portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war

The Secret Cabal That Rules the World

The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. ...
Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme....Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.
Who was most vigorously pointing the finger at Radical Islam?
Who was most vigorously pointing the finger at Radical Islam?
Comments on the Pentagon Strike


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 2002 (with updates through2004) - In recent weeks, there has been quite a bit of controversy on the internet regarding the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. I have to admit that I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to what I perceived as a frenzy of conspiracy theories at first. But then, so many readers wrote to ask me what I think about it that I decided I had better have a look before I gave an answer. I followed link after link, read and examined site after site, and at the end, I settled down to try to figure out what I could extract out of the morass of conflicting perspectives on the Pentagon Crash.

Certainly, anyone who approaches this subject and suggests anything other than the accepted media/government version is going to be accused of being a "conspiracy theorist." I need to state for the record that I have spent 30 years studying psychology, history, culture, religion, myth and the paranormal. I also have worked for many years with hypnotherapy - which gives me a very good mechanical knowledge of how the mind/brain of the human being operates at very deep levels. This leads me to certain facts about the human mind that I don't think the average person knows.

There is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:

A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

Guess what happened?

He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.

The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego is established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe. This is "transference." We transfer our desire/need to please our parents to our society, even our government.

Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

Realities, objective, subjective, or otherwise, are a touchy subject. Suffice it to say that years of work inside the minds of all kinds of people has taught me that we almost never perceive reality as it truly IS.

In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessable to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.

Let's face it: we are all taught to avoid uncomfortable realities. Human beings - faced with unpleasant truths about themselves or their reality - react like alcoholics who refuse to admit their condition, or the cuckold husband who is the "last to know," or the wife who does not notice that her husband is abusing her daughter.

I am not surprised at the state of denial of the majority of human beings. It is the cultural norm. I am also not surprised at the projection of their discomfort onto those who ask uncomfortable questions by accusing them of being "conspiracy theorists."

Now that the reader has some idea that they are probably going to deny nearly everything that I am going to say, let us move to the "context" that I believe may be important to the events of 9-11. The context is that the term "conspiracy theory" has been tootled for a number of years in such a way that the mere pronouncing of the words acts to turn off the thinking capacities of the average American. It is almost as effective as pronouncing any criticism of Israeli government to be anti-Semitic.

The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word "conspiracy" evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a "conspiracy theorist." It just isn't "acceptable." It's "un-scientific" or it's evidence of mental instability. Right? That's what you are thinking, isn't it?

In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.

Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such a strong "recoil?" After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in "high places" thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves.

Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:

The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.

The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.

Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the world's most awesome weapons in complete secrecy... [...]

Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.

America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.

Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.

During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.

Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.

In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]

A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.

If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?

Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the wrorld's most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within US borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]

Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution... [...]

The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide [anything] for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.

Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.

[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. [Don't hold your breath.]

This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection. [Richard Dolan]

Now, think about the word "conspiracy" one more time and allow me to emphasize the key point: From a historical point of view, the ONLY reality is that of conspiracy. Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. ...Deception is the key element of warfare, (the tool of power elites), and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. Secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

And how do they do that? By "official culture."

And official culture, understood this way, from the perspective of elite groups wishing to maintain the status quo of their power, means only one thing: COINTELPRO. And here we do not necessarily mean the specific FBI program, but the concept of the program and its application in our society, and the likelihood that this has been the mode of controlling human beings for possibly millennia. Certainly, Machiavelli outlined the principles a very long time ago and little has changed since.

The fact is, it is almost a mechanical system that operates based on the psychological nature of human beings, most of whom LIKE to live in denial or need to live in denial to please their parents, their peers, their religious leaders, and their political leaders. After all, "if ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." This is most especially true when we consider the survival instinct of the ego. If the official culture says that there is no Third Man in the room, and if it works through the inculcated belief systems, there is little possibility that the "subject" will be able to see the source of the phenomena in our world. It will always be an "invisible Third Man."

Consider this also: even if Dolan is writing specifically about America, in a world dominated by the United States, it must be considered that pressures are applied elsewhere from within this "National Security State" to comply with the demands of the US.

Now, here is the clincher: The reader might wish to have a look at Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements where they will learn that "ethnic Jews have a powerful influence in the American media—far larger than any other identifiable group. The extent of Jewish ownership and influence on the popular media in the United States is remarkable given the relatively small proportion of the population that is Jewish."

In other words, Israel is in control of the means of creating the "official culture" of America to suit its own agenda, including making the terms "conspiracy theory" and "anti-Semitic" such horrible epithets that no one would dare to speak anything that might put them at risk of be so branded!

There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult.
So wrote Victor Marchetti, a former high-ranking CIA official, in his book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. This is the first book the U.S. Government ever went to court to censor before publication. In this book, Marchetti tells us that there IS a "Cabal" that rules the world and that its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In our opinion, the CIA is but one "arm" of the cult, just as Dominicans were but one order of the Catholic Church. To borrow from, and paraphrasing, Marchetti:

This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. It's membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally.

"The main threat to Democracy comes not from the extreme left but from the extreme right, which is able to buy huge sections of the press and radio, and wages a constant campaign to smear and discredit every progressive and humanitarian measure." - George Seldes
"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself." Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Senator

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

Remember: those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo and the way this is done is via "official culture" which is a product of COINTELPRO.

The most effective weapon of COINTELPRO is Ridicule and Debunking. Notice that Marchetti points out that this is done via manipulation of individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media.

Bottom line is: if you have bought into the emotionally manipulated consensus of "official culture" that there are no conspiracies, that there is no "Third Man," it is very likely that you are being manipulated by fear of ridicule. You are in denial. You have been hypnotized by the suggestions of the holy men of the Secret Cult. And you have chosen to believe them over your own possible observations and senses.

From an "Expert" on Lies:

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast masses of a nation are, in the depths of their hearts, more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.
The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones. Such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts.

Even explanations would long leave them in doubt and hesitation, and any trifling reason would dispose them to accept a thing as true. Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most imprudent of lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know only too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end.
~ Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

Now, let me back up a bit. On September 14, 2001 - just a few days after the Terrorist Attack - I read a curious article on a Russian News Site, www.strana.ru, that caught my attention and left me feeling strangely uneasy. It was an interview with a former Russian high official and specialist in Russian secret services which was translated for us by a reader who sent it in, and I am going to reproduce it as I read it with underlinings and other emphases that I have added to show those points that struck me as most interesting:

Acts of terrorism carried out on 11 September in America, and their consequences are commented upon in an interview with Andrey Kosyakov, former assistant to the chairman of the Russian Congress, a specialist in International Security.

Q: What suggests that terrorism in THE USA was planned well in advance?

A: First, the conspirators possessed the professional skill to fly an aircraft. There had to be at least four of them with substitutes on hand in the event one of them failed. There is a high probability that the hijacking of an aircraft will fail, thus there had to be stand-by hijackers and/or pilots in this eventuality.

In the second place, all participants in the operation were ready to sacrifice themselves, and such individuals are not easy to find.

Finally, the departure times of the aircraft from four different points were coordinated minute by minute. This means that the routes and timing were known well in advance, and these particular flights were selected specifically for their routes and schedule.

All of this is sufficiently complicated to necessitate a long period of planning.

Q: And how long, in your opinion, would it take to plan something like this? How large an organization would it require? Could, for example, the Red Army carry out such an operation? Some analysts say that only a National organization could do this.

A: As far as the time of preparation is concerned, it would require months. And such an organization must be very powerful.

But, the participation of a National organization, such as a government of a country, is very doubtful.

I assure you that National resources have not been used here.

No secret service would risk their operatives in this way. They spend a lot of time and money training their agents. However, if President Bush had been the target, then one would suspect a secret service of some organization. But here, the target was different: civilians.

As for the Red Army, it doesn't fit for one simple reason: it consists of mainly orientals and it is too easy to distinguish Japanese from Americans.

Q: So, what do you conclude from all this?

You see, analyzing this situation, I was struck by one significant fact: it is known that there were telephone calls from the plane. One of the calling persons was a professional journalist. And yet, not one of the calling individuals said that they were being hijacked by "moslem terrorists." There was, apparently, nothing unusual about the appearance of the hijackers. There was no attempt to describe them. No one said: "Moslem terrorists have hijacked the plane," which would have logically been the first comment by this journalist IF it was apparent that the hijackers were "foreign." There was obviously nothing unusual about them in terms of appearance, accent, pronunciation, or other similar factors.

Q: But, secret organizations could hide these things, couldn't they?

A: All these calls were private. And even the FBI was not able to suppress the fact that these calls took place. So, the conclusion which comes to mind, is that the external appearance of the hijackers was in no way different from the other passengers. Only in such cases would the communicants indentify the hijackers in a shorthand way. This suggests that the hijackers were European in appearance.

There is also the suspicious fact that the conspirators left a huge "clue" in the leased automobile at the airport with a copy of the Koran and instructions for flying a plane in Arabic.

Now look, not one organization claimed responsibility. This means that the terrorists want to hide their identity.

With every other aspect of total control and professionalism, how could they make such a mistake?

This does not compute with all the rest of the perfection of the operation.

All this says that the criminals want to create a false track.

In this way, the secret services have been induced very cleverly to look for "Moslem terrorists. "

Q: But indeed the practice of self-sacrifice is typical to the Moslem culture?

A: You are completely right. But who told you that those who died were not Moslems?

This way we can narrow the radius of our search.

On the basis of this information which we have, by analysis, we may come to the consclusion that those who did it were Americans or Europeans who were followers of radical Islam.

They were manipulated so that the true criminals will be thus spared for follow-up actions.

It is completely clear that this is a multi-phase operation. [...] ... it seems that the target is precisely America; precisely civilians.

Q: But, we remember that some analysts were claiming that if George Bush was in the White House on September 11, then the aircraft would have been aimed at the White House instead of the Pentagon.

This is highly improbable. In that case the White House or the Pentagon, but not peaceful population would be the first targets.

Indeed after a first successful terrorist act, the chances of success for the rest fall.

You see that the last action did fail in the crash of the aircraft in Pittsburgh. It was most certainly shot down. However hard it is to admit, this was the correct thing to do.

So it is clear that the main targets are civilians.

There is this formula that is part of the mentality of terrorists: the civilian population in the democratic countries are responsible for the actions of their government. The terrorists accept and use this formula. Therefore, the next terrorist acts will follow the same pattern. Obviously, they will occur on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. Why? I don't want to explain the terrorist's logic. But it is based on a certain sense of the "rightness" of the thing.

But I would like to repeat this: the fact that no terrorists are claiming responsibility, tells us that they will kill again and again until the next stage of global conflict is achieved. This is precisely the goal of these actions. Only then will they reveal their identity in order to get followers.

Q: How could the special services OF THE USA fail to detect such a terrorist act?
I will give two examples. Half a year ago Israeli reconnaissance carried out studies through the use of aerial targets for conducting terrorism.

It is certain that the Americans had access to these studies. But it seems to not have entered their minds to apply this information in defensive ways.

And other - in March of 1991 in our office sat Korzhakov, and we told him about the situation leading to the September government coup. We predicted that everything would occur in September. Everything actually occurred, exactly following our scenario, only it happend one month earlier: August. No one paid any attention. This means that when there are predictions of scenarios that seem to be improbable, no one takes them seriously, especially the secret services. That is why Putin says that what is needed is a union of all secret services of all nations.

