by Jim Fetzer(with
Preston James)
One of the primary
means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in
a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be
known… nothing of significance, that is.– E. Martin Schotz, HISTORY
WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996)
North Tower destruction on 9/11
|
9/11 appears to have been a classic “false flag” operation in
which an attack is planned by one source but blamed upon another. In this
case, the evidence suggests neo-cons in the Department of Defense and their
allies in the Mossad were actually responsible for the execution of the
atrocities of 9/11. That story was buried, however, in a surfeit of
alternative explanations for which the evidence was far more tenuous but which
were of much greater political utility. And in each case, qualified experts
uncovered evidence that induced sincere but false beliefs that they were “the
real deal”.
The situation encountered with regard to 9/11 turns out to be
far more sophisticated than the efforts that were made to divert attention from
the conspirators in the case of the assassination of JFK, where “Track #1”, as
we might call it, implicated Lee Harvey Oswald as “the lone assassin”.
Track #2 suggested that he working for Fidel Castro and that Cuba had done
it. Track #3 was redirected domestically to encompass the mob, while
Track #4 targeted the Soviet Union. But these were superficial
distractions for which most of the evidence was flimsy and inconclusive. 9/11
presents a greater challenge to unpack, because in this case, planted evidence
was more extensive and appeared to be real.
Deep black covert operations, of course, are by their very
nature shrouded in layers of secrecy, protected by the “need to know” and
sensitive compartmented information (SCI). Since WWII, however, major
covert operations have become increasingly sophisticated and new models have
been developed which take full advantage of the extensive national security
laws and practices guaranteed under the National Security Acts of 1947 and
1952. The experts who create these plots are specialists in PSYOPS, which
entails accessing, stimulating and manipulating the subconscious minds of the
target population as a single unit in order to create beliefs and instill
motivations in the public mind that are necessary to support of their actions
but would normally be viewed as unacceptable.
When basic primal survival fears are activated
in the “group mind” of the masses, this fear induces the motivation for a
population to willingly give up their rights and liberty even for merely the
promise of more protection from the boogeymen. This principle is the
basis for successful PSYOPS. The use of multi-track intermeshed, deep-black
covert operations also creates massive cognitive dissonance among federal
investigators, private researchers and the public, which typically eventually
results in folks abandoning the issue and going away in “quiet
desperation”, which is the actual intended result of those who plan and
activate them. This is related to Maslow's "hierarchy of
needs".
Deep Black/False Flag Ops
The
“shroud of secrecy” they afford provides perfect cover to plan and carry out
these sophisticated multi-track deep black covert operations and keep them
secret–even from those operatives who are involved as well as the government’s
own agents who do the investigations. The “national security” cover can
be dropped on any matter that is at risk of being disclosed to the public and
then can be invoked again at any time. Thus, alphabets who discover what really
happened can be silenced and the media can be gagged with the delivery of a
“national security letter”.
One
of the greatest advances in deep black, false flag/stand-down covert operations
has been the development of a new, more complex design, best referred to as
“multi-track, enmeshed”. This involves using a complicated design with
independent covert operations, each of which could individually do the job if
they were actually “taken live”. These operations, however, are designed
to be enmeshed at the nexus of the actual target, at which point some are
de-activated and one or more taken live.
This can completely confound even the most seasoned investigators, thus creating so much conflict among researchers that these emergent conflicts between them provide the best cover possible for what was actually done and how it was done. Multi-track and interwoven deep black covert operations are therefore designed from the very start to obfuscate the actual operation that is selected and taken live, thereby denying most intel and government officials as well as the public any real knowledge of the actual operational purpose and information about the covert operation or why a particular covert operation was taken live as the predominant op.
As an illustration, when we attempt to peel the 9/11 onion, we discover there are at least five different alternative theories for which evidence has emerged, where each of them has sincere supporters who falsely believe that they have found critical evidence about that happened on 9/11. Each of these is actually one plot of many plots, which were deliberately contrived to creating sufficient confusion that everything about 9/11 turns out to be believable and nothing is knowable. Such deep black covert op designs can thereby provide sufficient “after the fact” cover to keep the truth buried in confusion forever.
Palestinians Did It
Cover Story #1: Palestinians Did It!
