Source – unz.com
- “…The desired “clash of civilization” between the West and the Muslim world was triggered by Israel, 9/11 being only one operation in this ongoing strategy. Triangulation is the favored tactic of the Mossad, described by the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies, on the eve of 9/11, as having “capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” Triangulation is also used to create civil strife within a nation – intra-national clashes of civilization, so to speak”
The 9/11 “Double-Cross” Conspiracy Theory – By Laurent Guyénot
Is it true that “9/11 was an inside job”? Yes, insofar as Israel is “inside” the U.S. But for the 9/11 truthers who have identified Israel as the main perpetrators, “9/11 was an inside job” is at best a half-truth, and at worst an integral part of the Zionist operation, like a secondary flag sewn as a lining under the false flag of Islamism. Victor Thorn (1963-2017) wrote in his book 9/11 made in Israel: The Plot Against America (2011): “In essence, the ‘9-11 truth movement’ was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. . . . The slogan ‘9-11 was an inside job’ was quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised.” In milder terms, it is “controlled opposition”.
A genuine truth movement would have pointed to Israel as the prime suspect from the start. From day one, it was obvious who would benefit. At 1 pm New York time on the day of the attacks, George Friedman (“born in Budapest, Hungary, to Jewish parents who survived the Holocaust,” Wikipedia informs us) wrote gleefully on his geopolitical website STRATFOR:
It’s pretty simple: 9/11 is best understood as a case of “triangulation”, by which two parties are drawn into conflict with each other by the invisible hand of a third party. In this case, the desired “clash of civilization” between the West and the Muslim world was triggered by Israel, 9/11 being only one operation in this ongoing strategy. Triangulation is the favored tactic of the Mossad, described by the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies, on the eve of 9/11, as having “capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” Triangulation is also used to create civil strife within a nation (intra-national clashes of civilization, so to speak) for various purposes. In most cases, Israel’s hand is invisible only to the extent of the authorities’ and the people’s voluntary blindness (the proverbial elephant in the room).
If, instead of comparing 9/11 to Operation Northwoods that never happened, the most widely watched early 9/11 conspiracy film (Loose Change) had reminded Americans of the attack on the USS Liberty, the 9/11 Truth movement would have moved in a totally different direction than the one it took under the leadership of Alex Jones. No one would think of calling the USS Liberty attack an “inside job” or “a self-inflicted wound.”
Filling the background with other documented Israeli false flag operations (the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, the Lavon Affair in 1954, Israel bombing its own embassies in Argentina in 1992 and in London in 1994, etc.) could have turned such a movement into a tsunami. The “inside job” theory, on the other hand, can never reach a critical mass, for a simple reason: the idea that the U.S. government would, by itself, deceive and terrorize its own citizens by killing thousands of them to justify wars in the Middle East that are not even in the nation’s interest is just too hard to believe for the vast majority of Americans — harder to believe than the official narrative with its material impossibilities. By comparison, Israel attacking America under the false flag of Islamic terrorists to win American support against their Arab enemies makes plain common sense. It is only with the hypnotic power of Zion-controlled corporate medias, and with the complicity of a well-organized “controlled opposition” that such a natural idea was suppressed from the minds of average Americans.
Nevertheless, the belief that “9/11 was an Israeli job” is gaining ground all over the world. Sooner or later, the tsunami will come. And the sooner the better. I am hoping that my film, “9/11 and Israel’s Great Game,” now in English, will help bring it about. Pass it around if you judge it useful:
This film, unfortunately, was shunned from all 9/11 Truth festivals this month. The organizers, I have been told, “decided not to muddy the waters with a film about Israel’s involvement in 9/11.” This must be ironic, for evidence of Israel’s involvement brings clarity, while muddy waters are what Israel needs. However, the film will be streamed on noliesradio.org on October 9th, followed by a debate between Alan Sabrosky, Kevin Barrett, and myself.
