Israel's 9/11

The similarities are uncanny...

BBC

It’s only been a few days since Hamas attacked Israel. It’s being called Israel’s 9/11. I agree and for reasons different from what the public is being told.

Thousands of innocent people have been killed by the terrorist acts last week. Emotions are running high. Calls for immediate retaliation are being met by others that urge prudence. Differences of opinion about what to do next have morphed into screaming matches. How can we peer into the bottom of the pond to see what lurks below with so much turbulence on the surface?

Is it possible to condemn the attacks AND demand more details without being anti-Semitic or a Hamas sympathizer? Is it possible to grieve for the Jewish people without being labeled an oppressor of Palestinians? At this moment it seems the answer is no to both.

History tells us that the extreme polarization that results from only focusing on what happened makes it nearly impossible to truly understand why and how it did. Although it can be extremely difficult, listening before lashing out may save countless innocent lives in the years to come.

What Happened?

On October 7, the terrorist organization, Hamas, was able to breach IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) barriers and conduct attacks on innocent Israeli citizens, taking hostages and killing many more. Latest reports indicate 1,300 Israelis were murdered and over 3,000 have been injured.

As the world tried to make sense of this senseless aggression, even more horrific details emerged…

On October 10, NBC reported this in an article titled, “At least 40 babies killed, beheaded in Israeli kibbutz outside Gaza Strip, reports say”

Israel Defense Forces Major General Itai Veruv described the scene in Kfar Aza as a "massacre" Tuesday, calling it unlike something Israel has witnessed in "recent history."

“It’s not a war, it’s not a battlefield, it’s a massacre,” Veruv told The Times of Israel. “You see the babies, their mothers and their fathers, in their bedrooms, and in their protected rooms, and how the terrorists killed them ... It's something that I never saw in my life."

Beheaded infants?? The public is understandably outraged. But how are we to understand what we are being told under these circumstances? How much of what is being reported is factual?

Today, a follow-up piece from NBC reports that they cannot confirm that infants were beheaded. What happened to the IDF Major General’s first hand account? Did he retract it? How did NBC “confirm” it initially? Was there a reason they ran the story without confirming all the facts?

We are faced with the reality that facts can change while our response to them may not. At this moment asking for pause and clarification is a hair-breadth away from being a baby-killer yourself.

We cannot know all the details of what exactly happened, but we should be able to ask why Hamas would choose to act in such ghastly ways knowing that it will assuredly result in their own decapitation sooner rather than later.

How and Why did it Happen?

Let’s look at how Reuters covered the story on October 9th, two days after the massacre of innocent Israelis, in an article “How Hamas duped Israel as it planned devastating attack”:

Here are the key statements in the Reuters article. Citing unnamed sources in Israeli intelligence and one close to Hamas:

“Saturday's assault, the worst breach in Israel's defences since Arab armies waged war in 1973, followed two years of subterfuge by Hamas that involved keeping its military plans under wraps and convincing Israel it did not want a fight.”

"Hamas used an unprecedented intelligence tactic to mislead Israel over the last months, by giving a public impression that it was not willing to go into a fight or confrontation with Israel while preparing for this massive operation,"

Israel concedes it was caught off guard by an attack timed to coincide with the Jewish Sabbath and a religious holiday.

Israel has long prided itself on its ability to infiltrate and monitor Islamist groups. As a consequence, the source close to Hamas said, a crucial part of the plan was to avoid leaks.

Many Hamas leaders were unaware of the plans and, while training, the 1,000 fighters deployed in the assault had no inkling of the exact purpose of the exercises, the source added.

When the day came, the operation was divided into four parts, the Hamas source said, describing the various elements.

The first move was a barrage of 3,000 rockets fired from Gaza that coincided with incursions by fighters who flew hang gliders, or motorised paragliders, over the border, the source said.

Once the fighters on hang-gliders were on the ground, they secured the terrain so an elite commando unit could storm the fortified electronic and cement wall built by Israel to prevent infiltration.

The fighters used explosives to breach the barriers and then sped across on motorbikes. Bulldozers widened the gaps and more fighters entered in four-wheel drives, scenes that witnesses described.

