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.

 

Modus Operandi

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
First, lets get a basic context of the phrase:

Modus operandi (often used in the abbreviated form MO) is a Latin phrase, approximately translatable as "mode of operation." It is used in police work to describe a criminal's characteristic patterns and style of work. The term is also commonly used in the United States of America in a non-criminal sense to describe someone's habits

First we must establish the MO for entering a non popular war. Pearl Harbor is my first case. In the late 90's when I was attending college, one of my professors was a PHD in military history. He gave us the strait talk about pearl harbor. He explained that we needed to get into war but it was unpopular, and FDR would only go into war if it was on our soil. A plan was concocted that would provoke the Japaneese into attacking, and then the strike was let to take place. There were a few ships in our fleet that were not in Pearl Harbor the morning of the attacks. I do not expect you to rely on 2nd hand testimony, this information has been FOIA'd and then amazingly reclassified:

“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” was Roosevelt’s famous campaign statement of 1940. He wasn’t being ingenuous. FDR’s military and State Department leaders were agreeing that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. In White House meetings the strong feeling was that America needed a call to action. This is not what the public wanted, though. Eighty to ninety percent of the American people wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war.

So this was dreampt up:

According to Day Of Deceit, in October 1940 FDR adopted a specific strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii.

Source
I would like to mention (slightly off topic) that this book received a 70% approval rating. Coincidentally 70% is the lower end of "reasonable doubt".

The first attempt to quantify reasonable doubt was made by Simon in 1970.... From this, she gauged that the cutoff for reasonable doubt fell somewhere between the highest likelihood of guilt matched to an innocent verdict and the lowest likelihood of guilt matched to a guilty verdict. From these samples, Simon concluded that the standard was between .70 and .74.

Either way, it was enough to get FOIA requests reniged...

Immediately after Day of Deceit appeared in bookstores in 1999, NSA began withdrawing pre-Pearl Harbor documents from the Crane Files housed in Archives II. This means the government decided to continue 60 years of Pearl Harbor censorship. As of January 2002, over two dozen NSA withdrawal notices have triggered the removal of Pearl Harbor documents from public inspection.

Source

Secondly , I would like to cite the more known and recent information realting to MO, Operation Northwoods. In a nutshell, we planed false flag terrorist operations, which would be construed as an act of war:

Memo
More

The methodology in these 2 examples would lead to a very high likelyhood that the 911 scenario was similar, if not identical, to this:

United States wants to engage in an upopular war in the middle east. They provoke 'key players'. They deny the intel that an attack will happen, and aid the attack.

The only real varable between (the plans of) Northwoods and Pearl Harbor is that we 'assist' the perpetrators in one scenario and all out complete the task in another.

And finally Mr. Bush draws the conclusion for me...
Bush compares Pearl Harbor to 9/11 to back Iraq policy




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Not one reply? Not one debunker and not one supporter? I made a post even the 'truthers' wont touch? Is it to scary to associate your name with this thread?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
That's the thing about the truth. It's difficult to debunk.

Edit: maybe if you put in the title something about holograms or pods, you'd get some posters. /sarcasm

[edit on 8/29/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
[give us time to read it...]


alot of people agree with everything you've pointed out,alot of people also already know the fact's you've pointed out,so lack of response might be because this has been talked about for years already.. but i do think you did a hellava job at your findings. nice work.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
great post!!!
i agree with you about the lihop/mihop aspect of it as well (i think that's what you were referring to when you mention that the we 'complete(d) the task'. i think that if you look at it logically, it couldn't have been a simple lihop scenario. it seems highly unlikely that the terrorists (if there really were any involved with the incidents on 9-11) would have the inside information on the drills being performed that day without the govt. releasing it to them. and if you take that assumption a step farther, it becomes more nefarious. assume that they did have inside information. why then, with inside information, would they attack the part of the pentagon that was being renovated and was not fully staffed? you could see the construction equipment from the road. it was not classified info. it seems that the perps would want the highest body count possible, right? are we seriously expected to believe that the perps planned this out so methodically and did NO RECON ON THE PENTAGON BEFORE THEY HIT IT?



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
i'm not really sure how they got the inside info. in the 1993 bombings they (the FBI) had a guy on the inside and were supposed to stop the attack but didn't.

amazingly this also fits the MO of 'knew about but did not stop attack'.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
i'm looking around for the source, but i remember reading that the f.b.i. actually supplied the explosives (that's what i believe they were referring to when they're referring to substituting some other harmless powder).



