Flight Of The Bumble Planes

by Snake Plissken
as told to Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum

http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, March, 2002
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes

To hear the Bumble Planes, press here 

March 10, 2002 -- Eureka!  One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together.  He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon
By George, I think he's got it!

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days.  With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits.  My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind: 

Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done.  The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences.  This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out.  In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology.
(John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.) 

In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.

Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee.  You can't do it.  You get confused.   Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees.  Matter of fact, you could even call Operation 911 Flight of the Bumble Planes. 

I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth.  Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage).  All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident.  Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead. 

THE CLUE

First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights:  Many have remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets.  You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists?  Nuts.  That's your first clue. 

Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash:  The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw.  You could hear it in her voice.  If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up.  She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower.  She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane. 

[ CV cmments: 
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report:  "We were told it was a light commuter airplane.  It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html ]

Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane.  So the first eyewitness's story got shellacked. 

Third clue -- Pentagon Crash:  The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport.  No mention of a plane. 

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon.  Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC.  A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet. 

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway.  It was an American Airlines passenger jet.  Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking.  And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low.  And that story paved the way for the official truth.

Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site :  By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon.  What's the problem?   The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines. 

[CV comments: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across. 

US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg ]

After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could see the plane.  The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel and glass.  The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building.  We should have seen wing wreckage.  But there was none. 

[CV comments:
I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after 9-11.  After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, <jadinardo@hotmail.com>.  By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11.  Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to install.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/firetruck.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/capitolview.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/cars-damaged.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2

The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with contemporaneously published photos in the popular press.  See, for example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg

and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site.  It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage.  Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the Pentagon. 

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/planepiece.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon.  Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear.  Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes.  Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition. 

OK.  Now back to Snake Plissken]

Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash:  As you point out in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS

[http://www.Public-action.com/911/robotplane.html ] 

the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless.  "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car ..."  The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and dumber," and told them to quit taking lessons.

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon.  The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its target.  The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots. 

Something is wrong here.  Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots.  That is your fifth clue.

Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off:  As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude.  But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible.  Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked?  You are looking at your sixth clue.

[Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets?   Part 1
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks:  As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes.   [See above-cited URL.]  That's your seventh clue.

Eighth Clue  -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit :  Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit.  The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner.  Yet the first plane struck its target dead center.   That's your eighth clue.

[See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1/southtowerpath.jpg ]

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

*  A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet.  It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types.  Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day.  Easy to do.  Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold.  Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down.  There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this:  Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command.  There is a national emergency.  We are under terrorist attack.  Turn off your transponders.  Maintain radio silence.  Here is your new flight plan.  You will land at [name] military air base."

*  The pilots turn off the transponders.  The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes.  Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now. 

*  What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths?  We'll never see the real records, for sure.  But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other.  If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that:  As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude.  The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes.  Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane.  Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive.  The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed.  Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly. 

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the search engine.]

* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown into the first WTC tower.  That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw. 

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet,  is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower. 

Beautiful!  Everyone has pictures of that. 

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower?  Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet.  The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary.  They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77. 

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen.  Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77.  Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93.  If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course. 

* Flight 93 is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which.  Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions.  Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden.  No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course. 

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77). 

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ... 

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up.  The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said.  Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash.  But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works. 

WHY DO IT THAT WAY?

So there you have it.  Not four planes.  More than four planes.  There were the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles.  Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets. 

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control.  You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough.  The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled. 

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS?   Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people.  Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight.  Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four.  There would be too many chances of things going wrong.   Plane substitution would be much simpler.  You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth.  That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars. 

[CV commens:
Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars." Cited in Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 2.  See Eberhart testimony at:
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html ]

Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the targets.  Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not.  You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown.  A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors.  The flight computer flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections. 

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower.  An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake.  The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path.  What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.

[http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash.  That's a pipe dream.  Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap heap.  Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact. 

OTHER DETAILS

* Pentagon Security Photos :  On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001.  Look at the photos:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. ) 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56670-2002Mar7.html

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible. 

*   Fireman's Video of First Crash.  The NBC eyewitness said the plane that few into the North tower was small.  This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:

http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.gp.med.asf

[Note to reader:  There are other versions of this clip on the Internet, but I have been unable to find one I can verify as the original clip.  If you can find a verifiable copy, let me know.  CV <SkyWriter@Public.Action.com>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work.  The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound.  The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings. 

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC?  I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane.  The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame.  After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates.  At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped.  The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet.  But more important:  if the impact of the jet made 
the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame. 

[http://public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg
and
http://public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]

  The Hijackers:  I have read reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives is pure bull.  But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still alive, so let's move on. 

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country.  Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared.  Then  mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes.  That would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights.  The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]

Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but nobody's perfect. 

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash.  Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose.  So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die.  There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

[Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]

Heroic, wasn't it?  And not a dry hanky in the house.  The heroes of modern America.  A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officer ...

But why did it have to be suicide heroism?  "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them."  It makes a better story, of course.  "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die?  The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report.  They weren't dead.  If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane?  Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"?  But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog".  And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag.  It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die.  But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too.  And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives.  Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet.  Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html ]

And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation.  How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy.  That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service. 

["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE) 
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93 ]

Is this all too much for your to swallow?  Don't you believe people would conspire to pull all this off?  Well, look at the stakes.  This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth.  All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that is willing to be deceived. 

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer.  When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back.  That's normal.  That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing.  He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet.  If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even
himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win.  He's trained that way. 

The only thing that matters is the Objective.  Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do.  All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts.  Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to.  If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

911 Lies exposed at http://www.public-action.com

·         Did NORAD Send The "Suicide" Jets? Part 1: Inside Job  

·         Did NORAD Send The "Suicide" Jets? Part 2:  The Dumb Blondes  

·         Operation 911:  NO SUICIDE PILOTS  

·         911 Terror: Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics  

·         Firemen's Half-Baked Assault On Cover-Up  

·         The Split Second Error & The Blockbuster  

·         Operation Northwoods: The Counterfeit  

·         The Taliban Home Video  

·         Bin Laden:  "***AUTHENTIC INTERVIEW***  

·         Osama bin Surplus  

·         Osama bin CIA Agent  

·         Press Uses Actors In War On Islam  

·         The Traitors Among Us  

·         Anti-war.com;  Slyly Justifying War On Islam 

OVERVIEW http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/overview.html 

I want to start out by responding to that tiny percentage of negative email I

receive that accuses me of being anti American. I'm not. I think America is a

great place, and the American people by and large are to be admired.

What I am against is any government that lies to its people. This includes

the government of the United States, which, contrary to Bill Clinton's

comments on the matter, is not the same thing as the country. The country is

the people. The country is the land. The country is those who build, teach,

heal, grow, manufacture, and along the way raise a family. The United States

is not found in the marble buildings along the Potomac. The United States is

found in the homes and hearts of 266 million Americans.

The government, its self delusions of grandeur aside, is nothing but a

custodian, and a temporary one, hired by the people to care for our nation,

and if that custodian fails in that job, like any menial, they should be

replaced. Our nation did just that once before, in 1776, and it must be

remembered that those who were called "Patriot" were those who stood with the

people of the nation, not with the corrupted government.

There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the government, as

custodian of the nation, to lie to the people. It's just not in there. And

yet the government of the United States has been caught repeatedly lying to

the people of the nation in recent years, lying about Vince Foster , TWA 800

, Waco , Martin Luther King , John F. Kennedy , The Oklahoma City Bombing ,

and others too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say that if the government

of the United States finds itself with a credibility problem, it has only

itself to blame.

When the government of the United States lies to the people, it acts

illegally and un-Constitutionally and by the strict interpretation of that

document ceases to be the legal government of the land. But let us set that

aside for the moment and look at why the US Government lies to the people and

what such lies have accomplished in the past. Only then can we understand why

the reasoning citizen must have serious doubt we are being told the truth by

the government in the present case.

Some of the biggest lies told by the government of the United States are

those used to initiate a war. Modern pundits keep equating the attacks of

9/11 to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This is a slippery, indeed

dangerous analogy, since it has been proven in recent years, by way of

recently declassified documents, that FDR deliberately maneuvered Japan into

the attack on Pearl Harbor and kept the Hawaii commanders from knowing of the

attack so that there would be plenty of dead bodies with which to enrage

Americans into support of a war that as of December 6th, 1941, nobody wanted.

American boys, shouting "Remember Pearl Harbor", marched off to war. Many did

not come back.

The Spanish/American war was likewise started with deception. The Hearst

Newspapers flooded the land with stories of Spanish abuses of the Cuban

people; stories which turned out to be fictional and which were published

solely to fan the flames of a war, not for the benefit of the Cuban people,

but to enlarge American territory and influence. When USS Maine exploded in

Havana Harbor, the Captain of that ship insisted that the explosion was not

the result of any attack. But he was shouted down by the press, and American

boys, shouting "Remember The Maine", marched off to war. Many did not come

back. And all because of a lie. In 1975, a review of the evidence by admiral

Hyman Rickover, the father of the modern nuclear Navy, concluded that there

hadn't been any Spanish mine at all, just as the Maine's Captain had

reported. The ships had suffered a fire in a coal bunker, detonating the

ship's magazine, imprudently located nearby.

The same with the Gulf of Tonkin. Even as Johnson exhorted the American

people to respond to the torpedo attack on the Maddox, Johnson knew there

hadn't really been any torpedoes, not had the USS Maddox been as innocent as

claimed. American boys again marched off to war. Many did not come back.

Following the Bay of Pigs, which was by any definition an invasion of a

foreign nation, the US Joint Chiefs proposed staging fake terrorist attacks

that would be blamed on Cuba, to build support for a second invasion.

Of course, there is nothing new about politicians using terror on their own

citizens to get what they want. The trick goes back to Roman times, and even

Hitler found it useful.

So, let's take a moment to push aside those flags being held in front of our

eyes like blindfold and take a close look at the current situation.

The United States government, despite nice sounding speeches about freedom

and Democracy, has a record of overthrowing actual working Democracies and

supporting outright dictatorships. The US, for example, backed Cuban Dictator

Batista, Panama's Noriega, Chile's Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, and the

dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, to name just a few. The US backed these

regimes because the dictators were willing to do favors for American

multi-national corporations. Batista, for example, kept the prices of Cuban

agricultural products below the prevailing market rate. This made American

companies like United Fruit and PepsiCo more profitable, at the expense of

the Cuban farmers, who eventually revolted, bringing Castro to power. Castro

let the market set the price of Cuban produce, whereupon the United States

declared an embargo and invaded at the Bay of Pigs. Then we wonder why the

Cuban people may not like us.

Another classic example of US foreign policy as it really is was South

America. Chile had a working democracy under Allende. But US corporate

interests saw a greater chance for profits if the Democracy were to be

replaced by a dictator friendly to US interests. This led to the US backed

coup, complete with torture squads trained by US experts. Henry Kissenger

flat out stated that the United States had a right to intervene in any

Democracy that voted contrary to American interests, adding, "The issues are

much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for

themselves."

Same deal in Iran. The US Government backed the Shah of Iran. The rich got

richer, the poor got poorer (same as in the United States) and the people of

Iran revolted, bringing the Ayatollah Khomeini to power. Iran was our friend,

now it's our enemy.

The same with Iraq, once our friend, and now our enemy. Indeed, the United

States keeps switching sides so often, with the American people expected to

follow along like lemmings, that one is reminded of George Orwell's "1984" in

which the perpetually warring nations are always changing allegiance, and the

war weary people wake up one morning to be told, "East Asia is our friend.

East Asia has always been our friend. Eurasia is the enemy, and always has

been."

This brings us to Osama Bin Laden.

Osama is the modern equivalent of Orwell's "Emmanual Goldstien", the boogie

man on whom the government blames everything. Even though careful observers

have long known the United States economy was poised for a major decline, the

media is spinning the current economic woes as a direct result of the attacks

on the World Trade Towers, in the hopes that the general public will be

stupid enough to believe it.

If Orwell is not to your taste, then let's try L. Frank Baum and the "Wizard

Of Oz", who used a paper mache' mask to scare Dorothy Gale into doing war

with the Wicked Witch of the West, something farm girls would not normally be

wise to do. After all, witches have air superiority!

Likewise, Osama appears to be a manufactured monster, designed to scare us

into doing things we otherwise would not so, including support a war, cease

criticizing the government, and surrender our freedoms. Contrary to the

public media image of Osama, he is not a lifelong religious fanatic. At the

time the United States covert intervention in Afghanistan triggered the

Soviet invasion , Osama, like the rest of his family, was living a

westernized lifestyle. One of Osama's brothers was a business partner with

the son of the then vice-president and former head of the CIA, George H. W.

Bush. The CIA needed a front man in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviets, since

Vietnam was too fresh a memory for the American people to tolerate another

war, especially since the lid had just been blown off of the COINTELPRO

scandal , revealing the criminal actions the FBI had engaged in to silence

opposition to that war. So, trained and financed by the CIA, Osama quit being

a westernized Saudi and seemingly overnight became a fanatical Muslim and

financier/leader of the fight against the Soviets, waging an indirect war on

behalf of the United States. Osama was a creation of the CIA and we only have

the CIA's word that Osama isn't still in their employ. However, as another

CIA asset, David Ferrie, pointed out just prior to his own assassination, you

don't leave the agency. Once you are in, you are in for life!

Afghanistan is an interesting place. It has natural gas, petroleum, coal,

copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious

and semi precious stones, and more opium than the Burmese Golden Triangle. It

is also one of the most deadly places on Earth, having destroyed every

invading army since the time of Alexander the Great!

Afghanistan also sits on the proposed route for an oil pipeline which would

allow the vast oil reserves sitting under the Caspian Sea to be brought to

market, and it is no secret that a consortium of American oil companies want

to build that pipeline. However, as John J. Maresca, vice president of

international relations, Unocal Corporation, flat out told Congress in 1998,

the pipeline would not be built until the Taliban was removed as the

government in Afghanistan, even though the United States had installed the

Taliban as part of the anti-Soviet strategy.

When one considers the size of the Caspian oil fields, estimated at about 500

years' worth at present rates of consumption, one finds ample motive to start

a war of conquest for that wealth. Compared to the trillions of dollars in

oil profits which will flow from that pipeline stretching across Afghanistan,

the cost of new World Trade Towers and a few thousand lives is a small price

to pay to those who lust for wealth beyond dreams of avarice.

Long before the attacks on the World Trade Towers, the United States was

already announcing that there would be a war. While the American people were

kept distracted by "All Condit All The Time" in the American press, the

foreign press was reporting as early as March 2001 that the United States was

planning to invade Afghanistan in October. and here it is, October. and here

the United States is invading. and just like with FDR, a provocation occurred

just when the government of the United States most needed one to anger the

people into support of a war for oil.

No sooner had the planes crashed into the World Trade Towers than the media

was reporting official statements of suspicion that Osama Bin Laden was

behind the attacks. The FBI issued names of suspected hijackers, none of

which appeared on the actual passenger lists, and all based on what the FBI

admits were forged IDs using stolen identities. Moreover, the men used those

stolen identities the night before the attacks to visit strip bars, making so

much noise that they would have to be noticed, ensuring that the credit card

slips using the stolen names would be turned over to police. When Flight

Attendant Madeline Sweeney phoned the ground from her hijacked plane, she

gave the seat numbers of the hijackers. The passengers assigned to those

seats do not appear on the FBI's list of suspects. Then there was that

suitcase, appearing out of nowhere and assumed to have been left off of one

of the crashed planes by accident, containing a flight manual, a Koran, and a

handwritten letter which any scholar of Islam would recognize was written by

someone ignorant of the religion.

In short, the evidence that purports to link the attacks on the World Trade

Towers with Osama appears to be planted, with the scene of the crime looking

like the set of a cheap detective movie, with a vital clue always carefully

positioned within camera view.

Because of the phony IDs, we do not really know who was on those airplanes,

or whom they worked for.

But it is very obvious whom we are all supposed to blame; the people sitting

on that oil pipeline right of way! So great is the rush to war in Afghanistan

that Osama has himself almost become secondary in the media campaign to sell

us all on hatred of the Afghani people. Indeed it isn't Osama who terrorizes

Americans, it is the American media, waving fear all over the place. Yes,

Anthrax is nasty, but would a real Anthrax attack harm so few people? More

people have been gunned down in Washington DC in the last 6 weeks than have

died by Anthrax. More people are sick with Dengue fever on Maui than are sick

with Anthrax. Yet Anthrax, and the fear it is designed to cause, get the

headlines, to keep the public scared, so scared that they cannot think.

Because once the people stop being terrorized by the media and start to

think, they'll realize that it makes no more moral sense to bomb the Afghani

people over what crimes Osama has done than it makes to bomb people of

Chicago over the crimes the Mafia does. And once the American people realize

this, they'll start to wonder what the real reason for bombing the Afghani

people might be. The they'll start paying attention to John J. Maresca's

comments before congress about that oil pipeline. Then the American people

will notice those foreign news articles that announced the US invasion of

Afghanistan last spring. Then the American people will realize that the

timing of the attacks on the World Trade Towers is just a little too

convenient to the already scheduled invasion.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/overview.html 

And that is when the American people will realize that, once again, they are

being lied to swindle them out of their support for a war, a war not fought