Q: What is the probability that the American secret services will succeed in finding the leader of this operation, or that they simply will present to society a fake?

A: Very high. There are people, there are apartments where they were located, which means, there are traces, certainly. Following these traces, one may find the leader.

Q: And who this? Ben Laden?

Hardly.

Yes, there was the interception of his conversation with someone, where they reported to him the destruction of two targets.This was seen as indirect confirmation of his participation. But he is not an ideologist. He is too well known. And the one who organized all of this is too smart to be noticed.

Ever.

Now, remember, this interview with an intelligence expert took place just a few days after the 9-11 attacks. Several points in this article started me to thinking. Those points are as follows: the attacks were carried out against civilians, targets that are highly symbolic to the ordinary American by a very "powerful organization" that wishes to blame Moslems - to create a false trail - for these attacks. Whoever this group is, they are too smart to be noticed - and certainly much too smart to leave clues lying about such as passports and "how to fly" videos in Arabic.

Another thing that struck me rather forcibly was his remark that Israeli reconnaissance carried out studies through the use of aerial targets for conducting terrorism followed by his assertion that "It is certain that the Americans had access to these studies."

So, I began to think about what this intell guy was saying a bit more deeply despite the fact that he confidently assured his interviewer that no "national service" did this.

(Regarding the KGB guy's remark above about the shooting down of the fourth hijacked plane, see: video clip: How the authorities responded: A concise analysis of the events from  http://www.itn.co.uk/news/ondemand/video/ )

Certainly, this expert supported the "failure of intelligence" line by asking the question: "How could the special services OF THE USA fail to detect such a terrorist act?" and then answering it with "when there are predictions of scenarios that seem to be improbable, no one takes them seriously, especially the secret services. "

He was most certain that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9-11 even though he did say that those who actually carried out the attacks were "Americans or Europeans who were followers of radical Islam" who were manipulated so that the true criminals will be thus spared.


This assessment struck me as one of the more intelligent bits of commentary about the 9-11 attacks to come out AT THE TIME, emerging through the hysterical rants about Osama and those nasty Muslims like a small island of sanity.

What I found to be most interesting was exactly WHO was most vigorously pointing the finger at Radical Islam: a veritable Greek Chorus led by a former cheerleader, our own George Bush and the Warmongers.

That struck me as curious considering the fact that most certainly, George and gang had access to similar intelligence analyses. Are we to think that Russian intell people are smarter than American intell services?

Surely, if such a scenario as Mr. Kosyakov describes as taking place in Russia, where the intell services predicted an event and were not believed by their government administrators, and then the event did, in fact, transpire exactly as described, had taken place in the U.S., wouldn't the administration then sit down with the intell services and listen a bit more carefully?

We now know that such a scenario did, in fact, play out. We know from the testimony before the 9-11 commission, from the Presidential Daily Briefings, that George and his cabinet were warned quite a bit in advance about the possibility of the 9-11 attacks, and did nothing. So, considering the fact that they are seen to have been caught with their pants down, and that it really wasn't a "failure of intelligence," unless you consider it a failure of the President's intelligence and the intellect of the members of his cabinet, they ought to have rather quickly called a meeting with the top intell people to find out exactly what the real scoop might be, who really did it, and how to really prevent it from happening again.

Again I repeat what is quite obvious to good intell:

1) The attacks were carried out against civilians, targets that are highly symbolic to the ordinary American by a very "powerful organization" that wishes to blame Moslems - to create a false trail - for these attacks.

2) Whoever this group is, they are too smart to be noticed - and certainly much too smart to leave clues lying about such as passports and "how to fly" videos in Arabic.

3) Those who actually carried out the attacks were "Americans or Europeans who were followers of radical Islam" who were manipulated so that the true criminals will be thus spared.

Like everyone, I am so outraged at the attack on America that nothing but finding the perpetrators and bringing them to justice will satisfy. At the same time, there is a small voice inside my head that keeps warning me that there is something wrong with this picture; better not jump to conclusions too fast. War is only justifiable in defense. Never has pre-emptive war led to anything but destruction of the innocent.

And so, modifying my personal wish for justice, with the reality of the proposed war against Iraq that is being promoted by the media, I end up with the only answer being that we must find the specific group, the specific individuals, and we must "surgically remove" them from the body of mankind, doing as little damage to surrounding tissues as possible. And then we must do all we can to heal those wounds.

Within a few days of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I wrote the following:

Over the past few days we have struggled - along with everyone else - to keep our balance, to guard our emotions, and to use our minds to observe and learn and be aware. It is difficult, but not impossible. But it is becoming more difficult every day.

Why? Because what we see all around us is another of the insidious manipulations of the masses of humanity, including our leaders, gaining impetus and moving across the land like a juggernaut bent on mindless violence!

Now, yes, many of you who read this site or similar sites - those of you who are connected in networks around the globe, sharing information and insights - have a view of the present situation that precludes, for the most part, this overt mind manipulation. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are not so well informed. Even well-educated Americans seem to be completely in the dark about the forces moving on this planet. Jerry Falwell was recently heard to say that this tragedy fell upon America because of gays, lesbians, and the general decline of morals.

When we look at the fact that, from the very beginning, this event has been compared to "Pearl Harbor," we have to wonder if this is a sort of "signature?"

I remember back in 1986, when I came across the documented evidence that the attack on Pearl Harbor was known to the United States well before it happened. I was shocked. Not only did the government do nothing to prevent it, they did not even warn those who were going to be attacked. The loss of American lives was horrendous. And the blame lies on the doorstep of the leaders of America. There is even evidence that they deliberately manipulated the situation, at the highest levels, to ensure that the attack would take place.

Why?

Well, to get the United States into the war, of course. War is big business. Whenever you have a slow economy, a little war-mongering is always the answer. In ancient times, it was the business of the day: go to war, kill the men, capture the women and the wealth of the enemy, and go home until you have spent it all and gotten tired of the women, and then go out and do it over again. Even Herodotus understood this to be the reason for war. And human beings haven't changed at all - at least not those who seek power positions.

Is it possible that the government of our country had an inkling that the events of 9-11 were going to happen?

After examining all the evidence available, indeed, that seems to be true.

And if so, is it possible that they did nothing?

Again, that seems to be true as well. And when they did finally wake up from their war games and school reading classes, the only thing they did do was the exact opposite of trying to get to the bottom of the matter, trying to find the real culprits, and instead, went after the False Flag clues that were left to lead everyone astray.

Well, sure, such clues might lead the average citizen astray. They might not be aware of what are called "False Flag operations." They aren't educated in the ways of intelligence and don't know about all the evil manipulations that go on all the time in the world of spy vs. spy.

But surely, the president of the Greatest Nation on Earth is not going to be taken in by such blatant nonsense as a "how to fly" video in Arabic, is he?

Apparently so.

So here we have an administration not acting when and how it ought to act, and then turning around and doing exactly what they are being manipulated to do by the "true criminals" who have set up the clue system to lead away from the source of the attacks on 9-11.

Is this a coincidence?

We read endless reports of this spreading like wildfire over the web. A dozen or more commentators of great or lesser prestige simply do not believe in the "failure of intelligence" that is the administrations answer to why and how George and Co got caught with their pants down. Many, many people are certain that the government not only knew about the attack, but that they condoned it for their own nefarious purposes; that it is the new Pearl Harbor or even Hitler's Reichstag fire.

So, we have two opposing forces here: the administration supported by the mass media, against a growing percentage of the population that claims that there was no failure of intelligence, that the government deliberately condoned or even participated in this attack, and that it is part of a planned schedule to impose a One World Government on all of us, to abridge our freedoms, and entrap us in a fascist state.

On their side, George Bush and his administration say that we have to accept some new, restrictive laws to make us "safe" (never mind that it is clear that it was our government caught with their pants down), make some significant changes in the way the country does business, and most definitely, we need a little war here to level things out again (not to mention the economy.) And all of the Joe Sixpak's of the world may be buying it. All the grandmother Sally Stockmarketinvestors are sitting at home, glued to their televisions, hoping that Uncle Sam will take charge here, nuke the Afghanis, give Saddam a major spanking, wipe out the Iraqis, and anybody who ever helped them, and pass all the laws necessary to ensure the safety of this great nation. Never mind if that includes moving to a cashless society and implanting micro-chips under the skin so that everyone will be trackable so as to ensure that they aren't committing terrorist acts on their lunch break.

There's a saying attributed to Franklin Roosevelt: "In politics, nothing happens by accident, if it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Maybe he really said it, maybe he didn't. Whether he did or not, anyone who studies history deeply can figure out that it comes pretty close to the truth. I also once had a conversation with a fellow who was trained in military intelligence and he told me that one of the first rules of intell is to observe the situation AS IT IS, and extrapolate to who will gain from it. So these two principles were uppermost in my mind as I was considering all the data. Clearly, the attacks on 9-11 are "political events."

The situation at present is a bit complex. But we notice that it has only become complex AFTER the fact. It is only the wild speculations and constant playing of agendas and counter-agendas that has tended to obscure the basic essentials of the matter. There are groups that go on and on about a "flash of light" that was emitted between the two airliners that crashed into the WTC, and this proves there was some sort of missile fired. That's an interesting idea, but it really doesn't even make it to "theory" status because there are other possible explanations for such a flash, including a discharge of electricity between the plane and the building as soon as it is close enough to be "grounded".

There are groups that make a big deal about supposed "pods" under the aircraft that hit the WTC. We can pretty easily dispose of that one by carefully examining photos of the underside of that particular type of aircraft.

Then, there's the group that takes the cake, in my opinion: the "hologram" people. That is about the silliest thing going. That is not to say that I don't think that hologram technology exists, that it might be used in a number of ways,, but I don't think that holograms photograph too well since they are produced by light.

So, let's go back to ground zero of the present situation and look at the event itself, by itself, and ask the first important question: Who benefits?

Obviously, the first beneficiary we notice would be Israel. It could be suggested that, by focusing the anger of the United States against the Moslems, they have powerful backing for their expansionist goals. So, the first view of the matter might suggest that Israel has the most to gain.

We might also notice that, if it is really true that the United States was experiencing a "failure of intelligence," that might be because of all the groups that one would not be suspecting, and thus would not be trying to "infiltrate," it would be one that is ostensibly a "friend" - Israel.

We also observe the events in Israel during the months prior to the WTC attack: many people were withdrawing their support from Israel and there was a growing feeling of dis-ease among the peoples of many countries, that Israel was simply going too far in its actions against the Palestinians. Everyone was getting tired of the constant harassment of the Palestinians, of the constant attacks against anyone who said a single word against Israel's political ambitions; who - if they did not support every single thing said and done by Israel - were flamed as "antisemitic."

In short, Israel was losing its grip on the collective guilt of the world. Sympathies were turning against them, and toward the Palestinians.

So, after those nasty Islamic fundies attacked America, Isreal had the biggest bully on the global block on their side. With the repeating rants of how evil Muslims are, how fanatical they are, how cruel and unusual they are, the whole rest of the world had better fall in line with Israel's thinking and help them find the "final solution" for Palestine and those other A-rabs.

Gee, shades of Nazi Germany going after the Jews!

Thus we see that the main "benefit" of the WTC attack falls, primarily, to Israel.

There is also some compelling hard evidence to support this view. Let's take a look:

Cloudcroft chief stops Israelis with suspicious cargo
By Michael Shinabery Staff Writer,
Alamogordo Daily News

CLOUDCROFT, NM -- That they were speeding through the school zone first got his attention.

