It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MOS: Smoking Gun Evidence for US-Sponsored 9/11

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

US planned attack on Taleban
Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

[...]

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.


During this time, there were several online rumors in play reporting that, in an interview with French authors Jean Charles and Brisard Guillaume Dasquie, Naziz Naik (then Pakistan's Foreign Minister) claimed the U.S. representatives threatened, "either you accept our carpet of gold, or we will bury you under a carpet of bombs". At the time, this quite was dismissed as the worst kind of "conspiracy theories" in an effort to tie preemptive plans to attack Afghanistan being made before 9/11/2001.

But now, we learn this "conspiracy theory" was indeed true with confirmation of that very threat.

www.cbsnews.com...

Leaders of Pakistan’s Islamic political parties are threatening to launch fresh protests against the country’s military ruler General Pervez Musharraf following his claim in a "60 Minutes" interview that former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age."



What more of a clear signal do we need in an effort to understand that the attacks on U.S. civilian targets were a planned pretext to begin military action to gain control of Caspian fossil fuel supplies?

And how does this tidbit offer up that proof?

Easy my friends --

Throughout the history of U.S. military actions, there have been one of two events preceding all use of the military:
1) A build-up of public opinion manipulation through media sources
-or-
2) A major anger-generating event

Since #1 didn't happen, and there was hardly any mention of the Taleban or Afghanistan in the press, we can deduce that #2 was being planned... the attacks on 9/11/2001.




Stay tuned for more from Mister Old School.


[edit on 5-10-2006 by mister.old.school]

(edit to refine the title of this thread to something more eye-catching)

[edit on 5-10-2006 by mister.old.school]




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
To follow up with some additional information on the U.S. preplanning for the invasion of Afghanistan, here is another brick in the pretext wall:

India joins anti-Taliban coalition
By Rahul Bedi
15 March 2001


Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia's security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. "All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism," he said.


So when President Bush told the American people that "Everything had changed", because of the 9/11 attacks, in fact, nothing had changed -- not even the planned October date for invasion.




Stay tuned for more from Mister Old School.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I like to show you something...

www.gwu.edu...

This was made by Richard Clarke in December of 2000.

Think of this as equivalent to the NSC 68 or the Truman Doctrine.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Osama and those giving him shelter came into crosshairs well before sept. 11. And military tends to prepare lots of plans for all occassions - it helps speed up response. Do you know the War Plane Rainbow from 1920's/1930's had a variant Rainbow Black for a war with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth?
United Kingdom had plans that helped it to start military-grade sea transportation (ie forming up of convoys with escorts, forming up hunter groups against German corsairs etc.) in few days.
Pre-war Czechoslovakia also had lots of plans - from purely defensive to counterattack towards Wien, Dresden and on other directions.
Post-war Czechoslovakia did have lots of plans as well, in all variants for offensive and defensive.
I'd be more surprised had there not been any such plan. I won't call it "smoking gun evidence", though.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I believe you're missing the point.

If the U.S. government was intent on an invasion of Afghanistan in October (which the record proves), there would have been a "public relations" campaign to establish cause many months before the action.

Since there was no campaign to establish positive public opinion for military intervention, we can conclude the 9/11 "terror attacks" were anticipated as the the event that would indeed drive favorable public opinion for war.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

If the U.S. government was intent on an invasion of Afghanistan in October (which the record proves), there would have been a "public relations" campaign to establish cause many months before the action.


We invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11 attacks. This plan was not approved until September the 4th that was placed on the desk of President Bush. Richard Clarke setup this plan for the Bush administration coming in, in hopes of that they would use this plan against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Sadly they didn't take him seriously enough to do things earlier in around 8 months. Hence why there was no public relations campaign to persuade countries to join the future U.S. led campaign before 9/11.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
From the BBC, November 7th 2000:


British troops to join Gulf war games

In September 2001 an invading enemy force will be repulsed from the Gulf state of Oman.

Not a prediction of doom for the inhabitants of the eastern reaches of the Arabian peninsula, but plans for Operation Swift Sword - the biggest British overseas military exercise in living memory.

The six -week joint military exercises will involve the entire armed forces of Oman and 25,000 personnel from Britain's army, navy and air force.


