In September of 2000, a neoconservative Washington think-tank called The Project For The New American Century, published a document entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defences'. This particular opus, like many other key documents over the years, quickly became the topic of huge debate and discussion in the Truth Community. Such ‘damning documents’ (as they have become known) are often cited as possible, quantifiable evidence of an inside job, cover up or ‘conspiracy’. For others they are simply the subject of speculation. Over the next few posts, I will endeavour to examine a few of these key articles, look at their origins and authenticity… and their implications.
Rebuilding America’s Defences (or RAD), was seized as particularly damning because of it’s immediately authentic origins. The authors and those involved with Project For The New American Century, held (or were soon to hold) key positions of financial, military and political influence.
Amongst their number were the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, and Elliot Abrams. These (along with many others) became intricate in the Bush years in the White House.
At first glance, RAD appears to be a policy document that outlines detailed aspects of America’s future plans to create a system of global dominance. It discusses ways and means to carry out this policy, including more ’unconventional’ methods. One such observation has been scrutinized to death, dismissed as coincidence by some and held up as a smoking gun by others. It is the well known quote from page 52. When discussing possible ways to expedite the policies therein, it states: "Further, 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 Harbour". In other words: a huge attack on American soil.
The significance of this should not be underestimated. There has been much research relating to Pearl Harbour as an “allowed to happen” or “false flag” event, that served as the catalyst for public supported, US entry into World War 2. The authors of RAD clearly understood the true meaning of a statement like that. A year later 9/11 happened. An event that served as the perfect catalyst for public supported, US instigation of the War On Terror. The subsequent war also fitted perfectly with the lengthy policy outlines that were proposed in RAD. If this is merely coincidence, then it’s a biggy!
There are 3 central notions at the heart of RAD: a “Pax Americana”, securing a “Global Hegemony” and “Using The Military To Gain An Empire”. The conceited notion of “Pax Americana” involves working hard to maintain the US’s position as the world’s “sole superpower”, following the end of the ‘Cold War’. It encourages intervention in countries that are idealogically opposed to The West, "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars" and the pervasion of “American Peace” and “Democracy”. It also places extreme emphasis on “pre-eminent action”. When you look at the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya, the sabre rattling at Iran and Syria and the intelligence agencies’ involvement in social uprising that have created attempted regime-change in Egypt and Yemen, the existence of “Pax Americana” becomes all to clear.
At this point in RAD, attention is also brought to “Homeland Defence” (coincidently similar to “Homeland Security”, which came into existence following 9/11) and several other aspects, including disregarding the power of the United Nations. In this regard, RAD states: "Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there attests. Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality. . . . American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force".
The second central notion of RAD, “Securing Global Hegemony”, specifically talks about an “Axis Of Evil” which includes the likes of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It states that any nation pursuing a Nuclear program will be viewed as a threat and talks at length about the threat posed by the rise of China to “great power status”. It also discusses the validity of “Regime Change”. Does any of this sound familiar?!
The final notion, “Using The Military To Gain Empire”, talks about the multi-generational nature of the task and reinforces the idea that America might, must always remain at the core of these policies. "If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned US military preeminence". It goes on to justify the financial cost ($2.3 trillion, Mr Rumsfeld?!) and how that should be distributed throughout the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. RAD also places huge importance on establishing a huge network of US military bases overseas.
It then expands the remit to larger areas of military means. These means include “Nuclear Expansion” (Obama agreed to cut the number of nuclear weapons several years ago, but the real number is unknown), “Control Of Space” (unknown but highly probable) and Control of the "International Commons": meaning a ‘Star Wars’ like missile program or a missile shield system. "An effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defences is a prerequisite for maintaining American pre-eminence" .The latter means is very real and very much in the process of happening today. In fact, in the last few months, Hilary Clinton has been (both secretly and publicly) signing off the commencement of missile and radar placements with several countries.
The prospects for the “Future Forms of Warfare“ (which the document proposes) include:
Soldiers in “encapsulated, climate-controlled, powered fighting suits, laced with sensors, and boasting chameleon-like 'active' camouflage“. Drugs to heighten the senses and control the emotions of soldiers in the form of “skin-patch pharmaceuticals” to “help regulate fears, focus concentration and enhance endurance and strength“. This is something we are already seeing, in the form of vaccinations and pills that soldiers receive prior to going to a combat zone. Although unconfirmed, there is also speculation that army food supplies are tainted with such elements to provide a ‘top-up’. Superior, highly precise and lethal weaponry is also discussed, meaning that a “squad of seven soldiers (are) able to dominate an area the size of the Gettysburg battlefield”.
It states that “air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft.”. This is something commonplace now. Unmanned drones are used all across the Middle East to carry out surveillance and combat operations. These drones have also been seen over the skies of Western countries… what they are up to is anyone’s guess!
Even more shocking is the intention to use “advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes” that “may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool". This is potentially a nightmare scenario.
It also discusses new forms of war including: Cyber Warfare. Here, it discusses systems whereby the US military has “the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks”. This is another aspect which is very much a reality today. The internet is seen a huge threat to the West’s global dominance and has seen the military and intelligence agencies work hand in hand with corporate internet giants, to develop extensive systems that could ’potentially’ limit or even shut down access to the internet.
It is telling that, whilst most of the areas covered in “Rebuilding America’s Defences” have either been actively pursued or come to pass during the Republican / Bush Administration, the sentiment has remained very much the same during the Democrat / Obama Administration. This shows that it is not only a bi-partisan way of thinking, but also a systemic intention… something that goes hand in hand with the very existence of the American (and Western) military industrial complex and (by extension) corporate systems.