That they had Israeli driver's licenses and expired passports made him suspicious.

Cloudcroft Police Chief Gene Green stopped the 2-ton van on Thursday, for speeding. Initially, Green thought the truck was commercial because of exterior markings. But when he found it was out of Chicago, he asked for documentation such as logs books and manifests.

"They said this is a U-Haul truck and handed me a rental agreement (for) in-town delivery only in Illinois, (which) had expired two days before," Green said. He called for backup, and Otero County Sheriff's Deputy Billy Anders, who patrols the Sacramento Mountains, arrived, along with Capt. Norbert Sanchez and Det. Eddie Medrano.

"We got them out and started digging a little deeper," Green said, "got permission to search the truck. They claimed they were hauling furniture from Austin to Chicago." When officers advised the men they were not exactly en route from one town to another, Green said the two men claimed they were Deming bound. "But they couldn't give us an address in Deming they were going to," he said. "Once we got into the truck, they had some junk furniture I wouldn't have given to Goodwill."

Also inside the vehicle were, Green said, "50 boxes" they claimed was a "private" delivery, but the men insisted they had no "idea what was in them."

At that point, the officers called for drug-sniffing and bomb-sniffing dogs. The men were turned over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and U- Haul recovered the truck.

Contents of the boxes remain unknown, pending investigation.

Well, don't that just beat all? A "moving company" with Israeli drivers with bad papers, and nobody even noticed...

Well, I noticed.

Not only did I notice, I remembered the strange story about a similar event:

On May 7, 2002, local police authorities pulled over a Budget rental truck in Oak Harbour, Washington near the Whitney Island Naval Air Station. The driver and his passenger were Israeli nationals, one of which had entered the country illegally. The other had an expired visa. Tests performed on the vehicle revealed that there were traces of TNT on the gearshift and RDX plastic explosives on the steering wheel. But no actual explosives were reported to have been found in the truck. [Fox News, 5/13/02]

A report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer the following day reported that the FBI performed follow-up tests on the truck which turned-up negative. One source speculated that perhaps the original tests had actually detected just cigarette residue, and not explosives. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5/14/02, Jerusalem Post, 5/14/02].

Critics argued that it would make no sense for U.S. authorities to use a method of testing that could be skewed by cigarette residue. The website whatreallyhappened.com remarked:

"The specific claim is made that residue from a cigarette lighter confused the tests for TNT and RDX. That doesn't explain why the trained bomb-sniffing dog, who surely knows the difference between explosives and cigarettes [else he would false-positive every smoker, ashtray, and convenience store he came across] gave the first indications of explosives in the truck that led to the tests in the first place. Likewise, were the chemical tests unable to discriminate between tobacco and TNT/RDX, which are chemically quite different from tobacco combustion products, they would give false positive results for every vehicle ever tested in which smokers had ever ridden. Given the likelihood of finding tobacco residues in any car, such tests would have to be designed to tell the difference. The same is true for other products from non- electric cigarette lighters, the vast majority of which are butane."

The same website also provided references to three documents with detailed information on the tests used to detect TNT and RDX. None of the documents indicated that the presence of cigarette residue might induce inaccurate test results. [International Society for Optical Engineering 1984; Cold Regions and Research Engineering Laboratory 5-1996; Security Management n.d.]

I also remembered another peculiar item: the so-called Urban Moving Company that some researchers suggest was a cover for Mossad.

Many observers have suggested that Israel had foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorists attacks. Some have even argued that they may have been behind the attacks, and it seems that the funny stories about Israelis with trucks and bad papers just keep popping up here and there.

On September 11, five employees of Jewish owned Urban Moving Company were detained as a result of witness accounts that they were taking pictures of the flaming ruins of the World Trade Center and celebrating!

Yes indeedy! Shortly after the collapse of the towers a witness called the police and reported that the 5 individuals were, "going to unusual lengths to photograph the World Trade Center ruins" and they were obviously and blatantly "making light of the situation." The witness stated that these men were on the roof of the office of their employer, Urban Moving Company, and were posing, dancing, and laughing. [New York Times 10/8/01; Bergen Record 9/12/01; Ha'aretz 9/17/01; Gotham Gazette 11/2/01]

After their indiscreet celebration on the roof of the building, the five Israelis headed down to a nearby parking lot where they mounted the roof of their truck and resumed their photographing and celebrating. Another witness called the police and told them that the men were smiling, dancing, and giving each other high-fives while viewing the destruction of the symbol of Free Enterprise in America. [Gotham Gazette 11/2/01; ABC News, 6/21/02]

A few hours later, the five Israelis were stopped by police while driving their truck. One individual had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, while another had two foreign passports. They were also found to be in the possession of a box- cutter, which they presumably had because of their job as professional movers. [New York Times 10/8/01; Gotham Gazette 11/2/01; ABC News, 6/21/02]

On September 14, Dominic Suter, the owner of the moving company, left the country very abruptly after FBI agents indicated that they wanted a second interview with him.

According to ABC News' 20/20 [ABC News 6/21/02], "Three months later 20/20's cameras photographed the inside of Urban Moving, and it looked as if the business had been shut down in a big hurry. Cell phones were lying around; office phones were still connected; and the property of dozens of clients remained in the warehouse. The owner had also cleared out of his New Jersey home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel." [New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, 12/13/01; Gotham Gazette 11/2/01; ABC News, 6/21/02; Forward, 3/15/02]

Shortly after the arrest of the men, FBI officials suspected that the Urban Moving company was an Israeli intelligence front. Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism, told ABC News that the FBI was concerned that the moving company had been "set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists in the area, particularly in the New Jersey-New York area." [ABC News, 6/21/02]

The five employees that were taken into custody were all former members of the Israeli Army. After being transferred to jail, the FBI's Criminal Division sent the case to the Counterintelligence Section on account of suspicions that they were Israeli spies. They were then detained for more that two months. Some of them spent 40 days in solitary confinement. [New York Times 11/21/01; ABC News, 6/21/02]

Several individuals attempted to research this item. One high-ranking U.S. intelligence source told Forward magazine that intelligence agents' investigation of Urban Moving Company led them to believe it was a front for the Israeli Mossad. It should be noted that, at present there is no publicly available information that conclusively confirms this allegation. However the above described incident, reported by various news sources, certainly casts a very dark shadow of suspicion on the company and its employees.

It seems that Urban Moving Company was not an isolated phenomenon.

According to a small local newspaper in Pennsylvania, The Mercury, three Israeli employees working for Moving Systems, Inc. were detained by police on October 11, 2001, after being caught illegally dumping garbage from their moving truck into the dumpster of a restaurant. The suspects had fled the seen after being confronted by the restaurant's manager, who immediately reported the incident to the police. [The Mercury 10/17/01]

The Mercury reported: "The area was searched by township police, and the vehicle was spotted parked on the curb in front of John Kennedy Ford on Ridge Pike, just west of Industrial Way. An officer proceeded to make contact with the occupants of the truck by knocking on the cab, according to reports.

A Middle Eastern [an Israeli according to Executive Intelligence Review 3/29/02] man, later identified as Ron Katar, 23, exited the sleeper area of the cab and said that the operator - Elmakias - was across the street as he pointed toward the Don Rosen Porsche dealer, reports said.

Elmakias and a white female, Ayelet Reisler, 23, were approaching the vehicle from the dealership, but the female then began walking in a different direction, acting as if she were not with Elmakias, according to reports. . . .

Elmakias said that his destination was New York and that he was also coming from New York. He said he was in Plymouth because he was supposed to make a pickup from a male in the morning and pointed toward the Storage USA facility on Belvoir Road and West Ridge Pike, police said. Elmakias could not, however, provide a name or telephone number of the customer." [The Mercury 10/17/01]

A search of the truck turned up detailed video footage of the Sears Towers along with several other suspicious articles. It was also discovered that the driver of the truck had falsified his driver log.

As of this date, no ties to Israeli intelligence have been made. [The Mercury 10/17/01]

Then, of course, there was the "Art Scandal."

It seems that Israeli 'art students' - Israelis posing as 'art students' selling their art [actually made in China], - were suspected of spying for Israel. They were detained by the FBI and later deported to Israel on account of visa violations. The FBI first took notice of them in January of 2001.

A highly detailed DEA report that was acquired by French intelligence analysts documented 180 cases of Israeli art students infiltrating DEA facilities. It provided names, drivers' license numbers, addresses and phone numbers of the Israelis. [DEA report 6/01; Insight 3/11/02]

Despite official confirmations of the report, other U.S. officials denied its existence. In response, Intelligence Online released the document to CreativeLoafing.com who published it on the Internet for the public. [DEA report 6/01] The Associated Press also reported that it had a copy [AP 3/9/02] The report acknowledged that the art students "may well be an organized intelligence-gathering activity." [DEA report 6/01; AP 3/5/02; Sun Sentinel 3/7/02]

Bill Carter, a spokesman for the FBI, said, "After an agency reported suspicious activities by those so-called students, the FBI conducted an investigation and determined that there was no credence to the assumption that this was an Israeli spying operation. None of the Israelis were charged with espionage and they were all deported by the INS for visa violations." [Forward 3/15/02]

Now, here is where things get VERY INTERESTING!

You see, five of the so-called Israeli Art Students that weren't really art students, had been living at 4220 Sheridan St in Hollywood, Florida.

What is so interesting about that address?

It just so happens that four of the five so-called 9/11 hijackers that were said to be onboard AA Flight 11 [Mohammed Atta, Abdulaziz Al-Omari, Walid and Waïl Al- Shehri] and one of the five hijackers [Marwan Al-Shehhi] from UA Flight 175 had at one time or another also resided in Hollywood, Florida.

Where in Hollywood?

Why, it just happens that Mohammed Atta, the presumed lead hijacker had lived at 3389 Sheridan St, only a few blocks away from the Fake Israeli Art Students! [Le Monde 3/5/02; Reuters 3/5/02; Jane's Intelligence Digest, 3/15/02; Salon, 5/7/02]

Well, don't that just beat all! And it just so happens that Florida Senator Bob Graham was having breakfast with Pakistani ISI chief Mahmoud-Ahmad on the morning of September 11 - the same ISI chief who was later linked to Mohammed Atta by virtue of the fact that he transferred a LOT of money to the guy.

Hmmm... I smell a rat somewhere!

Of course, the Israelis have a good reason for this: they were "investigating terrorists!"

We are assured by German news sources that:

"between December 2000 and April 2001 a whole horde of Israeli counter-terror investigators, posing as students, followed the trails of Arab terrorists and their cells in the United States. In their secret investigations, the Israelis came very close to the later perpetrators of Sept. 11. In the town of Hollywood, Florida, they identified the two former Hamburg students and later terror pilots Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi as possible terrorists. Agents lived in the vicinity of the apartment of the two seemingly normal flight school students, observing them around the clock." [Der Spiegel 10/1/02]

I guess they didn't observe them "around the clock" enough to see when they were getting on those planes that were hijacked. A failure of intelligence? What's more, this truly pathetic "explanation" doesn't explain the joy of the Israelis at the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, nor why Bob Graham was having breakfast with the guy who paid off Mohammed Atta...

