MB Civic

This entry was posted on Monday, February 25th, 2008 at 7:15 PM and filed under Articles, History, Media, Terrorism. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.

4 Responses to “False Flag Prospects, 2008 — Top Three US Target Cities”

1. Ian Alterman said:

   This is an exceptional, and exceptionally well-researched, article. However, what he fails to suggest is a false flag operation targeting MULTIPLE cities at the same time (whether or not they are Houston, Chicago and/or Portland).

   Indeed, while a (God forbid) nuclear attack on ANY city would certainly “do the trick,” smaller (but still substantial) attacks on multiple cities at the same time would probably have just as much of an effect, since it spreads the fear wider. Each attack (say, biological, chemical or explosive) meed only kill thousands to “make its point”; i.e., no need to kill millions in a nuclear explosion.

   Personally, I think the multiple city scenario is much more likely.

   Peace. (?)

   Posted on 25-Feb-08 at 8:06 pm | Permalink
2. ben stagg said:

   Mr Power says, ‘I was running an excercise for a company – bearing in mind I am now in the private sector.’ The article implies that Mr Power was in fact carrying out this excerise as a government contract. This is crucial to the author’s argument of government culpability
   in the London bombing.
   Mr Power seems a pretty open guy, easy to get hold of. Don’t you think that a little more detail regarding who commissioned the study and who would have had access to the information might be helpful?
   Ian’s supposition that this peice of writing is well researched comes crashing down in flames. This is something that indeed needs to be researched before such heady claims can even be considered. Perhaps the author would like to cosy up to MR Al-Fayed who says that Prince Philip and Prince Charles plotted to kill Princess Diana.
   Tell you what. Let’s start with the supposition and find anything that might possibly fit. That is going to look pretty convincing, isn’t it? Well, it might convince you, and you might possibly hear what you want to hear.

   Posted on 26-Feb-08 at 2:36 am | Permalink
3. Mike Blaxill said:

   what’s the 4th city? also..um, Ben.. there’s been lots of “well researched” investigation into 9/11 .. where have you been for the past 4 years? I sugggest you google “Michael Meacher”, “David Ray Griffin” and “Andreas von Bülow” just for starters

   Posted on 28-Feb-08 at 11:26 am | Permalink
4. Ian Alterman said:

   Ben:

   Adding to Mike’s comments re 9/11, and at the risk of sounding hopelessly self-aggrandizing, I am among the most respected 9/11 researchers in cyberspace; not only do I contribute to many major 9/11 sites and organizations, but I am often called upon SPECIFICALLY to provide info because I know how to “read between the lines,” find common denominators, and come to “most probable truths” (since that is all we will ever have in the absence of a true “smoking gun”) about 9/11.

   If you ever have questions, or would like info on specific aspects of 9/11, please do not hesitate to ask. Again, I do not pretend to have “absolutes,” since that would be impossible. But given the vast wealth of info I have read and seen (books, articles, websites, photos, videos, etc.), I can help guide you to the “most probable truths.”

   BTW, in addition to Meacher, Griffin and Bulow, also look for Webster Tarpley, Michael Ruppert and Barry Zwicker.

   Peace.

   Posted on 29-Feb-08 at 5:27 pm | Permalink