Islamic Jihad or another Operation Northwoods

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 10 2003 @ 09:49 AM
i know a lot of people on this board don't like hearing of US government, and it's agencies involvement in 9/11. Intelligent criticsm is more than welcome.

"September 11, Islamic Jihad or another Operation Northwoods? posted on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 08:54 AM by webmaster

webmaster writes INTRODUCTION

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our highest and most responsible
military officers, proposed to commit acts of terrorism aimed
against U.S. citizens, designed to look as though they had been
the work of operatives of Fidel Castro. The object was to provide a
pretext for an invasion of Cuba. Among many imaginative proposals,
the Chiefs suggested:

"We could develop a communist cuban terror campaign in
the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in

And further ...

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba ...
casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of
national indignation."

[ ]

Although these plans were never carried out (they were rejected
by President Kennedy), similar proposals WERE actually implemented a
1970's and 1980's in Europe by the CIA, resulting in the deaths of
hundreds of innocent civilians. In one bombing of a busy train
station in Bologna Italy in 1980, 86 people were killed and over
200 wounded. The bombings were designed to look like the work of
communist extremists although they were in fact committed by right
wing extremists working under the direction of the CIA. The aim
of these operations was to whip up anticommunist sentiment among
our european allies.

[Arthur E. Rowse: Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert Italian
Democracy. Covert Action Quarterly No. 49, Summer 1994. ]

Was September 11 a similar operation, mounted by elements of our own
government in order to whip up public support for an all out war
against the Arab states in the Middle East? The evidence strongly
suggests that this is the case.

My aim here is to provide a brief introduction to some of this
evidence with pointers for further reading.

[ Note: Throughout this post is deeply indebted to the timeline
compiled by the Cooperative Research Group (CGI). See: ]



I. The hijackers were not fanatical Islamic fundamentalists
(far from it).
A) They smoked and drank and partied hard.
B) Several of the hijackers had training at secure
military facilities in the United States
C) The hijackers operated quite openly, as if they
had powerful protectors in the U.S.

II. The hijackers were not capable of the feats of piloting
that are attributed to them.

III. The hijackers lead back to Pakistan's ISI, and through
the ISI, back to the CIA and the Bush administration.
A) Funding for the hijackers came from ISI Director
General Ahmad
B) On September 11 Ahmad was in Washington meeting
with key administration officials.
C) On September 12 the administration announced
Ahmad's agreement to collaborate in their
"War on Terrorism".
D) The ISI is not a tool of bin Laden - it's the
very much the other way around.

IV. FBI investigations that could have prevented September 11
were deliberately sabotaged by FBI Headquarters.
A) At least two FBI investigations were deliberately
stopped that could have prevented September 11.
B) The hijackers must have KNOWN that the FBI would
not investigate - they operated quite openly,
and even seemed to deliberately draw attention
to themselves as potential terrorists.

V. The anthrax attacks
A) No potential terrorists had access to the advanced,
"weaponized" form of anthrax used.
B) All suspects lead back to US or Israeli intelligence.
C) The crude misspellings and appeals to Allah and Islam
in the letters appear to be a hoax to blame this on
Arab terrorists.

VI. The ultra-rightwing agenda already in place for a war against
the Arab states.

VII. Conclusion - It appears that the September 11 attacks were
covertly instigated and supported by elements of our own
government to support an ultra-rightwing political and
military agenda.

VIII. Epilog - How could this happen? Some historical context.



The keystone of the "official story" on the events of September 11
is that the hijackers were fanatical Islamic fundamentalists,
opposed to all products of Western culture. They are presented to
us as pure warriors of Allah, prepared not only to kill, but to
die for their religion. Their supposed austere and ascetic
approach to life and death is presented us in the will and
testament of their leader, Mohammed Atta. We find here a long
list of severe admonitions including:

9. The person who will wash my body near my genitals must wear
gloves on his hands so he won't touch my genitals.
10. I want the clothes I wear to consist of three white pieces of
cloth, not to be made of silk or expensive material.
11. I don't want any women to go to my grave at all during my
funeral or on any occasion thereafter.
... [ etc. etc. etc. ]

[ ]

It could hardly be otherwise; who other than a totally dedicated
religious fanatic would be capable of deliberately incinerating
himself in such a horrific manner together with several of his
closest comrades and thousands of innocent victims?

It was soon discovered that this image was completely false.
In fact, most of the hijackers were thoroughly americanized and
enjoyed quite wild, hedonistic lifestyles. Several of the them,
including the leader and "suicide pilot" Mohammed Atta, were
frequently seen out bar hopping, smoking and getting drunk.
They sometimes engaged lap-dancers and prostitutes:

In Boston the night before the hijackings the WTC hijackers
tried to engage some prostitutes, but then backed out because
they decided it was too expensive:" target="_blank" class="postlink">[/ url]

These are not the actions of Islamic fanatics on their way to
die for Allah! It certainly appears that the hijackers did not
know that this was a suicide mission, and were not genuine
Islamic fundamentalists.

