Psychological War

Around sometime before noon on the day of 9/11, the U.S government conclusively announced who was to blame for such an attack, this being ‘19 Arab suicide bombers under the guidance of one Osama bin Laden’ and in a short matter of time to declare this horrific and devastating crime solved, in that the ‘buildings had been unable to withstand the horrific onslaught of the plane crashes and the heat of subsequent fires’. [1]

In such a state of mental trauma and immense emotional pain, the people of the United States of America, took to the “official narrative” without question, and with that, the military and government now had strong support for a war in Afghanistan and later Iraq. Strong trauma-based mind programming is often the method of induction employed in a psychological operation, often used in “false-flag” events. 

 

 

War

Preceding the events of 9/11 we introduced the Carlyle Group and so we will commence, as we examine the aftermath of what took place on September 11, 2001.

 

The Carlyle Group

In an article written for The Economist in 2003, it stated, ‘In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when no one was being allowed in or out of the United States, many members of the bin Laden family in America were spirited home to Saudi Arabia. The revival of defence spending that followed greatly increased the value of the Carlyle Group’s investments in defence companies. The Carlyle Group is embroiled with the defense and intelligence establishment. “It is widely regarded as an extension of the US government, or at least the National Security Agency, the CIA, and the Pentagon.”’ [2]

 

House of Saud

The royal elite of Saudi Arabia have long held deep economic ties with the ruling elite class of the United States of America, going further back than the 1970s, ‘selling crude, buying banks, building skyscrapers, buying weapons, investing everywhere’, with ‘The vast majority of the Saudi investments in the United states… [going] into major banks and energy, defense, technology, and media companies’, as noted by Craig Unger in his book House of Bush, House of Saud. [3]

In the wake of the events of 9/11, extended members of the bin Laden family, a Saudi family with very close links and ties to the ruling House of Saud, along with members of the royal Saudi family, were given approval from the highest levels of governmental authority, to fly home in private jets during a time when all flights were grounded across the entire United States. While the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) denies giving approval for this “evacuation”, multiple testimonies state otherwise. [4] However, one source from within the State Department made this telling comment, ‘The likes of Prince Bandar does not need the State Department to get this done’. Implying the level of sovereign authority that the Saudi royal elite held within the United States of America, Bandar himself having a private meeting with then-President George W. Bush two days after 9/11, where, according to Unger, ‘the operation to begin flying out approximately 140 Saudis had already been initiated by Bandar.’ [5]  

In stark contrast to the treatment of the elite Saudi and bin Laden families, were the actions of the FBI shortly after 9/11, who circulated ‘a list of more than one hundred suspects to airlines and more than eighteen thousand law-enforcement organizations. . .There were hundreds of search warrants and subpoenas, and seizures of computers and documents. Agents conducted hundreds of interview around the country. All over the United States, Arabs were being detained.’ [6] And yet, not one of the members of the House of Saud or bin Laden families was interviewed, even as the “global war on terror” was heralded by the mouthpiece of the White House as the new normal to which all the United States must abide by. 

 

Military-Industrial Complex

In 1961, in his farewell speech to the nation, former military general, President Dwight D. Eisenhower stated these words: ‘Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . .We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . .In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.’ [7]

 

The Rise of Lockheed Martin

Early in the 1910s, the earliest beginnings of the Lockheed company formed in pursuit of advancing aircraft design, later developing into a military industrial contractor, forming many innovative fighter jets throughout the course of it’s history. It’s advancements continued into the fields of aerospace and technology, becoming a ‘leading contractor for the U.S Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’, along with half of it’s annual sales going to the U.S. Department of Defense. [8]

In the aftermath of 9/11 with the onslaught of the Afghanistan War and subsequent Iraq War in 2003, defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman were from FY2001 to FY2020 receiving ‘One-quarter to one-third of all Pentagon contracts’, with ‘these five arms alone split over $2.1 trillion in Pentagon contracts’. [9] Curiously, in a 2006 report on “Executive Excess” by the Institute for Policy Studies, the CEO Compensation for Lockheed Martin jumped 189% from 2000 to 2001, with a general increase of 94.2% across the time periods of 1998-2001 to 2002-2005. Additionally, in this report, the 2005 value of Lockheed Martin’s defense contract was approximately $19.45 billion, with 52.3% of their revenue coming from defense. [10]

 

Windfalls of War and War Profiteering

In a 2004 Democratic Policy Committee hearing under the U.S Senate branch on “Iraq contracting abuses”, was the following statement made: ‘During WWII, Harry Truman called war profiteering treason. President Roosevelt said, “I don’t want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster.”’ [11] Continuing on from the previously mentioned “Executive Excess” report of 2006, it notes, ‘we focus on the two corporate sectors where Executive Excess may be the most inexcusable, the defense industry and the oil industry. In both these sectors, windfalls from war are driving executive pay to record levels’.

It continues, ‘In the most privatized war in history, lucrative opportunities abound for chief executives of an increasingly wide range of defense contractors. Giants of what President Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex like Lockheed Martin and Boeing continue to reap the largest deals. . . Since the “War on Terror” began, the CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors have enjoyed average pay levels that are double the amounts they received during the four years leading up to 9/11. . . Since 9/11, the 34 defense CEOs in our sample have pocketed a combined total of $984 million, enough to cover the entire wage bill for more than a million Iraqis for a year. Defense CEO pay was 44 times that of a military general with 20 years of experience and 308 times that of an Army private in 2005. Generals made $174,452 and Army privates made $25,085, while average defense CEO pay was $7.7 million.’ [12]

During a stateside hospital visit to soldiers wounded in Iraq, some of the questions raised to the visiting U.S. Senators were, ‘“do you think that we could get some armor-plating on the 8,400 Humvees in Iraq? Like the one that blew up under me and took my leg. Can we afford to come up with the armor plating? Could we get the vests?”’, which U.S Senator Durbin continues as saying in the Committee hearing, ‘The vests that protect the soldiers over there. I don’t understand why we all don’t have them if we need them. Simple hard questions. Questions this Senator can’t answer because the resources, the billions of dollars put into this war, is still not enough to protect them in these basic ways. Today we’re going to hear about money that has been appropriated by this Congress, that has been wasted. Money that has been going into obscene profits, money that has been going into waste and fraud that should never be tolerated.’ [13] 

 

Halliburton and SAIC

In addition to the five major defense contractors mentioned earlier, another two stand out amidst these titans of the defense industry, Halliburton and SAIC. Halliburton, the company holding ‘the lion’s share – 52 percent – of Pentagon contracts for wartime services, from oilfield services to feeding the troops’ was also ‘the most scandal-plagued of Iraq contractors’, [14] with the 2004 Democratic Policy Committee hearing examining some of the issues brought to light, including ‘the company’s record of cronyism, fraud, and price gouging’ with ‘Halliburton’s record of overcharging, bribery, and accounting fraud recites like a textbook example of corporate irresponsibility. Yet Halliburton has virtually monopolized contracts in Iraq and has collected over $9 billion dollars through its subsidiaries.’

Additionally, the then-Vice President Dick Cheney ‘who was the Chief Executive Officer at Halliburton before his election, continues to receive a salary from the company that actually exceeds his pay as Vice President. It is deferred compensation, but the non-partisan Congressional Research Service determined that the payment constitutes an “ongoing financial relationship” despite the Vice President’s protestations to the contrary.’ [15]

In addition to Halliburton is the lesser mentioned but extraordinarily significant company known as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). The early days of SAIC began in the early 1960s with John Robert Beyster who worked for the General Atomic Corporation as head of the “accelerator-physics department”. In an article written in 2007 by Donald Bartlett and James Steele, the investigative journalist team, describe Beyster’s choice of name for his company as reflecting, ‘an assumption that the real future of national defense—or, at any rate, the real future profits to be had from national defense—lay in science and technology, not in boots on the ground’, with his ‘very first government contract. . .from the Defense Atomic Support Agency.’ [16]

Future steps to form and set the functioning framework for the advancement of the company included an “internal stock-ownership program” which was entirely managed by Beyster and his board, whereby even the stock owner themself was selected by Beyster, and unlike Wall Street, ‘where individual stock prices go up and down, the SAIC stock price, controlled by Beyster and his board, usually moved in one direction only: up. The more contracts you landed, the more stock you received’, as a way to incentivise obtaining external contracts on behalf of the company. The company composed itself with the elite of the elite with ‘former generals, admirals, diplomats, spies, and Cabinet officers’, along with experts in the fields of applied mathematics and physics whose job was to ‘sell your high-tech ideas and blue-chip expertise to the army, navy, air force, C.I.A., N.S.A., Atomic Energy Commission, and any other government agency with money to spend and an impulse to buy. Contracts were everything. There is much to be said for SAIC’s approach: in its four decades of existence, the company has turned a profit every single year’. Tellingly, ‘Even if you stayed at SAIC for only a short time, you could in the long run earn a lot of money. And if you left SAIC to go back into government service, you had considerable incentive to keep SAIC’s continuing good fortunes in mind’.

Conveniently, four years prior to 9/11 and Bush’s announcement on the “War on Terror”, SAIC had established it’s ‘Center for Counterterrorism Technology and Analysis. According to SAIC, the purpose of the new unit was to take “a comprehensive view of terrorist threats, including the full range of weapons of mass destruction, more traditional high explosives, and cyber-threats to the national infrastructure.” In October of 2006 the company told would-be investors flatly that the war on terror would continue to be a lucrative growth industry.’ As are the words of Bartlett and Steele, ‘9/11 was a personal tragedy for thousands of families and a national tragedy for all of America, but it was very, very good for SAIC’.

 

Fake Intelligence Report for the War in Iraq

Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in February 2003 addressed the United Nations Security Council using fake intelligence which was garnered by the staff of then-Prime Minister of the UK, Tony Blair. To quote Glen Rangwala, the researcher who discovered and published the details of the UK staff-released “intelligence dossier”, who states, ‘The bulk of the 19-page document (pp 6-16) is directly copied without acknowledgement from three different sources that are on the internet. The most extensively used source is an article in the on-line Israeli journal, Middle East Review of International Affairs (September 2002), entitled “Iraq’s Security and Intelligence Network: A Guide and Analysis”. . . In addition. . .there is also the use of two articles from the specialist security magazine, Jane’s Intelligence Review. On-line summaries of articles by Mr Sean Boyne in 1997 and Mr Ken Gause in 2002 are on the GlobalSecurity.org website. . . These texts were also amalgamated in part into the UK dossier.’ [17] 

Rangwala continues, ‘The information in the UK dossier is presented as being an accurate statement of the current state of Iraq’s security organisations. However, it may not be anything of the sort. Mr Marashi—the real and unwitting author of much of the document—refers in his article to his primary source as being the documents captured by Coalition forces in 1991, and which are now retained by the Massachusetts-based organisation, the Iraq Research and Documentation Project. His own focus is the activities of Iraq’s intelligence agencies in Kuwait in the period from August 1990 to January 1991, as this is the subject of his thesis. As a result, much of the information presented as relevant to how Iraqi agencies are currently engaged with UNMOVIC is 12 years old.’ Upon release of the UK “intelligence report” in Word document format, Rangwala ‘checked the properties of the text in the File menu. It revealed the authors of the text as P. Hamill, J. Pratt, A. Blackshaw, and M. Khan. Those names were removed within hours from the downloadable file. However, in collaboration with journalists, I have since checked who these individuals are,’ being all members of Tony Blair’s staff. As Michael Chossudovsky notes, ‘most of the dodgy dossier evidence pertaining to Tony Blair and George W. Bush was available before the onset of the Iraq war in March 2003′, as Glen Rangwala had published and released his research findings detailing the fake intelligence report on the day following Colin Powell’s UN speech, on February 6, 2003.

In the immediate aftermath post 9/11, the then Counter-terrorism Coordinator Richard A. Clarke notes that during the White House meetings, he ‘walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that [Donald] Rumsfeld and [Paul] Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. . . Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq’. [18]

 

Funding for Directed Energy Weapons Systems

To directly the quote the U.S Congress “Directed Energy Weapons Systems Acquisition Act of 2016”: ‘The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate noted in the report accompanying S. 1356 (S. Rept. 114–49; 114th Congress) that since 1960, the Department of Defense has invested more than $6,000,000,000 in directed energy science and technology initiatives, and that the Committee is concerned that, despite this significant investment, the Department’s directed energy initiatives are not resourced at levels necessary to transition them to full-scale acquisition programs.’ [19]   

  

Aftermath at Ground Zero

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

In 1962 in New York City, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a U.S. government agency, ‘officially authorized a plan to build the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan’ which was ‘designed to surpass New York’s iconic Empire State Building – then the world’s tallest building’. [20] Successful real estate developers, Lawrence Wien and Harry Helmsley, who acquired ownership of the Empire State Building in 1961, and Seymour Durst, who owned the real estate company “The Durst Organization”, took issue at such a real estate proposal, and set about to form a “Committee for a Reasonable World Trade Center”. In a 1968 newspaper ad campaign opposing the WTC project, the committee included a rendition of the proposed WTC towers 1 and 2, with a commercial airliner depicted as though it was about to fly into the side of one of the towers. The Committee wrote of this campaign that is stemmed from concern that the height of the buildings, particularly the tower antennas, may pose a ‘risk to air navigation’. Lawrence Wien argued that the WTC could harm the real estate market and suggested ‘an airplane might someday hit the World Trade Center, with disastrous consequences’. [21]

 

Insurance Payouts

In 2001, just six weeks before 9/11, billionaire property development company Silverstein Properties acquired a 99-year lease for the entire World Trade Center complex, with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey receiving $3.25 billion for the lease. [22] The World Trade Center complex being described as one of the ‘most profitable parcels of real-estate on earth‘. [23] In the aftermath of the insurance claim, Silverstein and his legal team sought ‘double the payout by arguing the attacks were two separate events’. Ultimately, Silverstein received $4.6 billion, $1 billion of which went to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. [24]

 

One World

In 2006, work commenced on the “Freedom Tower” at the site of the former WTC complex, however by 2009, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey formally announced that the tower would be named “One World Trade Center”. As part of this announcement, the “China Center” would be formed, occupying 190,810 square feet of One World Trade Center, under the company Vantone Industrial Co., Ltd., who were the first private company to tenant the building. [25] In a 2016 news article, it was noted that the “China Center New York” company was ‘established in 2006 as a subsidiary of Vantone Holdings’, with Vantone Holdings Co., Ltd., being a ‘well-known real estate investment company in Beijing‘ who owns shares in one of the ‘most successful real estate companies in China’. [26] 

In 2007, the same Durst Organization who were against the original WTC complex, now, along with the grandson of Lawrence Wien whose family controlled the Empire State Building, came to object the new “Freedom Tower” plan stating, ‘Why, now, is the government planning to pay for the construction of an overly expensive design to be occupied by government agencies at overly expensive rents, all at the expense of taxpayers’ money which could be put to better uses?’. [27] And yet, in 2010, the Durst Organization won the minority stake for the “One World Trade Center” and the rights to develop, manage and lease the building. [28] Douglas Durst, chairman of the Durst Organization, was listed as an attendee at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Davos meeting in 2016. [29]