By your Zionist government. The FBI, ATF, even state and local law enforcement have been proven complicit.


When Drills Go Live: How to recognize the signs of False Flag Terrorism (Operations)

What is a False Flag Operation?

A false flag operation is any procedure, which is carried out by one organization, but designed to appear as though it was orchestrated by another entity. The term “false flag” comes from the days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy and then attack a ship in its own fleet. These operations often precede war and are sometimes employed to provoke enemy retaliation. They occur in the context of war, terrorism, politics, the corporate world, and religious ideology.

False Flag Operations are a type of Black Operations, which are covert operations not attributable to the organization carrying them out. These “top secret” operations are conducted by special forces such as the U.S. Navy SEALS, Delta Force, CIA, DEA, government agencies, etc. Most Black Operations in the U.S. are executed through the Pentagon. Some by a Military Industrial Complex Co-Op where the Pentagon works jointly with a private multinational company or institution in which both sides have something to gain. Black Operations examples include: assassinations, industrial espionage, force reconnaissance, Psy-Ops, abductions, Drug Trafficking, False Flag Operations, etc.

False Flag Terrorism Operations Are Patterned on the Hegelian Dialectic

German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel claimed that each stage of human advancement was driven by an argument (thesis), a counterargument (anti-thesis) and finally a synthesis of the two into a more advanced argument – at which point the process restarts.
Today, the Hegelian Dialectic is a method with which the propagandists manipulate a targeted population by fear. Using a three-stage formula, Problem-Reaction-Solution (based on Hegelian Dialectic), an artificial problem is created that enrages the public (the “Problem”). The public then demands “something be done” (the “Reaction”). Finally, a pre-planned solution is offered (the “Solution”)—which never would have been accepted had the artificial problem not existed. Because the public has been traumatized and placed under a state of fear by the “problem”, they agree to almost anything to alleviate it. And the solution (agenda) is advanced forward.

Top 9 Signs of a False Flag Terrorism Operation

  1. 1. The terror incident or attack follows the Hegelian Dialectic model (a.k.a. Problem-Reaction-Solution). An example in the U.S. today would be the use of the 9/11 “terrorist attacks” as the “problem” that “demanded” a “solution” which resulted in the USA Patriot Act (overriding many freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution) that never would have been passed had the “problem” not existed.
  2. 2. The mainstream media hypes up the possibility of a terrorist attack weeks or months before the event.
  3. 3. Following the incident, news media endlessly covers the most traumatic moments of the incident, ad nauseum to traumatize the public.
  4. 4. Terror or public safety drills are conducted prior to and during the false-flag event. This draws manpower away from response readiness for the real attack and causes confusion. It also allows the opportunity for the drill to GO LIVE at the last moment.
  5. 5. Eyewitness reports vary greatly from the propagated version of what really took place during the incident. Witnesses who contradict (especially with visual or audio evidence [which is quickly confiscated]) the official story are subjected to logical fallacies such as character assassination.
  6. 6. The first two hours of “live” news broadcasts following the incident, due to limited censoring, provides the most telling evidence. In the moments after 9/11, the news reported a “series of bomb explosions.” But, as time lapsed, condemning witness testimony was replaced by the official story.
  7. 7. Counterfeit evidence suddenly appears in support of the official story to enhance the story’s believability. An example of this would be the alleged hijacker visa that survived the 9/11 plane crash.
  8. 8. All official investigations conducted only consider evidence that supports the official story and everything that proves the contrary is ignored. William Rodriguez (a WTC janitor who was in the basement of the North Tower on 9/11), recounted to CNN what happened before the plane hit the tower, “..we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body.” The 9/11 Commission ignored this testimony, because it conflicted with the official story.
  9. 9. Any identified “terrorists” are later revealed to have intimate ties with the CIA, MI5, MI6, Mossad, ISI, or another government agency.

“… I am NOT talking about a conspiracy; I am talking about an agenda! The implementation of this agenda has three parts. First, conspiring to remove those people and organizations that are a threat to the agenda becoming reality. Second, conspiring to place into power, those who will make the agenda a reality. Third, conspiring to create events in the world, like wars and Oklahoma City, to manipulate the population through Problem-Reaction-Solution to DEMAND the agenda becomes reality, or see it as the ONLY solution to the problems they are faced with.”
— David Icke; Ruled By The Gods; March 25, 2000 (Part 5 – 30:14 to 31:00).

Examples of False Flag Terrorist Operations

Operation Northwoods

Approved by the Pentagon, Operation Northwoods proposed fabricating terrorism in US cities and killing innocent citizens to manipulate the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. This plan included blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes to gain support for war.

Excerpt from the Joint Chiefs report (declassified from “Top Secret” to “Unclassified” in 2000):
(click here to view the actual Joint Chiefs document – pdf)

Page 138-139 of file (page 7-8 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

2. A series of well-coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

A. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base: start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires – naphthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

3. A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. b. […] Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.


On September 11, 2001, two planes crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City, a third plane crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The official story is that all these planes were commercial aircraft carrying passengers and their jet fuel promoted fires that caused three buildings to collapse (Building 7 collapsed, but was not struck by a plane).
It is interesting to note that the site of the collapsed towers has ever since been referred to as “Ground Zero,” which is defined as; “The point on the earth’s surface directly above or below an exploding nuclear bomb.” This would corroborate the many eyewitness testimonies of hearing “explosions” before and during the “attacks.” As well as explain how 200,000 tons of steel melted into a molten puddle.

Some of the many “drills” being conducted before and during the events of 9/11:

2000-2001: The military conducted exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target was the World Trade Center (WTC), another the Pentagon. [USA Today, 4/19/04, Military District of Washington, 11/3/00]

Sept 11, 2001: A US intelligence agency was scheduled for an exercise on Sept 11 at 9 AM in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [USA Today/AP, 8/22/02]

Northern Vigilance – a NORAD operation that deployed fighter aircraft to locations in Alaska and Northern Canada.

Vigilant Guardian – A semi-annual Command Post Exercise (CPX), was conducted in offices and with computers, but without actual planes in the air. One of the scenarios being run on September 11, 2001, was a “traditional” simulated hijacking. According to General Eberhart, after the first attack, “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation.

Remember, if the evidence supports the official story, the public is endlessly bombarded with the propaganda. If it doesn’t, the evidence is determined to be damaged, lost, destroyed, accidentally erased, or withheld “for reasons of national security.”

For example: The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was filmed by myriad surveillance cameras in the area; and to this date, very limited “alleged” footage of the attack has been released to the public.

False Flag Operations: A History Lesson

July 7, 2005, eight years ago, the London 7/7 bombings.

Was there advanced knowledge of the attacks? Was it a conspiracy?

The following text was published by Global Research on August 8, 2005

* * *

A fictional “scenario” of multiple bomb attacks on London’s underground took place at exactly the same time as the bomb attack on July 7, 2005.

Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, a private firm on contract to the London Metropolitan Police, described in a BBC interview how he had organized and conducted the anti-terror drill, on behalf of an unnamed business client.

The fictional scenario was based on simultaneous bombs going off at exactly the same time at the underground stations where the real attacks were occurring:

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.

HOST: 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 that 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.

(BBC Radio Interview, 7 July 2005)

In response to the flood of incoming email messages, Peter Power –who is a former senior Scotland Yard official specializing in counterterrorism– responded in the form of the following “automatic reply”:

“Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows:

It is confirmed that a short number of ‘walk through’ scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.

However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences [??]. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario – but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.

In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.

Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).

[ signed ] Peter Power”

(quoted in London Underground Exercises: Peter Power Responds, Jon Rappoport, July 13 2005

Mock Terror Drills

There was nothing “routine” in the so-called “walk through” scenarios. Visor’s mock terror drills (held on the very same day as the real attack) was by no means an isolated “coincidence”. Power’s email response suggests that mock drills are undertaken very frequently, as a matter of routine, and that there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary in the exercise conducted on July 7th, which just so happened to coincide with the real terror attacks.

There have indeed been several documented high profile cases of mock terror drills in the US and the UK, held prior or on exactly the same day and at the same time as the actual terror event. In the three previous cases reviewed below, the mock drills bear a canny resemblance to the real time terror attacks.

1. CIA Sponsored Exercise on the Morning of 9/11

On the morning of September 11 2001, within minutes of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the CIA had been running “a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building”. The simulation was held at the CIA Chantilly Virginia Reconnaissance Office.

The Bush administration described the event as “a bizarre coincidence”. The matter was not mentioned by the media.(AP, 22 August 2002)

The CIA sponsored simulation consisted in a “scheduled exercise” held on the morning of September 11, 2001, where “a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency’s headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.” (Quoted in Associated Press, 22 August 2002.)

The news concerning the 9/11 Chantilly aircraft crashing simulation was hushed up. It was not made public at the time. It was revealed almost a year later, in the form of an innocuous announcement of a Homeland Security Conference. The latter entitled “Homeland Security: America’s Leadership Challenge” was held in Chicago on September 6, 2002, barely a few days before the commemoration of the tragic events of 9/11.

The promotional literature for the conference under the auspices of the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute (NLESI) stated what nobody in America knew about. On the morning of 9/11, the CIA was conducting a pre-planned simulation of a plane striking a building. One of the key speakers at the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute conference was CIA’s John Fulton, Chief of the Strategic War Gaming Division of the National Reconnaissance Office a specialist in risk and threat response analysis, scenario gaming, and strategic planning.

(See . The National Law Enforcement and Security Institute website is: See also The Memory Hole at

On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA 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. Information is the most powerful tool available in the homeland security effort. At the core of every initiative currently underway to protect our country and its citizens is the challenge of getting the right information to the right people at the right time. How can so much information from around the world be captured and processed in meaningful and timely ways? Mr. Fulton shares his insights into the intelligence community, and shares a vision of how today’s information systems will be developed into even better counter-terrorism tools of tomorrow. (Ibid)

2. October 2000 Mock Terror Attack on the Pentagon

In late October 2000 (more than ten months prior to 9/11), a military exercise was conducted which consisted in establishing the scenario of a simulated passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon. The Defense Protective Services Police and the Pentagon’s Command Emergency Response Team coordinated the exercise. According to a detailed report by Dennis Ryan of Fort Myer Military Community’s Pentagram, “the Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to on Oct. 24-26 [2000]“:

The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. (…) Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the “plane crash” was a simulated one.

On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents.

(Dennis Ryan, “Contingency planning, Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies”, MDW NEWS 3 Nov 2000. )

3. Britain’s Atlantic Blue, April 2005

In Britain, there were several documented exercises of terror attacks on London’s underground system.

In addition to the 7/7 exercise conducted by Visor Consultants, a similar mock terror drill on London’s transportation system entitled “Atlantic Blue” was held in April 2005, barely three months prior to the real attacks. In 2003, a mock terror drill labelled OSIRIS 2 was conducted. It consisted, according to Peter Power in testing the “equipment and people deep in the Underground of London”. It involved the participation of several hundred people. (Interview with Peter Power, CTV, 11 July 2005).

“Atlantic Blue” was part of a much larger US sponsored emergency preparedness exercise labelled TOPOFF 3, which included the participation of Britain and Canada. It had been ordered by the UK Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Charles Clarke, in close coordination with his US counterpart Michael Chertoff.

The assumptions of the Visor Consultants mock drill conducted on the morning of July 7th were similar to those conducted under “Atlantic Blue”. This should come as no surprise since Visor Consultants was involved, on contract to the British government, in the organisation and conduct of Atlantic Blue and in coordination with the US Department of Homeland Security.

As in the case of the 9/11 simulation organized by the CIA, the July 7, 2005 Visor mock terror drill, was casually dismissed by the media, without further investigation, as a mere “coincidence”, with no relationship to the real event.

Foreknowledge of the 7/7 Attack?

According to a report of the Associated Press correspondent in Jerusalem, the Israeli embassy in London had been advised in advance by Scotland Yard of an impending bomb attack:

Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy to say they had received warnings of possible attacks, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference.(AP, 7 July 2005)

Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was warned by his embassy not to attend an attend an economic conference organized by the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) in collaboration with the Israeli embassy and Deutsche Bank.

Netanyahu was staying at the Aldridge Hotel in Mayfair. The conference venue was a few miles away at the Great Eastern Hotel close to the Liverpool subway station, where one of the bomb blasts occurred.

Rudolph Giuliani’s London Visit

Rudolph Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City at the time of the 9/11 attacks, was staying at the Great Eastern hotel on the 7th of July, where TASE was hosting its economic conference, with Israel’s Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as keynote speaker.

Giuliani was having a business breakfast meeting in his room at the Great Eastern Hotel, close to Liverpool Street station when the bombs went off:

“I didn’t hear the Liverpool Street bomb go off,” he explains. “One of my security people came into the room and informed me that there had been an explosion. We went outside and they pointed in the direction of where they thought the incident had happened. There was no panic. I went back in to my breakfast. At that stage, the information coming in to us was very ambiguous.” (quoted in the Evening Standard, 11 July 2005.)

Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Rudolph Giuliani knew each other. Giuliani had officially welcomed Netanyahu when he visited New York City as Prime Minister of Israel in 1996. There was no indication, however, from news reports that the two men met in London at the Great Eastern. On the day prior to the London attacks, July 6th, Giuliani was in North Yorkshire at a meeting.

After completing his term as mayor of New York City, Rudi Giuliani established a security outfit: Giuliani Security and Safety. The latter is a subsidary of Giuliani Partners LLC. headed by former New York head of the FBI, Pasquale D’Amuro.

After 9/11, D’Amuro was appointed Inspector in Charge of the FBI’s investigation of 9/11. He later served as Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division at FBI Headquarters and, Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence. D’Amuro had close links to the Neocons in the Bush adminstration.

It is worth noting that Visor Consultants and Giuliani Security and Safety LLC specialize in similar “mock terror drills” and “emergency preparedness” procedures. Both Giuliani and Power were in London at the same time within a short distance of one of the bombing sites. While there is no evidence that Giuliani and Power met in London, the two companies have had prior business contacts in the area of emergency preparedness. Peter Power served on the Advisory Board to the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness (CCEP), together with Richard Sheirer, Senior Vice President of Giuliani and Partners. who was previously Commissioner at the NYC Office of Emergency Management, and Director of New York City Homeland Security.

(See CCEP at

Concluding Remarks

One should not at this stage of the investigation draw hasty conclusions regarding the mock terror drill of a terror attack on the London underground, held on the same day and at the same time as the real time attacks.

The issue cannot, however, be dismissed. One would expect that it be addressed in a serious and professional fashion by the police investigation and that the matter be the object of a formal clarification by the British authorities.

The issue of foreknowledge raised in the Associated Press report also requires investigation.

More generally, an independent public inquiry into the London bomb attacks is required.


War Of Terror

Leave a Reply