Philly 9/11 Truth Confronts Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
View transcript of the entire event conveniently on the Dept. of Homeland Security's website
Philly 9/11 Truth Confronts Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
View transcript of the entire event conveniently on the Dept. of Homeland Security's website
Report: Warner Bros. senior executive told staff “something big is happening that day”
According to a report by Jeremy R. Hammond of the Foreign Policy Journal, senior executives of a major U.S. corporation were warned by a former CIA operative to leave New York on September 11, 2001, the latest smoking gun to add to a bulging stack of examples concerning specific prior knowledge of the attacks.
The article cites an anonymous source who worked under a managing director as number two at a European branch of the media giant Warner Bros. The source’s boss was close friends with a senior executive who worked at the head office in L.A. and had also formerly worked for the CIA.
During the memorial arrangements for a senior director from a foreign office who had died, the L.A. executive rejected September 11th as a date for the service because “something big is happening that day” and the top executives from the New York office would all be traveling out of the city.
When asked further about this big event, the executive replied that it was a confidential matter and disclosed no further details, except to say that it was “not corporate”.
The source told the Journal, “I had no reason to think that the ‘event’ could be anything more than perhaps a junket, an out of town think tank exercise or whatever – I remember that these possibilities ran through my mind.”
But after 9/11, thinking back upon the conversation, he grew more curious and tried to ascertain where the board members had been that day. They had indeed been out of New York, he says, traveling not to one location, but each to their own destination. Destinations included overseas locations such as Paris, London, and Amsterdam.
Foreign Policy Journal has not been able to verify the location of individuals on 9/11 or other aspects of the story concerning any potential warning received or given by any Time Warner executives, but did confirm the source’s position at the foreign branch office, the name and position of that office’s managing director, and the name and position of the senior executive from the Los Angeles office.
The corporate media has given limited coverage to reports of general prior knowledge about 9/11, while almost universally ignoring specific examples of foreknowledge.
Perhaps the most blatant example of specific prior knowledge is the fact that, as Newsweek reported in its September 13th 2001 issue, top brass Pentagon officials were warned the night before the attacks and cancelled a trip scheduled for the next day.
Warnings about a big event happening in New York were widespread in the weeks and days before the attacks.
In a story entitled Some Got Warning: Don’t Go Downtown on Sept. 11, the New York Daily News reported, “Some Middle Easterners in the New York area were warned ahead of time to stay out of lower Manhattan the morning of Sept. 11,” noting that federal investigators received tips about overheard conversations in which people were “boasting about or warning about coming attacks.”
Another case involved a Palestinian boy at the New Utrecht High School in Brooklyn. On September 6th, 2001, the boy looked out of his classroom window towards lower Manhattan and said, “Do you see those two buildings?” while pointing at the WTC twin towers. “They won’t be standing there next week.”
This was not an “urban legend” as some have claimed, it has been proven in triplicate by numerous mainstream media reports and acknowledged by federal authorities and the FBI.
This was just one example amongst several reports of schoolchildren in the New York area circulating knowledge of the attacks before they happened. If school kids knew that a major attack was about to take place, how on earth could the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus in the world have failed to pick up on it?
German police confirmed that an Iranian man frantically tried to warn U.S. authorities of an attack on the eve of 9/11, attempting to call them from his deportation cell.
Another proven example of specific prior knowledge that the establishment has attempted to sideline as an “urban myth” is the story concerning the Israeli instant messaging company, Odigo.
A report by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which was later confirmed by the Washington Post, related how employees of Odigo were warned specifically about the attack via instant messages two hours in advance.
Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown was set to fly into New York on the morning of September 11. However, he got a call from what he described as his ‘airport security’ late September 10th advising against flying due to a security threat. Brown awoke on September 11th to scenes of the WTC on fire and his flight was cancelled.
A record number of ‘put’ options, speculation that the stock of a company will fall, were placed on American and United Airlines in the days preceding September 11th. This despite a September 10th Reuters report stating ‘airline stocks set to fly.’
Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls.
