by Michael E. Salla, PhD
September 11, 2006
from Exopolitics Website

 

Introduction [1]

On the fifth anniversary of the ‘9-11’ attacks, more citizens than ever before are questioning official versions of the attacks and the adequacy of the 9-11 Commission Report.

 

According to an August 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe 9-11 was an ‘inside job’ with government agencies complicit in what occurred.[2] A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believed that official explanations and the 9-11 Commission were covering up the truth.[3]

 

There has been a steady stream of authors, journalists, researchers and media personalities coming forward to declare that 9-11 was an ‘inside job’. Some of the more prominent include the theologian Dr David Ray Griffin author/editor of a number of books on 9-11 including 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2003), Michael Ruppert author of Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil (2004), and actor Charlie Sheen who went public with his views on March 2006.[4]

 

Finally, a website was recently created by a committee of scholars criticizing official explanations and also arguing that 9-11 was an ‘inside job’.[5]

With the ever growing number of those claiming 9-11 was an inside job and that there was an official cover up, it comes as no surprise that many now view the 9-11 attacks as part of an historical pattern of governments using ‘false flag’ operations to overcome opposition to their policy objectives. A false flag operation is best described as a covert operation conducted by “governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.”[6]

An increasing number of books and videos are now discussing historic false flag operations in relation to 9-11. The more prominent include David Griffin’s, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004); Barrie Zwicker’s more recent, Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11 (2006); and Alex Jones recent video, TERRORSTORM: A History of Government Sponsored Terrorism (2006).

 

Griffin, Zwicker and Jones examine historic 'false flag' operation to present the historical context for analysis of events surrounding 9-11 and the contrived “war on terror”. In historic ‘false flag’ operations such as the burning of the Reichstag in 1933, the 1953 Iranian coup, the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, intelligence operatives from governments staged events that would be blamed on targeted groups in a way that would facilitate government polices to increase their power or topple foreign governments. More controversially, Griffin argues that the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack was a false flag operation and that this demonstrates the magnitude to which false flag operations can be conducted.[7]

Zwicker and Jones discuss how the Nazis directly benefited by covertly orchestrating the burning of the Reichstag and blaming it on communists. Similarly, they describe how US and British policies directly benefited by false flag operations aimed at the popular nationalist Prime Minister of Iran, Muhammad Mossadeq, who was accused of pro-communist sympathies. This led to a coup in 1953 whereby the Shah of Iran was able to assume dictatorial powers that reversed the controversial nationalization policies of Mossadeq.

 

The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident according to Zwicker, Jones and Griffin was another false flag operation whereby communist North Vietnam was blamed for two attacks on US warships. Documents later released conclusively showed that the second attack never occurred. They also describe failed false flag incidents such as the attack on the USS Liberty by the Israeli Airforce in 1967 during the six day war. They claim that the sinking of the Liberty would have put great pressure on the US to enter the war in support of Israel which planned to shift responsibility to Egypt.

Griffin, Zwicker, and Jones have all cited the Operation Northwoods documents that showed the Joint Chiefs of Staff had approved false flag operations in the early 1960s that involved terrorist attacks against American infrastructure and even cities. These covert actions would have been blamed on Cuba and used to justify a military invasion but were never approved by the Kennedy administration (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/). Griffin, Zwicker and Jones use this and other cases as evidence that false flag operations have a long history in the covert actions of many governments including the US.

Having persuasively presented evidence that governments have in the past used false flag operations, Griffin, Zwicker and Jones turn their attention to the 9-11 attack; and, to varying degrees, a number of other ‘terrorist attacks’ in Britain, Spain and Bali. In all these cases, Griffin, Zwicker and Jones present evidence that these were false flag operations.

 

They cite historic documents, interview whistleblowers, identify inconsistencies in official versions, and circumstantial evidence that all point to these recent terrorist attacks being false flag operations. In terms of the 9-11 attack in the US and the July 7, 2005 (7-7) attack in Britain, they examine security drills that led to much confusion on the part of security forces that permitted security lapses that may have allowed the attacks to occur.

 

Zwicker and Jones argue that such drills are a characteristic of false flag operations where it is critical to have security forces not involved in such covert operations stand down.

 

They present persuasive evidence that the war on terror is contrived with the goal of depriving citizens in the US and western democracies of their civil liberties, and to neutralize domestic opposition to the war in Iraq.
 

 

 

Who was really behind 9-11 and other terrorist attacks, and why?

With regard to the question of who was really behind 9-11 and other terrorist attacks, a number of 9-11 authors provide what they believe to be the real factors driving the contrived war on terrorism.

 

To facilitate this study, I will concentrate on four that represent the major thrust of 9-11 arguments: Griffin, Zwicker, Jones, and Ruppert, and simply refer to them collectively as the 9-11 authors.

 

To varying degrees the 9-11 authors point to efforts led by the US and Britain to capture the oil resources of 'rogue nations' such as Iraq in order to gain control of the oil industry. By capturing Iraq, driving oil prices up, corporate interests in the US and Britain stand to make enormous short term profits. As the supply of oil reaches peak production, an idea most strongly championed by Michael Ruppert, this ensures that US/British corporate interests are in the driver’s seat for benefiting in the long term from skyrocketing oil prices as industrializing nations such as India and China generate increasing demand for oil.

 

Control over the vital oil industry would therefore enable US corporate dominance in global financial markets well into the next generation. This would make China and India, potential future competitors to US global dominance, more subservient to US policies.

The 9-11 authors argue that it is not just oil interests seeking to benefit from wars in Iraq, but also the armaments industries in the US which are by far the world’s largest weapons suppliers. Essentially, US corporate contractors need a contrived war on terrorism to continue to sell their military products to the Pentagon which needs to conduct punitive missions against rogue nations. The ultimate rationale for the arms industry is driven by corporate greed to take advantage of security threats to maintain a perpetual war economy that is funded at the expense of the ordinary tax payer.

 

Eisenhower’s famous farewell address warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex is most commonly cited as evidence of such a danger.