15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, mostly from wealthy families.
In fact, most of the hijackers are typical of the wealthy, high-
rolling, hedonistic Saudis who turn up over and over again in covert
operations sponsored by the administrations of Ronald Reagan and
George Bush Sr. and Jr. These scandals include Iran-Contra, the
Savings and Loan Scandal (by far the most massive financial rip-off
in history), the massive money-laundering that led to the collapse
of BCCI, a Pakistani bank with strong ties to the CIA, and, more
recently, the Enron scandal. The connection to U.S. intelligence
is more than speculative; several of the hijackers had training at
secure military installations in the U.S. The locations where the
hijackers received training include:

* The Pensacola Naval Station
* Lackland Air Force Base
* Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama
* Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama
* The Defense Language Institute in Monterey
[ This is a long file. A string search on "military sources" will
take you to the right paragraph ]

There is further compelling evidence that the hijackers were in
fact recruits of the CIA based on the manner in which they obtained
their visas to live in the United States. The National Review has
published a careful study of this question that concludes that the
awarding of visas to these applicants is "inexplicable". This is
the strong consensus opinion of several government officials with
extensive hands-on experience with the process of issuing visas in
this part of the world:

All six experts strongly agreed that even allowing for
human error, no more than a handful of the visa
applications should have managed to slip through the
cracks. Making the visa lapses even more inexplicable,
the State Department claims that at least 11 of the 15
were interviewed by consular officers. Nikolai Wenzel,
one of the former consular officers who analyzed the
forms, declares that State's issuance of the visas
"amounts to criminal negligence."

The great majority of the hijackers' visas, 15 of them, were
issued at the US consular office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Michael
Springman, formerly the head US consular officer in Jeddah has shed
light on how and why these visas were issued. According to

"In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level
State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified
applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no
ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I
complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the
US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General
Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with
silence ...

"What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring
recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for
terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned
to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets."

So it certainly appears that at least 15 of the 19 hijackers were
CIA recruits, trained at secure military facilities in the United
States, and operating here under the protection and sponsorship
of the US government.

The hijackers' drinking and partying is certainly more typical of
youthful westernized military recruits than devout fundamentalist
Moslems. It is sometimes claimed that they were just pretending to
be westernized in order to "blend in" and escape detection. This
makes no sense at all. Even if they had been seen to be devout
Muslims, that would hardly make them terrorists. And they made
no attempt at all to hide their really suspicious activities, for
example shopping around for crop dusting equipment!

In one incident Mohammed Atta applied for a loan from the Department
of Agriculture to purchase a crop duster.

In the first place, it's odd that Atta bothered with a loan at all,
since it's clear that the amount of the loan was pocket change to
the people funding him. Atta used his real name, and made sure the
interviewer spelled it correctly. During the interview, Atta praised
bin Laden as "the world's greatest leader", discussed the possibility
of blowing up U.S. landmarks, including the World Trade Center, and
generally behaved like a raving lunatic. Nice blending in!

In another incident Atta spoke with James Lester of South Florida
Crop Care in Belle Glade, Florida regarding the purchase of crop
dusting equipment. Again, Atta made sure that he would be
remembered: "I recognized him [after September 11] because he
stayed on my feet all the time. I just about had to push him away
from me." [AP, 9/15/01]

Far from trying to blend in, Atta operated quite openly and even
seems to have deliberately tried to draw attention to himself as
a potential terrorist. He acted as though he wanted to build a
"legend" as a terrorist, and as though he had guaranteed protection
from high inside the U.S. government. Evidence that this was in
fact the case will be discussed later.


According to a group of highly qualified professional pilots who got
together to study this matter, the flying feats attributed to the
hijackers are not believable. The pilots concluded that "Those birds
either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being
maneuvered by remote control."


Regarding the possibility of flying commercial aircraft by remote
control, the expert pilots have this to say:

In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill
(retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic
Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into
the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several
occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size
to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air
Force base in California to South Australia. According
to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path
under the control of a pilot in an outside station.
Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways
boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on
September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now
possible to control an aircraft in flight from either
the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert
witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners
could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio
frequency instrumentation from command and control
platforms based either in the air or at ground level.

The credentials of the pilots involved in this study are
impressive. In addition to Captain Hill there is an Air Force
Colonel, and a third Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties
during the Vietnam war. The group also includes professional
civilian aircraft pilots. The reporter verified their conclusions
with an independent expert:

THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the
potential veracity of these findings, spoke to an
Algarve-based airline pilot, who has more than 20
years of experience in flying passenger planes, to
seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently
flying with Cathay Pacific, agreed with the
independent commission's findings. However, he
explained that while it is possible to fly a plane
from the ground, the installation of the necessary
equipment is a time-consuming process, and needs
extensive planning.

On the other hand, there has been a published report of an
interview with a professional pilot who argues that it would
NOT have been too difficult for hijackers to fly the airliners.

It should be possible to resolve these questions conclusively in
the context of a complete investigation of exactly what happened
on September 11 and how such a thing could occur. Unfortunately,
the US government is strongly resisting conducting any such
investigation. In any event, the question remains that even if
the hijackers COULD have flown those aircraft (an idea that most
professional pilots who have expressed themselves on this issue
reject), why WOULD they have done it? Given that the hijackers
were certainly not fanatical Islamic fundamentalists, why would
they accept a suicide mission, especially such a horrific one?
The remote control theory, which no one disputes is a possiblity,
provides an alternative explanation, that does not require that
the hijackers were religious fanatics who knowingly volunteered
for a suicide mission.