Well, it gets deeper: In addition to the close proximity of the Israeli 'art students' to the Florida-based hijackers, other 'art students' in Texas, California, and Arkansas were operating close to several of the other hijackers suspected of taking part in the 9-11 attacks. [DEA report 6/01]

And if that doesn't just crumble your cookies, how about the fact that six of the students had mobile phones that had been purchased by a former Israeli vice consul in the U.S.? [Le Monde 3/5/02]

The passports of the students revealed that they had been visitors in several different countries including, Thailand, Laos, India, Kenya, Central and South America, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada. [Insight 3/11/02]

In spite of the findings of the DEA report, the students were deported back to Israel on account of visa violations. [AP 3/5/02]

Now, let me try to understand this: at that point in time when every single American citizen was subject to being a suspected terrorist, a gang of Israelis with "SPY" practically branded on their foreheads, were simply shipped home with NO QUESTIONS ASKED?!

EXCUUUSE ME?!

What is the Bush Administration covering up by protecting Israeli spys who are claimed to have been monitoring Islamic terrorists, but apparently not well enough to know what they were really up to, or didn't bother to tell Georgie and his gang of warmongers? The question these facts bring to mind are crucial. Is the U.S. government complicit in Israeli spying activities? Are the Israelis spying on Americans with the permission of America's own elected officials? Ooops! sorry. Lost my head. I forgot for a moment and thought we had elected officials. Now I remember: America is the new Banana Republic with fixed elections, courtesy of the Bush gang.

Well, anyway, back to the problem at hand: It just so happens that Israeli suspects also seem to know when they are being investigated by agencies of the U.S. Government.

In several investigations of Israeli suspects, the suspects quickly modified their behavior after U.S. enforcement agencies began wiretapping them. This suggests that the suspects may have known that they were being monitored. [Fox News 12/12-13/01]

In other words, either somebody very high in the U.S. government is warning them when those silly lower level bureaucrats get nosy, or there is a major mole in the U.S. intelligence services.

According to Executive Intelligence Review, "A well-placed Washington source has alerted EIR that there is growing suspicion among U.S. government law enforcement and intelligence agencies that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has dispatched special operations teams into North America. The warning came in the context of a discussion about the recent deportation of five Israelis who were detained on Sept. 11 for suspicious behavior... You know, the guys doing the Happy Dance when the Towers fell.

"Portions of the funds garnered from the illegal operations, according to sources, are funneled to offshore bank accounts of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Some of these dirty funds were reportedly diverted to Sharon's election campaigns. This Israeli mafia apparatus receives technical support via a number of Israeli communications firms, that subcontract with major American telephone companies and government law enforcement agencies" [EIR 12/13/01]

In other words, the same companies helping the spies, are the companies that run the American phone systems... and are embedded in American Law Enforcement units. What a SWEET operation! Endless opportunities for blackmail...

In spite of the U.S. federal agency claims that "there is no Israeli spy network," several of the same federal agencies have in the past year taken steps to protect themselves against espionage!

It seems that things were getting mighty sticky because the U.S. Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive officially warned federal employees in March 2001 about the art students and urged them to report any contact with such art students! The warning read,

"These individuals have been described as aggressive. They attempt to engage employees in conversation rather than giving a sales pitch." [Insight 3/11/02; AP 3/9/02; Forward 3/15/02]

What seems to be emerging as the obvious solution to this mystery is that there is both high level U.S. government complicity with Israeli espionage in the U.S. AND a major mole in the U.S. intelligence services. (Unfortunately, being in bed together did not produce any appreciable exchange of intelligence that might have led to the prevention of the attacks on the World Trade Center.)

DEA communications employees were put on alert. According to John Sugg, "a Dec. 18 e-mail among DEA communications employees makes clear that the agency underwent self-scrutiny as the 'result of the Fox network expose on Israeli counterintelligence activities'." [Creative Loafing, Atlanta 3/27/02]

Pentagon and DOD ended the practice of awarding foreign companies contracts involving sensitive projects. The World Tribune [World Tribune 3/12/02] reported, "Israeli nationals could be banned from participating in U.S. defense contracts under new regulations that seek to keep foreigners out of sensitive projects." The article revealed that these restrictions were specifically targeted at "IT" and other "computer-related" contracts.

Pete Nelson, the deputy director for personnel security in the Pentagon, stated, "Some foreign nationals — those in the most sensitive positions — may not be permitted to remain in those positions. As we review our security requirements as a nation, we need to ensure all people with access to sensitive IT [information technology] systems are cleared and properly vetted for the material to which they have access."

On December 13, 2001 the EIR's Washington Bureau Chief Bill Jones asked Colin Powell, "There were 60 Israeli citizens who have been picked up in the post- Sept. 11 sweep, many of whom, if not all of whom, are connected to Israeli intelligence. Are you concerned about such intelligence operations on U.S. soil, and have you taken up this issue with your counterpart in Israel?"

Powell responded: "I'm aware that some Israeli citizens have been detained, and I've been in touch with the Israeli government as to the fact that they have been detained, in making sure that they have rights of access to Israeli diplomatic personnel here in the United States. With respect to why they are being detained, and the other aspects of your question, whether it's because they are in intelligence services or what things they were doing, I will defer to the Department of Justice and the FBI to answer that; because, frankly, I deal with the consular parts of that problem, not the intelligence or law-enforcement parts of that problem." [Fox News 12/17/01; EIR 12/28/01]

Now wait just a minute! Any American who is just simply vocal against the Bush Reich policies can be branded an "enemy combatent" and have all his rights as a human being and American citizen instantly revoked, but these Israelis who were patently spying during a period of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, have "rights of access to Israeli diplomatic personnel"????

Something is wrong with this picture.

Justice Department Susan Dryden, spokesperson, referring to the numerous articles citing the leaked DEA report, claimed, "At this time, we have no information to support this." [Le Monde 3/5/02; AP 3/9/02; Fox News Service 3/5/01]

Ms. Dryden went even further to say that the story was "an urban myth (!) that has been circulating for months. The department has no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage." [Washington Post, 3/6/02]

According to one independent journalist who was investigating the 'art students' a CIA officer had told him, "We've just closed the book on it. And I recommend that you do the same." [Salon, 5/7/02]

Whoa! Now what's THAT supposed to mean? Is that a threat?! Again I ask why law-abiding American citizens must submit to the loss of all their constitutional freedoms while very suggestive evidence exists that Israel may be complicit in the 9-11 attacks - from which THEY AND THE BUSH GANG ALONE BENEFITTED - is closed to scrutiny?

One official of the present administration stated that the "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." [Fox News 12/12-13/01]

Which brings up the question as to why the Bush Administration is not only blocking an unbiased investigation into the events of September 11, but are also stalling on releasing the reports that HAVE been assembled? What do they REALLY have to hide?

Well, maybe the following provides a clue:

Pro-Israeli director of the Middle East Forum Daniel Pipes wrote an op-ed piece asserting that the whole espionage story was just a 'myth.' In spite of all the above evidence, he claimed the story was baseless and amounted to little more than fodder for the 'conspiracy theorists.' [New York Post 3/11/02]

Critical media coverage of investigations into Israelis has been virtually nonexistent. The major media, with the exception of Fox News, completely ignored the Israeli spy scandal. But Fox soon canned the story under pressure from pro-Israeli lobbies.

I guess warnings to "close the book" carry a lot of weight. Salon reported, "Oddly, four days after the Cameron investigation ran, all traces of his report -- transcripts, Web links, headlines -- disappeared from the Foxnews.com archives. [Normally, Fox leaves a story up for two to three weeks before consigning it to the pay archive.]

Asked why the Cameron piece disappeared, spokesman Robert Zimmerman said it was 'up there on our Web site for about two or three weeks and then it was taken down because we had to replace it with more breaking news. As you know, in a Web site you've got x amount of bandwidth -- you know, x amount of stuff you can put stuff up on [sic]. So it was replaced. Normal course of business, my friend.' ...

When informed that Cameron's story was gone from the archives, not simply from the headline pages [when you entered the old URL, a Fox screen appeared with the message 'This story no longer exists'], Zimmerman replied, 'I don't know where it is.' [Salon, 5/7/02]

Le Monde, attempted 3 times to acquire the transcripts from Fox. The requests were ignored until February 26, when Fox explained that there was some sort of 'problem' preventing them from sending it. The 'problem' was not explained. [Le Monde 3/5/02; see also Salon, 5/7/02]

Several pro-Israeli organizations put pressure on Fox to halt its probe and retract its story.

In response to the Fox News stories, the Israeli embassy stated the following, "The report on Fox News contains no quoted source, it has in no way demonstrated anything more than anonymous innuendo, and should be regarded accordingly. Israel does not spy on the United States of America." [Jerusalem Post, 5/14/02]

In response to the DEA report that was publicized by Intelligence Online, a spokesperson at the Israeli embassy in Washington claimed, "No one in the US is taking this story seriously. I categorically deny the claims and my embassy has received no complaints from the US. . . . I am not aware of a single Israeli who has been charged with espionage." [Independent 3/6/02]

Forward, after initially denying the allegations of an Israeli spy ring, acknowledged its existence in mid March 2002, [Forward, 12/21/01] but claimed, "far from pointing to Israeli spying against US government and military facilities, as reported in Europe last week, the incidents in question appear to represent a case of Israelis in the United States spying on a common enemy, radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism." [Forward, 3/15/02]

This, of course, begs the question as to why 9-11 occurred if the "Israeli spy-ring" was "on top of things," so to say. It also begs the question as to why individuals who are suggestively implicated in such a spy ring were doing the Happy Dance when the WTC towers fell?

August 23, 2001: According to German newspapers, the Mossad gave the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and said that it appeared that they were planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the same exact 19 names as the actual hijackers or if the number is a coincidence. However, at least four names did refer to actual 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Haaretz, 10/3/02]

The Mossad appears to have learned about this through their "art student" spy ring; the same "art student spy ring" that the U.S. government warned their agencies to beware; the same spy ring that Israel claims does not exist.

So what's the story? Is there an Israeli spy ring that the U.S. is trying to circumvent? Or is there an Israeli spy ring that tries to cooperate with the U.S.? If they are cooperating, that begs the question as to why the purported "warning and list" was not treated as particularly urgent by the CIA and also were not passed on to the FBI.

Would that constitute a "failure of intelligence?" Or criminal negligence? The next item, however, suggests complicity.

It is not clear if this warning influenced the adding of Alhazmi and Almihdhar's names to a terrorism watch list on this same day, and if so, why only those two. [Der Spiegel, 10/1/02]

These details create additional problems since Israel continues to deny that there were any Mossad agents in the US. [Haaretz, 10/3/02] and the US has denied knowing about Mohammed Atta before 9/11, despite other media reports to the contrary and despite the fact that Florida Senator Bob Graham was, on the morning of September 11, 2001, having breakfast with the Pakistani ISI chief who was later directly linked to Mohammed Atta.

None of this matter is cut and dried. On September 10, 2001, the Army School of Advanced Military Studies issued a report written by elite US army officers, which was made public just prior to 9/11. The report gave the following description for the Mossad: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." [Washington Times, 9/10/01]

Hmmm... I guess that the Bush Gang didn't read that particular item of Intell. They were too busy reading the "cooked intell" that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, I guess.

At this point, things take a strange turn. With all the questions about an Israeli Spy Ring being brought up again and again, a neat solution has been found:

EIR reported that a number of the Israelis that were detained after the terrorist attacks "have been linked to suspected 'Islamic' terrorist cells in southern California" [EIR 1/11/02]

Here is another interesting item along that line from awhile back that ought to give us pause:

On January 12, 2000, 11 Islamic preachers were detained in India prior to boarding a flight headed for Dhaka, Bangladesh on suspicions of being terrorists. Although, the Indian official eventually cleared the clerics to leave, officials in Bangladesh indicated that they would not grant them visas.