In addition to US financial dominance and corporate greed, the 9-11 authors offer their ultimate rationale for the contrived war on terrorism. This is the theory of Pax Americana that what drives US policy is the need to establish US hegemony around the planet. Griffin, Jones, Ruppelt and Zwicker argue that by the Bush administration claiming that 'rogue states' are 'harboring terrorists', and developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that would be given to the terrorists, the US has the rationale to launch preemptive wars and establish control over nations opposed to US dominance.

 

They cite neo-conservative figures associated with the New American Century Project as exponents of this imperialist agenda to establish US global dominance.[8] Consequently, the war on Iraq was justified using the WMD thesis that Saddam Hussein was allied with terrorist groups that he would have used as proxies to launch such weapons on the US. While US global hegemony would be justified on the need to make the world safe for democracy, the true rationale according to 9-11 authors is to make the world profitable for key US corporations allied with the oil and armaments industries.

The assessments of the 9-11 authors of false flag operations as being rooted in the greed of the oil and armaments industries, and the imperialist designs of neo-conservatives continues to attract much support from many disenchanted with official explanations for terrorist attacks on the US and Britain; the spinning of the intelligence data used to justify the war on Iraq; and the enormous profits generated by corporations involved in the oil and armaments industries.

 

In particular, Griffin’s, Zwicker’s and Jones’ analysis of false flag operations is helpful in identifying the catalyst for government policies that result in diminished civil liberties and dampen domestic opposition to preemptive wars ostensibly aimed to "protect democracy", but which provide windfall profits for large US corporations. The 9-11 authors analyses focusing on US imperialism helps identify the enormous influence of neo-conservatives in the Bush administration in dictating official government policy.

 

There is however a missing factor in the analyses of the 9-11 authors focusing on the trifecta of the oil industry, the military-industrial complex, and US imperialism. A factor that provides a deeper level of analysis for what is really driving US policies in the Middle East and elsewhere around the planet.

 

The 9-11 authors are missing the exopolitical factor.
 

 

 

Understanding the Exopolitical Perspective

Exopolitics is based on extensive evidence that extraterrestrial civilizations are visiting the Earth and that this evidence is systematically covered up by both government agencies and military departments in the US and other major nations in what has been described as a “Cosmic Watergate”.[9]

 

The mainstream scientific view that the speed of light presents and insurmountable obstacle to the physical presence of extraterrestrial visitors has been increasingly challenged by new theories concerning faster than light speed travel.[10]

 

Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) suggests that our understanding of science periodically undergoes a paradigm shift. Exopolitics represents a paradigm shift in political thinking about the underlying forces driving domestic and international affairs.

Not only is evidence of extraterrestrial visitation in the contemporary era being covered up; but, perhaps more significantly, evidence of an historic extraterrestrial presence that has sponsored past human civilizations is also covered up. This means that both the knowledge and technology of extraterrestrials currently visiting the Earth, and historic evidence of earlier extraterrestrial visitations, have become paramount national security concerns that are kept hidden from the general public.

 

The true extent of the national security implications concerning public disclosure of an extraterrestrial presence is revealed in a Brookings Institute study for NASA in 1960 claiming that public discovery of an extraterrestrial intelligence could lead to the collapse of Western civilization.[11]

 

The impact of an extraterrestrial presence and its implications for politics, science, economy and culture, could very quickly lead to a collapse of vital institutions for every country on the planet thereby threatening the sovereignty of major nations. Furthermore, according to a number of former military whistleblowers, UFOs have disabled or destroyed US nuclear missiles on a number of occasions.[12]

 

This partly reveals the secret concern of policy makers over extraterrestrial visitors. In short, the national security implications of an extraterrestrial presence trumps every other national security issue, and is the Rosetta Stone for understanding the true dynamics underlying global politics and international finance.[13]

Evidence for the cover-up of an extraterrestrial presence is extensive and persuasive. Hundreds of credible whistleblowers have emerged from the military, government and corporate sectors to describe the cover up various aspects of UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The testimonies of many of these government whistleblowers are available through private organizations such as the Disclosure Project.[14]

 

Furthermore, leaked classified documents have disclosed critical features of the national security system created to deal with the extraterrestrial presence. Many of these documents are available through the popular “Majestic Documents” website.[15]

 

Numerous websites, books and organizations have presented the evidence and testimonies of thousands of witnesses, ‘experiencers’, researchers and whistleblowers revealing the extent of extraterrestrial visitation to Earth.

The 9-11 authors fail to identify a number of key exopolitical factors behind false flag operations. These factors have to do with,

• the political management system created for extraterrestrial affairs
• the technology and knowledge about extraterrestrials that are located on the territory of different foreign governments
• the ‘black budget’ needed to finance covert operations based on acquiring extraterrestrial technologies and information

Given the highly classified nature of extraterrestrial affairs, all these activities occur without any congressional or legislative oversight in the US and other major nations such as Britain, Russia and China.

 

I will now examine five exopolitical factors that need to be considered when analyzing false flag operations in general.
 

 

 

Five exopolitical factors and False Flag Operations

• The first factor is the existence of a covert web of interlocking governmental and military agencies in the US and around the world created to manage extraterrestrial affairs. Often described as the ‘secret government’, this organization operates in parallel with the more conventional political system comprising elected representatives and appointed government officials.
  
  
  This is similar to Lewis Lapham’s distinction between the “provisional government” and the “permanent government” wherein the former comprises elected officials while the latter comprises special interest groups drawn from corporations, military and educational sector.[16] Individuals in the conventional system of government, Lapham’s “provisional government”, are only briefed on the basis of “need to know” and not due to their rank or position.
  
  
  Consequently, it has been demonstrated that sitting Presidents can be kept out of the loop as occurred in the cases of presidents Carter and Clinton.[17] President Clinton reportedly said to senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon:

  "Sarah, there's a secret government within the government, and I have no control over it."[18]

  The ‘secret government’ managing extraterrestrial affairs sits at the apex of the unelected “permanent government” and has been described as MJ-12 or PI-40.[19]
  
  Major false flag operations such as 9-11 almost certainly involve the ‘secret government’ using such operations as part of its broader agenda in managing extraterrestrial affairs. It is very unlikely that transitions in the “provisional government”, such as the 2000 election of George Bush and the appointment of neo-conservatives to prominent positions would be capable of producing false flag operations on the order of 9-11.
  
  
  The ascendancy of neo-conservatives to high government positions would not be sufficient to enable false flag operations to proceed due to the potential opposition of many career bureaucrats and government officials. Only a more long term and secretive management system that exists outside of the rotation of elected political officials could hope to rein in career bureaucrats and government officials.
  
  
  Consequently, given the magnitude of the 9-11 attacks, this could only have occurred with the assent of the secret (or permanent) government that used neo-conservatives appointed to senior positions in the Bush administration (the ‘provisional government’) as the instruments for achieving the former’s policy goals. The uncritical support of major governments such as Britain and Australia in subsequent policies adopted by the Bush administration, is due to the ‘secret governments’ of these nations coordinating their policies in a global management system created for extraterrestrial affairs.
  
  
  This involves many quasi governmental organizations such as the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and the Council of Foreign Relations that supply the resources and leadership for dictating long term secret government policies around the planet.[20]
  
   
• The second factor to consider for false flag operations is the need by the secret government to maintain exclusive control of all extraterrestrial technology and evidence found around the world. This involves the removal of any physical evidence of extraterrestrial visitation from the public realm, and the relocation of this to the classified scientific laboratories of the US or other major nations. There are numerous instances of extraterrestrial vehicles crashing around the planet.
  
  
  These have been documented and analyzed in a recent book by Ryan Woods, Majic Eyes Only.[21] In all these cases, governments are expected to comply either through inducements or sanctions with these covert efforts led by the secret government which is global in scope. National leaders who do not comply run the great risk of being removed from office.
  
  For example, the 1979 coup that removed the Prime Minister of Granada, Sir Eric Gairy, was a false flag operation designed to prevent Gairy from getting the United Nations to seriously move forward in investigating the UFO issue. Gairy was instrumental in Grenada's sponsorship of the only United Nations Resolution dealing with UFOs (passed in 1978) and was scheduled to meet with UN Secretary General on 13 March 1979, to discuss further UN initiatives on UFOs based on extraterrestrial material recovered in Grenada.[22]
  
  
  On the same day of his meeting, his government was removed from power in a revolutionary coup led by Maurice Bishop. Gairy’s case suggests that false flag operations resulting in coups led by disgruntled elites may be a result of a policy of forcing out of office non-compliant national leaders to the global system covering up UFO/extraterrestrial information. Such leaders are replaced by more compliant individuals who can be easily discredited or removed in the future.
  
   
• The third exopolitical factor is the need to gain control of any territory that once hosted ancient civilizations that contain artifacts providing valuable information or technology left by extraterrestrials. These ancient civilizations have buried within their ruins much information and even technology gained through extraterrestrial intervention that allegedly occurred millennia ago.
  
  
  For example, there is much evidence that the ancient Sumerian civilization was sponsored by an extraterrestrial civilization known as the Anunnaki.[23] Sumer, known as the cradle of western civilization, was located in southern Iraq and was subjected to a number of archeological excavations supported by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
  
  There is growing evidence that the 1991 and 2003 US led military interventions in Iraq were aimed at gaining access to some of the ancient archeological sites in Iraq in order to find any information or technology concerning the Anunnaki.[24]
  
  
  The fabrication of intelligence data concerning Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and alliance with terrorist organizations was a false flag operation intended to justify US military intervention in 2003 in order to ensure Iraq’s extraterrestrial assets could not be exploited by Hussein’s regime or fall into the hands of strategic competitors such as Russia and China.
  
  
  Evidence for this fabrication came in the September 2006 Report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that confirms that intelligence data used to justify the Iraq war was ‘overstated’.[25]
  
   
• The fourth exopolitical factor concerns the use of weather modification technologies that former Secretary of State William Cohen confirmed as existing in 1997.[26] False flag operations using weather modification technologies are used to shift blame onto ‘unpredictable’ environmental factors, when in fact such technologies are being used as an instrument of national policy. Such technologies can be used to create natural disasters or events that coerce nations into complying with the global secrecy system concerning extraterrestrial affairs.
  
  
  This global secrecy system ensures that scientific information, alternative energy technologies and information concerning extraterrestrials is not released into the global media. For example, the December 2004 Asian Tsunami affected a number of nations including the Indian sub-continent. At the time, India had been at the forefront of a growing number of disclosures concerning extraterrestrial visitation.[27]
  
  It is very possible that the Asian Tsunami served as a signal to India that weather modification technologies could be used if India pursued its disclosure policies. Subsequently, the Bush administration signed in July 2005 an extraordinary agreement to help India develop its nuclear industry, and continued to allow US industries to outsource jobs to India. This suggests that a mix of inducements and sanctions using weather modification technologies is used to gain the compliance of rising nations such as India that might otherwise challenge the global secrecy system.
  
   
• The final exopolitical factor concerns the ‘real’ black budget in the US. Official estimates of the black budget by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) focus on CIA disclosures revealing the true size of the budget funding the activities of all US intelligence agencies. Revealed by the CIA to be 26.7 billion dollars for fiscal year 1997, this money appears in single line items on the annual Pentagon budget, and has been estimated by the FAS to be 30.1 billion for fiscal year 2007.
  
  
  Conventional wisdom is that the ‘black budget’ is funded by the Pentagon which creates dummy projects and exaggerates the costs of actual defense expenditures (e.g., toilet seats), and channels all these funds into ‘deep black’ projects. However, the real size of the black budget is estimated to be closer to one trillion dollars per calendar year which is more than double the whole Pentagon budget of $420 billion for Fiscal Year 2006.
  
  
  This vast sum of money is accumulated by the CIA not for ensuring US corporate profits nor for financial dominance, but to fund a secret network of deep black projects that constitute a second Manhattan Project.[28]
  
  In his book, The Dark Alliance, Gary Webb revealed compelling evidence that the CIA was involved in the drug trade, and that local law enforcement agencies were deliberately undermined in their efforts to capture the major players in the drug trade due to CIA intervention. Evidence for this has been amassed by Michael Ruppert on his From the Wilderness website and book, Crossing the Rubicon.[29]
  
  
  If the CIA is complicit in the funneling of drugs into the US in order to generate an enormous pool of illicit funds, the main purpose of these funds is not to enrich ‘drug barons’ or corrupt politicians, but to fund the second Manhattan Project. Furthermore, profits generated from the armaments, oil and other industries, both legal and illicit, are accumulated by CIA front companies that are also funneled into deep black projects that escape Congressional scrutiny.
  
  
  These highly immoral funding activities are tolerated on the basis of the national security concern of hiding the true extent of the extraterrestrial related projects created in response to an extraterrestrial presence.
   

 

 

Conclusion - Incorporating the Exopolitical Perspective on 9-11 and False Flag Operations

False flag operations can lead to US military intervention in areas that can help maintain the drug trade that the CIA uses to generate funding for black budget projects.

 

False flag operations such as the Tonkin incident and the September 11 attack led to military intervention in areas vital for the drug trade: Indochina and Afghanistan.

 

According to Zworkin and Jones, the Tonkin incident was orchestrated to ensure that the US would enter the war in Vietnam to maintain US global hegemony through military efforts to prevent communist expansion in Indochina, and provide armaments industries with new weapons orders. However, the Vietnam war fulfilled deeper exopolitical purposes for the US, one of which was to help the CIA to profit from lucrative drug running operations.

 

This is something that Ruppert himself identifies but he opposes an exopolitical perspective due to his refusal to consider evidence substantiating UFOs.[30] Similarly, the US intervention into Afghanistan was also motivated, according to Ruppert, by the desire to restore the drug trade that had been threatened by the policies of the fundamentalist Taliban regime that had all but eliminated the heroin production cycle.[31]

The 9-11 authors provide a cogent case that recent terrorist attacks in the US, Britain and other countries have the distinguishing features of false flag operations that have been used in the past by governments to target potential opponents, create contrived threats, and to erode civil liberties.

 

The various books and videos dealing with 9-11 as a false flag operation are powerful warnings of the extent to which governments can go in order to augment their power. In explaining the ultimate goal of these false flag operations, the level of analysis of the most well known 9-11 authors, Jones, Zwicker, Ruppert and Griffin do not go deep enough into revealing the true agenda and beneficiaries.

According to Jones, Zwicker and many others, the ultimate beneficiaries of false flag operations are the corporate barons behind the oil and armaments industries, and the imperialistic designs of US neoconservatives currently dominating the Bush administration. This supposedly provides a persuasive explanation for who is ultimately behind the war on terrorism and why it is being pursued.

 

Rather than corporate greed and imperialistic intentions driving the war on terrorism, there are deeper factors that concern covert policies involving deeply classified projects involving extraterrestrial technologies funded by illicit black budget sources that use front companies in the oil and armaments industries. This is where the explanations for 9-11 offered by Griffin, Jones, Ruppert and Zwicker do not go far enough in identifying the true parameters of the ‘inside job’ that led to 9-11.

 

Corporate greed and neo-conservative imperialism are not the driving force behind the war against terrorism, but the vehicles used to generate funds for a second Manhattan project that trumps all other national security concerns in the US and other major nations.

With the internet and increased communications threatening to undermine the global secrecy system covering up evidence confirming an extraterrestrial presence, the war on terror provides a means of distracting the public, discrediting researchers seeking to expose this evidence. The war on terrorism also provides a useful cover for continuing to generate enormous sums of revenue for a second Manhattan project that escapes government oversight and to increase the power of the secret government in control of the distribution of this revenue.

 

The authors and researchers associated with the thesis that 9-11 was an ‘inside job’ have pointed us in the right direction in terms of government complicity. They deserve credit for helping open the eyes of the American public to what really transpired in 9-11 as evidenced in the recent Zogby and Scripps polls. However, the 9-11 authors do not identify the different exopolitical factors that reveal the deeper agenda behind false flag operations.

 

This is understandable given the way in which advocates of a ‘Cosmic Watergate’ concerning UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation have been ridiculed in the past. Invoking evidence pointing to a “Cosmic Watergate” could easily be perceived by some as a means of jeopardizing public consideration of objective studies of 9-11.

 

Even worse, considering exopolitical factors may even lead to accusations of mis-information designed to throw 9-11 researchers off track. However, surveys such as the 2002 Roper Poll show that approximately 70% of the American public believes the government is not telling the truth about UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation.[32]

 

This suggests that there is great benefit in connecting the 9-11 and UFO cover ups to better understand the key actors and institutions involved in false flag operations and possible exopolitical factors.

 

It is only through a systematic understanding of the exopolitical perspective that the true motives underscoring the ‘war on terror’ and the nature of the ‘secret government’ can be fully gauged, and a durable solution found that prevents future false flag operations.

 

 

Endnotes

[1] I wish to thank Hugh Matlock for his thoughtful ideas and suggestions for improving the substantive content and organization of this paper, and for identifying a number of typographical errors.
[2] Go to: http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
[3] Go to: http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZogbyPollFinalReport.htm
[4] For Charlie Sheen’s testimony go to: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm
[5] See: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease20060909.html
[6] Cited from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag 
[7] For an article discussing Griffin’s views on Pearl Harbor and false flag operations go to: http://bohemian.com/bohemian/06.14.06/david-ray-griffin-0624.html
[8] For information on the New American Century project, go to: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ 
[9] For a historical survey of exopolitics: The History of Exopolitics: Evolving Political Approaches to UFOs & the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis
[10] See James Deardorff, et al., “Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation”
[11] The Brookings Report 
[12] See Robert Salas and James Klotzhttp, Faded Giant (BookSurge Publishing 2005).
[13] See Michael E. Salla, Exopolitics: Political Implications of the Extraterrestrial Presence (Dandelion Books, 2004).
[14] The Disclosure Project
[15] http://www.majesticdocuments.com
[16] See Lewis Lapham, “Lights, Camera, Democracy, Harper Magazine, August 1996, excerpts available at: http://fdt.net/~aabbeama/PJB_from_left.html
[17] For more information go to: http://presidentialufo.com
[18] http://www.presidentialufo.com/part5.htm
[19] Political Management of the Extraterrestrial Presence
[20] See Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids
[21] http://www.majiceyesonly.com 
[22] For Gairy’s account of what occurred, go to: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/exopolitics/message/278 
[23] See Zecharia Sitchin’s The Twelfth Planet and other books from his Earth Chronicles series

[24] Exopolitical Perspective on the Preemptive War against Iraq
[25] See “Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments”, available at: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
[26] http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm 
[27] For a number of stories concerning India’s release of information on UFOs and extraterrestrials go to: http://www.indiadaily.com 
[28] See Michael Salla, “The Black Budget Report”
[29] Go to: http://www.fromthewilderness.com 
[30] See “Michael Ruppert Responds to Victor Thorn’s Ten Questions”: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/10questions.shtml
[31] See Michael Ruppert, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_10_01_heroin.html 
[32] See: http://www.scifi.com/ufo/roper/

 

---

Re: False Flag Operations, 9-11 and the Exopolitical Perspective

Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 am
from ExopoliticsYahooGroup Website

Aloha all, here's a cross post from the prepare4contact forum where I discuss more of the hidden dynamics of 911, and my recent article on false flag operations.

In peace,
Michael Salla, PhD

Hello Linda, there is now a powerful movement questioning the Bush administration’s take on 911.

 

This movement is growing by the day and it’s only a matter of time before it succeeds in exposing the real culprits behind 911. That will be a tremendous shock for many who accept the Bush administration line that a group of terrorists based in Afghanistan orchestrated the whole attack. For me, many elements in the Bush administration’s explanation stand out as red flags.

The attack on the Pentagon with no evidence of a plane crash and only a small entry area; the collapse of WTC 7 which was not directly hit which the structural engineers tell us is impossible; tales of firemen entering the impact areas of WTC 1-2 saying they were getting the fires under control. So the idea that both towers collapsed due to the extreme heat generated by the burning jet fuel is a lie. I recommend spending time at the http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ website to read up more on these anomalies and the analyses of Dr Steve Jones and Dr David Ray Griffin.

In short, 911 is an inside job and that truth is fueling what will be a mass movement for truth that eventually leads to street demonstrations, etc. As you know, in my paper (above) I point out that the reasons given for why 911 is an inside job, corporate greed and neo-conservative imperialism, don’t go far enough to uncover the real dynamics and actors behind 911. That’s why an exopolitical perspective is more persuasive.

The various elements of the massive operation that resulted in a ‘staged’ or ‘assisted’ terrorist attacks on 911 could not have been pulled off by a cabal of neo-conservatives who had only been in the job for 8 months before 911. That’s important to realize, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc., had only taken office in January 2001, so they didn’t have time to plan and orchestrate something like this which would have required the cooperation of career officials in key intelligence agencies and military departments.

9/11 required a more deeply entrenched secret government action that got the neo-conservatives to do their bidding for an operation that had already been planned. Kind of like the way, the Kennedy administration inherited the CIA’s Bay of Pigs operation.

 

In my view, the same secret government that manages the ET presence (Majestic 12/PI 40, etc) got the neo-cons to do their bidding since the former have a deeper exopolitical agenda for being in Iraq as I discuss in the paper.

When the 911 truth movement succeeds, as I think it ultimately will, the neo-conservatives will be offered up as ritual sacrifice to a furious public. That will satisfy many, and they will be tempted to go back to sleep.

 

But the true culprits are hidden more deeply in the system and takes us in the direction of Majestic-12/PI-40, etc., and the ET projects who made it possible for Cheney, et al., to give the go ahead for 911 to occur.

Exposing the shadow government and the Cosmic Watergate will be the next challenge. However, the truth seekers will be aided by a more alert general public who will take more seriously that a shadow government is really orchestrating events rather than a bunch of neo-cons driven by imperialism and greed. That will take us to the door of Cosmic Watergate.

 

That will be necessary otherwise there will be more false flag operations which really are a great danger to all of us.

 

Everything You've Wanted To Know About Net Neutrality But Were Afraid To Ask ~ war on this ,war on that ,IS all FAKE ...the war is on IDEAS !      free & open or "closed" ...who's is gonna ....win ?  huh folks who' s    :)r

from the let's-do-this dept

Okay, ever since our big Net Neutrality Crowdfunding, we've had some new readers who aren't as familiar with the details and issues -- yet we've been mostly writing as if everyone is informed of the basics. So, we figured it only made sense to take a step back and do a bit of an explainer about net neutrality.

What is net neutrality?

This is not an easy answer, actually, which, at times, is a part of the problem. The phrase, first coined by law professor Tim Wu, referred originally to the concept of the end-to-end principle of the internet, in that anyone online could request a webpage or information from any online service, and the internet access provider (usually called internet service providers or ISPs) in the middle would deliver that information. At the time, the ISPs were starting to make noises about how they wanted to "charge" service providers to reach end users, effectively setting up toll booths on the internet. This kicked off in earnest in October of 2005, when SBC (which became AT&T) CEO Ed Whitacre declared that internet companies were using "his pipes for free."

The phrase has been warped and twisted in various directions over the years, but the simplest way to think about it is basically whether or not your ISP -- the company you pay for your internet access (usually cable, DSL or fiber, but also wireless, satellite and a few others) -- can pick winners and losers by requiring certain companies to pay the ISP more just to be available to you (or available to you in a "better" way). John Oliver probably summarized it best by arguing that it's about "preventing cable company fuckery" (though, to be clear, it goes beyond just cable companies).

The internet access providers claim that service providers, like Netflix and Google, are getting a "free ride" on their network, since those services are popular with their users, and they'd like to get those (very successful) companies to pay.

Wait, so internet companies don't pay for bandwidth?

They absolutely do pay for their bandwidth. And here's the tricky part of this whole thing. Everyone already pays for their own bandwidth. You pay your access provider, and the big internet companies pay for their bandwidth as well. And what you pay for is your ability to reach all those sites on the internet. What the internet access providers are trying to do is to get everyone to pay twice. That is, you pay for your bandwidth, and then they want, say, Netflix, to pay again for the bandwidth you already paid for, so that Netflix can reach you. This is under the false belief that when you buy internet service from your internet access provider, you haven't bought with it the ability to reach sites on the internet. The big telcos and cable companies want to pretend you've only bought access to the edge of their network, and then internet sites should have to pay extra to become available to you. In fact, they've been rather explicit about this. Back in 2006, AT&T's Ed Whitacre stated it clearly: "I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network - obviously not the piece for the customer to the network, which has already been paid for by the customer in internet access fees, but for accessing the so-called internet cloud." In short, the broadband players would like to believe that when you pay your bandwidth, you're only paying from your access point to their router. It's a ridiculous view of the world, somewhat akin to pretending the earth is still flat and at the center of the universe, but in this case, the broadband players pretend that they're at the center of the universe.

Why is this suddenly big news again? Haven't people been fighting about this for years?

After the last fight over this issue, the FCC issued some pretty weak "open internet" rules, in an attempt to try to appease everyone by effectively creating a "compromise" based, in part, on an agreement negotiated by Verizon, AT&T and Google. Rather than putting in place strong rules to protect an open internet, the FCC's rules were fairly limited and sought to block more egregious forms of discrimination while increasing transparency. However, the rules did not even apply to wireless access and left a bunch of other loopholes -- for example, as long as the broadband players could make a halfway credible claim that what they were doing was for "the security and integrity of the network," it would be allowed. Even though it was part of the negotiations for the rules, once in place, Verizon sued, claiming that the FCC had gone beyond its mandate in issuing the rules.

Following a long court battle, in February of this year, the appeals court ruled that, indeed, the FCC had overstepped its boundaries, and the open internet rules were not enforceable. The ruling effectively said that the part of the law that the FCC had used as the basis for its compromised open internet rules, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, did not allow for the rules it presented. It did, however, suggest that Section 706 gave the FCC some fairly broad powers that might be used instead.

In the following months, the FCC's Chair, Tom Wheeler, tried to craft a new set of rules, basically looking to rewrite the existing (already weak) rules with the guidance the court gave. The big problem is that based on the February ruling and Section 706, Wheeler basically had to replace a block on "unreasonable discrimination" with an argument saying that any priority efforts had to be "commercially reasonable."

A switch from "unreasonable discrimination" being forbidden to "commercially unreasonable discrimination" being forbidden doesn't sound like that big of a difference.

Well, remember that the original rules weren't very strong in the first place. Secondly, the term "commercially reasonable" means something fairly specific, and it makes it much more difficult for the FCC to prevent internet access providers (big cable and telcos) from picking winners and losers. In short, under these new rules, the cable and telco companies can put in place restrictions on internet companies, and then only after that happens, those companies can go to the FCC and challenge them as being "commercially unreasonable." This is a long, difficult and expensive process. And, rest assured, the cable and telco companies have some of the best and most experienced lawyers around when it comes to appearing before the FCC (or, later, facing off with the FCC in court). A small startup would have to basically go broke arguing before the FCC that certain rules are commercially unreasonable, and there's a decent chance it would still lose to much more powerful lawyers with much more experience. Even if a startup could win in such a fight, it would be a huge time and money waster.

What's all this stuff about "Title II"

What many net neutrality advocates are asking the FCC to do is to "reclassify" broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, effectively classifying broadband providers as "common carriers," which would allow the FCC to (1) have more power over them and (2) have more of a mandate towards rules and regulations that would stop those services from picking winners and losers among internet-based services. In short, Title II would give the FCC more power to "prevent cable company fuckery."

Why are some people so opposed to Title II?

There are a bunch of reasons -- some of which are more reasonable than others. They range from things like the simple idea that it's crazy to try to regulate modern communications systems under a law from 1934, to concerns about too much regulation "chilling investment" in broadband, to fears about lawsuits that will come about concerning the whole reclassification process.

Wait, why aren't broadband providers already considered "common carriers" -- it seems obvious that they should be?

Well, not everything is obvious. A decade ago, there were questions about whether or not cable broadband providers were technically "telecommunications" services (classified as common carriers under Title II) or if they were providing an "information service" (not under Title II and not a common carrier). The FCC (as always, under tremendous lobbying pressure from the cable companies) claimed that cable modem service should be exempt from Title II regulations. This was challenged, but the Supreme Court sided with the cable companies (and the FCC) in saying that this ruling made sense. Soon after that, as people questioned whether or not such a rule also applied to DSL lines, the FCC also reclassified DSL outside of Title II.

If the Supreme Court already said that, can the FCC switch back now?

Yes, though it is a somewhat complicated process (though not nearly as complicated as the telcos and cable companies would have you believe). It will also almost certainly be fought in court and it will be a few years before a final ruling is made as well. It is certainly doable, however.

Do we really want a law from 1934 ruling over modern internet access systems?

In an ideal world, probably not. But this isn't an ideal world. If we lived in a better world, Congress would update the Telecommunications Act to take into account what's actually happening online. But we all know about how well Congress works (i.e., it doesn't). And when it comes to political hot potatoes like telco policy, where there are tremendous lobbying dollars at stake, not only would it be nearly impossible to get anything through Congress, there's a better than decent chance that anything that did get through would be... messy and potentially even worse.

I've heard that reclassifying will lead to internet companies like Google also being required to live under Title II rules including antiquated issues like tariffs and having rate settings.

This is a little myth that the telcos and cable companies have been spreading. Yes, there's a ton of unrelated crap under Title II (again, why it's not ideal, but the best of a terrible list of options). But there's a (mandatory) process under the law by which the FCC must "forbear" from applying regulations that the FCC determines are not necessary for protecting consumers and thus would not be in the public interest. The forbearance process has been used numerous times, and most of the people advocating for reclassification under Title II are also doing so in combination with recommending forbearance against those obsolete and unrelated parts of Title II, beyond the narrow issue of stopping the internet access providers from picking winners and losers on the network.

Should we be afraid that reclassification will create a massive legal battle that leaves everyone uncertain for years?

No. First of all, no matter which way the FCC goes, there's likely to be a big legal battle that will go on for years. While Comcast and AT&T have more or less said that they would accept the rules under 706, Verizon has made it pretty clear that it would challenge them, just as it challenged the original open internet rules. Second, we already went through a big legal battle over the original rules for the last four years, and there was little indication that that legal battle had any impact one way or the other on broadband deployment or any other innovation.

Won't Title II reclassification cause the big broadband providers to give up all hope, stop investing in broadband and destroy all that is good and holy about broadband in the US?

Uh, no, though that's the story that the companies will tell you. They'll also leave out the fact that they actually really, really like to be classified under Title II when it comes to getting tax breaks, subsidies and rights of way for installing their lines in the first place. Also, the largest period of investment in broadband infrastructure happened before the big Brand X Supreme Court decision, when broadband was still considered to be under Title II. Other areas of telecommunications, including mobile phone service, are still classified under Title II, and there's a ton of investment going on in that space. The claims that Title II will chill investment have little basis in reality.

Even so, shouldn't we be at least a little uncomfortable about "regulating the internet"?

Yes, we should always be somewhat concerned about internet regulations, but this part of the internet is already heavily regulated. Remember how Verizon begged to be classified under Title II to install its lines? Installing cable, fiber and other broadband infrastructure already involves tremendous regulatory systems, in which local governments are granting all sorts of subsidies, rebates, tax breaks and allocating spectrum to these companies -- basically having the public pay. And all of this is heavily regulated. The real question here is under which regulations this will happen. It's not about suddenly "taking over" the internet or "regulating the internet," it's about which laws will be used for a process that is already highly regulated.

What about all this stuff with Netflix being slowed down by Comcast, Verizon and AT&T and paying to be sped up?

That's a related issue, but slightly different. That concerns "interconnection." Historically, net neutrality was just about "the last mile" -- the connection point between you as an end user and your internet access provider's router. However, there are many other issues happening beyond that, including interconnections between giant companies moving lots of traffic back and forth across the internet. Sometimes this happens via transit agreements and sometimes via peering arrangements (which are usually free). In the last year or so, the biggest broadband players -- Comcast, Verizon and AT&T -- appeared to be letting their connections to Netflix clog up at their border router, slowing down the delivery to end users.

Effectively, these big broadband providers had figured out a different way to accomplish the same result: getting big internet companies to pay extra to reach you efficiently. By letting their ports clog, they've really just moved the problem upstream to another point they control, and getting Netflix (for now, but soon others) to pay up, even though there's plenty of bandwidth on all sides. All the broadband players need to do is connect a few cables to turn on a few more ports, a trivial and inexpensive process.

Historically, most people following this space never expected interconnection to be a problem, because what kind of sick broadband company would purposely let its own ports clog up and deliver such a crappy experience to consumers? The answer, apparently, is Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, once they realized that they're basically the only game in town and that they could squeeze a lot of money out of internet companies.

So, in the end, while interconnection wasn't originally considered a "net neutrality" issue, it is. It's the same basic concept concerning "broadband company fuckery" in picking winners and losers and harming your internet connection.

Unfortunately, however, FCC boss Tom Wheeler has said he doesn't yet consider it a net neutrality issue (even if he did instruct the FCC to begin investigating these agreements). Thus, even if the FCC reclassifies broadband under Title II, the interconnection loophole may still be a powerful tool for broadband fuckery.

But I've heard that Comcast supports net neutrality? It's been running all these ads saying that.

The company is lying. Or, at the very least, it's being incredibly misleading. What it supports is Chairman Wheeler's proposal to use Section 706, which we already explained earlier is the path by which net neutrality dies. Furthermore, Comcast is effectively "required" to abide by the old net neutrality rules as a condition of its merger with NBC Universal a few years ago -- and it was the one that proposed the condition, knowing full well that it didn't really limit the company and its plans for setting up toll booths.

But is the internet really neutral already? Don't some companies already have faster access than others?

This is another misleading argument made by the broadband companies and their supporters. Yes, big companies will often have faster connections or more use of content delivery networks that cache content and make it available closer to the end points so that it's faster to access. But that's about improving access for everyone online, not about a particular broadband company charging the companies to better reach its users. Again, it goes back to the question of whether or not the broadband providers are picking winners and losers.

If you don't like what your broadband provider is doing, why don't you just switch to a competitor?

That would require real competition, which there is very little of in the US. While broadband providers like to point to things like mobile data offerings or Google Fiber as proof of competition, the truth is that there is very little real competition in the US for broadband services, when broadband is properly defined. Most places have one cable option and one DSL/fiber option, mostly from the large players mentioned above. Basically as you get into true broadband speed ranges, competition almost entirely disappears. And, even where there is competition, it may be getting even weaker, as Verizon is basically pushing its own users to cable, and has effectively stopped expanding its fiber offering. Verizon has made it clear that it wants to focus on wireless.

So what about wireless? Isn't that competition?

Not really. Most mobile data offerings are incredibly limited, slow and much more expensive than DSL/fiber/cable. They tend to have ridiculously low caps (usually on the order of 5GB) and restrictions on things like streaming. Many have terms that effectively bar you from using it as a home broadband replacement. Is it possible that these wireless offerings will eventually be true competition? Maybe, but it's still a long way out. Besides, as currently in place, the open internet rules don't even apply to wireless data anyway, and the largest players in the space are... Verizon and AT&T already. So, wait, how is wireless a real competitor?

Google Fiber! Doesn't that prove there's competition?

Google Fiber is a really interesting experiment, but it's only in a very few locations and expanding pretty slowly. There's little indication that there are any plans to make it a nationwide or even widespread offering. Besides, Google has also backed away from its early promise to allow competing networks to use its infrastructure.

Do we need more competition in broadband?

Hell yes. For basically a decade we've been saying that the risk of losing net neutrality is more of a symptom of a lack of competition. And, in fact, we've seen that when things like Google Fiber do show up, offering viable competition, the incumbents suddenly start ramping up their own offerings. Funny how that happens.

Okay, then how do we get more competition?

There are a bunch of possible options, though none are particularly easy or definite at this point. One idea is to encourage open access networks instead of just facilities-based competition. Under such a system, the broadband infrastructure players would wholesale their internet services to third-party service providers who could then offer service directly. The internet world used to work this way, prior to the original broadband reclassifications. There's little indication that the FCC is even considering pushing the big broadband providers to go back to wholesaling their connections, but it's an idea that has some amount of merit. Australia started down this path years ago, but that's been tied up in politics. There have been some other ideas designed around encouraging similar infrastructure competition, such as the "homes with tails" idea, where individuals would own the connection from their home to a network where services could compete.

The basic thinking here is that the core infrastructure is costly to install and inefficient to do multiple times in multiple ways (which is part of the reason why we have so little competition). Thus, rather than focusing on competition at the infrastructure level, you can put the competition at the service level and have multiple providers on the same network. It's effectively a "natural monopoly" argument, akin to the highway infrastructure. You don't want "competing" highways, because that's wasteful and inefficient. So you build one (massive, super fast) infrastructure, and then wholesale it out to lots of competitors. For now, this idea seems to have almost no support at the policy level, however.

Much more focus these days is on municipal networks and their ability to offer local competition. I'll expand this a bit to suggest that some local private networks (including Google fiber) are in the same camp. Allowing more local area competitors has long been shown to improve all connections as the incumbents freak out and realize they really have to compete. Many muni-broadband providers get a bad rap because they're derided as "government-run" or "local utilities." And, indeed, some attempts at municipal broadband have failed badly (often due to bureaucratic incompetence). That said, there are a growing number of successful muni-broadband implementations that offer real competition -- and often better services at a lower price.

Great! So let's get muni-broadband competitors everywhere!

Not so fast, sparky. The big broadband providers (them again!?) have been able to pass laws in about 20 states that either ban outright or severely limit the ability of local municipalities to offer such broadband to residents. The big broadband providers have done little to hide the fact that these bills were written by the broadband companies themselves and designed solely to limit this kind of competition. While Tom Wheeler did make a statement earlier this year claiming that he would use the FCC's power to preempt such laws if they were blocking competition, this caused the big broadband players and their friends to freak out. Congress is now trying to stop the FCC from being able to move forward on such plans.

The claims by supporters of such bans are ridiculous. They usually argue that states have the right to "make their own choice" about these kinds of laws without federal interference. However, they are then leaving out the fact that the states tend to be blocking cities from making their own choices to create municipal broadband competitors.

The simple fact is that this is a messy front in the broadband players' war against competitors. In an ideal world, cities and states would actually be making it easier to enable competition (whether private or muni-) and then get out of the way. Once again, we don't live in an ideal world.

What about other forms of competition?

For years the FCC has been holding out for some miraculous new broadband method, and it's failed to show up. Under Michael Powell, the FCC insisted that "broadband over powerlines" would present a "third pipe" into the home to compete with phone and cable lines. This was despite multiple reports noting that broadband over powerlines was not a particularly good way to do broadband (especially with the way the US sets up its electrical grid). We already discussed wireless competition above. There is the potential that if there were much more spectrum made available, new competition might spring up, but the FCC (them again?) hasn't been able to make that much spectrum available (a whole different issue for a whole different day). There's also satellite broadband which has gotten much better in the past few years, but is still limited by reliability problems and crappy latency. For years, we've made fun of the claims of satellite broadband providers for never living up to their promises. There may be some promise there, however, especially as satellites and space launches are getting much cheaper. There may be some exciting developments there in the future, but it's still a ways off.

And what's this I've been hearing about data caps?

Another somewhat related issue (which the FCC insists is not a net neutrality issue, but certainly does fall under the "broadband company fuckery" label), is that broadband companies are increasingly interested in putting data caps on your broadband usage, trying to get end users to pay more. This has taken a variety of forms -- some more draconian than others -- but the broadband providers have made it clear they'd like to use it as a way to get more money out of users. Yes, they always pretend it's about getting low bandwidth users to pay less, but there's little actual focus on that, because why would they, other than for PR reasons?

So what's going to happen now?

Well, chances are that before the end of the year, the FCC will officially announce the new rules that it wants. If there's enough public and political support for it, they might actually vote to reclassify internet access under Title II, but so far Tom Wheeler has been afraid to go there. If Wheeler chickens out (as is more likely), they'll stick with the plan using Section 706, opening up "commercially reasonable" fuckery. Either way, there are likely to be lawsuits (with Verizon leading the charge), and nothing will be determined finally for a few years. Congress could act, but won't.

The public pretty clearly wants reclassification under Title II. So do many, many internet companies who know they'd be targets (or wouldn't even be able to exist at all) under a system where the broadband access providers get to set up tollbooths. But, tragically, things in DC don't happen just because the public wants something. Reclassifying would also lead to a political fight in Congress.

Why is Congress so messed up on this?

For reasons that still don't make much sense, sometime around 2006, net neutrality went from a wonky issue that wasn't particularly partisan, to a stupid partisan issue in which Republicans decided it was "regulating the internet," and Democrats deciding that it was about free speech. Neither is entirely accurate, though the Democrats are much more accurate. As stated above, the internet is already regulated. The reality is that the Republicans arguing against net neutrality tend to be those who often (you guessed it) receive the most money from the big broadband players. It's unfortunate and silly that Republicans -- who claim to be the party of business and innovation -- haven't yet realized that startups and innovators are actually helped by a neutral internet with real competition.

So what should I be doing?

Make some noise. Join the effort to send comments to the FCC. While many have argued the process is a foregone conclusion, it's not. If there really is enough support for reclassifying, it can absolutely happen. Not helping because you don't think it will make a difference is only a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can be cynical, right and end up with a limited internet... or you can be idealistic, right and have a chance at creating real change with a more competitive, open internet. Your choice.

Anything else?

That's about it for now, but feel free to submit more questions in the comments. Also, special thanks to everyone who supported our net neutrality reporting crowdfunding effort, which has helped make posts like this possible.