The real crime hidden within the pages of this document, is not the spectre of the future of global warfare and western dominance… it is not even the eerie prediction of 9/11 or the fact that it seems to predict the exact strategy of US Foreign Policy for the next ten years. It is the complete and total disregard of the individual. Whilst those from Project For The New American Century (and all those inextricably linked to them) maintain that these proposals are to safeguard and protect the sovereignty and security of The West, I suspect that it is their beloved infrastructure and global reach that they wish to protect rather than ordinary individuals.
Protecting people and keeping them safe is furthest from their minds.
Where the individual is concerned, it is the capacity to control.
That, and another (possibly) ‘damning document’ will be the subject of my next post.
To Be Continued…
Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html
In February 2003, Tony Blair’s Labour Government issued it’s ‘proof’ of Iraq’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction” capability, to UK journalists. These documents were used to justify its involvement in the invasion of Iraq. The documents became known as “The Dodgy Dossier”. The reason for this label became clear when numerous journalists and researchers quickly discovered that much of it’s content had been plagiarised from various, less than authoritative sources. “The most notable source was an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi entitled Iraq's Security & Intelligence Network: A Guide & Analysis, which was published in the September 2002 issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs” (Wikipedia). Aspects were repeated verbatim (including typographical errors), certain amendments were made to strengthen the alleged findings and no reference was made to the origins of the information, other than "a number of sources, including intelligence reports".
This dossier became the exclusive argument for the Iraq invasion and used by George Bush in his “State Of The Union” address. An address signalling the forthcoming war. It became extremely important that this dossier be taken at face value, considering that in July 21, 2002, British Cabinet Office briefing papers warned officials that any war, executed on the basis of regime change, was illegal. Also relevant is the (July 23, 2002) secret British Downing Street memo warning officials that Saddam Hussein was not a threat, that President Bush was determined to invade Iraq and U.S. officials were fixing their intelligence and facts around their policy to go to war. In September 2002, one of Tony Blair's most senior aides told intelligence chiefs their draft dossier failed to demonstrate "an imminent threat" and that Saddam Hussain “does not demonstrate the motive to attack his neighbours, let alone the West". The UK government knew the risks, yet proceeded anyway.
With Bush‘s claims that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more" and daily news articles telling the public that such weapons were capable of hitting the west within “45 minutes”, those behind the war plans felt secure in the knowledge that an uninformed public would support the war unquestioningly. Whilst a few people could already see the true agenda at play, most were still in the dark. However, it was (ironically) the BBC that was about to change this situation.
 |
| Andrew Gilligan |
Andrew Gilligan wrote a report for the BBC, claiming that the Dossiers had been deliberately exaggerated. His research led him to an unauthorised, off the record interview with Dr David Kelly, a British scientist and expert on biological warfare (employed by the Ministry Of Defence) and formerly a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. Kelly was asked by the British Government to proof-read all aspects of the Iraq Dossiers and was very concerned about many aspects of the documents, specifically the “45 minute” claim. In his interview with Gilligan, Kelly told him of his concerns over the 45-minute claim and allegedly ascribed its inclusion in the dossier to Alastair Campbell, the director of communications for Prime Minister Tony Blair, in order to “sex up” the Dossiers. He also asked Gilligan not to reveal his identity in these articles. The report was broadcast on 29 May 2003 on the Today programme, stating that the 45-minute claim had been placed in the dossier by the government, even though it knew the claim was dubious.
In June 2003, Kelly visited Iraq to inspect (what was claimed to be) some mobile WMD production labs. Kelly was unhappy with the description of the trailers and spoke off the record to The Observer on 15 June 2003. He said, “They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons”.
Andrew Gilligan wrote a follow up to the original item on The Today Show, in The Mail newspaper. Here, he directly identified Alastair Campbell as the person responsible for adding the 45 minute claim. The UK Government immediately denied any involvement in the intelligence content of the dossier and lambasted the BBC, calling them liars and pushing them to reveal the name of the source. Kelly subsequently contacted his superiors saying, "I am convinced that I am not his primary source of information". The MOD publicly admitted that “an employee had come forward who might be the source”. When pushed, they confirmed it was Dr David Kelly.
It is believed that this was strategic decision made by Tony Blair in order to discredit Kelly directly. Many individuals went to great pains to muddy his character, describing him as a “Walter Mitty like, fantasist. The Government also launched a huge operation (coincidently spearheaded by Alastair Campbell) to effectively destroy any remaining independent elements of journalism in the BBC. Initially targeting Andrew Gilligan, they also successfully managed to decapitate the BBC by forcing Director General Greg Dyke out of his job. It would be fair to say that, if any independence of reportage remained in the BBC, it probably ceased to exist that day… something that we are now truly feeling the repercussions of in all media aspects of Western society.
 |
| Dr David Kelly |
Dr Kelly was called to appear (on 15 July) before the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee (which was investigating the issues Gilligan had reported) where he was aggressively scrutinised about his actions. He denied meeting with Gilligan. On July 18, Dr Kelly was found dead in some woods near his home in Oxfordshire. The ‘official’ account states that he committed suicide through an overdose of painkillers and significant blood loss caused by slashes to the wrists. ‘Depression and Stress’ was related as the reason.
Independent investigations and research into his death has discovered some curious aspects. It appears Dr Kelly’s body was moved from it’s original resting place, to a spot that became known as the ‘official’ site of his death. It appears that both the drug intake and degree of arterial injury weren’t substantial enough to cause death. There was a strong police presence near his home just before his disappearance. Also huge aerials were reported as being erected in his garden! A few months before his death, British Diplomat David Boucher asked Kelly what would happen if the West were to invade Iraq. Kelly answered by claiming that he “would probably be found dead in the woods”.
