It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning.
Americans have known surprise attacks, but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.
Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking, "Who attacked our country?"
The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are some of the murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.
Washington, D.C., 1 December 2005 - The largest U.S. intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, today declassified over 140 formerly top secret documents -- histories, chronologies, signals intelligence [SIGINT] reports, and oral history interviews -- on the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. Included in the release is a controversial article by Agency historian Robert J. Hanyok on SIGINT and the Tonkin Gulf which confirms what historians have long argued: that there was no second attack on U.S. ships in Tonkin on August 4, 1964. According to National Security Archive research fellow John Prados, "the American people have long deserved to know the full truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry - oil.
The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry.
Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some £50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Haliburton oil company.
Investigative journalist Joseph Trento will later report that in 1976, the Safari Club, a newly formed secret cabal of intelligence agencies (see September 1, 1976-Early 1980s), decides it needs a network of banks to help finance its intelligence operations. Saudi Intelligence Minister Kamal Adham is given the task.
[Trento, Prelude to Terror, 2005, pp. 104]
“With the official blessing of George H. W. Bush as the head of the CIA, Adham transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history.” BCCI was founded in 1972 by a Pakistani named Agha Hasan Abedi, who was an associate of Adham’s. Bush himself has an account at BCCI established while still director of the CIA. French customs will later raid the Paris BCCI branch and discover the account in Bush’s name.
[Time Magazine, 7/22/1991]
“a global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad. Operating primarily out of the bank’s offices in Karachi, Pakistan, the 1,500-employee black network has used sophisticated spy equipment and techniques, along with bribery, extortion, kidnapping and even, by some accounts, murder. The black network—so named by its own members—stops at almost nothing to further the bank’s aims the world over.”
1978
27 April: Afghanistan's communist People's Democratic Party seizes power in a coup but is split along ethnic lines and in-fighting begins.
5 December: A friendship treaty is signed with the USSR.
1979
March: The USSR begins massive military aid to the DRA.
12 December: The Politbureau's inner circle, fearing the spectre of an Iranian-style Islamist revolution decides to invade.
24 December: The Soviet defence ministry reveals orders to senior staff to send troops into Afghanistan. Commandos seize strategic installations in Kabul.
1980
Resistance intensifies with various mujahideen groups fighting Soviet forces and their allies. The US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supply money and arms to the mujahideen.
1985
More than five million Afghans are now estimated to be displaced by the war, with many fleeing to neighbouring Iran or Pakistan.
1986
The US begins supplying mujahideen with Stinger missiles, enabling them to shoot down Soviet helicopter gunships. Karmal is replaced by Mohammed Najibullah.
1988
The DRA, USSR, US and Pakistan sign peace accords and the Soviets begin pulling out troops.
1989
15 February: The USSR announces the departure of the last Soviet troops. More than one million Afghans and 13 thousand Soviet troops have been killed . Civil war continues as the mujahideen push to overthrow Najibullah, who is eventually toppled in 1992.
Q: Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?
A: No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden.
1978
According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favoured a “de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran.” [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]
1979
The CIA begins covert action against the Communist government in Afghanistan, which is closely tied to the Soviet Union. Some time this year, the CIA begins training militants in Pakistan and beaming radio propaganda into Afghanistan. [Blum, 1995, pp. 344]
March 30, 1979
Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe wonders aloud whether there is “value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ‘sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.’” [Gates, 1996, pp. 145 ]
May 1979
CIA Begins Working with Hekmatyar and Other Mujaheddin Leaders Chosen by ISI
As the US mobilizes for covert war in Afghanistan a CIA special envoy meets Afghan mujaheddin leaders at Peshawar, Pakistan, near the border to Afghanistan. [McCoy, 2003, pp. 475]
December 8, 1979
Soviet Forces, Lured in by the CIA, Invade Afghanistan
Later declassified high-level Russian documents will show that the Russian leadership believed that Amin, who took power in a violent coup from another pro-Soviet leader two months before, had secret contacts with the US embassy and was probably a US agent. [Cooley, 2002, pp. 8]
It has been commonly believed that the invasion was unprovoked, but the Russians will later be proven largely correct. In a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, will reveal that earlier in the year Carter authorized the CIA to destabilize the government, provoking the Russians to invade. [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/1998; Mirror, 1/29/2002]
Further, CIA covert action in the country actually began in 1978, if not earlier. The US and Saudi Arabia will give a huge amount of money (estimates range up to $40 billion total for the war) to support the mujaheddin guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians, and a decade-long war will ensue. [Nation, 2/15/1999]
1980
Afghan Fighters Begin Training in US
Some fighters opposing the Soviets in Afghanistan begin training in the US. According to journalist John Cooley, the training is done by Navy Seals and Green Beret officers who have taken draconian secrecy oaths. Key Pakistani officers are trained, as well as some senior Afghan mujaheddin. [Cooley, 2002, pp. 70-72]
.... in the late 1980s, US consular official Michael Springmann will notice fighters from many Middle Eastern nations are getting US visas, apparently to train in the US for the Afghan war.
