A wakeup call for non-violent
New Blog! www.crookedshepherds.wordpress.com
New pentagon overflight evidence: www.thepentacon.com
911 and the Reichstag Fire: have we seen this show before?
Based on a talk for Eugene Forum for Peace Education, given 11/9/03
by Jerry Russell
In the view of the notable historian William Shirer and many others, it has been established "beyond a reasonable doubt" that on Feb. 27, 1933, a team of Hitler's commandos fanned out through the Reichstag building (the German parliament), using incendiary fluids to quickly touch off a massive blaze. Before the fire had died down, Hitler proclaimed that the outrage must have been the responsibility of the Communists.
Apparently, by and large, the German public believed Hitler was telling the truth: the Enabling Act was passed giving Hitler a dictator's powers -- and in the general election a few days later, the National Socialists cemented their hold over the German government. Communist leaders stood trial, accused of participating in a vast conspiracy to destroy the Reichstag -- and, by extension, the German people themselves. Finally, a pogrom was commenced against the Communists -- which culminated years later, in WWII, with the German war against the Soviet Union which killed ten million people or more.
One item in the litany of evidence of Nazis' conspiratorial role in the Reichstag fire is the eyewitness testimony of an SA member named Adolf Rall, who levied his accusation in an interview in the magazine Pariser Tagiblatt, and was later murdered by the Nazis. Other testimony to this effect came at the Nuremberg trials. Also, technical analyses of the spread of the fire have led to the conclusion that it spread so rapidly that it must have been set by an organized team of arsonists. Unfortunately, one potential source of testimony is not available to us -- the entire team of SA commandos, fingered by Rall, were said to have been killed by the Nazis in 1934. The pattern of murders seems to indicate that a cover-up of the crime was underway.
Hitler's team also arranged to have a "patsy" on the scene at the Reichstag. A young Dutch communist, half blind, named Marinus van der Lubbe, had an encounter with the German police a few days earlier. According to some accounts, he had just recently attempted to set fire to an unemployment office; and he was overheard at a bar, threatening to burn the Reichstag itself. Now, given that van der Lubbe was a suspect in one crime, and known to be plotting another, one might imagine that the Nazis would have been prudent to keep him under custody. But they let him loose, and by some strange synchronicity, van der Lubbe was caught setting fire to the Reichstag just as Hitler's men were finishing their work. At trial, Hitler's experts provided conclusive evidence that van der Lubbe could not have started the fire alone, so a conspiracy must have been afoot. Yet all of the Communist leadership on trial were ultimately absolved of any responsibility, due to air-tight alibis. Van der Lubbe repeatedly testified that he alone was responsible for setting the fire, and so he alone was convicted and executed.
To this day, not everyone is convinced of the Nazi's conspiratorial role in setting the blaze. Some historians maintain that van der Lubbe truly did set the fire alone, and Hitler got a bad rap in this instance. Perhaps given the inflammatory nature of the accusation, it is best to concentrate on other aspects of the event: Hitler's illogical response in blaming an entire political movement, and ultimately an entire country, for the purported actions of just a few individuals; the rush to judgment and the eagerness to fix blame on the "vast Communist conspiracy" before the embers had a chance to cool; the coverup and the mysterious deaths of so many of those involved with the incident; and the moves to squash individual rights and freedoms in Germany, along with the death throes of German democracy, and the onset of world war. Even if Hitler's minions did not directly set the fire at the Reichstag, certainly Hitler's response was more than sufficient to earn the contempt of history.
Nevertheless, with all of the circumstantial evidence and all of the testimony pointing to Hitler's guilt for the Reichstag fire, it is also enlightening to look at those who confidently proclaim his innocence. One such figure is the journalist Sefton Delmer, who wrote in his 1961 book "Trail Sinister" that "the 'Hitler, Göring and Goebbels did it' legend has been thoroughly exploded". Delmer, who was a member of Hitler's inner circle in 1933, provided a great deal of colorful eyewitness detail which tended to support Hitler's innocence; evidence which is poorly corroborated elsewhere, to say the least. However, Delmer's own life story turns out to be most interesting: he was recruited in 1940 by the British Special Operations Executive to organize "black propaganda" broadcasts into Germany. In this intelligence capacity, he has recently been accused of fabricating a failed Nazi invasion of Great Britain out of whole cloth, according to reports by the BBC.