In the film, I introduce the hypothetical scenario of the “nested conspiracies” — perhaps better named the “hijacked” or “double-crossed conspiracy” — which is an attempt to distinguish the part played by the U.S. military and the part played by Israel. In this article, I will expound on that theory by arguing that the attack on the Pentagon and the attacks of the Twin Towers were prepared by two distinct groups, with two distinct aims: regime change in Afghanistan on the one hand, total war against Israel’s enemies on the other. The Pentagon attack was a Northwoods-type inside job, but the Twin Towers’ demolition — the big event, that defines 9/11 it in world consciousness — was an Israeli job in the spirit of the Liberty attack, only a thousand times bigger (Israel had learned from the Liberty fiasco that there would be no penalty for failure, so why not think big). What happened, I suggest, is that a group of high-positioned sayanim in Washington and New York double-crossed the U.S. strategists and turned their rather modest false-flag operation into a “cataclysmic” one, leaving them with no other choice but to cover up the whole thing, since exposing Israel’s operation would inevitably expose their own.
There are reasons to believe that the Zionist mafia had some experience in such a modus operandi. Michael Collins Piper suggested in his Final Judgment, that on November 22, 1963, the Mossad and the Jewish mafia overtook an operation planned by elements of the CIA and their anti-Castro militia to fake a failed assassination attempt on Kennedy, meant to force him to retaliate against Castro. Piper borrowed this theory from LAPD detective Gary Wean (There’s a Fish in the Courthouse, 1987), whose information come from Senator John Tower — although Wean doesn’t name Israel as “the other group” who double-crossed the CIA. As Piper mentions in False Flag: Template for Terror, the same theory had been alluded to in the book Farewell America, originally published in French in 1968: Oswald, the author suggested, had been probably told he was participating in an anti-Communist operation that “consisted of influencing public opinion by simulating an attack against President Kennedy, whose policy of coexistence with the Communists deserved a reprimand.” The hypothesis that the CIA had planned a “dummy assassination attempt” is speculative — unlike Israel’s involvement in the real assassination — and cannot be used as a precedent for 9/11.
But there are other examples. Piper plausibly argues that the 1995 Oklahoma city bombing followed a similar pattern: “what might have been designed as only a ‘bomb plot’ that federal agents were expecting to foil to great public acclaim, actually resulted in a very real bombing that killed hundreds.” The operation was hijacked by the Mossad and turned into a tragedy, with the purpose of blaming Saddam Hussein. The scheme failed, however, because “the Clinton administration rejected those schemes and engaged in damage control, so to speak, and strictly limited the Oklahoma conspiracy to Timothy McVeigh.” There is also more than a strong suspicion that the 1993 bombing of the WTC two years earlier followed the same pattern. In the words of Wikipedia, “In the course of the trial, it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claimed FBI involvement in building of the bomb. He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers.” Whether Mossad agents turned an FBI fake bomb into a real one remains uncertain, but, as they would repeat in 1995, the Zionists tried to incriminate Iraq but failed. Many more examples of such double-cross can be deduced from Kollerstrom’s detailed analysis of false flags over Europe. There is a very fine line between a counter-terrorist agency luring potential terrorists into planning a terrorist act (a practice documented by the New York Times), and failing to arrest them before they act on the suggestion, and the fine line is easily crossed by double-agents under Mossad supervision.
Another way of doing things is to capitalize on a real crime and, before it is solved, transform it into a crime against Israel or the Jews. I myself came to think of 9/11 as a double-cross after researching the Mohamed Merah affair (Toulouse, France, March 2012), which French president Sarkozy himself likened to 9/11 in terms of traumatic effect. On March 15, a corpulent man on a scooter shot three soldiers of North African origin. Neo-nazis were suspected. But four days later, as the investigation was leading nowhere, it was reported that a man opened fire in front of the Jewish religious school Ozar-Hatorah, killing one adult and three children and injuring five others. The culprit was identified as Mohamed Merah, who was then shot dead in his home by a special police force (RAID), and blamed for the earlier killing of the soldiers too (although he didn’t fit the description). Case closed. But in the following months, doubts circulated about the reality of the Jewish school shooting, with the suspicion that sayanim used the March 15 killing as an opportunity to stage an umpteenth false anti-Semitic act of unprecedented scale (you can read the details in my contribution to Kevin Barrett’s book, We Are Not Charlie Hebdo, 2015, or in French here).
