M. Williams

I believe there is more to the 9/11 terrorist attacks than meets the eye. That is, I do not accept, as such, the official narrative presented by the United States government investigatory agencies. The 9/11 Commission report, for example, has not been fully disclosed: several key pages remain classified. But it is not, in my opinion, sufficient even if these pages were disclosed, for hundreds of people have read the classified pages and no one has managed to leak the secret contents to the general public, so there's probably very little interesting material there. Thus, I believe it is more likely the truth about 9/11 is far more difficult to ascertain and, although I am certain there are documents that will prove the complicity of the government in the attacks, I believe they are hidden and inaccessible to all except the top political and military officials.



However, I do believe the attacks are a sort of false flag. They were unilaterally blamed on al-Qaeda, an organisation the United States military had given funds and weapons to in the 1980s. This may be legitimate, but instead of simply targeting al-Qaeda and its affiliates, in the aftermath of the attacks, the President and the military launched massive attacks on entire nations: Iraq, Afghanistan; and, using 9/11 and the War on Terror as casus belli, subsequent irresponsible "crusades" in Syria and Libya. The recent death of Senator John McCain is probably the only reason the United States won't likely be getting involved in massive Middle Eastern wars for the foreseeable future. Thanks be to God.



With regard to 9/11, to me, it is simply not realistic that all of the "facts" of the official narrative could be true—that the burning jet fuel actually melted the steel beams, that the terrorists were able to simultaneously hijack four airplanes (and successfully attack three targets), that World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by falling debris —all of these seem too convenient to me. I would not presume, since I am not an expert on this matter, to make some final judgment on the attacks. However, based on the pattern of history, and the many occasions in history that the United States government has orchestrated "attacks" to justify some end: usually a War —I believe my opinion that 9/11 was a "government conspiracy" is well-founded and credible. In this article, I will give examples from history of false flags known to be committed by the United States, or at least very probably so.





Historical false flags





But what is a false flag?



A false flag is a secret operation wherein a tragedy —a bombing, a mass shooting, etc —is orchestrated, and is intentionally blamed on someone else who is not actually guilty of the incident. In the history of the United States, there are many occurrences of false flags that are now being openly acknowledged.





The Boston "Massacre", falsely depicted as an unprovoked attack

The Boston Massacre, for example, is one of the best-known cases of a false flag in American history. Indisputably, this "massacre" was an important event, for it stirred up popular sentiments against the British, and led to the Revolutionary War and the eventual illegitimate independence of the thirteen colonies from their lawful monarch. I believe the title given to the event —the "Boston Massacre" —is a good proof that words are powerful, for in reality, the Boston Massacre was not a massacre at all: it was actually a Riot, where the British soldiers were forced to defend themselves against an armed and angry mob, albeit a small minority of the population; —a revolutionary band trying to stir up a War.





The sinking of the U.S.S. Maine is another event along these lines. Although it has not been confirmed as a false flag, it is very probably so. The story goes like this: the U.S.S. Maine was sent to Havana, Cuba during the Cuban War of Independence against Spain. In Havana harbour, the ship suddenly exploded and sank, killing most of the crew.





This event was blamed on Spain (without evidence), leading to the Spanish-American War, wherein Cuba was seized for the United States and became its colonial possession, along with Puerto Rico and the Philippine Islands. It is likely that the United States government or the Cuban revolutionaries blew up the ship in order to ensure the U.S. would enter a War against Spain, thus ensuring the few remaining colonies of Catholic Spain would be severed from their mother country and gained for the United States' empire of Freemasonry. I would note, of course, that even if Spain were to blame for the sinking of the Maine, we could hardly object: it would be in self-defence against the United States' foreign ministers constantly agitating for Cuba to rebel against Spain, and the presence of a U.S. enemy ship in a Spanish harbour.





Remarkably, something I did not know until quite recently, is that there is much evidence that the attack on Pearl Harbor was desired by the U.S. government, or at least by President Franklin Roosevelt. This is related by Charles Coulombe in his book Puritan's Empire: A Catholic Perspective on American History: "There is, however, evidence to suggest that Roosevelt did know that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent," Coulombe writes. Citing the research of Professor Charles Tansil, Coulombe continues: assuming Tansil is correct, "then FDR knowingly sacrificed over 2000 American lives at Pearl Harbor to involve the country in a war which otherwise he could never have managed to get the country into" (Puritan's Empire, pp. 429-430, Tumblar House, 2015). What did President Roosevelt gain as a result? A third and fourth term, and had he not died, he could've remained president indefinitely.





Operation Northwoods, the nail in the coffin





Caught in the act: a failed proposal to bomb

targets in the United States and blame it on Cuba;

below, Chief of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer, a Mason

Taken by themselves, it is possible for the ardent apologist for American history (and I count myself as having been one of those apologists) to try to individually take apart each episode. Some have even obstinately denied the immense scholarly research that disproved the Boston Massacre. But how can the apologists deny Operation Northwoods, a (albeit failed) proposed false flag that has been openly acknowledged by the United States government itself?