Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Mind Blowing Epstein Related Facts You Haven’t Heard

Amazing Polly | September 7, 2019

Strap in – I talk about IN-Q-Tel, who the Maxwell sisters married & their mega-huge impact on culture. I go in to Aaron Swartz, MIT Media Labs, the Santa Fe Institue, Edge.org, and the whole NASA / Jet Propulsion Labs Jack Parsons story with a mind-blower of an update on that! Also – did you know there was a project to put artists into the defense & tech corporations back in the 60s? It’s a pretty unbelievable story, which I share with you here. All that and MORE. BOOM BOOM BOOM.

References: On the Net, No one Knows You’re a Maxwell: https://www.wired.com/1999/02/maxwell/

US Dept of Energy Partners with Santa Fe Institute: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/41287

The Battle For Hewlett Packard, V Ward: https://vickyward.com/article/the-bat…

DNC Hack Crowdstrike: https://dailycaller.com/2017/11/02/dw…

CYREN / CommTouch history & updates: https://www.revolvy.com/page/CYREN?cr=1

VIDEO World Economic Forum, Post Human: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpW9J…

Trump AlfaBank: https://time.com/5592739/donald-trump…

Social Media tool of C-A, CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-m…

Dept of Energy working with Santa Fe Inst, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/41287

LACMA east of borneo: https://eastofborneo.org/articles/clo…

VIDEO: secret Life Hernando Cortez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-IRd…

Apple Pie Propaganda: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwes…

Foreign Policy Mag Repeal Propag. Ban: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/…

Al Seckel Death an illusion? https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey…

Strange Angel on Leonardo: https://www.leonardo.info/blog/2018/0…

Roger Malina Funky Ed’s: https://funkyeds.blogspot.com/2019/07…

If you would like to support my work with a financial contribution please do so via paypal here: https://paypal.me/PollyStGeorge

Thank you for helping me to continue to do this work that I love to do. I am on Twitter: https://twitter.com/99freemind

Bitchute: bitchute.com/channel/99FreeMind/ and on my own web site now! amazingpolly.net

September 12, 2019 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

9/11: You Weren’t Stupid, Mr. Brown!

CNN’s brief shining moment on September 11, 2001

By Graeme MacQueen | OffGuardian | September 11, 2019

Aaron Brown, news anchor during most of CNN’s coverage on September 11, 2001, was interviewed on the 15th anniversary of the event. He said in that interview that he had felt “profoundly stupid” when he was reporting the destruction of the first Tower (the South Tower) on that morning.

I… I will tell you… that a million things had been running through my mind about what might happen. About the effect of a jet plane hitting people above where the impact was, what might be going on in those buildings. And it just never occurred to me that they’d come down. And I thought… it’s the only time I thought, maybe you just don’t have what it takes to do a story like this. Because it just had never occurred to me.” (CNN, Sept. 11, 2016, interviewer Brian Stelter)

Is it not remarkable that Brown was made to feel stupid, and to feel inadequate as a news anchor, during the precise moments of his coverage of that day when his senses and his mind were fully engaged and on the right track?

Shortly after 9:59 a.m. Brown had been standing on a roof in New York City about 30 blocks from the World Trade Center. He was looking directly at the South Tower as it was destroyed. He was not just a journalist and not just a news anchor: he was an eyewitness.

He immediately interrupted a journalist who was reporting live about the Pentagon:

Wow! Jamie. Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion…we can see a billowing smoke rising… and I can’t… I’ll tell you that I can’t see that second Tower. But there was a cascade of sparks and fire and now this… it looks almost like a mushroom cloud, explosion, this huge, billowing smoke in the second Tower…” (9:59:07 a.m.)

Having reported honestly what he saw with his own eyes, Brown next did exactly what he should have done as a responsible news anchor. He let his audience know that while he did not know what had happened it was clear that there were two hypotheses in play, the explosion hypothesis and the structural failure hypothesis. And then he went to his reporters on the scene, as well as to authorities, to try and sort out which hypothesis was correct.

Here are examples of his setting forth—after the first building was destroyed and again after the second was destroyed—the rival hypotheses:

and then just in the last several minutes there has been a second explosion or, at least, perhaps not an explosion, perhaps part of the building simply collapsed. And that’s what we saw and that’s what we’re looking at.” (10:03:47)
…
This is just a few minutes ago…we don’t know if…something happened, another explosion, or if the building was so weakened…it just collapsed.” (10:04:36 a.m.)
…
we believe now that we can say that both, that portions of both Towers of the World Trade Centre, have collapsed. Whether there were second explosions, that is to say, explosions other than the planes hitting them, that caused this to happen we cannot tell you.” (10:29:21 a.m.)
…
Our reporters in the area say they heard loud noises when that happened. It is unclear to them and to us whether those were explosions going on in the building or if that was simply the sound of the collapse of the buildings as they collapsed, making these huge noises as they came down.” (11:17:45 a.m.)