1980-1989
CIA and British Train Mujaheddin in Afghanistan and Help Arm Bin Laden
Fearing a diplomatic incident, CIA and other US agents rarely venture into Afghanistan. .....mujaheddin are trained in secret camps in remote parts of Scotland. When the US decides to supply Stinger missiles to the mujaheddin in 1986, it is the SAS who provide the training in how to use them. But the SAS is taking orders from the CIA.
The CIA also indirectly gives weapons to Osama bin Laden and other mujaheddin leaders. One former US intelligence official will say in 1999, “[US agents] armed [bin Laden’s] men by letting him pay rock-bottom prices for basic weapons.” [Reeve, 1999, pp. 168]
Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.
The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.
Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.
The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.
Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers who lived in San Diego in 2000 rented a room from a man who reportedly worked as an undercover FBI informant, highlighting the lack of cooperation by the nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Newsweek magazine reports that Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi lived with a "tested" undercover "asset" who had been working closely with the FBI office in San Diego.
A senior law-enforcement official told the magazine that the informant never provided the Bureau with the names of his two houseguests from Saudi Arabia — but his FBI contact never asked, either.
The CIA was keeping an eye on the men after the two had attended an al Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000.
Alhazmi and Almihdhar moved into the house in September of 2000. Almihdhar left six weeks later and Alhazmi left at the end of the year.
While there, the FBI informant prayed with them and even helped one open a bank account. Alhazmi and Almihdhar took lessons at a flight school while living in San Diego.
The two men were aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11.
US officials were given the first name and telephone number of an 11 September hijacker more than two years before the attacks, the New York Times has said.
Quoting German officials, the newspaper says the CIA was given the name and number of Marwan al-Shehhi by German intelligence, who wanted him tracked.
They reportedly did not hear from the Americans until after the 2001 attacks.
A US commission into the attacks will investigate whether there was a failure to pursue the lead aggressively.
U.S. intelligence officials had several warnings that terrorists might attack the United States on its home soil -- even using airplanes as weapons -- well before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two congressional committees said in a report released Wednesday.
In 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Another alert came just a month before the attacks, the report said, when the CIA sent a message to the FAA warning of a possible hijacking "or an act of sabotage against a commercial airliner." The information was linked to a group of Pakistanis based in South America.
An article published in Newsweek magazine on Monday claims that the Central Intelligence Agency knew that two men suspected of links to al-Qaeda were in the United States months before they took part in the suicide attacks of 11 September.
Under the headline, "The terrorists the CIA should have caught", the report argues that the CIA tracked one of the men, Nawaf al-Hazmi, shortly after he attended an al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia in January 2000, but failed to alert other US law enforcement agencies.
CIA agents also discovered that another man, Khalid al-Mihdhar, had already obtained a multiple-entry visa that allowed him to enter and leave the US freely, Newsweek reports.
On the 11 September, the two men boarded one of the four hijacked airliners - American Airlines Flight 77 - and crashed it into the Pentagon.
The United States was warned of impending September 11 terrorist attacks by an Iranian spy, but ignored him, German secret service agents testified yesterday in the trial of an alleged al-Qaida terrorist.
The spy, identified as Hamid Reza Zakeri, tried to warn the CIA after leaving Iran in 2001, but was not believed, two German officers who interviewed him told the Hamburg court.
Zakeri worked in the department of the Iranian secret services responsible for "carrying out terrorist attacks globally", one of the officers said.
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.
The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.
The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.
In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf,” Miklaszewski said.
"... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."
The body of John P. O'Neill, a former assistant director of the FBI and an expert on terrorism, was recovered Friday from the rubble of the World Trade Center.
O'Neill had recently retired from the FBI and had just taken over security for the World Trade Center, said New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.
When FBI counsel Colleen Rowley dropped her bombshell, a now-famous letter to the director, detailing how bureau higher-ups thwarted attempts to investigate accused 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, before the September 11 attacks, she set off a firestorm. The scorching produced a mea culpa of sorts in June from FBI Director Robert Mueller and a promise of reform.
Now there‘s another whistle blower telling a similar pre-911 tale. And so far, the FBI has gone to great lengths to silence him.
The Weekly has learned that Chicago-based special agent Robert Wright has accused the agency of shutting down his 1998 criminal probe into alleged terrorist-training camps in Chicago and Kansas City. The apparent goal of the training camps, according to confidential documents obtained by the Weekly, was to recruit and train Palestinian-American youths, who would then slip into Israel. Recruits at these camps reportedly received weapons training and instruction in bomb-making techniques in the early 1990s. The bomb-making curriculum included the sort of explosives later used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. And government documents state that two trainees came from the Oklahoma City area.
During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like [Robert Hanssen], who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)
Dear Director Mueller:
I feel at this point that I have to put my concerns in writing concerning the important topic of the FBI's response to evidence of terrorist activity in the United States prior to September 11th. The issues are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law enforcement mission and mandate. Moreover, at this critical juncture in fashioning future policy to promote the most effective handling of ongoing and future threats to United States citizens' security, it is of absolute importance that an unbiased, completely accurate picture emerge of the FBI's current investigative and management strengths and failures.