The Muslims, who all had Israeli passports, were allowed to board a flight to Israel - under Israeli pressure. An Indian intelligence analyst, Ashok Debbarma, explained to The Week, "It is not unlikely for Mossad to recruit 11 Afghans in Iran and grant them Israeli citizenship to penetrate a network such as Bin Laden's. They would begin by infiltrating them into an Islamic radical group in an unlikely place like Bangladesh." He added that Israel's obvious concern for the men, and the haste with which they were flown back indicated a possible "aborted operation." [The Week, 2/6/00]

There is another spin being put on the whole thing:

In March 2003, the U.S. State Department published a fact sheet, in which it reported, "In the United States, approximately 80% of ecstasy seized in 2000 came from or through the Netherlands. Israeli [drug] trafficking syndicates are currently the primary source to distribution groups operating in the United States, smuggling through express mail services, via couriers aboard commercial airline flights, or more recently, through air freight shipments." [U.S. Department of State, 3/20/03, also cited in the Ha'aretz, 4/6/03]

So now, they could be Islamic terrorists disguised as Jews, or they could be a maverick Jewish drug ring, but in NO CASE can they possibly be Israeli spies that are spying against the U.S.!

Now, let's go back a minute to the fact that Senator Bob Graham was having breakfast with the Pakistani ISI chief on the morning of September 11, 2001. Keep in mind that this man, Mahmoud Ahmad, was later linked directly to Mohammed Atta, the purported "head terrorist" of the 9-11 attacks. With that in mind, read the following report in which Pakistan's ex spy chief "blames Mossad" AND "Renegade U.S. Air Force elements" for the 9-11 attacks:

Wednesday, 26 September 2001 15:05 (ET)
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan, Sept. 26 (UPI) -- The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States were perpetrated by renegade U.S. Air Force elements working in conjunction with Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, according to the retired Pakistani general who is closest to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

Gen. Hameed Gul, head of Inter Services Intelligence, the equivalent of a CIA-cum-FBI combination, during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, spent two weeks in the war-torn country immediately prior to Sept. 11. He has been acting as "strategic adviser" to Pakistan's extremist religious political parties. Four religious leaders left his house in the army's principal garrison town as this reporter arrived at 9:30 p.m. Tuesday. The interview lasted 90 minutes.

Already countless millions of Muslims believe that the World Trade Center and Pentagon suicide attacks were part of a Mossad plot to force the United States into confrontation with the Muslim world. [...]

In an exclusive interview with United Press International, the fundamentalist general said it is now clear that there was also a plot by U.S. Air Force officers against the Pentagon.

"The twin towers were first attacked at 8:45 a.m.," he said, "and four flights were diverted from their assigned air space, and yet Air Force jets didn't scramble until 10 a.m. That smacks of a small-scale Air Force rebellion, a coup attempt against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders fail. No IFF -- friend or foe identification -- challenge ... This was clearly an inside job. [...]

Gul said that his friend bin Laden had sworn to him on the Koran that he was not involved.

"From a cave inside a mountain or a peasant's hovel," Gul asked, how could bin Laden mount such a sophisticated operation? "Let's be serious," he said with a smile. "Mossad and its American associates are the obvious culprits," he added by asking, "Who benefits from the crime?"

Asked why Israel would benefit, Gul replied, "Israel knows it has a short shelf-life before it is overwhelmed by demographics (and it) has now handed the (Bush administration) the opportunity it has been waiting for to consolidate America's imperial grip on the Gulf and acquire control of the Caspian basin by extending its military presence in Central Asia."

[...] Bush 43 doesn't realize he is being manipulated by people who understand geopolitics. He is not leading but being led. All he can do is think in terms of the wanted-dead-or-alive culture which is how Hollywood conditions the masses to think and act."

"Bush 43" is actually Washington shorthand for distinguishing President George W. Bush from his father. President George W. Bush is the 43rd president: George Bush Sr. was the 41st.

Gul admitted that he turned against America when the United States walked away from Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

"We were all pro-American (during the war) but then America left us in the lurch and everything went to pieces, including Afghanistan." [...]

Asked to consider the possibility that bin Laden -- or OBL as he is referred to in Pakistani conversations -- was lying to him and is indeed guilty as charged by the United States, Gul said, "If Taliban are given irrefutable evidence of his guilt, I am in favor of a fair trial. In America one is entitled to a jury of peers. But he has no American peers. The Taliban would not object, in the event of a prima face case, to an international Islamic court meeting in The Hague. They would extradite Osama to the Netherlands." [United Press International]

This abbreviated collection of data (believe me, there is a TON of material out there on this subject) does seem to support the idea that MOSSAD may, indeed, have been responsible for the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and that the Bush Reich was not only complicit in ordering the U.S. military and intelligence services to "stand down," but that they were directly involved in the plot as the evidence of the link between Bob Graham and Mahmoud Ahmad demonstrates.

As we see from all of the above, another compelling observation is the fact that the United States power clique has a lot to gain from the 9-11 attacks as well.

As noted, war is good business. Not only that, all of the claims that the government seeks to institute overt controls, as in the "Mark of the Beast," can be seen to be a partial motivation here.

Now, let's get down to brass tacks here.

The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center were followed live on television by hundreds of millions of people around the world. Everyone was shocked by the horror of the attack. TV networks broadcast the videos of the attacks over and over again with very little reporting since no one really knew what to say; it was just too shocking and unexpected. All the while the attack was being shown repeatedly, there was no light of understanding brought to bear on the situation because no one knew any details.

During the next few days, information was released to the press by government officials, but those details were often not noticed in the midst of the frenzy of rescue efforts. Over the next few months, more information was released, but again, few people were paying any attention to the data because, by then, the shock had turned into terror.

The basic facts are that several thousand people died in America on September 11, 2001, and the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as a result, killing hundreds of thousands more human beings, including killing or permanently maiming many thousands of its own citizens.

The events of 9-11, however, are still a confusing morass of contradiction that has only been exacerbated by the so-called official 9-11 Report. Nevertheless, the public of the United States have been, for the most part, accepting of the "official culture" version of the attacks. The claim that "National Security" requires the authorities to conceal much of the data about this crime is accepted almost without question.

However, the troubling fact still remains: the Official Version does not stand up to scrutiny.

What bothers me most of all is, considering the fact that the attacks on 9-11 were about the most audacious crime in American History, there was no proper forensic investigation. There was no Sherlock Holmes on hand to use his magnifying glass and his great knowledge of different kinds of cigarette ash; there was no Hercule Poirot called in to exercise his little gray cells; there was no Columbo bumbling about with his seemingly innocuous questions that annoy the heck out of the perpetrators. (This was also the case with the assassination of JFK. The crime scene was so thoroughly violated before a proper investigation took place that there was no possibility of finding the facts.)

You would think that, in the alleged greatest and most powerful nation on Earth that the investigation would have been the most thorough and scientific ever conducted.

But that isn't the case.

Although the terror attacks of September 11 were clearly criminal acts of mass murder, no effort was made to preserve the integrity of the crime scenes and the essential evidence was disposed of like garbage. Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani hired two large British construction management firms to oversee what many experts consider to be massive criminal destruction of evidence. The editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine, William A. Manning, issued an urgent call to action to America's firefighters at the end of 2001, calling for a forensic investigation and demanding that the steel from the site be preserved to allow investigators to determine what caused the collapse. Have a look here for some comments about the destruction of evidence and evidence of destruction.

For the moment, let's assume that the conspiracy theorists are correct and the government is lying and covering up the truth of the attacks on 9-11. Without any real evidence, without any real impartial investigation, what do we have to go on? Admittedly, not much other than to observe the behaviors of all the parties before, during and after the event. We are going to have to rely more on the Hercule Poirot method of using our little gray cells here. But even though we have very little in the way of forensic evidence, we can still assert:

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth! - Arthur Conan Doyle
Contrary to those who claim that there were no real passenger jets at all, that it was all a hologram, what seems to be true is that actual commercial jets hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center exactly as described by the many witnesses. It was on film, and we simply cannot refute that in my opinion. It happened, and everyone saw it.

The result of this fact - that large commercial jets were SEEN to hit the World Trade Center, over and over again on TV - was that it was easy for the public to then assume - when they were told what to believe - that the same type of craft hit the Pentagon. They not only assumed it, they were programmed to do so.

Human beings do not precisely and unerringly inscribe information into their memories like a computer. Instead, we create dynamic models that place facts in a context; models that continually evolve in response to experience. There is evidence that the more powerful or significant an experience, the stronger and more numerous are the synaptic connections and the better we remember it. Traumatic emotional experiences leave vivid and persistent memories. Such memories are "burned" into the brain.

The flow of understanding as you take in signals from your environment, reflects the activity of the synaptic code. A series of electrical and chemical signals is being sent from your sense organs through a network of neurons, through its synaptic circuits, which continually correlate the signals, to the frontal lobes of the brains which coordinates your comprehension and produces a "likeness" of what you are experiencing through your sensorium.

Brain studies show that what is suggested during a period of time of pain or shock becomes MEMORY. The brain sort of "traps" the ideas being assimilated at times of pain and shock into permanent "synaptic patterns of thought/memory."

The conditions surrounding the events of 9-11 were perfect for creating specific impressions and memories - manipulation of the minds of the masses by shocking events and media spin.

Nevertheless, since we have video images of commercial jetliners hitting the World Trade Center towers film, it is certain that this is what happened. The issue of the collapse of the buildings is different and most certainly does suggest prior planning to ensure that the buildings would not survive. The reader will perhaps excuse me if I draw a comparison between the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and a short passage in the Apocalypse of John that just fits so perfectly:

13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

We now turn to the strike against the Pentagon. This one is a bit more problematical.

Reuters news agency was first on the scene of the Pentagon attack. Based on the information they gathered there from eyewitnesses, they announced that the Pentagon had suffered damage from a helicopterexplosion. Associate Press confirmed this with Democratic Party consultant, Paul Begala. Shortly afterward, the Department of Defense said that a plane was involved. New "eyewitnesses" came forward that contradicted the first ones that now supported the "official version." Fred Hay, assistant to Senator Bob Ney, claimed that he saw a Boeing aircraft fall as he was driving down the highway next to the Pentagon. Senator Mark Kirk claimed that he was leaving the Pentagon parking lot after breakfast with Donald Rumsfeld, and he declared that ta large plane had crashed into the Pentagon.

It was several hours before the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, declared that the "suicide plane" was the Boeing 757, AA flight 77 which had taken off from Dulles airport in Washington D.C. bound for L.A., and which had been lost to air traffic controllers at 8:55 a.m. The air traffic controllers said that, at this time, the Boeing flight 77 descended to 29,000 feet and did not respond to their instructions. It's transponder then went silent. They assumed electrical failure. The pilot was not responding to them, but apparently was able to intermittantly turn on his radion which allowed them to hear a voice with a strong Arab accent threatening him. The plane then made a turn "back toward Washington" and after that, all trace was lost.

The air traffic controllers notified FAA headquarters that a hijacking was suspected. The FAA staff said that, in the midst of the panic of that day, they just thought this message was another notification concerning the second plane that hit the WTC. It was only a half hour later that they realized it was, in fact, a third plane. That is to say, at about 9:24 they knew they had a third problem.