All these scenarios differ from the one I propose for 9/11, but there is a recognizable pattern. The main difference is that no other Mossad double-cross was capable until 9/11 to pull the U.S. into destroying Iraq. Transforming a fake bomb plot into a real one, as in the WTC attack in 1993, obviously wasn’t enough. Hence the Zionists’ need to increase their leverage on the U.S. National Security State by overbidding on a real false flag “act of war” like the one on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
In the scenario I propose, the claim that some U.S. governmental entity did 9/11 has some truth, but it is still a lie by omission if not put into the larger perspective of Israel’s overriding command. Moreover, it has not only distracted truth seekers from the evidence incriminating Israel. It has also served to put the heat on the US military and intelligence community, forcing them to keep protesting that “Bin Laden did it,” lest the veil be lifted on their own involvement. 9/11 therefore illustrates how Israel has been riding on the lies of the Empire. It is also the dramatic culmination of Israel’s hijacking the Empire’s foreign policy, a strategy as old as Ezra.
The attack on the Pentagon and the attacks on the Twin Towers were different in many ways. One crucial difference has been stressed by Barbara Honegger in her 3-hour conference on “the 9/11 Pentagon Attack”: the Twin Towers are a civilian target, while the Pentagon is a military target. The crashes of commercial jets into skyscrapers were acts of terrorism, no different in essence from the 1993 bombing of the same Twin Towers, which led to 8 individuals being charged with “conspiracy, explosive destruction of property, and interstate transportation of explosives,” despite attempts to link the attack to Iraq. Only the attack on the Pentagon, Honegger insists, could be considered an “act of war” in the legal sense, comparable to Pearl Harbor, and could justify to congressmen, military commanders, and public opinion, the invasion of a sovereign country. The U.S. military command center had been hit: that was a good enough casus belli for a limited and, it seemed, unlosable war, even against a State that denied any responsibility, and even offered to deliver Bin Laden to an international court.
There is also a distinct difference in scale between the two events. The Pentagon event was an attack on a single target, by allegedly one hijacked plane. The damage was quite small, relatively to the size of the Pentagon, and was easily repaired; exactly what a self-inflicted wound is expected to be. The official number of dead was 125. By contrast, the WTC event allegedly involved two planes and caused the complete destruction of three skyscrapers and the partial destruction of many more, with the number of reported dead in the thousands.
The difference in scale between those events is amplified by the difference in the amount of images and the degrees to which Americans were exposed to them. Images of the crash on the Pentagon are practically non-existent, whereas films of the crash on the Twin Towers, their collapse and their transformation into huge clouds of pyroclastic dust are numerous and have been viewed many times by every American. “Cataclysmic”, “traumatic”, “catalyzing”, are appropriate adjectives for the WTC attacks, not for the Pentagon attack. Only the former qualify as “Catastrophic Terrorism,” the area of expertise of crypto-Zionist Philip Zelikow.
Within the working hypothesis that the two events were false flag attacks staged by two different groups, their difference in nature and in scope becomes significant. The Pentagon scenario was somehow reasonable: one commercial plane was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. The damage shown was proportional to its alleged cause. Moreover, the simulation was minimal, as no plane had been filmed or faked, and only ridiculously small pieces of fuselage were photographed on the scene. But it had probably been judged good enough to convince Americans that the Taliban regime had to be overthrown. In fact, hardly anyone needed convincing, as everyone hated the Taliban.
The Twin Towers attacks are of a different scale. They were written by more imaginative scriptwriters, and produced with much greater means: not the work of a small team, but of an extensive network. The visual and emotional impact was incomparably stronger and more lasting. More importantly, it was designed not so much to convince people as to put them into a traumatic trance that would short-circuit their capacity to reason. That Islamic terrorists could hijack a plane and crash it on the Pentagon is a rational thing to believe, if you don’t look too closely at the fact. But, as Nick Kollerstrom writes in Who Did 9/11?: “The idea that someone in the remote mountains of Afghanistan could cause the highly prestigious World Trade Centre buildings in New York to disintegrate is obviously rather unhinged.” To hypnotize millions of people into believing it required tremendous power and expertise in the art of collective mental control, and an absolute confidence in these power and expertise. It was a psy-op of unprecedented scale, far beyond anything the CIA had ever dreamt of doing.
We now turn to the most important difference: while the Pentagon attack can only have been staged from within the Pentagon itself, the WTC attacks bear the unmistakable signature of Israel….
Continued In Part 2….