Efforts were being made before the Twin Towers were destroyed to imply
Palestinian responsibility for commandeering those planes and committing those
crimes, which may have taken the lives of as many as 3,000 citizens and
employees. Those who were watching closely saw archival footage of
Palestinians rejoicing on a festive occasion being broadcast as though it were
contemporaneous to convey the impression—meant to be indelible—that the
Palestinian people had taken pleasure at inflicting misery on America.
An
early report from CNN even asserted that the Democratic Front for the
Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility for 9/11—and that was before
Flight 175 had hit the South Tower! So during that brief interval between
the first hit on the North Tower at 8:46:40 and the second on the South Tower
at 9:03:11, a propaganda operation to implicate the Palestinians was well under
way. The immediate availability of this report and video footage indicates
the direction in which responsibility for these attacks was originally intended
to be cast.
And
that might have become the official cover story, were it not for observant
residents near Liberty State Park in New Jersey who watched as five young men, dressed in Arab garb, filmed the destruction
of the Twin Towers, cheering and celebrating, which came across as odd
behavior, under the circumstances. When they were apprehended in a white van
from Urban Moving Systems, the driver would inform the arresting officer that
they were not the problem: “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your
problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”
They
were found to have $4,700 in cash, box cutters, and foreign passports in their
possession. Urban Moving Systems would subsequently be identified as a
Mossad front. After 71 days of incarceration, the Dancing Israelis would
be released and return to Israel, where three of them would go on TV there and
explain that their purpose had been to document the destruction of the Twin
Towers. Once they had been arrested, however, the story was quietly
dropped. It was just too revealing that Israel had been profoundly involved in
the events of 9/11.
Arab Hijackers Did It
Cover Story #2: 19 Arab Hijackers
Did It. If these attacks could not be blamed on the Palestinians
without revealing Israeli complicity, the fall back was effortless. We
know “the official account”—that nineteen Islamic terrorists hijacked four
commercial carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the
world and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in
Afghanistan. It would turn out that 15 of the 19
alleged terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and none were from
Iraq.
But that would not matter in the grand scheme of things, where
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would push 9/11 as a justification for attacking
Iraq. Not only was the public being fed false information about weapons
of mass destruction and collusion with al Qaeda, but the national press was
oblivious to the obvious question that remained unaddressed by government
officials or the main stream media: If 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi
Arabia, two from the UAE, one from Lebanon and Egypt, then why were we
attacking Iraq?
Osama bin Laden with al Qaeda
|
Even
our own FBI would eventually acknowledge that it had no “hard evidence” that
Osama bin Laden had had anything to do with 9/11. But the range of evidence
that exonerates al Qaeda and implicates the Bush/Cheney administration in these
crimes has become as broad as it is deep. Elias Davidsson, for example, has shown that the US government
had never produced evidence that the alleged (Muslim) “hijackers” were even
aboard those four planes. David Ray Griffin, the leading expert on 9/11 in the world
today, has shown that the alleged phone calls from those planes were faked,
where even our own FBI has confirmed that Barbara Olsen never spoke to her
husband, Ted.
Leslie Raphael has
offered reason after reason for concluding that the Jules Naudet film was
staged. The evidence that no planes crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon is beyond reasonable doubt, where others
have shown that the videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are
fake, which may have been a brilliant stroke to generate dissension within the
9/11 Truth movement, since the truth of video fakery has proven to be
politically divisive. The scientific evidence disproving the official account is also abundant and
compelling. Given what we know now, anyone who continues to believe the “official account” of 9/11 is either unfamiliar with
the evidence or cognitively impaired.
Pakistan/Turkey/Saudi Arabia
Pakistani General Mahmoud Ahmed
|
Cover Story #3. The Pakistanis Did
It. This track was based upon the supposition that well-financed
Pakistani intel were able to buy expensive “K Street” lobbyists and gain
influence with high officials in the government and Department of Defense, who
had much to gain from a “staged terror attack” such as 9/11. It was the next
layer of the onion to be peeled when and if the Arab hijackers story wouldn’t
work any longer and was initiated by the revelation that Omar Sheikh, a British-born
Islamist militant, had wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta,
allegedly the lead hijacker, at the direction General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then
head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). As Michael Meecher has observed, it is extraordinary that neither
Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. It
certainly raises the prospect that the ISI was deeply involved and possibly
responsible for the events of 9/11. Even if it were true, however, it cannot
begin to account for the causal nexus that brought about 9/11 or identify those
who were “pulling the strings”.
