Parallels Between Pearl Harbor and 9/11

While it occurred some 60 years ago, the attack on Pearl Harbor provides vital information for understanding current events.

Intelligence Failures

Initially, as shown by this BBC special (which contains interviews with some of the key players), America knew of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor -- down to the exact date of the attack -- and allowed it to happen to justify America's entry into World War II. The case for foreknowledge is even more definitively made by this short essay by a highly-praised historian summarizing some of the key points (the historian, a World War II veteran, actually agreed with this strategy for getting America into the war, and so does not have any axe to grind).

Indeed, the White House apparently had, a year before Pearl Harbor, launched an 8-point plan to provoke Japan into war against the U.S. (including, for example, an oil embargo). The rationale for this provocation is that the U.S. wanted to aid its allies in fighting the Nazis and other axis powers, and decided that an attack by Japan would be the most advantageous justification for the U.S. to enter WWII.

Active Interference with Military's Ability to Defend

It has also recently been discovered that the FDR administration took numerous affirmative steps to ensure that the Japanese attack would be successful. These steps included taking extraordinary measures to hide information from the commanders in Hawaii about the location of Japanese war ships (information of which they would normally be informed), denying their requests to allow them to scout for Japanese ships, and other actions to blind the commanders in Hawaii so that the attacks would succeed. See, for example, this book (page 186).

Key Military Players Incommunicado

In addition, the heads of the Army and Navy suddenly diappeared and remained unreachable on the night before Pearl Harbor. And they would later testify over and over that they "couldn't remember" where they were (pages 320 and 335).

Gagging Whistleblowers

Two weeks after Pearl Harbor, the Navy classified all documents TOP SECRET, and the Navy Director of Communications sent a memo ordering all commanders to "destroy all notes or anything in writing" related to the attacks. More importantly, all radio operators and cryptographers were gagged on threat of imprisonment and loss of all benefits. (page 256)

Scapegoating and labels of "conspiracy theory"

The commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were scapegoated as being the cause for the "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor (they were recently cleared by Congress).

And, according to a statement made to me privately by a leading Pearl Harbor scholar, the government repeatedly denied foreknowledge and labeled anyone who discussed the military's prior knowledge of the attacks as a nutty conspiracy theorist.

Media Complicity

Amazingly, the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending attacks BEFORE THEY OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored Amazingly, the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending attacks BEFORE THEY OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361); and listen to interview here (I personally spent an hour speaking with the historian making this claim, and find him highly credible.).

In other words, there apparently was a conspiracy between the government and media regarding the impending Pearl Harbor attacks.


As discussed below, the parallels of Pearl Harbor to September 11th are numerous.

Intelligence Failures

As with Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks:

According to MSNBC, "There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets".

For example, a 1998 report forwarded from the FBI to the Federal Aviation Administration concluded that "a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane . . . into the World Trade Center"

The CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected" according to a broadcast on National Public Radio

It was widely known within the FBI shortly before 9/11 that an imminent attack was planned on lower Manhattan.

An employee who worked in the south tower stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on"

A guard who worked in the world trade center stated that "officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks"

Moreover, the newly-revealed "Able Danger" intelligence program tracked Mohammad Atta and other alleged hijackers well before September 11th. Indeed, a former White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President has recently stated in a letter sent to the New York Times that the NSA was tracking all of the alleged hijackers before September through wiretaps.

And it is known that military bases, such as the Navy's Sixth Fleet Ocean Surveillance Information Facility in Rota, Spain, have for many years produced daily reports on all Middle East activity. There are also mobile intel station on large naval vessels which monitor electronic communications in the Middle East. In addition, Bin Laden was reported to have used walkie-talkies which required booster stations with easily-interceptible signals.

Moreover, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland, had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run.

And the military had conducted drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon. For example, see this official military website showing a military drill conducted in 2000 using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

The military had also run war games involving multiple, simultaneous hijackings (first paragraph), so this aspect of 9/11 was not as overwhelming as we have been led to believe.

