14 incredible facts about 9/11

[Michael Barwell]

I'm still finding it odd how the Saudi's're hitting the Houthi and the Turks're hitting the Kurds, both of whom are effective at hitting ISIL/AQ. Durr.

[Drew Phipps]

This quote is from an article Perloff cited.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFI...CRASH.html

Something Perloff missed, or perhaps discussed elsewhere:

When asked about the technical capabilities of the ASD (airspace situational display) program used by the dispatchers on their monitors to track planes, all United representatives conferred that the program's display refreshes every 60 seconds......

McCurdy recollected that at the time of the crash into tower 2, the display on Ballenger's monitor still showed UAL 175 at 31,000 ft, having just deviated from the normal flight plan and heading into a big turn back east."

That would require the aircraft to descend faster than free fall speed to go from 31k to 2k in 60 seconds (in fact that is a vertical drop of 330 miles per hour), and as you all have seen from the footage, the airplane that struck the WTC was not in an uncontrolled free fall. So, either McCurdy/Ballenger are lying, or they are witnesses that the ACARS system was tracking a "different" UA 175 than the one that hit the WTC.

[Peter Lemkin]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff were chomping at the bit to steamroll over the trust placed in them by the American people. They wanted to trick the world into supporting a coup in Cuba. And they were willing to kill a lot of their own people to do it. Operation Northwoods was an elaborate terror and deception campaign that was an eerie precursor to 9/11.
I've given many of the details of the plan in my last two posts, but somehow you have to hear it in the words of the generals themselves to really grasp the contempt these people had for the truth. But more importantly, their words offer a perfect blueprint for the phoney terrorist attacks on 9/11, 39 years later. Read what's below (from the declassified memo proposing the operation to President Kennedy) with the 9/11 hijackings in mind. In the first example, F-101 fighter jets would fly near Cuba:
"On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
"At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found."
THE PILOT AND AIRCRAFT WOULD THEN HAVE DISAPPEARED…SEARCH SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT COULD BE DISPATCHED AND PARTS OF AIRCRAFT FOUND.
On 9/11 we're told that four airplanes crashed, three into buildings and one into a field. But no planes were found, just a few small pieces of "wreckage." It's just an updated version of the same plan. Planes don't disappear when they hit something except on 9/11.
Let's pull out another example from the Northwoods memo:
"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could 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 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 the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radiostations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
PAINTED AND NUMBERED AS AN EXACT DUPLICATE…THE DUPLICATE WOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ACTUAL CIVIL AIRCRAFT…ARRANGEMENTS WILL HAVE BEEN MADE TO EVACUATE THE PASSENGERS.
Drone aircraft, real planes flying at low altitude to an air force base. People wonder what happened to Flight 77 if it didn't really hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Does it seem a little more possible after reading this?
The cover story would be believable and logical, according to the memo. They wouldn't have had to "sell" the incident; a compliant and gullible public and media would take care of that.
Here's a list of what they proposed:

• Stage fake attack (with "friendly" Cubans) on U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
  
• Capture fake soldiers simulating an attack on the base
  
• Start riots near the entrance to the base
  
• Blow up ammunition inside the base and start fires
  
• Set fire to aircraft inside the base
  
• Lob mortar shells into the base from outside some damage to installations
  
• Capture fake assault teams approaching from the sea
  
• Capture militia group that storms the base
  
• Sabotage large ship in the harbour start large fires
  
• Sink ship near entrance to the harbour conduct mock funerals of victims
  
• Blow up U.S. naval vessel in Guantanamo Bay.
  
• Blow up an unmanned drone ship in Cuban waters
  
• Follow that with a "rescue" mission to retrieve non-existent crew
  
• Plant fake Soviet explosive device
  
• Develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
  
• Sink boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)
  
• Foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the U.S., wounding some.
  
• Make it appear that Castro was subverting other countries in the region
  
• Exploding plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots
  
• Arrest Cuban agents (In the memo they wrote: "… release prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government")
  
• Fake Cuban messages to Communist underground in the Dominican Republic
  
• Use fake MIGs flown by U.S. pilots to further provoke
  
• Hijack civil aircraft
  

When you read this, does the idea that 9/11 was a government job still seem that farfetched - especially when given the 'benefit' of 50 years of technology available to them for deception and actions?

[Peter Lemkin]

For those who want the audio [and abbreviated] version of Ryan's Another Nineteen, it is a five part series of hour long interviews [#287-291] on this page http://gunsandbutter.snappages.com/archi...w-list.htm
I found them helpful even after reading the book twice - it is SO dense with names, facts, events, connections it really takes more than one reading to do it justice. Whether any of those named will face any justice is in the near term unlikely....but who knows.