“Ahmed,
the paymaster for the hijackers,” Meecher writes, “was actually in Washington
on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House,
the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head
of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs.
When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to
the hijackers, he was forced to “retire” by President Pervez Musharraf. Why
hasn’t the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?”
Although a number of reasons have been advanced for not taking
this story seriously, Meecher mentions a number of sources who have
information that might or might not implicate the ISI and expose those who were
behind 9/11, the most important of whom appears to be former FBI
translator, Sibel Edmonds, who has recently been speaking out.
Edmonds,
a 33-year-old Turkish-American linguist, who is fluent in both Turkish and
Azerbaijani, has tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that
names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. While Sibel has
been under gag orders forbidding her from testifying in court or mentioning the
names of the people or of the countries involved, she has said. “My
translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering,
detailed and date-specific information … if they were to do real
investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal
prosecutions in this country [the US] … and believe me, they will do everything
to cover this up”.
Revelations
claimed to emerge from her case have been described as being explosive,
including “that foreign operatives who were working in the translation
department been tried to recruit her for their operations; that there
exists a nuclear spy ring aided and abetted by high ranking
US government officials who have been selling America’s
nuclear secrets on the black market; that foreign language intelligence
directly pertaining to 9/11 was deliberately withheld from FBI agents in the field; that
Osama bin Laden had an ‘intimate relationship’ with the United Stages government
right up until 9/11.” While most of this is probably true, the theory of the case
that she appears to imply—that Turkey (with assistance from actors from
Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia) had been using Bin Laden and the
Taliban as a proxy terrorist army to promote its own agenda—may be true in its
own right, but based upon the totality of what we know now, does not begin to
approach an explanation for the stand-down by NORAD, for example, or of how the
demolitions were situated or the post-attack cover-ups.
The US “Let it Happen”
Cover Story #4: It was allowed to happen.
The distinction between “LIHOP” (let it happen on purpose) and “MIHOP“ (made it
happen on purpose) has been powerfully reinforced by the “Able Danger” contretemps.
As a highly classified, anti-terrorist intelligence operation, Able Danger fell
under Special Operations (SOCOM) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) control.
When claims arose that the US had had advanced knowledge of 9/11 and had
allowed it to happen, a 16-month investigation by the Senate Intelligence
committee reported in December 2006 that there had been no knowledge of the
9/11 attacks by US authorities.
The
evidence, however, indicates that was not the case—and, indeed, that the events
of 9/11 were orchestrated and staged by elements within the Department of
Defense with help from their friends in the Mossad. As the 10th observance
of 9/11 approaches, we know that there were a minimum of two independent deep
cover covert operations which were operating on dual track, parallel and also
interwoven. The first one was the creation and tracking—principally by
the Mossad—of some “low tech” terrorist cells, which were set up, financed, and
trained by US and other intelligence agencies.
Coleen Rowley (center)
|
“Able
Danger” discovered this low-tech terror cell sub-track, which we can call
“Track A”. The operation was designed to be discovered to create false
cover, so that when 9/11 succeeded, it could be shown by information
discovered by a bona fide intelligence group that this terror cell was
responsible. That would be the role played by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer,
other members of the “Able Danger” team, and Coleen Rowley of the FBI in
Minneapolis. Track A, however, was designed to be discovered and then the
investigation stopped, creating the image of high-level US incompetence that
had allowed this terror cell to succeed in hijacking aircraft with box-cutters
and then flying those aircraft into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
When
the folks from “Able Danger” swear that they uncovered “a real terrorist cell
plot”, they are telling the truth. It was set up this way as a false
track. When Coleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not
obtain a search warrant for the hard drive of Zacarias Moussaui because he was
involved in this terror cell, she was telling the truth. But Track A was
set up as a false track to be terminated before the 9/11 attacks to provide a
convincing cover story for the highest levels of US intelligence and make the
government appear to be merely hugely incompetent. After all, how could
government officials of this incompetence have staged a successful and effective
covert operation?
The US “Made it Happen”
Actual Story: The US “Made it Happen”. Track
B, by comparison, was a high-tech track designed to use readiness exercises on
9/11, including some 17 anti-terrorist drills on 9/11 that disrupted
communication and coordination between NORAD and the FAA, by taking some of
them live and substituting high-tech weapons in order to target the Twin Towers
and the Pentagon by that means. Track B involved the use of numerous
different demolition means, including incendiaries and multiple modes of
destruction, most of which alone would be insufficient cause for the detonation
of the Twin Towers, which was arguably used to induce false leads confusing
investigators and researchers.
