"Our enemies are innovative and
resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our
country and our people, and neither do we." --George W. Bush, Aug. 5,
2004, in a rare moment of unscripted candor.
Mass media is fond of creating labels and lumping people of
certain philosophical or political persuasions into groups of designated
societal misfits, all carrying some pejorative nickname intended to clearly
define the borders between "them" and "us."
This helps the citizenry distinguish between the members of
certain marginalized -- and therefore untrustworthy -- groups who take a
somewhat jaundiced view of the actions and motivations of authoritarian
institutions, and the great American mainstream that can always be counted upon
to internalize and recite the most preposterous nonsense as long as it carries
the official stamp of institutional authority and mass media approval.
A recent case in point: a group based in Portland called the
Oregon Truth Alliance aired their concerns
and objections regarding a series of upcoming anti-terrorism/national
security drills scheduled to take place in their city this month. They were
rewarded for their efforts in an October 2 editorial
in The Oregonian, the local daily, that snickered:
It's hard to know what's scarier: the
idea of responding to a terrorist attack in Portland or the idea that the
government is using a drill as a pretext to seize power, declare martial law
and, possibly, attack Iran. The average Portlander doesn't give much thought to
either notion, but a feverish fringe sees a disaster drill as evidence of a
future police state . . .
At issue is a series of simulations
scheduled to begin October 15 in Portland (as well as in Phoenix and Guam) that
has caused much concern among locals, ranging far beyond the "feverish
fringe" of activists, a convenient "them" to which The Oregonian
would prefer to attribute exclusive ownership of such imbecilic notions.
But surprise, surprise. The mainstream is waking up and it's
not particularly fond of what it's seeing. Thanks to occasional peeks behind
the curtain that reveal unprecedented levels of corruption, insatiable lust for
oil and power and disdain for the Constitution, the lines are blurring between
"us" and "them" on many issues involving the conduct of the
These days, particularly in this bluest of blue cities, many
people of varying political viewpoints are united in their concerns over
possibly nefarious government-sponsored exercises and maneuvers, particularly
when they're taking place in their own backyards.
Fears and objections notwithstanding, though, Portlanders
are being asked to welcome thousands of armed strangers -- from the DHS, FBI,
DoD and other federal security agencies, NGOs, National Guard, local law
enforcement -- as they gather to enact a week's worth of anti-terrorism drills
called TOPOFF 4 and Operation Vigilant Shield 08.
TOPOFF 4 (short for "top officials") is an
exercise that simulates (we hope) the detonation of a "dirty bomb"
near Portland's Steel Bridge. Vigilant
Shield 08 simulates (we hope) imposition of martial law to control the civilian
population in the aftermath of the radiological event.
Well, why not? Somebody's got to be the target. Putting
random chance aside, there are several good reasons why Portland was chosen to
host this year's main anti-terrorist event. We're told Portland's mayor and
Oregon's governor actually requested that Portland be included in the
exercises. I'm assuming those requests were made with one arm pinned behind
their backs by an ex-pro wrestler turned spook who keeps raising the wrist just
a tiny bit more.
In any case, the feds graciously honored the request and
here they come, the honchos of the national security apparatus.
So why is Portland on the short list for a simulated nuclear
terrorist attack on a major American city that may just "go live?" First, it's reachable by
water, which preserves the old "suitcase nuke delivered by boat to a
harbor near you" scenario we've all heard for years. Second, it's among
the bluest of American coastal cities and, while San Francisco must present a
tempting target, it's home to several major banks, insurance companies and
other GOP infrastructure favorites. Third, LA and Seattle, a couple more
anti-GOP cities with bull's-eyes on their civic centers, are too strategic to what's
left of the economy. And fourth, Portland's kind of . . . disposable.
It's particularly anti-Bush/Cheney. It's politically left of
just about any other major US city. Portland detests the Bush administration
(and there's a near-riot to prove it every time one of these hacks tries to
sneak into town for a fundraiser). There are no really serious corporations
headquartered here (Intel has a large facility, but it's mostly engineers who
could eventually be replaced by a new wave of H-1B visa holders). Shipping is
vital to this part of the northwest all the way down the Columbia towards
Idaho, so a hit in or around the port -- like the one depicted in the map just
below -- would truly punish the city commercially.
