New York City activist

November 16, 2007

False flag terror (Review of, Part 1)

The website contains a very good, concise introduction to many of the problems with the official story of 9/11. In this and subsequent blog entries I’ll examine the evidence presented there.

One thing I personally find a bit annoying about this site is that most of its sources are not named on the site itself; you have to click on the links to find out who the sources are. But perhaps this results in smoother-flowing prose and makes the site easier for the average person to read. In my review below, I’ll name most of the sources in full bibliographic detail, for my own convenience in going back to them later.

The main page starts off with a general introduction showing that many people from across the political spectrum, including many respectable people, have questioned the official story of 9/11. Cited in this section are an Angus-Reid poll Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence (October 14, 2006); George Washington’s blog posts citing prominent conservatives, prominent liberals, and prominent Christians; and‘s own pages about the 9/11 Commission and high-level government officials who question the official story of 9/11.

Many of the people cited on the above pages have never claimed that 9/11 is an inside job. Some, such as Noam Chomsky, have even voiced opposition to that idea. But all have questioned at least some aspect of the official story.

It should also be noted that the Angus-Reid poll deals only with the intelligence issue, not any other aspect of 9/11. But it shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the Bush administration is lying, or at least covering up something, on at least that particular issue.

Next, on‘s main page, is a section titled “Background: Why does this matter?”

The following sources are cited as containing statements “that the administration has issued terror alerts based on scant intelligence in order to rally people around the flag when the administration was suffering in the polls. This implies — as an initial matter only — that the administration will play fast and loose with the facts in order to instill fear for political purposes.”

The following people are then cited as saying they fear that Bush will declare martial law, or that he will otherwise turn this country into a dictatorship, using the fear of terrorism to get people to acquiesce.

Here and later on‘s main page, the reader may notice a preponderance of right wing sources. However, at least the site itself sticks to 9/11-related topics and does so without promoting right wing ideologies in the name of 9/11 Truth. Some other websites and groups do use 9/11 to promote right wing ideologies, e.g. by blaming “the Illuminati” or “the New World Order” for 9/11, or by asking us all to vote for Ron Paul. But this site doesn’t, fortunately.

Anyhow, next is a section titled “Terror by Foreign Nations,” which introduces the concept of false flag terror operations by governments of countries other than the U.S.A. Examples include:

Next on‘s main page is a section titled “But That’s Nuts,” explaining more about false flag terrorism. We are referred to the Wikipedia article on False flag operations, and then we are given a bunch of quotes from various famous and infamous people.

Next is a section titled “But NOT the U.S.,” giving past examples of false flag operations by the U.S. government:

Operation Northwoods was never actually carried out. But it is now accepted by the mainstream press that Operation Northwoods was seriously considered by top officials in the Kennedy administration.

What I personally find most interesting about Operation Northwoods is that it would have involved a conspiracy far more elaborate than what most activists in the 9/11 Truth movement believe may have taken place on 9/11. Indeed the official revelations about Operation Northwoods, in May 2001, probably inspired some of the wackier-sounding theories held by some folks in the 9/11 Truth movement, e.g. the plane-swapping and drone theories. Of course, this certainly doesn’t prove that the 9/11 plane-swapping and drone theories are true. I suspect that Operation Northwoods may have been rejected because it was logistically too complicated. But it’s nevertheless a known historical fact that high U.S. government officials have at least seriously considered doing such things. That being the case, we should not dismiss out of hand the very possibility that high U.S. government officials might actually do something along the same general lines, only simpler, perhaps not involving things like plane-swapping and drones. We should take the time to look at the actual evidence.

Next on‘s main page is a section titled “Why Does This Matter?”. This section starts off as follows:

Even if America has, in the past, considered or undertaken false flag operations, it has never done so in modern times. Right? We will consider this question below.

In the meantime, we invite you to read what the following very smart people are saying:

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

“We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want.”

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to “play fast and loose” with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag.

The former CIA analyst is Ray McGovern, and the source is a Prison Planet artocle, Former CIA Analyst: Government May Be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism, October 19 2005, citing his appearance on Alex Jones’s radio show.

