ZGram - June 20, 2002 - "Was September 11, 2001 another Pearl Harbor?" - Part I

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

ZGRAM - WHERE TRUTH IS DESTINY

JUNE 20, 2002

GOOD MORNGING FROM THE ZUNDELSITE:

I found an interesting summary on a new website, the URL of which I 
am going to give to you tomorrow.  It was written by The Questioning 
Patriot, dated May 31, 2002 - and if I knew who he was, I would ask 
him if it was okay to run his treatise by you.  Since no clue is 
given, I hope he will forgive me.

I am breaking his essay up into two parts, since it is rather long. 
Its title is:  "Was September 11, 2001 another Pearl Harbor?
In what sense?"

Just asking!

[START]

      We all know the first "official" story about the events of 
September 11, 2001. We were told that it was a sneak attack almost 
exactly like the one on Pearl Harbor more than sixty years ago. We 
were also told that despite the fact that U. S. intelligence had 
collected thousands, perhaps millions, of different bits and pieces 
of pertinent information, they had simply failed to put it all 
together in one coherent package. All of the terrible scenes of the 
destruction of the World Trade Center and people fleeing across 
Manhattan's bridges were brought to us in an unparalleled mainstream 
media event of round-the-clock reporting. I know that I personally 
will never forget that morning, nor the many weeks and months that 
followed.

      Even before the first tower of the World Trade Center had 
fallen, the mainstream media began to openly speculate on who or what 
had done this to America. The names immediately pushed to the top of 
the list were Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, names with which most 
Americans had already become very familiar. We knew from what we had 
been told that they had the means, the motive, and the willingness to 
do this terrible act, and had actually planned and executed other 
terrorist attacks against Americans and American assets. All across 
the U. S., grief and shock turned to anger ... and a very strong 
national desire to strike back at those that had done this awful 
thing.

      Flash forward to the first couple of weeks of May 2002, and 
we're starting to see a very different picture. We now know that Bush 
and his supporters knew that the terrorist attack was coming, and 
we're learning more every day about just how much they really knew. 
Bush's people are now spending quite a bit of time trying to blame 
the FBI, CIA, and others for either massive intelligence failures, or 
a failure to more fully inform Bush, or both.

Additionally, Cheney is not only advising Bush not to hand over any 
of the intelligence briefings prior to September 11, 2001, he is also 
refusing to cooperate with the idea of convening an independent 
commission to investigate those terrible events.

      Why? What are they hiding? What is it they don't want us, the 
American people, to know?

      Now, having said all of the above, consider for a moment the 
idea that the events of September 11, 2001, were ALLOWED to happen. 
Think about that concept for a moment.

*     *     *

      One of the easiest ways to accomplish an objective is to allow 
some other event to happen that will set certain events into motion, 
or to have key security/military units stand down at a critical point 
in time, or both. Sometimes an objective can be accomplished by 
leaving a known spy in place and feeding that individual real data to 
find out where it goes, or false data to see if the opponent changes 
an operation that will allow you better access to data that you want. 
The variations are endless.

      Think about the billions upon billions of dollars spent every 
year by U. S. civilian and military intelligence agencies gathering 
data in this country and overseas. Is it really believable that no 
one at the top of U. S. intelligence understood the true implications 
of the data that was being collected in advance of September 11, 
2001? If your answer is "No," then is it really believable that those 
same intelligence organizations would have failed to brief those in 
political control?

      Once we are willing to at least consider the concept that 
September 11, 2001 was allowed to happen, then we have to ask why 
would it be allowed to happen? I think we know that the motive 
involved the further enrichment of the oil, energy, and defense 
industries. Major corporations like Enron, Unocal, and the Carlyle 
Group stood to gain enormous profits over the next fifty years if 
they could devise the means to gain control of the vast oil reserves 
of the Caspian Sea area.

      But how would such a plan be enacted? Here is a possible 
seven-step process:

      FIRST: Remove really smart and aggressive senior people from 
positions that may allow them to discover the plan, or failing that, 
bring them into the plan if no other option exists. EXAMPLE: The 
foremost FBI authority on terrorism, John P. O'Neill, was forced out 
of the FBI. Ironically, he died on his second day on his new job as 
the Director of Security of the World Trade Center.

      SECOND: Create bureaucratic roadblocks in the path of others 
that pass important information up the chain. EXAMPLE: Information 
from the Phoenix and Minnesota FBI offices was blocked and/or altered 
by an higher-level FBI office located in Washington, D. C.

      THIRD: Create cover stories gaining plausible deniability for 
key figures in the plan. EXAMPLE: Everyone knew that Bush was on 
vacation in August 2001, and that Cheney was still recuperating from 
the recent implant of a pacemaker.

      FOURTH: As the events unfold, orders customarily given under 
certain circumstances are not issued. Still other orders are given 
that send units in directions that are planned to be unfruitful. 
EXAMPLE: In the Payne Stewart case in October 1999, jet interceptors 
met Stewart's plane sixteen minutes after notification by the Air 
Traffic Controller. Note that permission to contact the military was 
not required, nor has it ever been required. On September 11, 2001, 
jet interceptors failed to leave the ground for at least 26 minutes 
... long enough for at least two of the first three airliners to have 
hit their intended targets.

      FIFTH: Have plans in place to create heroes of the victims, and 
to build public opinion in support of the goals of the plan. EXAMPLE: 
The passengers and crew of Flight 93 have been cited time and again 
for their heroism in attempting to regain control of that doomed 
airliner from the terrorists. The revolt failed, but with the nearly 
vertical impact of the airliner into rural Pennsylvania farmland, any 
potential target of Flight 93 had been saved. But, Flight 93 also 
left a debris field at least six miles away from the primary impact 
site. Is it possible that the plane was actually shot down and then 
the occupants turned into heroes to cover-up the shoot-down? This was 
the plane to which Cheney was referring when he ordered the plane to 
be shot down.

      SIXTH: Quickly push legislation through Congress that will 
protect the gains of the plan, and further the interests of the 
planners. EXAMPLE: The Patriot Act is the most glaring example of all 
the so-called "anti-terror" legislation that has gotten through 
Congress since September 11, 2001.

      SEVENTH: Create an atmosphere of fear among the general 
populace and offer solutions to protect them at the same time. 
EXAMPLE: The anthrax attacks that we now know to have come from a 
domestic source, the formation of the Homeland Security Department, 
the so-called Terror Alert System that has the mainstream media doing 
its best imitation of Chicken Little on a daily basis, and the 
mainstream media itself that allows Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and 
Powell to appear on the television almost on a daily basis.

*     *     *

      Having read the seven points noted above, is the concept of 
allowing such a terrible event to take place really that far-fetched?

{END]

====

TOMORROW:  CONCLUSION