And to top it off, people in Portland don't seem to respond
with the appropriate levels of hysteria to things like Islamic radicals, phony
wars on terror, color-coded alerts or the predictive rumblings of Chertoff's gut. They're more inclined to
be concerned about the US shift from democratic republic to national security
state, environmental abuse sanctioned and exacerbated by the Bush
administration, the vanishing Constitution, massive corruption and profiteering
both within the administration and among their favorite cronies -- and other
stuff nobody's supposed to notice.
So, is Portland the scene of the "next 9/11?" This
map depicts ground zero, the immediate
kill zone, the less lethal surrounding areas and the projected path of the
radiation plume. This is from a report called "The
Day After: Action Following a Nuclear Blast in a U.S. City" authored
by a think tank at Harvard called the Belfer
Center and released in May of this year. Interestingly, Portland is only
identifiable by street names and knowledge of local geography. Two similar
blast area maps from the same source are clearly labeled "Washington,
Don�t worry, be
Compounding the ambient nervousness is the pattern of
government-sponsored drills "going live," meaning that real events
occur simultaneously with the scripted scenarios and mirror them to such a precise
degree that coincidence theory is rendered laughable. As a result, complicity
at the highest decision-making levels of government becomes a viable, and
sometimes inevitable, conclusion. For these reasons, TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant
Shield 08 have set the alarm bells ringing in the Portland metro area, and not
just among the feverish fringe. Recent history teaches us that, despite the
protestations of those who believe in artificial synchronicity, there are
reasons to question the purity of the US government's motives.
On the morning of 9/11/01, US northeastern air defenses were crippled by
a Cheney-Rumsfeld production that combined at least four exercise scenarios --
Vigilant Warrior, Vigilant Guardian, Northern Guardian and Northern Vigilance
-- and which, per script, diverted to northern Canada or Alaska many of the
NORAD fighter jets that would have been scrambled per standard operating
procedure in the event of a suspected hijacking. And the few planes left out of
the exercise were not airborne until 80 minutes after the first hijacking alert
-- about 70 minutes longer than normal.
As part of the exercises, false radar blips showed up on air
traffic controllers' screens that masked the flight patterns of the four
hijacked jets and led controllers to believe that as many as 22 planes had been
hijacked. Per standard procedure, various regional air traffic control centers
notified the FAA, which passed on the alerts to NORAD, which couldn't respond
because they hadn't enough fighters available to handle that many hijackings.
Because of the ongoing drills, they didn't even know which blips represented
Also noteworthy is a fifth exercise taking place at the same
time, this one conceived by the National Reconnaissance Office (the NRO
operates the US network of spy satellites) and carried out by CIA operatives.
This exercise was designed to test emergency response capabilities in the event
that an off-course plane crashed into one of the NRO's four office towers.
According to an Associated Press wire service story:
Agency chiefs came up with the scenario
to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art
Haubold. To simulate the damage from the plane, some stairwells and exits were
to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the
"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an
aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the
real world events began, we canceled the exercise."
in cosmic synchronicity apparently see no reason why these events should call
into question the official story. Nor do they see why this series of unlikely
coincidences should invalidate repeated official denials of 9/11 foreknowledge
from the administration.
Here's one delivered to the 9/11 Commission on May 16, 2002
by then National Security Advisor Condi Rice, who actually said, "I don't think anybody could
have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the
World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they
would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a
missile." There are no reports that she was immediately struck by
lightening, nor that the esteemed commissioners collapsed in an amorphous heap
of manic hilarity.
Of course not. Only feverish fringe types would view such
denials with suspicion, considering that intelligence services from at least a dozen countries warned US officials of an
impending attack involving the use of hijacked airliners as missiles. The FBI
was on top of the story, too. At least, several field agents were. But their
warnings got spiked by higher-level administrators and disappeared into the
thin air of a glorious blue sky in early September.
A little C-4 with your
In addition to the ties between simulations and real events
on 9/11/01, a similarly eerie set of "coincidences" occurred in London on 7/7/05. A British firm called
Visor Consultants that calls itself a crisis management advisory organization
was running a series of exercises on behalf of an unnamed client testing
London's capacity to respond to a terrorist attack on its transportation
system. The scenario involved detonating bombs at three preselected underground
tube stations, as well as on a double-decker London bus.
At about 8:50 that morning, just as the exercise was
beginning, three bombs went off within 50 seconds of each other at those same
three stations, duplicating the specifics of the drill to an inexplicable level
of accuracy. For added excitement, the bus that was blown up in the scenario
was, in fact, blown up in London at 9:57 that morning. Fifty-six people,
including the four alleged bombers, died in the blasts. About 800 others were
This is a tough one to hang
on the patsies because those very same suspects couldn't have been where
they had to be to commit these atrocities. It seems they were caught by a
security camera at Luton Station at 7:22 that morning. London police claim the
bombers then rode the 7:40 train to King's Cross, where they were photographed
again. But according to the actual train timetable, the 7:40 train was
cancelled that day and even had it not been cancelled, it would not have
arrived in time for the men to be photographed at King's Cross at 8:26.
There are other inexplicable "coincidences" the
official story either ignores or brushes aside. Surveillance cameras in nearly
all the bombed subways and the bus were conveniently turned off or out of
order. Witnesses and physical evidence indicate that the bombs were not placed
in backpacks by "terrorists" but actually attached underneath the
trains, indicating a level of access to the train cars unavailable to
outsiders. Bruce Lait, an injured witness said, �The metal was pushed upwards
as if the bomb was underneath the train.�
Following the 9/11 scenario of removing first responders
from the area, 1,500 officers from London�s Metropolitan Police, including many
anti-terrorist specialists, were away in Gleneagles, Scotland as part of a
force of 12,000 created to police the 2005 G-8 Summit.
These events left even the predictable cadre of coincidence
acolytes scrambling for comforting rationales in support of the official story
-- which centered on those four Muslim suspects carrying bombs in backpacks and
identified as Al Qaeda members -- that Downing Street peddled to UK and
The blogosphere tells us that one anonymous statistician
calculated the likelihood of the litany of 7/7/05 variables lining up to create
this marvelous bit of synchronicity at one in
3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 -- a figure repeated
uncritically as fact on any number of websites and blogs, although a source is
Other statisticians, perhaps a bit more phobic about commas
and zeroes, have set the figure as low as one in 3.8 million. Obviously all
such figures are open to conjecture and can be manipulated to raise or lower
odds against by adding or subtracting variables. But even the lowest odds
against coincidence, one in 3.8 million, are far beyond anything reasonable
people would bet a nickel on. They suggest a magnitude of improbability that
the coincidence crowd must struggle against in making their case for what is,
at last analysis, statistically impossible.
A few minor details and outcomes that 9/11/01 and 7/7/05
share: Both events helped rescue failing administrations from irrelevance and
political oblivion. Both created rationales to attack a sovereign nation (or,
in the case of the UK, excuse its continued presence there) later proven to be
neither complicit in these "terrorist" events nor a threat to the
region, much less to the US or UK.
Both provided excuses for the right-wing government of the
United States and its allies in Great Britain to curtail or eliminate centuries
of legal protections against all forms of governmental intrusion into the
private lives of citizens. In the US, everything became fair game -- from
domestic surveillance to warrantless searches and seizures to imprisonment
without charges or right to legal counsel to the establishment of "free
speech zones" to keep the rabble away from the targets of their protests.
In the UK, similar surveillance measures were adopted under the tired mantra of
"fighting the war on terror."
And both events spawned a wave of unprecedented military
spending that kept armaments manufacturers and petrochemical concerns -- as
well as their benefactors in government -- rolling in multi-billion dollar
no-bid contracts and nearly drowning in a sea of windfall profits.
exercises, the Iran problem and marketing 101
Which brings us back to the events scheduled to begin in a
week here in Portland. There's a wealth of information available from
mainstream sources that warn us of innocent-sounding government simulations and
their occasional tendencies to morph into the exact events the exercises are
supposed to help prevent.
As noted above, when these simulations "go live,"
the distinction between the exercise and real events blurs, confusing first
responders and local authorities and undermining their ability to make quick
decisions or mount an appropriate response. "Going live" also makes
it easy to identify and blame the "patsies," those unlucky souls and
their alleged backers who have been selected to bear the brunt of national
It's just classic marketing: identify the problem and sell
the solution. In this case, the problem is said to stem from Iran's emerging
threat as a nuclear power, and the solution reverberating through official
Washington is another preemptive strike by the US, this time including the
criminal and arguably insane use of "tactical" nukes against the
allegedly hardened targets that house the sinister facilities that comprise
Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
But that's not the administration's actual problem. Their
real problem is how to sell that attack to a war-weary nation. Advocating
attacks against Bush's "axis of evil" bogeymen has become an
increasingly unpopular position with the public but remains a vital element in
the neocon vision of "full-spectrum dominance" by the US in the
Middle East, as articulated in the infamous PNAC report, called "Rebuilding
America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century."
Their secondary problem is how to deal with anticipated acts of civil
disobedience and possible mass violence that may erupt upon news of such an
The solution? An exercise that "goes live"
involving actual detonation of a dirty bomb in a major American city, instantly
blamed on Iranian radical Islamists, resulting in a "counterstrike"
on Iran and imposition of martial law at home. All this is done, of course, for
the sole purpose of protecting the citizenry from evil dissenters who will
poison their minds by opposing war against Iran, no matter the volume of
manufactured evidence against some previously unknown group of Iranian
fanatics. And yet, there's that pesky paper trail.
Imposing martial law
The rationales and blueprints for implementation of martial
law are already on the books. Reasoning that the USAPATRIOT Act(s) and the
Military Commissions Act weren't quite repressive enough, on May 9, 2007, Bush
issued a document entitled
"National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland
Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20." This directive outlines the
federal government's plan for maintaining continuity in the face of a
The document defines a �catastrophic emergency� as �any
incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass
casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population,
infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.� Well, that
certainly narrows things down.
If any of these events occurs, Bush grants himself the power
to lead the entire federal government, not merely the executive branch. And,
recognizing his veneration of constitutional law, he graciously gives himself
sole responsibility �for ensuring constitutional government.�
Translated into our native tongue, NSPD 51/HSPD-20 would
impose martial law under the authority of the White House and the DHS. It would
suspend constitutional government under the provisions of Continuity in
Since 2003, following the invasion of Iraq, Homeland
Security (DHS) has contemplated time and again the possibility of a so-called
code red alert "scenario" -- using a potential or possible Al Qaeda
terrorist attack on American soil -- as a pretext for implementing martial law.
And why would such extreme crowd control measures be
necessary? Simply put, people have just about had it with the Bush
administration. The outrages keep on coming. Impeachable offenses keep piling
up. The economy's nearly ruined, joblessness has hit the middle class and the
dollar is worth about a third less than it was just seven years ago.
The latest figures report that our liberating presence in
Iraq has murdered more than a million civilians and created about 5 million
refugees. US troop fatalities in Iraq stand at 3,813 as of this writing, with
tens of thousands more severely maimed and thrown into a new battlefield in the
underfunded, overextended VA health care system.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, Iran is the next jewel in the
PNAC's crown, while Syria is in line for an oratorical upgrade in Bush's
demonization campaign. Domestic repression is edging its way toward the golden
age of Stalinism. Given current levels of discontent among the populace and the
potential to further inflame that discontent in a variety of ways, it would be
weird indeed if the administration didn't have a plan to deal with the millions
of malcontents who would view a bombing campaign against Iran -- possibly
involving first-strike use of nuclear weapons -- as the absolute last straw.
Cheney goes nuk-u-lur?
All this and we recently learned that Caporegime Cheney may
have just become the world's newest nuclear
power as the result of a bizarre episode involving the unprecedented
removal and transfer of six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from Minot AB in
North Dakota to Barksdale AB in Louisiana -- the main staging base for B-52s
bound for the Middle East.
These aren't just normal nukes either, if such a thing as a
normal nuke exists. The AGM-129 Advanced
Cruise Missile only accepts a W80-3 variable-yield nuclear warhead that can
be set to deliver blasts ranging from 5 kilotons to 150 kilotons. Just the
ticket for turning an anti-terrorism drill involving detonation of a low-yield
"suitcase nuke" into a real-life event.
Dial it down to minimum blast yield, explode it somewhere
away from the main commercial areas, annihilate a few blocks of rustbelt-like
industrial property, let local winds confine the radiation plume to a few areas
where property values are low and the inhabitants aren't predominantly white
and let the games begin.
Just to make things even more entertaining, one of these
missiles seems to be missing. Reports from several sources say either five or
six of them left Minot on August 30 on pylons attached to the B-52's wing
hard-points -- or, to put it simply, in firing position (which is in itself an
extremely grave violation of protocols regarding shipment of nuclear warheads).
Some reports say six arrived at Barksdale, other sources say
only five. It's difficult to chase this point down because Google has
apparently spent a good deal of time and effort eliminating links to web pages
that put the missile count at five. Six is the official story, all warheads
accounted for, everything under control, and Google is going to pitch in and
purge URLs in the interests of national security.
But whether it's five or six, it's acknowledged by Air Force
personnel that the nukes remained unsecured on the B-52 for at least 10 hours,
parked in a relatively isolated area at Barksdale. If somebody in a position of
serious authority wanted to steal a nuclear warhead, this is one way to go
about it. And that still leaves a few "bunker-busters" for use
Be sure to read these comments
from current and ex-Air Force personnel regarding the sheer impossibility of
any of these events occurring by mistake, much less the gross violations of
nuclear custody, security and handling protocols by at least a dozen highly
trained airmen who are constantly evaluated for the mental toughness and
physical strength required to perform their duties. And yet, as ridiculous as
the "multiple simultaneous mistakes" scenario seems, that's exactly
what the Air Force and the US government so desperately want you to believe.
False flags over
At its most basic, a false
flag op means pretending to be the enemy and carrying out strikes against
one's own country, then blaming them on designated individuals or groups
officially despised by the government. These "patsies" then become
the embodiments of a state or sub-state group (such as Al Qaeda) against which
the US wants to manufacture a case for military aggression. At its most obvious,
a false flag op looks just like 9/11/01 or 7/7/05 -- and possibly 10/15/07.
Given a passing familiarity with even a few of the elements
outlined above, many Portlanders are taking this one very seriously indeed --
members of the feverish fringe and the solid center alike. It doesn't take much
imagination to ascribe malevolent motives to activities this administration
claims are good for us.
All the pieces will be in place. The top officials in town.
The Iranian problem presumably still unresolved. The usual alphabet soup of
security agencies represented. The majority of the citizenry rendered fully
docile by the reporting and editorial pablum of mass media narcotics purveyors
like The Oregonian.
Then there's this interesting viewpoint from one who should know:
"The greatest threat now is 'a 9/11' occurring with a group of terrorists
armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in
the middle of one of our own cities . . . it�s a very real threat." Dick
Cheney, April 15, 2007.
Coincidentally, as some would say, Cheney will be in
Portland on October 16. To survey the damage? To push the button? To dine at
Jakes? We don't know, and he's not talking.
False flag operations:
The Reichstag Fire
The Tonkin Gulf Incident
The 9/11 Timeline
London Train Bombings
Warnings of Coming False Flag Events
Recent presidential directives and executive orders:
Outlawing the anti-war movement
Martial law blueprint
More on the missing nuke(s):
Email the author at firstname.lastname@example.org
and have a virtual conversation with an actual member of the feverish fringe.
Somebody just stole a nuclear weapon
Staging nukes for Iran?
A contrary viewpoint