Brown’s honest reporting of his perceptions was balanced repeatedly by his caution. Here is an example:

it almost looks… it almost looks like one of those implosions of buildings that you see except there is nothing controlled about this…this is devastation.” (10:53:10 a.m.)

His next move, having set forth the two hypotheses, was to ask his reporters on the scene, who were choking on pulverized debris and witnessing gruesome scenes, what they perceived.

Reporter Brian Palmer said honestly that he was not in a position to resolve the issue.

Brown: Was there… Brian, did it sound like there was an explosion before the second collapse, or was the noise the collapse itself?” (10:41:08 a.m.)

Palmer: “Well, from our distance… I was not able to distinguish between an explosion and the collapse. We were several hundred yards away. But we clearly saw the building come down. I heard your report of a fourth explosion: I can’t confirm that. But we heard some “boom” and then the building fold in on itself.”

Two others were more definite about what they perceived.

Brown: Rose, whadya got? (10:29:43 a.m.)

Rose Arce: I’m about a block away. And there were several people that were hanging out the windows right below where the plane crashed, when suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake, and people began leaping from the windows in the north side of the building. You saw two people at first plummet and then a third one, and then the entire top of the building just blew up…

Brown: Who do we have on the phone, guys? Just help me out here. Patty, are you there? (10:57:51 a.m.)

Patty: Yes, I am here.

Brown: Whaddya got?

Patty: About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place—that’s about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center—when the first Tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion. At the time the police were trying desperately to evacuate people from the area. When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film.

As can be seen, the explosion hypothesis was flourishing. Even the news caption at the bottom of the screen shortly after the destruction of the South Tower (10:03:12 a.m.) is striking to read today:

“THIRD EXPLOSION SHATTERS WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK”

After checking with his reporters, Brown continued to explore his hypotheses, this time by consulting authorities. This was where he was led astray. “Authorities” are less securely tied to evidence than witnesses and may, in fact, be implicated in high level deception.

First Brown consulted a political authority. He got the Mayor of New York City on the line.

Brown: Sir, do you believe that… was there another set of explosions that caused the buildings to collapse, or was it the structural damage caused by the planes?” (12:31:45 p.m.)

Giuliani: I don’t, I don’t know, I, uh, I, uh… I, I saw the first collapse and heard the second ‘cause I was in a building when the second took place. I think it was structural but I cannot be sure.”

Later in the afternoon Giuliani got his script right and was more definite in ruling out explosions. But, of course, Giuliani had no right to pronounce on the science of building destruction. Brown should have persisted in his questioning.

Finally, Brown brought in an engineer, Jim DeStefano–associated, we were told, with the National Council of Structural Engineers. DeStefano’s brief comments put an end to Brown’s explosion hypothesis and rendered CNN’s news coverage safe for public consumption.

Brown: Jim De Stefano is a structural engineer. He knows about big buildings and what happens in these sort of catastrophic moments. He joins us from Deerfield, Connecticut on the phone. Jim, the plane hits… what… and I hope this isn’t a terribly oversimplified question, but what happens to the building itself? (04:20:45 p.m.)

DeStefano: … It’s a tremendous impact that’s applied to the building when a collision like this occurs. And it’s clear that that impact was sufficient to do damage to the columns and the bracing system supporting the building. That coupled with the fire raging and the high temperatures softening the structural steel then precipitated a destabilization of the columns and clearly the columns buckled at the lower floors causing the building to collapse.

I am not in a position to call DeStefano a fake or to claim he was reading from a script given to him by others, but I am prepared to say he was extremely irresponsible. He did not say “here is one hypothesis.” He said, in effect, “this is what happened.” He was in no position to make this claim. There had been no photographic or video analysis of the building destruction, no analysis of the remains of the WTC, no cataloguing of eyewitnesses, nor any of the other methods of evidence gathering. He was shooting in the dark. He was silencing a journalist who was sincerely trying to discover the truth. As we have known for years now, DeStefano not only could have been wrong: he was wrong.*

And let us remember that the entire War on Terror, with its suffering and oppression, has depended on this false structural failure hypothesis. No structural failure hypothesis, no guilty Muslim fanatics. No guilty Muslim fanatics, no War on Terror.

Some readers will feel I am too generous with Brown and with CNN. But I am not interested in portraying them as broadly “dissident” or as on the political Left. I am simply interested in calling things as I see them and giving credit where credit is due. Anyone who wants a contrast to Brown’s performance is free to watch the work of Fox News anchor, Jon Scott, on September 11, 2001. The same confidence that allowed him to name Bin Laden as a suspect 42 seconds after the impact of the second plane allowed him to proclaim the structural failure hypothesis directly after the destruction of the South Tower. He persisted even when his reporters in the field clearly spoke of explosions.

David Lee Miller reported:

we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us…” (10:01:17 a.m.)

Rick Leventhal said:

The FBI is here, as you can see. They had roped this area off. They were taking photographs and securing this area just prior to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt.” (10:06:39 a.m.)