Anyhow, next the main page says: “A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.” The linked source is a PDF document titled SFRC Testimony – Zbigniew Brzezinski, February 1, 2007 on the U.S. Senate website. (SFRC = Senate Foreign Relations Committee, apparently.) Brzezinski says:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

This is followed by a good critique of the “mythical historical narrative” of Bush’s war propaganda.

Above, Brzezinski doesn’t say outright that he expects a false flag attack, merely that some terrorist attack (regardless of who the perpetrators might be) would be blamed on Iran. But this in itself implies some question about the identity of the real perpetrators, which, in itself, is unusual for a terrorist attack. Historically, terrorist attacks are usually carried out by some group which promptly claims responsibility and then makes a bunch of demands. So, if a terrorist attack could possibly be falsely blamed on someone, this in itself suggests a false flag.

Next on the main page is a quote from a CounterPunch article, Impeach Now Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy by Paul Craig Roberts, who is a former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the “Father of Reaganomics,” and a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. I’ll post a longer quote below:

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of “executive orders” that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, “terrorist” events in the near future.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the “unitary executive” at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush’s declaration of “national emergency” and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging “terrorist” attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?

Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.

This was published in CounterPunch, which has strongly pooh-poohed the idea of 9/11 being an inside job, so it’s interesting to find at least an admission of the possible danger of a false-flag terror operation there.

The main page also refers to, but does not quote, another article by Paul Craig Roberts: My wake-up call: Watch for another 9/11-WMD experience, Online Journal, Jul 20, 2007. I’ll quote it below:

… Another Tonkin Gulf incident could easily be engineered to set us at war with Iran.

Alternatively, false flag “terrorist” strikes could be orchestrated in the US. The Bush administration has already infiltrated some dissident groups and encouraged them to participate in terrorist talk, for which they were arrested. It is possible that the administration could provoke some groups to actual acts of violence.

Bush has the Republican Party in such a mess that it cannot survive without another 9/11. Whether authentic or orchestrated, an attack will activate Bush’s new executive orders, which create a dictatorial police state in event of “national emergency.”

Roberts refers us to Bush Directive for a “Catastrophic Emergency” in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 24, 2007. This article in turn quotes a White House news release, National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, on the White House site, and refers us to a related Global Research article, The “Use of the Armed Forces” in America under a National Emergency: Unrestricted & Arbitrary Powers conferred to the President & Vice President, also by Michel Chossudovsky, June 27, 2007.

Next on the main page:

Similarly, a current Republican Congressman has said “a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran”.

The current Republican Congressman is Ron Paul. The source is Escalation is Hardly the Answer, a speech by Ron Paul before the House of Representatives, January 11, 2007, on the official House website.


The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

The former UN Weapons Inspector is Marine Scott Ritter, and the source is a Prison Planet article, Former UN Weapons Inspector: Don’t Rule Out Staged Government Terror by Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones, October 24 2005, citing Ritter’s appearance on Jones’s radio show.

Last on the main page:

And a member of the British Parliament stated that “there is a very real danger” that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

The MP is George Galloway, and the source is a Prison Planet article, George Galloway MP: Elements Within Government Using Terror Provocation Tactics, by Steve Watson and Alex Jones, September 13 2005, citing Galloway’s appearance on Jones’s radio show.

Thus ends the first page, which has not, so far, presented any of the site’s evidence for government complicity in the 9/11 attacks. The latter evidence is presented on other pages that I’ll examine in future posts. So far, all that has been established is that the idea of government complicity in the 9/11 attacks is not totally wacky and should not be dismissed out of hand.

The section of the main page dealing with false flag operations appears to have been copied from An Introduction to False Flag Terror on George Washington’s Blog, Wednesday, December 28, 2005. Some further examples of false flag operations are mentioned in a postscript and comments there, plus some more sources on Operation Gladio and Operation Northwoods. I’ll now discuss the info I found on the George Washington’s Blog page.