On September 13, General Myers was unable to give a report to the Senate on defensive measures taken to intercept this Boeing. Based on his testimony, the Senate Armed Services Committee determined that no attempt at interception had taken place.

NORAD immediately jumped up and said "Not so!" They issued a press release the next day stating that it only received the warning of the third hijacking at 9:24 and had most definitely immediately ordered two F-16's from Langley AFB in Virginia to intercept Flight 77. BUT, they claimed that the Air Force did not know its location and went in the wrong direction! Apparently, a military transport taking off from Saint Andrews Presidential bas happened to spot the Boeing by chance, but by then, it was too late.

A Boeing 757-200 measures 155 feet long and has a wingspan of 125 feet. Fully loaded, it weighs 115 tons and cruises at 560 miles per hour.

So, this last claim above is simply not plausible. We are expected to believe that the U.S. military radar system could not locate a Boeing within a range of only a few dozen miles? The military radar of the most powerful nation on earth? And further, that said Boeing - a flying whale - could outmaneuver and elude two fighter jets???!!

It is known that the security arrangements that protect Washington were revised after a plane managed to land on the White House lawn in 1994. It is also known that those security arrangements, while mostly secret, include five batteries of anti-aircraft missiles installed on top of the Pentagon and fighters stationed at Saint Andrews. Yet, we are expected to believe that "The Pentagon simply was not aware" that a hijacked Boeing was headed its way? That "no one expected anyting like that here?"

Essentially, the headquarters of the most powerful nation on earth had been helpless to defend itself.

Members of the press were kept away from the scene for the ostensible reason that they might "hinder rescue operations." However, the Associated Press obtained photos taken by a private individual from a nearby building. It is due to those photos that the biggest questions about the strike on the Pentagon are raised.

First of all, we should consider the "mindset" of terrorists who would want to inflict the most damage possible. Certainly, if a Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization managed to get hold of a plane, and then get it into range of the Pentagon, what a great coup that would be! Imagine! Being able to completely destroy the nerve center of the hated "Satan" which is, by the way, how these fundamentalists view the U.S.

Okay, so these alleged terrorists managed to destroy the "commercial symbol" of the United States, or so we are told. And now we see that they also had other objects in their sights - the symbol of the United Military Supremacy. We are told that they had flying skills to beat the band. And yet, somehow they missed their chance.

What?

Yup.

Just consider this: In order to cause the greatest damage to the Pentagon, the plane should have dived right into the Pentagon's roof. The building is a pretty big target; it covers a surface area of 29 acres, and this would have been an easy "hit". Instead, what actually happens makes no sense at all from the perspective of terrorists who now have their chance to do some real damage: they chose to strike a single facade, the height of which was only 80 feet instead of getting a bull's eye on that 29 acre target? Huh? What is up with that? Terrorists that can fly a 757 like a barrel racer rides a horse, and they opted for minimal damage?

Sorry, doesn't compute.

The alleged Boeing, purported to be in the hands of Islamic Fundamentalists with burning hatred in their heart of the United States and "its freedoms," with unerring accuracy, steered said flying whale into a flight path as though they were going to land on the Pentagon lawn. While remaining horizontal, this amazing Boeing came down almost vertically, and struck the Pentagon at the height of the ground floor. What is more, it managed to do this without even ruffling the grass of the Pentagon's immaculate lawn. And then, despite its weight and forward momentum, the plane only destroyed a small section of the first ring of the building.

What is more, these deadly terrorists with race car driving skills that sacrificed their lives to hit the Pentagon in such a way that only a small section was damaged, it happened to be a section that was undergoing renovation and many of the offices of that section were unoccupied! What I do find interesting is that the Navy's brand new Command Center was destroyed.

Early press reports claimed 800 deaths at the Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld did not correct this grossly exaggerated figure the following day when it was certainly known.

The shock of the impact was felt throughout the entire building. 125 people in the Pentagon lost their lives, to which should be added the 64 people aboard the Boeing which can carry 269 passengers. In other words, it was almost empty.

I could go on, but there are many other websites that cover the details of that day in very competent ways not to mention the dozens of websites that only add to the confusion. At the present moment, I am of the opinion that a Boeing 757 most definitely did not hit the Pentagon, that the object that struck the Pentagon WAS different from the commercial jetliners that were clearly seen to fly into the World Trade Center Towers.

I once spoke at length with an individual who served in the Persian Gulf conflict. His job was to "program" missiles - VERY smart ones. Even though it was his job, he was completely astonished at their capabilities. He said: "They can be programmed to go down the street just above the ground, turn right or left at a cross street, and hit the designated building at the exact floor, even the exact window, that you tell them to hit!" He then said that he was exaggerating, but not much, and he was describing it this way just to emphasize for me the capability of modern guidance systems.

Now, that's amazing.

But let me make this perfectly clear: I don't think that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.

The point of mentioning the smart missiles in use during Gulf War I is to bring up the subject of the guidance system. We notice in the above reports that the circumstances of the strike even led some witnesses to describe what hit the Pentagon as a helicopter!

But there were so many reports of a plane that I think we should assume that it was a plane, even if it was a plane that could fly like a helicopter.

Once I realized that the descripton of the smart bomb maneuvers exactly fits what happened at the Pentagon, the question that I asked myself was: Could such a guidance system be used in a plane? Even commercial jetliners?

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

According to the news reports, the action of the plane that hit the Pentagon was quite in keeping with the "smart missile guidance system." Now have a look at he "Universal Pilot Replacement Program" and take note of just what this handy gadget can do! It even shows diagrams of maneuvers of exactly the kind we are talking about! (Do go and read the technical paper to assure yourself of the possibility that such a guidance system was, indeed, available and does, indeed, describe exactly the behavior of this anomalous 757.)

The very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action as described above - repeated that something smaller than a 757 was seen to strike the Pentagon.

This certainly creates some confusion. What can we make of it? Can the early witnesses be trusted more than the ones who came forward later, after having watched the shocking impact of commercial jetliners on the World Trade Center, over and over and over again on television and after hearing the repeated assurances that a Boeing hit the Pentagon as well? We must certainly consider that it is altogether possible that such repeated exposure to the WTC event by the media could create certain synaptic maps of the event that were then overlaid on the Pentagon event by simple suggestion. One of our researchers looked into this problem and wrote:

Some witnesses said they saw a commuter plane, and others like Army Captain Lincoln Liebner, (who may have had an agenda) said he saw a large American Airlines passenger jet. Now such confusion at any accident scene is understandable. What is more, with the craft going 460 mph, added to the shock of it all, it was probably hard to tell what they really saw.

One of the things that didn't make sense to me were the many reports that the object hit the ground, when we know from the photos, it didn't. Something that was supposed to be as big as a 757 was certainly flying low enough to clip light poles and didn't scrape the ground? Something is wrong with that picture.

Some even claimed they saw people on the plane - faces in windows.

The many confused descriptions - confused even while declaring it to be a commercial jet - leads me to believe that as long as they could see it with their eyes, it registered as being a passenger plane of some sort. And, even though the propaganda machine tells us that it was supposed to be a huge plane, it was obvious from the descriptive terms used by the witnesses - and by the evidence on the ground - that this was not the case - even if the "impression" was. What I did notice was those who did NOT SEE the plane, had a most peculiar "impression" related to the sound.

"At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball."

"I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. And because he saw it he also said "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

What he said next, however, not in keeping with a 757: "I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Notice that the witness says: "I guess it was hitting the light poles." One suspects that he couldn't see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said: "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Two witnesses have described a sound of a "whoosh!" The second one, when he couldn't see it, said it was like a "WHOOSH whoosh," just like the other man who couldn't see it. But then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely NOT a 757 flying low over his head.

A 757, under NO circumstances makes a sound of "whoosh!" And if the "whoosh" sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the "whoosh" of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there's a 757 right overhead that's hitting light poles, and it's going 460 mph, I doubt it would be "whooshing"!

If a 757 was low enough to hit light poles, it should have blown the witnesses' eardrums out along with everything else in the engine's way.

Another problem with this part of the story is the following comments from a resident of the DC area:

I live in the DC area, and the street lights are not very tall. In fact DC is a very "treed" city. Many of the trees are taller than the lamp posts. [...] If the wings of a 757 were hitting the lamp posts, the engines would be driven into the ground, provided that the plane was in a straight and level position.

The exhaust of those huge engines - that would necessarily be scraping the ground if they are hitting light poles - is like a supersonic cannon! The vortex and power of the exhaust would have produced an experience that is unmistakable - impressive beyond words - and hard to forget.

You might want to take a look at the engine of this plane...there's 2 of them and they hang lower than the plane itself. Go HERE to learn about the jet engine specs, exhaust velocity contours, and so forth.

Nevertheless, the most they can say is that it went "whoosh." Other witnesses described a "whistling" that it "whined" like a missile.

"Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives."

Now, here's some pictures taken inside the Pentagon and of the workers.

The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft. And yet, there were supposed to be indentifiable body parts all over the place?

And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down while, at the same time claiming that it was the force of impact that vaporized the aircraft? It just doesn't add up. [LAM]

All of this is interesting, but it only adds to the confusion. We can't make too much of the various witness accounts. But let's look at still another report:

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. [...]

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."

In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a "silver commuter jet," he also said that the plane SOUNDED like the "high-pitched squeal" of a fighter jet.

A series of photographs taken by an official federal photographer at the Pentagon crash site show what appears to be an easily identifiable piece of a small-diameter turbofan engine. If the government wants to prove that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon, why is no one willing or able to identify which part from which engine this is? The photographs show a part of a turbofan jet engine and were taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a photographer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the Pentagon crash site on September 13, 2001. The round piece appears to be less than 3 feet in diameter and is propped up against what appears to be part of the engine housing and thick pieces of insulating material.

A Boeing 757 has two large engines, which are about 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length. A Pratt & Whitney PW2043 engine, used on some 757 aircraft, has a fan tip diameter of 78.5 inches. Nothing this large is to be seen in the FEMA photographs. The photo ID numbers are 4414 and 4415 and can be seen on-line.

For those who say a smaller plane or unmanned drone, such as a Global Hawk, was involved in the Pentagon attack, identifying the piece in the photo could prove what kind of aircraft hit the building.

The Global Hawk is a singe-engine drone that uses a Rolls Royce Allison engine hand-built in Indianapolis, Indiana. The AE3007H engine has a diameter of 43.5 inches. The unmanned Global Hawk, using a satellite guidance system, is capable of landing within 12 inches of its programmed destination.

Because the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, the engine is contained in a heavily insulated housing to be extremely quiet. This corresponds with eyewitness reports. American Free Press asked eyewitness Steve Riskus, who said he was within 100 feet of the aircraft, what he heard. He said he "did not recall hearing anything." If a 757 or jet fighter flew at high speed 100 feet from an eyewitness the sound would be deafening.

The important thing is, if you have ever seen a 757 up close, the main words you will use - even if it passes you at 460 mph - are HUMONGOUS, or HUGE, or GIGANTIC - words along that line. You will also - even at a distance - be overwhelmed by the noise of the jet engines. But over and over again, even those who later NAMED the object that hit the pentagon as a "commercial airliner," used descriptive terms that are quite different from those that would have been used if a real 757 had been the impacting object. This could easily be a consequence of the "memory making" process I have described above. The fact is, until the spin machine had done its work, except for a few government officials, most of the witness' descriptive terms are more in keeping with descriptions of something other than a Boeing 757.

