The
easiest way to carry out a false flag
attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very
attack you want to carry out.
— Captain Eric H. May, former U.S. Army military intelligence officer
The
past two decades have
been marked by a large number of man-made terror events which
remain unsolved to this day. Several of these events involved
heinous crimes of mass murder and are similar in a remarkable
way. These are the disasters which occurred during security drills or
military exercises in which the scenario was incredibly similar,
if not identical to the real-life terror attack.
Understanding the nature of the exercises that created the
background and framework for these attacks is essential
to understanding how the attacks were carried out. The fact that
these real-life terror events occurred within the context of
virtually identical terrorism/security exercises has been completely
ignored by the media -- as if the exercises had never happened. Of the
major terror events that occurred during such exercises, we will look
at three specific examples: the aerial attacks of 9/11, the bombings of
the London Underground and a bus in 2005, and the sinking of the Baltic
ferry Estonia
in 1994.
While
there certainly
have been other major disasters that occurred within the context of
military exercises, the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk
in 2000, for example, and the 1988 downing of Iran Air Flight
655 by the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf, the three
events being discussed here involved attacks on
civilian transportation systems far from any war zone. The
three disasters were all handled in the same way by
their respective governments and media. In each case, before a
real investigation could begin to establish the facts and examine
the evidence, a politically acceptable explanation was put forward by
government officials and repeated, without question, by the mass
media. Evidence and facts that contradict the "official" version
of events have been confiscated, destroyed, or simply ignored.
The
extremely hasty and
improper destruction of the steel from the World Trade
Center, for example, must rank as the most egregious case of
destruction of evidence from a crime scene in
American history. In late September 2001, officials
uncovered a criminal scheme to divert metal to dumps in
Long Island and New Jersey. Some 250 tons of scrap metal
were found at unofficial dump sites. In November 2001 every
truck carrying steel from the World Trade Center was outfitted with a
GPS (Global Positioning System) device monitored by an Israeli
named Yoram Shalmon of PowerLoc Technologies of Toronto,
Ontario, a subcontractor on the clean-up project. Shalmon
tracked nearly 200 trucks in New York City in real time using
PowerLoc's Vehicle Location Device (VLD). Each VLD unit cost about
$1,000.
“We
were able to start
identifying patterns of behavior. If a driver arrived late, the traffic
analyst would look at why. Maybe the driver stopped for lunch, or
maybe he ran into traffic,” Shalmon told Jacqueline Emigh
of SecuritySolutions.com. “Ninety-nine percent of the
drivers were extremely driven to do their jobs. But there were big
concerns, because the loads consisted of highly sensitive material. One
driver, for example, took an extended lunch break of an hour and a
half. There was nothing criminal about that, but he was
dismissed. There were also cases where trucks did little
detours from their routes,” Shalmon said.
SELLING THE
EVIDENCE - The steel
from the
World
Trade Center, critical evidence from the crime scene, was destroyed
before it could be examined by experts. Alan D. Ratner of Metal
Management and Hugo Neu Schnitzer East of Jersey City profited
from this criminal destruction of evidence. The steel was quickly
cut into small pieces and sold to Asian steel companies to prevent
it from becoming forensic evidence.
Likewise,
during the
official dive for evidence to the wreck of Estonia, on which
more than 852 people are known to have died, the crucial locking
bolt from the bow visor, which officials blame for having caused
the catastrophe, was thrown back into the sea. The bolt had been
removed by divers and brought to the surface for investigation
only to be thrown back by Börje Stenström, the Swedish navy commander
who was the head of the technical group of the international
investigation commission. According to German
investigators, Stenström threw away the bolt, which according to
his own scenario of the sinking, was "one of the most important
pieces of evidence."
Estonia's
bow visor was
blamed by
corrupt investigators for causing the sinking. The crucial piece
of evidence, however, was thrown back into the sea. The
Swedish government's effort to support the "official lie" with a
computer simulation of the sinking failed because the vessel simply
won't sink unless there is a hole below the waterline.
The
first rule in
maintaining a cover-up is to control access to the evidence. The second
rule is to destroy any and all evidence that contradicts the
official version of events.
The
fact that these three
disasters occurred during very similar terror scenarios being staged as
part of an exercise has been ignored by the mass media, which has
treated these extremely uncanny coincidences as complete
non-issues.
Information
about the
exercises has been kept from the public. The government cover-ups
have been greatly facilitated by the compliant mass media which
has consistently ignored the fact that these disasters occurred within
the context of strikingly similar terrorism exercises.