There is no doubt about who the immediate sponsor of the 9/11
hijackers was. In at least one case they received their funding
directly from the top man in the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence
agency. The ISI has long been a heavily funded CIA client and one
of our staunchest allies, first in the prolonged guerilla war
against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and now in the so called "War
on Terrorism". And yet we know now that in the summer of 2000 ISI
Director General Mahmud Ahmad ordered his aide Saeed Sheikh to
transfer $100,000 to the leader of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta,
and that this was done via two banks in Florida.

On the day of September 11 Director General Ahmad, Mohammed Atta's
paymaster, was in Washington meeting with the chairmen of the House
and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Conveniently this allowed him to confer directly with Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage the following day, and
soon Secretary of State Colin Powell was announcing Pakistan's
cooperation in our campaign to bring the perpetrators of the
attacks to justice.

The fact that one of our foremost allies in the "War on Terrorism"
was in fact the sponsor of the 9/11 terrorists was uncovered by
Indian intelligence and confirmed by the FBI in early October, just
a few weeks after the attacks.

At this point Ahmad quietly retired, and disappeared from the
TO SLIP AWAY LIKE THIS? Where is the swift and terrible retribution
promised us on so many occasions by our President? Why was Ahmad
not immediately taken into custody and brought to the United States
for intensive questioning to uncover further links in the chain?
The answer is obvious and unavoidable to anyone reading this with an

Since the administrations of Reagan and George Bush Sr. the ISI
has been a major CIA client and has acted on our behalf first to
organize and command the Afghan resistance forces in the war with
the Soviets, and later to set up the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden was recruited by the ISI, because they wanted
someone who represented the Saudi elite as part of their Afghan
effort for public relations purposes. The ISI initially tried to
find a member of the Saudi royal family, but they were happy to
settle for a member of the bin Laden family, one of the richest in
Saudi Arabia:

The total control that the ISI and the CIA exercised over bin Laden
and their other surrogates in the Afghan conflict is witnessed,
among many other things by the planning of the attack on Jalalabad,
the most significant offensive for the guerillas in the entire war:

Typical of the war's overall conduct, the attack [on
Jalalabad in March 1989] was planned at a meeting in
Islamabad [Pakistan] attended by U.S. Ambassador Robert
Oakley, senior Pakistani officials, and not a single

["The Politics of Heroin, CIA Complicity in the Global
Drug Trade", Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill Books, NY
1991, pg 452]

The pattern then is clear and has been well established for
decades. The U.S. acting through the CIA sets the agenda and
provides the money. The ISI acts as our agent in this part of the
world, selecting local proxies and orchestrating the activities of
the guerilla warlords. The guerilla leaders themselves, including
Osama bin Laden, are merely pawns in the game. George Bush Sr.
as Vice President personally traveled to Pakistan in 1984 to cement
these relations ["The Outlaw Bank", Beaty & Gwynne, Random House,
NY, 1993. pg. 317].

Bin Laden's dependence on the ISI is just as strong now as it ever
was. According to Jane's Intelligence Digest in an article
written shortly after the September 11 attacks, "both the Taliban
and Al-Qa'eda would have found it difficult to have continued
functioning - including the latter group's terrorist activities -
without substantial aid and support from Islamabad."

Equally, the ISI's alliance with the CIA is as strong as ever.
Milton Bearden, a former CIA. station chief in Pakistan who has
worked closely with ISI recently defended the alliance, describing
Pakistan as "the only country in South Asia that always did what
we asked."

Therefore it is highly implausible that ISI Inspector General Ahmad
was acting as an operative for bin Laden when he funded the
September 11 hijackers; the chain of command works in the opposite
direction. It is also highly implausible that Ahmad would have
chosen on his own initiative to attack the United States, his own
best ally and his primary source of funding and technology.

Anyone who seriously wants to see the perpetrators of September 11
tracked down and brought to justice should urgently petition their
elected representatives to see that former ISI Director General
Ahmad is arrested and brought to the United States for questioning
by an independent investigative body. Clearly the Bush
administration does not want to see this happen, because this, the
most significant lead we have, does not seem to point to bin Laden,
but rather to the Bush administration itself.


I pointed out earlier that Atta and the other hijackers operated
quite openly in the United States, as if they enjoyed guaranteed
protection. It appears that this was in fact the case. We now
have several detailed reports of crucial investigations of the
September 11 hijackers, both before and after the fact, being
sabotaged by high ranking government officials. Possibly the
most vivid example of this is the way in which the investigation
of the "twentieth hijacker", Zacarias Moussaoui, was sabotaged by
FBI Headquarters.

In August 2001 Moussaoui enrolled in Pan American's International
Flight School in Minneapolis. He aroused suspicions on his very
first day. He paid a deposit for the course in cash in the amount
of $6,800 (the full price of the course is $19,000). He had a heavy
Middle Eastern accent, and waved off concerns about his lack of
preparation for such a course, saying that he was not interested in
professional certification. However, he showed great interest in
learning how to work the airplane's doors and control panel.

It soon became clear the Moussaoui had lied about his personal
background, and that he had no qualifications at all as a pilot.
The potentially frightening implications of training this particular
student were not lost on Pan Am's flying instructors, according to
John Rosengren, director of operations at the school. In a faculty
meeting the next day,

"There was discussion about how much fuel was on board
a 747-400 and how much damage that could cause if it hit

Soon one of the flight instructors was on the phone to the FBI:

"Do you realize how serious this is?" the instructor
asked an FBI agent. "This man wants training on a 747.
A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!"
[ ]

The local FBI agents concurred. They checked out Moussaoui, and
found out that he had overstayed his visa. They persuaded the INS
to take him into custody and keep him there. If not for this good
luck and prompt action Moussaoui would surely have participated
in the attacks of September 11, because from that point on the
investigation met determined opposition from high level FBI
officials who did their best to completely shut it down.

