THEY WOULDN'T

They wouldn’t …would they?

March 1, 2005

In the not too distant past, the American people learned that Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) knew Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) was coming before the day arrived. Yet, for years, we have listened to replays of FDR’s speech to the nation in which he voiced what appeared to be righteous indignation and horror for the events of Pearl Harbor. Those events were the spring board for America’s entrance into World War II. As the American people took up the cause of World War II; as fathers, brothers, sons and husbands went off to war; as the women took up the call of “Rosey the Riveter;” did they know that their president knew Pearl Harbor was coming and took no action to stop it? No, they didn’t.

What we see here is the Hegelian Dialectic at work: create the crisis to effect the wanted solution. Knowing what the Japanese had planned, FDR allowed it to happen to justify America’s entrance into World War II. The price was the loss of American lives justified by the stated goal. But what was the unstated goal?

For many Americans, the knowledge of what FDR did was their first inkling that things might not be too ethical in the halls of our government. For many, a long shadow was cast over the legitimacy of subsequent “crisis” that affected the lives of the American people, some of which were undoubtedly real. Others, even knowing what FDR did, justified his actions in the name of “national security.”

Recently, a document came to my attention called the “Northwoods Document.” In the normal course of events, I sought the authenticity of this document which led me to the George Washington University Website and a section entitled “National Security Archives.” There I found the Northwoods Document.

The Northwoods Document is dated March 13, 1962 and concerns what would become known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. The document is damning, as well as revealing, in its content. The cover memo states:

“The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request of that office for brief but precise description of pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.”

The operant word here being “pretexts.”

The opening salvo of the “justifications” memo re-iterates the aforesaid and continues:

“Cognizance has been taken of a suggested course of action proposed** by the US Navy relating to generated instances in the Guantanamo area.”

The operant word here being “generated.” Our first inkling that a crisis was being “generated” or created to justify US military intervention in Cuba. On page three of the justifications memo, we read,

“The suggested courses of action appended to Enclosure A satisfactorily respond to the statement of the problem. However, these suggestions should be forwarded as a preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes, and together with similar inputs from other agencies, provide a basis for development of a single, integrated, time-phased plan to focus all efforts on the objective of justification for US military intervention in Cuba.”

Appendix to Enclosure A makes some interesting disclosures, such as:

“Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the United States — The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.”

What could be considered in the logical build-up of incidents? The document suggests such things as starting rumors; land friendly Cubans in uniform over the fence to stage attack on the base; start riots near the base main gate using friendly Cubans; blow up ammunition inside the base and start fires; burn aircraft on the air base; sabotage a ship in the harbor creating large fires; sink a ship near the harbor entrance, then conduct funerals for the mock-victims. All of this to happen at, or in the vicinity of, the Guantanamo Naval Air Station, an American held facility located in Cuba. The document even goes into how to fake the downing of a US commercial airplane:

“The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers would be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being (begin) transmitting on the international distress frequency a ‘May Day’ message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to ‘sell’ the incident.”

Does this scenario sound familiar? Is what the public was told about the downing of Flight 800 really true? What about the commercial flights supposedly involved in September 11, 2001? Were these planes really hi-jacked? Were those really commercial airplanes that hit the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon?

Many have questioned why there was a decided lack of airplane parts, luggage, seats, and passengers, strewn about at the Pentagon. Also how a commercial airliner could have done the damage shown in pictures when the area of damage was not consistent with the size of the plane supposedly involved. There are questions about bright flashes caught on video just before the planes impacted the World Trade Center towers. Questions also exist about whether the planes were really commercial airplanes or were they, as described above, mere drones, unmanned planes flown by remote made to appear the original. For instance, the second plane that hit the towers does not appear, in any video footage, to have windows as a passenger plane would. Were the bright flashes just coincidence or were the World Trade Center towers rigged with explosives as some witnesses have indicated who heard multiple explosions following the initial explosion caused by the plane hitting the tower?

The crisis created by September 11, 2001 was President George Walker Bush’s justification, coupled with the weapons of mass destruction that never materialized, for Operation Iraqi Freedom and the deposing of Saddam Hussein. How many American lives were lost on September 11, 2001? How many Americans have been killed or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan? Was this crisis real or was it contrived to meet some as yet undisclosed and unrealized goal of the American leaders unbeknownst to the American people?

In this same vein — what about the Murrah building in Oklahoma City? What about Waco and Ruby Ridge? What about the USS Cole, the bombing of the various American embassies abroad, the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983? Can we truly believe anything our leaders tell us? Are our soldiers in Iraq fighting and dying for their country and its people or are they fighting and dying for our leaders who have surreptitious goals that are not in the best interests of the American people or the American Republic?

What about the military operations being undertaken in cities across the United States? Is the stated purpose for real or is seeing military personnel decked out in full battle dress, carrying lethal weapons, descending on cities with helicopters and exercises, to assess where the American people are now as opposed to where they need to be if it is to be deemed acceptable for the US military to be used against the American people in the name of safety?

What about the “flu” that resulted in the deaths of so many people (like Vince Foster) whose names were associated with Bill and Hillary Clinton and the White Water scandals? Is it too much of a reach that these people died because of what they knew in consideration of what the Northwoods Document shows our leaders capable of?

The list of crisis the American people have known over the past century is a long one. Real or contrived? The question casts a long shadow over the credibility of our leaders.

Since September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security has come into being, the Patriot Act has been passed, and Americans have watched their rights as Americans be shredded in the name of security. Approximately five years ago, Americans rejected the idea of a national identification card. Now they accept it in the name of security. Five years ago, people would have balked at being searched and having their luggage rifled through at airports nationwide. Now, to hear the news reports, the majority of people would rather be safe. Security has become the death knell for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Recently, in California, students at a rural elementary school were issued identification cards with radio frequency identification (RFID) chips in them. The program was a pilot, meaning that the school was used as a microcosm representing American society. When parents objected strenuously, the program was withdrawn with officials lamenting that the cards were “free” implying justification for the program and that parents were remiss in objecting to something the school got for free. The objective in this lament being to move the focus away from the true purpose of the RFID chip in the gathering of personally identifiable information in a format easily interfaced with larger and more extensive databases, like the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) under the auspices of the US Department of Education in Washington, DC.

Remember that the gathering, storage and analysis of personally identifiable information on every man, woman and child in the United States is paramount to systems governance and the ideology that we must “create the future” as “no deity will save us, we must save ourselves.”

Is the RFID chip gone? No. The pilot was merely to assessment where society is now as opposed to where society must be if the gathering of privacy invasive and personally identifiable information is to be accomplished to the degree needed to keep the system being established “in balance.” It is obvious, from the response of parents of children in this school, that society is not where it needs to be. The question now is how to move the majority of society to where society needs to be and how fast does society need to get there. If the need is immediate, look for a crisis to happen; like a busload of children disappearing off the face of the earth. After all, if the children had RFID chips, we could find them by the radio frequency, couldn’t we?

And, of course, the first question to my mind, should such a thing happen, will be, “is this real or contrived?” What about you?

As in the instance of the Northwoods Document, will we have to wait 40 years to get the classified documents unclassified? Do we have the luxury of waiting that long?

Resources:—

911 In Plane Site; Dave vonKleist; documentary produced by The Power Hour Productions.

Humanist Manifesto; 1973.

National Center for Education Statistics; US Department of Education.

Northwoods Document; George Washington University; 1962; National Security Archives.

“Tracking devices on school pupils outrage parents”; Lisa Leff; The Associated Press; February 10, 2005.