The lesson here is, that it is important to know when you have entered the hall of mirrors created by intelligence operatives. Why would a British journalist go out of his way to exonerate Hitler? It is hard to explain by any conventional analysis, yet I maintain that it can and does happen. Perhaps for the same sorts of reason that Americans like Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker, the founders of the Bush dynasty, worked so hard to provide funding for Hitler's brownshirts -- and for the same reason that many German intelligence operatives were brought into the US intelligence fold after WWII, to create the embryonic CIA.
It has now been more than seventy years since the Reichstag fire, so we have the benefit of some historical perspective. It has only been a little more than two years since 9-11, so we're just starting to accumulate some of that same sense of perspective. Nevertheless, we can now see quite clearly that war has been launched, first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, and the attacks of 911 have been given as the justification. Speaking about recent American casualties in Iraq, President Bush stated on Nov. 4, 2003: "We are at war, and it is essential that the people of America not forget the lessons of September 11, 2001." This in spite of the fact that no credible evidence has emerged linking 911 to Iraq. So here we have the first analogy to the Reichstag Fire: a campaign to scapegoat an entire population (in this case, Middle Eastern Islamics) for the purported actions of a few, and along with that, an aggressive campaign of warfare.
Another clear parallel is that there has been a cover-up, or at least a remarkable lack of interest by the authorities and the mainstream media in following-up the anomalies of 9-11. Consider, for example, the insider trading that has been researched by Mike Ruppert, Tom Flocco and Kyle Hence. Obviously, if we want to know who was really responsible for the 9-11 attacks, it would be helpful to know who had managed to learn about them in advance. Yet, as Ruppert notes at his web site:
As Ruppert also noted we know exactly where the trail was leading, when it suddenly went cold:
But beyond the cover-up and the political use and mis-use of 911, what evidence do we have of real US government complicity? As the Internet columnist David McGowan wrote:
So the events of 911 were orchestrated to create feelings of fear and helplessness in the face of surprise attack -- fears which were later exploited by the Bush administration's imagery that the moribund Iraqi nuclear weapons program, could be restarted and then unveiled by a mushroom cloud over a US city.
Yet, in the strange lack of response of the US military on 9-11, we have our first evidence of the actual complicity of the US government. For how could the hijackers themselves have arranged for the failure to respond to the Pentagon attack? As Bykov & Israel noted in their groundbreaking article "Guilty for 9-11 Bush, Rumsfeld, Meyer":
Bykov & Israel went on to argue quite persuasively that because of the hierarchical and distributed nature of the chain of command of the US military, it is impossible that these procedures would have failed so spectacularly unless there were explicit orders, right from the top, voiding standard response procedures.
The Reichstag fire gives us another clue as to how to understand the events of 9-11 look very carefully at the alleged perpetrator of the crime. What sort of patsy has been put forward as responsible for the disaster?
Just as in the case of the Reichstag Fire, there was a rush to judgment on the part of the US government and the media after the catastrophe: it was immediately announced that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida was the only organization with the capability and malice to do such a thing. Within days, names and photos of the alleged hijackers were released, and the evidence connecting them to Al Qaida was claimed to be beyond dispute. Yet details emerged painfully and slowly, in self-contradictory fits and starts. Only now, two years later, do we have a reasonably complete narrative from official sources, regarding the alleged mechanisms by which the hijackings were organized and carried out. According to this tale, mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (under the watchful eye of Osama Bin Laden) assembled a team of terrorists headed by Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Binalshibh. The hijackers went to the United States for flight training, and funds were supplied by a paymaster named Mustafa Ahmad Al-Hiwasi.
The story was covered most recently in an article from Der Spiegel, translated and re-printed in the New York Times, entitled "Operation Holy Tuesday", appearing on Oct. 27, 2003. The article covers a "confession" by the alleged mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And it conveys at least one clear message this "confession" was obtained by torture. The article stated
Now, my position is that the value of confessions obtained under such conditions is less than zero. And, if the strongest evidence of the official story is a confession obtained in a secret torture chamber, I think that sends a clear enough message of the contempt these officials have for real justice and the truth. This another of the alarming parallels with the Reichstag Fire events: a massive deterioration in the respect for human rights.