The sickening story is spelled out in a long, agonized letter
written after the events of September 11 by Coleen Rowley, one of
the Field Agents in Minneapolis on the case. The letter was
promptly declared to be classified by the Bureau, but portions
have been leaked to the press:

Immediately after Moussaoui's arrest, the field agents in
Minneapolis wanted to apply for a warrant to search his apartment
and the hard drive of his computer. FBI headquarters however,
denied that they had probable cause for such a search. Then within
just a few days the field agents received information from the
French Intelligence Service that "confirmed [Moussaoui's]
affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and
activities connected to Osama Bin Laden". At this point the field
agents "became desperate", but incredibly Headquarters continued to
stonewall and deny the existence of probable cause for a search.
Rowley, who has been an FBI division legal advisor for 12 years,
and an FBI agent for 21 years, was at the time and remains today
completely baffled by Headquarters' determination to stop the
investigation. She flatly states that probable cause "was
certainly established".

At that point Rowley tried another route. The FBI can apply for
so called FISA warrants if their aim is to gather intelligence
rather than evidence for a criminal proceeding. The granting of a
FISA warrant is practically guaranteed; the FBI only has to ask for
them. To her amazement, FBI Headquarters "continued to, almost
inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now
desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant."

By this time the field agents were "in a frenzy ... absolutely
convinced [Moussouai] was planning to do something with a plane."
One agent speculated in a memo that that Moussouai had been
planning with unidentified confederates to "fly something into
the World Trade Center."

Then came September 11.

Coleen Rowley agonizes in her letter, searching for an explanation
for the betrayal by FBI Headquarters. Were they simply too busy?
Was it normal bureaucratic inertia? Ultimately, she is unable to
accept these convenient but implausible explanations: "The issues
are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY [her emphasis]."

An almost identical story is coming out of the Phoenix FBI office
which was similarly thwarted by FBI Headquarters in their attempt
to investigate Hani Hanjour, who is believed to have crashed an
airliner into the Pentagon on September 11.

Some of the field agents involved in these and still other similar
cases have applied for whistleblower status, and are taking legal
action to try to force the Bureau to declassify the relevant
documents and come clean about their role in September 11. These
agents are being represented by David Schippers, former Chief
Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and
head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against
former President Bill Clinton.
(This is a long file. A string search on "Schippers" will get you
to the right paragraph.)

In the meantime Coleen Rowley notes in her letter that in the
aftermath of September 11 the official most responsible for blocking
her investigation of Moussaoui has received a promotion. That's
not all. The FBI Department responsible for repeatedly blocking
Rowley's desperate attempts to obtain authorization to search
Moussouai's apartment and computer is the National Security Law
Unit (NSLU). Just this month (December 2002) the head of the NSLU,
Marion Bowman, received the most prestigious and generous award the
Bureau could confer on him:

At a quiet little ceremony earlier this month, Marion
(Spike) Bowman was one of nine people in the bureau to
receive an award for "exceptional performance." The
reward carries with it a cash bonus of 20 to 35 percent
of the recipient's salary and a framed certificate
signed by the president.
[ ]

The President of the United States is showering praise and bonuses
and promotions on those responsible for thwarting the investigations
that could have prevented the horrific events of September 11.

And keep in mind Atta's bizarre behaviour when he applied for a
Department of Agriculture loan to purchase crop-dusting equipment
in May of 2000. Atta used his real name, and he made sure the
interviewer (Johnelle Bryant) spelled it correctly. He told her
that he wanted to buy a crop-duster and to "build a chemical tank
that would fit inside the aircraft and take up every available
square inch of the aircraft except for where the pilot would be
sitting." Atta then fixated on an aerial photo of Washington DC
hanging on the office wall, and wanted to purchase it:

"He pulled out a wad of cash," she said, "and started
throwing money on my desk. He wanted that picture really
bad." Bryant indicated that the picture was not for sale,
and he threw more money down.

"His look on his face became very bitter at that point,"
Bryant remembers. "I believe he said, 'How would America
like it if another country destroyed that city and some
of the monuments in it,' like the cities in his country
had been destroyed?" ...

Atta also talked about life in his country. "He
mentioned al Qaeda, he mentioned Osama bin Laden," ...
He boasted about the role that they would one day play.
"He said this man would someday be known as the world's
greatest leader," she said.

Bryant, perhaps to provide us with some much needed comic relief,
finishes her story by asking, "How could I have known [that this
man was a terrorist]?"

The point is that Atta was operating completely openly, and even
seems to be DELIBERATELY drawing attention to himself as a terrorist
suspect. This makes sense if, as I believe, Atta was laying a false
trail of evidence which he WANTED to be discovered after the attacks
(more on this later). The attacks of September 11 were planned and
carried out with impressive military discipline and efficiency.
Atta is not exposing himself out of stupidity or carelessness. He
must have expected that Bryant would immediately notify the FBI
(although she did not). We now know that this would not have
mattered - that any attempt to investigate would have been killed by
FBI Headquarters. Clearly, at the time, Atta must have known this
as well. The question of exactly why Atta would have wanted to
incriminate himself in this way will be addressed in section VIII.


So ... whoever perpetrated September 11 obviously has tons of
money and a tight military organization. You would expect that
this would not be an isolated event, but the start of a coordinated
campaign. If this was the work of Islamic fundamentalists, then
where is the Jihad? Where are the Holy Warriors who should have
been positioned and ready to follow up on the opening shot of the

There was a second wave of attacks - the dissemination of anthrax
letters to both random and carefully selected targets. However,
everyone now acknowledges that this was an inside job - that the
weapons grade anthrax used would only be available to a very
limited number of scientists and military/intelligence officers
working in the United States on highly classified projects.

In fact according to the leading expert on the anthrax attacks,
professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, the FBI has long known exactly
who was behind these attacks - attacks that have so far have killed
at least five american citizens - but the Bureau has decided to let
the perpetrator off the hook, just as the sponsor of the September
11 hijackings has been let off the hook. Professor Rosenberg is a
microbiologist and an expert on biological warfare who has served
as a presidential advisor and testified before congress on this
subject. She was selected by the Federation of American Scientists
to investigate the anthrax attacks. Over one year ago, in January
2002, professor Rosenberg stated:

The FBI has surely known for several months that the
anthrax attack was an inside job. A government estimate
for the number of scientists involved in the US anthrax
program over the last five years is 200 people. According
to a former defense scientist the number of defense
scientists with hands-on anthrax experience and the
necessary access is smaller, under 50. The FBI has
received short lists of specific suspects with credible
motives from a number of knowledgeable inside sources,
and has found or been given clues ... that could lead to
incriminating evidence. By now the FBI must have a good
idea of who the perpetrator is.

Another leading expert on biological warfare, professor Francis
Boyle of Indiana University, concurs with Rosenberg's opinion.
Professor Boyle is a renowned expert on international law who
has testified before congress on legal issues concerning biological
warfare. He was instrumental in drafting the Biological Weapons
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. His analysis of the anthrax attacks
has led him to the same conclusion reached by professor Rosenberg,
which he states even more bluntly:

I believe that the FBI knows exactly who was behind these
attacks and that they have concluded that the perpetrator
was someone who was or is involved in illegal and criminal
biological warfare research conducted by the US government
(the Pentagon or the CIA) or by one of the government's
civilian contractors. For that reason, the FBI is not
going to apprehend and indict the perpetrator.

As with the investigation of the funding channel for the September
11 hijackers, the anthrax investigation started off fast and made
great progress only to come to a screeching halt with the
perpetrator within easy reach.

The most obvious pieces of evidence were the notes that accompanied
the anthrax mailings. These contained crude misspellings and
praised Allah while calling for the downfall of the United States.
These notes were quickly recognized as a transparent hoax. As
professor Rosenberg has stated:

Expert analysts for the FBI believe that the letters were
written by a Westerner, not a Middle Easterner or Muslim,
although the text was clearly intended to imply the latter.

The anthrax strain used was consistent in all letters. A detailed
genetic analysis narrowed the search to a single laboratory: the US
Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)
at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

Further, the sophisticated weaponization process used to treat the
spores, and the highly specialized expertise needed to store and
handle the spores narrows the search even much further. This
leaves us with just a handful of suspects involved in the Fort
Detrick program:

With the field narrowed down so drastically, professor Rosenberg
points us to what I believe is the key piece of evidence in
identifying the perpetrator:

On Sept. 21, three days after the first anthrax mailing
and before any letters or anthrax cases were in the news,
an anonymous typed letter was mailed to Quantico accusing
an Egyptian-American scientist, formerly of USAMRIID, of
plotting biological terrorism. The accused scientist was
quickly exonerated by the FBI. The letter's writer
displayed familiarity with work at USAMRIID and claimed
to have formerly worked with the accused scientist.

Obviously the anonymous accuser himself fits the profile of the
actual perpetrator. Furthermore he was able to correctly
anticipate that there would be an anthrax attack and that the
strain of anthrax used would lead to Fort Detrick. The conclusion
seems inescapable that the anonymous author of this false
accusation was the author of the attack itself.

The falsely accused was an Egyptian born scientist, Dr. Ayaad
Assaad who worked at USAMRIID during the 1990's. During his
employment there he was the target of racist attacks from a Jewish
coworker, Lt. Col. Philip Zack. In one incident Zack mailed
Assaad a rubber camel with a huge model sexual appendage attached,
together with an eight page poem that described Dr. Assaad among
many other things as a "life form lower than yeast".

As a result of this and a string of similar racist attacks by
Lt. Col. Zack, Assaad filed a harrassment suit and Zack was forced
to resign his position at USAMRIID. However, Zack continued to
have access to the lab illegally with the help of a personal friend

Certainly Lt. Col. Zack must be considered to be the prime
candidate as the author of the letter falsely accusing Dr. Assad.
In my view this also makes him the prime suspect in the attacks
themselves - Especially when you take into account the fact
that his illegal comings and goings at Fort Detrick occurred
at the time when anthrax spores matching the genetic profile
of those used in the attacks went missing there.

