September 11 Coincidences

Re@eived: from BRINKER2.aristotle.net for ; Mon, 19 May 2003 21:27:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hotmail.com unverified by BRINKER2.aristotle.net

Mon, 19 May 2003 21:27:26 -0500. . .Received: from . . .hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 20 May 2003 02:26:18 GMT

From: "Dave Wilson"

To: jimholt@characterlink.net

Subject: Fwd: Coincidence

Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 21:26:18

>From: "DixieMom"

>To: "Dave Wilson"

>Subject: Coincidence?

>Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:36:01 -0500

THE GREAT 9/11 COINCIDENCE

Jon Rappoport May 13, 2003

On August 22, 2002, the Associated Press ran a story about 9/11. "Agency planned drill for plane crash last Sept. 11." "...one US intelligence agency [NRO, National Reconnaissance Office] was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 [2001] in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings."

The same morning. As. The 9/11 attacks.

According to the NRO, their exercise was canceled when the real thing began.

Barbara Honegger, who worked in the White House under Reagan, points out another coincidence. Researching press reports, she found a 9/16/01 Washington Post story about the pilot of AA flight 77 that, on the morning of 9/11, was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

The pilot, Charles Burlingame, an ex- F4 Navy flyer, had, as his last Navy mission, helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon.

Pilot drafts plan for response to Pentagon hit. Pilot winds up on plane that hits Pentagon.

Honnegar states that Dick Cheney was ultimately in charge of the NRO exercise on the morning of 9/11. He was in the White House Situation Room for that purpose.

How do you like all these apples?

The limited hangout[*] on this would be: "The hijackers had found out about the upcoming 9/11 mock exercise. They ran their op on top of that, hoping the confusion between Real and Mock would keep the US government from responding to the actual attacks."[*NOTE TO READERS OF THE GEORGE BUSH-UNDERCURRENTS WEBSITE: the term "hangout" is an intelligence operative's term for a bogus, cover story-like device sometimes used by intelligence agencies. It is a form of disinformation, in which a story is leaked which contains only a small part of the truth. After this small part is "leaked," the media is put onto this small bit of data, as if it is the whole story. In this way, the public's sense of "outrage" is limited to a small issue, and a "mini" scandal ensues instead of a true scandal.--mcs]

Or, one could take this another step: NRO uses many CIA employees. Some element of the CIA was involved in the tactics of the actual 9/11 attacks.

All the above coincidences certainly defy the laws of probability.

Since AP eventually ran a story right out in the open about the mock exercise, one would think the Hill would have exploded in outrage. A hearing would have been held pronto. The "bizarre coincidence" would have become front-page news for a week or so.

Didn't happen.

The uncanny ability of the press to suppress---by sheer accident---a story that could have taken the lid off Washington---that should have become a story in itself as well.

Didn't happen.

Where did AP get its story from? It got it from a classic limited hangout, revealed in an announcement, in 2002, about an upcoming Homeland Security conference to be held in Chicago. One of the key speakers at the conference would be John Fulton, a CIA officer who worked for NRO. The announcement reads:

"On the morning of September 11, 2001, Mr Fulton and his team...were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."

Sure.

NRO/CIA/Cheney/the White House were nervous about this story coming to light. So a limited hangout was arranged. The conference brochure would admit to part of the truth. Mayor Rudy of NYC was the main speaker at the conference. Perfect.

As in, "See, we're giving you a fascinating tidbit about 9/11. Why in the world would we do this if there were more to the whole thing? We've got Rudy himself on the podium. Don't you think he would go nuts if there were more to this, if his city had been devastated as part of some plan in which the federal govenrment were actually involved?"

Worked like a charm.

It should be noted that, right after 9/11, the White House denied that the intelligence community had any clue that a-plane-into-a-building was a possible terrorist scenario. When, in fact, a mock exercise for exactly that eventuality was in progress on the morning of 9/11.

There is one other possibility here we need to consider. On the morning of 9/11, there was no practice exercise going on. The whole idea of such an exercise was fabricated to explain otherwise mind-boggling communications traffic among intelligence and military and civilian agencies of the US government----traffic that would have exposed the complete and casual disregard for the very real events that were underway in the air.

"Oh, all THOSE messages? They were just part of the mock exercise. They had nothing to do with the real thing. We were slow to catch on that the actual attacks were happening, because we had this practice deal running. What a coincidence."

When events like 9/11 occur, if you underestimate the devious quality of the cover stories, you can miss the true thread.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

Go on to Jon Rappoport's "no more fake news" website

Go back to Enron-9/11 files page

Go back to The George Bush-Undercurrents Website