The investigation as to which criminals benefited from advance knowledge of the terrorist attack led straight to Alex Brown/Deutsche Bank - chaired up until 1997 by executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard.
Did people who knew about secret, CIA-led coups use that information to game the stock market?
In 1951, Jacobo Árbenz Gúzman became Guatemala's second democratically elected president. Árbenz's authoritarian predecessors had been very sympathetic to American business interests, particularly those of the United Fruit Co. (now Chiquita), which had bought up land titles on the cheap from Guatemala's corrupt elite for its ever-expanding banana empire. Once in office, Presidente Árbenz sought to take it all back, nationalizing UFC's Guatemalan assets and redistributing them to the poor.
But UFC had friends in very high places—the assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, John Moor Cabot, was the brother of UFC President Thomas Cabot. The secretary of state himself, John Foster Dulles, had done legal work for UFC, and his brother Allen Dulles was director of the CIA and also on UFC's board. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that the various Cabots and Dulleses had a series of top-secret meetings in which they decided that Árbenz had to go and sponsored a coup that drove Árbenz from office in 1954.
With a U.S. puppet back in the president's mansion, UFC's profits were safe. But it appears the company wasn't the only beneficiary of this Cold War cloak-and-dagger diplomacy: A recent study by economists Arindrajit Dube, Ethan Kaplan, and Suresh Naidu argues that those in on the planning process also profited handsomely. By tracking the stock prices of UFC and other politically vulnerable firms in the months leading up to CIA-staged coups in Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, and Iran, the researchers provide evidence that someone—perhaps one of the Dulleses, Cabots, or others in the know—was trading stocks based on classified information of these coups-in-the-making.
This exposé is a contribution to the rapidly expanding field of "forensic economics," which tries to understand the who, what, and why of illicit transactions. Since these are activities that take place out of sight (at least when they're done right), researchers are forced to look for fingerprints left in the data by smugglers, bribe-taking politicians, and other lawbreakers.
Dube, Kaplan, and Naidu examine how the stock market reacted to events that no Wall Street trader should have known about: top-secret meetings of the coup-plotting cabals at CIA headquarters and presidential approvals of CIA-organized invasions. These events would have increased the expected future profits of companies like UFC—if the CIA-led coup in Guatemala were successful, for example, UFC would get its plantations back. If stock traders were privy to the coup-planning process, we would expect them to bid up the prices of affected companies in anticipation of these higher profits. These meetings and authorizations were all highly classified, however, and since you can't trade on information you don't have, UFC's stock price shouldn't have budged until the coup actually took place and the investing world learned of the regime change.
Unless, that is, some of the Cabots, Dulleses, or other insiders were using their privileged information to profit personally from a future coup. To understand why insider trading would boost a company's stock price, suppose that someone in on the planning—perhaps at UFC or at the State Department itself—started quietly buying up cheap UFC stock in anticipation of the price jump that would come when the coup took place (or tipped off his stock-trading cousins about the future boost to UFC so they could do the same). All of this pre-coup buying would increase demand for UFC stock, bidding up its price even before CIA operatives actually got to work overthrowing the Guatemalan government.
Such trading on inside information is illegal, and when it involves highly classified details about a future CIA coup, it verges on treason. Yet the researchers found that prices of companies affected by the CIA's regime-toppling efforts—UFC in Guatemala, Anglo-Iranian (oil) in Iran, Anaconda (mining) in Chile, and American Sugar in Cuba—went up in the weeks and months preceding the coups. (The authors restrict their analysis to coups for which they had access to declassified planning documents and for which U.S. companies had had property nationalized by the targeted regimes.)
Furthermore, these gains were concentrated in the days following crucial government authorizations or plans for the coup (suggesting the trades weren't simply the result of good guesswork about a coup in the making). For example, in the week that President Eisenhower gave full approval to Operation PBFortune to overthrow Árbenz, UFC's price went up by 3.8 percent; the stock market overall was flat that week.
In all, shares of coup-affected companies went up by a total of 10 percent following top-secret authorizations, swamping the 3.5 percent gain that came immediately in the coups' aftermaths. If information hadn't been leaking into the stock market via insider trading, then the entire impact of the coup should have appeared only when the very public invasions took place and the investing world finally got news of the regime change. Unfortunately, there are limits to what these stock-market forensics can uncover. When the researchers contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission to find out who was trading on these days, they learned that there are limits to what the Freedom of Information Act could provide. So, we can't pin the apparent insider trading on anyone in particular.
There's also some evidence, albeit tentative, that the market was very good at forecasting the coups' success and failure—a further indication that the traders driving up the price had detailed knowledge of the covert plans (and their expected outcomes). The CIA-led invasion of Cuba is referred to these days as the Bay of Pigs fiasco for a reason, and whoever was trading on insider knowledge seemed to place his bets accordingly—the pre-invasion increase in American Sugar's stock price was much lower than the gains for companies affected by the other, successful coups in the study.
What about the forensic economics of the Bush administration? Researchers have already estimated what it's worth for Republican-connected companies to have George W. Bush in the White House by looking at what happened to the stock prices of companies with former Republican lawmakers on their boards when Al Gore gave up his fight for the presidency on Dec. 13, 2000 (they went up; Democratically connected companies' prices went down).
If and when the story behind the U.S. invasion of Iraq becomes public, researchers will surely also be analyzing the share prices of the many companies that profited from a U.S.-occupied Iraq. None will see greater scrutiny than oil services giant Halliburton, whose former CEO Dick Cheney left the company to become vice president in 2000 and undoubtedly took part in the invasion's planning. (Some say he was pivotal in the decision to invade.) In the Iraq war's aftermath, Halliburton received billions in no-bid reconstruction contracts, boosting its profits and leading to accusations of corruption.
Halliburton's stock price jumped 7.6 percent the day the Senate authorized the use of force in Iraq, so investors clearly anticipated that war would be good for the company. Did insiders also profit from advance notice of these sweetheart deals to come? Conspiracy theorists will no doubt be interested in what happened to Halliburton stock on days when less-public meetings took place. Cheney himself certainly could not have traded on any inside information—monitoring of insider trades and stock transactions is much more sophisticated now than it was in the 1950s. But perhaps others in the V.P.'s office or at Halliburton (or their cousins, or their cousins' cousins) might have been able to do some trading on the sly. If so, they may have left tracks in the data for researchers to follow.
In a recent interview, Assistant Chief James Schwartz of the Arlington County Fire Department (ACFD) revealed an intriguing detail relating to the 9/11 Pentagon attack. Just before the Pentagon was hit, ACFD responded to alarms going off at the USA Today building, located a few miles from there. Yet it is unclear whether there was actually any fire. Other evidence indicates that, as a result of this alarm, when the Pentagon was hit a significant number of fire and medical units were already on the road nearby and available to quickly respond to the attack. Curiously, the two buildings of the USA Today complex were known as the "Twin Towers." 
In his interview, Assistant Chief Schwartz told McClatchy Washington Bureau that, after the two towers of the World Trade Center had been hit on September 11, the Emergency Communications Center (ECC), which is the focal point of all police and fire 911 calls for Arlington County, started receiving phone calls from buildings along the Potomac River and along the flight path for Washington's Reagan National Airport. These were made by people concerned about what they should do. Among the callers were the building managers at the USA Today towers, who were afraid their complex might be a terrorist target and wanted to know if they should evacuate it. 
The USA Today complex is in Rosslyn, Virginia, just a few miles down the road from the Pentagon.  It includes the two tallest high-rise buildings in Arlington County--the "Twin Towers"--the tallest of them being 30-stories high. 
Schwartz recalled, "Our communications center, who didn't have a lot of other guidance to give them, told [the USA Today building managers] that if they felt better, based on what they were watching on the television and the situation as it was shaping up then, if they felt better to evacuate the building, then they should in fact do that."
FIREFIGHTERS RESPOND TO USA TODAY BUILDING ALARM
Curiously, Schwartz said: "Shortly after that, we had a fire response for alarm bells at the USA Today building. ... And I was actually dispatched to that building first [before heading to the Pentagon]. By the time I got to the elevator, the transmissions were coming out about the situation as it was unfolding at the Pentagon. I did not go to the USA Today building. I drove directly to the Pentagon." 
Some early news reports even claimed that there was a fire at the USA Today building. At 9:46 a.m., local radio station WTOP reported, "We're hearing from a caller who says she is eyewitness to another hit here in town; the USA Today building may also be on fire in addition to the Pentagon."  The Washington Post described reports from "sources unknown" that the "USA Today building in Rosslyn was supposedly enveloped in smoke."  But according to the Associated Press, "Radio reports about an explosion at the USA Today building in Rosslyn were false." 
Schwartz told McClatchy Washington Bureau he believed the USA Today building alarm had gone off because "people who were evacuating decided that they would pull the fire alarm in order to get everybody out of the building, and that initiated a response on our part."  But USA Today spokesman Steve Anderson, who was in the building the morning of 9/11, has stated that employees of USA Today and its parent company Gannett only began evacuating after the Pentagon attack occurred, not before it, as would likely have been the case if Schwartz's theory were correct. 
FALSE ALARM HASTENS REPONSE TO PENTAGON ATTACK
What, if anything, is the significance of all this? Was it just a coincidence that an alarm sounded for the USA Today building just before the Pentagon was hit? Could the alarm have simply been set off by someone who was panicked by the events in New York, and concerned that this building might be the next target? Or could the incident have a more sinister meaning?
A possible and more disquieting reason why someone might have set off the alarm is suggested by an incident described in a federally funded report on the emergency response to the attack on the Pentagon. The 2002 Arlington County After-Action Report stated, "Just one minute before the Pentagon crash, in response to a 911 telephone call at 9:37 a.m., the [Arlington County Emergency Communications Center] dispatched several [fire and medical] units to an apartment fire at 1003 Wilson Boulevard in Rosslyn." But by the time the first engine arrived there, "the apartment fire was out." 
The address of the USA Today complex has been reported as "1000 and 1110 Wilson Boulevard."  This would indicate that the alleged "apartment fire" at 1003 Wilson Boulevard and the USA Today building incident described by Schwartz were one and the same thing. What was the result of this apparent false alarm? According to the After-Action Report, "by sheer coincidence, there were a significant number of units already on the road near the Pentagon at the time of the attack." 
Consequently, numerous firefighters arrived at the crash scene within about five minutes of the attack on the Pentagon. Captain Chuck Gibbs of the Arlington County Fire Department arrived at 9:40 a.m. A minute later, ACFD Battalion Chief Bob Cornwell arrived and assumed initial incident command responsibilities. At the same time, ACFD Truck 105 arrived at the scene. Then, at 9:42, ACFD Captain Edward Blunt arrived and established emergency medical services control. 
So, at the very least, the setting off of the USA Today building alarm suggests that someone may have had foreknowledge of the Pentagon attack, and wanted to ensure a swift emergency response to it. Establishing who this person, or persons, was will be one of the tasks of a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Investigators will also need to establish what exactly this person(s) knew, and from where they gained their foreknowledge.
But might this incident have further significance? We know, for example, that there were numerous training exercises being held or prepared for by the U.S. military and other government agencies on the morning of 9/11. Some of these exercises are known to have had an uncanny resemblance to the actual attacks.  Therefore, could there have been an exercise based around the scenario of an aircraft crashing into the "Twin Towers" of the USA Today complex that was scheduled to occur at the same time as the Pentagon was hit? The confusion created by such an exercise could have led to the false alarm of a fire at the complex. Giving some credence to this possibility is the fact that, as well as being the home of USA Today, the Arlington Twin Towers also housed "several Department of Defense employees," according to the Washington Business Journal. 
The fact that existing investigations have failed to even consider these questions proves how urgent it is that we now have a proper, unrestrained investigation into 9/11.
 Greg A. Lohr, "Gannett Nails Down Dates for Headquarters Move." Washington Business Journal, September 7, 2001.
 Michael Doyle, "Extended Interview with Chief Jim Schwartz." McClatchy Washington Bureau, 2008; Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11. New York: Presidio Press, 2008, p. 48.
 Jeff Zillgitt, "Put Sports Aside: Tragedy Affects all Americans." USA Today, September 13, 2001.
 Suzanne White and Greg A. Lohr, "Arlington's Twin Towers Evacuate Tenants." Washington Business Journal, September 11, 2001; Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, Firefight, p. 9.
 Michael Doyle, "Extended Interview with Chief Jim Schwartz."
 Mark K. Miller, "Three Hours That Shook America: A Chronology of Chaos." Broadcasting & Cable, August 26, 2002.
 Joel Achenbach, "Nation's Capital in State of Shock." Washington Post, September 11, 2001.
 Matthew Barakat, "Pentagon Employees Feel the Building Shake." Associated Press, September 11, 2001.
 Michael Doyle, "Extended Interview with Chief Jim Schwartz."
 Greg A. Lohr, "Media Work Tirelessly to Convey 'Magnitude' of Story." Washington Business Journal, September 14, 2001; "September 11, 2001." James Madison University Alumni Association, October 2, 20i01.
 Arlington County, Virginia, report, Titan Systems Corp., Arlington County: After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon. 2002, p. A9.
 Greg A. Lohr, "Gannett Nails Down Dates for Headquarters Move."
 Arlington County, After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon, p. A9.
 Ibid. pp. A5-A6 and 1-1.
 "Complete 9/11 Timeline: Military Exercises Up to 9/11." History Commons.
 Suzanne White and Greg A. Lohr, "Arlington's Twin Towers Evacuate Tenants."
For several years now, senior officials of the Bush administration including the President and the Vice President have intimated, in no certain terms, that there will be "a Second 9/11".
Quotations from presidential speeches and official documents abound. America is threatened:
"The near-term attacks … will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks... And it’s pretty clear that the nation’s capital and New York city would be on any list…" (Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, December 2003)
"You ask, ‘Is it serious?’ Yes, you bet your life. People don’t do that unless it’s a serious situation." (Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, December 2003)
"… Credible reporting indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process… (Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, 8 July 2004)
"The enemy that struck on 9/11 is weakened and fractured yet it is still lethal and planning to hit us again." (Vice President Dick Cheney, 7 January 2006)
"We are still a nation at risk. Part of our strategy, of course, is to stay on the offense against terrorists who would do us harm. In other words, it is important to defeat them overseas so we never have to face them here. Nevertheless, we recognize that we’ve got to be fully prepared here at the homeland." (President George W. Bush February 8, 2006)
"Our main enemy is al Qaeda and its affiliates. Their allies choose their victims indiscriminately. They murder the innocent to advance a focused and clear ideology. They seek to establish a radical Islamic caliphate, so they can impose a brutal new order on unwilling people, much as Nazis and communists sought to do in the last century. This enemy will accept no compromise with the civilized world.... (President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1, 2007)
"[W]e now have capabilities in science and technology that raise the very realistic possibility that a small group of terrorists could kill not only thousands of people, as they did on September 11th, but hundreds of thousands of people. And that has changed the dimension of the threat we face." (Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary, Yale University, April 7, 2008.
We’re fighting a war on terror because the enemy attacked us first, and hit us hard. … Al Qaeda’s leadership has said they have the right to "kill four million Americans,… For nearly six years now, the United States has been able to defeat their attempts to attack us here at home. Nobody can guarantee that we won’t be hit again. … (Vice President Dick Cheney, United States Military Academy Commencement, West Point, New York, May 26, 2008)
Al these authoritative statements point in chorus in the same direction: The enemy will strike again!
"Second 9/11": Historical Background
The presumption of a Second 9/11 has become an integral part of US military doctrine. America is under attack. The US military must respond preemptively.
In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various national security measures were put in place focusing explicitly on the eventuality of a second attack on America. In fact these procedures were launched simultaneously with the first stage of war plans directed against Iran in May 2003 under Operation Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT). (See Michel Chossudovsky, "Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT), Global Research, February 21, 2007).
The Role of a "Massive Casualty Producing Event"
Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks, in an magazine interview in December 2003, had outlined a scenario of what he described as "a massive casualty producing event" on American soil [a Second 9/11. Implied in General Franks statement was the notion and belief that civilian deaths were necessary to raise awareness and muster public support for the "global war on terrorism":
"[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (General Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003)
Franks was obliquely alluding to a "Second 9/11" terrorist attack, which could be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of martial law.
General Tommy Franks
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" was presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil resulting from the civilian casualties would facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures, leading to the suspension of constitutional government. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? Global Research, June 24, 2007)
The concept of "massive casualty producing event" is part of military planning. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties among the Cuban community in Miami (i.e. "staging the assassination of Cuban living in the US") to justify an invasion of Cuba:
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba" (See Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html).
Operation Northwoods was submitted to President Kennedy. The project was not carried out.
To consult the Northwoods Archive click here
General Franks was not giving a personal opinion regarding the role of civilian deaths. He was describing a central feature of a covert military-inteligence operation going back to Operation Northwoods.
The triggering of civilian deaths in the Homeland is used as an instrument of war propaganda. The objective is to turn realities upside down. The agressor nation is being attacked. the USA is a victim of war by the State sponsors of Islamic terrorism, when in reality it is the perpetrator of a large scale theater war in the Middle East.
The entire "Global War on Terrorism" construct is consistent with the logic of Operation Northwoods: Civilian casualties in America resulting from the September 11 attacks are used as "a war pretext incident" to galvanize public support for a military intervention in Afghanstan and Iraq.
As of 2005, the presumption of a Second 9/11 had become an integral part of military planning.
Statements emanating from the White House, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security point to a growing consensus on the necessity and inevitability of a second terrorist attack on a major urban area in the US.
In the month following the July 2005 London bombings, Vice President Cheney is reported to have instructed US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". The "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" to prepare for a major military operation against Iran. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)
In April 2006, the Pentagon, under the helm of Donald Rumsfeld, launched a far-reaching military plan to "fight terrorism" around the World, with a view to retaliating in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America.
The presumption of the Pentagon project was that this presumed attack on America by an outside enemy would result in the loss of American lives, which in turn would be used to justify US military actions in the Middle East war theater. The covert support of US intelligence to Islamic terrorist organizations (the outside enemy) slated to carry out the attacks, was of course not mentioned.
Various "scenarios" of a second 9/11 attack on the Homeland were envisaged. According to the Pentagon a Second attack on America, would serve an important policy objective.
The three Pentagon documents consisted of an overall "campaign plan" plus two "subordinate plans". The second "subordinate plan" explicitly focused on the possibility of a "Second 9/11" and how a second major attack on American soil might provide "an opportunity" to extend the US led war in the Middle East into new frontiers:
"[It] sets out how the military can both disrupt and respond to another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes lengthy annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to retaliate quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors depending on who is believed to be behind an attack. Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets, according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan. (Washington Post, 23 April 2006, emphasis added)
Since 2003, various procedures have been adopted regarding the enactment of Martial Law in the case of a so-called "National Catastrophic Emergency".
Under martial law, the military would take over several functions of civilian government including justice and law enforcement.
Initiatives in the area of Homeland Security outlined the precise circumstances under which martial law could be declared in the case of a second 9/11.
In May 2007, a major presidential National Security Directive was issued (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20) which explicitly envisaged the possibility of a Second 9/11:
NSPD 51 is tailor-made to fit the premises of both the Pentagon’s 2006 "Anti-terrorist Plan" as well Vice President Cheney’s 2005 "Contingency Plan". (See Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?, Global Research, June 24, 2007). The directive establishes procedures for "Continuity of Government" (COG) in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency". The latter is defined in NSPD 51/HSPD 20, as
"any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
NSPD 51 is predicated on the notion that America is under attack and that the "Catastrophic Emergency" would take the form of a terror attack on a major urban area.
"Continuity of Government," or "COG," is defined in NSPD 51 as "a coordinated effort within the Federal Government’s executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency."
More recently, in May 2008, another National Security Presidential Directive was put forth by the White House entitled Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security (NSPD 59, HSPD 24).
NSPD59 complements NSPD 51. The new directive is not limited to KSTs, which in Homeland Security jargon stands for "Known and Suspected Terrorists", it includes various categories of domestic terrorists, the presumption being that these domestic groups are working hand in glove with the Islamists.
"The ability to positively identify those individuals who may do harm to Americans and the Nation is crucial to protecting the Nation. Since September 11, 2001, agencies have made considerable progress in securing the Nation through the integration, maintenance, and sharing of information used to identify persons who may pose a threat to national security." (NSPD 59)
NSPD 59 goes far beyond the issue of biometric identification, it recommends the collection and storage of "associated biographic" information, meaning information on the private lives of US citizens, in minute detail, all of which will be "accomplished within the law" (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, "Big Brother" Presidential Directive: "Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security", Global Research, June 2008).
NSPD is explicitly directed against American citizens, who are now categorized as potential terrorists.
While "conspiracy theorists" have been accused of cogitating regarding the possibility of a Second 9/11, most of the insinuations emanate from official US sources including the White House, the Pentagon and Homeland Security.
The fact that a "massive casualty producing events" could be used as part of a US foreign policy agenda is diabolical. The official statements are grotesque.
Bipartisan Consensus in the Presidential Election Campaign: "Al Qaeda will Strike Again"
While the presidential election campaign has avoided the issue of a Second 9/11, both candidates have acknowledged the dangers of a second attack. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have underscored their resolve to protect America against Al Qaeda:
[Question: Who's the enemy?] "Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam, and so we have to go after them." (Barack Obama in response to Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, September 5, 2008
"We have dealt a serious blow to al Qaeda in recent years. But they are not defeated, and they’ll strike us again if they can." (John McCain, Acceptance Speech, September 5, 2008)
Mainstream Media Report: "The Need" for a Second 9/11
While the Washington Post leaked the substance of the Pentagon’s classified documents pertaining to the "opportunity" of a Second 9/11, the issue has not been the object of mainstream commentary or analysis.
It is worth noting, however, that in an August 2007 Fox News interview, "A Second 9/11" was heralded as a means to create awareness and unite Americans against the enemy.
Broadcast on Fox News, Columnist Stu Bykofsky claimed that America "needs" a new 9/11 to unite the American people, because they have "forgotten" who the enemy is. He also claimed that "there will be another 9/11", and Fox New Anchorman John Gibson concurred. Civilian casualties would contribute to uniting the country and creating awareness:
"it’s going to take a lot of dead people to wake America up" said John Gibson. [emphasis added]
While Stu Bykofsky’s controversial article in the Philadelphia Daily News (August 9, 2007) was, at the time, considered as outlandish, what Bykovsky was actually saying was not very different from The Pentagon’s ploy (modeled on Operation Northwoods) concerning the role of massive casualty producing events in triggering "a useful wave of indignation".
Transcript Fox News Network
THE BIG STORY WITH JOHN GIBSON
August 7, 2007, 5PM, EST
Columnist Comes Under Fire for Saying "We Need Another 9/11 Attack"
Anchorman: John Gibson
Interview with Columnist Stu Bykofsky
John Gibson: In big security, to save America we need another 9/11. That’s what one columnist is advocating as a way to unite America. Nearly 6 years after the heinous terror attacks he says we have forgotten our enemy. He says the Iraq war has divided the US, the Republicans and Democrats are on the attack over the war, we pulled together after 9/11 but he justifies his controversial statement by saying the united front just didn’t last. And now, bloggers are outraged. Some say the journalist should be fired from his job for suggesting we, quote, “need” another attack. So is this just a means to shock or offend or does this columnist actually have a valid point? Well, he’s here now live to explain: Philadelphia Daily news columnist Stu Bykofsky. So Stu, let me… let’s just say it again. What do you say America needs at this point?