In any event, the suspects in this crucial investigation are
certainly NOT fanatical Islamic fundamentalists. Everyone close to
the investigation agrees that the perpetrator is a highly qualified
bio-warfare expert who has worked on highly classified projects for
the United States government. He has very specific and rare
skills that in themselves narrow the field to a mere handful people,
without even taking into account the evidence surrounding the
mailings themselves. The postmarks provide a series of time stamps
associated with specific locations. An investigation like this can
stall when there are thousands of possible suspects; it cannot
stall when there are a handful of suspects and abundant clues to
resolve the perpetrator's identity. Professors Rosenberg and Boyle
are quite correct; the FBI is deliberately shielding the
perpetrator of these terrible crimes, which have taken the lives of
five innocent american citizens and which attack the foundations of
our free and open society.

But not everyone is going unprotected. With exceptional foresight
so notably absent elsewhere in this case, Vice President Dick Cheney
was able to anticipate that anthrax would become a problem in the
Capitol. He and his staff started taking an anti-anthrax medication
(Cipro) on the night of September 11, before the letters containing
anthrax started to arrive.

Obtaining and preparing the anthrax will have been a difficult and
lengthy process. The attacks, beginning just seven days after
September 11, must have been prepared well in advance by a highly
sophisticated government insider. Like the hijackers themselves
and their sponsors in the ISI, the perpetrator clearly has powerful
protectors high inside the U.S. government. The two attacks seem
to have been perfectly coordinated to work towards the same
objective. The ever incisive professor Rosenberg observes:

The perpetrator was probably ready before Sept. 11 and
simply took advantage of the likelihood that Sept. 11
would throw suspicion on Muslim terrorists. Was the
perpetrator trying to push the US toward some retaliatory
military action?


But why would our government WANT to whip up public support for an
all out war against the Arab states? The answer is readily found
in a series of position papers from the "Project for a New American
Century" (PNAC) that are available on the web. PNAC is an ultra-
righwing and militaristic think tank that developed around the
most extreme hawks in Dick Cheney's Defense Department at the
end of George Bush Sr's administration. To understand why an inner
circle of presidential advisors including Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Wolfowitz and Perle, are pushing for a comprehensive attack on the
Arab States, you should check out their website:

In particular, click on the link for "Defense and National
Security", and then download "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
(This is the first item listed. You'll need Acrobat Reader).

This paper lays out the plan to dominate the entire globe, starting
with the Middle East and Central Asia. The authors figure that to
support this we will need to beef up the military to the point
where we will be able to support multiple simultaneous major wars
together with occupations and police actions. All of this was in
place years before September 11. This paper was published in
September 2000. It's perfectly clear then that September 11 is
simply being used as a pretext to implement an ultra-rightwing
agenda that was put in place years before.

I want to emphasize that this has absolutely nothing to do with
suppressing terrorism. In fact, this agenda will surely have
exactly the opposite effect. In the lengthy and detailed document
I have referenced you can search for the word "terrorism" and you
will not find it at all. However if you search for the word
"preeminence", as in "american preeminence", "geopolitical
preeminence", "military preeminence" etc., you will find that word
many times.

The plan to use our differences with Saddam Hussein as a pretext
for initiating the campaign for an american global empire is
explicitly stated:

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the
issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein ... Iran may
well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the
Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian
relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in
the region would still be an essential element in U.S.
security strategy given the longstanding American
interests in the region."

The fanatical Zionism of some advisors, eg Paul Wolfowitz and
Richard Perle, is clearly a factor driving this policy. Israel's
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has echoed elements of this planning
paper, for example calling for an invasion of Iran "one day after"
we subjugate Iraq [interview with the Times/UK, 5 Nov. 2002].
Other important players pushing this agenda, such as Rumsfeld and
Cheney, appear to be motivated by a dangerously radical view
towards the uses of US military power now that the US is the single,
unchallenged superpower. In any case, it is safe to say that
September 11 is simply being used as a pretext for an agenda that
has been in place for years now.

The proposed military moves in the Middle East will not suppress
terrorism. On the contrary, many thousands will flock to the cause
of Islamic Jihad if we continue this way. And in the meantime,
outrageously, the real leads we have on the perpetrators of
September 11 are being allowed to dangle uninvestigated. I'm
referring again to former ISI Director General Ahmad, the paymaster
of the hijackers, who has been allowed to slip off into retirement,
and the unpursued anthrax leads which can only point to a single
cutting edge bio-warfare laboratory right here in the USA.

Why, Why, WHY???


The horrific events of September 11 bear all the earmarks of a
covert "pretext" operation designed to support a military agenda
that could never have otherwise been set in motion. Investigations
of both the hijackings and the subsequent anthrax attacks lead not
to Islamic fundamentalists, but point to our own military and
intelligence organizations, and, in the case of the hijackings, to
their client and close ally, the ISI. Consequently our government
has simply terminated these investigations. Similarly, crucial
FBI investigations that could have prevented the attacks were
"inexplicably" sabotaged by FBI Headquarters over the desperate
objections of Field Agents who were fully aware of the terrifying
implications of what they had uncovered. These Field Agents have
now been forced to apply for "whistleblower" status for their own
protection, while the officials who sabotaged the investigations
are being richly rewarded with promotions, bonuses and presidential

It appears that the purpose of this deliberate mass murder of
thousands of innocent American citizens was to whip up public
support for a comprehensive attack on the Arab states in the
Middle East. The plans for these military moves have been in
place for several years, but they could never have won public
approval without this boost.


In the introduction I discussed the Gladio operations carried
out in Europe in the 1970's and 1980's. Among other things this
involved a series of bombings in Italy in which hundreds of
innocent civilians were killed. The bombings were designed to
appear to be the work of communist subversives, but in fact were
carried out by extreme right wing groups under the direction of
the CIA.