The
terrorist attacks,
for example, that struck New York and Washington on 9/11, and the
London bombings of July 7, 2005, were the realization (i.e. the
making real) of computer-based scenarios that were being staged in
the same place at the same time. Would a truly free press ignore the
fact that these terror atrocities occurred within the
context of very similar terror exercises?
"The
easiest way to carry
out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that
simulates the very attack you want to carry out," Captain Eric H.
May, a former military intelligence officer from the U.S.
Army wrote in an article entitled "False Flag Prospects, 2008 -
Top Three U.S. Target Cities."
"This
is exactly how
government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7
'terror' attacks," May writes, "which were in reality government
attacks blamed on 'terrorists'."
THE 9/11
FAIRY TALE – The alleged
hijackers,
according to the government and media version. Why has the mass
media shown no interest in interviewing the families of these men in
order to support the official story? How can it be than several of them
are reported to be alive and the media doesn't investigate?
False
flag terror attacks
are designed and carried out with the intention of having a targeted
foe wrongly blamed in order to manipulate public opinion and
foment war.
Captain
May, a Texan from
Houston, certainly knows what he is talking about. He is an expert in
military exercises involving simulations. May completed advanced
courses at the U.S. Army's school for military intelligence
officers at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and served five years with the U.S.
Army's 75th Division as an Opposing Forces Controller, where he
ran "contrarian scenarios."
May's
aim, he says, as a
former military intelligence officer who spent five years conducting
war games, is to warn the public that the "'next 9/11' --
constantly promised by officials and the media -- is likely to be
carried out under the guise of future military exercises."
"If
the American people
are aware of pending exercises and the danger they represent," May
says, "then the exercises cannot 'go live' and effect the very
terror events that they are supposed to be rehearsing against."
9/11
and the July 7, 2005
bombings in London "have smoking guns proving that the mass murderers
were not foreign terrorists but domestic tyrants," May writes. The
"smoking guns," he says, are the terror exercises that simulated
the attacks that actually occurred.
While
the
terrorism/security drills created the "contrarian scenario" framework
within which the real terror attacks occurred, it does not
necessarily follow that the agency running the exercise is the actual
terrorist. The true culprit is much more likely to be a
foreign agency, who is covertly, but intimately aware of
the planning of the exercise. By having access to the critical
computer networks involved in the exercise this outside agency has
the ability to hijack the drill and make it "go live."
While
the real terrorists
could be from any agency that is involved in the drill, they could also
be from a foreign intelligence organization that has gained "back
door" access to the computer networks on which the exercise is
planned and carried out.
Israeli
military
intelligence, for example, which has long been engaged in supplying
enterprise software, such as Ptech, and network security personnel and
programs to the U.S. government and military, undoubtedly has
"back door" access to these most sensitive computer networks.
As
May says, the "smoking
gun" terror drills disprove the official fairy tale that "Islamic
terrorists" are responsible for these false flag terror attacks.
The Arabs and Muslims who have been wrongly blamed for 9/11 and
the London bombings have simply been framed, like Lee Harvey Oswald, as
part of the deception.
KILLING THE
PATSY – Jacob
Rubinstein, a.k.a.
Jack Ruby, a violent Jew from Chicago with close ties to
the Jewish crime network, shoots the patsy of the Kennedy
assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald, in Dallas. Ruby's father, an
alcoholic carpenter and deserter from the Russian army, came to America
from Sokolov, a Zionist hotbed near Warsaw with his brother,
Abraham. Rubinstein's mother, Fannie, was a
Yiddish-speaking illiterate who was unable to learn to even sign
her own name after 35 years in the United States. The Rubinstein
children lived in foster homes while Fannie spent time in the
mental hospital in Elgin, Illinois.
THE
CHICAGO CONNECTION
Itzhak
Rabin, a senior
Israeli military officer and ally of Shimon Peres, also happened to be
in Dallas on the day President John F. Kennedy was killed.
The question might be asked, what business did Itzhak Rabin of the
Israeli military have in Dallas on November 22, 1963? On January
1, 1964, Rabin was promoted to Chief of Staff after returning from
Dallas.