The bibliography at the back of the book is also a very good one.

[Peter Lemkin]

U.S. Officials Gave Eerily Prophetic Warnings of an Attack in the Days Before 9/11 ::

07/17/2015 - 6:14am

• Donald Rumsfeld
  
• Foreknowledge
  
• John O'Neill
  
• Richard Clarke
  

A number of senior officials in the United States government and military gave warnings in the week before September 11, 2001, or early on the morning of September 11, that seem to have predicted the 9/11 attacks with chilling accuracy.
These men--as is described below--voiced concerns that Osama bin Laden would carry out an attack in the U.S. in the near future; warned that an al-Qaeda attack that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Americans could happen "at any time"; expressed concern that terrorists would attack the World Trade Center; warned about a "seminal event" occurring in the U.S. in which "hundreds, if not thousands" of Americans would be killed; said that "someone [is] going to attack us in a fashion we did not anticipate"; warned that "something big" was about to happen; and suggested the possibility of an attack taking place that would be equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, in which over 2,400 Americans died.
The six officials who issued these warnings were Charles Nemfakos, deputy under secretary of the Navy; Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command; John O'Neill, head of security at the World Trade Center who had previously been a senior FBI agent; Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism chief; Kirk Lippold, commander of the USS Colewhen it was attacked by terrorists in October 2000; and Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense.
The accuracy of these men's warnings and the fact that the warnings were given so soon before 9/11 certainly appears suspicious. We need to consider, therefore, if the content and timing of the warnings, in relation to the 9/11 attacks, was just a coincidence or the result of something more sinister. Were the men who gave the warnings perhaps just very perceptive? Or did at least some of them know that a major attack was about to take place?
If any of these officials knew in advance that a terrorist attack was going to take place in the U.S. on September 11, the imminent catastrophe would surely have been on their minds in the days leading up to it. They may therefore have been inclined to--perhaps inadvertently--make indirect references to what they knew was about to happen and this could be why they gave warnings that appear to have been prescient of the 9/11 attacks.
NAVY OFFICIAL TALKED ABOUT THE NEED FOR 'AN EVENT EQUIVALENT TO PEARL HARBOR'
The day before 9/11, Charles Nemfakos, deputy under secretary of the Navy, said that before it addressed the weaknesses in its defense policy, the United States would need to suffer an attack equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in 1941 that led America to enter World War II.
On September 10, 2001, Nemfakos--the "number three official in the Navy," according to Defense Week magazine--gave a briefing to a group of civilian employees of the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) in Crane, Indiana. The NSWC employees had come to Washington, DC, to interact with some of the Navy's top officials and complete a program for a certificate in public management.
During the briefing, one of the NSWC employees has recalled, someone asked Nemfakos "what it would take for America's defense policy to be clear and concise in the 21st century." In response, Nemfakos said that "he felt an event equivalent to Pearl Harbor, either terrorist or military, would be the only event that would awaken the United States from the complacency and security they have had since the end of the Vietnam [War] era." [1]
The fact that Nemfakos made this comment on September 10 is quite chilling, since the attack on the U.S. the following day was immediately likened to the attack on Pearl Harbor. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were, for example, described as "another Pearl Harbor," "the second Pearl Harbor," "the Pearl Harbor of American terrorism," and an event that "rivals if not exceeds the attack on Pearl Harbor." [2] An Internet search by the San Francisco Chronicle two days after 9/11 found "747 stories in newspapers and other publications mentioning both the World Trade Center and Pearl Harbor." [3] Among the similarities between the two events, the death tolls were relatively close. In the attack on Pearl Harbor, 2,403 Americans and 64 Japanese died. [4] In the 9/11 attacks, 2,996 people died. [5]
NAVY OFFICIAL ATTENDED WAR GAMES AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
Nemfakos was a powerful man. He "exerted more day-to-day influence than anyone else in the Navy during the latter half of the 1990s," Defense Week reported. Betty Welch, then-deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for civilian personnel and equal employment opportunity, said in 2000, "It's Charlie Nemfakos who controls the Navy probably more than anybody else." [6]
Interestingly, in the 12 months before September 11, Nemfakos attended some "high-powered war games" that took place at the World Trade Center and seem to have helped prepare the American financial and national security communities for the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The war games were part of an initiative called the "New Rule Sets Project."
The New Rule Sets Project was a research partnership between Wall Street bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald and the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. [7] It brought together "divergent groups of experts" in order to "assess global issues that will affect U.S. national security in coming decades," Defense News reported. [8] Thomas Barnett, the project's director, said it "explored the future of globalization and what could threaten globalization, and what would be new definitions of international instability and crisis."