[ Arthur E. Rowse: Gladio: The secret U.S. War to subvert
Italian Democracy. Covert Action Quarterly No. 49, Summer 1994. ]

The philosophy behind this kind of operation is spelled out in
the top secret Supplement B to U.S. Army Field Manual FM 30-31,
signed by General William Westmoreland in March 1970:

There may be times when HC [Host Country] governments
show passivity or indecision in face of Communist or
Communist-inspired subversion, and react with inadequate
vigor to intelligence estimates transmitted by U.S.
agencies ... In such cases, U.S. Army intelligence must
have the means of launching special operations which will
convince HC governments and public opinion of the reality
of the insurgent danger and of the necessity of
To this end, U.S. Army intelligence should seek to
penetrate the insurgency by means of agents on special
assignment, with the task of forming special action groups
among the more radical elements of the insurgency. When the
kind of situation envisaged above arises, these groups,
acting under U.S. Army intelligence control, should be used
to launch violent or non-violent actions according to the
nature of the case.

The aim of these operations then was to polarize the public and
convince them that they were faced with violence and death from

Now I agree that it's a step up from killing hundreds of innocent
civilians in order to further your political agenda to, in the
case of the attacks on September 11, killing thousands of innocents.
But how big a step is this really? ... Especially when you consider
how much greater the stakes are now (from the warped perspective of
the extreme militarists). During the Cold War we were constantly
fighting on the edges - trying to force geopolitical boundaries a
little bit one way or the other. Now as the world's single great
superpower we have a unique "opportunity" to dominate the entire
globe and gain control of key resources - especially oil of course.

The evidence presented here (and much more that has been omitted
in the interest of keeping this short) strongly suggests that
September 11 was just such an operation, mounted by a radical group
within the Bush administration - an alliance of extreme militarists
and fanatical Zionists who are gaining increasing influence in our
military and intelligence command structures.

The scenario prescribed by Westmoreland is a perfect fit for what
we have observed. It would be very easy for the CIA to infiltrate
"agents provocateur" among genuine Islamic fundamentalists using
their loyal client, Pakistan's ISI, as the intermediary. With ISI
support the provocateurs could quickly gain leadership status.
Then all you need is the political clout to shut down any
investigation by the CIA or FBI that might threaten the operation.
Mohammed Atta is an obvious provocateur, operating very openly and
deliberately leaving a trail of damning evidence. His strange
double life as a zealous Islamic fundamentalist on the one hand
and wild, fully westernized party animal on the other becomes
completely coherent in this context.

Not only are there precedents for this general kind of "false
flag" provocation - there are even precedents specifically for the
framing of Arabs for terrorist attacks against the United States
that in fact were perpetrated by Zionist extremists with the aim
of poisoning US relations with the Arab states. The Lavon Affair
involved a series of bombings of American and British institutions
in Egypt in 1954. These terrorist attacks were ordered by the head
of Israeli intelligence with the aim of making it appear that they
were perpetrated by Egyptian nationalists. The idea was to damage
relations between Egypt and the US and Britain. [See for example,
"Israel's Sacred Terrorism", Livia Rokach, Chapter 7:].

Of course, in the case of September 11, the Zionists could only
have hoped to pull this off with very highly placed and determined
assistance from within our own military and intelligence
organizations. I believe that this was provided by the alliance
of extreme militarists and fanatical Zionists surrounding Vice
President Dick Cheney, as discussed above.

In considering this evidence it's important to recognize just how
corrupt our intelligence establishment has become. One huge scandal
that has never been addressed is narcotics trafficking and money
laundering by the CIA. Agency involvement in large scale heroin
trafficking started in Laos during the Vietnam war. This has been
known for decades; a good reference is Professor William Chambliss'
presidential address to the American Society of Criminology in 1988:

During the campaign in Afghanistan CIA heroin trafficking
accelerated, and the United States was flooded with Afghan heroin.
Alfred McCoy, Professor of Southeast Asian History at the University
of Wisconsin, Madison, has discussed this problem, and the central
role this played in the administration of George Bush Sr:

First of all, I think the Laos parallel is very strong in
the Iran-Contra operation ... All the personnel that are
involved in that operation are Laos veterans. Ted Shackley,
Thomas Clines, Oliver North, Richard Secord - they all
served in Laos during thirteen-year war. They are all part
of that policy of integrating narcotics and being
complicitous in the narcotics trade in the furtherance of
covert action.

[ See Also, "The Politics of Heroin, CIA Complicity in the
Global Drug Trade", Alfred W. McCoy, Lawrence Hill Books,
NY 1991 ]

The CIA also became very active in smuggling coc aine from Latin
America during this period, and the proceeds were used among other
things to fund the Contra guerillas in Nicauragua.
["Whiteout, The CIA Drugs and the Press", Cockburn & St. Clair,
Verson, London 1998]

Notoriously, George Bush Jr. has surrounded himself with officials
associated with the worst scandals involving covert operations of
his father's administration, including the Iran-Contra scandal.
These officials include men like Richard Armitage, Elliott Abrams
(convicted of two misdemeanors), John Poindexter (convicted on five
felony charges), and Richard Secord (convicted on six felony
charges). (Unfortunately most of these convictions were later
overturned on the technicality that they were contaminated by
immunized testimony before congressional committees.) These men
were active in formulating policy at the very time our government
started to pump money into the ISI and to cultivate this agency as
a client. Now they are choosing to simply ignore the fact that it
is their own client and ally who funded the September 11 attacks.
Noted historian Theodore Draper has written of Iran-Contra and the
related pattern of criminal activity in the White House:

If ever the constitutional democracy of the United States
States is overthrown, we now have a better idea of how
this is likely to be done. During the course of the Iran-
Contra affairs, from 1984 to 1986, something in the nature
of a junta was at work inside the U.S. government. We
usually think of a junta as plotting to overthrow a
president; this junta came into being to overthrow an
established constitutional rule of law with the help of a
president. The main lesson from this experience is that
the chief danger to our political system is from within,
not from without.