Also from the article,


The countries of the southern Gulf rely on the West for military protection but thousands of Western defence jobs also rely on continued orders from the oil rich Gulf states.

As if to underline the point, this week alone both British Aerospace Systems and the British defence subsidiary Alvis vehicles have announced multi million dollar contracts with Oman.



news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Proves what? British troops were training (and sometimes fighting) in the Gulf region all the time after WWII, esp. in Oman and the Emirates. Oman is where the famous Mobat battle took place.
Of course, after the 1990-1991 affair the trainings got even more often.
And US troops were added to the mix.
Again, it's like claiming the Britain attacked Germany because Radar drills pre-WWII were simullating groups of German bombers
Actually you'd have even closer connection in such case



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I have never read that document that was linked, that was pretty cool. So where is the smoking gun again?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Proves what?


Proves nothing. It's another piece of information to take into consideration. Sometimes intelligent people like to look at a broader picture of things, though in doing so they also often get badgered by people who only look at incidents individually and try to rationally explain each one only in terms of itself. Just like the war games that took place on 9/11. More coincidences that can only be explained in terms of themselves and had nothing to do with each other, right?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
I believe you're missing the point.

If the U.S. government was intent on an invasion of Afghanistan in October (which the record proves), there would have been a "public relations" campaign to establish cause many months before the action.

Since there was no campaign to establish positive public opinion for military intervention, we can conclude the 9/11 "terror attacks" were anticipated as the the event that would indeed drive favorable public opinion for war.


....what you posted does not corroborate your claim...and even those things you posted are based on "claims" from other people, not evidence...

The Russian government "claimed" that if the U.S. found any nuclear weapons in Iraq, they were the ones who planted the evidence.... anyone who would have followed up what Russian defectors have been saying, know that the Russian government has been providing such weapons to Iraq and other countries, obviously this claim was to bring doubts to any evidence pointing to the Russian government being involved in providing illegal weapons to Saddam's regime.

Claims are not facts, they are "claims" regardless of how much people want to believe in them.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Throughout the history of U.S. military actions, there have been one of two events preceding all use of the military:
1) A build-up of public opinion manipulation through media sources
-or-
2) A major anger-generating event

"Throughout the history of U.S. militry actions," eh?
Care to list all those U.S. military actions that have occurred throughout the history of the U.S.? Till you do, your simply making an assumption.

But having said that, lets pretend that your assumption is correct. As such, here is a "throughout" the history of any modern world power, examples being France, Germany, Britian, and Russia, preceding a war, world war, or regional conflict, there has always been a build-up of public opinion manipulation through media sources and/or major anger/bias-generating events.

Ironic, huh?

Accordingly, does it mean that because conflict or war is preceded by such occurances that anything was planned?
I do believe that History would prove otherwise in most cases.
Again, ironic being that you invoked "history" to allegedly prove your assumption.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Again, ironic being that you invoked "history" to allegedly prove your assumption.

I'm not interested (for now) in looking at military actions by other world powers.

For the sake of discussion, why don't you select a war or significant military action in the past 100 years, and let's review the possibilities of manufactured pretexts or opinion?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I had been suspicious about the build up of negative news regarding Afghanistan and the Taliban for some time. On precisely September 10, 2001 I turned to my co-worker, and said these exact words "I don't know what it's gonna be, but they're planning something big for Afghanistan". In early reports on Sept 11 they were talking about cruise missile attacks & blackouts in Kabul, along with continuous flashing of osama's mugshot and terrorists training on monkeybars (!) The rest is history (?) It took me about 12 hours to get through the intial shock and click what was going on.

Tbh i was more expecting a staged ufo event at the time.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
I had been suspicious about the build up of negative news regarding Afghanistan


Won't it be because the situation in Afghanistan was going downhill? Our reporters were telling about it for quite a long time already.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Proves nothing.

If I call something "smoking gun evidence", I am suggesting it proves something.



It's another piece of information to take into consideration. Sometimes intelligent people like to look at a broader picture of things, though in doing so they also often get badgered by people who only look at incidents individually and try to rationally explain each one only in terms of itself. Just like the war games that took place on 9/11. More coincidences that can only be explained in terms of themselves and had nothing to do with each other, right?