The project involved the running of a number of sophisticated war game workshops. Three of these were held at Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 107th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. [9] Each workshop was attended by about 30 participants, including "Wall Street CEOs, subject matter experts from academia and think tanks, and national security heavyweights from the White House and from the Pentagon," according to Barnett. Nemfakos was listed as a participant at the second and third of the workshops at Windows on the World, held in October 2000 and June 2001 respectively. [10]
The New Rule Sets Project apparently served as good preparation for the challenges of the post-9/11 world. Barnett has commented that the shock of the 9/11 attacks effectively told the U.S. political system and national security community, "Hey, here's a new way of thinking about crisis and instability and threats in the world, and we have got to have new rules for dealing with this." [11] He said that after 9/11, his research with the New Rule Sets Project "immediately shifted from grand theory to grand strategy." [12]
ARMY GENERAL TALKED ABOUT HIS FEAR OF TERRORISTS ATTACKING THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
Three days before Charles Nemfakos talked about the need for "an event equivalent to Pearl Harbor," Army General Tommy Franks, commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), made equally prophetic remarks. Specifically, he said his biggest fear was that there would be a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center.
On September 7, 2001, Franks talked to his intelligence staff at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, about what he considered to be the major threats facing America throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. After he finished his presentation, a young sergeant asked him, "General, what keeps you up at night?"
Franks replied, "The thought of one tower of the World Trade Center collapsing into the other tower, killing thousands of people," according to Computerworld magazine. In his memoir, Franks described giving a slightly different answer. He wrote that he replied, "A terrorist attack against the World Trade Center in New York." [13] As Canada's Globe and Mailnoted, "Four days later, that's exactly what happened." [14]
What is more, Franks had made other remarks that were apparently prescient of 9/11 a few months earlier. In a speech to the Operations Security Professionals Society in late June 2001, he warned, "The asymmetric threat is serious, and deserves our focused thought and preparation." ("Asymmetric warfare threats," according to the Washington Times, "include efforts by weaker powers to defeat stronger ones using attacks that can include weapons of mass destruction, the use of computer-based information warfare, and terrorism.") Franks continued, "The point is to avoid another Pearl Harbor-like event by recognizing the threat and preparing to meet this growing challenge." [15]
Less than three months after Franks made these comments, the U.S. suffered an attack that, according to the official account, was an example of "asymmetric warfare" and was immediately compared to the attack on Pearl Harbor. On the evening of September 11, according to his own recollections, Franks actually thought to himself, "Today is like Pearl Harbor." [16]
After 9/11, Franks became "one of three men running the Bush administration's military campaign against Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization," ABC News reported. [17] He led the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. [18]
FORMER SENIOR FBI AGENT WARNED THAT BIN LADEN WOULD ATTACK THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
One man, John O'Neill, gave two separate warnings on the day before 9/11 that were chillingly prophetic of what happened on September 11.
O'Neill had, since August 23, 2001, been director of security at the World Trade Center. Prior to that, he spent 25 years as an FBI agent and, from January 1997, had been special agent in charge of the national security division of the FBI's New York office. While at the FBI, according to the New Yorker, he "became the bureau's most committed tracker of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of terrorists." He was at the World Trade Center on September 11 and, unfortunately, was killed when the Twin Towers collapsed. [19]
On the morning of September 10, 2001, O'Neill met Raymond Powers, the director of security at the Rockefeller Center, to discuss various security issues. The two men's conversation eventually turned to the subject of Osama bin Laden. According to journalist and author Murray Weiss, O'Neill told Powers that "he was sure bin Laden would attack on American soil and expected him to target the Twin Towers again." "It's going to happen," he said. "And it looks like something big is brewing." [20]
O'Neill again expressed his fear of an imminent al-Qaeda attack that evening, when he went out with a couple of his friends: Robert Tucker, a security company executive, and Jerome Hauer, the former director of New York's Office of Emergency Management.
At one point in the evening, the three men talked about bin Laden. According to Hauer, O'Neill said: "We're due. And we're due for something big." He added: "Some things have happened in Afghanistan. I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan." He then said, "I sense a shift and I think things are going to happen." Asked when they would happen, he replied, "I don't know, but soon." [21]
O'Neill had made similar predictions on earlier occasions. In October 2000, for example, while he was in Yemen, he talked several times with FBI agent Pat Patterson about what bin Laden's next target might be. He said he believed the World Trade Center--which was bombed by terrorists in 1993--would be attacked again. "John was convinced of it," Patterson has recalled. He'd said, "They definitely want to bring that building down." [22]
O'Neill voiced his concerns again around August 2001, when he talked with his friend Chris Isham. When O'Neill said he had just got the job as head of security at the World Trade Center, Isham joked: "That will be an easy job. They're not going to bomb that place again." But O'Neill retorted: "Actually, they've always wanted to finish that job. I think they're going to try again." [23]