There is much more that we can learn from the official story, and the sequence in which it has been revealed. With massive and meticulous detail, Chaim Kupferberg of the Canadian internet site GlobalResearch.ca, builds his case that the story of the 9-11 hijackers is an improvised, legendary tale weaved around a small cadre of mysterious figures of uncertain identity -- whose lives were tied to New World Order intelligence agencies by a remarkable series of synchronicities.
According to Kupferberg, the archetypal outlines of the 9-11 legend were unveiled in 1995, when Ramzi Yousef, who was responsible for the 1993 bombing attempt against the WTC (along with FBI mole Emad Salem), was arrested in the Philippines. His computer disk was reported to have contained plans for a project called "Bojinka" which involved simultaneously hijacking multiple airliners, destroying them, or flying them into buildings such as the WTC, nuclear power plants, and so forth. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was identified at that time as an integral part of this embryonic Al Qaida conspiracy. As Kupferberg wrote:
In the days immediately following 911, at the same time as the Administration was maintaining that it was totally surprised by the attacks -- they also maintained with absolute confidence, that the attacks could only have been the work of Bin Laden and Al Qaida. The fact is, the attacks certainly could not have been a surprise, at least in the sense that US intelligence agencies were fully informed of the plot and the main characters, by 1995.
As the team of hijackers was assembled, we learn still more intriguing facts. The terrorists were largely recruited into the Al Qaida fold by two preachers, Abu Hamza in London and Mohammed Haydar Zammar in Hamburg. Kupferberg says
Again we are reminded of the Reichstag fire, where a young Dutchman directly took the rap, while a much broader population of European and Russian Communists were scape-goated.
Once the hijackers were drawn into the Al Qaida fold, they showed a most fascinating habit of holding meetings in swank hotels, within a matter of days of counter-terror meetings in those same hotels attended by the likes of FBI officials Robert Mueller and John O'Neill. Then they came to the US for flight training. Now, these terrorists were not the sort of young men who normally would have been able to obtain visas to come to the US under any circumstances. Unemployed, with incomplete educations -- without some inside connections as well, these are the sorts of people (and there are millions if not billions like them) who simply cannot gain legal entry into the United States. Yet even with well-known connections to terrorist organizations in some cases, the hijackers sailed cleanly through the system.
Some of the hijackers took their flight training in Florida, where, according to investigative work by former NBC News Executive Producer Daniel Hopsicker:
Another cell was set up in San Diego, where terrorists Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar took up residence in the home of FBI informant Abdussattar Shaikh, and alleged flight 77 pilot Hani Hanjour was a frequent visitor.
Not only is it difficult to avoid the conclusion that US intelligence was coddling along the terrorists at every step, it is also evident that other major intelligence agencies all over the world were well aware of the plans for Sept. 11, and they notified the US government, sometimes in great detail, as Paul Thompson and Mike Ruppert have documented.
There are many unanswered questions remaining about the terrorists' actual role in 911. How the hijackers evaded airport security, how they managed to board the planes without being photographed by security cameras (or, why no such photos have ever been released), how they were able to successfully fly the planes to their destinations in spite of precious little flight training directly related to Boeing jet aircraft (including aerobatic maneuvers on the part of the least-trained pilot, Hani Hanjour) and indeed whether they were on the planes at all, remains open to question and debate.
Were the 911 terrorists the actual perpetrators of the crimes of 911 (regardless of how they might have been helped along in their destructive quest, by the US government) or were they in fact nothing but patsies, bit-part actors in a drama where the true perpetrators of the crime were hidden behind the scenes? This is another long story, and I won't be able to get into it very much today, but there is a growing body of forensic evidence suggesting that the terrorists could not possibly have caused all the damage which occurred on September 11. The analogy to the Reichstag fire may well be perfected in this way also: in my opinion, commandos of the New World Order were the real arsonists of 911, just as Hitler's minions were responsible for setting the fires back in 1933. There is more about this at my website, and at the new site physics911.org, which I highly recommend.
Thank you for your attention.
The Reichstag fire analogy appeared on the Internet within hours after the attacks, according to an excellent survey article entitled "Making a Case for 911 skepticism" by John McCurdy. My introduction to this analogy came by way of the anonymous author of a piece called "The Rise of the Fourth Reich", which was posted at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html.