Nevertheless, we are certain that it was a plane - it had wings - it knocked over poles on the incoming trajectory that it maneuvered "like a smart missile." And we know that there is a "guidance system" that has the capability of doing exactly what this object was described to have done.

As it happens, a correspondent had an interesting encounter on a train that goes along with the story about the military transport plane that so "luckily" spotted the "Boeing." In his own words:

I met a gentleman that was of Jamaican descent who said he was an artist by trade. He was heading back home to Washington. I have no reason to doubt the man's story as he seemed very sincere and told it "as a matter of fact".

He said that when he heard on the radio of his car about the WTC event that the tension around the capital was rising, he was on his cell phone talking to other people while he drove. He was in viewing distance of the Pentagon at the time of the attack and he saw TWO planes in the air, one of them being a "small commuter type jet" but he didn't ID the other plane. He said it was this smaller plane that hit the Pentagon, so it could have been laced with explosives and remote controlled in by that other plane (reports were of a C-130 in the area as I recall).

There are just too many problems of the Pentagon strike that indicate that it was not a Boeing 757 that plowed into the building. And this leads us to the most interesting questions.

If it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, why is the Administration rabidly declaring that it was and attacking anyone who questions that story with the slur of "conspiracy theory" rather than providing the evidence that it was for the public to examine themselves?

Why would George Bush and his gang be so resistant to an impartial investigation? (The official investigation cannot be considered impartial.)

Why was all the evidence of the crime scene immediately destroyed even though the government claims that "their experts" were taking care of everything?

Why can't we see the various films of the event that certainly exist from numerous security cameras in the area?

Why is the public denied full access to all the information about the crime?

After all, if the perpetrator has been identified, there should be nothing about a crime scene that would need to be withheld in order to catch the criminal, right? And if there is so much certainty about the perpetrators, why not let the public know all the details? If it was true, it could only help the Administration's case, right? So why all the stonewalling, all the backpedaling and secrecy? If actions are undertaken in good faith with the honest purpose of discovering the truth, there is no need for carefully guarded secrecy. In such circumstances, only the guilty seek the darkness to hide their crimes.

The whole thing has been so "managed," so quickly"figured out" and cleaned up and put away, that it stinks to high heaven of a "sales job."

Can it be that the public has been "sold" an answer - the answer that the Bush Administration wants them to believe and has arranged, with the complicity of the mass media?

The administration doesn't seem to have any problem at all believing that some crazed fundies flew a couple of commercial jets into the World Trade Center Towers even though an intelligence expert plainly said in the early days after the attack that the clues leading to this conclusion were standard for False Flag Operations.

But, let's assume that's what happened. Let's also give the Administration the benefit of the doubt about their hurried naming of the perpetrators and their too quick destruction of the crime scene. Let's assume that their experts did handle everything well and they just have some psychological need for secrecy, or that there IS some compelling reason to stonewall a proper investigation.

We are still faced with the sticking point here: hypothesizing that somebody went to the trouble to arrange for a couple big jets to hit the World Trade Center, and we were shown the films of these jets hitting said buildings over and over again, why was the attack on the Pentagon so "different" in scope and evidence, most particularly the repeated showing of the attack on television?

Why can't we see the surveillance videos of the same type of commercial jet hitting the pentagon???

We are stuck with a marvelous conundrum. If no 757 hit the Pentagon, why is the government claiming it did?

Now here I am going to go in a couple of different speculative directions, so bear with me. The little grey cells are smokin'!

Let's assume that it WAS a smaller, or different type of plane that hit the Pentagon. No matter who was behind the events, if they did not use a 757 to strike the pentagon, WHY? If they were able to commandeer large aircraft, why not use one for the Pentagon?

The first thing we notice when we compare the two events - that is, the attack on the Towers and the attack on the Pentagon - is that the World Trade Center Towers were totally destroyed and there was enormous loss of life, while the Pentagon only had a small hole, and the collapse of a section that was not even fully occupied because it was still under construction. Or so we are told.

But that can't have been the objective of Fundamental Islamic Terrorists who were ostensibly striking at the heart of the "Great Satan" with burning hatred of the United States and its freedoms.

But that is what IS. And so, let's ask the question: could there be a reason for this? What if the limited damage was the intended difference? Total destruction as opposed to minimal destruction and damage? Or "targeted" destruction.

This leads us to why a different type of plane might be used in the strike on the Pentagon: the only answer that presents itself as obvious is that of the necessity for precision so as to inflict an exact amount of damage, no more, no less..

So let us theorize that precision was the major concern in the strike on the Pentagon and that is why a different attack device was utilized.

Which brings us back to the idea of a plane that had onboard smart missile guidance system - a system that can guide its carrier to literally turn corners and hit the target with such precision that "it is amazing."

And that leads us directly to the question of why such precision might be DESIRABLE?

WHO BENEFITS?

Theorizing that precision was a major concern - precision of the type that can hit an exact window on a designated floor and do an exact and designated amount of damage - we arrive at the idea that such precision and limitation was essential for some reason.

What could that reason be?

Why would the conspirators want to totally destroy one target - where civilians were the main victims - and only partly destroy another?

What immediately comes to mind is this one of the oldest tricks in the criminal play book: self-inflicted injury as an alibi.

But there is a second possible reason as well. Readers may remember the Tylenol murders where cyanide was put in a random selection of bottles, placed back on the shelves in the stores, so that random persons would die to cover up the fact that a specific murder was the objective of this seemingly "random" act of terror.

So, what if there was someone - or something - in the Pentagon that someone wanted to preserve OR destroy? We notice that the Navy lost its new command center.

So, this hypothesis has actually split into two directions: that of alibi, or intentional murder.

If we consider the Alibi conjecture, we include the idea that precision was necessary to insure the safety of CERTAIN occupants of the building. If you inflict an injury on yourself to allay suspicion, you don't want to make a mistake and blow your head off!

In short, considering the above questions, it is possible that a number of the conspirators were IN THE PENTAGON AT THE TIME IT WAS HIT, or that certain TARGETS were in the builiding, and this was the reason for a different "mode of attack" - a precision strike. And it is possible that both objectives could be served with a precision strike.

So, going a bit further along one line of conjecture, if the safety of certain occupants of the building was a concern, then we are led inexorably to the conclusion that those whose safety was an issue were either directly involved in the conspiracy, or were - at the least - friends of the conspirators.

We notice that Newsweek coyly mentions that "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Can we view a list of casualties in the Pentagon itself? Where were all the bigwigs in the building????

What about those guys who canceled their travel plans and who were very likely IN THE BUILDING at the time? If what we have theorized is true, it's not likely that they canceled their travel plans because they might get on the wrong jet - after all, according to them, they didn't know about a possible terrorist attack - but rather to assure that they would be in place for their alibi - or their destruction. I would be very interested to know who those guys were.

Without data we can't answer these questions and with either of these two lines of conjecture, we really can go no further.

The fact is that the buildings that represent not only our status in the world, but also our ability to maintain that status - i.e. our military organization - were hit by alleged terrorists. The emotional reaction of the masses of citizens was that the U.S. not only had a right to strike back with all its power, but also that it MUST. That is also "what IS." The masses of pedestrian thinkers do not look at the possibility of a self inflicted wound being an alibi.

Criminals have been pulling this wool over the eyes of juries for a very long time.

Going in either of these directions only takes us so far, however. There is still a problem with this theory: the fact that the government will not release the security videos that obviously would show WHAT HIT the Pentagon.

Why is that a problem?

Because there is no reason that the conspirators should NOT release the videos EVEN IF A DIFFERENT CRAFT WAS USED TO STRIKE THE PENTAGON!

Why?

That's easy: if, according to the cover story of the current administration, Osama bin Laden had the resources to set up the hijacking of commercial jets to hit the World Trade Center, there is no reason he could not also have had the resources to get his hands on a fancy guided drone plane, or even a smaller jet, or anything similar for that matter. And it would have been just as easy to lay it at Osama's door. That is to say, if Osama can be blamed for hitting the WTC with a couple of commercial jets, there is no reason he can't be blamed for hitting the Pentagon with something else.

In other words, no matter what it was - a Boeing 757 or a kite with a nuke attached to its tail - there is no reason the Powers That Be could not spin it to their advantage.

So why won't they release the security camera tapes????

If it was Flight 77, why can't we SEE it?

If it was something else, why can't we SEE it?

Heck, the American people are pretty accepting of explanations. There's no reason they wouldn't accept that Osama and gang could get ahold of something else and fly it into the Pentagon. After all, Osama was said to have a massive underground hideout with missiles and a small army and about everything else. There's no reason why he couldn't also have been accused of getting his hands on a Global Hawk!

So again, and again, and again: why can't the American People SEE WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON?

It clearly is not because of concern for the families of the victims and their grief. After all, the videos of the planes flying into the WTC were shown over and over and over and over again until the entire world was whipped into a frenzy of grief and rage.

Surely, assuming our theory of direct complicity of Bush and Co. to be correct, if the conspirators were setting this thing up as long as we think they were, they would have prepared the craft that hit the Pentagon very carefully and there would be nothing about it that would arouse suspicion or reveal their identiy, right? Then they could just haul out the videos and show them around the world and blame Osama, right?

Indeed, this small item is a problem. It suggests that if the surveillance videos of what hit the Pentagon were shown, it would reveal the truth. And whatever truth that is, the Powers That Be will fight to the last gasp to conceal it.

So, having found a flaw in our theory we must discard it. The Strike on the Pentagon was very likely not a "self-inflicted wound" that was intended to provide an alibi. We can let George, Dick, Rummy and the rest of the gang off the hook on this one. But the solution that is left is even scarier.

What if the strike on the World Trade Center Towers was part of a plan that Bush and Co were "in on?" We certainly think so because of the "stage setting" of that day, and by observing George's reactions at the school in Florida, and then his later comments about having seen the first plane strike when the video of that strike was not shown until much later. But here's the clincher: What if the strike against the Pentagon was NOT part of the total plan?

What if the plan was to hit the WTC alone? What if this plan was cooked up between the Bush Reich and the "Rogue element?" And what if the "Rogue Element" then added a little "twist" - a precision strike on the Pentagon using a plainly marked US military plane - as a form of blackmail, insurance, that their co-conpirators would never turn against them? What if Flight 77 was designated to hit some other target, but this "rogue element" made some changes at the last minute to put in place an implicatory factor to hold over the head of the Bush Gang, to control them forever? What if, in effect, this was a real coup d'etat? What if NOW, that Rogue element is truly in the driver's seat and Bush and Co know very well that they must do as they are told or the truth of their complicity will come out?

Could that be the reason for the most interesting ups and downs and ins and outs of the election campaign? Was it just a game played by the Rogue element for their own amusement? Certainly Kerry did not run a real "race." He knew in advance that he was just running to create the illusion of a democratic election. And certainly, George Bush knew that he would be re-elected no matter who the people voted for. And he knew it because he had no other choice than to do what he was told. And he still has no other choice than to do what he is told. And such is the case for just about every elected government official in the entire United States. Why?

Well, insurance, of course. Remember this:

According to Executive Intelligence Review, "A well-placed Washington source has alerted EIR that there is growing suspicion among U.S. government law enforcement and intelligence agencies that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has dispatched special operations teams into North America. The warning came in the context of a discussion about the recent deportation of five Israelis who were detained on Sept. 11 for suspicious behavior... You know, the guys doing the Happy Dance when the Towers fell.