FBI AGENT DISMISSED CONCERNS ABOUT THREATS TO AVIATION
Strangely, despite his apparent concern about al-Qaeda carrying out an attack in the United States, O'Neill told Congressional staffers there was no threat to aviation. Cathal Flynn recalled that at some unstated time between 1993 and 2000, when he was head of security for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the FAA, the FBI, and the director of central intelligence about threats to civil aviation. O'Neill went to the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, to respond on behalf of the FBI. But when Senate Intelligence Committee staffers asked, "What are the threats to aviation?" according to Flynn, "John O'Neill said there are none."
Flynn was surprised at O'Neill's answer, because there had been a "few indications the FBI had received," such as information about a suspicious individual who had tried to get "a job with airport access" at Los Angeles International Airport. Flynn wrote O'Neill a note asking about this incident. But, Flynn recalled, O'Neill "looked at the note" and "still didn't say anything, didn't change what he had said." As the two men left the meeting, Flynn again asked O'Neill about the incident and O'Neill told him there was "nothing to it." [24]
Bruce Butterworth, the FAA's director of civil aviation security operations from 1995 to 2000, has described the same event. He said he remembered O'Neill's "testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee wherein he was unwilling to corroborate FAA claims about credible threats to civil aviation." [25]
COUNTERTERRORISM CHIEF WARNED OF AN AL-QAEDA ATTACK THAT WOULD CAUSE THE DEATHS OF 'HUNDREDS OF AMERICANS'
Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism chief, warned that a major terrorist attack could take place in the United States in a memo he sent to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice a week before 9/11.
On September 4, 2001, the National Security Council's principals committee--a group of senior officials who advise the president on issues of national security policy--met to discuss al-Qaeda. That day, before the meeting took place, Clarke sent Rice a memo in which he expressed his frustrations with U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
The "real question" the principals committee needed to address, Clarke wrote in the memo, was, "[A]re we serious about dealing with the al-Qaeda threat?" He suggested, "Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the [White House Counterterrorism Security Group] has not succeeded in stopping al-Qaeda attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the U.S." "That future day could happen at any time," he added. Clarke warned that without more funding for dealing with al-Qaeda, "You are left waiting for the big attack, with lots of casualties, after which some major U.S. retaliation will be in order." [26]
A week after Clarke's memo was sent, a "big attack, with lots of casualties," did indeed occur and this was followed by "major U.S. retaliation," in the form of the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.
Clarke had issued warnings on previous occasions, which, like the warning he gave in his memo to Rice on September 4, seem to have been prescient of the 9/11 attacks. He gave one such warning on July 5, 2001, during a meeting at the White House. At the meeting, which was attended by officials from a dozen government agencies, including the FAA, the FBI, and the Secret Service, a senior CIA counterterrorism expert said the CIA believed that al-Qaeda was planning "something spectacular," which would probably take place in Israel or Saudi Arabia.
Clarke, according to his own recollections, then told the meeting's participants he agreed that al-Qaeda was planning a major attack. But, he said: "Maybe [the attack] will be here [in the U.S.]. Just because there is no evidence that says that it will be here, does not mean it will be overseas." He added that al-Qaeda "may try to hit us at home. You have to assume that is what they are going to try to do." He said, "Something really spectacular is going to happen here and it's going to happen soon," according to two officials who attended the meeting. [27]
A number of steps that agencies should take to address the threat posed by al-Qaeda were agreed upon at the meeting. An e-mail Clarke sent to Rice the day after the meeting stated that several agencies, including the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Defense, had been directed to develop "detailed response plans in the event of three to five simultaneous attacks." [28] This was presumably quite fortuitous, since, just over two months later--on September 11--these agencies had to respond to four near-simultaneous attacks.
NAVY COMMANDER TALKED ABOUT A POSSIBLE 'SEMINAL EVENT' CAUSED BY BIN LADEN
Navy Commander Kirk Lippold voiced his concerns about a major terrorist attack taking place in the United States just minutes before the first hijacked plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11.
Lippold was the commanding officer of the USS Cole when, in October 2000, suicide bombers attacked the ship while it was refueling at a port in Yemen, killing 17 members of the crew. Investigators attributed the attack to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. [29]
On the morning of September 11, Lippold went to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, to meet Charles Allen, the CIA's assistant director for collection; John Russack, Allen's deputy; and Donald Kerr, the CIA's deputy director for science and technology. During the meeting, Allen briefed Lippold on what the CIA knew about bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
As the meeting was coming to an end, at around 8:30 a.m., Lippold said to Allen: "It means an awful lot for me to understand what our country is doing to try to catch [bin Laden]. But I don't think America understands." According to his own recollections, Lippold then said, "I believe it is going to take a seminal event, probably in this country, where hundreds, if not thousands, are going to have to die, before Americans realize that we're at war with this guy."