See this short excerpt of a Peter Jennings newscast on 9/11 (excuse the music and subtitles)

Other evidence also indicates that the U.S. knew of the impending attacks:

In June-Aug 2001, German intelligence warned the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists were training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerted the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on U.S. targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warned the US that bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warned of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. See, for example, this article from Fox News and this article from the Independent

In July 2001, Bin Laden is alleged to have received kidney treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai. During his stay, bin Laden is alleged to have been visited by one or two CIA agents. See this Guardian article, this article from the Sydney Morning Herald, this story from the London Times, and and this one from United Press International

On July 26, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment . In May 2002, Ashcroft walked out of his own office rather than answer questions about it.

On August 6, 2001, President Bush received an intelligence briefing warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the briefing specifically mentioned the World Trade Center. See this Washington Post story, and the actual partially-declassified briefing.

On August 27, 2001, an FBI supervisor said he was trying to keep a hijacker from “flying a plane into the World Trade Center.” (Senate Report Hill #2. FBI headquarters chastised him for notifying the CIA.

On September 10th, intelligence services intercepted messages between the alleged lead hijacker and the mastermind behind 9/11 stating "the match begins tomorrow" and "tomorrow is zero hour"

Is it a coincidence that "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns" (pay-per-view; cached version of article here)?

And on 9/11 itself, data recovery experts extracted data from 32 damaged world trade center computer drives. The data revealed a surge in financial transactions shortly before the attacks. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through some trade center computer systems immediately before and during the 9/11 disaster. See this article and this one.

And anyone who still doubts that the government intentionally let 9/11 happen should consider this. While the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, this short video clip of the Secretary of Transportation's testimony before the 9/11 Commission shows that Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon. How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away?

Active Interference with Military's Ability to Defend

As with Pearl Harbor, the government actively interfered with the military and intelligence agencies' ability to prevent the attack:

As stated above, the FBI chastised an agent for spreading information to the CIA about potential attacks against the Twin Towers.

And as shown as this already-referenced video clip, Dick Cheney repeatedly told military personnel "the order still stands" as he watched flight 77 approach and then strike the Pentagon. Was the "order" that the plane should be allowed to continue, without interception?

In addition, in May 2001, for the third time, US security chiefs rejected Sudan’s offer of thick files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A senior CIA source calls it “the worst single intelligence failure in the business.”

The Bush administration also told the FBI to "back off" on its Bin Laden investigation before 9/11.

And the FBI and CIA inexplicably ignored warnings from its own agents (see also this essay).

In addition, 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers failed to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only 6 were interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. See also this article. Two top senators say that if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. Indeed, the former head of the Visa department in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, said that the U.S. intentionally facilitated terrorists entering the country. And see this BBC video (or transcript is here).

And this essay describes several additional ways in which certain high-level officials actively interfered with the military's ability to defend against the attacks.

Key Military Decision-Makers Unavailable

On September 11th, as during Pearl Harbor, all of the key military players were mysteriously unavailable and out of the loop when they were needed.

Whistleblowers Gagged

As with Pearl Harbor, key whistleblowers have been gagged. See, for example, this article. As another example, key sections of former anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke's book were edited out.

Innocent People Scapegoated

Just like the commanders in Hawaii were scapegoated for Pearl Harbor, the CIA has been scapegoated for pre-9/11 "intelligence failures" and the Federal Aviation Administration was scapegoated for failing to notify the military of the hijacked planes.

As demonstrated above, there were no intelligence failures, as the government knew of the impending attacks. See also this article on "intelligence failures".

And the FAA, in fact, did not delay in informing the military about the hijacked planes, as shown in this article.

Media Complicity

Finally, as with Pearl Harbor, the American media has studiously avoided any substantive coverage of the government's involvement in 9/11, and has attempted to paint anyone who questioned the official version of events as a "conspiracy theorist".

