The second example is Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission created in November 2002. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, who officially led the commission, revealed in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (2006), that the commission “was set up to fail” from the beginning. Zelikow had already written a synopsis and a conclusion for the final report before the first meeting. Zelikow controlled all the working groups, prevented them from communicating with each other, and gave them the singular mission to prove the official story; Team 1A, for example, was tasked to “tell the story of Al-Qaeda’s most successful operation—the 9/11 attacks.” All information, and any request for information, had to pass through him.
Zelikow is a pure Straussian, a self-proclaimed specialist in terrorism and the creation of “public myths” by “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.”590 In December 1998, he co-signed with John Deutch an article for Foreign Affairs entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which they speculated on what would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing (already arbitrarily attributed to bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear bomb: “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. […] Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force.”591 Such is the man who controlled the governmental investigation on the 9/11 terror attacks.
The Controlled Opposition
A majority of conspiracy groups and sites avoid discussing the role of Israel in 9/11 and prefer to point the finger at President Bush and his clan. Yet the situation in which the president found himself at the time of the attacks—reading The Pet Goat with primary schoolchildren in Florida—dramatically illustrates how he was removed from direct control of ongoing operations. In my view, the interminable eight minutes during which Bush remains unresponsive after learning that the second WTC tower had just been hit, made famous by Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11, are to 9/11 what the Zapruder film is to the Kennedy assassination: the moment when Bush was turned into a dummy—the next best thing to a corpse—while Cheney was taking over the real government (as Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein have shown in Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency).592
If the president was taken by surprise on the day of the attacks, why did he cover for the real culprits by validating the bin Laden-Al Qaeda thesis? It was necessary that a means of blackmail against the president and, more generally, against the American state, be prepared in advance. Indeed, as with the JFK assassination, the difficulty was not so much the logistics of the operation itself as the obstruction of the investigation. A large number of very high-ranking people needed to be sufficiently implicated to have an interest in the truth not seeing the light, and to understand instantly that lying (the false flag) also served to cover for them. The best way to create such a situation is the “hijacked conspiracy.” This is the hypothesis I developed in my previous book JFK-9/11: that decision-makers in the US deep state had planned a false flag attack on a limited scale (for example, fake aircraft events at the Pentagon and Shanksville) with the limited purpose of justifying the invasion of Afghanistan; but that they were taken over by the infiltrated Zionist network, whose goal was much more ambitious. The invasion of Afghanistan to liquidate the Taliban regime, which had become an obstacle to the UNOCAL (Union Oil of California) pipeline project, was prepared in July 2001 after the failure of the final negotiations (it could not have been launched just one month after the 9/11 attacks without having been planned long before). A false attack blamed on Osama bin Laden, a friend and guest of the Taliban, was ordered to justify this intervention on the international scene and in public opinion. In this way the invasion could be disguised as a manhunt.
But this goal did not in itself interest the neoconservatives. What did they care about Afghanistan? What they wanted was a new war against Iraq and then a general conflagration in the Middle East leading to the crumbling of all the real or potential enemies of Israel. So, with the help of their New York super-sayanim (with Larry Silverstein in the lead), they outbid everyone and gave the operation the scale they wanted, taking everyone by surprise. To trigger a war of civilization against the Middle East, there needed to be something visually dramatic and traumatic, like the explosion of the Twin Towers and several thousand deaths. I cannot address here the technical investigation of these attacks, and would encourage the reader to view the documentary by Ace Baker entitled 9/11: The Great American Psy-Opera593 and to read my articles.594
Thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media, the neoconservatives won the game against small players like George W. Bush, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice, who, unintentionally embroiled in geopolitical machinations of global scope, only had to save face. On September 19 and 20, Richard Perle’s Defense Policy Board met in the company of Paul Wolfowitz and Bernard Lewis (inventor of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the “clash of civilizations”) but in the absence of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Those assembled agreed on the need to overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of the initial phase of the war in Afghanistan. They prepared a letter to Bush, written on PNAC letterhead, to remind him of his historic mission: “Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”595 This, again, was an ultimatum. Bush was certainly aware of the leverage that the neocons had acquired over the major print and television media. He was obliged, under penalty of ending in the proverbial trash bin of history, to endorse the invasion of Iraq that his father had refused the Zionists ten years earlier.
As for Brzezinski and other US imperialists, their support for the invasion of Afghanistan made their timid protests against the Iraq war ineffective. It was a little late in February 2007 when Brzezinski denounced before the Senate “a historical, strategic and moral calamity […] driven by Manichaean impulses and imperial hubris.” Anxious to stop the infernal machine he helped set in motion, the former national security advisor publicly worried that the failure in Iraq would soon be “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.”596 In 2012 he declared, regarding the risk of conflagration with Iran, that Obama should stop following Israel like a “stupid mule.”597
After 9/11, the media played the same double game as after the JFK assassination. Most of the major newspapers and television channels presented the official thesis as verified and incontestable. But some people simultaneously voiced an indirect suspicion of possible complicity of George W. Bush and his father, questioning their relations with the major Saudi families. It was The New York Times of July 26, 2003, that first revealed President Bush had requested that a section of 28 pages be classified secret and withdrawn from the report of the 9/11 Commission—a section detailing possible involvement of specific Saudi officials. One of the key men in this blackmail operation was Senator Bob Graham (brother of Philip Graham, son-in-law and successor to the founder of Th
e Washington Post Eugene Meyer), who as president of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a member of the Joint Congressional Inquiry on 9/11. In his book Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America’s War on Terror (2004), and in articles, interviews, and conferences, Graham claimed that these 28 pages contained “proofs” that members of the Saudi royal family financed Al-Qaeda, and that they had been censored because of “the special personal friendship between the [Saudi] royal family and the highest levels of our national government [meaning the president].” Graham made his first revelation on Democracy Now, the Pacifica network show founded by Amy Goodman,598 who, according to Wikipedia, is “of Orthodox Jewish heritage; her maternal grandfather was an Orthodox rabbi.” Democracy Now, which regularly invites Noam Chomsky, is a typical example of controlled opposition whose aim is to maintain dissent within the dominant paradigm (bin Laden’s guilt) while giving the illusion of adversarial debate. But the threat of disclosing the classified pages, which have since been regularly mentioned by the press, also maintained the pressure on Bush and his clan and prevented them from pointing the finger at Israel.
Simultaneously, the neoconservatives blackmailed the Saudi dynasty. Speaking in an interview with PBS in December 2002, Graham sent a message to Saudi Arabia with his “evidence that foreign governments have helped to facilitate the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.” David Wurmser had already opened hostilities with an article in the Weekly Standard of October 29, 2001, entitled: “The Saudi Connection: Osama bin Laden’s a lot closer to the Saudi royal family than you think.” In June 2002, the Hudson Institute, a bastion of neoconservative doctrine, sponsored a seminar on the theme “Discourses on Democracy: Saudi Arabia, Friend or Foe?”—most guests suggesting that “foe” is the correct answer—then promoted the book Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism by Dore Gold, who has served as advisor to Netanyahu and Sharon as well as ambassador to the United Nations. On July 10, 2002, the Franco-American neoconservative Laurent Murawiec, a member of the Hudson Institute and the Committee on the Present Danger, appeared before Richard Perle’s Defense Policy Board to explain that Saudi Arabia is “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” and recommend that the United States invade, occupy, and fragment the state. He summarized his “Grand Strategy for the Middle East” with these words: “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.”599 In their book published in 2003, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, Richard Perle and David Frum, Bush’s speechwriter, argue that “the Saudis qualify for their own membership in the axis of evil,” and implore President Bush to “tell the truth about Saudi Arabia,” namely that the Saudi princes finance Al-Qaeda.600 These repeated threats were highly effective, judging by the evolution of Saudi policy, which in the following decades played Israel’s game by redirecting its jihadist networks against Libya and Syria.
In the quest for the truth about September 11 as in the Kennedy case, controlled opposition operates on many levels, and many honest scholars now realize that the 9/11 truth movement itself is largely channeled to hide the role of Israel. The half-truth of the exclusively “inside job” thesis, which denounces 9/11 as a false flag operation perpetrated by the American state on its own citizens, functions like a secondary false flag, insofar as it protects the real masters of the operation, who are in fact agents in the service of a foreign nation. One of the aims of this “inside job” maneuver is to force American leaders to maintain the “bin Laden did it” masquerade, knowing that raising the mask would reveal the features of Uncle Sam. No longer controlling the media, they would not have the means to raise this second veil to reveal the face of the real culprit. Any effort to get at the truth would be political suicide. Everyone understands the issue: if one day, under mounting pressure from public opinion or for some other strategic reason, the mainstream media abandons the official bin Laden story, the well-rehearsed slogan “9/11 was an inside job” will have prepared Americans to turn against their own government, while the neocon Zionists will remain untouchable. And God knows what will happen, if the government has not by then succeeded in disarming its citizens through Sandy Hook-type psy-ops. Government officials have little choice but to stick to the Al-Qaeda story, at least for the next fifty years.
After reaching this conclusion, which I defended in a long Internet article,601 I had the satisfaction of finding that Victor Thorn, in a book that had eluded me, had expressed it much earlier, and in harsher terms:
“In essence, the ‘9-11 truth movement’ was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. By 2002–2003, ‘truthers’ began appearing at rallies holding placards that read ‘9-11 was an inside job.’ Initially, these signs provided hope for those who didn’t believe the government and mainstream media’s absurd cover stories. But then an awful realization emerged: The slogan ‘9-11 was an inside job’ was quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised. […] The mantra, ‘9-11 was an inside job’ is only partially true and is inherently damaging to the ‘truth movement’ because it shifts all attention away from Israel’s traitorous assault against America. […] Leaders of these fake 9-11 groups know the truth about Israel’s 9-11 barbarity. Their willingness to perpetuate or cover it up ultimately makes them as guilty and vile as those who launched the attacks. There are no degrees of separation in this matter. It’s a black-and-white issue. Tell the entire truth about Israel’s Murder, Inc. cabal, or sleep in the same infected bed as these murdering dogs lie in. […] Faux conspiratologists complain about the government and news sources not telling the truth, yet they’ve erected an utter blackout on data regarding Israel and 9-11.”602
There is evidence that the 9/11 truth movement was infiltrated and infected very early in order to divert it from the Mossad job track and fix it on the inside job track: the possible forgery of a top-secret memorandum entitled Operation Northwoods, the blueprint for a false flag operation conceived to serve as a casus belli against Cuba in 1962. General Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is said to have presented it to Kennedy’s defense secretary Robert McNamara, who rejected it. The project consisted of a wave of terrorist acts falsely attributed to Cuba, culminating in the explosion over Cuban waters of a plane allegedly carrying vacationing American students. The explosion would have been preceded by distress signals indicating an attack by a Cuban fighter. The actual passengers would be secretly transferred to another plane, and a state funeral would be held in their remembrance. This planned operation was revealed to the public by James Bamford in May 2001 in his book Body of Secrets,603 then immediately reported on ABC News, so it was fresh in the public mind on 9/11. The film Loose Change (2005), the most widely watched dissident documentary in the world, opens with a presentation of Operation Northwoods, making its thesis of a plot emanating from the US government extremely compelling. Operation Northwoods is sufficient to prove that in 1962 the US military had the will and the capacity to organize a false flag attack to trigger a war, and that such an operation would have involved the use of drones and fictitious victims.
It should be noted that the three young Jews who produced this film (Dylan Avery, Corey Rowe, and Jason Bermas), associated with Alex Jones, hitched their whole thesis to an operation that was never carried out. They failed to mention the attack on the USS Liberty, which actually took place. They did not breathe a word about the double loyalty of the neoconservatives, and treated anyone who cited the Israeli role in 9/11 as anti-Semitic. The Operation Northwoods revelations killed two birds with one stone. The scandal was also picked up by recent books on the Kennedy assassination incriminating the CIA, the Pentagon, and the military-industrial complex, thus illustrating the Machiavellianism of the military elites and their conflict with the president, who ostensibly sacked Lemnitzer for daring to imagine Operation Northwoods.604
>
There is even a reasonable chance that the document is a forgery, as Carol Valentine has suggested by pointing out a few anachronistic British colloquialisms.605 When asked about it in 2006, at a time when he spoke openly of many other dark secrets, Robert McNamara, to whom the Northwoods memo was supposedly given, declared: “I have absolutely zero recollection of it.”606 Moreover, in 1962, Lemnitzer was not dismissed but promoted to supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe. The Northwoods document is not listed on any government site. It is apparently Bamford who provided it to the National Security Archive Project at George Washington University, where it is searchable.607 Random House informs us that, to write his book, Bamford—an ex-Navy employee gone into journalism after Watergate, just like Bob Woodward—was granted “unprecedented access to Crypto City (the NSA campus in Ft. Meade, MD), senior NSA officials, and thousands of NSA documents,” by none other than NSA director Michael Hayden.608
In other words, it was Hayden who supplied Bamford with his sources, including, presumably, the Northwoods memorandum. We do not know where he found it since this memo is supposed to be the copy found in the personal papers of Lemnitzer (who, we are told, destroyed all his archives at the Pentagon himself). After moving to the CIA, Hayden retired as a principal at the Chertoff Group, the security consultancy founded by Michael Chertoff.609 Chertoff, son of a rabbi and a pioneer of Mossad, is one of the key moles placed to obstruct any genuine inquiry into 9/11. For example, it was Chertoff who stopped the FBI’s investigation into the five “dancing Israelis,” repatriating them back to Israel for mere “visa violations.” So we should reasonably consider the possibility that Operation Northwoods was invented four months before 9/11 for the purpose of predisposing truth seekers toward the hypothesis of a US rather than Israeli false flag operation, and toward the hypothesis of US military drones crashing into the WTC.
From Yahweh to Zion Page 41