A
perfect example turns out to be the “hard science” 9/11 Truth group’s
insistence that nanothermite was the principal element used in the demolition
of the Twin Towers. This position, which has assumed a status akin to
that of a dogma within the 9/11 movement, turns out to be unsustainable in
light of research that has established that nanothermite is non-explosive—or, at best, a feeble
explosive—and cannot have been responsible for blowing the towers apart, for
ejecting massive steel assemblies hundreds of feet, or for the pulverization of
concrete or the destruction of steel by means of shockwaves. To a bona
fide explosives expert, the claim that nanothermite provided the explosive
energy or enough shockwave velocity to perform these tasks had to be an obvious
deception. If it was deliberately planted to divert research on 9/11
along an ultimately unproductive line, it may have succeeded beyond the wildest
intel dreams as a classic “red herring”.
The clear, green Pentagon lawn: Where's the
plane?
|
Another
example, surprisingly, is the Pentagon attack, where some of those within the
9/11 community have argued strenuously for not going there, because the
Department of Defense might spring a new video on the public that proves a
Boeing 757 actually did hit the building. The evidence contradicting that
contention is abundant and compelling, however, including the expert assessment
of Major General Albert N. Stubblebine, USA (ret.), perhaps the world’s
leading expert on image analysis and interpretation, who has concluded that no
plane hit the Pentagon. When you take all the evidence into account, the case
against a plane is staggering, but internal dissension has precluding using
it— and other powerful proofs of governmental fakery —and has taken this
evidence out of the public domain:
“From
the photographs I have analyzed very, very carefully,” Stubblebine has
explained, “it was not an airplane.” During an interview in Germany, he
explained that there should have been wing marks on the façade of the
Pentagon. “If it had wings, it would have left wing marks. [There
are] those who claim that the plane tilted and hit the ground first and lost a
wing. But airplanes have two wings, and he could not find indications of
any wing in any of those photographs.” Regarding the Twin Towers, he
added, “Look at the buildings falling—they didn”t fall down because of an
airplane hit them. They fell down because explosives went off inside.
Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God’s sake.”
Whistleblowing as Deception
The
politics of 9/11, however, are far more murky than the science. So when folks
from Able Danger swear that they uncovered a real terror cell plot, they are
telling the truth. It was set up this way as a false track. When a
Colleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not get a search warrant
for Moussaui’s hard-drive because he was involved in this terror cell, she is
telling the truth. When a Sibel Edmonds is gagged by court order and
tries to tell how certain how administration officials were communicating with
this terror cell, she is telling the truth. Indeed, the effort to mislead
our own experts even extended to Richard Clarke, who has explained that he
himself had been given the false impression that, apart from a few analysts,
the CIA had been unaware of what was going on prior to 9/11, which was intended
to support the theory of US incompetence.
Clarke,
who was the nation’s leading anti-terrorism expert, recently observed, “It’s not as I originally thought, which
was that one lonely CIA analyst got this information and didn’t somehow
recognize the significance of it,” Clarke said during an interview. “No, fifty,
5-0, CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew
these guys were in the country was the CIA director. … We therefore conclude
that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share
that information. … It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the
CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence in order to get around
that restriction … These are only theories about the CIA’s failures to
communicate vital information to the bureau … Perhaps the agency decided that
Saudi intelligence would have a better chance of recruiting these men than the
Americans. That would leave no CIA fingerprints on the operation as well.”
Indeed, as Ian Henshall has observed, if you substitute the Mossad for the Saudis, you have the explanation for the dancing Israelis, who were apprehended for filming and celebrating during the destruction of the Twin Towers and were released later under orders from Michael Chertoff, then an advisor Attorney General John Ashcroft and a dual US-Israel citizen, who would become Director of the new Department of Homeland Security—which leads directly to reports like those from Dr. Steve Pieczenik that 9/11 was indeed “an inside job” and studies like those from Alan Sabrosky, Ph.D., who has explain that 9/11 involved complicity between neo-con Zionists in the Department of Defense and the Mossad, where Israel had very powerful motives for 9/11 and, along with the Bush/Cheney administration, has been its primary beneficiary.
