How many ‘secret agents’ did it take to screw up 9/11?
April 22, 2010
Were ‘hundreds, maybe thousands’ of covert operatives really required to successfully execute the attacks of September 11th?
How many actual individuals were in fact really needed to carry out a black operation as complex and audacious as 9/11? Moreover, how could this alleged small army of covert operatives ever be relied upon to keep their mouths shut?
It’s a good question, one well worth addressing. But you certainly can’t answer the ‘hundreds, maybe thousands’ question thoroughly in a five minute interview on Morning Joe or The Ed Show. Brief references and sound bites in regard to 9/11 often leave the neophyte more confused than illuminated. After all, getting to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11 can be a complicated and time consuming challenge, one that requires commitment and a thorough examination of the evidence.
So, as dramatic and complex as the attacks may have been, could it instead have been only a relatively scant force of ‘agents’ in key positions that were able to control and execute every aspect of the attacks? Let’s take a good look at this question and give it the time and attention it deserves.
“…to successfully execute.”
First things first; just exactly how successful were the attacks of September 11th? The assertion that 9/11 was a well oiled plan that came off without a hitch may itself be erroneous and could spin the ‘hundreds, maybe thousands’ question in ways that it was not likely intended.
Several theories about the purpose and ultimate destination of hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 have been debated over the years. We still don’t know exactly where it was headed and for what purpose, but was it really part of the original scheme to hijack the plane, fly it over rural Pennsylvania and then blow it up in midair? Compared to how the other hijacked flights were put to use that day, it seems unlikely. Flight 93 must have been a botched part of the plan, but it probably had nothing to do with patriotic passengers storming the cockpit.
The video record of the suspicious collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 has essentially become the Zapruder film of 9/11. But could the belated implosion of WTC 7 actually have been one monumental blunder? Compelling evidence compiled since 9/11appears to indicate that the conspirators originally pushed the button on WTC 7 shortly after the collapse of the North Tower when Building 7’s obvious demolition would be well hidden under a rising cloud of debris. But when the smoke cleared, Building 7 was still standing intact; the demolition system had failed.
The idea that 9/11 may well have been at least partly a bust should be a heartening prospect to activists. When hubris outweighs competence at the highest levels, “cock-ups” of all kinds are certainly to be expected. And nothing attracts more attention than well publicized blunders. On the other hand, 9/11 did generate just enough public support to effectively squelch any crippling resistance from the anti-war faction to the U.S.’s forays into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whether 9/11 was a success or a failure for the conspirators has yet to be determined and will have much to do with the ultimate success or failure of the 9/11 movement.
The Quality of the Question(er)
I had a nightmare a few weeks ago. I was a guest on The View.
Elizabeth Hasselbeck: “Mr. Baker, it would have taken hundreds, maybe even thousands of secret agents to plan and then execute a conspiracy as big as 9/11. And yet none of them have blown the whistle. That is, like, totally not possible.”
But I was ready for her:
“Elizabeth, the answer to this one question alone would take the rest of the program to thoroughly examine, but let me start by asking you a question. What convincing evidence can you cite that proves that the basic premise of your question is valid; that it would have indeed, as you say, taken ‘hundreds, maybe thousands’ of ‘secret agents’ to ‘do’ 9/11?”
Since the beginning, 9/11 truth advocates have been required to prove their extremely controversial views with meticulous research and carefully presented evidence, but our detractors often shoot from the hip at will. And when these people confront us with erroneous assertions folded into booby trapped questions, they must be called out. The assumption that 9/11 required hundreds of operatives is erroneous at best and to flippantly cite it as fact is irresponsible.
Recently (amazingly) Geraldo Rivera interviewed Alex Jones on Fox News. Geraldo was surprisingly cordial and Alex was quite good, but when a Fox News spokes-model was brought in to the discussion and claimed that there is “absolutely no evidence” that 9/11 was an inside job, I wish that Alex had responded by saying something like:
“Excuse me but who are you and why are you here? Usually when an ‘expert commentator’ is brought in, they are just that, an expert in the field being discussed. What work have you done on this vast subject that makes your insights so indispensable to the discussion? The ‘no evidence’ claim has always been bogus and no amount of repetition on your part will make it any less so.”
When you want to put as much control as possible into the hands of the fewest number of people, much can be accomplished by simply rearranging the deck of cards before you deal. In the case of 9/11, the deck was clearly stacked high.
When Manhattan developer Larry Silverstein took control of the entire World Trade Center complex just weeks before 9/11, the number one terrorist target in the western hemisphere was suddenly taken out of the control of the Port Authority—the city agency that had always run the facility since it was built thirty years before—and, for the first time, put in the hands of a private consortium of business men. The ninety-nine year lease deal that Silverstein made with the city of New York would presumably put every operational aspect of the WTC into the hands of a board of directors (or an even smaller cadre within the board) who could more effectively keep every part of the plot well within the family.
