VIEW Recent Articles
Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

Another Terror Attack; Another Terror Drill

CleanPrintBtn gray smallPdfBtn gray smallEmailBtn gray small

If whistleblower Ali Stevenson is correct, it appears that yet again a terrorist attack, this time the Boston bomb, occurred at the same time as an official exercise was taking place.

The Norwegian attack, the London 7/7 bombings and the 9/11 attacks all turned out to be running in tandem with exercises which were eerily similar to the real terrorist attacks.

According to Stevenson, a sports coach, there were bomb sniffing dogs at the start and finish lines. ‘They kept making announcements on the loud speaker that it was just a drill and there was nothing to worry about,’ he told a local TV channel.

In the case of 7/7 in London, retired police terrorist expert Peter Power, clearly in a state of shock, initially told radio listeners that the exercises he had helped organise even specified the same tube stations as the real attacks.

In the case of 9/11 the Pentagon seems to have gone to considerable lengths to hide the fact that they were running multiple exercises including an anti-hijack exercise on the morning of the real 9/11 hijacks. The 9/11 Commission discovered the evidence for the anti-hijack exercise after seizing and reclaiming tapes which the Pentagon had erased. By then, short of time and money, the Commission was not able to investigate further, even if the Washington insiders who made up its key personnel had wished to.

Washington has refused to release the details of the Pentagon’s 9/11 hijack exercise script, but Richard Clarke, white House anti-terror czar at the time, has written that Pentagon exercises would often be highly realistic. Clarke is also suspicious of the role of the CIA in protecting the alleged 9/11 hijackers from arrest during the lead-up to the attacks. Recently he lent his support to multiple reports from angry FBI officers who believe they might have been able to prevent the astonishingly successful attacks used as a pretext for over a decade of foreign wars.

The mainstream media in the NATO countries have largely ignored Clarke’s suspicions and may ignore important elements of the Boston reports too. Mainstream editors are under pressure from advertisers, owners and sometimes even their own correspondents who fear losing access to official sources if their newspaper causes offence. Where a story ‘is going’ is often more important than whether it is true. But citizens are increasingly informed by less controlled media on the internet and from outside NATO. Questions seem to be emerging faster with each incident.

Washington critic and philosopher Webster Tarpley, one of the first to draw attention to the links between Barack Obama, the CIA and the bankers, has explained why anti-terror exercises can be useful to false flag terrorists in the dark corners of a military industrial complex that has a vested interest in war and terror. They provide both a cover story if things go wrong and an explanation to colleagues not in the know if they should chance upon a plot. An anti-terror exercise running in parallel with a major terror attack is not proof of collusion but, say sceptics, it is grounds for further investigation.

For the first time since the Oklahoma Bomb in 1995 it seems that white extremists may be held responsible for a high profile terrorist attack. Oklahoma was originally blamed on Arab terrorists but the story changed following the unexpected arrest of Timothy McVeigh, an ex US special forces operative. While turning Homeland Security into a fully armed military force, the Obama administration is in a struggle to push through gun control and this attack will prove a political godsend if it can be blamed on angry gun owning white males.

In addition, Middle Eastern observers say that Al Qaeda is no longer Washington’s enemy du jour. The al-Nusra Front, a key part of the insurrection in Syria, has recently announced that it is part of Al Qaeda. This puts Al Qaeda publicly back on the same side as Washington and the CIA, as it was originally, created by the CIA and the Saudis to help bring down a Russian backed government in Afghanistan in the 1980′s. This time they are using terrorist bombs to overthrow the Russian backed government of Syria.

In one sense the people of Boston and the people of Damascus are now on the same side, innocent victims of random terrorist attacks, although for the people of Damascus it’s on an altogether different scale.

But the mainstream NATO media are unlikely to remark on any of this. The facts are taking the story in the wrong direction. The owners and advertisers are mostly on the other side.

References

Stevenson: http://www.local15tv.com/mostpopular/story/UM-Coach-Bomb-Sniffing-Dogs-Spotters-on-Roofs/BrirjAzFPUKKN8z6eSDJEA.cspx

7/7: www.infowars.net/articles/april2009/060409Power.htm

Richard Clarke (Washington spin): www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20091608.html

Richard Clarke (more sceptical spin): http://prn.fm/2013/01/17/2012-a-breakthrough-year-for-the-911-truth-movement/#axzz2QiiUOoQD

Ian Henshell is Co-ordinator of London-based Reinvestigate 911 (www.reinvestigate911.org) and author of 9.11 The New Evidence, Constable, London, publisher. Web publishers who wish to repost this article are kindly asked to include the link to the original, 911reinvestigate.org.

Originally published April 17, 2013

Source: Reinvestigate 9/11