And since many news reporters, including reporters from the BBC (and see this BBC clip; BBC clips authenticated here, here, and here), CNN and other stations reported the collapse of Building 7 before it actually fell, the question of media complicity should be investigated.

Note: This essay does not discuss the question of whether elements within the U.S. government or other persons assisted the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks in other ways. Scholars and researchers have made additional arguments in this regard, which are discussed elsewhere, and which must be judged on their own merit.

Nor does this essay discuss the question of whether 9/11 was a "false flag" operation or why the World Trade Centers collapsed on September 11th, which are discussed in numerous other essays on this blog and at

Please let me know

if you find broken links, and I'll fix em.

Nice Work

Now this is a story we should Digg.

Love to see them bury this
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

I just submitted one.

Here's the URL. Maybe somebody can put up one of those embedded digg thingies, I would appreciate that.

not sure if I'm buying the parallels

Are you suggesting that just like in Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was a matter of real enemies being allowed to carry out their planned attack?

Pearl Harbor would seem to have been a clear case of LIHOP, 9/11 most certainly does not. Whereas with Pearl Harbor our enemies overtly attacked us, our enemies on 9/11 falsely portrayed the attacks as the work of Arab Muslims.

And not to be cheeky, but won't linking 9/11 to Pearl Harbor offend the families of the victims of Pearl Harbor? Shouldn't we focus on 9/11 instead and stop comparing it to other historical deceptions clinged to by some as sacred historical narrative? /cheekiness


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I totally second your cheekiness

and was about to draw the same parallels over where all voices have now been silenced before I noticed they had been.

I really think ignoring the topic won't cut it. Sorry everyone. Just as tensions within the earth's crust always equalize at some point through earthquakes, the very obvious tensions about the subject thou shalt not speak of, right within the community of this website, will erupt time and time again at various points.

Unless the restrictions drop, and no more tensions can build up, that is.

well said bruce!

The simple fact that discussions have to be cut off like that make it so clear that this is a "special issue". Now, when threads go into like 10 pages of commentary on the color of the feces that Nico put on the wall somewhere, that's OK. But mention something that's actually taboo and BAM the censoring starts. The one blog I tried to post having anything to do with the holocaust (about Kevin Barrett's position on it) was not approved for publication by the powers that be here, so basically when it comes to the holocaust, you can either say how bad holocaust deniers are for the movement or you can be silent. We'll see how it goes, but if this site is going to go the route of censorship of anything holocaust related then I think it will cease being credible or relevant, which would be a shame. It will also be a sign that certain special interests do in fact wield an inordinate amount of influence over the movement, and that will require a fundamental change in how we approach 9/11 truth--with unity or in competing factions drawing attention to the important differences between one group of truthers and another.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Yes, "special issue"

also, its narrative is mostly emotionally driven, forensically uninvestigated, widely considered sacrosanct, incredibly full of holes and partially contradicted by even the very eyewitnesses on which it relies.

Remind anyone of another story, perhaps?



(to whoever just voted this recently vacated space up as such, instead of maybe the digg submission, or anything else here: A sincere fvck you, too!)

My feeling

is that Lihop AND Mihop are both important. Of course its mihop, but many people will open first to lihop, then end up at mihop.

Remember, the whole game is reaching newbies, NOT people who already know 9/11 was an inside job.

So I write alot of mihop articles, and also some lihop articles, to try to reach as many potential audiences as possible.


Just got this off Rense...

I'm not going to pass judgement on this article, maybe the guy will sue and he'll prove to be a loony. But, check it out.

Northwest pilot from rural Glyndon alleges 9/11 cover-up
Steven Wagner, The Forum of Fargo/Moorhead
Published Monday, March 05, 2007

Field McConnell is convinced the 9/11 terrorist attacks are being covered up.

The Northwest Airlines pilot from rural Glyndon, Minn., said a second attack is imminent and conspirators already have aborted their plan once this year.