Stu Bykofsky: Well, my thesis here is that we’re terribly divided, there’s disunity in this country, and as a divided country we’re weak. When I look back over what has pulled the country together over the past few years, 9/11 united the country and it remained united and we were all on the same team for at least a year or two.
John Gibson: Stu, but do you mean to say that we are going to be attacked again, we will be united again, there’s a sort of inevitability to that or that in order to achieve this unity we actually need to suffer?
Stu Bykofsky: Uh, John, I didn’t actually call for an attack on the United States. Uh, I can see where people read it that way but I didn’t actually say it. However, another attack on the United States is inevitable. I believe that, don’t you?
John Gibson: Yes, I do, actually, and I think that it’s going to take a lot of dead people to wake America up. I think the deal, Steve, Stu, I’m sorry…
Stu Bykofsky: It’s okay.
John Gibson: …is the word “need”. If you say, well, it’s gonna happen and it, you know, Americans are gonna die because we’ve let down our guard – one thing – but when you say we “need” an attack it… especially has riled relatives of the dead.
Stu Bykofsky: John, uh, I can understand them being upset. Are you reading from the headline or from the text of my column which I don’t have in front of me?
John Gibson: Well, that’s a good point. Did you use the word “need” in the text or was it only the headline?
Stu Bykofsky: It’s the headline.
John Gibson: So you don’t actually, you don’t endorse the word “need”?
Stu Bykofsky: Uh, no, I don’t. There was a slight difference. Other people write headlines and it’s not exactly what I was trying to say.
John Gibson: Alright, so…
Stu Bykofsky: But, but if you look at the context…
John Gibson: But, but what you are trying to say is, is that, that somehow we have been, we’ve let down our guard, we’re fighting each other instead of the terrorists and that if we don’t get it together people are going to die.
Stu Bykofsky: That’s absolutely correct. We’re fighting like a group of rabid dogs and our attention should be turned elsewhere. And I also say that the primary reason for that in my opinion is the, uh, the war in Iraq which has been conducted so horribly by the administration.
John Gibson: Stu…
Stu Bykofsky: Not by our troops.
John Gibson: Yeah, okay, I don’t want to get you in further trouble. Stu, uh, what has been the reaction? Did the newspaper switchboard light up?
Stu Bykofsky: Uh, no, we don’t have a switchboard, John. Uh, yesterday when it appeared, the reaction was moderate because I think people in Philadelphia who have been reading me for a long time maybe know what to expect. Then it got posted somewhere outside of Philadelphia and this morning when I came in uh, there were well over a thousand e-mails and more kept coming in during the day. And a lot of calls…
John Gibson: A bunch want you fired, right?
Stu Bykofsky: Pardon?
John Gibson: A bunch of those e-mails want you fired, right?
Stu Bykofsky: Uh, a number of people told me that they were calling my editor and they were going to suggest that he fire me, yes. I don’t think that’s going to happen.
John Gibson: You standing by the column?
Stu Bykofsky: Oh, absolutely.
John Gibson: Stu Bykofsky, down in Philadelphia. Stu, thanks a lot.
(transcribed from original Video)
TruthgoneWild is PRO America. TruthgoneWild is not, in any way, connected to, or supportive of, any person(s) who engage in violent acts towards anyone or anything, for any reason. TruthgoneWild is not, and will never be, associated with, or support, any person(s) who are involved with any kind of religious, extremist, occultist, terrorist organization(s). TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the people who read the TruthgoneWild blog. TruthgoneWild posts consist of information copied from other sources and a source link is provided for the reader. TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the authors' content. Parental discretion is advised.
TruthgoneWild is exercising our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Those who attempt to hinder this right to free speech will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law. TruthgoneWild is not anti government. TruthgoneWild is anti corruption. And we the people have every right to know who in our government is corrupt.