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Showboating Teresius, showboating. Oh my God they struck the Pentagon!
(The triple reinforced less inhabited side by pure coincidence)
This means WWWAAAARRRRR
Bloody hell
I'd really like to know how a 757 only poked a 20 diameter hole in that puppy with no grass damage. I got a benjamin for anyone who can explain that to me.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
It was ALL show. Just as how 1000 jap planes could get about our radar in Honolulu. Much data has been discovered that the Towers were a huge drain on NY. Unable to fill offices, ineffecient, and difficult to cool. We kill us so we can go kill them. Lovely.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
i have heard rumors about the twin towers needing all that love, the fireproofing being the main problem.

i wonder if our pre pearl harbor fleet needed replaced also? at first i thought the towers costing money and being targeted for that reason would supply motive only, but if the fleet needed renovation also that would support MO and motive...

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed plotted to use the same MO (according to his confession) as 911 on several other targets. it only makes sense that they weren't chosen if there was any 'leveredge' from 'the inside'.

if anyone has any info on the problems of the wtc towers that would be great. please dont just say 'it would cost a billion dollars to strip the fireproofing'. i don't mind if its brought up but please back it up. this thread has been pleasantly debunker free and i'd like to keep it that way.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Not one reply? Not one debunker and not one supporter? I made a post even the 'truthers' wont touch? Is it to scary to associate your name with this thread?


It's not even worth debunking, really, but I'm bored, so here goes.

What logic calls for getting into the war in the Pacific on the chance that Hitler would declare war on the US? (Remember, we didn't ask for a declaration of war on Germany until AFTER they had declared war on us.)

Also, why would FDR "just let it happen"? After all, an successful defense against at "sneak attack" would have kept the fleet intact and still provided a causus belli.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

It's not even worth debunking, really, but I'm bored, so here goes.

What logic calls for getting into the war in the Pacific on the chance that Hitler would declare war on the US? (Remember, we didn't ask for a declaration of war on Germany until AFTER they had declared war on us.)


The logic of imperial expansion. The US had already taken Hawaii and (in an utter bloodbath) the Philippines.

But more to the point, Japan and Germany were allies. To be at war with one is to be inevitably at war with the other.

Japan was a major naval power in an arena (the Pacific) where the US wanted primacy, They were trying to create a unified East Asia in the same way Hitler was trying to unify Eurpoe. Through conquest.

Bear in mind that the way FDR provoked Japan into attacking was to disrupt their supplies of fuel for their ships.


Also, why would FDR "just let it happen"? After all, an successful defense against at "sneak attack" would have kept the fleet intact and still provided a causus belli.


Drama. It had to be a "day that would live in infamy". That's how you stampede public opinion.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

posted by Gawdzilla
Also, why would FDR "just let it happen"? After all, an successful defense against at "sneak attack" would have kept the fleet intact and still provided a causus belli.


posted by rich23
Drama. It had to be a "day that would live in infamy". That's how you stampede public opinion.


Which is exactly why the NeoCONs, PNAC, and the NWO Corporate Elite needed a 'New Pearl Harbor Event'.

Drama. Shock & Awe to stampede public opinion. Enough drama and fear to frighten the American people into submission. It worked real well on the majority. Still does for many Americans. There was wide spread fear and trembling everytime Homeland Security and its Russian leader (Chertoff means of the devil in Russian) mentioned the color alerts or duct tape to prevent the anthrax attacks, which were also staged by the same 9-11 perps.





[edit on 4/6/09 by SPreston]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

It's not even worth debunking, really, but I'm bored, so here goes.

What logic calls for getting into the war in the Pacific on the chance that Hitler would declare war on the US? (Remember, we didn't ask for a declaration of war on Germany until AFTER they had declared war on us.)


The logic of imperial expansion. The US had already taken Hawaii and (in an utter bloodbath) the Philippines.

But more to the point, Japan and Germany were allies. To be at war with one is to be inevitably at war with the other.

Japan was a major naval power in an arena (the Pacific) where the US wanted primacy, They were trying to create a unified East Asia in the same way Hitler was trying to unify Eurpoe. Through conquest.

Bear in mind that the way FDR provoked Japan into attacking was to disrupt their supplies of fuel for their ships.