Rabin's
father, Nehemiah,
had lived some thirteen years in Chicago's Yiddish-speaking Jewish
community on the West Side, some of that time at 2734 Crystal
Street with a Solomon Turovlin of the Jewish Daily Forward, the
Yiddish language paper. The elder Rabin (reportedly born Rubitzov) was
involved in Chicago's Yiddish-speaking Zionist community, of which
the Rubinstein family was also a part, before migrating
to Palestine as a member of the Jewish Legion sometime after
September 1918. Rabin's father from Chicago became one of the
founders of the underground Zionist militia, the Haganah, in Jerusalem
in 1920.
LONDON
- JULY 7, 2005
At
the exact time of the
terror bombings of the London Underground and a bus at Tavistock
Square, a man named Peter Power was, with his crisis management
company, Visor Consultants Ltd., conducting a terrorism drill for
a mysterious un-named client. The Visor exercise was precisely
identical to the bombings that occurred. Just how likely is such a
coincidence?
Peter
Power had
previously worked at Scotland Yard, the Anti Terrorist Branch, and as a
police superintendent in West Dorset, England. In 1993, Power was
himself the subject of a criminal investigation which, in April
1993, led to his suspension and retirement from the police.
Superintendent
Power was
suspended following an internal police inquiry, which resulted in a
file being submitted to the Director of Public Prosecution. Oddly,
the details of the Power investigation have been kept classified.
After a five-month investigation, Power retired from the police force
in September 1993, at the age of forty-two, "on health grounds."
PETER POWER -
The July Seventh
Truth
Campaign
in Britain has revealed Power's troubled past and his links with
previous terror incidents in Britain. But the details of the criminal
investigation into Peter Power have been kept secret since 1993.
What did he do in Dorset and who was the mysterious un-named company
with whom he planned and conducted the terror exercise on July 7?
"THIS
IS THE REAL ONE"
Just
hours after the
London bombings, Power explained the incredible coincidences with the
drill his company was conducting in a radio interview with Peter
Allen on BBC 5:
Power:
At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for
a company of over a thousand people in London based on
simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it
happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my
neck standing up right now.
Peter Allen: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise
to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were
running the exercise?
Power: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we
planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to
reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had
a room full of crisis managers, for the first time they'd met, and
so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, "this is
the real one" and so we went through the correct drills of activating
crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time
thinking and so on.
"WE
CHOSE A SCENARIO"
Peter
Power appeared
in a television interview on ITV News on the day of the bombings and
revealed more details about the terror drill he was involved in:
Power:
Today we were running an exercise for a company - bearing in mind I'm
now in the private sector - and we sat everybody down, in the city
- 1,000 people involved in the whole organization - but the
crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was we based our scenario
on the simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline
station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from 'fictional' to
'real'. And one of the first things is, get that bureau number,
when you have a list of people missing, tell them. And it took
a long time.
ITV Host: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an
exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?
Power: Er, almost precisely. I was up to 2 o'clock this morning,
because it's our job, my own company Visor Consultants, we
specialize in helping people to get their crisis management response.
How do you jump from 'slow time' thinking to 'quick time' doing?
And we chose a scenario - with their assistance - which is based
on a terrorist attack because they're very close to, er, a
property occupied by Jewish businessmen, they're in the city, and
there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole
of New York - a logical thing to do. And it, I've still got the
hair....
One
would think that such
astounding revelations of a British terrorism expert about how the
terror bombings were "almost precisely" like the exercise he had
been conducting for a mysterious company would be of
great interest to the media. That has, however, not been the case.
There
has been virtually
no discussion in the "mainstream" media that the London bombings, or
other terror atrocities and disasters like 9/11 and the sinking of
Estonia, occurred within the context of security drills
that were very similar to what actually happened. Why has this
crucial background information been censored?
Astonishing
first-hand
accounts, like Peter Power's, from people engaged in these exercises
were reported shortly after the events occurred, yet these
important stories were confined to local news outlets and
not reported in the major national and international news outlets,
in newspapers like the New York Times, for example, whose
motto is: "All the news that's fit to print."
BBC - "SERIES OF EXPLOSIONS"
AT WORLD TRADE CENTER
Power's
comments about
the amazing coincidences with his security drill were censored by the
BBC in the same way as the eyewitness report of Stephen Evans,
their reporter at the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Evans
was on the ground
floor of the South Tower when planes struck the complex. When he
appeared on BBC World television shortly after the collapse of the
twin towers, Evans repeatedly described a "series of explosions"
he had seen and felt at the base of the tower before it was demolished.
STEPHEN EVANS
- The BBC reporter
and
eyewitness
to the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. When Evans
went on BBC television shortly after the collapses all he talked about
was the "series of explosions" he had witnessed. The producers in
London were clearly not interested in discussing that
subject. How did the BBC editors know that explosions were
something that should not be discussed? Why did they censor Evans'
eyewitness account?