In 2004, the Spanish interior ministry said it was investigating reports that two of the suspects alleged to have been involved in an Al Qaeda train bombing in Madrid were police informants or otherwise had links to Spain’s security services. Two news stories are cited: Bomb squad link in Spanish blasts by Edward Owen, The Times (U.K.), June 19, 2004, and Spain suspects ‘were informants’, BBC News, Thursday, 29 April, 2004.

A comment mentions the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, giving two sources: “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast” by Ralph Blumenthal, New York Times, Thursday October 28, 1993, as reprinted on a page titled The FBI Allowed the 1993 WTC Bombing to Happen on What Really Happened, and the Wikipedia article on Emad Salem. The Wikipedia article begins as follows:

Emad A. Salem is an ex-Egyptian army officer turned FBI informant, who was a key witness in the trial of Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah, convicted in the World Trade Center Bombing of February 26, 1993. After the bombing, Salem claimed that the FBI knew about the bombing plot, and agreed to foil it by supplying fake explosives to him. Salem taped his telephone conversations with FBI agents. Those tapes were provided to defense lawyers, although they were not used in the trial. In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI’s New York Office, denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks.

This is followed by a transcript of one of the phone conversations showing that the FBI indeed had foreknowledge.

Another comment on George Washington’s blog provides another source on Operation Northwoods, Most Corrupt U.S. Military Plan Ever, on the Cryptome site. Later, “George Washington” provided a link to a searchable HTML version of the Operation Northwoods documents.

There was some discussion as to whether Operation Northwoods would have involved actually killing people, as distinct from just fake hijackings, plane swapping, and fake funerals. “George Washington” quoted two parts that most likely would have involved killing people:

“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots . . . .”

Also “We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.”

Another commenter mentioned that there are some people – including some people in the 9/11 Truth movement – who believe that the Operation Northwoods documents are fake and that no such operation was ever even planned. The anonymous commenter quotes the article Operation Northwoods: The Counterfeit by Carol A. Valentine, who believes that the Operation Northwoods documents were planted by a foreign intelligence agency; she suspects Mossad. This belief is NOT shared by most people in the 9/11 Truth movement. (Admittedly the Britishisms in the Operation Northwoods documents are a bit odd. But perhaps they were put there deliberately for the sake of plausible deniability in the event of a leak? Furthermore, if indeed the documents were planted by a foreign intelligence agency, I would see no particular reason to jump to any conclusion as to when they were planted, let alone by which foreign intelligence agency. Who knows, maybe they were planted by the KGB back in the 1960’s? Then again, perhaps it might have been planted in 2001 by someone in the Bush Administration as a way of seeding ridiculously Rube Goldbert-esque theories about 9/11 in order to discredit possible “conspiracy theories.” We just don’t know.)

Another commenter posted a quote from the following news story showing that Bush has at least contemplated a false flag operation to drum up support for the Iraq war: Memo details Bush’s resolve to invade Iraq by Don Van Natta Jr., New York Times, as reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle, Tuesday, March 28, 2006, which says:

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a U.S. surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Hussein.

These proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Bush’s extemporaneous suggestions or whether they were elements of the government’s plan.

Regarding Operation Gladio, another commenter mentions the article “Sword Play: Operation Gladio” by Chris Floyd, The Moscow Times, May 12, 2007, of which there are many copies on the Internet, including one on the Environmentalists Against War site and one on Global Research.

I’ll now discuss a few comments that wandered off the topic of false flag operations.

One commenter, John Roper, mentioned the Popular Mechanics article opposing the 9/11 Truth movement. Another commenter, Gary, replied:

WHY did Popular Mechanics fail to reveal the author was Michael Chertoff’s brother (?) or relative.

You know, Homeland Security?

Chertoff himself was involved in a pre-911 terror case where he got up out of his comfy chair as Fed Prosecutor of the $40 million Clinton impeachment (hold it! I’m NOT a fan of Willy!) and took off to New Jersey to defend a doctor accused of “losing” $15 million and sending $6 million offshore … poss. to Osama.

Case dismissed. Dr. Elamir, an Egyptian, got to keep the money.