Also, why would FDR "just let it happen"? After all, an successful defense against at "sneak attack" would have kept the fleet intact and still provided a causus belli.


Drama. It had to be a "day that would live in infamy". That's how you stampede public opinion.


The US was barely holding its own right then, they weren't interested in expansion. So that bit of "logic" is a fail.

As for the embargo on fuel to Japan, it was Congressional Republicans who demanded an embargo, not FDR. (Didn't know that, did you?)

Drama? Killing thousands of soldiers and sailors is "drama"? What a screwed up world some of us live in. There would have been no need to loose a single American life to get us into the war. The successful repelling of a sneak attack would have given FDR much more "face" than a successful surprise attack. Why is that so hard to understand? Because the reality is ignored by "true believers" who just want to cling to every excuse, even the stupid ones, to support their theory.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The US was barely holding its own right then, they weren't interested in expansion. So that bit of "logic" is a fail.


Officially, the US is never interested in expansion. Officially, Hawaii and the Philippines were "liberated" rather than conquered. If you have anything to back that statement up with, I'd rather like to see it before having it dismissed as a "fail". The Us was coming back from a depression, but nothing stimulates the economy like a good war.

The US has constantly sought to impose its economic and/or military hegemony wherever it can get away with it. Ever heard of Brigadier-General Smedley D. Butler? He said,


"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."[


The US, as I've said was coming out of a depression but another war would be a great stimulus to the economy. The US is addicted to war, both economically and to some extent psychologically.

As for evidence that there was plenty of warning that the attack was coming, you could have a look at this page, for example:




  • 27 January 1941, Dr. Ricardo Shreiber, the Peruvian envoy in Tokyo told Max Bishop, third secretary of the US embassy that he had just learned from his intelligence sources that there was a war plan involving a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
  • 31 March 1941 - A Navy report by Bellinger and Martin predicted that if Japan made war on the US, they would strike Pearl Harbor without warning at dawn with aircraft from a maximum of 6 carriers. For years Navy planners had assumed that Japan, on the outbreak of war, would strike the American fleet wherever it was - it was the greatest danger from Japan. The fleet was the only threat to Japan's plans. The fleet at Pearl Harbor was the only High Value Target. Logically, Japan couldn't engage in any major operation with the American fleet on its flank. Initial seriously crippling attacks on the US fleet in Hawaii would be the only chance the Japanese military would have for eventual victory. The strategic options for the Japanese were not unlimited.
  • 10 July - US Military Attache Smith-Hutton at Tokyo reported Japanese Navy secretly practicing aircraft torpedo attacks against capital ships in Ariake Bay. The bay closely resembles Pearl Harbor.
  • July - The US Military Attache in Mexico forwarded a report that the Japanese were constructing special small submarines for attacking the American fleet in Pearl Harbor, and that a training program then under way included towing them from Japan to positions off the Hawaiian Islands, where they practiced surfacing and submerging.
  • 24 September 1941, the "bomb plot" message in J-19 code from Japan Naval Intelligence to Japan' s consul general in Honolulu requesting grid of exact locations of ships pinpointed for the benefit of bombardiers and torpedo pilots was deciphered. There was no reason to know the EXACT location of ships in harbor, unless to attack them - it was a dead giveaway. Chief of War Plans Turner and Chief of Naval Operations Stark repeatedly kept it and warnings based on it ... from being passed to Hawaii. The chief of Naval Intelligence Captain Kirk was replaced because he insisted on warning HI.


And then there's this page,, with other useful data:


On 7 October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote the eight-action memo.

This memo outlined eight different steps the United States could do that he predicted would lead to an attack by Japan on the United States. The day after this memo was giving to Franklin D. Roosevelt, he began to implement these steps. By the time that Japan finally attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, all eight steps had occurred (Willy 1). The eight steps consisted of two main subject areas; the first being a sign of United States military preparedness and threat of attack, the second being a forceful control on Japans trade and economy. The main subject area of the eight-action memo was the sign of United States military preparedness and threat of attack. McCollum called for the United States to make arrangements with both Britain (Action A) and Holland (Action B), for the use of military facilities and acquisition of supplies in both Singapore and Indonesia.


Japan had already threatened Dutch interests in the Far East: The US would be sitting pretty to take control of those interests in the guise of helping the Dutch fight off the Japanese. Expansionism.

And of course, the US wound up with plenty of military bases in Japan, and across the Pacific.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join