Part 3 – Historical Context

A collection of historical facts related to the 9/11 event

1. ‘Operation Northwoods’ – US plan for false flag terrorism including “hijacking planes” and “orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities” as a justification for a pre-planned war

“America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war … hijacking planes … and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community … casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation … The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

ABC News, New York, May 2001 and the Declassified document

 

 

 

Operation Northwoods explained by James Bamford (2:57)

2. Misplaced power of the Military-Industrial Complex– warning by Former US President Eisenhower

“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, presidential exit speech, Jan. 17 1961

Eisenhower’s “Military-Industrial Complex” Speech Origins and Significance (3:16)

3. US plan to invade 7 countries in 5 years

“We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia.

‘Global Warfare’, Interview with General Wesley Clark, March 2007

 

 

 

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years (2:12)

4. Conquering the Middle East to control the planet’s largest oil reserves

“A power that dominates Eurasia [the Middle East] would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions … Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources … reserves of natural gas and oil … For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia …. It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America….

“But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion [by the public], except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being .… Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.… The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”

‘The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives’, Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1998

5. Project for a New American Century (PNAC) called for ‘a new Pearl Harbor’ to expand US global domination

PNAC, a neoconservative ‘think-tank’ institute with which many members of the Bush administration were affiliated, published a policy paper in Sept. 2000 titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, which laid out an extensive plan for US global domination but where this “process of transformation … is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” … “it was only the traumatic effects of the 9/11 terrorism that enabled the agenda of the neocons to become the policy of the United States of America.”

‘Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq’, Prof. David Ray Griffin, Feb. 2007

Project for the New American Century (8:20)

6. Post-cold war Neoconservative ideology called for manufacturing an external threat

“Political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat…. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace … if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured … [Neo-cons] really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they’re conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy.”

‘Leo Strauss’ Philosophy of Deception’, Alternet, May 2003

 

 

 

Webster Tarpley speaking on ‘Leo Strauss – The Father of Republican Radicalism’ (11:00)

7. Fabricated justification for the Iraq war

“All of the strands of intelligence [of weapons of mass destruction], from Iraqi killer drones to mobile weapons labs to nuclear centrifuges fell apart after the occupation of the country and ‘exploitation’ of its bases and facilities .… All that was found by the U.S. Army Joint Captured Material Exploitation Group teams were some old, corroded, un-useable, ‘demilitarized’ artillery shells rotting in the desert from the 1980s, a far cry from the active, threatening, chemical, biological and even nuclear WMD program we were repeatedly told by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld that Iraq possessed.”

‘At Least Trump Got One Thing Right. There Were No WMDs in Iraq’, Prof. Brian Glyn Williams, Huffington Post, 4/5/2016, updated 4/6/17

 

 

‘We knew Iraq had no WMDs’ – former CIA analyst (5:32)

8. Deep events as a repeated pattern of US engagement in war

“I have called these events deep events – events deeply rooted in illegal covert activity in various branches of US intelligence …. [A]ll have been swiftly followed by America’s engagement in ill-considered wars … and with a predictable accompanying pattern of official cover-ups backed up by amazing media malfunction and dishonest best-selling books ….

“The history of espionage demonstrates that secret power, when operating in the sphere of illegal activities, becomes, time after time, antithetical to public democratic power. The more restricted the group of special planners with special clearances, the less likely are their decisions to conform with the dictates of international and domestic law, still less with common morality and common sense.”

‘Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia’, Dr. Peter Dale Scott, University of California, Berkeley, The Asia-Pacific Journal, March 2012

9. Al Qaeda connections to the CIA

 

 

“One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to ‘fabricate an enemy….’ Ironically, Al Qaeda – the ‘outside enemy of America’ as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks – is a creation of the CIA.”

‘Al Qaeda and the “War on Terrorism”’, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Jan. 2008

 

 

 

 

 

The CIA created and funded Al Qaeda (4:04)

10. US government directly working with Al-Qaeda “as late as 2001”

“While it is widely recognized that the CIA sponsored bin Laden’s networks [al Qaeda] in Afghanistan during the Cold War … the Pentagon, CIA and State Department maintained intimate ties to al-Qaeda militants as late as 2001 ….