Whatever subsequent inquiries say and despite the protestations of politicians, medical examiners and journalists, it seems likely that Dr David Kelly was murdered. Was it to silence him because he didn’t exactly tow the party line? We may never know…
 |
| Robin Cook |
The following awakening was astonishing. In politics, MPs and cabinet minister alike, showed their disapproval of the Iraq War and the intelligence that led to it. Politicians like Norman Baker and Clare Short raised their heads (even if briefly) above the parapet to join the growing chorus of dissent. Some like Robin Cook, who died as a result of a ‘heart attack’ on a mountain in Wales , possibly met the same fate as Dr Kelly. Hundreds of thousands of people marched through the streets in peaceful protest against the wars, carrying placards and banners with slogans like “Not In My Name”, “No War For Oil”, “No WMDs” and “Bliar” (Blair the Liar). The powers that be had been caught, well and truly, with their pants down.
The likes of George Bush and Tony Blair would never be looked at in the same way again. Of course, all of this is compounded by the fact that, in the end, no Weapons Of Mass Destruction were ever found anywhere in Iraq… even to this day. In January 2004, ex-US arms hunter, David Kay, stated on record that there were no WMDs in Iraq. In December of the same year, a US report from the Iraq Survey Group stated on record that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The very next day, the CIA made the same statement. In December, an ex-CIA agent claimed he was sacked for not faking intelligence reports on Iraq’s WMD capability. By the end of the year, The White House decided that it was no longer looking for WMDs.
In 2005, George Bush made a staggering comment: That the US was in Iraq because of 9/11. The statement is misleading, 9/11 actually allowed the circumstances in order to get away with Iraq… at least initially. Today, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Western governments and mainstream media has an edict that runs scared of connecting Al-Qaeda and 9/11 to Iraq. Whether illegal or not, the instigators of the war have gone unpunished for a crime they now call “regime change”. This buzz phrase is now the tactic they have latched onto as a means to commit unspeakable acts across the world. The most important factor, though, is that with Iraq, we finally saw the truth exposed for what it was. These events proved that governments cannot always successfully hide the truth from the people. This scares them to death. In the UK, more people believe they were lied to over Iraq, than those that believe the government propaganda. This is truly a victory for the truth.
It is here that we should remember the road travelled. Iraq came from 9/11, even though it had nothing to do with 9/11. There is a legacy to 9/11 that should be discussed. It is disrespectful to NOT ask the questions. We need to expose the lies. Those who were TRULY responsible for 9/11 should be called to account. This is how we can respect and honour the victims. All of them. People like Dr David Kelly, anybody who has been innocently accused of crimes and tortured to death as a result of the destruction of civil liberties, anybody who has spoken up and disappeared, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in illegal wars, the oppressed and all those who died on September 11, 2001.
For all this, we should continue to remember 9/11.
Not for trite reasons… but for the right reasons.
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.
Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html
History shows us that part of the legacy of 9/11 was the “War On Terror”. Although this war began in Afghanistan, it was obvious that it was never going to be confined to this country alone. The eventual scope of this endeavour appeared disproportionate with the implications of the ‘official’ account of 9/11. Documented accounts show that the Bush administration (with the support of several other western powers) had considered both extensive military incursions in Syria and Pakistan, whilst an invasion of Iran was discussed on a weekly basis. With this, the public began to hear the alarm bells and questioned the true nature of these events. What was the real agenda behind the “War On Terror”? Tens years after 9/11, it is hindsight and information leaks and disclosures that have shown why questioning the real agenda was justified. The next stage of the “War On Terror” began “officially” in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq. However, like Afghanistan, evidence shows that this target was on the cards long before 9/11.
It has always seemed strange that the turn of the millennium showed such obvious aggressive intentions toward Iraq. Strange given the historical context of Iraq’s (and by association, Saddam Hussein) relationship with the US. There is a tangible history of business deals between the two countries and more importantly, an arms deal. The US armed Iraq to the teeth many times throughout the latter part of the twentieth century (see: Iran / Iraq War) and the extent of this arming was fully realised when US troops discovered that most of the small arms, ammunition, rockets and many vehicles (seized from fighters, post invasion), were US-made.
Many have theorised about “what went wrong”, in order to change the nature of this relationship. Some have speculated about Saddam’s plans to sell oil via a system other than the petro-dollar, some have talked about Global Agenda plans and others have simply pointed to financial reasons. It is difficult to truly know. As with Afghanistan, the usual suspects of business and military contractors profited hugely from the Iraq War and on a much larger scale than Afghanistan. Recently, it has been revealed that billions of dollars were wasted on black hole projects that certainly never benefited the people of Iraq, improved the infrastructure or helped to rebuild the country. This is simply nothing more than a crime of greed and corruption, but I’m digressing here…
Although it was perhaps the first Gulf War that set the precedent for Iraq always being an eventual target of the “War On Terror”, it seems that the first credible evidence appeared in late January of 2001... A full 7 months before 9/11 and 2 years before the actual invasion. This evidence relates to a Treasury Department memo received by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on January 24 2001 which contained a summary of a "military plan" for a "post-Saddam Iraq" which was marked “secret“. O’Neill later admitted that, within days of George Bush entering the White House, the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq. Even former White House anti-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke later revealed, "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12. Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq". He also said that Rumsfeld said, “There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq".
The pretence could be seen on September 10 2001, when Rumsfeld warned of Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs. In 2002, CNN reported that mid afternoon of 9/11, Rumsfeld began planning strike plans against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. On September 12, Rumsfeld insisted (at a Cabinet meeting) that Iraq “should be a principal target of the first round of terrorism". In October of 2001, former CIA Director James Woolsey said Iraq was likely involved in 9/11 and the ‘alleged’ anthrax attacks of the time, and that “the US will probably confront Saddam Hussein as part of its war on terrorism“.
