At the end of part one, I posed the question: Was the US complicit in or even, directly responsible for 9/11? Before you even start examining the evidence relating to the 9/11 inside job theory, you have to take a look back through US history and try to establish a context. Many believe that those in the upper echelons of the US power structure have, on several occasions, played a role in assisting or creating events to advance a plan or agenda. The most “infamous” of such theories begins with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour that instigated US entry into World War 2.
Whilst there is still a degree of speculation surrounding the evidence of a cover-up, it does appear that the US knew that Japan intended to attack (pre-Pearl Harbour).
The Hilo Tribune Herald reported “Japan May Strike Over Weekend” on November 30, 1941 (the weekend before the attack), so generic insight was common knowledge at the time. As for exact knowledge of the where and when, is open to debate.
Much of the debate revolves around the degree of Japanese code-breaking that had occurred (the NSA released NJ-25 orders of 1979, certainly show detailed knowledge of Pearl Harbour on the part of the Japanese) and various documentation , such as the “ McCollum” memo (an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia). What raises the questions are the oddities.
- The positioning of the US fleet to safety just before the attack and leaving old battered ships in place… coincidence?
- FDR began putting the 8 point plan into effect the very next day… coincidence?
- FDR proposed sacrificing 6 cruisers and 2 carriers at Manila (in Feb 1941) to get into war… coincidence?
- Churchills’s observation at the Atlantic Conference: "astonishing depth of Roosevelt's intense desire for war."… coincidence?
- Secretary Interior Harold Ickes: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan"…coincidence?
- The tri-party agreement between Japan, Germany and Italy, executed one year earlier. The agreement stipulated that a war against any one of the parties would be considered to be a war against all three… coincidence?
Far more compelling, though, is Operation Northwoods. Made public in 1997 (and more completely several years later), Operation Northwoods refers to documents originated by the Joint Chief of Staffs within the Kennedy Administration. Specifically, they refer to engineered events that could used to justify military action against Cuba. The following co-ordinated events were proposed: Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
(1) start rumours (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbour; large fires -- napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbour entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).
The United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base. There was discussion about blowing up US ships in Guantanamo Bay to blame Cuba. Destroying unmanned, drone vessels and arranging “to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both”. Developing a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
“We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.”
“An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.” With the ‘plane’ speculation surrounding 9/11, this particular proposal raises a few eyebrows.
It has to be noted that JFK ultimately rejected these proposals. Some have connected his untimely assasination to his refusal to approve the Northwoods mandate, however this is only speculation. What is fact, is contained within the pages of these documents. Aspects of the US power structure were perfectly prepared to carry out false flag events to advance a political/military agenda. The Northwoods documents are readily available on the net and I would suggest it as recommended reading for anybody interested in learning the truth about the notion of false flag operations.
Such examples as Pearl Harbour and Northwoods are not isolated affairs. You only have to do a cursory look into the Gulf Of Tonkin incident and the subsequent entry into the Vietnam War to see a pattern. Even as late as 1995, the Oklahoma City bombings have raised such questions. Were it not for local affiliate TV stations, we may never have become aware of the presence of a second (and possibly third) bomb/bombs in the Alfred P Murrah building… Or the defusing operation taking place at the time.
The final twist in researching these suggestions, relates to the (Council on Foreign Relations associated) document: Rebuilding America’s Defences, created by the think tank: Project For The New American Century (PNAC).
Not only is this a showcase for individuals who became closely associated or directly involved with both the Bush Administration and proponents of the ‘New World Order’ agenda, it is also seen by many as a roadmap (or worse, policy document) of US political and military, global aspirations post-2000. The document proposes the subjugation of several nations (by name), countries which coincidentally ended up on Bush’s ‘Axis Of Evil’ hit-list. It talks about establishing a “Pax Americana”, a strategy of global influence and expansion which includes the justification of war with other nations as: preservation of “American Peace” and the spread of “Democracy”.
It is strange to note that this policy and mantra has now been adopted by many western countries (UK and Europe) and continues unabated today, despite both the US & UK having ‘politically opposite’ governments to those who initiated this agenda. One should never forgot that all of this could not have easily occurred, were it not for the events of 9/11. AND… what should we find on page 52 of this document:
“The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - LIKE A NEW PEARL HARBOR”
Like a new Pearl Harbour… sound familiar?
Well it should. 9/11 was that “new Pearl Harbour“.
In part one and two, I’ve looked at the possibility of an engineered strategy.
In part three onwards, I’m going to start looking at some of the evidence from 9/11 and see if it matches the ‘official story’ or tells us something more sinister.
To Be Continued…