“Ayman al-Zawahiri, current head of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s deputy at the time, had innumerable, regular meetings at the U.S. embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, with U.S. military and intelligence officials between 1997 and 2001, as part of an operation known as ‘Gladio B’…. [Al-Zawahiri] as well as various members of the bin Laden family and other mujahideen, were transported on NATO planes to various parts of Central Asia and the Balkans to participate in Pentagon-backed destabilization operations .… [T]his and related revelations had been confirmed by senior Pentagon and MI6 officials.

“Other intelligence experts agree that Edmonds had stumbled upon a criminal conspiracy at the heart of the American judicial system … [and] how the CIA and the Pentagon had been running a series of covert operations supporting Islamist militant networks linked to Osama bin Laden right up to 9/11.

“… [F]ormer [FBI] Special Agent in Charge, Dennis Saccher … confirmed the veracity of Edmonds’ allegations of espionage, telling him that Edmonds’ story ‘should have been front page news’ because it was ‘a scandal bigger than Watergate’ … [another example] of the abuse of ‘national security’ to conceal evidence of criminality.”

‘Why was a Sunday Times report on US government ties to al-Qaeda chief spiked?’, Special Report, Ceasefire, May 2013

11. US government creates domestic terrorism

“[T]ake a closer look and you realize that many of these [accused terrorists] would never have committed a crime if not for law enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit terrorist acts …. In some cases the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals by suggesting the idea of taking terrorist action or encouraging the target to act …. [A] judge said the government ‘came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles,’ and had, in the process, made a terrorist out of a man ‘whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.’

“The FBI often targeted particularly vulnerable people, including those with intellectual and mental disabilities and the indigent. The government, often acting through informants, then actively developed the plot, persuading and sometimes pressuring the targets to participate, and provided the resources to carry it out.”

‘US: Terrorism Prosecutions Often An Illusion’, Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute, July 2014

FBI Entraps Americans in Terrorism Sting Operations (4:36)

12. US government supports international terrorism

“… the Stop Arming Terrorist Act … would put an end to the counterproductive, unaccountable, and immoral CIA ‘train and equip’ program in Syria … [The Act] would prohibit ‘the use of federal agency funds to provide covered [covert] assistance to: (1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)’ …. Incredibly, after nearly six years of war, the US government continues to fund rebel groups that, far from being moderate, often subscribe to an Islamist ideology”.

‘Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?’, The Nation, March 3, 2017

 

 

13. The “Strategy of Tension” in the Cold War period

“A secret military strategy that targets domestic populations with terrorism does indeed exist. It is called the ‘strategy of tension.’ And it was implemented by Western democracies .… A terrorist attack in a public place … is the typical technique through which the strategy of tension is implemented. After the attack … the secret agents who carried out the crime blame it on a political opponent by removing and planting evidence.

“You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game .… The reason was quite simple .… [The attacks] were supposed to force these people … to turn to the State to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the State cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened.”

‘The “Strategy of Tension” in the Cold War Period’, Dr. Daniele Ganser, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 39, May 2014

The Strategy of Tension (10:28)

14. False Flag terrorism – an historical overview

 

“Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Soldiers and Police admit to False Flag Terror. In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos.”

‘False Flag Terrorism – An Historical Overview’, Sept. 2015

 

 

 

 

A Brief History of False Flag Terror (6:05)

15. US State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD)

“New research in the journal American Behavioral Scientist (Sage publications, February 2010) addresses the concept of ‘State Crimes Against Democracy’ (SCAD). Professor Lance deHaven-Smith from Florida State University writes that SCADs involve high-level government officials, often in combination with private interests, which engage in covert activities for political advantages and power.