May I know how the Allies have managed to catch the Germans on D-Day in a situation when...
*One Corps commander in the critical area was celebrating birthday
*Army Group commander was in Germany celebrating his wife's birthday
*war games on the theme of invasion to Normandy were planned for that day
*despite being ordered contrary, many of participants left their command posts already before the dawn to get there
*not a single radar was able to spot invasion fleet
*paradrops were at first thought to be downed bomber crews
*local commander of Kriegsmarine went to bed after writing in his diary he's 100% sure the invasion is impossible on that day...
etc?
Because, as you say, there were too much coincidencies so I guess it couldn't have happened naturally, right?
Every time lots of people are involved, there are also lots of coincidencies. Be it a disaster, a military operation, whatever. The number of coincidencies grows up with the number of people somehow involved.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by bsbray11
Proves nothing.

If I call something "smoking gun evidence", I am suggesting it proves something.


Well then there's your problem, lol, because I didn't say that!

In fact, what I posted wasn't even what was posted in the original post.


May I know how the Allies have managed to catch the Germans on D-Day in a situation when...
*One Corps commander in the critical area was celebrating birthday
*Army Group commander was in Germany celebrating his wife's birthday
*war games on the theme of invasion to Normandy were planned for that day
*despite being ordered contrary, many of participants left their command posts already before the dawn to get there
*not a single radar was able to spot invasion fleet
*paradrops were at first thought to be downed bomber crews
*local commander of Kriegsmarine went to bed after writing in his diary he's 100% sure the invasion is impossible on that day...


The birthdays are totally unrelated.

The other events led Hitler to wanting an investigation into the invasion for back-stabbing within his ranks. And this is after there had already been attempts to kill Hitler by his own generals.

Sort of defeats your point.

Also, I can point out many more "coincidences" than that anyway for 9/11, making that list seem rather tame. Fire "tests" in WTC7 that prevented the fire alarms from sounding, a financial tenant of WTC2 holding exercises while their CEO was escorted by military to Offutt AFB, exercises or wargames being carried out in airbases near important locations on 9/11, and of course the NORAD drills redirecting planes and affecting RADAR and interceptions, FEMA conducting an exercise that had them in Manhattan on 9/10 setting up command, the NRO conducting a plane-into-building exercise, Bush's cousin in the Towers being "rescheduled" the day before the attacks, potentially saving his life, Larry Silverstein out of his office that morning during the attacks, and others that slip my mind at the moment.

Even if you can provide examples of that in the past that are legitimate (which you have yet to do), it still would not explain away the above, as the point is that these things happening all at once, so related to each other and the events of 9/11 themselves, that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that they were merely coincidences. You agree with this at least, right? That the chances of all of those things lining up are far from reasonable? Try to actually think about it.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The birthdays are totally unrelated.

Now come on! It couldn't have been coincidence, could it? Must've been an illuminati conspiracy as it is so vastly improbable...



The other events led Hitler to wanting an investigation into the invasion for back-stabbing within his ranks. And this is after there had already been attempts to kill Hitler by his own generals.

Sort of defeats your point.

And this investigation ended how? Well? Even the Nazis have found out they were coincidencies, not conspiracy.
Sort of defeats your point


Btw to all the following points, you'll find amount of similar coincidencies in any large-scale event. The more people and institutions are involved, the more coincidencies. That simple.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by bsbray11
The birthdays are totally unrelated.

Now come on! It couldn't have been coincidence, could it? Must've been an illuminati conspiracy as it is so vastly improbable...


The "coincidences" pointed out with 9/11 at least relate to the events themselves. Birthdays would not. You're being unfair to the issue.


And this investigation ended how? Well? Even the Nazis have found out they were coincidencies, not conspiracy.


No, there was no investigation, as there was no time for one. Sorry. The issue remained unresolved; you cannot use it as an example.


Btw to all the following points, you'll find amount of similar coincidencies in any large-scale event. The more people and institutions are involved, the more coincidencies. That simple.


So you admit that NORAD, FEMA, and the NRO were all involved in the attacks?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join