From
the first minute
Evans spoke, however, it was quite obvious that his eyewitness report
was being censored by the higher powers at the BBC. When the BBC
later revisited the events of 9/11 with Evans, there
was absolutely no mention of the "series of explosions" he had
witnessed and talked about on the morning of the attacks. How
can that be? Such blatant and intentional omissions are properly
defined as censorship. Evans' astonishing eyewitness account
from 9/11 was evidently dropped into the "memory hole" at the BBC.
Peter Power's revealing comments about the London bombings met the
same fate.
The
BBC has a very
peculiar history regarding the events of 9/11. Not only did the
British network censor Evans' reports of explosions at the World
Trade Center, but it also reported that the building known as WTC
7 collapsed about 30 minutes before the 47-story tower fell
straight down into its foundation. Jane Standley, a BBC
World television reporter in New York City on 9/11 reported at about
4:54 p.m. (21:54 GMT) that the Salomon Brother's building owned by
Larry Silverstein (WTC 7) had collapsed. Silverstein's building,
however (which he later admitted had been "pulled"), did not
collapse until 5:20 p.m. (22:20 GMT).
BBC news editor Richard Porter subsequently wrote on the BBC
website in February 2007: "We no longer have the
original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not
conspiracy)." But, why would the BBC destroy its original
tapes of 9/11? (This is exactly the same excuse provided by the
corrupt Hoffman Estates (Illinois) police who said they had
destroyed the video tapes they had made of their three-man undercover
tactical squad assaulting me at my house in August 2006.)
The BBC's
Jane Standley reported
that Larry
Silverstein's Salomon Brothers building (WTC 7) had collapsed
30 minutes before it fell straight into its foundation. The
BBC later said it had destroyed all of its original tapes of 9/11
broadcasts. Why would they do that?
For
independent
journalists to question the controlled-media's version of events, from
which such significant first-hand accounts have been censored, is
to risk being branded a "conspiracy theorist."
The
public is now told
that eyewitness accounts cannot be trusted – at least when they differ
from the official version. Eyewitness reports from people who were
in the disaster or who saw it with their own eyes can not be
considered as reliable testimony, we are told. How very odd.
Such
was the case with
the downing of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island, New York in 1996, when
more than a hundred eyewitnesses reported seeing what appeared to
be a missile streak from the surface of the ocean, strike the
aircraft, and cause an explosive fireball.
I
attended the final
presentation of the official TWA 800 report by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 2000, when David Mayer,
whose only credential as a panel member was a Ph.D. in
Applied Experimental Psychology from Rice University, audaciously
dismissed the reports of more than one hundred eyewitnesses as the
collective hallucinations of intoxicated New Yorkers, based solely on
the fact that it was a summer evening!
At
that point, it was
abundantly clear that there was something seriously wrong with the NTSB
and their investigation of the downing of TWA 800. The cover-up
could hardly have been more obvious.
THE
"PLANE-INTO-BUILDING"
DRILL OF 9/11
On
9/11, an agency of the
Department of Defense and the CIA was conducting a terror scenario in
which an imaginary airplane from Washington's Dulles International
Airport was to crash into one of the four towers of the suburban
campus of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in Chantilly,
Virginia, just a few miles from the Pentagon. The plane that
allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, American Airlines Flight 77,
departed from the same airport at 8:20 a.m. on 9/11.
When
the terror scenario
became real in New York and at the Pentagon, the NRO exercise was
cancelled and nearly all its three thousand employees, the people
who operate the nation's "eye in the sky," were sent home.
"BIZARRE
COINCIDENCE"
The
government said it
was a "bizarre coincidence" that the NRO, a military intelligence
agency working under the Department of Defense and the CIA, had
planned a simulated exercise with a mock "plane-into-building"
crash on the morning of 9/11. "It was just an incredible
coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing
into our facility," spokesman Art Haubold told the Associated Press in
August 2002. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled
the exercise."
As
the agency that
operates the nation's spy satellites, the NRO personnel come from the
military and the CIA. When the attacks occurred, however, most of
the three thousand people who work at the agency were sent home.
Why would they do that?
The
fact that the spy
agency had planned such a drill was casually leaked in an announcement
for a Homeland Security conference in Chicago in 2002. In a
promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief
of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement said:
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.
