In order to bring a nation to support the burdens of maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of external menace.–John Foster Dulles secretary of state in the Eisenhower administration.
By Craig McKee
False flag operations are already illegal – aren’t they?
After all, you can’t legally kill people or destroy property, and then falsely implicate someone else in the crime. But Florida lawyer David Petrano, a member of Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, thinks that a false flag operation is a different and more destructive animal altogether. This is why he’s proposing that Congress pass a False Flag Terrorism Prohibition Act.
“People want a line in the sand now,” Petrano said in a phone interview this week.
Petrano, whose work on the wording is in its early stages, acknowledges that it is highly unlikely that a Bill like this would ever be passed. Even getting it considered would require a Congressman or Congresswoman who had “nothing to lose,” he says. But it would draw attention to the fact that these events are crimes and that they happen repeatedly. Anyone who planned them or even knew about them would be criminally liable.
Let’s look at what a false flag operation is:
According to Wikipedia, “False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time.”
In essence, a false flag operation means attacking yourself and then blaming someone else. Sometimes it means pretending you were attacked when there was no attack. Always it involves deception. The truth isn’t the first casualty in a false flag operation, it was never there in the first place. (Anyone interested in learning more about the phenomenon might want to pick up Barrie Zwicker’s excellent book Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11.)
False flag operations are a staple of how governments like the United States carry out their foreign and domestic policy. They fabricate a threat to create fear, and then they use that fear to justify an attack against another nation or group under false pretences. Or they pass laws under false pretences – as the U.S. has done with the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the National Defence Authorization Act.
The key to what Petrano is proposing is that it would not only be illegal to carry out these deceptive covert operations, but it would also be illegal to plan them even if the plan is never carried out. It would also be a crime for anyone not to report knowledge of the planning or carrying out of such an operation.
“The purpose of the law is to draw boundaries on that,” Petrano says. “You can’t even plan it.”
As it is now, if the head of the CIA, FBI, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff were to walk into the president’s office and propose that a crime be committed, there would not likely to be any legal consequences (unless you pull a Richard Nixon and record the conspiracy on tape).
The most glaring and most obvious example of a false flag attack is 9/11. This was a covert operation planned and carried out by elements within the U.S. government (and maybe other governments) and blamed on a supposed terrorist group led by CIA-asset Osama bin Laden.
It’s the best example, but it’s not the only one. In the last 20 years, there was the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, the London subway bombings of 2005, and numerous others.
You could also call the Kennedy assassination a false flag operation. This coup by the CIA (and maybe other entities) was intended to be blamed on Communists. Lee Harvey Oswald, who was with U.S. military intelligence in the late 1950s, defected to the U.S.S.R. and then came back with no questions asked. They also had him passing out pro-Castro leaflets as a cover.
The most incredibly elaborate plan for a false flag operation in recent decades (at least until 9/11) was a plan that few people have even heard of called Operation Northwoods. This 1962 plan, cooked up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposed that fake terrorist events be launched in American cities resulting in the deaths of American citizens.
A plane painted to look like a civilian airliner would be shot out of the sky, a U.S. naval vessel would be sunk near Guantanomo Bay, even the U.S. base there would be bombed. Evidence would be fabricated and the whole thing would be blamed on Cuba and its new leader, Fidel Castro. I wrote three consecutive posts on this in 2010, starting with this link.
If Petrano’s FFTPA had been in place, those who worked on or knew about this plan – including all the members of the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, and even President Kennedy – would have been criminally liable for conspiring to commit a false flag operation.
We know that the mainstream media plays an integral part in keeping such operations a secret. If you don’t believe that, just wait until March when the 50th anniversary of Northwoods comes around. Watch how much media attention the event gets. Next to none would be my guess.
A famous false flag operation occurred in 1933 when the Nazis burned down the Reichstag (the German Parliament) and blamed it on Communists. This was then used as a pretext to pass an emergency decree that allowed for the suspension of civil liberties and the mass arrest of Communists. This, of course, was the beginning of the Hitler-led dictatorship that killed millions. It was a lie, but it worked.
The attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was a type of false flag operation even though it was indeed the Japanese who launched the attack. The covert part is that the U.S. not only provoked the attack but knew it was coming months in advance. They let it happen because Roosevelt didn’t have enough public support to enter the war. After Dec. 7 it was smooth sailing.
I don’t know whether this attempt expose treasonous activity will come to anything or not, but I applaud the effort and believe it is worth doing. I can’t think of anything more critical to what’s left of democracy than increasing awareness of how governments deceive their own people with catastrophic consequences.
If we had a media that wasn’t completely corrupt, then it would have been clear long before 9/11 what was going on. People would have recognized this black op for what it was. But our media appear to be working for the other side, and they simply aren’t telling us the truth.
But 9/11 was so massive in scale, that I believe people are starting to become more aware. Not enough of them (how can anyone really believe Navy Seals killed bin Laden?), but more all the time. We have to keep fighting to educate people about these deceptions while at the same time fighting to ensure the survival of the semi-free Internet.
The next time the powers that be try one of these things – and they will sooner than later – we have to be able to see through it. We have to recognize the pattern because it’s ALWAYS THE SAME. And we have to try and spread the word as much as we can. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
It’s always a good idea to remind everyone of past governmental and media deceptions; the alleged death of Bin Laden is a perfect example. Common sense and an inquiring mind will identify that there is something very odd about this story.
Let’s hope the MSM are a little more respectful of whom they should be serving before broadcasting more of this nonsense.
To our corporate media and our state media, what kind of sick joke have you become?
I’m not holding my breath.
Dear Mr. McKee,
Right on the money.
Isn’t it amazing, how we had gavel to gavel coverage of the OJ Simpson trial. Yet a few years later, nary a peep about the MLK Assassination civil trial, whose jury concluded that a conspiracy killed MLK. Yes, I expect approximately zero media outlets to cover the 50th anniversary of Northwoods.
Well written as usual, Craig.
Yes, and isn’t amazing how effective the conditioning is that keeps most people from even noticing.
@Craig McKee
quote
” The most incredibly elaborate plan for a false flag operation in recent decades (at least until 9/11) was a plan that few people have even heard of called Operation Northwoods. This 1962 plan, cooked up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposed that fake terrorist events be launched in American cities resulting in the deaths of American citizens.”
Reading Operation Northwoods , I don’t see where the deaths of american citizens is mentioned in any of the suggested plans. The plans outlined involve some incidents which would only appear to involve fatalities. The closest it comes to an indication of anyone being directly harmed is where it says
“We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized.”
They wanted to start a “terror campaign” in Miami and other cities, including Washington. They also wanted to sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated). You really want to split hairs about whether they explicitly said they’d kill AMERICANS? They were prepared to blow up a lot of shit, sink boats, etc. I suppose it’s possible all this could happen without anyone getting hurt. Good point.
Dear Mr. McKee,
My recollection of details in Operation Northwoods is fuzzy. But I seem to recall the premise of an airplane full of supposedly college students on their way to some chartered South American adventure when the Cubans shot them down. Different options were presented in how this could be handled. Included in this was the option that the college students were fake, never real, composite. An unmanned and passenger-empty aircraft would be shot down.
If you think about it and low-risk options, simVictims is clearly the way to go, and they knew this in the early 1960’s. You can control their back-story to make it all the more emotional. Maybe they were all from the same university to give the tragedy some impact. You hire actors on a long-term contract to portray members of a select number of families. You get two points if those actors can serve double-duty in advancing some agenda in beating war drums or promoting TSA security measures. “My loved one might not have been murdered by Muslim Terrorists on 9/11, if our airports would have had radiation-poisoning scanners in place to view our private parts and detect those nasty box-cutters before they were smuggled onto the plane and used against… [*sniff* *wipe tear*] my precious Pooky. [*sob*]”
The 9/11 simVictims is a topic that hasn’t been addressed very much here. I already have enough to handle riding my two trick ponies: DEW and video fakery. However, simVictims is something I’ve kept an eye on and has some merit.
Think about it. How soon did those supposedly impromptu memorial walls appear in NY? And how stupid were they? I mean, the WTC has some appearance of being leveled by nuclear explosions to the extent the 1st responders called it “Ground Zero”, and here we have families posting pictures of their loved ones as if they were a lost pet, “Missing since 9/11, have you seen this person?” Worse, many of the missing-persons flyers had issues, like: couldn’t the family have found a decent photo of their loved one? I forget the “news” organization who decided to make a project out of it by photographing those flyers into a larger web collection. Couldn’t they have been more responsible and contacted the families for the original photo or different photos?
Why do so many images look like they’ve been poorly photoshopped? Why do the backstories on some of the individual victims get so weak? Why were not of the families of “(sim)Victims” from the planes never part of the 9/11 Families? Why are there such discrepencies in the social security death index and in families who collected settlement money?
Worst of all, when these web memorials and collections are explored further, weird things are discovered. I particularly like the anomalies in the data encoded in some of the images. They indicate that some of these were established prior to 9/11, as in the obituary and memorial efforts were being photoshopped and prepared before these alleged people had a deathly serious real need for one.
Much of this is covered on http://www.SeptemberClues.info.
Let’s Roll Forums also has interesting threads relating to simVictims. This might be a nugget of truth to mine from them; it might not. (Disclaimer: My opinion of Let’s Roll Forums isn’t very high after they banned me for my “Mr. [so-and-so]” honorifics; I kid you not. The actual context was that the tag-teaming regulars were losing in a major way in getting a thread on Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook shutdown with the usual “kooky, loony, crazy” references from the lofty position of not having or reading said textbook. My offer of paying for such a book to help them overcome such a hurdle was rejected. My reading of Dr. Wood was also coming dangerously close to proving hollow the major LTF promoted premise of hollow towers.)
When you start exploring this simVictim rabbit hole, you’ll discover lots of anomalous things in the alleged victim pool.
Think about it further. It would be much easier to get *wink* *wink* unstated approval from leaders and actors for a Hollywood-scripted ploy to motivate the American public into flag-waving and volunteering to exercise emperial might in snagging Middle East riches and resources (as outlined by the PNAC agenda) if the proposal were presented with the claims:
Dear Señor El Once,
Sorry it took me so long to respond to this comment. You’re right about that aspect of Operation Northwoods. And I agree that this makes it clear that faking identities of victims is entirely something the CIA would do. I don’t doubt that this was done, but to what extent I don’t know. There are certainly many questions to be answered, including how many families didn’t claim compensation (just to name one).
This is a tricky area, because it can certainly be hurtful to families of real victims when people question whether their loved ones really died. We certainly know that hundreds of firefighters died. And are still dying. As for victims on 9/11, I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be hundreds of people in the towers right before 9 on a Tuesday morning, even though it appears the buildings were much less occupied that we’ve been led to believe. But I think the depth of the 9/11 rabbit hole is considerable. Why should this aspect of the deception be different?
@Craig McKee
None of the suggested plans in Operation Northwoods say that people would be killed. Those that contain any detail show an intent not to cause anyone to be killed. Hence a plane full of passengers taking off and then being replaced by an empty plane, an empty ship blown up and non-existant casualties , the faked loss of a fighter plane etc. The lengths they were prepared to go to is made clear in the part about assassination attempts on cuban exiles ‘even to the extent of wounding’. There is a difference between a plan where consideration might be given to wounding some people and a plan to deliberately set out to murder thousands of people and it’s not one of splitting hairs.
A. Wright
What about the boatload of Cuban refugees? Are you seriously suggesting I’m being too hard on the U.S. military by not indicating how concerned they were to avoid the loss of life? Do you really think all of this mayhem would not have resulted in casualties? How would it have the desired effect without some dead bodies?
By then there weren’t television troupes everywhere, they could have easily showed a grainy black and white picture of fake bodies floating in the water.
First of all, I would like to comment Mr. McKee on a well written article. Yes, at this point in the state of “the Union” – pie in the sky. But putting ideas of justice and support for the rule of law is necessary regardless.
Have read the Northwoods documents in their entirety, and understanding who the actual author is,
Theodore Shackley. One is struck by the depth of Mr. A. Wright’s naivety, {or covert insincerity}. It is as if {?} he is utterly unaware of how these things pan out in real world situations whenever put into action. To actually believe that the minds who put together such operations give a flying bat fart about innocent lives is ludicrous.
Wright says: “There is a difference between a plan where consideration might be given to wounding some people and a plan to deliberately set out to murder thousands of people and it’s not one of splitting hairs.”
What was the intent of the Northwoods plan? Was it not as a pretext to war? What happens in war Mr. Wright? Thousands of people are killed in wars, most of these are “collateral damage”, a euphemism for INNOCENT BYSTANDERS. This is the nature of modern warfare. And one knows these things if one is awake, aware, and paying attention – because such serial wars have been waged on a constant basis by this empire still spuriously referred to as “The United States.”
“Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”~Santayana
The so-called “history” taught in this country is simply a myth. I refer to it as ‘Lollipop History’, because it is for suckers.
I would refer Mr. Wright to a thorough study of Edward Bernays, the “father of spin” and the propagandist who coined the term ‘Public Relations’. For we do not live in a nation of laws any longer. What is referred to as the “federal government” is simply a passion play – theater. What we have here is a Public Relations Regime. The people are ruled by imposed emotion and perception manipulation.
Mr. Wright may be perfectly happy living in a panoptic maximum security state. Aldous Huxley predicted that such a society of automatons would exist in this ‘brave new world’ – and thus it is coming to pass. I suppose one could congratulate Mr. Wright for being so “well adjusted” in this pathological society. It depends on ones perspective.
ww
Yes, Mr. Wright does seem either very naive or very insincere. To justify Northwoods on the basis that people wouldn’t have been killed is hard to take seriously.
@hybridroque1
quote hybridrogue1
” One is struck by the depth of Mr. A. Wright’s naivety, {or covert insincerity}. It is as if {?} he is utterly unaware of how these things pan out in real world situations whenever put into action. To actually believe that the minds who put together such operations give a flying bat fart about innocent lives is ludicrous.” (end quote)
If Operation Northwoods had been put into effect , which it wasn’t , then if people had died it would be because it hadn’t gone according to plan. In the case of 911 the whole plan would involve killing from hundreds to thousands of people. That would be the intention , to kill a huge number of people. There is nothing in the Operation Northwoods plan that specifically says people would be killed and where any detail is given the plans involve going to elaborate lengths to avoid people being killed. Hence replacing an actual plane with an empty drone etc. If they want to kill people they could just shoot down or blow up a normal commercial flight, no need for drones or fake passengers. The clearest indication of the boundries set is where it says ‘even to extent of wounding’. To assume that they were planning to kill a whole load of americans in part of a terror campaign where no details are given , while at the same time they might consider wounding some cuban exiles is a patently unwarrented assumption.
quote hybridrogue1
“What was the intent of the Northwoods plan? Was it not as a pretext to war? What happens in war Mr. Wright? Thousands of people are killed in wars, most of these are “collateral damage”, a euphemism for INNOCENT BYSTANDERS. This is the nature of modern warfare.”(end quote)
Craig McKee was talking about people being killed by the government during Operation Northwoods and not about people who would die in subsequent war, as you can see from his reply when I brought this up.
I have no illusions about how concerned or otherwise the US military are about human life etc. but I don’t see a reason to make statements about Operation Northwoods or any other document that could easily mislead people ,especially people who have not read the document in question and are getting their impressions of what is in it from articles on 911 truth websites and books etc.
You’re not suggesting that the drone was used because the guys in the Pentagon wanted to protect lives, are you? They wanted to do it that way because it offered the easiest and best way to guarantee the outcome.
And I keep mentioning the Cuban refugees and you keep ignoring them. You are making too much out of this. It was a false flag operation much like 9/11, deaths notwithstanding.
I am suggesting they were thinking about using a drone in order not to kill people. Do you really think it would be easier to create a ficticious flight with ficticious passengers , all of whom would have to be in on the plan, have the plane take off, rendevous with a radio controlled drone aircraft, have the original plane fly undetected back to an airbase. The drone then crashes into the sea ,with no bodies to be found and wreakage from a completely different plane and a complete set of ficticious identities to be created that no one anywhere would ever realise were ficticious, with a whole cast of ficticious relatives , who would have to be in on the plan, grieving for the ficticious victims. Or just put a bomb on a plane. If you were going to kill people you could just put a bomb on a plane-or shoot it down.
It doesn’t say the cuban refugees would be killed. A boat can be sunk without the occupants being killed- they can be rescued by nearby rescue boats, who would be required to give the account of the boat being sunk in the first place. There are many ways to arrange something like that without the need for people to be killed and no logic to killing a boatload of cubans while at the same time saying they might even go to the extent of wounding others.
Mr. Wright,
I find your current remarks in answer to my post about your take on Northwoods as spurious and laughably unrealistic when it comes to the true nature of a national security state. You are trying to isolate the Northwoods plan in a vacuum, as if it is some esoteric document of some realm far far away in a distant galaxy – but in fact this paper was written here on planet Earth, by a national security regime with a known Modus Operendi and set of motives.
It is the ability to ‘compartmentalize’ your thinking that gives indication to the great depth of your psychological conditioning as a serf-bot for the state. You can conveniently tune out the areas of your mind that would hold conflictive elements for your purposes of argument, that unmasks your state of cognitive dissonance.
To sum this up in stark language Mr. Wright, if you think there is the slightest concern for the deaths of innocents by such a regime, you are as crazy as a shithouse rat. Or as blind as el topo…because the evidence against such a view is legion and in your face daily.
Now you may lobby against my ad hominem, but I will state for the record that the contents and specific proposals given in the Northwoods document are as a ‘general proposal’ – this is a “pre-planning” doc, not an active plan doc. To draw the conclusions you have stated from it is simply premature and jejune.
Nevertheless – the central moral to be drawn from the existence of the Northwoods plan is that the government plans deceitful contingencies, psychological operations aimed at influencing Public Opinion. And it is only one of many – many of which have gone operational and resulted in hundreds if not thousands of deaths of innocent victims. To be so cavalier as to wave such knowledge aside in making your assessment, reveals in my estimation a cold heart and a coldblooded attitude. It is on such evinces that I base my argument of ad hominem – which is NOT technically “false argumentation” when the man argued against is so obviously guilty as charged by documented evidence all throughout the blog-sphere.
This is a considered opinion, and not one hastily arrived at.
ww
I would like to take this opportunity to commend you on your site Mr. Mckee. It is great to find a blog dedicated to the issues of 9/11, that doesn’t just come ’round during anniversary time. I have spent the last few days exploring here, and I have to say it is one of the more intelligent sites I have come across.
I have read 9/11 Blogger from time to time, but never participated there. I do a lot of reading on the subject and only chime in on points that I see as important, or find in need of serious critique.
While I did just get through a conflict of opinions with Mr. El Once on the previous page. I have since read quite a few of his comments on other areas, and find them quite useful and well reasoned. I would have had further commentary on the last page, but alas, I made the vow to give him the last word – perhaps prematurely. But it is done.
I am continuing to go back through previous articles, and having a great time with them. Some of the commentary is literally exhausting to go through.
Anyway, thanks so much for a great effort here.
ww
I thank you very much for your supportive words. And you’re right, El Once is a worthy contributor who offers a high level of commentary to the site. I appreciate that you do as well, so I’m very glad that you’re poring through my past articles and offering reaction. I am learning as I go, so I hope the older stuff stands up.
Well then, pleas allow me to introduce myself, which is I know unusual under standard blog protocol, but I have nothing to hide under an avatar.
My name is Willy Whitten. As I have mentioned in a couple of posts I am an artist. I have been involved with special effects cinematography since the time I was in HS. I have about 25 years of professional experience in that field working on feature films in Hollywood. This experience spanned all of the eighties and into the nineties, when I then moved on to freelance fine art sculpture.
I may have a bit to say on the theories of video fakery as per planes and such in the future, although I haven’t added my two cents to any of the threads on that subject already here. I am quite adapt at Photoshop, and have an understanding of Maya and other video animation platforms. The reason I haven’t added anything to these discussions is that my present video card is stuttering, and I get jerky “slide shows” rather than true animation at this time. So viewing the evidence is not available until I get a new card.
I will say that on my last supercharged computer, I was able to see one of the presentations explaining how the planes were superimposed over a “ball”, which the author suggested was some form of unknown craft. After going over the whole thing visually several times, and viewing some of his perspective diagrams, I remained unconvinced. One reason being that the simple sphere, is the easiest ‘object’ to create and manipulate in a digital video program. I felt more inclined to believe that the faking was not by the TV channels, but by the author of the program.
But this was several years ago. And I would really love to revisit the topic and some future date when I have full working video in this machine.
Now, as I say, I am a professional artist. But that doesn’t mean I haven’t educated my self in a variety of other fields. I am a serious student of history, have become quite familiar with mass psychology, and sociopolitical topics. I have long since lost my fear of being called a “conspiracy theorist”, although that isn’t what I would term as my interest, nor the major problem facing society. I have a systemic approach to my critique, which looks deeply into the architecture of modern political power. While “conspiracy” is indeed a common place activity, it is more that the structure of society itself is effected by a false paradigm. This is a heady subject, and will be addressed at some length as the opportunities are presented, as I hope to proceed in the further adventures on this fine site.
ww
Welcome, Willy. And thanks for reading. I look forward to your thoughts on many subjects in the future.
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
It seems to me, I’ve run into you elsewhere in cyberspace, but I don’t remember where. Could have been AlterNet, A Limey’s Ramblings, …? Our opinions at the time weren’t conflictive, and we might have even been tag-teaming against some Q-groupie. In Googling to find (unsuccessfully) where we’ve crossed paths, I see you’ve battled the Albury-bot aka Agent Albury Smith in the same 9/11 spiel he tried to pull over our eyes here.
I seem far out in my championing of no-planes and DEW (formerly milli-nukes). Meanwhile, the Q-groupies have come up short in their disinformation to keep thought out of such taboo areas. Yet, evidence and rational analysis led me to such beliefs. I’d be overjoyed to be convinced of some other view in the matter. In fact my views having changed from “pods on planes” and “milli-nukes” among others proves that I am open-minded, can change, and am not religiously dogmatic.
On the other thread, you initially didn’t see why I brought up Dr. Chandler. I have been respectively dinging on the outer doors of the gated 9/11 communities to get their leaders to take no-planes and DEW seriously in either their debunking or their acceptance, because I want basis to either change or confirm my beliefs. I don’t want to be the sole bat-shit crazy duped useful idiot on the topic. The frivilous manner in which the topics are side-stepped doesn’t convince me to change and only re-enforces that which they attempt to suppress.
You wrote:
I relieved you of abstaining from the last word in the other thread, but I nudged you to rise up the baseline I’m trying to establish for Dr. Judy Wood discussions: participants have to read Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook.
Yeah, well, I do.
It took a ruthless, immoral govt agent to make this point clear to me.
It doesn’t mean I can’t be found by those with a badge and a warrant, or by those with rudamentary IT skills. It means I don’t want to make it too easy for Google to vacuum up dots and effect the removal of my resume from future stacks of such when it is again my turn to look for employment. Google background checks can be the bitch you don’t even see hexing your worthy endeavors. And they can affect both immediate and extended families.
For this reason, I’ll stick to screen-names in my salutations even if another name is known to me.
Don’t get me wrong. I stand behind my words… (until the great and glorious day when convincing evidence and analysis gets me to change my mind, at which point I’ll apologize and start believing something better.) In fact, I’m hoping my words will mean something to my kids and grandkids — not everyone in my generation was an ignorant […] My cyber comments are only a little, but I hope them to be something.
Dear Mr. Once {if I may?}
I in no way fault you for lying low and making it difficult for the state. Thing is I’ve been “out” as a raging dissident for so long it’s silly to try to hide it now. Having made it clear that I am of the opinion that ‘full spectrum dominance” can only have a proper response with ‘full spectrum defiance’. And I know, some looneytune goon psycho oink oink man is going to ‘interpret’ that into “fightin’ words”. What does it matter, when it isn’t long before any words are enough in themselves to be characterized as “talking-back”, which can be scurrilously defined as “resisting arrest”, when it is rightful complaint. We understand the lawful definition of assault, as well as battery. And any with eyes to see knows that the people are under assault by the state.
I answered you on the other post, just a while ago. So that is there, and I won’t address it here.
ww
One more thing Mr. Once,
A specific question on the Wood hypothesis is; what is the proposed power of this beam weapon? What is the proposed power source for said energies? Where are these things, or this thing assumed to be located in relation to the WTC?
Is it supposed to be based on scalar or microwave, or a combination, or something brand new?
Perhaps ultrasonic – maser?
And as the hurricane is asserted to be a byproduct, or mechanism of this beam{s}, can you try to give a simple explanation as to what it’s purpose would be?
Thank you, ww
Please refer to my response here: January 31, 2012 at 3:01 pm on the “When did they know…” article.
And I thank you for your reply Señor El Once, It was well thought out and covered the bases I asked for. I have a response for you there as well.
ww
Mr. Once,
You mention that you feel you may have run into me on other blogs, there is that chance, but more of a chance if you can think back to several 9/11 threads that came up on COTO Report. Those were some of the longest comment sections I’ve been a part of, more than 500 posts for one of the threads.
The main antagonists were Albury and a person who began as Shooter, but then switched to IEAffiliate’s. It became absurd and left no recourse but to make jokes from time to time.
The threads are no longer viable – they have been altered and cut by close to 200 comments. And they make no sense at all now.
I have found my way to a few blogs where I thought the conversation was up to caliber, and commented some. I am a founding member of COTO1,of which COTO2 {Report} is a sister site.
C1 is a lot of deep conversation with a group who understand each other {for the most part} and out conversations haven’t much contention, but have gotten more detailed and focused as per the description of the central issue facing the planet and all life on it, including the human race.
There is a lot of discussion on relevant current events, framed from out combined philosophical points of view. These vary in the language used to present our perspective, but each have discovered the central core that we all come from, and how it is we have arrived at that spot, especially together – as if fate is complicit in a plot. The core group was the victim of a mass Stalinist style purging from a site called OEN – where we were all relating to things that were similar, and someone once referred to it as a “coalition of the obvious,” quoting something Orwell had said.
We were pretty outraged at the banning of us – about 14 people in one fell swoop. So we had been prescient enough to feel the vibe at the site, that we had exchanged emails, and were determined to turn this crisis to our advantage. Combined the two COTO sites bring in quite a bit of international traffic but C2 is the most accessible in style and story topic {slightly too pop for the central C1 crew}.
Part of this is where I’ve been and how I have a stronger need to reach out for 9/11 topics and do my part to keep the movement alive One of the reasons I don’t mind contention and see no immediate need for any total consensus. That would only be necessary at some reckoning point.
I think lively debate is good for keeping the movement rolling and keep our minds sharp on the subject.
9/11 was the defining moment for the present paradigm. It is therefore the key to how and why we got to where we are today. The ‘Grand Event’ began a series of dominoes to start there tumble, and we see the design of those who set the dominoes up, and where the line runs…
We are at the cusp of the fruition of something planned for generations, the partyers are out in the open in their festive costumes taunting the bedraggled crowds. Veils are lifting like curtains on some midnight mass in a ballroom of flashing disco lights and panting banshees. It has become utterly obvious that the world is run by maniacs, and that the masses are enchanted. Because it all looks like, “you know, cool and far out and sexy and fun” in a twisted mirror sort of way.
Some Big Weird is coming this way – like a locomotive in my estimate.
\\][//
From, Len Hart
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2012/01/aa-exposes-bushs-big-lie-flight-11-did-not-fly-on-911/#
American Airlines itself is the source for information that AA Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) did not fly on 911.
WikiScanner discovered that it was American Airlines itself which changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on 9/11. The original entry was as follows:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
New entry [as of the date of this article] is as follows and includes the bolded text below:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.
–Wikipedia
To make the point: the source for these change is American Airlines by making changes to Wikipedia. The ‘story’ is not Wiki. The story is not about Wiki. The story is about how AA ‘corrected’ a wiki entry. The story is about the fact that the evidence that Flights 11 and 77 were not flying on 911 comes from American Airlines itself.
According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).
However, a discovered searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:
WikiScanner discovered that it was American Airlines itself which changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on 9/11. The original entry was as follows:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
New entry [as of the date of this article] is as follows and includes the bolded text below:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.
–Wikipedia
To make the point: the source for these change is American Airlines by making changes to Wikipedia. The ‘story’ is not Wiki. The story is not about Wiki. The story is about how AA ‘corrected’ a wiki entry. The story is about the fact that the evidence that Flights 11 and 77 were not flying on 911 comes from American Airlines itself.
According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).
AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA 09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination) 22:04 (wheels-off time)
UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination) 13:44 (wheels-off time)
UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination) 23:15 (wheels-off time)
–911 Blogger, UPDATE: U.S. BTS FOIA Records For 9/11 Planes Differ From BTS Online Database [The records were obtained by Adrian Monaghan]
The question is raised: how do we know who made the changes to Wiki? Everyone logged on to the internet does so from an IP address. In this case, the IP is that of American Airlines. It’s traceable.
My own WHOIS lookup as well as my Google search of the IP address proves conclusively that it was –indeed –American Airlines that made the change. It is, therefore, American Airlines that has said that neither Flight 11 nor Flight 77 were in the air on 911.
The house of cards collapses
Assertions that Flight 11 struck the North Tower that are baseless, lacking evidence or proof! If neither Flight 11 mor 77 was in the air that day, the Bush administration’s version of events must be utterly discarded.
If flights 11 or 77 did not fly on 911, officialdom must come up with another explanation to explain the the events of 911. No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever found at the Pentagon.
ww
“When You get flak You´re over the target.” ~ COTO
ww
Dear Mr. McKee,
I have no doubt that John Foster Dulles did say: “In order to bring a nation to support the burdens of maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of external menace, ” but the people we must try to convince will doubt it.
Please supply the source of the quote (and future quotes).
This quote is cited in Michael Parenti’s book Superpatriotism (p. 93). I’m not sure when the comment was originally made.
politicstahl,
I came up with the same information as Mr. McKee in a short search on my browser. However if one is not inclined to give merit to Mr. Parenti, it may take looking in his index of the book, Superpatriotism – or a more thorough search through the writings of Mr. Dulles to satisfy the authenticity of this quote for you.
Knowing of Mr. Parenti’s academic prestige and standing, I highly doubt he is making this up. But one would like to have some notation as to where this quote originated. I have several of Mr. Parenti’s books in my library but not the one at issue.
ww