From this period onwards, Iraq was inextricably connected to 9/11, despite there being no evidence to prove it. The West began to build a case for the invasion of Iraq. In February 2002, US military intelligence warned the Bush administration that a captured Al Qaeda operative had given fabricated information that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in how to make chemical and biological weapons. Despite this information being totally unreliable and despite being warned by intelligence agencies that the information “may be faulty”, President Bush used this information in a (October 2002) speech to try to link Iraq to 9/11. On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council about alleged WMDs in Iraq and alleged connections with Al Qaeda.
Despite the continued search for, and lack of, credible evidence to connect Iraq, the West appeared unfettered and unconcerned. The rhetoric was that it was always ‘inevitable’. The true arrogance of the ‘Agenda’ players was witnessed in January 2003 in a war memo showing that George Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq, regardless of whether or not they had the backing of the UN. The memo also quoted him as “discussing ways they could provoke Saddam Hussein into a confrontation“. By March 2003, Iraq had been invaded.
The most damning proof of a cover up began to unfold in George Bush’s State Of The Union address on January 28, 2003. It was here that Bush uttered those now infamous 16 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". This intelligence became mired in controversy when columnist Robert Novak exposed CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson. This is key because Wilson was sent to Niger, Africa in February 2002 to investigate the possible purchase of Uranium Yellowcake by Iraq. His conclusion that this was “highly unlikely” was considered by the CIA to be “less than definitive”. With the onset of the ‘British Intelligence Reports’ and Bush’s statement of evidence in his address, many in US and British politics began to accuse the Bush administration of ignoring prior intelligence and eventually added to the notion that the President “lied the country to war”.
The involvement of the British Government and Intelligence Agencies, at this point, is key to understanding why Iraq became known as an “illegal war”. As early as October 4, 2001, the U.K. Government released a 70 point dossier as evidence against Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda networks and their alleged involvement in 9/11. Both experts and media reports stated that their case against Osama was "thin on facts," "full of conjecture," and "still no smoking gun". It seems bizarre that when the Iraq scenario came around, the British Government continued, in part, to refer to this document. This is despite there being no real relationship between this 70 point dossier and the ‘Iraq Case’.
Throughout 2002, Tony Blair’s government began to work on building a case against Iraq as part of their commitment to a U.S.-led Iraq invasion. By early 2003, The UK released a document entitled “Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation “, now known as “The Dodgy Dossier”.
Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, they had inadvertently opened Pandora’s Box…
To Be Continued…
Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html
Imagine that you flipped a coin several hundred times in succession and it came up heads every single time. Or maybe you got tails a handful of times, but the vast majority was heads… Aside from being a pretty lucky person, would it be an occurrence that you could consign to the realm of pure coincidence? The odds of it happening are not statistically impossible, but it would a rare, possibly freak, occurrence. 9/11 is a lot like that particular coin analogy. There are little pieces of fact pertaining to that day that cannot be categorised into any evidential category. The only box in which they belong is “coincidence”. But what if, like the coin, it is followed by another odd coincidence… and another… and another… When do you stop viewing this huge number of oddities as merely coincidences and ask if they are signs of something more?
Here, I am going to assemble some of the more interesting oddities surrounding 9/11. It is by no means a wholly inclusive list (as listing them all here would take forever and there are new ones being discovered every day!), it is simply an example of the more ‘strange’ aspects of 9/11. These aspects have been analysed endlessly by the Truth community, for their significance. Is it a huge number of mere coincidences or a collective portent of prior knowledge or foresight? You decide…
Aside from numerous examples, including: FEMA's "Emergency Response to Terrorism" booklet (1997) and the U.S. Department of Justice/National Sheriffs’ Association's participant manual “Managing Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents: An Executive Level Program for Sheriffs” (funded by the Department Of Homeland Security and produced in June 2000), which both show the WTC targeted by a gun scope’s cross-hairs, it is possible that those in positions of power may have had other, more unconventional, premonitions.
On the morning of September 11, 1941, a groundbreaking ceremony took place to officially begin construction of The Pentagon. The attack on The Pentagon took place 60 years to the day (almost to the hour) of the groundbreaking ceremony! On September 5 (six days before 9/11), Donald Rumsfeld asked the Senate to approve the D.O.D. 's 2002 budget request. It was to be the largest defence spending increase since the latter days of the Cold War. There he talked about the importance of U.S. homeland defence, warned about the threats of terrorism and missile attacks, and later reported that he was confident that his budget request would pass. Rumsfeld also had a list of “Rules” that he had distilled from 50 years of service. On January 30, 2001 (5 days after taking his office), he posted these rules on the D.O.D. official website. The rules were removed in October 2002. These rules were only ever modified once… on September 10, 2001. Twenty four hours before 9/11, Rumsfeld added one single new rule: “America ain’t what’s wrong with the world”. Let us also not forget, that on this exact same day, Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon had lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.
Four days before 9/11, George Bush’s brother Jeb Bush signed a two year executive order (01-261) placing Florida under a state of emergency. With the Bush family under the spotlight, it is also interesting to point out that Marvin Bush joined Securacom's board of directors, a security firm who has previously done security studies for WTC, Dulles and United. The company eventually became Stratesec and provided security at the World Trade Centre from 1995 to 2001 (right up to the towers collapsed).
The day before 9/11, Bush senior (Ex CIA director, former President, and President Bush's Dad) was in Washington D.C. at a Carlyle Group business conference (The Carlyle Group is inextricably linked to 9/11, just google the name!) and continued such meetings on the morning of 9/11. Present at all these meetings was Carlyle investor and Bush family friend: Shafig Bin Laden, brother of Osama Bin Laden.
It is also well documented that the Bin Laden Family websites, emails, links and domain names were due to expire on Sept 11 2001.
On the subject of websites and technology, the U.S. government deployed an anti-terrorism taskforce on September 5, 2001, to pull the plug on over 500 websites (many with Arab and Muslim connections). Some people have even placed significance on the Microsoft Wingding fonts of the period. It became something of a net phenomenon when it was discovered that words and names related to 9/11, typed out using Wing Ding and Web Ding fonts, showed a ‘possible code’. The rumours were later debunked, however some key 9/11 words still show oddities in the font, for example: NYC, NEW YORK and OSAMA BIN LADEN. Some have continued to highlight the significance, given the connections between Microsoft and the ‘Agenda’ corporatocracy.