"Portions of the funds garnered from the illegal operations, according to sources, are funneled to offshore bank accounts of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Some of these dirty funds were reportedly diverted to Sharon's election campaigns. This Israeli mafia apparatus receives technical support via a number of Israeli communications firms, that subcontract with major American telephone companies and government law enforcement agencies" [EIR 12/13/01]

In other words, the same companies helping the spies, are the companies that run the American phone systems... and are embedded in American Law Enforcement units. What a SWEET operation! Endless opportunities for blackmail...

In spite of the U.S. federal agency claims that "there is no Israeli spy network," several of the same federal agencies have in the past year taken steps to protect themselves against espionage!

We wonder, of course, if the Navy ONI was one agency that had not been compromised? Could that be one of the reasons that the Naval Command Center was destroyed? Consider the following:

Al Martin's book "The Conspirators" is a secret history of the late 20th century and an uncensored version of what really goes on in the back rooms of realpolitik brokers and go-fers. - In his book, Al writes that contrary to popular belief, ONI is the most powerful US intelligence agency. "The ONI already had a deep existing covert illegal structure. They had a mechanism before the CIA even existed. They had contacts in foreign intelligence services and in foreign governments that the CIA never could have hoped to obtain."

"The only people the CIA wouldn't step on to accomplish their aims was ONI. They would easily subvert an FBI or DEA investigation, but never ONI, because they were frightened of them." - "ONI is where the real deep control is. It's where the real deep secrets are kept. That was what ONI always did the best. Keeping secrets. Accumulating secrets. Warehousing secrets for the purposes of control."

"When I asked him 'what secrets?' he replied, "One thing I can tell you is the ONI was instrumental in dethroning former Mexican President Louis Portillo. Portillo got very friendly with George Bush and the CIA, and ONI had never alligned with the Bush faction. I know what people think, but that's not true. From what I can tell, it has never been aligned, but has always been hostile to that Eastern Country Club Bush Cabal and their friends in the CIA. The Bill Casey faction is the George Bush-Allen Dulles Faction."

Not a very nice idea, is it? That the United States has been taken over by a coup d'etat, that the secrets of the ways and means of keeping "American Freedoms" may have been destroyed in the WTC, and in a few selected rooms of the Pentagon.

Associated with that problem is the related issue of: what happened to the REAL Flight 77? What happened to the passengers? In order to approach this problem with sufficient data and mental coolness, the reader might wish to have a look at What Really Happened to Flight 93?

The conclusion of this interesting analysis is shocking, but compellingly logical:

So there is clearly a case to be made that the plane was [shot down by a U.S. military jet], and yet this theory leaves some evidence unexplained as well - including the phone calls from the soon-to-be counter-hijackers.

There is also the question of why this particular flight would have been targeted to the exclusion of the other three hijacked flights. It wasn't, after all, near any potential targets and was not posing an immediate threat to anyone but its passengers. Since that threat certainly wasn't alleviated by scattering the body parts of those same passengers over a Pennsylvania field, it makes little sense that flight 93 would be shot down while the others were allowed to fly unimpeded into the very symbols of U.S. economic and military power.

Some have argued that the U.S. government would have quickly taken credit if it had in fact ordered the downing of flight 93. Taking credit for shooting down what was essentially a guided missile, albeit a manned one, would offer Washington officials a chance to at least partially redeem themselves for failing to respond to the other three hijacked flights.

It appears then that there are arguments that could be made against either theory.

But what if the two theories are not mutually exclusive? What if we were to take a look at what happened to flight 93 from a slightly different perspective? What if we were to take the point of view that the events of September 11 were essentially an inside job - with U.S. military and intelligence services either directly complicit or, at the very least, turning a blind but knowing eye?

Then the shooting down of flight 93 raises another rather obvious question: why would the U.S. national security apparatus shoot down any of the four flights? Assuming that some General somewhere didn't get the hare-brained notion that it was actually his duty to defend the country against these attacks, why would a plane be shot down that was for all intents and purposes on a covert mission for the very people who would have ordered the downing of the aircraft?

If this were the case, then there would be only one reason for shooting the flight down: to destroy any and all evidence in the event that the mission became compromised for any reason.

And how, you may wonder, might the mission be compromised? One possible scenario could be if, say, the passengers were able to disarm the hijackers and take control of the plane? That would conceivably leave dozens of eyewitnesses to what really happened on those planes that fateful day. The contents of 'black boxes' can be suppressed quite easily; a parade of eyewitnesses, particularly eyewitnesses rightly viewed as American heroes, is another matter entirely.

As disturbing as it may be to contemplate, the answer to the question of what really happened to flight 93 could be that it was shot down precisely because the passengers were able to overpower the hijackers, or at least were making an attempt to do so. It could be that the very heroism for which they have been cynically praised by the Bush regime may have earned them a summary execution.

A "summary execution."

The problem with the above is that there was a news report that Flight 93 was landed at Cleveland and evacuated:

Reported by 9News Staff
Web produced by:Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight. United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved. "United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.

When you go to the link where the story was archived, you find this:

Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard

Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by: Liz Foreman 9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

This story has been removed from WCPO.com. It was a preliminary AP story, and was factually incorrect.

Now, just suppose that it wasn't Flight 93 that landed in Cleveland but that it was actually Flight 77? This is perhaps not so crazy a solution since there is an unverified witness report that

...something is odd with the serial numbers of Flight93 and Flight 175. The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are SAME serial numbers of the planes that ARE STILL FLYING. 591UA 612UA

Although N-number can be transferred, the manufacturer's serial number CANNOT be transferred. According to some spot-witnesses, Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 is flying around Chicago under the alias 594UA. According to the FAA, N594UA Boeing 757-222 flies now with a DIFFERENT serial number, namely 28145.

If they can change numbers around in that way, there's no reason to think that Flight 77, could not be similarly maneuvered about in any way chosen. The fact is, all the "9-11" airports were serviced by one Israeli owned company, ICTS. ICTS sells services to every airport from which the hijacked planes operated, including security, sometimes through wholly owned subsidiaries like Huntleigh USA Corporation.

It has been suggested that the incredible feat of hijacking four aircraft without a single arrest at the gate would require the resources of a nation-state. [...] One company had automatic inside access to all of the airports from which hijacked planes departed on 9-11... An Israeli company. One that Mossad agents could easily find employment with without the management knowing who they were or what their purpose really was.

But one thing is clear. By virtue of the Odigo warning, someone knew enough about the planned attacks to warn Odigo before the planes had even departed the airport gates, yet they did not call the Israeli security company at the airports which could have stopped the flights from leaving. Think about that one for a while.

So what happened to the passengers of Flight 77? When Flight 77 disappeared from radar, did a Drone plane suddenly appear on the radar to head straight for the Pentagon and make its precision strike? Is that the reason for all the strange anomalies of the flight path of Flight 77 and the odd stories about Flight 93? Where did the body parts come from that were so quickly identified as those of the passengers of Flight 77 that allegedly hit the Pentagon? Body parts that survived from a massive aircraft that was claimed to have vaporized almost instantly?

In a strange way, the question about what happened to the passengers of Flight 77 leads us to the core of the mystery. If it wasn't Flight 77 on the surveillance videos, why must the "Powers That Be" INSIST that it was even if they could just as easily have revealed that Osama had, in addition to hijacking two commercial jets, flown a guided drone into the Pentagon, or anything else? They could possibly even explain a U.S. military plane being flown into the Pentagon by claiming that Osama owned one and painted it up to look like a U.S. craft.

And so, could it be because something truly horrible DID happen to the passengers of Flight 77 - something that wasn't on their specific agenda, but that was perpetrated by their "partners in crime" as insurance - and the only way they can explain this loss is to claim that Flight 77 was flown into the Pentagon?

And so it seems, if something happened to Flight 77, over which the Powers That Be in the United States had no control, that suggests that Someone Else is now in control of the United States. And you can be sure that this Someone Else does not have the best interests of the citizens of the Greatest Nation on Earth at heart.

You can take that to the bank.

ADDENDUM: September 2004

In the two years since this article was written, the movement of people who doubt the official story of 9/11 has grown. There are now many websites devoted to the question. But how many Americans are willing to look at the facts in the face and confront the truth: the "attack" of 9/11 was an inside job. The reader may wish to have a look at our articles: Mossad and Moving Companies: Masterminds of Global Terrorism? as well as The Fifth Column and Mahmoud Ahmad and The Secret Cult.

As Mike Ruppert delineates in his upcoming book "Crossing the Rubicon" there were at least five "Training Exercises" in progress on the morning of 9/11 2001. Each and every one, and any others we may not yet know of, was under the control of our vice president Dick Cheney.

1 ) MILITARY EXERCISE NORTHERN VIGILANCE: Transferred most of the combat ready interceptors and possibly many AWACS from the north east into northen Canada and Alaska. This explains,in part, why there were only eight ( 8 ) combat interceptors in the NE on 9/11.

2 ) NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: FEMA arrived in NYC on 10 Sept 2001 to set up the command post for FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on Manhattan's PIER 29. This shows our masters are loving, they made a strong effort to minimize the required deaths. This was probably forced on them by the CFR, nice guys who must occasionally kill innocent people.

3 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. The 9/11 commission made only mention of this single exercise and lied about its purpose. The commisssion said its purpose was to intercept Russian bombers.

4 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT WARRIOR: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.

5 ) WARGAME EXERCISE NORTHERN GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.

At the time of the real hi-jacking there were as many as 22 hi-jacked aircraft on NORAD's radar screen. Some of these drills were "Live Fly" exercises were actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control were simulating hi-jacked aircraft. Some of the drills electronically added the hi-jacked aircraft into the system. All this as the real hi-jackings began. NORAD could not tell the difference between the seventeen bogus blips and the five actual hi-jacked aircraft blips.

Cheney could. It is clear we know almost nothing about how 9/11 was executed. We should know it was an exceeding highly technological operation involving dozens of major projects each employing large resources.
Half a million people have just marched in New York against George Bush. They are angry he has brought on war, deficit, tax cuts for the rich, and the most striking loss of rights ever seen in the USA. But how much coverage did this march get in the media? How many of those 500,000 people know how bad the situation really is? How many are willing to consider that Israeli Intelligence with the help of a group of people in the Bush government, may very well have organised and staged the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to justify a "war on terror" -- that is, the Arabs? This war began in Afghanistan and has continued into Iraq. It looks now as though the administration is ready to take on Iran and eventually Syria, the countries named in a 1996 report prepared for Israeli PM Netanhayu by members of the neo-con cabal. Eretz Israel, it is called. The land God gave the Jews. And they want it all.

To follow the daily chronicle of these events, we invite you to read our page of news and commentary, Signs of the Times here:

 http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs.htm


 http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm

add a comment on this article

Well done 08.Feb.2005 12:41

politics as impossible

Exhaustive analysis. I am impressed with this article and with "Signs of the Times." It's anyway and everyway better than the Commission or even Popular Mechanics.

Thanks for this post... 08.Feb.2005 15:08

Tony Blair's dog

I have read various parts of it elsewhere before.

Great compilation!

News paper front page 12.Feb.2005 20:58

Sophie

If only we all lived in a truly FREE speech world ?
and this report could be accepted by the world publishing Media..

Keep up the good work !!!