Worst Provocation Ever 9/11 18Sep 2001

[conspiracy analyst]

Posted 5 Years Ago on Google

The worst provocation ever
Preliminary thoughts on the WTC tragedy

The WTC tragedy has already been compared by many sources to the bombing of
Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.
The similarity seems to be deeper than might initially appear.
Although the fact has never been officially acknowledged, the US government knew in advance that the US fleet would be bombed in Pearl Harbor. Instead of trying to protect the fleet, it choose to use this as a golden opportunity to enter the war, which the US public opposed up to that point. Does the current US administration have similar responsibilities for the 'terrorist attacks' that have caused as many victims as a full-scale war? Or is the truth even worse?
The official version doesn't hold water.We are asked to believe that after two planes had crashed on the twin
towers, a third one was left to approach and crash on what is probably one
of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world: the Pentagon.
We are asked to believe that in at least four different incidents, in at
least three different airports (in the US, which prides itself on the
security of its airports), hijackers managed to bypass security, board the
planes, take control of them, and use them as bombs, in order to cause the worst catastrophe in US history.

We are asked to believe that these terrorists, who were at the same time
trained pilots, were able to use heavy passenger aircraft, fly them at low
altitude with the precision needed to attack single buildings. Supposedly
they were flying at slow speed, or it would have been impossible to hit the
targets with such accuracy. One has also to suppose that, at least after the second plane hit the second WTC tower, there would have to be a heightened state of alert around the strategic center of the world's remaining superpower. Yet, the slow-flying passenger airplane managed to bypass all defenses, and hit the Pentagon, causing its partial collapse.
Those who watched the news from the beginning, must also have noticed that initially there were only two planes mentioned: the one that hit the first tower, and the one that hit the Pentagon. Then we learned that the Pentagon plane was the THIRD one, not the second.
We were also shown footage of the plane collapsing with the WTC tower - only the footage was not very realistic. Although the tower and the explosion were probably real, the plane itself was obviously an animation. The second WTC collision supposedly happened 15-20 minutes after the first one, and TV crews had all the time to rush to the scene, take positions and wait for the
replay. They could not have helped noticing the second airplane approaching,
at low altitude and low speed. Why aren't we shown the real footage?

In the past, attacks against US targets (the Kenya and Tanzania embassies) were used as pretexts for strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan. The Sudanese government asked the US to present proof for its accusations that the targeted pharmaceutical plant was producing nerve gas-related substances, as well as that it had links with Bin Laden. The US government refused to do either. Sudan proposed the creation of a commission of
inquiry, and proposed former US president J. Carter as a head of this
commission. Again the US refused. The Oct 23 issue of the OBSERVER carried extensive proof that then US president Clinton knew in advance that the plant had no relation to chemical warfare.
Palestinians have in the past used the tactic of hijacking planes. But this
tactic has been abandoned for more than two decades, for the obvious reason that heightened security measures rendered it ineffective.

Shortly after the WTC catastrophe, a TV station from the UAE carried the
news that the Palestinian group DFLP had assumed responsibility for the
attacks. For anyone even remotely acquainted with the politics of the
region, this is a joke. The DFLP is a moderate group, which has repeatedly
been denounced by organisations such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad for its efforts to approach Arafat. It is also an organisation with limited
resources which - with the notable exception of a recent successful attack
against an Israeli military unit - has done nothing notable during the last
several years.

It is also obvious to anyone with an ounce of independently thinking brain,
that nobody in his right mind would provoke the US with such a massive
strike, even if he could do it.

There is only one entity in the world which has the resources for such a
massive attack, the belief that it can act with impunity, and the contempt
for human life required for this operation. This entity is the US governing
elite.

Hitler organised the Reichstag fire, blamed it on the communists, and
proceeded to assume dictatorial powers.

The current-day admirers of Hitler, those who have borrowed from him such slogans as the 'new world order' and used 'desert fox' as a code name for
their operations, have surpassed their master. They are using provocation as
the main method of governance. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, which
served as the necessary bogeyman to justify their crimes, they created the
spectre of terrorism, in order to justify the continuation of these crimes.

But the scale of the provocation must reveal the reason it is used for.
Certainly, September 11 2001 was the last day of US democracy as we used to
know it: a democracy where, provided one is white, he is more or less
allowed to say and do whatever he wants, as long as it is ineffective. From
now on, we 'll obviously see a wholesale attack against democratic
liberties, first of all against free speech. But this is not enough to
justify the slaughter of thousands of US citizens. The US has been placed in
a war footing after the attacks. The only plausible explanation is that IT
IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN A WAR.

Israel, the strategic ally of the US in the heart of the Arab world, has
slowly but surely losing the war for its survival. The last of the colonial
states, a state which owes its existence to the wholesale economic and
military support of the US, a state which was conceived and created in order
to ensure the continuation of western control over the strategically and
economically important region, has obviously outlived itself. Its economy
crumbling, its population demoralized, having recently been forced to
retreat from Southern Lebanon, it now finds itself between a rock and a hard
place. Faced by the heroic rebellion of Palestinian youth who have nothing
left to lose, with a large section of its population openly discussing the
option of emigration for the first time in its history, it apparently only
continues to exist due to historic inertia. But if Israel is faced with a
decisive defeat - which seems the only possible outcome, this will upset the balance of power in the whole world. For the first time after the Iranian revolution, the world will be forced to admit that oppressed people can win.

During the last month, Thomas Friedman wrote a series of articles in the
N.Y. Times, where he admits that Israel cannot solve its problems any more, and proposes "that NATO or a NATO-like force be invited to assume control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip" (N.Y. Times, Sep 4 2001). The only problem with this 'solution' is that NATO, by assuming Israel's duties as the force occupying Palestine, would also assume the bloodletting that comes with them. There is no reason to believe that the Palestinians who have rebelled against their Israeli occupiers would gladly accept a NATO
occupying force. Unlike Israel, which, although tired from the conflict, is
used to having casualties, NATO member states are not. And unlike Israelis, who live on property stolen from Palestinians, and therefore understand, even if grudgingly, that they have a vested interest in the continuation of the occupation, citizens of NATO member states see no reason why they should risk their lives, or those of their kin, for the continuation of the occupation.

Apparently the US government has decided to follow the Friedman option. In order to garner support from its citizens for an operation that will most
probably lead to a repetition of the Vietnam fiasco, it decided to show that
the American people DOES have a vested interest in a 'solution' to the
conflict in Palestine.

The attacks against the WTC twin towers and the Pentagon only make sense as a prelude to an invasion by US forces in the Arab world. Such an invasion will probably try to solve many problems at once: The problem of
'insubordinate' states like Syria and Iraq. The problem of the continuation
of the existence of Israel. And, last but not least, the problems of the
American economy. By taking Arab oil under their direct control, they may try to lower its price, in order to reinvigorate their ailing economy.

Of course, these plans are based on a dubious premise: They assume that the Arab nation will succumb to the military strength of the US, and accept to reassume the role of a colonial subject. Everything we have seen during the last year, shows that this will not be the case.

It remains to be seen how many more thousands of innocent people will lose their lives before this criminal adventure is over.

[fixuplooksharp]

where is the link, this is actually quite incredible! espesh seen as though 'do no evil' google has now teamed up with china and us, free speech wise, that is.

[Jayhawk]

http://www.freearabvoice.org/AbuNicolaOnAttacks.htm