Article comments (13)

Those beliefs prompted him to begin writing for a Web site where like-minded people gather and to file a lawsuit in Fargo’s federal court to expose an alleged conspiracy.

The lawsuit, filed last week, claims Boeing Co. and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) can’t assure him that B747-400 planes are safe. McConnell, who is the process of seeking an early retirement from Northwest, claims the planes are rigged by Boeing and can be remotely detonated.

“We do not believe in any way, shape or form that that is true,” said Pete Janhunen, a spokesman for ALPA, the world’s largest pilot’s union.

“Our senior lawyer and senior engineer both said that on its face, it’s an insane complaint. … It sounds like he’s a troubled guy.”

McConnell, a rural Glyndon rancher, has been a Northwest Airlines pilot for more than 28 years. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1971 and flew planes in the military, including with Fargo’s Happy Hooligans, for 22 years.

“I am obligated under company procedures and FAA regulation not to operate an aircraft if I suspect it is unsafe,” McConnell, 57, states in his handwritten claim.

Janhunen dismisses the claim.

“We take every threat to airline security and safety very seriously,” he said. “In this case, we do not believe there’s any shred of evidence that the allegations about these Boeing airplanes are true, and the case should be immediately dismissed.”

Many of McConnell’s allegations are outlined in Internet postings on, which its creators say provide an analysis of the weapons and motives behind 9/11. The group claims to have more than 4 million members worldwide.

“I think this lawsuit is opening a Pandora’s box,” McConnell said. “It will turn into a legal case that solves 9/11.”

He claims to know the true conspirators behind the 9/11 attacks and that radical Muslims served as a masquerade.

“If you want to know why I’m doing it, it is to make aviation safer,” McConnell said.

Boeing spokesman Tim Neale said each of its planes exceeds federal standards and undergoes rigorous certification before taking to the air.

“It’s (safety) something we take very, very seriously,” Neale said. “There are no safety issues that go ignored. There’s just too much at stake.”

Northwest Airlines denied comment. In the lawsuit, McConnell said the company and pilots union “have suggested that I am crazy.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of those working with the Web site, said McConnell, who previously filed for bankruptcy and seeks $4.5 million from Boeing and ALPA.

“I’m trying to retire early so I can do something more important than hauling 400 people to Hawaii,” said McConnell, who added that he wants to move to a warmer climate.

Would you like to comment on this article?
Create a account

Already have an account with us? Log in

Already being covered

Off topic, but consider:

Are you an idiot?

Here's a test so that you can know for sure:

Part 1

Situation: A man stands on the top of the Empire State Building with a bowling ball. Somehow he manages to get by Security and he tosses the ball off the building, 1,250 feet above the ground.
At the exact same moment man 1 drops his ball, man 2 drops an identical bowling ball down the elevator shaft ( for this test the elevator shaft is a vertical tube straight up and down.) Unlike the bowling ball dropped off the side of the building, man 2's ball has to break through a sheet of peanut brittle every 10 feet. Naturally, the ball has no problem breaking through all of the peanut brittle panels.

The question is: Which ball hits the ground first?

A: Ball 1
B: Ball 2

(Here's a hint: objects fall through air faster than they do when they meet any kind of resistance.)

Made your decision?


Part II

Now consider this situation: A 757 jetliner crashes into a building slightly taller than the Empire State Building. A terrible fire breaks out and after about an hour the building collapses, straight down, leaving a pile of debris on a few stories high.
At the exact same moment the building starts collapsing, an unfortunate soul decides to leap from the roof of the building. ( Nobody said that this test was going to be easy. )

The question is: Who/What hits the ground first?

A: Jumper
B: Roof

Answer time: Part 1. The correct answer is A. Surprised? Of course not, you're not an idiot! Any falling object which meets resistance, no matter how flimsy, falls slower than an object falling through air.


Any complaints with the scoring system should be addressed to George W. Bush, White House, Washington, D.C.
or Richard "Dick" Cheney ( Command and Control Center ) Washington D.C.