WHY did Chertoff take this stupid piddly defense case? Bored? What’s the connection?

WHY did Chertoff take the case while he was leading Operation Greenquest into tracking terror money trails, the thing his client was accused of?

WHY, in the first place, was the doctor given 44,000 patients to run through his brand new HMO, when he had never run an HMO?

WHY, if Chertoff had this shocking question mark in his background, was he given Homeland Security?

WHY has the media refused to even publish an article about it?

WHAT is a REASONABLE ANSWER to these questions? There are zillions more like this.

I have yet to investigate whether any these above allegations, both about Chertoff himself and about his relationship to the author of the Popular Mechanics article, are true. No sources are given, alas.

Another commenter, John Doraemi, author of the Crimes of the State blog, wrote:

To the moron pushing Popular Mechanics. No, they did not debunk “every” “conspiracy theory”, and they shied away from hundreds of conspiracy facts. Their yellow journalism was exposed by Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

And, as a treat just for you, I can debunk and discredit one of their more outrageous claims right here right now.

“”In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America…”–P.M.


“Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity.\3 The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.”

Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76)

Some time next week I hope I’ll have time to examine the second page of

1 Comment »

  1. Here’s an email I sent to a site advocating RON PAUL today.


    I notice that you have alot on Ron Paul lately.

    Most people I talk to about Ron Paul seem unaware of his actual positions on the issues. They only know he’s “anti-war” or the “truth candidate”.

    But what investigations has Ron Paul instigated while in Congress? Where has Ron Paul been in the six years since 2001 on the 9/11 cover-up?

    Paul says he’s a constitutionist, but wants prayer in the schools.

    Paul says he’s a Libertarian but he wants the government to decide on abortion.

    Paul supports oil companies and drilling in Alaska — his own website doesn’t even list “energy” on his issues page at all.

    Sounds like a Bush dream so far.

    Voting against funding for alternative energy and things like AMTRAK because someone is “against subsidies” is just more veiled support for the oil companies, since the subsidies for nuclear and oil are already deeply embedded in our system.

    Please reconsider promoting Ron Paul. He is a Bush dream candidate on many of his positions and there are other candidates who are anti-war.

    It looks like Cynthia McKinney may run with the Greens, and she has actually created the legislation for investigations to expose lies and has asked the hard questions when Ron Paul was silent.

    Doesn’t that count for anything?

    – my name

    Ron Paul on the Issues

    * Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)
    * Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
    * Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    * Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
    * Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer
    * Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
    * Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)
    * Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
    * Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
    * Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
    * Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
    * Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
    * ‘Take marching orders from Constitution; not from al Qaeda.’ (Sep 2007)
    * Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
    * Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
    * Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
    * Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
    * Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
    * Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
    * Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
    * Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
    * Replace coal & oil with alternatives – strongly opposes . . .

    If we get rid of the UN, as Ron Paul would like, then what about the role of Israel? What if all decisions about Israel were left to the US Congress, and not the UN? The UN has been the primary international public body in the world unafraid to treat Israel the same as the rest of the world, and to regularly condemn it’s actions.

    Part of the UN is an organization called the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These are the people who go and inspect countries for nuclear weapons. But if Ron Paul were president, there might be no such agency, since he prefers to do away with the UN. Who would take on this important task? Would nations of the world allow agents of the US to inspect their properties for nuclear weapons? Or would the UN be expected to be privatized after the US refused to pay any dues, as Ron Paul calls for? Does it make sense to have a non-profit international body staffed by experts to undertake the task of examing nuclear weapons and power stations around the world?

    But Ron Paul doesn’t seem interested in the relevance of international bodies.

    This isn’t rocket science.

    Without any international bodies to meditate between the world’s nations there will be nuclear war. The UN is not something we should ‘throw away,’ and the International Criminal Court is the only means we have for a civil and just response to war crimes around the world. According to the UN Charter, war is illegal, all war. The UN kept Bush out of Iraq longer than anyone else in the world. Those few months may well be what allowed the insurgency to start in the first place, or for people to flee with their lives, we do not know.

    Comment by reader21 — November 22, 2007 @ 1:15 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: