Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations

[Phaeton80]

A well researched article with an interesting and detailed look at some of the lesser known aspects surrounding or in relation to the event, painting an equally interesting scenario. Quite a read, but its worth it imo.

Abstract:

Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001

On September 11, 2001 the definition of National Security changed for most U.S. citizens.

For an entire postwar generation, “National Security” meant protection from nuclear attack. On that day, Americans redefined that threat. On September 11, 2001 three hijacked airliners hit three separate buildings with such precision and skill that many observers believe those flights were controlled by something other than the poorly trained hijackers in the cockpits. This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact.

The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11thrather than to define exactly what happened that day. Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11th other than the total destruction of the World Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives. However, if the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested ‘symbolic’ designation as either ‘a terrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives (as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction. This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th.[1]

After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al. The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” [2] and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause.

http://www.scribd.co...unding-Targeted

Edited May 29, 2014 by Phaeton80

[skyeagle409]

A well researched article with an interesting and detailed look at some of the lesser known aspects surrounding or in relation to the event, painting an equally interesting scenario. Quite a read, but its worth it imo.

Abstract:

The information from your link is highly flawed and inaccurate and the claims of 9/11 CT'ers have been successfully debunked with facts and evidence.

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have admitted to their responsibility for the 911 attack and furthermore, intelligence warnings from around the world had pointed their fingers at the terrorist, not the U.S. government. In other words, there was no U.S. covert operation regarding the 9/11 attack.

If you had illegal information stored on your computer that you wanted to destroy, what would be the best approach to destroy that evidence?

1. Fly an airplane into your house

2. Simply remove and thoroughly destroy your computer's hard drive.

Even a damaged hard drive can still reveal information. There have been people posting disinformation on the Internet for the purpose of discrediting the 911 Truther movement and they have been doing a very good job.

[+and-then]

The information from your link is highly flawed and inaccurate and the claims of 9/11 CT'ers have been successfully debunked with facts and evidence.

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have admitted to their responsibility for the 911 attack and furthermore, intelligence warnings from around the world had pointed their fingers at the terrorist, not the U.S. government. In other words, there was no U.S. covert operation regarding the 9/11 attack.

If you had illegal information stored on your computer that you wanted to destroy, what would be the best approach to destroy that evidence?

1. Fly an airplane into your house

2. Simply remove and thoroughly destroy your computer's hard drive.

Even a damaged hard drive can still reveal information. There have been people posting disinformation on the Internet for the purpose of discrediting the 911 Truther movement and they have been doing a very good job.

Ever try keeping a secret that more than one person is aware of? Imagine having HUNDREDS involved... yeah, conspiracy seems really plausible

[skyeagle409]

Ever try keeping a secret that more than one person is aware of? Imagine having HUNDREDS involved... yeah, conspiracy seems really plausible

You are correct! Hundreds if not thousands, would have been involved and even then, such an operation could have been easily revealed.

First of all, only a certain number of B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft were built and are traceable. For an example, four B-757's were built and they are listed below:

1. B-757, tail # 0001

2. B-757, tail # 0002

3. B-757, tail # 0003

4. B-757, tail # 0004

One of those aircraft was involved in a crash and the remaining aircraft are:

1. B-757, tail # 0001

2. B-757, tail # 0002

3 B-757, tail # 0004

Question: Which aircraft was involved in the crash?

In addition, there was no way the airlines would have grounded their aircraft for many months in order to have them modified illegally to fly under remote control, however, flight data records show that at no time were those aircraft flown under remote control.

. Since the B-767 and B-757 are not fly-by-wire aircraft, such modifications would have resulted in the redesign of the control system of those aircraft and that would have not only involved American Airlines and United Airlines, but the Boeing Aircraft Co. and its subcontractors as well. which would have left paper trails across the United States and around the world.

Another claim of 911 Truthers, is that United 175 was modified with a pod that was used to carry explosives. Question is, why modify that aircraft to carry 1000+ pounds of explosives in a pod when over 20,000 pounds of explosives can be carried in the cargo holds without modifying anything? Adding explosives isn't going to have that much of an impact on the steel structure anyway if explosives are not firmly attached to the steel structures. As it was, they confused aerodynamic fairings and even the MLG doors as an attached pod. In one case, the lower paint scheme of United 175 was confused as an attached pod and to put that argument to rest, I posted another B-767 with the same paint scheme on its lower fuselage.

It is simply amazing just how easy 911 Truthers can be duped.

Each aircraft has its own unique signatures, even among aircraft of the same models and there was no way they could have been switched. As an airframe technician/inspector, I have often said that it would have taken me less than 30 minutes to reveal a switched aircraft and no one in their right mind within the U.S. government would have even dreamed of using such aircraft in such an attack as we saw on 9/11/2001. In doing so, they would have found themselves behind bars and subject to the death penalty with tons of evidence stacked against them.

That would have included engineers, technicians, test pilots, contractors, sub-contractors and anyone else connected to such an operation as we saw on 9/11/2001.

.

Edited May 29, 2014 by skyeagle409

[Rafterman]

The information from your link is highly flawed and inaccurate and the claims of 9/11 CT'ers have been successfully debunked with facts and evidence.

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have admitted to their responsibility for the 911 attack and furthermore, intelligence warnings from around the world had pointed their fingers at the terrorist, not the U.S. government. In other words, there was no U.S. covert operation regarding the 9/11 attack.

If you had illegal information stored on your computer that you wanted to destroy, what would be the best approach to destroy that evidence?

1. Fly an airplane into your house

2. Simply remove and thoroughly destroy your computer's hard drive.

Even a damaged hard drive can still reveal information. There have been people posting disinformation on the Internet for the purpose of discrediting the 911 Truther movement and they have been doing a very good job.

Agreed.

It's basically a repackaging of the same old debunked stupidity that the author tries to wrap into some kind of overarching financial conspiracy.

I knew it was going to be a doozie when I saw that an "article" on geoengineering, chemtrails, and HAARP was also recommended - i.e. if you like this crazy assed batshit, you'll LOVE this even crazier assed batshit.

[Babe Ruth]

No doubt Flocco et al are pretty darn close to it. First ever in its history the SEC invoked the special rule allowing those securities to be cleared anonymously.

The honest investigators at ONI were way too close for comfort at the Pentagon, and they took the vast majority of the casualties.

Great article!

[skyeagle409]

No doubt Flocco et al are pretty darn close to it. First ever in its history the SEC invoked the special rule allowing those securities to be cleared anonymously.

The honest investigators at ONI were way too close for comfort at the Pentagon, and they took the vast majority of the casualties.

Great article!

Just to let you know that most of the money in question at the Pentagon has been accounted for. Goes to show that the claim regarding missing funds at the Pentagon was based on ignorance, not facts.

[skyeagle409]

On September 11, 2001 the definition of National Security changed for most U.S. citizens.

For an entire postwar generation, “National Security” meant protection from nuclear attack. On that day, Americans redefined that threat. On September 11, 2001 three hijacked airliners hit three separate buildings with such precision and skill that many observers believe those flights were controlled by something other than the poorly trained hijackers in the cockpits.

Let's take a look at just hos precise those flights were flown.

Not what I would call precise maneuvering of the aircraft after disengagement of the autopilots.

[skyeagle409]

Agreed.

It's basically a repackaging of the same old debunked stupidity that the author tries to wrap into some kind of overarching financial conspiracy.

I have noticed that claims of 9/11 CT'ers have not only been debunked with facts and evidence, but some claims are known hoaxes. Seems to me this individual is not too happy about the disinformation that has made the 9/11 Truther Movement a laughing stock.

Disinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth”

By 2009, the 9/11 “Truth” Movement was so inundated with disinformation that it had become a laughingstock. The easily-discredited claims (lies) contaminated the greater issue and soiled dissenters across the board. “Turd blossom” was a Karl Rove phrase that could describe what the movement had devolved into. The media, whether corporate or foundation-funded, could find people ranting about “the Jews” or the Illuminati, the Lizard People, the missiles, holograms, mini-nukes or space beam weapons vaporizing the Twin Towers.

Many trolls, and some public personalities, appeared to be professional disinformation artists hard at work concocting and posting this crap online, which others repeated to their own detriment. One cannot easily prove that a specific person is a paid shill, a disinformation agent, a cyber agent provocateur, but be assured they are out there, and “out there.”

DISINFORMATION TO DISCREDIT

Author Thomas Pynchon wrote, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” I’ll go one better and in the process explain modern cyber disinformation: If they can get you asking stupid questions, then their lapdog media can dismiss you as a “nut.”

http://www.911truth.org/disinformation-killed-911-truth/

I have repeatedly warned 9/11 CT'ers that there are folks out there in the world who are deliberately posting disinformation, misinformation, hoaxed videos, hoaxed photos, and lies on the Internet surrounding the 9/11 attack and yet they continued to re-post their flawed and invalid so-called evidence on message boards..

The claim that the 9/11 attack was a U.S. covert operation is unfounded and baseless. There was no way the U.S. government could have planned and carried out such an attack and not get caught and after more than 12 years, there is not a shred of evidence the 9/11 attack was a U.S. covert operation especially in light of the fact that international intelligence sources have said that al-Qaeda, not the U.S.,government, was responsible for which Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda later admitted their responsibility for the 9/11 attack.

[ian hacktorp]

Skyeagle sounds more desperate with every post.

Trying to sweep back the tide with a whisk broom can feel pointless after a while.

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle sounds more desperate with every post.

Trying to sweep back the tide with a whisk broom can feel pointless after a while.

i am pointing out the fact there is no evidence of a U.S. government 9/11 conspiracy. Basically speaking, 9/11 Truthers are disrespecting those who have lost family members and friends in the 9/11 attack.

Edited May 30, 2014 by skyeagle409

[ellapenella]

There have been people posting disinformation on the Internet for the purpose of discrediting the 911 Truther movement and they have been doing a very good job.

What does that mean ? It appears that you're commending those that post disinformation in hopes to discredit something.

[ian hacktorp]

i am pointing out the fact there is no evidence of a U.S. government 9/11 conspiracy. Basically speaking, 9/11 Truthers are disrespecting those who have lost family members and friends in the 9/11 attack.

By all means, point away...the real 'disrespectors' of those families and friends are starting to feel the heat and it won't let up...EVER.

And now we have the Bush Administration's own Counter-Terrorism 'Czar' going public to say the Administration's senior officials are guilty of war crimes and should face an international tribunal.

Not gonna be pretty for them...

[ellapenella]

i am pointing out the fact there is no evidence of a U.S. government 9/11 conspiracy. Basically speaking, 9/11 Truthers are disrespecting those who have lost family members and friends in the 9/11 attack.

I thought that most truthers have formed that movement because they had family and friends lost that day . How are they disrespecting anyone if they do not feel content with it all ? They feel a lot differently about it then you obviously do. I don't see them as disrespectful , why would anyone suggest that ? I see them as hurting.. I do see that there is disrespect aimed at them though by individuals who are way too skeptical .

[skyeagle409]

What does that mean ? It appears that you're commending those that post disinformation in hopes to discredit something.

No, that is incorrect. I have explained on a number of occasions to 9/11 CT'ers that what they were posting was disinformation and I knew from over 40 years experience as a pilot and airframe technician/inspector that much of what they were posting was in fact, disinformation.

For an example, let's take the bogus United 175 at Boston's Logan Airport. Did they even stop to think to consider that United Airlines, airport officials, and servicing personnel would have noticed the bogus United 175 sitting on the tarmac? The alarm bells would have been set off within a short period of time after United Airlines personnel begin asking questions about that bogus aircraft.

On another note, who would have paid landing and other fees associated with a bogus United 175? Remember, the B-767 is not a small aircraft. Did they ever stop to think that ATC would have been suspicious of such a flight if an IFR flight plan was filed for that aircraft? It wouldn't take very long to determine the point of embarkation of a bogus United 175, which would then be the focus of an intensive investigation.

Another question, would ATC even have allowed two B-767's with the designation of United 175 to occupy the same airspace?

[ellapenella]

No, that is incorrect. I have explained on a number of occasions to 9/11 CT'ers that what they were posting was disinformation and I knew from over 40 years experience as a pilot and airframe technician/inspector that much of what they were posting was in fact, disinformation.

For an example, let's take the bogus United 175 at Boston's Logan Airport. Did they even stop to think to consider that United Airlines, airport officials, and servicing personnel would have noticed the bogus United 175 sitting on the tarmac? The alarm bells would have been set off within a short period of time after United Airlines personnel begin asking questions about that bogus aircraft.

On another note, who would have paid landing and other fees associated with a bogus United 175? Remember, the B-767 is not a small aircraft. Did they ever stop to think that ATC would have been suspicious of such a flight if an IFR flight plan was filed for that aircraft? It wouldn't take very long to determine the point of embarkation of a bogus United 175, which would then be the focus of an intensive investigation.

Another question, would ATC even have allowed two B-767's with the designation of United 175 to occupy the same airspace?

Oh. I read it as though you were saying it the other way.Like you thought it was a good thing to post disinformation against the truthers. Skyeagle , one thing I've noticed , is that , you appear as though you have absolute faith in something that is much more complexed than you admit it to be.

[skyeagle409]

By all means, point away...the real 'disrespectors' of those families and friends are starting to feel the heat and it won't let up...EVER.

Why are they feeling the heat?

Who is responsible for spreading disinformation, misinformation, hoaxed videos and hoaxed photos that have been planted on the Internet over the years as a means to discredit the 9/11 Truther Movement? Two years ago, I caught a guy posting a doctored photo of a B-757, which he said, was American 77 passing over the annex, but when I took a closer look at that photo, I noticed that the dimensions of the aircraft didn't jive with the surrounding landscape, and at that point I knew the photo was doctored. Because of my long history with aircraft, I can detect certain details that are generally overlooked by others.

Who is responsible for claiming that the U.S. government was responsible for planning and carrying out the 9/11 attack when in fact, international intelligence agencies were pointing their fingers at al-Qaeda? And once again, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda later admitted to their responsibility for the 9/11 attack and eventually released martyrdom videos of the hijackers..Where's the evidence of a U.S. government 9/11 conspiracy after more than 12 years?

And now we have the Bush Administration's own Counter-Terrorism 'Czar' going public to say the Administration's senior officials are guilty of war crimes and should face an international tribunal.

Not gonna be pretty for them...

It is no secret that al-Qaeda was responsible for planning and carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attack, not the Bush Administration. There were a warnings from a number of countries that al-Qaeda was in the stage of carrying out an attack upon the United States. Some warnings even mentioned the use of aircraft to be used as weapons for their attack upon the United States.. In fact, the Philippine government had warned the United States in 1995 that terrorist had plans to fly an aircraft into the headquarters of the CIA.

I might also add the terrorist of interest revealed in the Philippine report was Ramzi Yousef, the same person who was responsible for bombing WTC 1 in 1993, which was two years before Philippine officials revealed his plans to blow up American airliners over the Pacific Ocean. Ramzi Yousef is also the nephew of the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has since admitted to his involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attack.

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda was responsible for the planning and executing the 9/11 attack upon the United States.

[Frank Merton]

We know when there is violence there is almost certainly "collateral damage." (The hypocrisy of that phrase kinda forces me to put it in ticks). That is why the operations are covert.

[Frank Merton]

I think the idea of an "International War Tribunal" to "try" major political figures on vague or trumped up charges of war crimes is some of the silliest propaganda out there.

[skyeagle409]

Oh. I read it as though you were saying it the other way.Like you thought it was a good thing to post disinformation against the truthers.

It was not a good thing, but I knew that much of what they were posting was in fact, disinformation, and much of what they were posting is not indicative of the way we do business in the real world of aviation. I have been warning them to beware of people posting disinformation,on the Internet and they were doing so in an effort to discredit the 9/11 Truther Movement and they have succeeded.

Another example was that reversed image of WTC 7 in a video, which was posted on the internet and passed around by those who thought that video was authentic. Fake detonations and a fake UFO were added to the video and yet, some folks actually believed the video was authentic and began spreading that hoaxed video on the Internet. Afterward, the person who had created the hoaxed video of WTC 7 came forward and revealed how he hoaxed that video, but the damage was already done.

I have tried to warn them of the spread of disinformation on the internet regarding the 9/11 terrorist attack but there are those who refused to heed my warnings.

Skyeagle , one thing I've noticed , is that , you appear as though you have absolute faith in something that is much more complexed than you admit it to be.

The government was not capable of planning and carrying out the 9/11 attack and not get caught and such an operation would have involved far too many people, some of whom might have a serious habit of talking in their sleep.

[skyeagle409]

I thought that most truthers have formed that movement because they had family and friends lost that day . How are they disrespecting anyone if they do not feel content with it all ? They feel a lot differently about it then you obviously do. I don't see them as disrespectful , why would anyone suggest that ? I see them as hurting.. I do see that there is disrespect aimed at them though by individuals who are way too skeptical .

Who was responsible for spreading disinformation that made families think about it?

[+and-then]

We know when there is violence there is almost certainly "collateral damage." (The hypocrisy of that phrase kinda forces me to put it in ticks). That is why the operations are covert.

For me the main issue with the unintended death and destruction is that it is nearly always inescapable. It is the nature of this war. You cannot strike an enemy hidden among civilians without killing some of the civilians. The other option is to allow that enemy to strike with impunity. At that point a war is over -and you have lost. That does not justify every death by collateral damage. Sometimes soldiers or airmen get sloppy or undisciplined and mistakes are made that COULD have been avoided. In those cases serious repercussions should apply.

[Frank Merton]

Those nearby may not be all that innocent, but assuming they are, we should not try to soften the reality. I think doing that is counterproductive. People are not stupid and wonder why you can't tell it outright -- we killed five terrorists and, unfortunately, three children who were playing nearby.

[Babe Ruth]

I think the idea of an "International War Tribunal" to "try" major political figures on vague or trumped up charges of war crimes is some of the silliest propaganda out there.

Yeah, kinda like the Nuremberg Trials. How silly, eh Frank?

The idea that criminal leaders be held responsible for crimes against humanity! How silly and quaint in this Brave New World in which we live!

[Frank Merton]

You in effect are comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler by bringing up Nuremberg in this context. Are you sure you want to go there?