A commando unit attacked the Israeli army's southern Gaza headquarters and jammed its communications, preventing personnel from calling commanders or each other, the source said.

Dennis Ross, a former Middle East negotiator who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Israel had been distracted by violence in the West Bank, leading to a "thin, under-prepared presence in the south."

"Hamas probably succeeded beyond their expectation. Now they will have to deal with an Israel determined to decimate them," he said.

To summarize Reuters:

• Hamas was able to keep the two year long preparation for this horrific attack from the eyes and ears of arguably the most sophisticated surveillance and best intelligence organizations in the world.

• The IDF was caught off guard because Hamas diabolically chose to attack during the Sabbath and on a religious holiday. Moreover, the southern border with Gaza was left unprepared

• Hamas fighters on hang gliders secured the area so that a fortified wall could be breached by an “elite” commando unit. This led to an attack on Israeli headquarters in the area, and Hamas was able to prevent communication of the attacks to Israeli command.

• Prior to the ground attack, Hamas had been able to position and arm a large number of rocket launchers and train 1,000 fighters without detection. Hamas was able to trick the IDF by giving them the impression that they were not interested in conflict using “an unprecedented intelligence tactic”.

• Because of their success, Hamas should now expect to be decimated.

The loss of so many innocent Israeli lives is tragic, but is this really the story we are being asked to accept? Hamas kept their plans under wraps for two years? Since when does the Mossad get fooled by “public impressions”? Reuters says that “Israel has long prided itself on its ability to infiltrate and monitor Islamist groups” yet Hamas got away with it by preventing leaks? Leaks or no leaks, if the IDF infiltrated Hamas the jig should have been up.

Efrat Fenigson, an Israeli journalist who served with the IDF on the border with Gaza 25 years ago also challenges the narrative being constructed around this event.

In this 100 minute long conversation with Dark Horse podcast host, Bret Weinstein, Fenigson explains her issues with the story the public is being told. Big points:

• It is absurd that an attack of this magnitude could have been planned and executed without IDF detection.

• Hamas breached the border with Israel in fifteen different places. Surely one of the incursions would have triggered an immediate and automatic response.

• Border patrols say that they attempted to report the attack up the chain of command but their calls were not answered.

• Israeli fighter pilots tweeted that they had engaged Hamas fighters yet people on the ground saw no evidence of this anywhere in the skies.

• For months a former Israeli general had been warning the government that defensive forces at the border were inadequate. His warnings went unheeded and he was shadow-banned by Israeli media.

• If their intention was to leverage the release of Hamas prisoners, it would make far more sense to capture Israeli citizens, not kill them too. What was the real intent of such acts if not to instigate a devastating response from Israel?

The overarching theme of this discussion is how the oversimplified version of the story obscures the very real possibility that the IDF was fully aware that Hamas was planning this incursion into Israeli territory and let it happen to justify a shock and awe campaign against their strongholds in Palestine as well as bigger targets on the world stage.

Despite the stunning success of the attacks, on paper Hamas is no match for the Israeli military. Iran is the real threat to Israel’s existence in the area. The Iranian regime supports Hamas and condoned the attack. Is there a more effective way to consolidate support for a war on Iran than by letting Hamas attack innocent Israelis?

Does this sound vaguely familiar to you?

How the events of 9/11 were portrayed to the public the next day

Let us look at the last time a terrorist organization successfully wrought horror upon a far more powerful nation. How were the events of 9/11 reported to the world the next day?

I acquired an original copy of the Late Edition of the New York Times, published on September 12, 2001, from my late father-in-law. Examined closely, it reveals how a psyop is conducted.

Hijacked Planes hit the Twin Towers and Pentagon

The Front Page headline reads:

HIJACKED JETS DESTROY TWIN TOWERS AND HIT PENTAGON IN DAY OF TERROR

The top article from the page is titled “President Vows to Exact Punishment for ‘Evil’”

If you were old enough to remember that day, you may recall your astonishment at the idea that despicable terrorists would be willing to sacrifice their own life for any cause, no matter what it might be.