“…[P]re-existing beliefs can interfere with SCADs inquiry, especially in regards to September 11, 2001’… [I]gnoring the issue in the context of multiple proven SCADs since World War II seems far more dangerous for democracy …”

‘State Crimes Against Democracy’, Prof. Peter Phillips, March 2010

‘Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government’, Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith,  American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, Feb 2010

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut – Day 1 Lance DeHaven-Smith (1:33:27)

16. Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld convicted for conspiracy and as war criminals

“At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal [of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission] unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisers who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment …. The prosecution had established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused persons, former President George Bush and his co-conspirators, engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of Torture and War Crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit the following crimes in relation to the “War on Terror” and the wars launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan and Iraq ….

“Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council … After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, [former Malaysian Prime Minister] Mahathir Mohamad said: ‘Powerful countries are getting away with murder.’ ”

‘Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia’, Foreign Policy Journal, May 2012

17. Marvin Bush and cousin Wirt Walker heads of WTC security, security turned off and unusual activities before 9/11

“One of the directors of the [WTC security] company … was George W. Bush’s younger brother, Marvin Bush.  The CEO of the company from 1999-2002 was the Bush brothers’ cousin, Wirt D. Walker III …

“[A] ‘power down’ [of WTC] on the weekend of Sept. 8 and 9, 2001 … all security cameras and security door locks were non-operational for about 36 hours … unprecedented …. ‘There were guys in work clothes with huge tool boxes and reels of cable walking around the building that weekend’ … bomb-sniffing dogs, [were] removed on Sept. 6 ….

“[T]here were even entire floors that were empty … major work being done on some vacant floors … loud banging, what sounded like heavy metal dumpsters being moved around, and lots of dust over everything. And it was all very secret … [one company reports they were] evacuated numerous times from their offices in the upper floors of the South Tower. They were also moved from one floor to another … hearing loud noises on nearby floors, including the sounds of pneumatic drills. He also says there was a great deal of fine white dust all over everything.”

‘WTC cameras, locks, electricity turned off weekend before 9/11’, Craig McKee, Truth and Shadows, Oct. 2010

18. WTC major elevator upgrade directly before 9/11, providing direct access to core columns – a possible cover for controlled demolition setup

“On Sept. 11, ACE Elevator … had 80 elevator mechanics inside the World Trade Center … 16½ minutes after the attack on the north tower … the mechanics left on their own, without instructions from police or fire officials….All the mechanics survived’.… But the Port Authority says the emergency plan called for mechanics to stay and help with rescues. ‘The manuals consider many emergency scenarios and describe the role of the mechanics in detail in responding to them,’ Port Authority spokesman Allen Morrison says. ‘There was no situation in which the mechanics were advised or instructed to leave on their own.’ ”

‘Elevators were disaster within disaster’, USA Today, Sept 2002

Further analysis – Ace Elevator Company’, Association for Nine Eleven Truth Awareness

 

19. Directive NSC 10/2 authorizes the CIA to carry out ‘a broad range of covert operations’ in ‘violation of international law’ that includes ‘demolition’ and the necessity for ‘plausible deniability’, ‘lying’ and ‘hypocrisy.’

“On June 18, 1948, [US president] Truman’s National Security Council took a further step into a CIA quicksand and approved top-secret directive NSC 10/2, which sanctioned U.S. intelligence to carry out a broad range of covert operations: ‘propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas, and refugee liberation groups.’ The CIA was now empowered to be a paramilitary organization. George Kennan, who sponsored NSC 10/2, said later in the light of history that it was ‘the greatest mistake I ever made.’

“Since NSC 10/2 authorized violations of international law, it also established official lying as their indispensable cover. All such activities had to be ‘so planned and executed that any US government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons, and that if uncovered the US government can plausibly deny any responsibility for them.’ The national security doctrine of ‘plausible deniability’ combined lying with hypocrisy. It marked the creation of a Frankenstein monster.”

‘JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, James W. Douglass, 2010

20. Insider involvement with alleged 9/11 hijackers as possible protection of ‘patsies’ creating an ‘evidence trail’ to support the official narrative

“If the real authorship of state-sponsored terrorism is to be successfully concealed, then a collection of scapegoats is the first ingredient required. These may be defined as the patsies, or alternatively as fall-guys [or ‘lone-wolf’] …. Because the patsies are usually such low grade subjects they require comprehensive support … [they] will assume a distinct ideological or religious coloration and will advertise it, and that will become the key to the process of creating or reinforcing the enemy image desired by the terrorist controllers after the terrorist action has been successfully carried out ….