On the subject of such business connections, it is also strange that at least half a dozen of the passengers on the ‘alleged’ planes used on 9/11, were employed by Ratheon: a company with intricate links to the US Air Force and Boeing, AND responsible for numerous technological advances in aviation including GPS guidance and systems that allowed for precision approach and landing of pilot-less aircraft.
Whilst discussing aviation, it also appears that the airline companies who owned the ‘alleged’ planes of 9/11, appeared to engage in future trading that would have been directly affected by the events of the day. From the 6th to the 10th of September 2001, a huge number of ‘put’ options were placed on United Airlines, Boeing and American Airlines stock, betting that the price would fall sharply. The trades are called "puts" because they involve at least 450,000 shares of American. What raised the flag of suspicion, was the (more than) 80 percent of orders being "puts", far outnumbering "call" options, those betting the stock would rise. After 9/11 it was claimed that the financial arm of “terrorist organisations” had financed the ‘puts’ because they were the only ones who could have known in advance! Many people subsequently pushed for an investigation into insider trading. After several investigations and court cases, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stated that they “found no evidence that anyone who had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks traded on the basis of that information”. It always seemed inevitable that this (like many other inquiries, commissions and investigations in history) would be a foregone conclusion. Thankfully, the knowledge gleaned from such matters is also a foregone conclusion: it is damning merely in it’s existence.
In July, two months before 9/11, a 40 year old FAA rule allowing commercial airline pilots to be armed was rescinded. Also note that the hijacking weapon of choice: box cutters, weren't allowed pre-9/11 by the airlines industry. Strange also that the ONLY person to have witnessed the use of box-cutters (upon which the ENTIRE ‘official’ account bases this particular evidence), was right wing commentator and author Barbara Olson. Not only did she have a super-duper cell phone that allowed perfect contact (twice) from the plane to the ground (allowing for an account of events), but she was also the wife of U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson . A man who admitted in public that the U.S. government lies and a man who helped stopped the Florida recount that helped Bush win the 2000 election. So a reliable testimony there then…
On the subject of the ‘hijackers’, we have the crucial evidence that ‘proved’ the culpability of those involved. Atta's luggage, which contained incriminating evidence, was the only luggage of the 81 passengers aboard Flight 11 that didn't make it on the plane. Convenient… Despite the buildings collapse through structural damage caused by the intense heat and explosion of the jet and it’s fuel, etc, etc, etc, the passport of alleged Flight 11 hijacker, Satam Al-Suqami, is reportedly found in the rubble still soaked in jet fuel by an unidentified man in his 30's only "minutes" after the plane allegedly crashed into the North WTC Tower. The passport is in remarkably good condition given the circumstance. Let’s also not forget there are indications that some of the ‘hijackers’ were still alive after 9/11. How did they manage that, if they were involved?!!
In part 2, I will look at what some have cited as bizarre or uncanny “predictions” of 9/11.
To Be Concluded…
Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html
Just after 10 am on 9/11, United Flight 93 (travelling 580 mph) was reported as flipping over and crashing straight down in a empty field in the rural town of Shanksville, PA, burrowing itself underground. The passengers reportedly tried to take over the plane from the alleged hijackers. “The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground." (Washington Post - 05/12/02). "But although the government was authorized to shoot down the errant planes, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the NewsHour he believes that crash came instead as a result of a passenger uprising… we were already tracking in on that plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. I think it was the heroism of the passengers on board that brought it down, but the Air Force was in a position to do so if we had had to." (PBS - 9/16/01)
This remark: “The Air Force was in a position to do so”, is the central notion of the real investigation into the ‘crash’ of United Flight 93. In the minutes leading to this event, UK ITV news showed live footage of an F-16 fighter jet in the area; thus proving that the military did indeed have the means to shoot down a passenger jet. Kevin Dunn (ITV foreign correspondent) was interviewed by news reader Kirsty Young. She asked, “Would it be possible for an American Military plane such as this, to have any impact on the destination or, indeed, the course of a plane?” and he replied, “Well the warplane could obviously challenge by radio, whoever is in control of an aircraft and ultimately threaten and indeed shoot them down.”
The lack of bodies and debris has been pointed to, in the truth community, as the absence of Flight 93. I actually believe that was a plane smashed across the landscape of Shanksville and the surrounding area. Whether it was Flight 93 or not is a pertinent question. How it was ’downed’ is probably the more important question to ask though. Many have pointed to sink holes and mine shafts as the resting place for much of the larger debris (the area of land had been previously strip-mined for coal) and a nearby lake for much of the rest. Whilst I can’t argue with this, I also know there is a huge number of accounts of a military craft pursuing and even shooting down the ‘high jacked’ plane. If this scenario were true, it would almost certainly account for the debris pattern and lack thereof.
Much of what follows here has been debated and questioned for validity. Whilst it is difficult to positively confirm the 100 percent accuracy of the following claims, they do raise questions. I would like to present them, merely, as a possibility…
At 9:58, a Flight 93 passenger allegedly made a cell phone call and said that he saw an explosion and smoke and that the plane was "going down."
The Tactical Air Communications Unit at the National Security Operations Centre (NSOC) at NSA was broadcasting live the cockpit communications between two U.S. Air Force F-16s over Somerset County, Pennsylvania. One F-16 pilot said "we are now engaging the target."
the NSA CRITICOM messaging system contained a flash message called a "CRITIC" that stated a commercial aircraft was "intercepted" over Pennsylvania. The latitude and longitude of the interception was provided along with the time of the interception. There were many ‘live’ training exercises on 9/11. Could it be that one of these exercises was mistaken for this occurrence?