CRITICAL
FAILURES
The
most pressing
questions about why the U.S. military air defense system failed to
intercept the four hijacked planes on 9/11 are obviously of
crucial importance. Captain May writes that "even official
apologists call [9/11] the greatest defense failure in American
history." How could the most modern and expensive air force
in the world fail to intercept four airliners, three of which roamed
wild for hundreds of miles before striking landmark buildings in
New York and Washington? Why was the U.S. air defense system
unable to intercept several large, slow-moving planes before they
struck the nation's largest city and its capital? If the U.S. Air
Force couldn't intercept lumbering civilian planes, how could they
possibly stop a hostile invasion of fighter jets or missiles?
These
crucial questions
have never been raised by the government-appointed commissions or the
media, which have all avoided discussing the military exercises of
9/11. It's not that these drills were not reported, but
rather that their connection to the disasters has not been openly
discussed and investigated.
Four
months after 9/11,
the Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York, published an article
by Hart Seely that featured first-hand accounts of the military
radar operators of the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) at the
former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, New York. These radar operators
were the eyes of the U.S. air defense system for the eastern part
of the nation on 9/11. In Seely's article, the NEADS personnel
explained how a North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) exercise
called Vigilant Guardian, which they were participating in, had
caused systemic confusion which prevented an effective military
response to the real emergency.
The
confusion at NEADS
was evident from the moment Boston Flight Control informed them that a
plane had been hijacked. At 8:38 a.m. an air traffic controller
telephoned Sergeant Jeremy Powell at NEADS to inform him that one
of their planes had been hijacked and was headed to New York:
"Is
this real-world or exercise?" Powell asked.
"No. This is not an exercise; not a test," Powell was told, according
to the transcripts of the 9/11 Commission report.
"IT
MUST BE PART OF THE
EXERCISE"
Seely's
article described
the context -- and the confusion -- at NEADS:
6
a.m.: WAR GAMES
Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins figured it would be a long day.
Sept. 11 was Day 2 of "Vigilant Guardian," an exercise that would pose
an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts
nationwide. The simulation would run all week, and Deskins, starting
her 12-hour shift in the Operations Center as the NORAD unit's
airborne control and warning officer, might find herself on
the spot. Day 1 of the simulation had moved slowly. She
hoped the exercise gathered steam. It made a long day go faster.
8:40 a.m.: REAL WORLD
In the Ops Center, three rows of radar scopes face a high wall of
wide-screen monitors. Supervisors pace behind technicians who peer
at the instruments. Here it is always quiet, always dark, except for
the green radar glow. At 8:40, Deskins noticed senior
technician Jeremy Powell waving his hand. Boston Center was on the
line, he said. It had a hijacked airplane. "It must be part
of the exercise," Deskins thought. At first, everybody did. Then
Deskins saw the glowing direct phone line to the Federal
Aviation Administration. On the phone she heard the voice of
a military liaison for the FAA's Boston Center. "I have a
hijacked aircraft," he told her. American Airlines Flight
11, headed to Los Angeles, had veered off course, apparently toward New
York. The liaison said to get "some F-16s or something"
airborne.
Forty-one minutes earlier, Flight 11 had left Logan Airport with 81
passengers. For the last 27 minutes, it had not responded to
ground control. Deskins requested Flight 11's latest position,
which an operator put up on the screen. Flight 11 wasn't
there. Someone had turned off its transponder, the device
that identifies the plane to ground control. Boston Center could
still track it on primary radar, but the operators in Rome would be
hard-pressed to find it amid the jumble of blips on their
screens. We'll direct the intercept, the liaison told Deskins.
Just get something up there. Deskins ran up a short flight
of stairs to the Battle Cab and reported the hijacked plane - real
world, not a simulation.
NEADS RADAR
OPERATORS – These were
the
military
radar systems and personnel who were confused on 9/11 because of
the Vigilant Guardian simulation. Did Osama bin Laden, in a cave in
Afghanistan, and the nineteen flight school drop outs know about
the simulation and hack into the military's computer systems
and manipulate the radar systems in order to increase the
confusion? The real perpetrators of 9/11 did.
NOT
A SIMULATION
What
is most peculiar is
that Seely's informative article about the confusion among the critical
military radar operators at NEADS was never published or
referenced by any national newspaper in the United States. The New
York Times, for example, has never even mentioned "Vigilant
Guardian," the air defense exercise that contributed to the
confusion behind the military's failure to protect New York City on
9/11.