Lippold and Russack left Allen's office and went to talk to some of Russack's colleagues. The two men noticed the coverage of the first crash at the World Trade Center--which happened at 8:46 a.m.--on a television at CIA headquarters and, at 9:03 a.m., saw the second hijacked plane crashing into the World Trade Center as it happened.
Allen then called them back to his office. When they arrived there, according to Lippold, he said, "Kirk, I can't believe you said what you did this morning." George Tenet, then-director of the CIA, has written that Allen told Lippold, "The seminal event just happened." [30]
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SAID THE U.S. WAS GOING TO BE ATTACKED 'IN A FASHION WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE'
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, like Lippold, warned about the possibility of a catastrophic event taking place minutes before the first hijacked plane crashed into the World Trade Center. He said a surprise event--such as a terrorist attack--would occur in the near future.
On the morning of September 11, Rumsfeld hosted a breakfast meeting in his private dining room at the Pentagon that was attended by 11 members of Congress and a number of key Department of Defense officials. [31] The meeting was intended to discuss the Quadrennial Defense Review. [32]
Representative Christopher Cox recalled that Rumsfeld said at the meeting that the United States needed to "focus on the real threat facing us in the 21st century: terrorism, and the unexpected." He said Congress had to give the president "the tools he needs to move forward with a defense of America against ballistic missiles--the ultimate terrorist weapons."
But he cautioned, "If we remain vulnerable to missile attack, a terrorist group or rogue state that demonstrates the capacity to strike the U.S. or its allies from long range could have the power to hold our entire country hostage to nuclear or other blackmail.'' He then warned: "Let me tell you, I've been around the block a few times. There will be another event." For emphasis, he repeated, "There will be another event." [33]
David Chu, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, described Rumsfeld giving this warning. In response to a question from one of the members of Congress at the meeting, Chu recalled, Rumsfeld "said something to the effect that someone was going to attack us in a fashion we did not anticipate and we would wish we had done something about it." He "leaned across the table and lectured [the member of Congress] in his most decisive manner that we would in some future date look back and weep that we hadn't taken action." [34]
According to Representative John Mica, Rumsfeld "was interested in ... what we were going to do about a situation if we had another--the word used was 'incident.'" He "was trying to make certain that we were prepared for something that we might not expect." [35]
Rumsfeld has recalled saying at the meeting that "sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, 10, 12 months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong, healthy Defense Department that ... underpins peace and stability in our world." [36]
Cox has noted that "within minutes" of Rumsfeld giving his warning, the secretary of defense's words "proved tragically prophetic." [37] As the meeting was coming to an end, someone handed Rumsfeld a note, informing him that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. [38] "Little did we know that within a few minutes of the end of our conversation ... our world would change and that incident that we talked about would be happening," Mica has commented. [39]
DID U.S. OFFICIALS HAVE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF 9/11?
The evidence above, while suspicious, does not in itself prove that any of the men who gave these remarkably accurate warnings in the week before 9/11 had foreknowledge of the impending terrorist attacks. The possibility that some or all of them did indeed know in advance about the attacks should, however, be investigated.
If any of these men knew beforehand what was going to happen on September 11, we need to discover how they came across this information. Furthermore, if any of them had foreknowledge of 9/11, we need to find out why the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon weren't prevented. Could these powerful officials have used their influence to stop the attacks? If they could have but didn't, why was this?
It is possible that other officials, besides the six mentioned in this article, gave warnings that were apparently prescient of the 9/11 attacks shortly before September 11, but their comments have not yet been reported, or have not been widely reported and so are little known. This possibility is something that could be looked into as well.
The fact that 14 years after the event, key questions--such as those regarding the possibility of senior U.S. officials having foreknowledge of the attacks--remain unaddressed, shows why it is so important that we have a new investigation of 9/11.
NOTES
[1] Chris Pruett, "Eric Moody Recalls His 'Escape From the Pentagon.'" Greene County Daily World, September 14, 2001; Susan Williams, "'Come to My Voice and Keep Your Arm Against the Wall.'" IU Home Pages, September 14, 2001; Dave Taylor, "Forever Changed: ISU Alumnus Experienced First-Hand the Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon."Campus Connection, September 25, 2002.
[2] "Christopher Dodd Discusses the Terrorist Attack." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001; Steven Mufson, "Attacks Were an Act of War--But Who's the Enemy?" Washington Post, September 11, 2001; Joseph Fitchett, "Like the Attack in 1941, Air Terrorism Could Provoke Severe Repercussions: For Washington, a Modern Pearl Harbor." New York Times, September 12, 2001; David E. Rosenbaum, "Years of Unheeded Alarms." New York Times, September 12, 2001.
[3] Annie Nakao and Carol Ness, "A Different Day of Infamy: Comparisons to Pearl Harbor Recall Another Time and Place." San Francisco Chronicle, September 14, 2001.