It is alleged that an encrypted special communications network that linked Air Force Chief of Staff General John Jumper to the Vice President and National Security Council, and a few other intelligence officials contained a message on the morning of September 11 that confirmed the U.S. Air Force shot down United flight 93. The message stated that a U.S. Air Force fighter jet shot the engine on flight 93 with a heat-seeking missile "over Pennsylvania".
A 911 emergency call to the Somerset Hospital Critical Care unit stated that the hospital should prepare for mass casualties since "two planes collided over Pennsylvania."
Several first response workers at the ‘official’ Stony Creek crash site described a crater that closely matched a Global Hawk unmanned drone, a story corroborated by an eyewitness at a nearby junk yard who witnessed a similar vehicle “colliding” with ‘Flight 93’. Another witness observed a small white aircraft pass over Ginger Hill Road and clear some trees before exploding in a small mushroom cloud on the other side of the tree line. The fallout from the explosion was described by the witness as "glittery".
At the Huckleberry Highway residential debris field, witnesses described the debris as little more than paper. More oddly being insurance papers, bank statements, and stock and bond certificates. The New Baltimore debris field (10 miles away) also reportedly consisted of singed bonds and insurance and bank papers.
One of the few impact witnesses described it as "not a plane" with no engine, pure white, tubular, with no markings or windows, soundless, and with the appearance of a moulded piece of plastic. The aircraft banked to the right before ascending over a tree line before crashing. Under the aircraft and mid-belly could be seen what the witness described as a "fin and spoiler". After the crash, the witness noticed two fighter jets in the area that circled and departed rapidly from the scene.
A phone call to a witness from a relative in Lancaster, Pennsylvania said that a friend in the Air Force said that the service had "shot down a plane in Pennsylvania."
Several farmers who were working in their fields that morning saw U.S. Air Force fighter planes shoot down United 93 and were (allegedly) subsequently threatened by FBI agents. One witness had a security gag order placed on him by the FBI. Eventually, a number of farmer witnesses changed their stories to coincide with the official story.
There are allegations that several local witnesses were harassed and intimidated in a threatening manner, by non-local law enforcement and FBI agents. One was claimed to have said to the eyewitness, “Do not lose faith in your government. We are handling it".
John, Tessa and Brian (three students who were at Shanksville High School at the time), witnessed a “big fighter plane” fly over the school “like 10 seconds” after the ‘crash’. Brian and John both believe that the jet shot down ‘Flight 93’.
Shanksville, PA, is a military flight corridor.
Mayor Ernie Stull, on arriving at the crash site, said he saw no evidence of a plane crash.
The "Flight 93" crash site remained fenced in and restricted, to the public.
In August 2003, Fox news reported that US investigators now believe that the ‘high-jackers’ crashed the plane BECAUSE of the passengers starting to revolt.
Norman Mineta (see: Pentagon) said he wasn't aware of Flight 93 until after it crashed and thought “it was shot down“.
On Dec 24, 2004, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gives a speech about 9/11 using the phrase: “shot down the plane over Pennsylvania” .
On September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush was overheard stating: "We shot a plane down over Pennsylvania".
So there we have it.
Never let yourself be TOLD what happened…9/11 is for YOU to decide.
I will be doing one more evidence based overview post (covering some as yet undiscussed aspects) to begin September and will then begin my 9/11 Legacy Blog Series.
Till Next Time!
The Truth Seekers Guide.
Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html
World Trade Centre Building 7 was a 47 storey building adjacent to The Twin Towers. I was aware of the building and it’s location (like many of the landmark buildings of New York), through years of interest in Americana and US pop culture… hence my interest in the unfolding events of 9/11. I taped hours of news coverage on the day and was totally confused by the BBC’s reporting of the collapse of WTC 7. At 5.08pm, BBC correspondent Jane Stanley announced that the WTC 7 had collapsed… not started to or about to collapse… actually gone. This was confirmed by the news anchor in the studio:
"The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed."
I knew where the building should have been in relation to the landscape and was bemused to see it standing in clear view, in the background, as she spoke live about the collapse. As eyewitness testimony (and official record) shows, it would not collapse for another 12 minutes. Did the BBC cock up and accidentally reveal that they had prior knowledge? This was one the key events of 9/11 that has since made me question the ‘official’ story. The collapse of WTC 7 got very little attention at the time. In the days, months and years since, those who manipulate and control the agenda have tried to dismiss, even ignore it. Even the BBC have subsequently “lost those key tapes” from their archives. Thankfully, some of us had our VCRs running!
WTC 7 allegedly collapsed as a result of fire… a handful of moderate fires on 2 floors to be exact. Like WTC 1 & 2, the building collapsed at free fall speed, into it’s own footprint. It was not hit by a plane and it was only mildly damaged by falling debris after The Towers collapsed. When examining the footage of this building, it appears obvious that it suffered little more than minor damage and burning. If we believe the ‘official’ account, then this must have been a very shoddily constructed building, to fall so easily! It would also make it the first steel high-rise building in history to collapse due to mostly fire.
Like The Towers, there are oddities leading up to the collapse. At 6.47am of 9/11, WTC 7's fire alarm system was placed on "TEST" mode for an eight hour period for "maintenance or other testing". Any alarms that were received from the system were not shown on the operator’s display, considered the result of the maintenance / testing and ignored. Several demolition teams were documented as being at Ground Zero (mid afternoon) and witnessed WTC 7 collapse. Several Ground Zero rescuers were heard (and filmed) saying the WTC 7 was going to "blow up" and will be "coming down soon". Others mentioned they were told around 3 p.m. that it was going to collapse and others were waiting around for it to fall. These accounts began about 3 hours before it collapsed. Indeed, the FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden stated that at 2pm: “we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Centre would collapse”. At 4.15pm, CNN reporter Aaron Brown reported: "Building 7, in the WTC complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing” (this footage is available on Youtube).
When the building went, A NYU medical student (who was watching the WTC 7) heard a clap of thunder, a shockwave rippling through the building, windows popping outward, then saw the bottom floor cave out followed by the rest of the building. Many researchers have pointed to footage of the collapse, that could indicate what looks like the central column supports “going” before the rest. The remaining debris from the WTC 7 was speedily removed without investigators having the chance to examine the wreckage at the scene to help determine the cause of failure. This was also the case with The Towers debris.
Danny Jowenko was a Dutch explosives and demolition expert. He did not know about WTC 7 and was shown the footage of the collapse, but not told it took place on 9/11. After watching this he said, “Does the top go first? No. The Bottom… They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards. This is controlled demolition. This was a hired job performed by a team of experts.”
Jowenko was then told by the interviewer that it took place on 9/11. His reaction was shock and surprise. “The same day?! Are you sure?!.. Are you sure this was the 11? That can‘t be”. After a long pause he said, “Then they worked hard!…. It‘s without a doubt a professional job. They knew exactly what they’re doing”. When asked to estimate how it would be carried out, he said that you would need experienced men: 30 to 40, 2 with a cutting torch, some to clear the walls, some to hook up the detonation cord and boosters and others to hook up the electronic systems. Jowenko subsequently went on to become an advocate of 9/11 truth.
He sadly died in 2011 and his death has raised questions in the truth community. He was killed in a car accident, driving from church when he collided head on with a tree. There was also a dog in the car who survived. If his death was related to his work to uncover the truth, we may never ultimately know.
The significance of this particular building is not lost on some people. Despite the building being pretty much empty, some have claimed that Mayor Rudy Guiliani’s command centre (which allegedly orchestrated the events in WTC Plaza) was based in WTC 7. Whilst it is hard to prove this, it would be convenient to destroy evidence of said operation in the collapse. It has also been widely recorded that the CIA’s undercover “New York Station” was housed in WTC 7. Whilst it has been documented that over a billion dollars of gold were stored in WTC 4, it is also claimed that Gold Bullion was stored in WTC 7 too. This may be corroborated by eyewitness accounts of Gold Bullion being found in tunnels under WTC 5, when the site was being cleared.
It is also very well documented that key evidence in the ENRON scandal investigation was stored there and destroyed during the collapse. The ENRON scandal is inextricably linked to 9/11 through George Bush. ENRON Corporation was the biggest financial backer of Bush in the 2000 election and supported his career since his ‘Governor of Texas’ days. There is a huge amount of evidence linking Bush to Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling (both key players in ENRON leadership). Lay served on Bush’s transition team in 2000 and donated $290,000 to his campaign. Dick Cheney was also connected to ENRON, which he consulted at least 6 times before announcing US energy policy. ENRON collapsed due to manipulation of massive expansion of it’s global holdings, through the help of politicians on the payroll. Executives sold their shares at the top of the market and encouraged employees to buy up shares. With the meltdown of ENRON, certain individuals made a killing. They so expertly played the system. It would make sense that exposing the activities of these people would reflect badly on the administration at the time. What a coincidence then, that key evidence in this case was lost on 9/11...
Then, of course, there is the statement made by Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, who said (on record, viewable online in video form): "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is ‘pull it‘". And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" (PBS - 09/10/02). Any demolition expert worth their salt, will tell you that (what with all the road closures, debris and chaos) it would have next to impossible to set up the kind of operation needed for a ‘clean pull’ like WTC 7. Especially in only, a maximum window of, 8 hours. With this in mind, certain individuals must have had advance knowledge of 9/11 in order to set up the demolition of WTC 7.
There may be some pieces of coincidental evidence to prove this supposition though. In July of 2001, Larry Silverstein signed a 99-year lease for the rest of the WTC (just six weeks before the attacks). At roughly the same time, his insurance brokers changed WTC policy. The new policy allowed for the possible destruction of the towers to counted as two separate insurance claims (one per tower), instead of the original policy that counted both towers as one claim. On 9/11 itself, FOX reporter Jeffrey Shapiro said that several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers had told him that Larry Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the WTC 7. The ultimate outcome of Silverstein’s foresight, allowed him to pocket $861 million (a profit of $478 million) for the collapse of WTC 7 alone. With the following court battles (to claim double payment for The Towers), he was ultimately awarded just under 5 billion dollars. Not a bad days work at the expense of such tragedy and loss of life…
The overall ‘official’ account and investigation of the collapse of this building has been a whitewashed lie of the highest order. The FEMA report, regarding WTC 7 gives no concrete conclusion as to why it collapsed. It states only that it MAY have occurred through fire alone and that additional study would be required. The 9/11 commission report almost ignores it’s existence, saying only that the collapse was “highly improbable”. To this day, there has been no further ‘official’ investigation into the collapse of WTC 7. Exposing the truth about this particular aspect of 9/11 may bring us closer to definitive answers. Maybe that is why debunkers, the powers that be and the propaganda machine goes to great lengths to pretend it never, ever happened.
What THEY won’t touch on, is where WE may find the answers.
To Be Continued…
Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html
There are numerous perspectives on the methods, culprits and motivations that resulted in 9/11 being labelled as a cover-up or inside job. Certain groups of people have said that there is a cover-up, but this cover-up simply encapsulates a peripheral view of only certain aspects of evidence. This view proposes three questions: Did the US government know of an imminent attack? Could they have prevented it? Or worse, did they allow it to happen?
Threats of terrorisms and plane hijackings, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century, are a matter of historical record. There are numerous accounts of individuals and groups planting bombs and seizing commercial airlines. Also, the notion of such acts have been a mainstay of popular literature, film and television for a long time. With this fact being so prevalent in the common political and cultural zeitgeist, it would be hard for any government (especially a global power) not to take such threats seriously.