“They must attract lots of attention …. They need to get into fights with passersby, as Mohammed Atta is said to have done concerning a parking space at the airport in Maine early in the morning on September 11. Even if they are presumed dead they must remain prominent, as in the case of Atta’s passport, which is alleged by the FBI to have survived the fiery collapse of the World Trade Center towers to be found undamaged and unsinged on a nearby street. Even when presumed dead they must be eloquent about themselves and their activities, as they accused 9/11 hijackers when they left behind a copy of the Koran, airline schedules, terrorist literature and videotapes, and Atta’s crudely forged last will and testament in a car and in luggage.

“Despite the need to be noticed as much as possible, the patsies have to stay out of jail. If they are all in jail, the planned terror action cannot take place. This is not because the patsies are needed to carry it out, but rather because they must be on hand in order to be blamed for it, whether they are on the scene or far away …. To keep the patsies out of jail so they can serve their vital purpose is the job of the moles [inside agents] ….

[After the terror event has occurred] “The patsies must be hunted down and, preferably, liquidated on the spot …. Their faces and stories will be demonized as the latest manifestation of absolute evil. The nationality, philosophy, or religion which the media portray them as representing will become the target of raving vilification, arrest, economic sanctions, cruise missile retaliation, and armed invasion, as the case may be.”

‘9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA’, Webster Griffin Tarpley, Progressive Press, 2011

21. ‘Someone would have talked’

“Another popular argument is that in any ‘vast conspiracy…there’s the likelihood that someone along the chain would squeal.’ Even this administration – (defenders of the official story argue) – ‘could never have acquiesced in so much human slaughter and kept it a secret. Especially when so many people would have to have been involved.’ Although this argument may seem strong at first glance, it becomes less impressive under examination.

“This argument is, for one thing, based partly on the belief that it is impossible for big government operations to be kept secret very long. However, the Manhattan Project to create an atomic bomb, which involved some 100,000 people, was kept secret for several years. Also, the United States provoked and participated in a civil war in Indonesia in 1957 that resulted in some 40,000 deaths, but this illegal war was kept secret from the American people until a book about it appeared in 1995. It also must be remembered that if the government has kept several other big operations hidden, we by definition do not know about them. We cannot claim to know, in any case, that the government could not keep a big and ugly operation secret for a long time.

“A second reason to question this a priori objection is that the details of the 9/11 operation would have been known by only a few individuals in key planning positions. Also, they would have been people with a proven ability to keep their mouths shut. Everyone directly complicit in the operation, moreover, would be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the death penalty. The claim that one of these people would have come forward by now is irrational.

“When people suggest that whistleblowers would have come forward, of course, they usually have in mind people who, without being complicit in the operation, came to know about it afterward, perhaps realizing that some order they had carried out played a part in the overall operation. Many such people could be kept silent merely by the order to do so, along with the knowledge that if they disobeyed the order, they would be sent to prison or at least lose their jobs. (See Kevin Ryan as an example of this.) For people for whom that would be insufficient intimidation, there can be threats to their families. How many people who have expressed certainty about whistleblowers would, if they or their families or their jobs would be endangered by coming forward with inside information, do so?

“In any case, the assumption that ‘someone would have talked,’ being simply an assumption, cannot provide a rational basis for refusing to look directly at the evidence.”

Debunking 9/11 Debunking’, Prof. David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2007

Conclusion

  1. Multiple facts indicate that the official investigations cannot be considered credible. (see Part 1)
  2. Multiple credible facts indicate the official conspiracy theory (Al Qaeda conspiring to attack America) is false. Therefore it is not known what the truth is. Therefore a proper, independent investigation is required to determine the truth. (see Part 2)
  3. An assessment of these facts without prejudice indicates that the possibility of an alternate conspiracy theory (an ‘inside faction’ was involved in the attacks) is supported by these facts. (see Part 2)
  4. There is an historical context that also supports the alternate conspiracy theory.

Why do we often resist this information?

Next – Part 4 – Psychology