[4] David M. Kennedy, "Fighting an Elusive Enemy." New York Times, September 16, 2001; Chris Mautner, "Remembering Pearl Harbor: A Reader's Guide." PennLive.com, December 7, 2010.
[5] Brad Plumer, "Nine Facts About Terrorism in the United States Since 9/11." Washington Post, September 11, 2013.
[6] John M. Donnelly, "Top Navy Execs Tried to Bilk Retirement System." Defense Week, August 19, 2002.
[7] Thomas P. M. Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 2004, pp. 5, 46.
[8] Robert Holzer, "Divergent Groups View U.S. Security in New Way: Unique Exercise Assesses Impact of Global Issues." Defense News, December 4, 2000.
[9] "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century." Booknotes, C-SPAN, May 30, 2004;"NewRuleSets.Project: Project History." Thomas P. M. Barnett, July 3, 2004; "Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor at the U.S. Naval War College to Speak at WWS, November 4th." Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, November 4, 2004.
[10] Thomas P. M. Barnett et al., Foreign Direct Investment: Decision Event Report II of the NewRuleSets.Project. Newport, RI: Naval War College, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Decision Strategies Department, 2001; "Asian Environmental Solutions: Decision Event Read-Ahead." Thomas P. M. Barnett, November 30, 2004; Thomas P. M. Barnett, interview by Harry Kreisler, Institute of International Studies, March 8, 2005.
[11] "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century."
[12] Thomas P. M. Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map, pp. 5-6.
[13] Dan Verton, "Former CENTCOM Commander Advises IT Sector on Leadership." Computerworld, October 21, 2003; Tommy Franks and Malcolm McConnell, American Soldier. New York: HarperCollins, 2004, p. 236.
[14] Scott Taylor, "My Country, Right or Right." Globe and Mail, October 9, 2004.
[15] Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, "Inside the Ring." Washington Times, June 22, 2001.
[16] Tommy Franks and Malcolm McConnell, American Soldier, p. 246.
[17] "Bush's War Room: Gen. Tommy Franks." ABC News, January 7, 2006.
[18] Anwar Iqbal, "U.S. General: CIA Chose Karzai." UPI, August 17, 2004.
[19] David Johnston and James Risen, "FBI is Investigating a Senior Counterterrorism Agent." New York Times, August 19, 2001; "WTC Tragedy Took Away Security's Finest." Access Control & Security Systems, October 1, 2001;Lawrence Wright, "The Counter-Terrorist." New Yorker, January 14, 2002; "Staging Area Facility at Ramstein Air Base to be Dedicated to the Memory of John P. O'Neill." Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 11, 2006.
[20] Murray Weiss, The Man Who Warned America: The Life and Death of John O'Neill, the FBI's Embattled Counterterror Warrior. New York: Regan Books, 2003, pp. 355, 359-360; Murray Weiss, "Flashy Fed Foresaw Bin Laden's Terror." New York Post, August 10, 2003.
[21] Lawrence Wright, "The Counter-Terrorist"; "The Man Who Knew." Frontline, PBS, October 3, 2002; Murray Weiss, The Man Who Warned America, p. 362.
[22] Murray Weiss, The Man Who Warned America, p. 321.
[23] Chris Isham, interview by Frontline, PBS, May 31, 2002.
[24] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Rear Admiral Cathal 'Irish' Flynn, USN (Ret.)." 9/11 Commission, September 9, 2003; "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Public Hearing." 9/11 Commission, January 27, 2004.
[25] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Bruce Butterworth, Former Director for Policy and Planning (ACS-1) at the FAA." 9/11 Commission, September 29, 2003.
[26] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, pp. 212-213; "National Policy Coordination: Staff Statement No. 8." 9/11 Commission, March 24, 2004.
[27] Barton Gellman, "Before Sept. 11, Unshared Clues and Unshaped Policy." Washington Post, May 17, 2002;Michael Elliott, "They Had a Plan." Time, August 12, 2002; Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror. New York: Free Press, 2004, p. 236.
[28] David Johnston and Eric Schmitt, "Uneven Response Seen on Terror in Summer of 2001." New York Times, April 4, 2004.
[29] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 190; "USS Cole Bombing." GlobalSecurity.org, October 11, 2006; Bruce Tomaso, "A Q&A With Kirk Lippold, Commander of the USS Cole." Dallas Morning News, June 6, 2012;"The USS Cole Bombing." Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.
[30] George Tenet and Bill Harlow, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. New York: HarperCollins, 2007, pp. 162-163; Kirk S. Lippold, Front Burner: Al-Qaeda's Attack on the USS Cole. Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs, 2012, pp. xxii-xxvi; "Q&A With Kirk Lippold." Q&A, C-SPAN, June 13, 2012.
[31] "SecDef Breakfast With House Supporters." U.S. Department of Defense, September 10, 2001; Robert Burns, "Pentagon Attack Came Minutes After Rumsfeld Predicted: 'There Will be Another Event.'" Associated Press, September 11, 2001; Powell A. Moore to Donald Rumsfeld, memorandum, September 19, 2003.
[32] Donna Miles, "Vice Chairman: 9/11 Underscored Importance of DoD Transformation." American Forces Press Service, September 8, 2006.
[33] Christopher Cox, "Chairman Cox's Statement on the Terrorist Attack on America." U.S. House of Representatives, September 11, 2001.
[34] David Chu, interview by Alfred Goldberg and Rebecca Cameron. Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, February 1, 2002.
[35] U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, The Tillman Fratricide, What the Leadership of the Defense Department Knew: Hearing Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 110th Cong., 1st sess., August 1, 2007.
[36] "Interview With Donald Rumsfeld." Larry King Live, CNN, December 5, 2001.
[37] Christopher Cox, "Chairman Cox's Statement on the Terrorist Attack on America."
[38] "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Eighth Public Hearing." 9/11 Commission, March 23, 2004; Donald Rumsfeld, Known and Unknown: A Memoir. New York: Sentinel, 2011, pp. 334-335.
[39] "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's Remarks at Pentagon's Riverfront Entrance." U.S. Department of Defense, September 10, 2004.

[Tracy Riddle]

I think 9/11 is psychologically difficult for many Americans to look at honestly. Right after it happened, though I had some suspicions, I was basically in the Blowback camp (Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, etc.) A nice safe place for the Left to be. We can blame American foreign policy, but accept the official story and not be dismissed as "conspiracy theorists."

As I learned more, I found myself drifting in to the "Let it Happen" camp. Maybe "let it happen and aided it with explosives." It took many years before I had the epiphany (thanks to Webster Tarpley's book) that this position made no sense. No one inside the government/military is going to rely on a bunch of Arab hijackers who've never flown an airliner, students/scholars (and an architect) who have no paramilitary/special forces backgrounds - who might not be reliable enough to get to the airport on time, let alone seize control of the planes and carry out the whole operation. Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs aren't going to be sitting in the Pentagon that morning thinking, "Hope that guy doesn't crash into my office. Hope they don't plow into the roof and destroy the whole building!" Cheney isn't going to sit in his office thinking, "Well, our informants said they're going to hit the Pentagon, but what if they're wrong? What if that was a secondary target, and the primary target is the White House?" They aren't going to plant explosives in the WTC if they can't be certain that the Arabs won't lose control of the planes and crash them into the river.

No, the plotters would require complete control over the operation - as much as possible, anyway - to minimize screw-ups: an elaborate simulated terror attack (with real casualties), pre-planted explosives, remotely piloted drones, and manipulated Arab patsies who did nothing more than create witnesses and get photographed a few times.

[Lauren Johnson]

I think 9/11 is psychologically difficult for many Americans to look at honestly. Right after it happened, though I had some suspicions, I was basically in the Blowback camp (Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, etc.) A nice safe place for the Left to be. We can blame American foreign policy, but accept the official story and not be dismissed as "conspiracy theorists."

As I learned more, I found myself drifting in to the "Let it Happen" camp. Maybe "let it happen and aided it with explosives." It took many years before I had the epiphany (thanks to Webster Tarpley's book) that this position made no sense. No one inside the government/military is going to rely on a bunch of Arab hijackers who've never flown an airliner, students/scholars (and an architect) who have no paramilitary/special forces backgrounds - who might not be reliable enough to get to the airport on time, let alone seize control of the planes and carry out the whole operation. Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs aren't going to be sitting in the Pentagon that morning thinking, "Hope that guy doesn't crash into my office. Hope they don't plow into the roof and destroy the whole building!" Cheney isn't going to sit in his office thinking, "Well, our informants said they're going to hit the Pentagon, but what if they're wrong? What if that was a secondary target, and the primary target is the White House?" They aren't going to plant explosives in the WTC if they can't be certain that the Arabs won't lose control of the planes and crash them into the river.

No, the plotters would require complete control over the operation - as much as possible, anyway - to minimize screw-ups: an elaborate simulated terror attack (with real casualties), pre-planted explosives, remotely piloted drones, and manipulated Arab patsies who did nothing more than create witnesses and get photographed a few times.

Describes my progression perfectly. I remember when I "informed" my daughter that the 9/11 story might be false, she said: "Jeez, Dad. Duh! It's about time." Kind of embarrassing.

[Peter Lemkin]

Don't miss this video to help explain why many took some time to realize that 911 was total bull https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...ilm-(2015)

[Peter Lemkin]

I can quickly think of several hundred more...but this is a good enough starters list....

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror

Posted on March 18, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
Not Theory … Admitted Fact

There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.
In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally or in writing:
(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the "Mukden Incident" or the "Manchurian Incident". The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: "Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the Incident' was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army …." And see this.
(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that under orders from the chief of the Gestapo he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
(3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goeringadmitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union's Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 while blaming the attack on Finland as a basis for launching the "Winter War" against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev alladmit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.
(6) The British government admits that between 1946 and 1948 it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called "Defenders of Arab Palestine", and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this,this and this).
(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
(11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.
False flag attacks carried out pursuant tho this program include by way of example only:

• The murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960)
  

• Bombings in Portugal (1966)
  

• The Piazza Fontana massacre in Italy (1969)
  

• Terror attacks in Turkey (1971)
  

• The Peteano bombing in Italy (1972)
  

• Shootings in Brescia, Italy and a bombing on an Italian train (1974)
  

• Shootings in Istanbul, Turkey (1977)
  

• The Atocha massacre in Madrid, Spain (1977)
  

• The abduction and murder of the Italian Prime Minister (1978)
  

• The bombing of the Bologna railway station in Italy (1980)
  

• Shooting and killing 28 shoppers in Brabant county, Belgium (1985)
  

(12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch "a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]".
(13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
(14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
(15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
(16) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo."
(17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
(18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that as part of its "Cointelpro" campaign the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
(19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: "In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque." In response to the surprised correspondent's incredulous look the general said, "I am giving an example".
(20) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted "escape tools" on a prisoner a member of the Red Army Faction which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
(21) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi's compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
(22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing.
(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).
(24) The United States Army's 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces updated in 2004 recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA's "Dirty Wars". And see this.
(25) Similarly, a CIA "psychological operations" manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a "martyr" for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that during the 1984 presidential debate President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

(26) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that "elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked".
(27) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).
(28) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
(29) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.
(30) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".
(31) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.
(32) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks as shown by a memo from the defense secretary as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime, that Cheney "probably" had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not doing their homework' in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous "lone wolf" claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.).
(33) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.
(34) Police outside of a 2003 European Union summit in Greece were filmed planting Molotov cocktails on a peaceful protester
(35) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having "our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda's ranks, causing operatives to doubt others' identities and to question the validity of communications."
(36) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(37) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.
(38) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).
(39) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.
(40) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.
(41) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.
(42) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence Prince Bandar recently admitted that the Saudi government controls "Chechen" terrorists.
(43) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government a fellow NATO country carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.
(44) The Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others. Ukrainian officials admit that the Ukrainian snipers fired on both sides, to create maximum chaos.
(45) Britain's spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out "digital false flag" attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.
(46) U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then "drop" automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants
(47) Similarly, police frame innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:

In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.

Newsweek reported in 1999:

Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a"throwdown"police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot them during a stakeout.

Wikipedia notes:

As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division's anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.

(As a side note and while not technically false flag attacks police have been busted framing innocent people in many other ways, as well.)
So Common … There's a Name for It

A former U.S. intelligence officer recently alleged:

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.

This might be an exaggeration (and as shown above the U.S. isn't the only one to play this terrible game). The point is that it is a very widespread strategy.
Indeed, this form of deceit is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.
"False flag terrorism" is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy's flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a "false flag" attack.
Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks. Specifically, the rules of engagement state that a military force can fly the enemy's flag, imitate their markings, or dress in an enemy's clothes … but that the ruse has to be discarded before attacking.
Why are the rules of engagement so specific? Obviously, because nations have been using false flag attacks for many centuries. And the rules of engagement are at least trying to limit false flag attacks so that they aren't used as a false justification for war.
In other words, the rules of engagement themselves are an admission that false flag terrorism is a very common practice.
Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".
Adolph Hitler
"Why of course the people don't want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened".
Josef Stalin