It appears, as early as September 1972, that such threats were. Richard Nixon formed a high-level, government panel at the time to develop methods to protect the US against the possibility of terrorist attacks (in various forms). Bureaucracy, Elections and Watergate eventually diluted the findings and purpose of the panel. Even as late as June 1995, President Clinton signed the PDD-39 Counterterrorism Directive in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of terrorism investigations, by placing the FBI in charge.
It is questionable how effective such measures and warnings were, but it does show that such notions were taken seriously at the time. It does seem obvious from both records and events (pre- 9/11) that the US government was aware of the seriousness. Boeing 707, continental airline flight 11, was destroyed, mid flight, by a bomb in 1962. Four US bound airlines were high jacked over Europe in 1970 (3 of which were later blown up on an airstrip in Jordan). Private Robert Preston stole an army helicopter and flew it to the White House in February of 1974. Five days later, Samuel Byck attempted to highjack a commercial plane…with the intention of crashing into the White House and killing Nixon. The list goes on and on.
Indeed, US officials had considered the possibility of planes being flown into the Olympic Stadium in Atlanta in 1996. In 1997, John O’Neill (the man who was killed on his second day of work as chief of security at the World Trade Centre on 9/11) warned, in his role as assistant director of the FBI, that imminent and organized terrorist attacks were possible and that terrorists were already operating in the US.
More evidently, we have the foiled 1995 terrorist plot: ‘Operation Bojinka’, which alerted the US to plans that included hijacking planes to attack the Pentagon, WTC and CIA headquarters. There are also actual events like the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. An event that was, ironically, associated with Osama Bin Laden.
In August 2001, it was claimed that the US were warned by both French Intelligence authorities and The Taliban of an imminent terrorist attack against the US.
On August 6th, the CIA drafted a memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US”. This document was reported by at least a dozen or so mainstream newspapers and TV news outlets, after 9/11.
On September 7th 2001, the US State Department warned US citizens may be targeted by Al Qaeda associated terrorists
With all of this in mind, it is utterly staggering that in May 2002, Condoleezza Rice gave a press briefing where she stated:
“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Centre, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
This is compounded by her claims that (pre 9/11) intelligence reports “did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning“, and did not contain information that Bin Laden and his associates were discussing a “particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method.“.
In retrospect, specific documents and testimony combined with historical precedence almost overwhelmingly show that the powers that be, were at least aware of the possibility of a 9/11-style terrorist event.
The 9/11 Commission Report was published in July 2004. Despite the CIA rebuking the final report, claiming that they regularly reported on “threats to civil aviation” and citing Osama Bin Laden as “a danger”; the 9/11 report exonerated both the Clinton and Bush administrations and their intelligence agencies of any blame.
It is interesting to note that that in December of 2003, Chairman Kean of the independent 9/11 commission pointed fingers inside the administration and ultimately insinuated that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented. This brings us onto the second question: Did the US government, military, intelligence agencies have the capability to prevent the attacks? You only have to research the slew of operations that were planned and carried out in the year, months, weeks and days leading up to 9/11 (and on the day itself) to see that the capability of prevention was available.
In October of 2000, The Pentagon conducted the first of two emergency exercises (MASCAL) involving mock crashes of passenger aircraft into the Pentagon. NORAD planned a similar practice scenario in April 2001, which they ultimately rejected as being “too unrealistic”! Oddly, in the same month, Fort Meyer conducted a Force Protection Exercise which included aspects of NORAD’s “unrealistic” scenario. In June 2001, NORAD admitted that it had scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 67 times since September 2000, proving that such military capability of interception/prevention was possible. Further exercises were carried out.
- NORAD’s “Amalgam Virgo 01” (June 1st 2001),
- “Mall Strike 2001” (June 16th 2001)
- “Operation Dark Winter” (June 22nd / 23rd 2001 - which included scripted TV news naming Iraqi/Afghanistani terrorist groups as possible culprits),
- Another MASCAL exercise (June 29th 2001)
- Mock terrorism drill at Buffalo Niagara International Airport (September 8th 2001),
- NORAD’s operation “Northern Vigilance” (September 9th 2001)
- “Vigilant Guardian” (September 10th 2001 - a one-week exercise)
- Fort Belvoir’s “Garrison Control Exercise” (9/11)
- Fort Meyer’s “airport emergency operations” training exercise (9/11)
- NORAD’s simulated aircraft high-jacking exercise (9/11 - Source: Vanity Fair - 08/01/06).
There other exercises planned for 9/11 (& post 9/11) that were reported “cancelled”, including:
- Joint CIA/NRO exercise involving simulated plane crashes into buildings (Source: USA Today - 08/22/02), another force protection exercise for Fort Myer Military Community (Source: DC Military - 09/14/01)
- FEMA’s “Operation TRIPOD” (Sept 12th 2001), which, coincidentally, had it’s command centre located at Pier 92 where the 9/11 command centre was ultimately located.
This leads us to the last question of culpability. There are some who say that a total ineptitude on the part of dozens of state departments, lead to the attacks being “unavoidable”. Even the evidence above makes that theory doubtful (not unless hundreds of thousands of civil servants, intelligence officers and military personnel had the skill level of the Key Stone Cops!) Others say that the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing, for example: real events were being mistaken for training exercises. Looking at 9/11 through this narrow perspective of US responsibility without considering huge amounts of other evidence is a bit like exonerating a criminal just because they have nice smile!
It does beg the questions: If they had prior knowledge, if they could have prevented it and didn’t… Did they allow it to happen?
You would have to ignore a lot of other aspects to make this argument work.
This leads us to the ultimate question: Were they complicit or even, directly responsible?
To Be Continued…
Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html