Prior to 9/11, the last time our country was attacked on its own soil was on December 7, 1941. The Empire of Japan suffered immense damage to their forces in the years that followed. Only then did they unleash an unprecedented tactic: Kamikaze attacks. Japanese fighter pilots, determined to save the Empire intentionally crashed their planes into American destroyers in the Pacific. Many were shot down before they could exact any damage. Some managed to hit their targets.

In the end, their sacrificial missions did little to thwart America’s advances. However, it gave a relatively young America, not yet a superpower, a glimpse of the resolve of their enemy.

But on 9/11, the attackers were not in a desperate, defensive position like the Japanese were. They were the aggressors.

“They hate us. They hate what America represents. They hate our freedoms”, we were told. Some people bought that story after a while, but on the day of the attack, it seemed a stretch that there were people out there that hated our freedom so much that they would give their own lives to ruin it for us. The public was warned not to be naive. There are people like that out there. That’s why we call them extremists.

Though difficult to accept, the New York Times gave us uncontested evidence that indeed, there were hijackers on board the planes and they obviously flew their planes into buildings taking their own lives and thousands of others with them.

Let’s take a closer look at the front page:

We are told that Barbara Olson, a passenger on American Flight 77, the plane that purportedly struck what is arguably the most defended edifice on the planet, the Pentagon, called her husband, Solicitor General Theodore Olson on a cell phone to tell him that the hijackers were armed with knives and a box cutter.

Why would anyone question the account of the Solicitor General of United States’ spouse whose life was taken soon after her last words to her husband?

The thing is, she called him using her cellular phone. From a plane in flight, with no on-board wifi. In 2001.

Impossible. The next time you are on a flight, turn off your wifi and try and get reception long enough to make call. If you can’t do it in 2023, you couldn’t have done it in 2001.

Years later the 9/11 Commission report confirmed that Olson had made the calls 10 to 20 minutes prior to her plane crashing into the Pentagon. The official explanation also reports that cellular phone calls were made from flight 93, the plane that crashed in Shanksville, PA. Also impossible.

The day after 9/11, the only confirmation that the public had that those planes were, in fact, hijacked by people with boxcutters and knives were through calls that couldn’t have been made, at least from the air.

There may have been hijackers with boxcutters on the four planes, but why was the public offered this questionable piece of evidence to support the idea? The answer is that in the wake of such an event, all that is needed is an explanation, any explanation. A week later you would have been thought of as a jihadist sympathizer if you questioned the idea that these calls were made from cellular phone calls on a plane that was supposed to be thousands of feet in the air.

Why and how did the Twin Towers fall?

Another huge question in the public’s mind on that day was the puzzling way in which the two massive twin towers collapsed. They didn’t fall to one side or another leaving a huge field of shattered concrete and twisted girders. Each remained standing for over an hour and then suddenly disappeared from sight, falling straight down through the path of greatest resistance. The buildings looked like they were blown up.

How to put these formidable questions to rest? The New York Times did a masterful job of that:

This is page A3. A3 is the next most read page in a newspaper after the front page. It’s what a reader immediately sees after they read the front page headline and turn the page.

What we see is a remarkably simple explanation of how and why each 110 story twin tower was reduced to rubble by its own weight.

THE CRASHES

1 After the planes struck the towers, thousands of gallons of jet fuel burned

THE COLLAPSES: WHAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED

2 Thick layers of insulation on exterior and interior steel columns were breached, and sprinkler systems were disabled.

3 Fires broke out with temperatures reaching perhaps 1000 to 2000 degrees F

4 The steel column systems, softened in the heat, separated from each other and buckled.

5 Weighted down by debris, furniture and concrete and steel, floors progressively collapsed.

The reader is also shown a detailed cutaway of a twin tower with its 244 peripheral and 47 central columns under the headline that reads:

“Towers Believed to be Safe Proved Vulnerable to an Intense Jet Fuel Fire, Experts Say”

Highlighted in the text of this article:

‘No structure could have sustained this kind of assault’, says one expert.

No structure? Really? What about the Pentagon that was struck by a similar sized plane and sustained only isolated damage that same morning?

The Times addressed our uncertainty around the peculiar way in which the towers fell by

• Offering a single explanation that the Towers fell because of Jet Fuel fires, plane collisions and nothing else (like explosives)

• Quoting “experts” that somehow were able to analyze the design of these immense buildings, the extent of the damage prior to their collapse, the estimates of the fire temperature and where they were burning within 24 hours of the event and confirm that the hypotheses is in fact correct and

• Implying that because the buildings fell, the explanation offered must have been the correct one

Even though the 9/11 Commission report and the supporting technical documents from the National Institute for Standards and Technology were not published for a few more years (which, incidentally, do not corroborate this hypothesis), most of the public bought this story and most are still not aware of how it veers from the official explanation, which has its own issues with basic scientific principles.

Once again, it doesn’t matter what the explanation is as long as one is provided.

The Times uses another subtle but powerful technique on page A3. Immediately above the article that purportedly explains how it all went down is a half-page photo of the sparse remains of one of the most iconic structures in history with brave NY firefighters doing their best to begin a search and rescue effort while trying to make sense of how this could have happened. It draws the reader in. It is a highly emotive picture.

Whether intentional or not, the Times is using a hypnotic technique where a very real sensation or emotion can be used to solidify a suggestion in the mind of the client. This is called anchoring.

In this case, the picture triggers our despair. How could this have happened? Why did the buildings fall? The suggestion is then offered, in this case a speculative explanation; it gets reified and accepted, and a hypothesis becomes irrefutable fact.

This trick undoubtedly worked on the public 22 years ago. The incomprehensible occurred. Thousands of lives were lost. Three buildings were reduced to mounds of twisted girders and a blanket of pulverized concrete on a summer morning in Manhattan and not a single alternative hypothesis was considered. Few people questioned how calls were made on cellphones from planes flying at altitude or how less than 24 hours after the biggest structural failure in history a complete explanation could be validated by journalists citing a handful of selected “experts”.

Where were our Defenses?

How did a commercial jet plane manage to get to the Pentagon? Why weren’t fighters scrambled to protect the twin towers?

The public wasn’t offered an explanation until some time later. It turns out that NORAD (North American Aerospace Command) was running at least four separate exercises over Western states and Canada on the very morning of the attack.

Five years later, under direct questioning from Rep Cynthia McKinney (D- GA), Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Richard Meyer, confirms that these exercises were taking place (timestamp 6:20). Despite the colossal failure of the planet’s greatest military, Meyer explains that the concurrent exercises paradoxically enhanced our ability to repel an air attack.

Despite the “enhanced” state of our air defenses, three commercial planes were still able to evade our nation’s air defenses and strike their targets that morning. The 9/11 Commission report does not mention these exercises but explains that the terrorists succeeded because

• NORAD and the FAA did not anticipate the use of commercial planes as weapons

• It is difficult to track planes that have deactivated their transponders

The report tells of the failure of NORAD and the FAA in this manner (Page 17):

“The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States—and using them as guided missiles—was not recognized by NORAD prior to 9/11”

NORAD didn’t see it coming.

Yet, the New York Times reported in 2004 that

“At least five months before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, air defense planners proposed a war-game situation in which a terrorist group hijacked an airliner and flew it into the Pentagon, but the Joint Staff rejected the idea.”

''The Norad exercise developers wanted an event having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airliner (foreign carrier) and fly it into the Pentagon.''

Hijacked commercial planes used as guided missiles was not recognized by NORAD as a threat prior to 9/11, yet NORAD exercise developers felt that this kind of scenario was plausible enough to design an exercise around it. Which is it?

The attacks on 9/11 not only taught us that airplanes can be very dangerous if in the wrong hands, they are difficult to track if they are not telling the world where they are continuously. That is the purpose of the onboard transponder, which the hijackers smartly disabled.

The 9/11 Commission explains that their crafty tactic allowed the planes to approach and strike their targets without any pursuit by fighter jets:

“On 9/11, terrorists turned off transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With transponders off, it is possible, but more difficult, to track an aircraft with primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, radar returns do not show the aircraft’s identity or altitude.”

FAA controllers are highly dependent on transponder signals to track commercial flights. The FAA, as General Meyers explained to Rep McKinney, is also responsible for mobilizing a NORAD response to a hijacking incident. This basically explains why jihadists with single engine licenses were able to fly their planes unimpeded into some of the most protected airspace in our country.

