the desire for a Jewish homeland towards their own brand of world control. Their brand of world control does not seem to include the well-being of the existing world human population or the well-being of the world environment on which all our existence depends.
* ‘These people, who ever they are, have a lot of similarities with the Italian Mafia. They are secret, they are ruthless, they loan money to people, they kill people when necessary, even their own kind. Their success depends on the public not being aware of their activity and accepting the guilt of those publicly blamed.
* ‘In the early days of the Israeli State there was a lot of idealism and there was even socialism. The covert criminal militarism we see now was not part of the agenda.
* ‘The core of the Zion Mafia is probably a relatively small number of people, we can speculate as to who they are. At present they have the whole world under a spell.
* ‘To break a spell, it is recognised traditionally by magicians that one has to have a name, a word or group of words to focus on as a reference. Anyone can use the term ‘Zion Mafia’, and it refers to the inner circle of activists who are running, driving, coordinating the current global conspiracy.
* ‘The Zion Mafia have considerable influence on American foreign and military policy, in the banking system, in the security business and intelligence services, and in supply of fuel, and in Pharmaceuticals.’ Quotes from Here.
That notion of breaking a spell is important. Standard accounts of both of these Argentine events state matter-of-factly that a suicide driver blew up a truck etc., while those who doubt this are ‘anti-semitic.’ These trucks were nonexistent just like as the Boeing airplane alleged to have flown into the Pentagon on 9/11. People are made to believe in a phantom. It is indeed remarkable that they could pull off the same ploy, twice. (4)
- John Paul Leonard, p.363 of The War on Freedom, How and Why America was attacked on September 11, 2001 Nafeez Ahmed, 2002.
- Zionist ideology was expressed by Yitzhak Shamir, former Israeli Prime Minister: “Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war… We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today…”
- Meyssan commented, ‘Il est étrange qu’il faille une dizaine d’années pour se rendre compte qu’un attentat a été réalisé en plaçant un explosif dans un bâtiment et non avec un véhicule kamikaze’ which, roughly translated, means, how odd that it took them ten years to realize, there was no truck. Still today, Israel Shamir, whose geo-political views are generally sound, has a page on the topic which begins: ‘Israel’s embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina was bombed on March 17, 1992, when a pickup truck, driven by a suicide bomber and loaded with explosives, smashed into the front of the Israeli Embassy and detonated destroying the embassy.’ To English-language readers, it will hopefully have become clear that no such truck existed, from Jim Fetzer’s interview with Adrian Salbuchi in October of 2009.