Schiller Institute on YouTube Schiller Institute on Facebook RSS

Home >


To Stop World War III: Release the 28 Pages!

by Dennis Speed
October 2014

Watch the video archive of this town meeting on YouTube

This article appears in the October 17, 2014 issue of Executive Intelligence Review and is reprinted with permission.

[PDF version of this article]

Terry Strada, a leader of the 9/11 Families, whose husband was killed in 
the World Trade Center, challenged a questioner who insisted the release 
of the 28 pages was unimportant:

Oct. 14—More than 100 persons gathered in Harlem, New in York City, on Oct. 11, to join Jeffrey Steinberg, Counterintelligence Editor for EIR, and Terry Strada, co-chair of 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism, in demanding the release of the excised 28 pages of the 2002 Joint Congressional Committee Inquiry into 9/11. The meeting was sponsored by the Schiller Institute, and was a follow-up to the June 14 Conference also held by the Institute in New York City, entitled “It’s Time To Create a World Without War.” By the conclusion of the Harlem meeting, the world of American politics had been fundamentally altered, by processes intersecting that conference, international processes which that conference both embodied and catalyzed.

The next day, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche declared that the combination of the Harlem meeting, and the actions by former U.S. Senator and 9/11 Joint Inquiry co-chairman Bob Graham in the days immediately preceding that conference, to re-invigorate the campaign to release the 28 pages, had created “the most important flank to stop World War III.”

On Oct. 9, Graham was interviewed on CBC Radio by reporter Brent Bambury, who entitled his interview, now posted online, “Did censoring a 9/11 report pave the way for ISIS?” Graham effectively said yes.

Bambury asked Graham to comment on a statement made by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), that reading the suppressed 28 pages has “changed his entire view” of American military and foreign policy conducted after, and in the name of, 9/11: “I don’t know precisely what Congressman Massey was referring to in his reference, in terms of changing his worldview, but if it was that Saudi Arabia has had a long history of supporting groups to encourage the expansion of the Wahhabism section of Islam, and in so doing, Saudi Arabia has contributed to the development and expansion of this extreme form of Islam which is now being expressed by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, that would be a change in worldview, and a change in the significance about withholding the information around Saudi Arabia.”

Graham was asked about the recent vote in the Canadian parliament to enter into military actions to stop the Islamic State: “ISIS is a reality. It’s brutal and it has the potential of reaching into North America through the apparently substantial number of Canadian and U.S. persons who are now fighting with ISIS. I think, had the 28 pages been released 10 years ago, and had dampened the ability and commitment of Saudi Arabia to export its extreme form of Wahhabism, and exposed the Saudis’ funding of these extreme organizations, it may have avoided the necessity of having a debate in the Canadian parliament as to whether to go to war.”

On Oct. 3, speaking at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Vice President Joseph Biden had revealed the partial truth: “Our biggest problem is our allies. Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world,” Biden said. Biden also laid part of the blame for this policy on Saudi Arabia.

“We could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them,” he said.

Filling In the Blanks

Steinberg, filled in the Vice President’s remarks at Harvard with the whole truth: The Saudis relationship with Great Britain, and not the “oil for protection” relationship of the Saudis with the United States, said to date back to World War II, is the center of the problem. Besides supplying extensive detail as to how the fight to release the 28 pages has progressed to even this point, Steinberg, whose article “Prince Bandar and 9/11,” (EIR, June 29, 2007)[1], described the Saudi role in funding at least two of the 9/11 hijackers, identified the secret to investigating international terrorism today—the 1985 Al-Yamamah oil deal between the company British Aerospace Enterprises (BAE) and Saudi Arabia, which generated at least $100 billion in untraced funds made available for various “black operations” including terrorism. Prince Bandar bin-Sultan personally brokered the Al-Yamamah deal in 1985, personally receiving at least $2 billion in kickbacks; and Bandar is directly implicated in supplying the money to the two 9/11 hijackers through an account at Riggs Bank. Bandar, a skilled pilot himself, was trained from his teenage years by British Intelligence.

This is of utmost importance in understanding the changed significance of the 28 pages. Those involved for years in attempting to expose “what really happened on 9/11” must invert their thinking. The incompetent, disastrous decision by the Obama Administration to rely on the Saudis to train “moderates” to act as hired guns in the “battle against ISIS” would be shown to be treasonous, were the 28 pages to be revealed to the American people. “This is not about strategic events that happened 13 and a half years ago. We’re talking about events that have not yet happened, and will have horrific consequences if they are not stopped.” Steinberg said.