Oddly,
among the national
newspapers and news magazines of the United States, Vigilant Guardian
was only mentioned once, very briefly, in a Washington Post
book review of the 9/11 Commission report. The review began:
"If the 9/11 report had been written as a novel, nobody would believe
it. The story is too far-fetched."
The
Post
mentioned Vigilant Guardian when it quoted "a little-noticed footnote"
from the report:
When
FAA officials realize (late) that planes are being hijacked, they can't
monitor them - or decide what to do. The vice president thinks he
has issued orders to shoot down civilian planes, but the pilots in the
air don't get the word. The military's air-defense command isn't
sure whether it's dealing with an exercise or a real event.
Incredibly, according to a little-noticed footnote in the report, "On
9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant
Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former
Soviet Union."
Vigilant
Guardian
obviously confused the military because simulated hijackings and false
"injects," which are radar indications of non-existent planes,
were reportedly part of the exercise. This is why Deskins and
others were initially uncertain whether the reports of hijacked
planes were "real world" or simulation.
"First
thing that went
through my mind was, 'Is this part of the exercise?'" Air Force Maj.
Gen. Larry Arnold, who was at a command center at the Tyndall Air
Force Base in Florida, told ABC News. "Is this some kind of a
screw-up?'"
The
military's inability
to respond effectively to the rogue aircraft of 9/11 was evidently
caused, at least in part, by the NORAD exercise. The fact that a
similar exercise, involving a plane striking a military facility
near the Pentagon, was being staged on the morning of 9/11,
indicates that the computer-based exercises played key roles in
the actual terror attacks that occurred.
What
role the military
exercises played in the 9/11 terror attacks and how they could have
been hijacked, and by whom, are questions that need to be answered
and will be addressed in a subsequent chapter.
THE ESTONIA
CATASTROPHE
The
unexplained sinking
of the Baltic ferry Estonia on its way to Stockholm from
Tallinn in late September 1994 is the third mega-disaster (albeit
not chronologically) that occurred within the framework of a
military exercise. The day before it sank, Estonia had
also been the scene of a terrorism exercise in which the scenario
was a terror bombing of the ferry. Looking at the NATO military assets
that were assembled nearby and the terrorism drill that had just
been conducted on the ship, the stage was set and the actors were
in place for what turned out to be a real disaster. The Estonia
catastrophe is Europe's worst maritime disaster since World War II.
Tragically,
852 people
are known to have died when Estonia sank in the early hours of
September 28, 1994, but more than 1,000 may have perished, if, as
reported, some 150 Iraqi Kurds were being smuggled to Sweden in
one of the trucks on its car deck. Scores of people died in the
frigid water of the Baltic Sea waiting for rescue boats and
helicopters that came too late. More than ninety bodies were retrieved
from the life rafts.
THE TOLL -
The bodies of some of
the Estonia
victims retrieved from the Baltic Sea.
NATO'S
"SEARCH & RESCUE" EXERCISE
Although
it is seldom
mentioned, the Estonia catastrophe occurred on the first day of
a 10-day NATO naval exercise called Cooperative Venture 94, in
which more than fifteen ships and "a number of maritime
aircraft" were prepared to conduct "humanitarian and search and
rescue operations" in nearby waters. The NATO exercise,
which involved ten NATO member states and the Baltic "partner" nations
of Russia, Sweden, Poland, and Lithuania, was to be staged in the
Skagerrak, between Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, and the Norwegian
Sea, according to the NATO press release about the exercise from
September 16, 1994.
The
NATO nations who
participated in the exercise were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom, and the
United States. Many other allies and partners sent observers to
the exercise, according to the NATO press release.
The
fact that Estonia
sank as the submarines, ships, planes, personnel, and satellites from
the navies of fourteen nations were preparing to begin their
ten-day "search and rescue operations" exercise off the coast of
Sweden raises several obvious questions that deserve to be answered:
If
NATO had fifteen ships
and a number of aircraft assembled and prepared to conduct "search and
rescue operations," why didn't NATO assist in the early morning
rescue operation for the victims from the Estonia catastrophe?
The Swedish rescue helicopters were ill-prepared and ill-equipped,
which resulted in a fatal delay for those waiting to be rescued.
Many Estonia
victims died
of
exposure
due to the delayed rescue. Of the 852 lives lost only 94 bodies
were recovered. A complete list of the dead is here.
"Were
there specially-equipped rescue helicopters or other aircraft that
could have assisted?" Drew Wilson, author of The Hole
(2006), a book about the Estonia catastrophe, wrote. "Survivors
who didn't die from hypothermia while floating on upturned boats
or flotsam in the biting water waited four-six hours for
rescue. NATO search-and-rescue personnel and equipment could
have saved some lives. Flying time was under 1 hour. Why didn't
they respond to the distress traffic? What happened?"
The
evidence also
indicates that the Mayday signals from Estonia had been jammed,
as were all radio communications in the area. "A series of
comprehensive malfunctions in regional communication systems
all at once, and all at the exact time the ferry had sunk suggest
involvement by a military or intelligence services," Wilson writes
in The Hole. "Was a distress call intentionally blocked?
If so, why?
"Communications
throughout the Northern Baltic Sea were disrupted during the time of
the accident." As Wilson documents, VHF Channel 16, the
international Mayday channel, and Channel 2182 were
blocked. "Signal jamming of all radio communications
apparently occurred on the Southern coastline of Finland as
the accident unfolded.
"Werner
Hummel, the
German investigator, said that his Group had documentation showing that
the regional telephone network servicing the catastrophe site
failed just as it was needed most. The malfunction was truly a
startling coincidence. The telephone company stated its entire radio
communications network, for unknown reasons, had been down from
1:03 to 1:58 a.m. – almost exactly the time the Estonia first
encountered trouble until the time it disappeared from radar."
Didn't
the NATO
communications units prepared for the "search and rescue" exercise
overhear the distress calls coming from Estonia?
NATO, with state-of-the-art satellite and airborne surveillance assets
in place over the Baltic Sea certainly must know who was blocking
the SOS calls. Why has this information been kept secret since
1994?
Blocking
SOS calls and
jamming distress signals is a violation of international law. Why has
this crime not been investigated? The intentional blocking of the
Mayday signals from Estonia points to complicity in
mass murder.
"Naval
exercises are
meant to be as realistic as possible," Olivier Schmidt, author of The
Intelligence Files: Today's Secrets, Tomorrow's Scandals,
writes. What was the "search and rescue" scenario of
NATO's Cooperative Venture 94 exercise, which was commanded at sea
by the Dutch submarine commander Gijsbert Goofert Hooft?
I
sent a series of
pertinent questions to Robert Pszczel, NATO's press officer for Baltic
issues, about NATO's response to the Estonia catastrophe:
Did
NATO have any naval assets in the Baltic Sea on the night
of September 27-28, 1994 and what actions did NATO take in the
immediate aftermath of the Estonia disaster?
Did NATO pick up the Mayday signals being sent (and jammed) from Estonia?
Why didn't NATO assist, given the urgent need to retrieve hundreds of
freezing people from life rafts?
What was the scenario of NATO's search and recovery exercise?
Despite
telephone calls
and email exchanges with the press office at NATO headquarters, Robert
Pszczel failed to respond to a single question about NATO's
response to the Estonia catastrophe. Drew Wilson met the
same wall of silence at NATO when he asked questions about Estonia
for his book The Hole. If NATO has a reasonable
explanation for its failure to respond to Europe's worst maritime
disaster since World War II, why is it unwilling to provide it?
NATO
AWAC Planes in Norway
NATO had fourteen ships, submarines, aircraft, and personnel from the
United States, Europe, Sweden, and Russia assembled near the scene
of the sinking of Estonia, Europe's worst maritime disaster
since World War II. The purpose of the NATO exercise included
"search and rescue" operations, yet when disaster struck, NATO did
nothing to help. Why? What was NATO doing that was more important than
saving the lives of their citizens? Why won't they talk about it?
ESTONIA'S
BOMB DRILLS
The
Estonia ferry
had been the object of bomb threats and had participated in at least
two terror bomb exercises in 1994, one in February and another
just the day before it sank.
On
February 2, 1994, Estonia
was the subject of a major mock bomb exercise conducted with RITS,
Sweden's maritime fire and rescue agency, and the Stockholm
police. The Stockholm police had requested to take part in the
exercise and used bomb-sniffing dogs to find explosives. The terror
simulation involved a scenario in which "bombs" had been placed in
the sauna and swimming pool area on the lowest deck, below
the waterline in the bow of the ship. A second "bomb" was placed
in the sleeping quarters on the first deck, also below the
waterline.
In
the Estonia
terror scenario, the explosives in the sauna were to be found by the
dogs, while the second "bomb" was to explode. The purpose of this
terrorism drill was to train with the ship's crew and
include shore-based terrorism experts and police with
bomb-sniffing dogs, brought to the ship by helicopter. In
the simulation, the "bombs" were set to explode about halfway
between the Estonian and Swedish coasts, which is where the ship
actually sank in September 1994 after a similar mock bomb threat
exercise.
When
Estonia
sank, another mock bomb exercise on the ship had just been concluded.
Survivors from the sinking actually reported hearing two huge
explosions immediately before the ship listed to starboard.
Several crew members testified to having heard the coded fire
alarm "Mr. Skylight to No. 1 and 2" over the ferry's public
address system at about 1:02 a.m. after the vessel had listed severely.
This is the message for the crew that was used during the previous
bomb drill in February 1994. "Mr. Skylight" was a signal for the fire
fighters to proceed to their fire stations 1 and 2 and prepare for
damage control. The fact that this coded alarm was given indicates
that there was damage caused by a fire or explosion that required
immediate attention. The ferry sank within thirty minutes.
Eyewitness
testimony from
survivors plus the fact that the ship sank extremely quickly strongly
suggest that explosives were used to tear a large hole in the hull
below the waterline. Swedish policemen who had just conducted
training involving a mock bomb threat on the ferry were returning home
when Estonia sank. Of the seventy policemen, only seven
survived.
The
trans-Baltic ferry Estonia
sank
in
less than 30 minutes after two explosions rocked the ship in the middle
of the night. A mock terror drill of a bombing scenario had just
been completed on the ship the day before. The
passenger ferry was being used to transport Soviet military
contraband when she sank. The highest officials in Swedish customs, the
government, and military were aware of the sensitive and illegal
shipments that put the ferry at risk. Is this why they are
so dedicated to protecting the lies about the sinking?
Sources
and Recommended
Reading
ABC News,
"Terror Hits the Towers: How Government Officials Reacted to Sept. 11
Attacks," September 14, 2002.
s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/abcnews091402.html
Bollyn,
Christopher, "Mysterious Middle Eastern Connection with Weapons
Smuggling on Estonia," December 2, 2005
Bollyn,
Christopher, "Seismic Evidence of Underground Explosions Causing WTC
Collapse," August 28, 2002 bollyn.com/index/?id=10095
Bollyn,
Christopher, "Was the NRO's 9/11 Drill Just a Coincidence?" November 1,
2002 rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=25255
Emigh,
Jacqueline, "GPS on the Job in Massive World Trade Center Clean-Up,"
July 1, 2002, SecuritySolutions.com securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive/index1.html
Holtappels, Dr. Peter and
Hummel, Capt. Werner, The Group of German Experts Estonia
Investigation Report, Chapter 27, "The Diving Investigation," 1999
estonia.xprimo.de/estonia%20final%20report/chapter27.htm
Holtappels
and Hummel, Section 7.3, "Safety Organisation," especially 7.3.4,
"Training and Drills" and the summary of the RITS Exercise on Estonia,
February 2, 1994 estonia.xprimo.de/estonia%20final%20report/7.3.htm
J7: The
July 7th Truth Campaign, "Peter Power Dorset Police Suspension &
the DPP File," February 7, 2008 julyseventh.co.uk/j7-exclusive-peter-power-dorset-police-suspension.html
J7: The
July 7th Truth Campaign, "The 7/7 Terror Rehearsal" julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html
Kaskel, Helje, M/S Estonia
- List of the Dead and Missing, Estonia Litigation Association elaestonia.org/sea/index.php
May,
Capt. Eric H., "False Flag Prospects, 2008 - Top Three US Target
Cities," February 23, 2008 thepriceofliberty.org/08/02/25/may.htm
National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 9/11 Commission
Staff Statement No. 17, June 17, 2004 msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007
NATO
Press Release (94)82, "Exercise Cooperative Venture 94," September 16,
1994 nato.int/docu/pr/1994/p94-082.htm
Schmidt,
Olivier, The Intelligence Files: Today's Secrets, Tomorrow's Scandals,
Chapter 9, "The Sinking of the Kursk and 'Retired' US Navy Spy
Edmond Pope," ADI, 2005
Seely,
Hart, "Untold Stories: 'We were suddenly no kidding under attack,'" Post-Standard,
Syracuse, NY, January 20, 2002 and The Patriot-News,
Harrisburg, Penn., February 3, 2002 rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=117242
Wilson,
Drew, The Hole – Another Look at the Sinking of the Estonia
Ferry on September 28, 1994, Diggory Press, Cornwall, UK, 2006