Is it reasonable that our authorities never bothered to consider this scenario prior to 9/11? Before chalking it up to governmental incompetence perhaps we should consider this:

This page was taken from a now unclassified memorandum written by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense in 1962. It outlines a diabolical plan to stoke the public into support of a Cuban invasion to avenge a staged air attack on a non-military airplane carrying civilians. It requires the substitution of said plane with a drone CIA craft in mid-flight using its transponder signal. The drone plane, while transmitting a distress signal, gets intentionally crashed while flying over Cuba. Anyone tracking the flight will have no way to detect the deception.

This plan was designed to deceive not only flight controllers but the pilots of reconnaissance aircraft that might be called to respond to the mock distress signal. President Kennedy wouldn’t go along with it.

Four decades prior to 9/11, the Joint Chiefs of Staff urged the POTUS to endorse this plan. This same body of advisors, a few months prior to 9/11 thought that a similar kind of scenario was “unrealistic” and not worthy of serious consideration. Several years later the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Meyer, assures us that despite our enhanced defensive posture on 9/11, nothing could have been done to prevent the attacks of that day because such a strategy was previously inconceivable.

This was a lie.

Conclusion

This horrific attack on innocent Israelis is indeed their “9/11”. The similarities are uncanny:

• An Islamic terrorist organization using the relatively unsophisticated weaponry and methods at their disposal was able to exact enormous damage and fatalities upon innocent people in what should have been a highly defended area.

• Inexplicable weaknesses in defensive capabilities allowed the attack to occur, weaknesses which were voiced prior to the attacks. These warnings went unheeded.

• Though able to take the lives of thousands of citizens, the act has little strategic value to the terrorists.

• While still trying to come to grips with the tragedy and the questions that surround it, the public is immediately given a specious explanation involving intelligence failures, coincidental timing and lack of vision by those in charge of national security.

• Eye-witnesses to the events who challenge the oversimplified story are not given a voice while the world is bombarded by stories that paint the attackers as pure evil. Anyone who asks questions is labeled a terrorist sympathizer.

• A response is immediately called for—a response that will no doubt result in the loss of more innocent lives.

• The event sets the stage for more lengthy military operations on a much bigger stage to root out the problem in every corner of the globe.

Are these events really the product of hatred of Al Qaeda and Hamas towards America and Israel? Or have we just watched a government sacrifice innocent people to promote a maniacal war agenda yet again? Who and what is really behind these monumental tragedies?

Cui Bono?

Much like a person exposed to a highly specific spike protein through vaccination cannot adapt to subsequent SARS-COV2 variants as well as a person who has been exposed to the virus initially, the public, traumatized by the tragedy, has their understanding indelibly imprinted with a single explanation of the events and cannot accept new, more accurate information later on.

It is happening right now. We do not know if legacy media is being intentionally inaccurate, incomplete or opaque. It is clear that the public is being indelibly programmed with a story, one that may be only partially true. We certainly can see that asking questions comes with castigation paradoxically at a time when we ought to be demanding answers to reasonable questions.

What is your intuition telling you?

In the interest of innocent people around the world, can we talk and not scream? Please?

---

Addendum (October 16, 2023)

Yesterday, Israeli media reported that “Communications Minister Karhi is promoting regulations that would allow him to direct police to arrest civilians, remove them from their homes, or seize their property if he believes they have spread information that could harm national morale or served as the basis for enemy propaganda.”

According to Haaretz:

The draft defines "aiding the enemy through communication" as the dissemination of information that "undermines the morale of Israel's soldiers and residents in the face of the enemy," or information that "serves as a basis for enemy propaganda, including the spreading of the enemy's propaganda messages," or information that "aids the enemy in its war against Israel, its residents, or Jews."

The information covered by the regulations would include both visual and audio content, such as images and text. If the communications minister believes that their broadcast is aiding the enemy, he will be authorized to issue orders to stop the broadcast, orders to seize broadcast equipment, orders to remove a person from a specific area, and orders for law enforcement action in cases of violations of Penal Law Sections 103 (dissemination of subversive propaganda) or 134 (sedition publications).