[Theodore Draper, Foreword to "The Iran-Contra Scandal,
The Declassified History", Kornbluh and Byrne eds.,
The New Press, 1993, NY, pg. xiii]

George Bush Sr. himself, a few months before he granted presidential
pardons to his friends, put it even more graphically:

"If the people were to ever find out what we have done,
we would be chased down the streets and lynched."

[George H.W. Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah
McClendon Newsletter]

The former President and father of the current President has
put his finger on their own worst nightmare: the time tested
ability of the american people to raise holy hell when their
government abuses their trust.

Tim Howells

[ Note: Throughout this post is deeply indebted to the timeline compiled by the Cooperative Research Group (CGI). See: ]

Note: by Tim Howells"

mod edit to shorten links

[edit on 24-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 02:41 PM
Another Operation Northwoods......I've been saying that for nearly two years now.

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:49 PM
If it was only attacks in the US I might agree another "Operation Northwoods" even though Operation Northwood was never carried out just like hundreds of other insane plans the US dreamed up like invading Canada for example.

There has been Islamic fundamentalists attacks all over the globe UK, Spain, Russia, Pakistan and dozens of other countries pre and post 9-11.

There is no need to make up a Islamic Jihad against the West there clearly is a real one and has been pre 9-11 and more then enough hate for the US and the West in those Muslim areas to go around.

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:00 PM
Did you even read the thread, Shadow? I find it hard to believe that you can dismiss all of that damning info with just a few lines.

Peace, you get my last WATS for the month. That was an extremely well-researched post.

This is the kind of dot-connecting that I wish I could see more of, or even have the time or skill to do myself.

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:54 PM
Great research!!

WTS u bet!!

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Did you even read the thread, Shadow? I find it hard to believe that you can dismiss all of that damning info with just a few lines.

Oh yes I read through all of it and it happens to leave out some important events. Like for example no mention of the first attack on the WTC 9-11 was not the first time im sure you know. But thats a common tactic leave out parts that dont help your theory I cant blame him or her. Or the fact that Al Qaeda agents would likely be trained to blend into were ever they have established a sleeper cell.

I also have problem however with the title of this thread which isnt asking was 9-11 Islamic Jihad or another Operation Northwoods which it should have. There clearly is a "Islamic Jihad" going on in the world has been for years. The title is alittle misleading IMO but thats not my call.

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:36 PM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Oh yes I read through all of it and it happens to leave out some important events. Like for example no mention of the first attack on the WTC 9-11 was not the first time im sure you know. But thats a common tactic leave out parts that dont help your theory I cant blame him or her.

Do you know anything about this event, besides a bomb went off an al Qaeda was blamed?

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, a former army officer. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. He substantiated his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings. They are currrently in possession of the FBI.

Salem said he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office. The FBI has never contradicted Salem's account.

Source. (Emphasis mine.)

What a shame that you can't even point to the 1993 bombing without there being evidence of government foul.

And btw, there was never any evidence provided that al Qaeda did it, either. But then, that's a common tactic to leave out parts that don't help your theory. I can't blame you.

Edited to add emphasis to the external quote, so you wouldn't miss that part.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:46 PM
Oh yes Alleged FBI foreknowledge from Wikipedia man how come I didnt take that as a fact.

Even if that was proven fact it would still wouldnt prove there where no Muslims planning a " Islamic Jihad" attack against the WTC. Would that be proof the FBI messed up sure but whats new about that.

I could cite dozens of examples where the FBI screwed up.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:08 PM
Yeah, so why don't you cite some hard evidence that al Qaeda was behind the '93 bombing?

Don't leave me any room for doubt, now.

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:16 PM
Did I ever say Al Qaeda was behind the '93 bombing?

All I said was muslims which would equal = Islamist terrorists which would make it a Islamic Jihad.

I dont have to prove the offical story to you perhaps you should read your own link to Wikipedia alittle better It clearly says who was behind it. Or are we only suppose to read and believe the parts you quote and forget about the rest of your link?

Your the one that has to produce some hard evidence if your trying to debunk the offical story.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 11:40 PM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Your the one that has to produce some hard evidence if your trying to debunk the offical story.


Why should it always be the people's burden to debunk what their government says, when their government doesn't offer any evidence for what it says in the first place?

This is their job; not ours. That's the kind of crap we pay the FBI and CIA for.

Btw, if you're going to throw around accusations that anyone was behind that bombing, you should offer some evidence. Otherwise it's a little unfair to those whom you're accusing, no? Innocent until proven guilty been thrown out the window?

[edit on 25-3-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:54 AM
Wow what a great thread , ty to this person if your still around

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:01 AM
Strange as i went to.check.for.this.thread on the forums its completly removed

new topics
top topics

log in