Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
illuminated

false-flag operation

286 posts in this topic

Operation Northwoods proves that the planners of that time thought they could get away with it. Why? B/c our CIA and related groups are and have been for a long time extremely sofisticated, capable, and very well funded. Given enough time, money and effort to plan this thing makes a 9/11 false flag scenario very plausible to me.

To act like it is in no way plausible to me seems a bit disengenuine. Not enough proof -OK but not possible?

Would I like more proof, sure. Do I expect to get it? - probably not. So I will remain skeptical.

But as far as motive- the "war on terror" funding alone is a large motivation for this whole mess, never mind the oil, minerals, influence in the ME, ability to protect Israel etc.. Plenty of motives beyond taking oil.

I am sure if 9/11 was a false flag there were also high moral ground arguments made to justify it. Kill the few to save the many or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Operation Northwoods proves that the planners of that time thought they could get away with it. Why? B/c our CIA and related groups are and have been for a long time extremely sofisticated, capable, and very well funded. Given enough time, money and effort to plan this thing makes a 9/11 false flag scenario very plausible to me.

To act like it is in no way plausible to me seems a bit disengenuine. Not enough proof -OK but not possible?

Would I like more proof, sure. Do I expect to get it? - probably not. So I will remain skeptical.

But as far as motive- the "war on terror" funding alone is a large motivation for this whole mess, never mind the oil, minerals, influence in the ME, ability to protect Israel etc.. Plenty of motives beyond taking oil.

I am sure if 9/11 was a false flag there were also high moral ground arguments made to justify it. Kill the few to save the many or something.

Yeah, or something... Operation Cyclone shows that the CIA sponsored the Mujahadeen and Bib Landen to fight the russians. If we are looking for someone to blame for how the islamic world sees the west then we should look at ourselves.

We have notoriously doublecrossed whoever suits us. The taliban and Saddam were formerly allied but when it suited us we turned on them. Same situation with Iran but Iran is a more compelx issue. This has been going on a long time and time and again we've shown we cannot be trusted. So when Israel throws it's weight around they should at the very least be sensitive to minority groups considering they themselves suffered persecution. Maybe because the Palestinians are not a minority is the problem. Is it fair that money buys influence before morality? Why do they hide behind a shield of religion when it is plain to see religion is not the core issue. What is? Greed imo.

They use false flags because they serve the purpose. The key thing is how the media covers these things and on refelction I was totally bought in by the whole scam. If you control the media outlets and can distantly signal extremists to action then false flags are the perfect way to get what you want everytime. I don't think saving lives ever comes into it though they just want as many deaths as possible on TV imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure if 9/11 was a false flag there were also high moral ground arguments made to justify it.

Yup... FIGHT TERROR :ph34r: TERROR terorr teororrrrr osama bin laden terror 9/11 terrorists terror ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup... FIGHT TERROR :ph34r: TERROR terorr teororrrrr osama bin laden terror 9/11 terrorists terror ...

Disdain for our government is not proof that they pulled off 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh i dont hate your government ... infact i dont hate anyone. I was just showing to Rock Slinger what are the 'high moral ground arguments' of your government

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting Kennedy was assassinated because he nixed Operation Northwoods? That's a new one to me. I'd like to hear more evidence of this.

I am suggesting that Kennedy didn't fit the corporate status quo required to serve as president. If you want to believe he was killed by the classical lone-gunman, you're welcome to. However, could his reluctance to sign off on something like Operation Northwoods be evidence of his fall from favor? Sure, I think so.

1. I have read Rebuilding America's Defenses, and it talks about the transformation to take place over a long period of time, absent a catastrophe like a new Pearl Harbor.

Thank god that never happened......

The transformation it speaks of is the advancement of information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with the advancement of information technologies?

Thats the worst synopsis I have ever heard. You are either being intentionally deceptive or suffer a reading comprehension deficiency.

Seriously, listen to yourself. Why would advancing information technologies in the military require a new Pearl Harbor??

2. If this was part of some grand conspiracy to attack it's own country, why in God's name would the US government allow it to be published on the internet? Same with Operation Northwoods. Why can we look these items up today (why are they declassified) if they implicate the US government in 9/11?

I assume because they can declassify that kind of stuff and no one loses their job or goes to prison. Heck, the MSM basically ignors this kind of stuff in favor of celebrity gossip. Quite the "punishment" as you suggest....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats the worst synopsis I have ever heard. You are either being intentionally deceptive or suffer a reading comprehension deficiency.

Seriously, listen to yourself. Why would advancing information technologies in the military require a new Pearl Harbor??

It didn't say it would "require" a new Pearl Harbor. It said the transformation would be a slow one ABSENT a new Pearl Harbor.

I'll quote right from the document itself:

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs.

Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world.

The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.

It's on page 50 of the document you wanted me to read:

Rebuilding America's Defenses

"New Pearl Harbor" appears on page 51, incidentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's things like this that make me wonder why anyone would want to give the government more power. A small government with well-defined powers and responsibilities would have a harder time fooling the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's things like this that make me wonder why anyone would want to give the government more power. A small government with well-defined powers and responsibilities would have a harder time fooling the people.

yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't say it would "require" a new Pearl Harbor. It said the transformation would be a slow one ABSENT a new Pearl Harbor.

Ah, well that clears it all up. :tu:

Sorry man, but arguing word games is a fail.

It didn't say require, it said absent. I guess that totally changes the projected strategies layed out in the document........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, well that clears it all up. :tu:

Sorry man, but arguing word games is a fail.

It didn't say require, it said absent. I guess that totally changes the projected strategies layed out in the document........

That's a big difference, midge. You're trying to say that the PNAC was calling for a new Pearl Harbor to happen so that the US could advance it's "agenda". The truth is, the PNAC was acknowledging the fact that making the transformation to incorporating more information technologies in the military would take decades, absent the unlikelihood of a new Pearl Harbor happening. And they were talking about information technologies, not some nefarious plan to strike up a war in the middle east.

Did you even read the document? I linked you to it, and quoted right from it. And you're still trying to tell me it says something different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a big difference, midge. You're trying to say that the PNAC was calling for a new Pearl Harbor to happen so that the US could advance it's "agenda". The truth is, the PNAC was acknowledging the fact that making the transformation to incorporating more information technologies in the military would take decades, absent the unlikelihood of a new Pearl Harbor happening. And they were talking about information technologies, not some nefarious plan to strike up a war in the middle east.

Did you even read the document? I linked you to it, and quoted right from it. And you're still trying to tell me it says something different?

The information technologies spoken about are one particular aspect of the overall transformation strategy. Because the chapter including the “new Pearl Harbor” reference begins with, “Information technologies, in particular…” you are jumping on it as though that is the transformation strategy in its entirety – it is not. Further, the “process of transformation” is intended to support wider U.S. military objectives. The document makes clear what some of these objectives are: -

  • “Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
  • “And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.”

The above excerpts are eye-catching as they explain that even should Saddam Hussein be removed and more friendly relations be formed with Iran, the United States would still seek “forward-based forces” to secure “longstanding American interests” in the Gulf region. This is all a part of what the transformation strategy is intended to enable.

Let’s look at another area described in the document: military spending. At the time of writing Rebuilding America’s Defenses, military spending was at just below 3% of GDP. This figure had been on a slow downward trend ever since the close of the Cold War near 10 years earlier. As the PNAC put it: -

  • “Today, America spends less than 3 percent of its gross domestic product on national defense, less than at any time since before World War II – in other words, since before the United States established itself as the world’s leading power.”

This statement shows the concern that America’s position as the world’s leading power could come under threat if the current situation continued. Following this, the PNAC stated: -

  • “The program we advocate – one that would provide America with forces to meet the strategic demands of the world’s sole superpower – requires budget levels to be increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the GDP.”

The above figures were described as “a minimum level”. After 9/11, the downward trend was reversed and as at 2010 the military budget stands at 4.7% of GDP (back to Cold War levels). This graph shows the story regarding military spending from a slightly different angle: -

militaryspend.jpg

The red line indicates 9/11 - notice the trend before and after. There is simply no denying that 9/11 had an effect that was of benefit to the PNAC agenda – that is, the same effect that they said a “new Pearl Harbor” would bring.

Does this prove that members of the PNAC were responsible for engineering 9/11? No it does not.

Does this prove that members of the PNAC had motive for engineering 9/11? Absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a big difference, midge. You're trying to say that the PNAC was calling for a new Pearl Harbor to happen so that the US could advance it's "agenda". The truth is, the PNAC was acknowledging the fact that making the transformation to incorporating more information technologies in the military would take decades, absent the unlikelihood of a new Pearl Harbor happening. And they were talking about information technologies, not some nefarious plan to strike up a war in the middle east.

Did you even read the document? I linked you to it, and quoted right from it. And you're still trying to tell me it says something different?

No I wasn't. Its been years since I read the document and you attack me on a choice of words. "Required" or "absent", its a silly game you play. Trying to suggest its all about "information technologies" when the document discusses the military muscle needed to fight simultaneous wars is the real deception. Of course, since I am not exactly quoting thier words I guess you can continue your game....

Props to Q24 for a his response of substance and detail. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I wasn't. Its been years since I read the document and you attack me on a choice of words. "Required" or "absent", its a silly game you play.

Well I don't know what to tell you. There's a huge difference between those words and they're just not saying what you think they're saying. You call that a "silly game", I call that understanding the meaning of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know what to tell you. There's a huge difference between those words and they're just not saying what you think they're saying. You call that a "silly game", I call that understanding the meaning of words.

using words especially in governmental documents is a game.

they word their way around certain points in the documents to make it seem more just or more appropriate.

now JFK was assassinated and not by lee harvey oswald. former fbi agents have spoken out against it numerous times.

evidence of people over phone conversations planning it and talking about it, also bragging about what had happened.

and one of the people was in a picture taken with jfk before his assassination.

jfk was a great president only because he was just and he actually had americas interest at heart.

now george w bush did not plan 9/11 it is statistics that he was americas dumbest president in over 40 years.

he just simply signed off on the false flag operation not caring. he had his own interest at heart.

yes cheney has started or is planning on building pipelines through afghanistan.

as stated all throughout this post there are many reasons people would want afghani land.

and what german could not do in the 80's america did in 2001.

and to answer a question in the 1st page.

no one these days gave the government the power they have over time they took it along with the freedoms we used to have.

and here is something that will also bother alot if not all americans

high official government agencies such as the cia are corporate owned and run.

meaning the corporations that own it have the complete use of cia intelligence and power.

meaning big brother is really just a corporation.

our safety is in corporate americas hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they couldn't control JFK so they killed him.... he wouldn't budge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know what to tell you. There's a huge difference between those words and they're just not saying what you think they're saying. You call that a "silly game", I call that understanding the meaning of words.

Yet, you haven't back off your claim that it was about "information tech" even though anyone who has read the document knows that you are presenting a very narrow (hardly realistic) view of its narrative. You press me for 1 word, yet you misrepresnt the contents of entire document.

Edited by el midgetron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet, you haven't back off your claim that it was about "information tech" even though anyone who has read the document knows that you are presenting a very narrow (hardly realistic) view of its narrative. You press me for 1 word, yet you misrepresnt the contents of entire document.

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in

military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern

military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.

The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation. Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities

acquired during the American defense buildup of the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm,

that a revolution in military affairs was at hand. At the same time, the process of military transformation will present

opportunities for America’s adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military preeminence.

Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation

and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced

dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980’s, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan

buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending

represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today’s research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military

missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new

technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some

catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

There it is, in context. You tell me what "transformation" they were talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There it is, in context. You tell me what "transformation" they were talking about.

Here, I'll highlight the good parts:

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in

military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern

military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.

The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation. Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities

acquired during the American defense buildup of the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm,

that a revolution in military affairs was at hand. At the same time, the process of military transformation will present

opportunities for America’s adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military preeminence.

Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation

and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced

dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980’s, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan

buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending

represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today’s research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military

missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new

technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some

catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think he highlighted enough to show that the dep. of def. stated they are going to need to be more aggressive in what they do

and they shown they have done so and it shows they have technologies that we do not see or will not see for a while kind of bogus if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait until we start taking all that crazy Iraqi oil!

You realize we've been over there for 9 years and we haven't taken any oil yet, right? Now we have plans to pull out. So when will this hostile take over of the oil fields take place?

how do you know we haven't already run out of oil, and the whole time we've been over there, soldiers were making it possible by eliminating threats, to secure the oil over there? i get what your saying but its just not well thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea they did they sent halliburton over there.You dont remember the truck drivers dying/geting blown up and getting taken hostage.I knew a dude that went to iraq.A truck driver.

not to mention, were not getting ready to pull out!!! when obama was running for president, he said that as soon as he was president, that within 6 months he would pull the soldiers out and bring them back home, but he did the opposite, he sent more troops in!!! obama is a strait up liar, i can't even count the number of things hes lied about, or the number of promises he made, that are still unfulfilled, and you made a good point!!! we are definitely over there getting resources, theres to much evidence that points to that being true, then it being untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amen to that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah obama is just following bush's foot steps and he lied about almost everything that got him elected but then again i could only imagine how screwed things would be with mccain.. that would be just tragedy for our country not to mention he would probably have a heart attack before his 1st term was up.

i think obama goes to show you every government official is in it for themselves and for the wealth not for the american people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, I'll highlight the good parts:

:lol:

Did you miss this part of your quote?

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs.

Of which your info-techs are only a part of.

But whatever...

1. I have read Rebuilding America's Defenses, and it talks about the transformation to take place over a long period of time, absent a catastrophe like a new Pearl Harbor. The transformation it speaks of is the advancement of information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with the advancement of information technologies?

So then... What does a new pearl harbor have to do with the advancement of new technologies?? Can we assume you do not see 9/11 as being in the same class as Pearl Harbor? Since, you don't understand the connection?

Edited by el midgetron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.