In June of 2001, fifty years of tried and true Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) regarding the interception of hijacked domestic aircraft were abruptly taken out of the hands of the FAA and rerouted to the Pentagon—specifically, to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. When Rumsfeld later claimed that he had no idea that Flight 77 was headed toward the Pentagon until it was hit (at 9:37AM, almost an hour and a half after the first reported hijacking) it would appear that either the new procedures set in place three months before 9/11 had failed miserably (even within the world’s most secure airspace) or that Rumsfeld simply had something else in mind for that morning.
For decades, clandestine agencies have been installing operatives in key positions all throughout the media, educational institutions, the corporate world, wherever their time and energy can best be spent to maximize control and, generally speaking, keep an eye on things. September of 2001 may well have represented the culmination of this effort, a time when all the necessary mechanisms were finally in place to usher in the ‘New American Century.’
In the final analysis, what is it really that technology allows us to? Is it inappropriate to define technology as “any device or tool that puts the capacity to perform the tasks of the many into the hands of the few”? How many times have we heard social critics condemn a new technology because of how many people it would put out of work?
Whether or not 9/11 required any particularly exotic hardware is a good question. There’s nothing exotic about the devices required to remotely commandeer aircraft mid-flight and pilot them to any location on the planet, a tactic that may have simplified the pseudo-hijackings considerably. Such technology, ironically intended for use originally as anti-hijacking tools, has been with us for decades.
Technology also allows the control of many disparate activities to be routed to one (or very few) locations where covert conductors can manipulate and orchestrate ‘bold symphonies of intrigue.’ The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) bunker on the 23rd floor of WTC 7 and the command center in the basement of the Whitehouse where Dick Cheney spent the morning are just two locations cited by researchers as possible conspiratorial control centers on 9/11.
Certainly the use of applied technology in an ‘op’ like 9/11 would drastically reduce the number of actual flesh and blood participants in the game, any of whom could, at any time, betray the plot unintentionally, become subject to blackmail or, worse yet, grow a conscience and speak out about some of the horrendous things they took part in that day.
During an interview with Charlie Rose, Valerie Plame described the intense psychological training she endured when she first joined the CIA. Imagine the implications. Using the latest in sophisticated psychological analysis, how hard would it be to pick and choose, among thousands of new recruits, the workers, the soldiers, the “Oswalds” and the “Osamas?”
First, you could cull out the dim bulbs for desk jobs and menial tasks. Next, you could weed out the true-blues and the do-gooders and make sure they are kept well away from any particularly shady ‘ops.’ But you could also pick out the psychopaths, or “asteroids,” those well suited for the down and dirty work—the super patriots and automatons, who do what they’re told and never ask questions. It’s just not in their nature.
In 1961, Yale professor Stanley Milgram recruited participants for an ‘obedience study.’ He instructed them to administer electric shocks of increasing intensity to a man restrained in the next room. Though some of the participants protested, all of them, more or less, did what they were told, even as the man’s screams became more and more desperate. The ‘victim’ was an actor and his screams were not real, but the lessons Milgram taught us about the human tendency to acquiesce to authority are timeless.
“Does Barbara Walters believe the conclusions of the
Warren Commission Report because she is a famous, successful newswoman or is Barbara Walters a famous, successful newswoman because she believes in the conclusions
of the Warren Commission Report?”
From the first moment soldiers enter basic training, they have hammered into them the strict dictate to ‘go where we say, do what you’re told and don’t ask questions.’ Similar climates are cultivated in government, corporations and the clandestine agencies. How many of those who took part in the operational aspects of 9/11 were specifically chosen because they learned this lesson particularly well?
How many of those who have risen to positions of power all throughout government, the military and the media are truly people of exceptional character, vision and talent and how many were chosen simply because they could be relied upon to not disrupt the status quo? Does Barbara Walters believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report because she is a famous, successful newswoman or is Barbara Walters a famous, successful newswoman because she believes in the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report?
I wonder if the modeling agency where Geraldo found his 9/11 “expert” taught her that covert operations—“psy-ops,” “black-ops,” ”false flag” operations, etc.—quite often involve many people without their knowledge? If you didn’t know that you were playing a role in a covert operation, how could you ever spill the beans?