Wright did say that FBI bureaucrats “intentionally and repeatedly thwarted his attempts to launch a more comprehensive investigation to identify and neutralize terrorists.” And that “FBI management failed to take seriously the threat of terrorism in the U.S
This week, I went to Brooklyn in search of an "urban myth" about the World Trade Center assault. Was word of the attack on the street before Sept. 11? What I found out was chilling--this story is no myth.
On Oct. 11, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, an aggressive young reporter for The New York Journal News of Westchester County, N.Y., published an article that tracked the story to New Utrecht High School in Brooklyn, N.Y. Shapiro identified a teacher who witnessed a freshman in her class saying the week prior to the World Trade Center attacks: "Do you see those two buildings? They won't be standing there next week."
There are only three possibilities. One, the youth was clairvoyant. Two, the youth, knowing about the 1993 bombing, was just venting anger in a particularly timely way. Three, word of the attack on the World Trade Center was rumored in his neighborhood and he heard about it.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 80% of this, from Northwoods, to the ISI to the presidential briefings are straight out of Loose Change. I distinctly recognize the cover of the terrorism study referencing the 1993 WTC terrorist attack that Dylan Avery used to insinuate as being some sinister hint of the 9/11 attack, exactly the same way you're doing. There isn't anything you're providing here that hasn't been presented already many times previously.
This of course does nothing to address the fact this is still 100% innuendo dropping. Implosions leave blatant signs of sabotage on the steel and hordes of steel workers cleaning up the wreckage at ground zero...many of them being the ones who helped build the thing to begin with...say there was no such thing there. Thus, the towers were NOT brought down by implosion so two plus two still equals four regardless of how much evidence you present to make it look like it really equals five.
Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy claims as you see fit.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 80% of this, from Northwoods, to the ISI to the presidential briefings are straight out of Loose Change. I distinctly recognize the cover of the terrorism study referencing the 1993 WTC terrorist attack that Dylan Avery used to insinuate as being some sinister hint of the 9/11 attack, exactly the same way you're doing. There isn't anything you're providing here that hasn't been presented already many times previously.
This of course does nothing to address the fact this is still 100% innuendo dropping. Implosions leave blatant signs of sabotage on the steel and hordes of steel workers cleaning up the wreckage at ground zero...many of them being the ones who helped build the thing to begin with...say there was no such thing there. Thus, the towers were NOT brought down by implosion so two plus two still equals four regardless of how much evidence you present to make it look like it really equals five.
Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy claims as you see fit.
Originally posted by laiguana
This is going to be some fun stuff to look at, although it may take a while. I find that some of the best leading investigative work was done by Michael Ruppert. A lot of people think he's a dis-info agent for some reason. I have no idea why since pretty much everything he has stated is verifiable.
I really suggest people read through the NIST solicitations and the SOW in their written awarded contracts (to the contractors they awarded them to). It just boggles the mind. The question I am left asking is -was this even meant to be a thorough investigation-?
wtc.nist.gov...
And the 9/11 commission report?....there was less financing behind this -investigation- than there was for the Clinton sex scandal...Not to mention the investigation itself was severely time constrained....Given the proportion of this event it doesn't seem reasonable for that to be the case.
I was a believer of the OS just a year ago...I suppose I wanted the climate around the whole 9/11 fiasco to calm down before I really took a look into it and see what the conspiracy was all about. Now, I wouldn't put it past any islamic extremist to commit these crimes, but do I think they are capable of conducting and executing an operation of this magnitude without intervention? No...I don't think they are. And frankly there are too many questions left...edit on 29-10-2010 by laiguana because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wcitizen
A question: Why did Bush and Cheney insist on not making their statements under oath?
second line.
Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by wcitizen
It's the strangest thing, here is a little on it www.youtube.com... , They did not testify under oath and the guy in the video says the president is not a liar and this justifies not going under the oath. :
Originally posted by OllyP
Originally posted by wcitizen
A question: Why did Bush and Cheney insist on not making their statements under oath?
second line.
As well as it not being recorded and the questions being agreed upon beforehand.
G.O.D do you ever have an independant thought, or do you just keep parroting what you read on those "Damn fool truster sites?"edit on 29-10-2010 by OllyP because: spelling
As I said in the thread, just because something is in Loose Change doesn't mean it's wrong.
And as I also said, there isn't anything "ground breakingly" new here. My intent isn't to provide NEW info, but to collate OLD info into one place.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by kiwifoot
As I said in the thread, just because something is in Loose Change doesn't mean it's wrong.
No, it just means that it is more than likely wrong.
And as I also said, there isn't anything "ground breakingly" new here. My intent isn't to provide NEW info, but to collate OLD info into one place.
Yes, very, very selectively. Thats generally refered to as B.S. I too can "collate" old info together to make just about any argument. As long as I am very selective about what "info" I do and do not collate.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by kiwifoot
I recommend, in order to keep the threads integrity, a thorough and deliberate refusal to acknowledge their presence in this thread unless they actually bring up a pertinent point. Responding to them only derails the thread.
Again, champion effort here, S&F.