*This test was funded by the George W. Bush and White House Staff, The 9/11 Commission, the N.I.S.T ( National Institute of Standards and Technology ) World Trade Center Collapse Investigation, and The New York Times.*

While I hope I am not an idiot

I figured that if I was, I wouldn't know - therefore I will have to concede that I truly don't know.

However, as to your test, I will go out on a limb and say 1: A and 2: A, in hopes I will not be considered an idiot by those who believe they know whether they're idiots.

Anyway, here's Part III

Find the button that allows you to reply to the general thread instead of a particular poster - within one minute or before said poster has to direct you to it. Any complaints about the scoring system to me.


Sorry, I must still be a little aggravated after what has gone down here within the last 12 hours - I'm sure you didn't mean wrong, and apologize for taking it out on you here. I will however let this stand for documentary value.


Do you have any of the peanut brittle from part 1 left?

If you do any experiments with chocolate (please use dark chocolate), let me know.


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

good article, but...

It was widely known within the FBI shortly before 9/11 that an imminent attack was planned on lower Manhattan.

The link in that sentence is defunct.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Show "No connection" by Cgb8

welcome aboard

Those are perhaps comforting beliefs, but they don't stand up to the "overanalyzed" evidence. ;-)

Stick around, read, watch some vids. I recommend DRG's article on 9/11 and Iraq for a start.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Bits of this are hillarious...

..other bits are just disturbing. So are all the other new wankers also from your English class?

I should be nice, considering you're a fresh faced--bugger, I've forgotten what year of college you're in, if you mentioned it. Sorry can't be bothered to look again. Point is, everybody's got to learn to mix it up sometime, sunbeam, and this is your time.

So, lets pick a couple of gems here:

"The first reason I make the claim that there is no connection is because of the United State’s value of human life and success as a whole."

By "United States's value of human life" do you mean what is expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or do the prevailing policies of the relevant administrations in the relevant times? If so could you give an example of this value in the histories of the time? Mind, you will have to counter such examples of "devaluing human life" like shooting and killing some of the "Bonus Army", the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to scare the Russians with the new toy(the US was already in talks with the Japanese at the time), and the use of DU in the first Gulf War.

"The Bush Administration along with congress and the Supreme court were not in a time where they wanted to launch an offensive on any great power in the international system or on any independently lead terrorist organization."

Hmm. Most consider the US THE last great super-power( I don't agree entirely with this, but it is true in many ways). So which "great power" were you thinking of? As for "independently lead terrorist organizations", you realize there are none, right? All those IRA bombings--trace em right back to MI6--read "Stakeknife". Al qaida? Total invention of the CIA. Think for two seconds: excepting suicide bombers at the end of their rope( and even then you have to wonder where they get those explosives), randomly blowing things up where your own nationals will get killed is NOT something patriotic guerella fighters want to do. They aren't going to make a habit of alienating their audiance when they have rotten press as it is. But who benefits if they look like crazy wackos? The bastards who pull the strings of course.

This is not to say terrorist organizations are choir boys. They ARE full of bastards--that well funded intellegence agencies have trained to be bastards. Now before you get all upset Jenny's turning your world upside down, look at the School of the Americas:

Before you rush over next time, ask this question: cui bono? Who benefits from 9/11? Certainly not a bearded goatherder in a cave across the pond. Then ask your self: who had the means, motive and opportunity to pull off 9/11? Again, NOT a goatherder in a cave across the pond.(Yes, I know Bin Laden is not a goatherder--that's hyperbole).

If there were hijackers, they could be nothing more than pasties--Al qaida might have the motive but they DID NOT have the means or opportunity to pull off 9/11 with near military precision.

Still, if you're going to come back and explain how they did have the means and opportunity, could you have someone edit and format your post for ease of reading? If we must disagree let's be clear about it. ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


well done. thanks for the link by the way.

No problem

I think I scared them off...that or they're only online during class.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.