Bob Baer, the very real CIA agent who was loosely portrayed in the movie Syriana and once told radio show host Thom Hartmann that “the evidence points [to 9/11 being an inside job],” is also on record saying that most of his career was spent traveling the world doing what he was told and that he was often not given a glimpse of the big picture. The idea that every engineer, physicist, aerodynamics expert, plant supervisor or line worker who was involved in the design and construction of the stealth bomber were told what they were working on is highly unlikely.
Is it so hard to imagine that small teams of specially chosen workers, being carefully “handled” by covert agents, may have installed explosive devices at key structural points in the Twin Towers and Building 7 as part of an “elevator modernization” project—an effort that was actually undertaken nine months before 9/11—and never pieced together what they were really doing or did know but simply kept it quiet? Or that a Boeing worker may have been instructed to install a new ‘computer relay box’ in the cockpit of a passenger liner that he was told would ‘help stabilize turbulence displacement at high altitudes’ when, instead, the box was really an upgrade to existing anti-hijacking technology that would allow the plane to be more efficiently commandeered?
But there are also those who have claimed that explosive systems are secretly built into mega-high rises so that, in case of an emergency, the buildings can be brought down without toppling onto neighboring structures. In the case of highly secure government or military buildings, demolition systems could keep vital secrets out of the hands of terrorists who have taken over a building. And, as mentioned above, anti-hijacking, or ‘home run,’ technology has been built into (some) commercial aircraft since the ‘70s.
Whether we’re talking about the CIA, Mossad, NSA, MI-6, FBI or whoever, just think of the resources, talent, technology and access of the modern clandestine agency. Gaining access to restricted sites and dealing expertly with all manner of gadgets and gizmos is what these people are specifically trained for and would, as a rule, likely involve as few of them as possible.
The ways that ‘higher ups’ can bully and intimidate ‘lower downs’ before, during and after an event, are, of course, myriad. And they run the gamut from subtle to severe.
From the outset, we’re all subject to a certain inertia in human nature. Like cars on a highway in dense traffic, we are ‘encouraged’ to simply move forward in our lane and make no deviations. If we do, tires squeal, fenders crunch and mayhem ensues. Those who seek to manipulate and control the masses learned long ago that, to a large extent, the people can be relied upon to monitor themselves; only a minimal application of sloganeering and indoctrination are required. This technique is so effective that even harsh conservative agendas are often supported most by those who most stand to lose if such agendas are enacted.
Interestingly, much of what we see driving people in adulthood can be traced to what we observe in children in grade school. Cliques, clubs and cadres of all kinds are a fascination to us from an early age and are reinforced in us as adults (i.e. fraternities and sororities, private clubs, secret societies, even reality TV programming). The only people who love the exclusivity of membership or the thrill of being in on a good, juicy secret more than kids are adults. After all, adult’s secrets are usually much more intriguing.
Imagine being ‘in on’ the great secret of 9/11? Imagine the sense of entitlement such insider knowledge might provide to an ambitious, career minded ladder-climber wanting nothing more from life than to be admitted into the innermost of inner sanctums and smoky backrooms?
The few who rule the many are, generally speaking, cut from the same cloth. Whether we’re talking about soldiers, politicians, corporatists, media magnates, ‘spooks,’ even the mob, the basic rules are the same. A soldier seeks to take the next hill with the same single-minded intensity (and discretion) as a businessman pursuing his most recent profit projection or a mobster planning his next heist; collateral damage and a host of grim ‘externalities’ are all just factored in and forgotten. The thoughtful and philosophical need not apply.
Chief among these rules is, of course, anti-authority or omertà; a strict adherence to obedience, loyalty and secrecy, and the greater the stakes the higher the price paid for infractions. And when a secret as big as 9/11 is in danger of being compromised it’s a safe bet that the gloves fly off faster than in a hockey fight.
Like fingers clenched in a fist, the politicians, the media, the clandestine agencies, the military and the mob have become virtually indistinguishable from one another in our globalist age and are working hand in hand like never before. Certainly not all of those who run in these circles openly condone rampant criminality or had foreknowledge of the attacks—probably only a small minority fit this description—but those who do represent some of the most ruthless and mercenary individuals on the planet; people who wouldn’t blink at the prospect of solving problems Tony Soprano style (or, worse yet, Dick Cheney style). Remember, even devout conservative republicans, some of the most blinkered and intractable people in the world, referred to the neo-cons early on as “the crazies.”
The long list of techniques that such craven power mongers use to wield their power and enforce their will hardly need to be recounted here. Like an Egyptian pharaoh sealing workers in a tomb rather that risk having them divulge it’s location, those who would first plan and then execute an act as monstrous as 9/11 are certainly capable of anything, a lesson that many people who strolled Dealey Plaza on the morning of November 22nd, 1963—and possibly the 9/11 truth movement’s good friend Barry Jennings—have learned at bitter cost to them and their loved ones.
Ultra Mind Control
Despite how bizarre this subject may sound to some, we ignore it at our peril. The fact is that mind control—specifically trauma based dissociative disorder; i.e. multiple personalities artificially created within a single individual—has been a reality at least since the end of World War Two and possibly even as far back as the inquisition. And you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to realize just how useful such brutalized and manipulated people might be as players in a host of ‘special’ operations.
Related fairly realistically in such Hollywood movies as The Manchurian Candidate, such people are tortured to the point where their minds split into parts, or ‘altars’, that absorb the trauma that the individual cannot. These split personalities or ‘multiples’ can be controlled with trigger words (and other stimulus) and are then exploited for use in secure information transference, assassinations, even sexual services.
Highly classified information can be given to a specific altar within a multiple who is then sent to meet with their contact in person. The contact triggers the ‘altar’ that is carrying the information, the subject relays the information and then the contact switches the multiple back. No wires to tap, no signals to intercept, no codes to break. The subject has no idea what’s going on and therefore couldn’t spill the beans even if they wanted to.
Quite a few conspiracy researchers have claimed that Sirhan Sirhan, the alleged lone assassin of Robert Kennedy, fits the profile perfectly, but we don’t have to take their word for it. Dr. Herbert Siegel, one of the worlds leading experts on hypnosis—another tidier, more ubiquitous mind control technique—is the inventor of a test used to determine an individual’s “hypnotizability.” When he examined Sirhan’s case, especially his “total and complete amnesia” regarding his actions, Dr. Siegel determined that Sirhan was quite literally an “hypnosis virtuoso.” This personality type falls within the very highest percentile of those most susceptible to hypnosis.
Certainly the ‘psych’ testing CIA recruits undergo would do much to determine their “virtuosity” in many areas, not the least of which their “hypnotizability.” But the most disturbing thing about mind control is that the techniques mentioned above are just the ones we know about. Who can say what ‘new science’ is being explored in the scores of secret CIA prisons scattered throughout the planet. To a culture whose ‘virtuosity’ in making enemies is legendary, we do well to consider this question.
So, how does one actually tally the number of actual individuals who were operationally involved in a scheme of the magnitude of 9/11 since its inception? Is it even possible to do so? Probably not.
But did it really take ‘hundreds, maybe thousands’ of ‘agents’—all in the know and willing to go to their graves with their secrets—to set in place the ‘pre-game’ measures mentioned above, or was it just a strident conservative agenda, meticulously installed over time, that held within it the seeds of madness?
Did it really take ‘hundreds, maybe thousands’ of ‘agents’ to install a demolition system in the Twin Towers and WTC 7, or was it a relatively small contingent of technicians who did the work, possibly in increments, possibly over the course of years, possibly all the while being kept in the dark as to what they were really doing and why?
Did it really take ‘hundreds, maybe thousands’ of ‘agents’ to install state of the art aircraft commandeering hardware in the ‘hijacked’ jets? Was it even necessary to do so when this kind of technology may have come standard in Boeings built since the ‘70s?
Did it really take ‘hundreds, maybe thousands’ of ‘agents’ to let Mohammed Atta and his buddies pass through security and board the planes that day or was it just a simple order handed down to boarding personnel from a supervisor? Did the alleged hijackers ever really board the planes at all (their names never appeared on passenger manifests)?
Did it really take ‘hundreds, maybe thousands’ of ‘agents’ to direct traffic and man the communication channels that day, or had things been set up so that very few people were manning just a handful of secret control rooms?
Did it really take ‘hundreds, maybe thousands’ of ‘agents’ to orchestrate and manipulate the information that reached the members of the 9/11 Commission and force them to play their parts in the cover up of the millennium, or was it just one man at the top, 9/11 Commission Executive Director and Bush administration insider Phillip Zelikow, who kept a strict vigil at the gates?
Would the plotters ever have even considered an operation as ambitious as 9/11 if it did involve large numbers of participants, any of whom might carelessly compromise the plan at any time? Wouldn’t step one in the planning stage have been to minimize the number of ‘agents’ in the loop and on the ground for a host of obvious reasons?
We may never be able to prove how many people took part in the planning and execution of the attacks of September 11th, but the assumption that a small army of conspirators was required to ‘do’ 9/11 is unprovable at best and, for many good reasons, highly unlikely. At a time when erroneous conjecture and uneducated opinionating have lost all meaning in a criminal investigation of literally stunning magnitude, the quality of the answers—but also the quality of the questions—must be responsibly evaluated.
Copyright Darkprints, 2010
Thanks to Canadian media critic and long time 9/11 truth activist Barrie Zwicker.