But Israel cannot have done this alone. The NORAD “stand down” and the attack on the Pentagon required complicity at the highest levels of the Department of Defense. And the benefits to the Bush/Cheney administration have likewise been enormous. As Patrick Martin has observed, “Without 9/11, there would be no US occupation of Iraq, putting an American army squarely at the center of the world’s largest pool of oil. Without 9/11, there would be no US bases across Central Asia, guarding the second largest source of oil and gas. And without 9/11, the Bush administration would have been unable to sustain itself politically, faced with a deteriorating economy and widespread opposition to its tax cuts for millionaires and social measures to appease the fundamentalist Christian Right.”
The Fourth Reich
Indeed,
the extreme motivation of a small number of radical Israelis and
their lobbies like AIPAC to manipulate US foreign policy in the
Mideast may have created a huge future trap for them in their role as
“classic cutouts”, which can be later exposed in a limited hangout admission in
order to direct blame toward the Mossad and the small number of radical Jews
involved, who do not represent most Jewish folks at all, thus directing
blame away from from those who used them in their cutout role and who were
actually at the top of the command structure. This limited hangout disclosure
could then later be used to blame all Jews and add them to the large and
growing Homeland Security watch-list list of possible domestic terrorists such
as Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, returning veterans, Ron Paul supporters,
Constitutionalists and tax protestors, and member of any current social group
that is trying to gain exposure and cessation of rampant government corruption
and creeping tyranny of the government at all levels, which of course
encompasses those dedicated to 9/11 Truth.
Richard Clarke, anti-terrorism czar
|
It
does not take a PSYOPS expert to discern the pattern here when Richard
Clarke resuscitates the incompetence theory, according to which the
US “let 9/11 happen”. Even on the assumption that he is sincere, we have a
fall-back position intended to minimize concern for complicity by the
Bush/Cheney administration and its friends in the Mossad—who, moreover, do not
necessarily represent the highest level of control over the atrocities of
9/11. Because Clarke was in the crucial position of being the nation’s
anti-terrorism czar, his affirmations about incompetence between agencies, such
as the CIA and the FBI, come across to the public and can be widely promoted as
admirable and courageous acts of whistle blowing, when their role in deceiving
the public drowns amidst the anguish and concern that “if only we had done
better” and “we must not let this happen again”, oblivious of the role that his
reports are playing in burying the truth about 9/11.
We
have now reached the point in America where any citizen or group wanting to
obtain needed social justice, or the cessation of undeclared, unprovoked, and
unConstitutional wars, in violation of international law and the UN Charter,
are now placed on a secret watch list and considered as “potential domestic
terrorists” by Homeland Security, which some—with ample justification—view as
“The New American Gestapo.” If the US has been hijacked by offshore
corporate and banking interests, which have their own anti-American agenda and
are now in the process of Nazifying America, as some astute researchers have suggested,
then certainly this could lead to a “Fourth Reich” run by offshore banks and
large international corporations and we could see a replay of the unlimited
persecution of minorities and special scapegoats such as specific groups such
as Muslims, Jews and Christians who dissent from The New Tyranny.
So if
you have wondered why covert operations like 9/11 are so difficult to unravel
or why it is all but impossible to convince the feds who investigated it that
this was actually a US false flag/stand-down/inside-job, deep-black covert
operation, the answer to that question appears to be that the plan was designed
from conception to obfuscate what happened, not only regarding the public but
also the government’s own experts, who would be assigned to investigate
them—and even to keep most of those who had an actual part in those operations
in the dark, so only those at the highest levels of the government knew what
happened and, even among them, only a few probably knew the full
dimensions of the plan. The objective throughout, accordingly, has always
been to keep the public in a state of uncertainly, where everything about these
events is believable and nothing is knowable—which is the ultimate objective of
disinformation.
Jim Fetzer,
McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is a former
Marine Corps officer and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
Preston
James is
the pseudonym of a Ph.D. in social psychology, who has become an expert on
psy-ops, “false flag” and covert operations by the US government.
- Share this on del.icio.us
- Digg this!
- Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
- Share this on Reddit
- Add this to Google Bookmarks
- Tweet This!
- Share this on Facebook
- Share this on Mixx
- Subscribe
- Buzz up!
- Share this on Linkedin
- Submit this to DesignFloat
- Share this on Technorati
- Submit this to Script & Style
- Post this to MySpace
- Share this on Blinklist
- Share this on FriendFeed
- Seed this on Newsvine
Posted by
Jim Fetzer at 1:50
PM
No comments:
Post a Comment