The most dramatic moment of the Harlem meeting occurred in the question-and-answer period. A questioner, who supplied valuable insight into the incompetent and also nefarious workings of certain elements of American intelligence in Southwest Asia, minimized the importance of releasing the 28 pages, saying, “There is so much more that is happening, that the 28 pages is really not a major portion of that at all.”

Terry Strada almost ran to the podium to supply the necessary correction. “Excuse me, but I don’t think that that statement deserved a round of applause. To stand there and say, that the bankrollers don’t matter—‘So, what, if it was Saudi Arabia?’ It most certainly does absolutely matter, because if you cut off the funding, you don’t have 9/11, you don’t have terrorist attacks, you don’t have ISIS. You have to go after the [people] that create these terrorist organizations. And don’t stand here, in front me, and ever say, it doesn’t matter, because it most absolutely, certainly does!”

While some in the audience nervously attempted to dissemble at that point, saying, “That’s not what he was trying to say,” the truth had come out: Many Americans are afraid to find out what is in the 28 pages, and afraid of what will happen to them if they demand their release.

The Ongoing Threat

There is a reason. Salon magazine online on Oct. 13 ran the title “Dick Cheney Wants You To Be Very Afraid,” reporting on a sycophantic interview conducted with Cheney by neo-con William Kristol, co-founder of Project for the New American Century and a proponent of the “permanent revolution/permanent war” outlook, which was a key part of the Bush Administration’s alliance with the Saudis, and the coverup of 9/11, as well as the police-state drive that followed.

In that interview Cheney warned, “We’re in a very dangerous period and I think it’s more threatening than the period before 9/11.... I think 9/11 will turn out to be not nearly as bad as the next mass casualty attack against the United States, which, if and when it comes, will be with something far deadlier than [with] airline tickets”

Even more ominously, in an interview with Hugh Hewitt on June 24, Cheney had mused about a “smuggled nuke” being detonated somewhere just outside of Washington D.C., inducing a “necessary takeover” of the United States government.

Hewitt: Do you think we get through this decade without a massive attack on the homeland?

Cheney: I doubt it. I doubt it. I think there will be another attack. And next time, I think it’s likely to be far deadlier than the last one. You can just imagine what would happen?

Hewitt: Yeah.

Cheney: if somebody could smuggle a nuclear device, put it in a shipping container, and drive it down the Beltway outside of Washington, D.C.

Hewitt: If that were to happen, do you see the government reconstituting? Because it would have to be military rule for a period of time at least.

Cheney: Well, there was, some years ago, a program called the Continuity of Government program. It was part of the Cold War strategy that we pursued here, and basically it involved having a government waiting, if you will, ready to go in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States, so that we could always maintain the Constitutional base of governmental authority. I was part of that program for several years, and a lot of it, I’m sure, is probably still classified. But it was very, very important, and we operated and actually trained under circumstances of how would we go about making, providing for a government to survive if, you know, we’re having nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union falling all over the country.

The Russian Response

None of this is lost on Russia. Recognizing the need to assert some form of sanity in the face of an ever more lunatic policy emanating from the Obama Administration, Russia has attempted to find a way to leverage the BRICS development process into what Helga Zepp-LaRouche has stressed must become a “new, inclusive world security architecture.”

Ambassador Veniamin Popov, the former Russian Ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the current Director of the Center for Partnership of Civilizations at the Moscow State University of International Relations (MGIMO), said, in an interview with RIA Novosti, that “joint efforts of the international community and major global powers can pave the way for the victory over the Islamic State (IS) and any other strategy is useless.... We can defeat this evil [IS] by collective efforts only. Everything that is being done now is more of a façade.... The collective efforts envisage Syria and Iran first of all, as well as Russia, China, India, the other BRICS, and so on. But at the moment the world is splitting based on other principles.”

It must be the self-assigned initiative of the American citizenry to “come to the aid of their country” by joining together to reject the de facto anti-Constitutional coup that has been the reality in this country since Sept. 11, 2001—a coup conducted by foreign powers, with the complicity of a treasonous faction of the United States. The release of the 28 pages begins the process of the rollback of that coup, whether Dick Cheney, and his policy twin, “play President” Barack Obama, like it, or not.

[1] On June 21, 2007, Lyndon LaRouche delivered a webcast on the topic “BAE: The World’s Biggest Loose End,” detailing this matter. A transcript of this is available. See EIR, June 29, 2007.

For a fuller dossier on the coverup, See “Bust the London-Riyadh Global Terror Axis,” Aug. 19, 2013.

Obama's War on America: 9/11 Two.  An EIR Special Report.  Click here to order online.
Order online: