Military wasn’t worried ‘campaign of terror’ secret would come out

October 11, 2010

By Craig McKee

A buddy of mine told me the other day that he could never believe that 9/11 was an inside job because it would be impossible to keep a secret that big.
I think this is how a lot of people feel. They might be able to accept that criminal elements in government could be ruthless enough to try it, but they just can’t believe they could keep it quiet.
But they haven’t kept it quiet – not really. If they had, we’d all be forcefully standing by the official 9/11 story. We’d all believe the myth that Muslim terrorists were behind the whole thing. But there are so many gaping holes in the government’s version of what happened that many don’t believe this.
The day of terror that was Sept. 11, 2001 is more controversial now and more unresolved than ever. True, the majority of people buy the absurd claims of the U.S. government and the complicit media, but I believe that’s because of one of these reasons:

  • they haven’t looked closely at the evidence
  • they have a political bias in favour of American foreign policy
  • they have swallowed the simplistic idea that “conspiracy theorists” are all paranoid kooks
  • they don’t think an American government could do anything so evil
  • they don’t believe it could be kept secret

These are all understandable reasons. I don’t agree with them, but I can understand where they would come from. I realize a sixth reason could be that their close and intelligent examination of the evidence leads them to believe in the “bin Laden” scenario is correct. I just can’t accept this one because I feel that anyone who is unbiased and has no preconceived ideas will have a hard time defending the official version based on facts.
In my last post, I reported that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed an elaborate plan in 1962 to kill American citizens and to launch terrorist attacks on numerous American targets.
The plan, Operation Northwoods, was intended to enrage the American people so they would enthusiastically endorse an invasion and long-term occupation of Cuba. Castro would be out, and a new American puppet would be in. (Please refer to my last post: “Can’t believe U.S. would unleash terror on its own citizens? They already tried” for details.
And, if the plan were carried out properly, no one would know. History would record that a ruthless and power-mad Cuban dictator had launched an unprecedented campaign of death against the freedom-loving American people and against their government. Flags would wave, outrage would flow.
This plan would have impressed George Orwell. Come to think of it, it would have impressed Adolf Hitler. Hitler and the Nazis fooled people by burning down the Reichstag building (German parliament) in 1933 and blaming it on the Communists. This allowed them to begin a process of eliminating freedoms and strengthening their grip on power.
And we know how much support the Nazis received from American corporations during WW2. Some will argue that they could not have killed nearly as many people, or come so close to victory, without the help of American companies.
So which of the reasons to believe the official 9/11 story could be affected by what we now know about Operation Northwoods?
Well, the military leadership of the world’s greatest superpower believed that a massive plan involving hundreds of people to fake attacks against American targets and to kill Americans for real could succeed. They didn’t feel that the sheer size of the plan would be a problem. If this could work then, why not on 9/11?
We also know for a fact that the generals didn’t have any moral qualms about carrying out this set of atrocities. And we know that they believed that the plan could succeed without anyone spilling the beans.
People naively think that one person giving away the secret will put them on every front page of every newspaper and on every evening newscast in America. We know that’s not true. Many people have witnessed things that can’t fit with the 9/11 story, but how much do we hear from them?
Lifelong CIA operative Howard Hunt admitted being part of a government plot to kill Kennedy. He implicated Lyndon Johnson. It’s on tape. You can listen to it on You Tube. But where was that reported?
The fact is that many hundreds of thousands of people know 9/11 wasn’t the work of Osama bin Laden. But that didn’t stop the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan from taking place. And it didn’t stop the passing of the Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act.
The Northwoods plan would obviously have been very complicated and would have involved hundreds of people. Had John Kennedy allowed it to go forward, it would have been one of the most massive deceptions in history.
But the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously believed it would work and that they could trick the world into blaming Fidel Castro for attacking American targets. At the time, there was a Kennedy to say no. In 2001 there was George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.
Which of those would say no?


  1. This may seem like a silly question, but I’d like your take on it. Why is the so-called mainstream media so unable, or unwilling to dispute the official version of events surrounding 9/11?

    1. It’s not a silly question at all. In some ways, it’s one of the key questions of the whole affair. There has been a shocking lack of critical thought going on in the media right from Sept. 11. Interestingly, many honest things were said by TV anchors on 9/11 that were never repeated again. Peter Jennings of ABC said that it appeared the towers had been taken down in a controlled demolition. He never said that again. The same with Building 7. It’s collapse was reported half an hour before it happened but there was virtually no mention of it again after that day. The unwillingness to ask obvious questions seems too systematic to simply be a series of honest oversights. It was the same thing as we moved towards the Iraq War. They seemed to be afraid that if they questioned anything they would look unpatriotic. And let’s not forget these networks are large corporations, some of which directly profit from the “war on terror.” NBC is owned by General Electric, a major arms manufacturer. Just one example.
      At best, the media seem to have an overwhelming bias in favour of the official story regardless of the facts. At worst, they have deliberately participated in the coverup of an inside job. The latter version seems very hard to believe, but as you examine the coverage, and lack of critical reporting, it becomes harder and harder to think otherwise.
      I’ll be tacking this subject in much more detail in the weeks ahead. I’m still drawing some conclusions. A great book on the subject is Towers of Deception by Canadian media critic Barrie Zwicker.

    2. John A. asked: Why is the so-called mainstream media so unable, or unwilling to dispute the official version of events surrounding 9/11?
      Answer: Because they were complicit. Why? Because they wanted more deregulation of media so they could continue their consolidation of media into their empires. Moreover, given ownership ties of defense contractors to media outlets, beating the drums of war for the administration would come to benefit them.
      Go to YouTube and search “September Clues” (1-9, A-H) to find blatant examples of their complicity, like how the fully-fleshed-out OGCT was planted before the dust of the towers had even settled, like how various media competitors used each others footage real-time (implying they got it from a single source like a military PSYOPS team), like how video footage was manipulated.

      1. I’m right with you on this one. Looking at the media part in all of this helps make the conspiracy even more obvious. I think everyone should see September Clues. It’s an eye-opener. Not only do you have doubts about the video evidence, but you also have journalists blatantly lying about what they saw.

  2. “Compartmentalization”, “need-to-know”, “outsourcing”, and “off-shoring” are key words in understanding the conspiracy.
    Not only could much of the dirty work of planting bombs be outsourced away from the military and CIA, but it (except for the WTC-7) could also be off-shored, like to Israel’s Mossad. The role of patsy was outsourced and off-shored to Saudi’s.
    I’m reading Russ Bakers’ “Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty”. It has an interesting take on the CIA being a brotherhood comprised of many different, highly secretive fiefdoms. The left-hand wouldn’t necessarily know what the right-hand was doing, let alone a little toe below the table.
    Do not under-estimate what a handful of conspiracy participants in very high places of the government and the military can do and what they can accomplish even in inaction (like not intercepting the planes, sending the interceptors the wrong direction, like shutting down investigations that could expose patsies.)
    Also, do not under-estimate either the rewards (promotion, prestige, wealth) for complicity or the consequences (to the rewards, to self, to family) for betrayal to the conspiracy.
    And by its very compartmentalized design, recognize that anomalous reports from unwittingly complicit underlings would not only be just a tiny piece of the puzzle, but one that is turned over on the table if it hasn’t been tossed to the floor.
    Due to the above, I believe that the original core conspirator numbers are much smaller than the disinformation to the masses surmises. However, the subsequent growing conspirators numbers are more vast than I surmise, because rewards (contracts) are given to those who keep the fear alive and capitalize on it in the face of constantly changing and newly created realities.
    Terrorism, whether real, manufactured, or hyped, is good for media ratings and defense contractor business.

    1. Yes, people who haven’t looked into this subject will often automatically believe that it’s just too big a conspiracy for the government to think it could get away with it. History tells us that it can be done because it has been done so many times before. I’ve written about Howard Hunt admitting his role in the Kennedy assassination. It’s important that he waited until he was dead to release his remarks. Who knows what the consequences would have been to him if he had become a living whistle blower.

      1. Craig, Great blog. Sorry I didn’t subscribe sooner.
        The Howard Hunt confession was reportedly made on an audio tape mailed to his son, St John Hunt, but I have seen accounts that say it was made to him in person over several visits. There is an account of the confesson published on at:

        1. Thanks, Shelton. I hadn’t heard about the tape being mailed; I thought he’d given it to his son to be released upon his death. But I’ll read the Rense account. I’ll be interviewing Jonathan Kay (author of the infamous “Among the Truthers”) in the next day or two, and thanks to you I’ll remember to ask him about the Hunt confession.

    2. i think there is another reason that the numbers of the knowing silent are increasing without exposure. That reason is the need to maintain faith and trust in government, especially among liberals. They cannot admit that something like this could have happened yet continue touting government as a ‘helping hand’ to those in need, a fair arbiter of trade and business disputes (i.e., regulation) and protectors of the peace.
      All that goes out the window when people distrust their government, and I believe that the plotters knew that the Democrats, the press and others would never expose them because of the damage to our ‘social compact.’ They were right and it’s shameful and disgusting. They don’t need to ‘pay off’ people, and no one needs to personally benefit from keeping silent, they just buy into the need for silence for social stability. Guaranteeing that these events will continue to happen and be successful. Happy New Year!

      1. You’re right, Billie. Some think that the public losing faith in government would be disastrous. But what’s happening is even more disastrous. People are seeing their freedoms slip away one by one and they’re conditioned to accept it. It is disgusting.

  3. I want to let you know that I read your article…very good.
    But I also think that media complicity is obvious on it’s own and that September Clues is a load of bullshit riding on the obvious other points of the mainstream media being corrupt.
    This corruption does not naturally equate to CGI video manipulation.
    We have been through this in detail by now, so I will leave it at that here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *