Just in case anyone's paying attention and concerned I've abandoned this 'blog. I've been focussing on the Frustrating Fraud and with real life lately. Soooo... I don't have time to put together a proper post on the Lusitania like I'd intended, so here is a teaser, a few notes end excerts from Colin Simpson's 1972 The Lusitania.
Among the players we'll be looking at:
- Alfred Booth: Cunard Chairman
- George Booth: Deputy Director-General of the Ministry of Munitions, 1914-1919
- William Jennings Bryan: US Secretary of State 1914-1915
- Winston Churchill: First Lord of the Admiralty as of 1911, apparently among the prime, if not the prime, architect, of the British end of the Lusitania disaster set-up.
- Captain “Fairweather” Dow: demanded more coal in Dec 1914, took his case right to the Admiralty
- Lord Fisher, Churchill’s First Sea Lord: retired in 1911 – warnings to Churchill (p 31). Letter to Tirpitz March 1916: “I don’t blame you for the submarine business, I’d have done exactly the same myself.” (p 14).
- Captain Guy Gaunt: naval Attache at the British Embassy in Washington, “Hall’s deputy in America.”
- Capt. Reginald Hall: Director of British Naval intelligence as of Oct. 1914.
- Col. Edward M. House – proto-National Security Advider to President Wilson
- Robert M. Lansing: Advisor to the State Dept. on foreign territorial disputes and an errand boy for Wilson when Secretary of State Bryan wasn’t cooperative enough – uncle to Allan and John Foster Dulles, a chief architect of the American end of the Lusitania disaster set-up.
- US President Woodrow Wilson: Apparently down with the set-up but playing ambassadorial 14-points-compatible kind of plausible deniability.
Operation run from American end by Morgan interests working with Lansing, Edward Stettinius and representatives from “naval and military ordnance officers … attached to the British Consulate in New York.” [56] – “It is difficult to reconcile President Wilson’s well-publicized idealism and neutrality with his sanctioning of the Morgan operation.” [p51]
February 19 1913 – Cunard shipping line chairman Alfred Booth is called before Board of Admiralty, chaired by Lord Winston Churchill, and informed that the company’s deal with London to support the war effort was to be honored; effective immediately, their ships, including the Lusitania, were to be fitted with removable cannons and set to shipping war materiel and other aid across the Atlantic to create a semi-covert Anglo-American supply chain. At this point, Churchill told Booth that war was expected with Germany by September 1914. (p 25) War was finally declared on August 4 of that year, just after the German invasion of Belgium and a few weeks ahead of time.
By December 1914 – “Naval Intelligence was intercepting almost every German signal […] a stroke of good fortune had provided the admiralty with the official German naval codes and by the end of February 1915 Marconi had perfected a method of radio direction finding. […] by the end of January 1915, Hall was able to to advise the admiralty of the departure of each U-boat as it left for left for patrol.” [65]
On Churchill's book "The World Crisis:"
Simpson's excerpts: “The distinction between politics and strategy diminishes as the point of view is raised. At the summit true politics and strategy are one. The maneuver which brings an ally into the field is as serviceable as that which wins a great battle. The maneuver which gains an important strategic point may be less vauable than that which placates or overawes a dangerous neutral.” (35)
“The first British countermove, made on my responsibility […] was to deter the Germans from surface attack. The submerged U-Boat had to rely increasingly on underwater attak and thus ran the greater risk of mistaking neutral for British ships and of drowning neutral crews and thus embroiling Germany with other Great Powers.” (36)
Simpson: “The neutral to be “placated or overawed” was the United States. Churchill’s strategy was to goad the Germans into a confrontation with it, and by doing so he hoped at the very least to neutralize pro-German sentiment in America and to consolidate his source of supply.” (35-36)
Other moves by Churchill’s Navy to further increase such risks: - ignoring the long-established international “Cruiser Rules,” ordering all British ships to paint out their names an port of registry – fly neutral flags while in British waters (US flag usually) – mistreatment of U-Boat crews captured, denial of POW status, Churchill’s policy “prisoners should be taken as prisoner or shot, whichever is the most convenient.” made surrender of U-boats less likely and fighting more so – “the introduction of mystery” or Q-ships-military ships disguised as civilian (as of feb 1915) - one infamous reported Churchill policy: “in all actions, white flags should be fired upon with promptitude.” (37)
You can surely get the drift already...
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
THE BUSH FAMILY 12/7-9/11 CIRCUIT {masterlist}
In the course of my research on 9/11, the "new Pearl Harbor," and its namesake original, I stumbled across an intriguing confluence of events suggesting the crafting of a backdrop "New Day of Deceit" myth - whether intentional or not - by the people surrounding George Bush sr. This became one of my favorite discoveries, and along with an earlier and sinister "perfect Bush circle" surrounding America's entry into WWII, here is the double loop in chart form I did up as a circuit board. Beneath that, find a brief explanation for the elements of the chart and the connections between them. Follow the link for more detailed sub-potst.
The Elements of the Chart:
President (FD) Roosevelt, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and possibly Roosevelt's adviser and ambassador W. Averell Harriman (among others) acted on the Japan provocation plan put forth by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum at the Office of Naval Intelligence. The eight-point plan solidified existing intentions to bring down the Pearl Harbor attack and give the US an excuse to officially enter the Second World War on the side of the British and the Soviets. In addition to fighting the Nazis and their Japanese allies, the attack allowed the creation of an enduring "military-industrial complex" among its other profound transformationsof American society and economy with effects up to the present time.
War Secretary Stimson meanwhile was a friend of the Bush family, originally headed by Samuel Bush, a muscleman who helped make sure weapons were shipped right for the World War I effort, a sort of proto-military-industrial complex/Merchants of Death kind of guy. By 1940 the family was headed by Samuel's son Prescott, a businessman and senator who maintained ties with Stimson. Bush was also a business partner in Averell Harriman's investment banking firm, involved along with Harriman's brother in the subsidiary Union Banking Corp. that was helping finance the Nazi war machine via Fritz Thyssen until forcibly shut down in late 1942.
Among those young Americans by then called to service in the War effort unleashed by 12/7 was Prescott's son George H.W. Bush (named after Prescott's father-in-law and Harriman-related business partner George Herbert Walker). Another young recruit, Robert Stinnett, served together with Bush in the same aerial reconnaissance unit on the USS San Jacinto. Whatever connections they formed were nurtured with Stinnett's authoring of "George Bush, his WWII Years" in 1990, used as a GOP fundraiser for Bush's re-election campaign in 1992. (hence the link from Stinnett to Bush as president). Stinnett dropped hints about his coming Pearl Harbor thesis in this paen, and after visiting Bush in the oval office, his investigation (coincidentally?) skyrocketed and formed into the groundbreaking Dec. 7 1999 Day of Deceit, which for the first time cited McCollum's plan and in my opinion finally gutted the official story, a victory he started rehashing every December 7 with a reminder article - they provoked and allowed what could well be called a "catastrophic and catalyzing event."
Ironically, Day of Deceit was first published just as the Project for the New American Century was getting serious with its military ambitions, in September 2000 prominently noting the utility of a "new Pearl Harbor," just months after Stinnett had re-defined the term to mean a provoked event designed to transform american opinion. This group is dominated by former Bush sr functionaries (Cheney et al, the hawk "renegades" we're told) and was forming the advisory basis for the presidency of Bush's son. Then they oversaw the most spectacularly acute failure of defense in American history - a new Pearl Harbor in spades - after alleged intense provocations in Afghanistan in mid-2001. Will a McCollum memo from January 2001 surface one day?
A curious and perhaps telling footnote to all this is Stinnett's about-face on Pearl Harbor in the period after 9/11. Perhaps it's simply a coincidence, but as questions over what Bush knew began to arise in 2002, Stinnett's argument and questions changed significantly, no longer mentioning the McCollum memo or provocation. There seems to be no problem with the solidity of his case, so why the back-off? Did someone get a pang of "degrees of separation anxiety?" If this sound silly to you, just take another look at that circuit board above and think about it. It's gotta mean something.
Perhaps the crafting of an ephemeral, controllable, limited-time-only official conspiracy theory? In what context could it possibly make sense to imply that they provoked and allowed the attack? Are they pleading to a lesser crime since they know they physically did it themselves? Is the New Day of Deceit designed to cover for Shadow 9/11 by providing a more logical explanation for the attack's success that still keeps external terrorists center stage?
The Elements of the Chart:
President (FD) Roosevelt, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and possibly Roosevelt's adviser and ambassador W. Averell Harriman (among others) acted on the Japan provocation plan put forth by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum at the Office of Naval Intelligence. The eight-point plan solidified existing intentions to bring down the Pearl Harbor attack and give the US an excuse to officially enter the Second World War on the side of the British and the Soviets. In addition to fighting the Nazis and their Japanese allies, the attack allowed the creation of an enduring "military-industrial complex" among its other profound transformationsof American society and economy with effects up to the present time.
War Secretary Stimson meanwhile was a friend of the Bush family, originally headed by Samuel Bush, a muscleman who helped make sure weapons were shipped right for the World War I effort, a sort of proto-military-industrial complex/Merchants of Death kind of guy. By 1940 the family was headed by Samuel's son Prescott, a businessman and senator who maintained ties with Stimson. Bush was also a business partner in Averell Harriman's investment banking firm, involved along with Harriman's brother in the subsidiary Union Banking Corp. that was helping finance the Nazi war machine via Fritz Thyssen until forcibly shut down in late 1942.
Among those young Americans by then called to service in the War effort unleashed by 12/7 was Prescott's son George H.W. Bush (named after Prescott's father-in-law and Harriman-related business partner George Herbert Walker). Another young recruit, Robert Stinnett, served together with Bush in the same aerial reconnaissance unit on the USS San Jacinto. Whatever connections they formed were nurtured with Stinnett's authoring of "George Bush, his WWII Years" in 1990, used as a GOP fundraiser for Bush's re-election campaign in 1992. (hence the link from Stinnett to Bush as president). Stinnett dropped hints about his coming Pearl Harbor thesis in this paen, and after visiting Bush in the oval office, his investigation (coincidentally?) skyrocketed and formed into the groundbreaking Dec. 7 1999 Day of Deceit, which for the first time cited McCollum's plan and in my opinion finally gutted the official story, a victory he started rehashing every December 7 with a reminder article - they provoked and allowed what could well be called a "catastrophic and catalyzing event."
Ironically, Day of Deceit was first published just as the Project for the New American Century was getting serious with its military ambitions, in September 2000 prominently noting the utility of a "new Pearl Harbor," just months after Stinnett had re-defined the term to mean a provoked event designed to transform american opinion. This group is dominated by former Bush sr functionaries (Cheney et al, the hawk "renegades" we're told) and was forming the advisory basis for the presidency of Bush's son. Then they oversaw the most spectacularly acute failure of defense in American history - a new Pearl Harbor in spades - after alleged intense provocations in Afghanistan in mid-2001. Will a McCollum memo from January 2001 surface one day?
A curious and perhaps telling footnote to all this is Stinnett's about-face on Pearl Harbor in the period after 9/11. Perhaps it's simply a coincidence, but as questions over what Bush knew began to arise in 2002, Stinnett's argument and questions changed significantly, no longer mentioning the McCollum memo or provocation. There seems to be no problem with the solidity of his case, so why the back-off? Did someone get a pang of "degrees of separation anxiety?" If this sound silly to you, just take another look at that circuit board above and think about it. It's gotta mean something.
Perhaps the crafting of an ephemeral, controllable, limited-time-only official conspiracy theory? In what context could it possibly make sense to imply that they provoked and allowed the attack? Are they pleading to a lesser crime since they know they physically did it themselves? Is the New Day of Deceit designed to cover for Shadow 9/11 by providing a more logical explanation for the attack's success that still keeps external terrorists center stage?
Monday, February 5, 2007
OPERATION NORTHWOODS {masterlist}
 |
I'll start with chapter I of my book "Scenario 12-E: the philosophy, the technology, and the cover story behind Shadow 9/11," a short chapter posted in three parts. Given the importance of the Northwoods precedent, there will eventually be more material added later.
“Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.” - Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1962
Sections:
I: Lemnitzer the Landmine: 1960-63, the Joint Chiefs and the White House in tense times.
II: Special Distribution: The Plan: Operation Northwoods, its ominous recommendations, Lemnitzer's pitch and the immediate aftermath (ie Lemnitzer tansferred and the affair covered up).
III: Northwoods 2001? The curious revelation of Northwoods decades later and just months before 9/11 and the Acting JCS Chairman caught in the thick of it.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
TERROR OF 9/99 {masterlist}
This post is to organize all those related to the "Terror of 9/99," the series of apartment bombings in Russian cities in 1999 that triggered the Second Chechen War and paved the way of Vladimir Putin to the Presidency. Since the beginning, Putin's career has been shadowed by widespread suspicion that Putin or an ally, not Chechen terrorists, was actually behind the bombings. like the hardcore 9/99 Truthers, I believe the Russian state was behind the campaign, though the full story is certainly more complex. I sense weird forces at work.
Notes on terminology/weird thoughts about weird coincidences:
9/99 is itself not a universally accepted name for the episode, but I took it up due to its catchiness and similarity to the branding of 9/11, which helps me illustrate my argument about that event. I first saw the term on the English-language Russian site Terror-99. I'm not sure, but I would guess that this site excellent and damning website is supported by Boris Berezovsky and other questionable anti-Putin characters - so while their facts seem fairly solid and the case itself is remarkably easy to make, I question their true motives. I also got a bit of a chill one day when I realized recently that 9/99 upside down is 666, the mark of the Beast. I don't believe in such nonsense, but many others do, and some have gone to pains to avoid the branding. Wikipedia's "Russian Apartment Bombings" page mentions the number "9/99" only in the sources, referring to the above website. A Google search of "9/99" shows a few sources, including me, and "terror of 9/99" reveals only Terror99.ru and myself. (Gulp). I'm on Putin's radar with the illicit inverted 66/6.
But what else could he expect? A series of bombings with 300 dead as they slept, dated 9/4, 9/9, 9/13, and 9/16 - with no precise date, we could pick the midpoint between the two middle bombings (which is reasonable since these happened in the capital and killed the most) - but that gives us 9/11, which doesn't have the same emergency implications as it does in America and it was left unused for the Americans' use two years later. But it wasn't about a single day, but rather a month, that bleak and nervous September as block after block was demolished - Black September 1999 - the Terror of 9/99 on the precipice of the Millenium. Some say it was Putin's 666 devil deal for power, the most logical name for it has that built right in, and if he did it himself, he had to have known this would happen. Couldn't it have waited 'till October?
Oh well - I guess as in America people see what they want to - those predisposed to see fire and horns see that, the rest who can't stomach the thought and face the obvious would argue Putin couldn't or wouldn't do that. Facts are of secondary nature to such strongly held beliefs and rarely can do much to change them. But it's worth a try.
Aftermath of 9/13 in Moscow, New President Putin resolute in January, Russian troops re-enter Grozny in October - kind of the wrong order I guess but you get the picture.
Wikipedia entry: Russian Apartment Bombings. They cite September 8 for the first bombing in Moscow, but I stick to the date from the Terror 99 site, which is from Russian Primary sources. Plus 9/8 throws off the spooky 9/11 hinge point.
- 9/99 part I: Putin's Godsend
- 9/99 part II: The Ryazan Incident - The Bombing that didn't Happen?
- 9/99 part III: The Investigation - The official investigation, PR campaign, the Kovalev Commission, its supporters, and its troubles. people die here.
- 9/99 part IV: The Conspiracy Theory - an "independent" investigation formed in London, pushed by exiled oligarchs, KGB/FSB defectors, and US Seantors. More people die here, and Europe is thrown into a subcontinent-wide radiation scare.
9/99 is itself not a universally accepted name for the episode, but I took it up due to its catchiness and similarity to the branding of 9/11, which helps me illustrate my argument about that event. I first saw the term on the English-language Russian site Terror-99. I'm not sure, but I would guess that this site excellent and damning website is supported by Boris Berezovsky and other questionable anti-Putin characters - so while their facts seem fairly solid and the case itself is remarkably easy to make, I question their true motives. I also got a bit of a chill one day when I realized recently that 9/99 upside down is 666, the mark of the Beast. I don't believe in such nonsense, but many others do, and some have gone to pains to avoid the branding. Wikipedia's "Russian Apartment Bombings" page mentions the number "9/99" only in the sources, referring to the above website. A Google search of "9/99" shows a few sources, including me, and "terror of 9/99" reveals only Terror99.ru and myself. (Gulp). I'm on Putin's radar with the illicit inverted 66/6.
But what else could he expect? A series of bombings with 300 dead as they slept, dated 9/4, 9/9, 9/13, and 9/16 - with no precise date, we could pick the midpoint between the two middle bombings (which is reasonable since these happened in the capital and killed the most) - but that gives us 9/11, which doesn't have the same emergency implications as it does in America and it was left unused for the Americans' use two years later. But it wasn't about a single day, but rather a month, that bleak and nervous September as block after block was demolished - Black September 1999 - the Terror of 9/99 on the precipice of the Millenium. Some say it was Putin's 666 devil deal for power, the most logical name for it has that built right in, and if he did it himself, he had to have known this would happen. Couldn't it have waited 'till October?
Oh well - I guess as in America people see what they want to - those predisposed to see fire and horns see that, the rest who can't stomach the thought and face the obvious would argue Putin couldn't or wouldn't do that. Facts are of secondary nature to such strongly held beliefs and rarely can do much to change them. But it's worth a try.
Aftermath of 9/13 in Moscow, New President Putin resolute in January, Russian troops re-enter Grozny in October - kind of the wrong order I guess but you get the picture.
Wikipedia entry: Russian Apartment Bombings. They cite September 8 for the first bombing in Moscow, but I stick to the date from the Terror 99 site, which is from Russian Primary sources. Plus 9/8 throws off the spooky 9/11 hinge point.
- 9/99 part I: Putin's Godsend
- 9/99 part II: The Ryazan Incident - The Bombing that didn't Happen?
- 9/99 part III: The Investigation - The official investigation, PR campaign, the Kovalev Commission, its supporters, and its troubles. people die here.
- 9/99 part IV: The Conspiracy Theory - an "independent" investigation formed in London, pushed by exiled oligarchs, KGB/FSB defectors, and US Seantors. More people die here, and Europe is thrown into a subcontinent-wide radiation scare.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
PEARL HARBOR {masterlist}
Despite what any romantic re-rendering may imply, the old conspiracy theories are - or seem to be by the evidence - absolutely true. No matter the sentimental attachment and fuzzy feelings Americans have to the old mythology, it's high time to realize that Roosevelt and his people did everything in their power to ensure those sailors would die and those ships would be sunk. It was needed to write the next phase of the (perhaps necessary) master script - the US entry into WWII. This is a democracy, after all, and getting the public on board is of the utmost importance. If it can't be done with truth, it can be done with a well-placed lie, preferrably so large and ugly few will WANT to see it.
This post is to organize the sub-posts dealing with the engineering of the Pearl Harbor attack and the political aftermath.
What Pearl Harbors Do: Isolating the Isolationists
WHAT WE KNEW BEFORE 1999
I) 1930s: Merchants of Death, WWI, isolationism, Smedley Butler, etc. Amid the Great Depression, with Fascism and Communism on the rise in Europe, America under FDR is at a Crossroads.
II) - Japan and the back door to war
III) Adm. Richardson out of step with FDR's new provocation policy. What was really behind Richardson's relenquishing control over the Pacific Fleet at 1941's dawn?
IV) After Pearl Harbor : What a Catalyzing Event Looks Like - from Pearl Harbor through WWII and into the Cold War and the National Security State.
Stinnett's Case:
WHAT WE KNEW AFTER 1999
The old arguments and de-bunking you've heard around are likely based on a 20th century analysis, which presented a strong case but was far from provable and has remained in limbo, less widely believed than many far sillier theories. Since 1999, at least one major new piece of evidence has been added - the "smoking gun," Lt. Com. Arthur McCollum's October 7 1940 memo that outlined FDR's later actions that led to the 12/7 attack. The significance of this revelation cannot be overstated, and the story of how its publisher, Robert stinnett, came into awareness of it is a central thread of the "12/7-9/11 circuit" masterlist.
- V) A Necessary Evil?
- VI) The Pearl Harbor Smoking Gun: McCollum's Memo. October 1940 - the road to 12/7 is set upon.
- VII) Preventing Prevention
- VIII) The Nail in the Coffin?
- IX) Never Mind: Stinnett just sort of drops the issue of provocation after 9/11. What's up with that? check out the "Bush Family 12/7-9/11 Circuit" post for some possible clues.
This post is to organize the sub-posts dealing with the engineering of the Pearl Harbor attack and the political aftermath.
What Pearl Harbors Do: Isolating the Isolationists
WHAT WE KNEW BEFORE 1999
I) 1930s: Merchants of Death, WWI, isolationism, Smedley Butler, etc. Amid the Great Depression, with Fascism and Communism on the rise in Europe, America under FDR is at a Crossroads.
II) - Japan and the back door to war
III) Adm. Richardson out of step with FDR's new provocation policy. What was really behind Richardson's relenquishing control over the Pacific Fleet at 1941's dawn?
IV) After Pearl Harbor : What a Catalyzing Event Looks Like - from Pearl Harbor through WWII and into the Cold War and the National Security State.
Stinnett's Case:
WHAT WE KNEW AFTER 1999
The old arguments and de-bunking you've heard around are likely based on a 20th century analysis, which presented a strong case but was far from provable and has remained in limbo, less widely believed than many far sillier theories. Since 1999, at least one major new piece of evidence has been added - the "smoking gun," Lt. Com. Arthur McCollum's October 7 1940 memo that outlined FDR's later actions that led to the 12/7 attack. The significance of this revelation cannot be overstated, and the story of how its publisher, Robert stinnett, came into awareness of it is a central thread of the "12/7-9/11 circuit" masterlist.
- V) A Necessary Evil?
- VI) The Pearl Harbor Smoking Gun: McCollum's Memo. October 1940 - the road to 12/7 is set upon.
- VII) Preventing Prevention
- VIII) The Nail in the Coffin?
- IX) Never Mind: Stinnett just sort of drops the issue of provocation after 9/11. What's up with that? check out the "Bush Family 12/7-9/11 Circuit" post for some possible clues.
Friday, January 5, 2007
REMEMBER 2/27: THE REICHSTAG FIRE {masterlist}
This post will organize and link to the several posts needed to convey the subtance, contzt, and effects of the Reichstag Fire in Berlin, Germany, February 27 1933. Initially blamed on Communist radicals hoping to conquer Germany from within, the burning of the government's meeting place was later found to have been engineered by the Nazis themselves. The fire shocked the nation and served as an enabling act for Chancellor Adolph Hitler to tighten his and his cronies' grip on power and begin the march towards the Third Reich, the Holocaust, and World War II.
- Desperate Times/The Gathering Storm: 1933 Germany: aftermath of World War I, the great depression, increasing resentment and nationalism, and the Rise of Hitler.
- The Revolution Bursts Into Flames: To quote rapper Paris, "See the Reichstag Burn, see the public buy it."
- Shadow 2/27, Skeptics, and the verdict of History
- Gleichschaltung - Consolidating Power
And the rest is history...
- Desperate Times/The Gathering Storm: 1933 Germany: aftermath of World War I, the great depression, increasing resentment and nationalism, and the Rise of Hitler.
- The Revolution Bursts Into Flames: To quote rapper Paris, "See the Reichstag Burn, see the public buy it."
- Shadow 2/27, Skeptics, and the verdict of History
- Gleichschaltung - Consolidating Power
And the rest is history...
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
THE LUSITANIA {masterlist}
The sinking by German submarine of the HMS Lusitania in early 1915 was the formative event in drawing the United states into World War I. Like other such events, the deadly U-boat attack off the Old Head of Kinsale has been haunted from the beginning by allegations of conspiracy. And like so many others, sadly, the suspicions are well-founded and probably true.
This post is to organize all the sub-posts on the subject. No posts are up yet but are in the works. Most of my information is from Colin simpson's 1972 book "The Lusitania: Finally, the Startling Truth about One of the Most Fateful of All Disasters of the Sea." {Boston, Little and Brown, First American Edition, 1973}
HMS Lusitania Facts:
Premier ocean liner of its times, the "Greyhound of the Sea." Operated by the British Cunard shipping line, named for a province of Spain under the Roman Empire, it was first launched on June 7 1906. Nearly 800 feet long, capable of carrying 2200 passengers, a crew of 850, and hundreds of tons of supplies at a top speed of 26.7 knots. Early in World War I the ship was lent out to the British war effort against Germany; she made a regular circuit to New York and back, carrying supplies from the US under its "arsenal of Democracy" policy. This violated a German blockade, and repeated warnings from the German end were buried as the ship entered on its final voyage in May 1915 and sailed right into a German trap, the path to which had been cleared and paved by the British Navy, in hopes of drawing America into the war. On May 7 the Lusitania was sunk by German U-Boat at a cost of 1,200 lives, many American, many wealthy and prominent. There was further delay before the US entered the Great War - internal disputes and the 1916 election had to pass first, but it was the Lusitania barbarity that was always the political and emotional underpinning of America's campaign in Europe.
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania
This post is to organize all the sub-posts on the subject. No posts are up yet but are in the works. Most of my information is from Colin simpson's 1972 book "The Lusitania: Finally, the Startling Truth about One of the Most Fateful of All Disasters of the Sea." {Boston, Little and Brown, First American Edition, 1973}
HMS Lusitania Facts:
Premier ocean liner of its times, the "Greyhound of the Sea." Operated by the British Cunard shipping line, named for a province of Spain under the Roman Empire, it was first launched on June 7 1906. Nearly 800 feet long, capable of carrying 2200 passengers, a crew of 850, and hundreds of tons of supplies at a top speed of 26.7 knots. Early in World War I the ship was lent out to the British war effort against Germany; she made a regular circuit to New York and back, carrying supplies from the US under its "arsenal of Democracy" policy. This violated a German blockade, and repeated warnings from the German end were buried as the ship entered on its final voyage in May 1915 and sailed right into a German trap, the path to which had been cleared and paved by the British Navy, in hopes of drawing America into the war. On May 7 the Lusitania was sunk by German U-Boat at a cost of 1,200 lives, many American, many wealthy and prominent. There was further delay before the US entered the Great War - internal disputes and the 1916 election had to pass first, but it was the Lusitania barbarity that was always the political and emotional underpinning of America's campaign in Europe.
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania
Monday, January 1, 2007
12/7 part VI: THE PEARL HARBOR SMOKING GUN
MCCOLLUM'S MEMO: EIGHT POINTS TO TOTAL WAR
In his research for Day of Deceit, the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, Robert Stinnett was assisted greatly by the Freedom of Information Act (explicitly thanking the act’s author, Rep. John Moss) and by Oliver Stone, whose film JFK had put public pressure on President Clinton to declassify sheaves of secret files in the mid-1990s. Some of these apparently went back well before Kennedy’s time, entering Stinnett’s radar field – the Pearl Harbor attack. He describes receiving bundles of documents not seen since 1941, “covered with dust, tightly bunched together in the boxes and tied with unusual waxed twine.” [1]
Stinnett’s prime discovery was a top-secret October 7, 1940 memo by Lt. Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East Division at the Office of Naval Intelligence. Written less than two weeks after Japan signed its mutual defense pact with Italy and Germany, this memo was the source of Roosevelt’s provocation policy. McCollum saw in the new tripartite pact a way into the European war, and besides, as Stinnett explained it, McCollum “felt that war with Japan was inevitable and that the United States should provoke it at a time which suited US interests.” [2] McCollum’s memo advocated eight specific actions that he predicted would lead to a Japanese “mistake:” These were listed as:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek.
D. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the US Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.” [3]
Read the entire memo at the excellent Wikipedia pageon the subject.
Most of the recommended actions were basically provocation, signaling a U.S. encroachment on Japan’s emerging Pacific empire. The embargo would leave Japan strangulated and desperate, especially for oil, which the US had already embargoed in July. Basing talk would be seen as a threat of belligerence. But point “F” is particularly interesting; “keep the main strength of the US Fleet… in the vicinity of the Hawaiian islands.” They would then be within striking range of Japan, which is a two-way street - it would be seen by Japan as a real threat, and it would put the fleet in the range of pre-emptive strikes by Japan. It meant putting U.S. sailors in harm’s way, which was of course the key to the provocation working.
The plan was apparently premised on provoking Japan to carry out a well-known tactic of theirs. In 1905, Japan had found itself at war with Russia over disputes in the Pacific – Japan won the conflict by wiping out Russia’s weak naval forces at Port Arthur with a surprise naval raid before hostilities officially opened. It was underhanded but it worked, handing Japan the first victory of an Asian over a European power. Port Arthur signaled the rise of the “rising sun” which was at its zenith as McCollum wrote his eight points.
Stinnett explained the memo was that very evening forwarded to “two of Roosevelt’s most trusted military advisers.” FDR was apparently impressed with the memo, and the next day set to implementing the pivotal point “F.” This was his October 8 meeting with Admiral Richardson that led to the great falling out. After a year of such moves, as predicted, Japan decided to respond to the U.S. provocation policy with a Port Arthur-type surprise attack to cripple America’s navy a the outset. Top Japanese commanders felt this was the only way to survive war with the U.S., which by then seemed unavoidable.
Whatever the case regarding the old arguments - like the aircraft carriers - this memo proves that provoking and allowing the Japanese attack really was the plan. It has shifted the debate entirely, turning the old "smoking guns" into newly relevant supporting evidence. What's truly odd, therefore, is that shortly after 9/11 Stinnett stopped using the memo in his arguemtns, essentially gutting his own case and conceding the field to the 12/7 coverup apologists.
Sources:
[1] Stinnett, Robert B. “The Pearl Harbor Deception.” Presentation at the Independent Institute. December 2, 2002. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=127
[2] Stinnett, Robert B. Day of Deciet: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. New York. Touchstone. 2000. bid. Stinnett. Page 8.
[2] Stinnett. Page 8.
In his research for Day of Deceit, the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, Robert Stinnett was assisted greatly by the Freedom of Information Act (explicitly thanking the act’s author, Rep. John Moss) and by Oliver Stone, whose film JFK had put public pressure on President Clinton to declassify sheaves of secret files in the mid-1990s. Some of these apparently went back well before Kennedy’s time, entering Stinnett’s radar field – the Pearl Harbor attack. He describes receiving bundles of documents not seen since 1941, “covered with dust, tightly bunched together in the boxes and tied with unusual waxed twine.” [1]
Stinnett’s prime discovery was a top-secret October 7, 1940 memo by Lt. Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East Division at the Office of Naval Intelligence. Written less than two weeks after Japan signed its mutual defense pact with Italy and Germany, this memo was the source of Roosevelt’s provocation policy. McCollum saw in the new tripartite pact a way into the European war, and besides, as Stinnett explained it, McCollum “felt that war with Japan was inevitable and that the United States should provoke it at a time which suited US interests.” [2] McCollum’s memo advocated eight specific actions that he predicted would lead to a Japanese “mistake:” These were listed as:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek.
D. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the US Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.” [3]
Read the entire memo at the excellent Wikipedia pageon the subject.
 |
The plan was apparently premised on provoking Japan to carry out a well-known tactic of theirs. In 1905, Japan had found itself at war with Russia over disputes in the Pacific – Japan won the conflict by wiping out Russia’s weak naval forces at Port Arthur with a surprise naval raid before hostilities officially opened. It was underhanded but it worked, handing Japan the first victory of an Asian over a European power. Port Arthur signaled the rise of the “rising sun” which was at its zenith as McCollum wrote his eight points.
Stinnett explained the memo was that very evening forwarded to “two of Roosevelt’s most trusted military advisers.” FDR was apparently impressed with the memo, and the next day set to implementing the pivotal point “F.” This was his October 8 meeting with Admiral Richardson that led to the great falling out. After a year of such moves, as predicted, Japan decided to respond to the U.S. provocation policy with a Port Arthur-type surprise attack to cripple America’s navy a the outset. Top Japanese commanders felt this was the only way to survive war with the U.S., which by then seemed unavoidable.
Whatever the case regarding the old arguments - like the aircraft carriers - this memo proves that provoking and allowing the Japanese attack really was the plan. It has shifted the debate entirely, turning the old "smoking guns" into newly relevant supporting evidence. What's truly odd, therefore, is that shortly after 9/11 Stinnett stopped using the memo in his arguemtns, essentially gutting his own case and conceding the field to the 12/7 coverup apologists.
Sources:
[1] Stinnett, Robert B. “The Pearl Harbor Deception.” Presentation at the Independent Institute. December 2, 2002. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=127
[2] Stinnett, Robert B. Day of Deciet: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. New York. Touchstone. 2000. bid. Stinnett. Page 8.
[2] Stinnett. Page 8.
NEVER MIND: STINNETT DROPS THE ISSUE
PROVOCATION ERASED, MCCOLLUM MEMO RE-CRYPTED
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill
December 26 2006
Day of Deceit author Robert Stinnett is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, an Oakland, CA-based conservative libertarian, anti-big government think tank. In addition to hosting Stinnett and his Pearl Harbor case and publishing books like “Against Leviathan,” they also feature as a fellow 9/11 skeptic and former Reagan economist Paul Craig Roberts. Via the Institute, Stinnett started to repeatedly explain and promote his arguments from Day of Deceit, starting with an event in May 2000 called “Pearl Harbor: Official Lies in an American War Tragedy?” [1] Later that year he wrote a commentary published to mark the 59th anniversary of “December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning.” This piece explicitly mentioned “McCollum’s secret memo dated October 7, 1940, and recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.” He cited its eight points, the “centerpiece” of which was “keeping the might of the U.S. Fleet based in the Territory of Hawaii as a lure for a Japanese attack.” In this original piece, he listed two specific questions “at the top of the foreknowledge list: (1) whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an “overt act of war” directed at Hawaii, and (2) whether Japan’s military plans were obtained in advance by the United States but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short so they would not interfere with the overt act.” [2] That is, the failure to intercept warnings was intentional and secondary to the provocation.
This December 2000 piece set a trend for anniversary commemorative articles. On the 60th anniversary of Pearl Harbor and just three months after 9/11, he published “Pentagon Still Scapegoats Pearl Harbor Fall Guys.” Again he posed the same two questions – was it provoked, and did they intercept messages. Again he made largely the same arguments as the previous year, prominently mentioning and explaining his exclusive evidence, the McCollum memo. [3]
But then something changed in 2002, curiously at just the same time the post-9/11 world and its questions of what Bush knew began to sink in. We can see a shift in direction in that his speech that year was five days early, on December 2. Still boldly titled “The Pearl Harbor Deception,” it was different in two ways than his presentations before 9/11 – First, his two questions had changed, now omitting provocation. “Two questions about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor have ignited a controversy that has burned for 60 years: Did U.S. naval cryptographers crack the Japanese naval codes before the attack? Did Japanese warships and their commanding admirals break radio silence at sea before the attack?” the second change I noticed is the lack of any reference to McCollum’s memo; he was leaving out what was the core of his argument, the primary thing that made it HIS argument. He was surrendering his edge. [4]
This was followed quickly by “The Truth about Pearl Harbor,” a January 30 2003 debate held at the Institute between Stinnett and foreknowledge denier Stephen Budiansky. It should be easy enough for Stinnett to win, since Budiansky argued the government line by citing only the old evidence, almost strictly code breaking (which he wrote the “complete” book on, as well as a book called “Closing the Door on Pearl Harbor”). Stinnett could have sunk Budiansky’s argument by illustrating the secondary nature of foresight when one is actively provoking something. Yet he did not, and played Budiansky’s game, keeping the very boring and tedious debate at the level of codes and of personal attacks over credibility. His presentation seems to consist of his December article, a word search of which shows that the name McCollum pops up, but only as a “James A. McCollum” cited as a source in the debate on code-breaking. The date of the memo, its author, its eight points, are totally absent. The words “provoke,” “provocation,” and various synonyms reveal nothing but the admission in the opening remarks by David Theroux that Stinnett had previously argued that “U.S. government leaders at the highest level not only knew that a Japanese attack was imminent, but that they had deliberately engaged in policies intended to provoke the attack.” In his “presentation” that day, Stinnett made no such argument. [5]
I'm sure he had very good reasons for the shift in course, but I can't say for sure what these are. It could be a case of someone finding out that the McCollum memo was maybe a forgery, forcing Stinnett to back off from it pending an investigation. I haven't heard of anyone from the swollen ranks of the 12/7 coverup apologists pointing this out, however, and to the best of my knowledge, the memo remains solid. The reason for dropping the issue could also be someone suffering "degrees of separation anxiety" and urging Stinnett to back off the hard case and leave Pearl Harbor intact.
He did, however, intriguingly point out in this twice-presented piece that “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.” How ironic then that at about this same time Stinnett also started to censor himself. Though his book is still available and not removed from view at all, it’s as if Stinnett is trying to forget his core argument, or at least to stop reminding anyone of it. According to the Independent Institute’s website, Stinnett has written no more commentaries and given no more presentations in the four years since his forfeited debate with Budiansky. He seems to have retired from his pre-9/11 mission, and as far as I can tell he’s not spoken or typed the name Arthur McCollum since December 2001.
sources:
[1] independent Institute. Research Fellow: Robert B. Stinnett. http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=514
[2] "December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning." December 7, 2000. Robert B. Stinnett. Honolulu Advertiser. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=103
[4] "Pentagon Still Scapegoats Pearl Harbor Fall Guys." December 7, 2001. Robert B. Stinnett. Providence Journal. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=400
See [1].
[5] "The Truth About Pearl Harbor: A Debate." January 30, 2003 Robert B. Stinnett, Stephen Budiansky. http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=445
[6] http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=103
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill
December 26 2006
Day of Deceit author Robert Stinnett is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, an Oakland, CA-based conservative libertarian, anti-big government think tank. In addition to hosting Stinnett and his Pearl Harbor case and publishing books like “Against Leviathan,” they also feature as a fellow 9/11 skeptic and former Reagan economist Paul Craig Roberts. Via the Institute, Stinnett started to repeatedly explain and promote his arguments from Day of Deceit, starting with an event in May 2000 called “Pearl Harbor: Official Lies in an American War Tragedy?” [1] Later that year he wrote a commentary published to mark the 59th anniversary of “December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning.” This piece explicitly mentioned “McCollum’s secret memo dated October 7, 1940, and recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.” He cited its eight points, the “centerpiece” of which was “keeping the might of the U.S. Fleet based in the Territory of Hawaii as a lure for a Japanese attack.” In this original piece, he listed two specific questions “at the top of the foreknowledge list: (1) whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an “overt act of war” directed at Hawaii, and (2) whether Japan’s military plans were obtained in advance by the United States but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short so they would not interfere with the overt act.” [2] That is, the failure to intercept warnings was intentional and secondary to the provocation.
 |
But then something changed in 2002, curiously at just the same time the post-9/11 world and its questions of what Bush knew began to sink in. We can see a shift in direction in that his speech that year was five days early, on December 2. Still boldly titled “The Pearl Harbor Deception,” it was different in two ways than his presentations before 9/11 – First, his two questions had changed, now omitting provocation. “Two questions about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor have ignited a controversy that has burned for 60 years: Did U.S. naval cryptographers crack the Japanese naval codes before the attack? Did Japanese warships and their commanding admirals break radio silence at sea before the attack?” the second change I noticed is the lack of any reference to McCollum’s memo; he was leaving out what was the core of his argument, the primary thing that made it HIS argument. He was surrendering his edge. [4]
This was followed quickly by “The Truth about Pearl Harbor,” a January 30 2003 debate held at the Institute between Stinnett and foreknowledge denier Stephen Budiansky. It should be easy enough for Stinnett to win, since Budiansky argued the government line by citing only the old evidence, almost strictly code breaking (which he wrote the “complete” book on, as well as a book called “Closing the Door on Pearl Harbor”). Stinnett could have sunk Budiansky’s argument by illustrating the secondary nature of foresight when one is actively provoking something. Yet he did not, and played Budiansky’s game, keeping the very boring and tedious debate at the level of codes and of personal attacks over credibility. His presentation seems to consist of his December article, a word search of which shows that the name McCollum pops up, but only as a “James A. McCollum” cited as a source in the debate on code-breaking. The date of the memo, its author, its eight points, are totally absent. The words “provoke,” “provocation,” and various synonyms reveal nothing but the admission in the opening remarks by David Theroux that Stinnett had previously argued that “U.S. government leaders at the highest level not only knew that a Japanese attack was imminent, but that they had deliberately engaged in policies intended to provoke the attack.” In his “presentation” that day, Stinnett made no such argument. [5]
I'm sure he had very good reasons for the shift in course, but I can't say for sure what these are. It could be a case of someone finding out that the McCollum memo was maybe a forgery, forcing Stinnett to back off from it pending an investigation. I haven't heard of anyone from the swollen ranks of the 12/7 coverup apologists pointing this out, however, and to the best of my knowledge, the memo remains solid. The reason for dropping the issue could also be someone suffering "degrees of separation anxiety" and urging Stinnett to back off the hard case and leave Pearl Harbor intact.
He did, however, intriguingly point out in this twice-presented piece that “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.” How ironic then that at about this same time Stinnett also started to censor himself. Though his book is still available and not removed from view at all, it’s as if Stinnett is trying to forget his core argument, or at least to stop reminding anyone of it. According to the Independent Institute’s website, Stinnett has written no more commentaries and given no more presentations in the four years since his forfeited debate with Budiansky. He seems to have retired from his pre-9/11 mission, and as far as I can tell he’s not spoken or typed the name Arthur McCollum since December 2001.
sources:
[1] independent Institute. Research Fellow: Robert B. Stinnett. http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=514
[2] "December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning." December 7, 2000. Robert B. Stinnett. Honolulu Advertiser. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=103
[4] "Pentagon Still Scapegoats Pearl Harbor Fall Guys." December 7, 2001. Robert B. Stinnett. Providence Journal. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=400
See [1].
[5] "The Truth About Pearl Harbor: A Debate." January 30, 2003 Robert B. Stinnett, Stephen Budiansky. http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=445
[6] http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=103
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
NORTHWOODS III: NORTHWOODS 2001?
An informed citizenry being central to a working democracy, we were never informed of Northwoods; neither Lemnitzer nor McNamara burst Americans’ bubble by publicizing this in any way and it remained a dirty little secret at the time and for decades to come. The memo was in fact ordered destroyed and erased, but somehow one copy survived in an archive somewhere. It was finally declassified in the mid-1990s, apparently part of the post-Oliver Stone “JFK” conspiracy craze that forced Clinton’s hand to release a number of Kennedy-era secret papers.
In April 2001 this copy made it to the eyes of the public in the pages of the massive Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency. Its author James Bamford has worked for ABC World News Tonight as senior Washington Investigative Reporter, and had already written his groundbreaking The Puzzle Palace (1982), the first book published about the hitherto top-secret National Security Agency. Worried about the NSA’s unveiling to the eyes of the world, the Reagan administration initially blocked the book’s publication. But it was finally published and Bamford was in fact invited back for more, with Body of Secrets again primarily about the now less-secret NSA. The chapters are named after parts of the body, with the Northwoods-related chapter being “Fists.” Bamford included this JCS plot, not even part of the NSA anatomy, to illustrate tensions between Lemnitzer’s military plan for Cuba and the slicker approach of NSA and CIA-types, which was more favored by Kennedy.
So clearly the JCS had “quietly slipped over the edge,” but the sole existing evidence of that slippage, the one salvaged copy of Operation Northwoods, sat just as quietly for decades until April 2001, just five months before the September 11 attacks, offering a strangely-timed glimpse into the dark machinations of Lemnitzer’s Joint Chiefs.
Submitted for your approval (props to Serling): On the morning of September 11 2001, Vice-Chairman Richard Myers was standing-in as JCS Chairman, his boss having departed that very morning for pre-arranged business in Europe. Myers took the helm in the same post once held by Lemnitzer just as the day’s Joint Chiefs-NORAD war game “Vigilant Warrior,” and the first hijacking of the morning, began. As Mike Ruppert explains in his 2004 Crossing the Rubicon, it seems any war game with the word “warrior” attached involved “live-fly” planes, possibly drones, feigning hijack symptoms. Two days after this curious confluence of events, Myers was promoted to permanent JCS Chairman, as previously scheduled.
This doesn’t necessarily prove anything, but it’s interesting to note that McNamara and Rumsfeld are two very different people. And clearly, Myers will now be on board to defend the official story of 9/11. He found himself in a curious spot (an integral part of the chain of command in emergencies like 9/11) at a curious time (five months after Northwoods was first publicized and minutes before the attacks began). Thus whether he was involved with the operation or not, he may be the first to go down if the official story should collapse; so far he has done nothing to upset that official story.
But Northwoods proposed limited and tightly-controlled fake attacks, mostly in remote military installations, along the lines of a scaled-down Pearl Harbor. It did not promote multiple simultaneous fake attacks ranging over the northeastern U.S. mainland, nor planes flying into the military’s own headquarters, nor skyscrapers imploding and blanketing Manhattan in concrete and bone dust. Lemnitzer probably did not envision the “helpful” casualty lists to take seven to ten pages of U.S. papers, nor for the “wave of national indignation” to be of such tsunami proportions. Northwoods provides just a hint of Shadow 9/11 – bigger, uglier thinking and better technology would be required to pull off such a spectacular brand of inside job, and the stakes would have to be bigger than Cuba.
In April 2001 this copy made it to the eyes of the public in the pages of the massive Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency. Its author James Bamford has worked for ABC World News Tonight as senior Washington Investigative Reporter, and had already written his groundbreaking The Puzzle Palace (1982), the first book published about the hitherto top-secret National Security Agency. Worried about the NSA’s unveiling to the eyes of the world, the Reagan administration initially blocked the book’s publication. But it was finally published and Bamford was in fact invited back for more, with Body of Secrets again primarily about the now less-secret NSA. The chapters are named after parts of the body, with the Northwoods-related chapter being “Fists.” Bamford included this JCS plot, not even part of the NSA anatomy, to illustrate tensions between Lemnitzer’s military plan for Cuba and the slicker approach of NSA and CIA-types, which was more favored by Kennedy.
So clearly the JCS had “quietly slipped over the edge,” but the sole existing evidence of that slippage, the one salvaged copy of Operation Northwoods, sat just as quietly for decades until April 2001, just five months before the September 11 attacks, offering a strangely-timed glimpse into the dark machinations of Lemnitzer’s Joint Chiefs.
Submitted for your approval (props to Serling): On the morning of September 11 2001, Vice-Chairman Richard Myers was standing-in as JCS Chairman, his boss having departed that very morning for pre-arranged business in Europe. Myers took the helm in the same post once held by Lemnitzer just as the day’s Joint Chiefs-NORAD war game “Vigilant Warrior,” and the first hijacking of the morning, began. As Mike Ruppert explains in his 2004 Crossing the Rubicon, it seems any war game with the word “warrior” attached involved “live-fly” planes, possibly drones, feigning hijack symptoms. Two days after this curious confluence of events, Myers was promoted to permanent JCS Chairman, as previously scheduled.
This doesn’t necessarily prove anything, but it’s interesting to note that McNamara and Rumsfeld are two very different people. And clearly, Myers will now be on board to defend the official story of 9/11. He found himself in a curious spot (an integral part of the chain of command in emergencies like 9/11) at a curious time (five months after Northwoods was first publicized and minutes before the attacks began). Thus whether he was involved with the operation or not, he may be the first to go down if the official story should collapse; so far he has done nothing to upset that official story.
But Northwoods proposed limited and tightly-controlled fake attacks, mostly in remote military installations, along the lines of a scaled-down Pearl Harbor. It did not promote multiple simultaneous fake attacks ranging over the northeastern U.S. mainland, nor planes flying into the military’s own headquarters, nor skyscrapers imploding and blanketing Manhattan in concrete and bone dust. Lemnitzer probably did not envision the “helpful” casualty lists to take seven to ten pages of U.S. papers, nor for the “wave of national indignation” to be of such tsunami proportions. Northwoods provides just a hint of Shadow 9/11 – bigger, uglier thinking and better technology would be required to pull off such a spectacular brand of inside job, and the stakes would have to be bigger than Cuba.
9/99 part II: THE RYAZAN INCIDENT
The deadly string of apartment block bombings could have been worse. Amid this climate of crisis, on September 22 at 9:15 pm, an alert citizen of Ryazan coming home from work watched three people load several large bags of powder from a mysteriously marked car into the basement of his apartment building. He called it in to local police, and the Interior Ministry's UVD division in Ryazan confirmed the worst fears – the bags were filled with the explosive Hexogen, which had taken out the other buildings, and connected to a timer set to spark at 5:30 am. They evacuated the building and defused the bomb without incident, and the near-miss was all the buzz on the morning of the 23rd. This time the car was seen, its passengers identifiable, and the hunt for suspects was on. By the 24th they were reported as cornered, their car found and arrests imminent. [1]
Curiously, new FSB chief Patrushev revealed on the 24th that the bags had contained only sugar and had been planted as a readiness drill to see if people would catch the next attack in time. It was perhaps a ill-advised in its timing, but it was only a drill, and they found the sugar and succeded splendidly. Give yourselves a pat on the back. Of course since the ‘drill’ was an FSB operation, the Chechen "terrorists" who unloaded the bags were actually just FSB employees and so went unmolested as the government closed its case. FSB spokesman Alexander Zdanovich led the media campaign to explain away the incident as the official inestigation confirmed the official story and the official suspects were dragged before a kangaroo court and convicted.
FSB officers went to the building the "drill" was run on: one woman said "several people from the FSB came to see us, led by a colonel. They apologized. They said that they hadn't known anything either." [2] But the FSB later rebuffed lawsuits by people who had heart attacks and suffered long-term stress from the scare. Officially, the Ryazan incident, first framed as a failed attack, has been largely erased. For example, the Wikipedia article sites the duration of the September bombing spree as two weeks - Sept. 4-16. Ryazan is thus not part of it.
On the 23rd, as it still looked like terrorism and with the first air raids commencing in Chechnya, PM Putin stated about the failed "attack:” “As for the events in Ryazan, I don't think there was any kind of failure involved. […] This is absolutely the correct response. No panic, no sympathy for the bandits. This is the mood for fighting them to the very end. Until we win. And we shall win.” [5] He knew by then to start hinting at a readiness drill, but to still keep it vague enough to appear as maybe-terrorism to feed the all-important war drive, which would partly bury the following day's FSB "admission" long enough to let it get obscured beneath the official investigation.
Sources:
[1] Reynolds, Maura. “Ryazan Fears Darker Truth of Bombings.” The Moscow Times. January 18, 2000.
http://eng.terror99.ru/publications/013.htm
[2] “The Ryazan Story.” Excerpts from "Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within" by Yuri Felshtinsky and Alexander Litvinenko
http://eng.terror99.ru/publications/080.htm
[3] Borisova, Yevgenia. "No Proof Chechens Blew Up Buildings." Moscow Times. March 17, 2000. http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4174.html
[4] See [3]
[5] See [2]
Curiously, new FSB chief Patrushev revealed on the 24th that the bags had contained only sugar and had been planted as a readiness drill to see if people would catch the next attack in time. It was perhaps a ill-advised in its timing, but it was only a drill, and they found the sugar and succeded splendidly. Give yourselves a pat on the back. Of course since the ‘drill’ was an FSB operation, the Chechen "terrorists" who unloaded the bags were actually just FSB employees and so went unmolested as the government closed its case. FSB spokesman Alexander Zdanovich led the media campaign to explain away the incident as the official inestigation confirmed the official story and the official suspects were dragged before a kangaroo court and convicted.
FSB officers went to the building the "drill" was run on: one woman said "several people from the FSB came to see us, led by a colonel. They apologized. They said that they hadn't known anything either." [2] But the FSB later rebuffed lawsuits by people who had heart attacks and suffered long-term stress from the scare. Officially, the Ryazan incident, first framed as a failed attack, has been largely erased. For example, the Wikipedia article sites the duration of the September bombing spree as two weeks - Sept. 4-16. Ryazan is thus not part of it.
On the 23rd, as it still looked like terrorism and with the first air raids commencing in Chechnya, PM Putin stated about the failed "attack:” “As for the events in Ryazan, I don't think there was any kind of failure involved. […] This is absolutely the correct response. No panic, no sympathy for the bandits. This is the mood for fighting them to the very end. Until we win. And we shall win.” [5] He knew by then to start hinting at a readiness drill, but to still keep it vague enough to appear as maybe-terrorism to feed the all-important war drive, which would partly bury the following day's FSB "admission" long enough to let it get obscured beneath the official investigation.
Sources:
[1] Reynolds, Maura. “Ryazan Fears Darker Truth of Bombings.” The Moscow Times. January 18, 2000.
http://eng.terror99.ru/publications/013.htm
[2] “The Ryazan Story.” Excerpts from "Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within" by Yuri Felshtinsky and Alexander Litvinenko
http://eng.terror99.ru/publications/080.htm
[3] Borisova, Yevgenia. "No Proof Chechens Blew Up Buildings." Moscow Times. March 17, 2000. http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4174.html
[4] See [3]
[5] See [2]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