News anchor Scott was troubled by none of this. He overrode, silenced and patronized Fox reporters. At no point did he even acknowledge the existence of a second reasonable hypothesis for the Trade Center destruction.

Of course, it is true that by the end of the day of September 11, 2001 CNN and Fox were singing from the same hymnbook. But I believe we ought to acknowledge Brown’s brief, shining moment and consider what might happen if journalists found their courage and trusted their senses and their minds.

Sources:

Same-day coverage by CNN and Fox for September 11, 2001 has been sporadically available on the Internet. My notes are from my own previously downloaded files. Times should be accurate to within two seconds.

Notes

*Many works have appeared over the years refuting the account of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But special note should be taken of two sources:

Ted Walter, Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 2015.

https://www.ae911truth.org/images/BeyondMisinfo/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf

Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, First Amended Grand Jury Petition, filed July 30, 2018 at the office of the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, N.Y.

https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-first-amended-grand-jury-petition/

In addition, a recent academic report on the related destruction of World Trade Center 7 destroys whatever confidence we might have in NIST’s accounts:

J. L. Hulsey, et al, A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (draft), University of Alaska Fairbanks, Sept. 2019.

https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50694/signup_page/uaf-wtc7-draft-report?killorg=True&loggedOut=True

September 12, 2019 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 3 Comments

Security, terrorism & Iran: What Netanyahu talked to Putin about, days ahead of Israeli election

RT | September 12, 2019

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is in Russia meeting President Vladimir Putin and top ministers. The little we know from the talks suggests Netanyahu may be trying to drag Moscow into his fight against Iran-linked “destabilization.”

The two leaders met in the Russian Black Sea resort city of Sochi late on Thursday. Officially, the talks were outlined as a discussion on bilateral relations and various security issues – international terrorism and the situation in Syria. Putin said that both Russia and Israel are “well aware” of what terrorism is and said that cooperation is particularly important to combat it.

Netanyahu, for his part, singled out the issue of Iran, stating that Tel Aviv “won’t tolerate Tehran’s threats,” yet again accusing it of using Syria’s territory to wage “aggression” against Israel. The Israeli PM would like Moscow to share such a stance and ultimately see Iranian presence eliminated in Syria, Netanyahu’s spokesman Evan Gary Cohen suggested.

“I think that the Iranian presence in Syria is something that the Russians and the Israelis both would like to end. It’s not something that they desire,” Cohen told RT.

This opinion appears to be in stark contrast with that of Moscow, which has been engaged in military and economic cooperation with Tehran, while repeatedly criticizing the attempts to paint Iran as the sole source of troubles in the Middle East. Russia has condemned Israeli attacks on the supposedly “Iranian-linked” targets in Syria. One such raid resulted in the loss of a Russian reconnaissance plane and the deaths of all 15 onboard, after it was accidentally shot down by Syrian air defenses.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday, both Putin and Netanyahu stressed the importance of cooperation between the militaries of the two countries, needed to prevent any potential run-ins between them as well as to fight terrorism. Ahead of the meeting with Putin, the Israeli PM – who has also been the country’s defense minister since the resignation of Avigdor Lieberman – met his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu.

Netanyahu lauded the “natural connection” and a “human bridge between Israel and Russian-speaking countries,” and called the talks with Shoigu “important.” He, however, said that the Israeli military must maintain “freedom of action,” which is essential to prevent Iran from entrenching in “our region.”

Putin and Netanyahu touched upon another hot topic – the upcoming September 17 parliamentary elections in Israel. Critics of the Israeli PM have claimed that Netanyahu’s visit was a PR stunt in a bid to secure his re-election.

Netanyahu’s spokesman vehemently denied to RT any alleged links between the elections and the talks, insisting that they were all about security.

Putin said that Moscow closely watches the elections, since Israel is home for over 1.5 million people, who came from the former Soviet Union.

“We’ve always regarded them as our people, we call them our compatriots,” Putin said. He didn’t voice any explicit support for Netanyahu, however, instead saying he hoped “responsible politicians” would end up in charge of the Knesset.

September 12, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | 5 Comments

Australians detained in Iran were nabbed for flying drone in military area – reports

RT | September 12, 2019

An Australian couple in Iran were detained for breaking a law forbidding the flying of drones without a proper permit, according to new details that have emerged about the incident.

The couple, an Australian-British woman and her Australian boyfriend, were arrested some 10 weeks ago in Iran, British and Australian media have reported. On Wednesday, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) confirmed that it has been providing consular assistance to the families of three Australians detained in Iran, and it is believed that the duo is among those three.

While Canberra refused to disclose the identities of its citizens, and has not revealed the reason for their arrest, the mainstream media feasted on the reports, portraying the couple as innocent tourists thrown into a “notorious Tehran prison” after they camped out at a military area around Jajrood.

Fresh reports suggest that the couple was detained specifically for flying a drone near the capital, Tehran, thus violating an Iranian law banning the operation of this type of device without a government-issued license.

London-based Persian-language Manoto TV reported that the couple “were unaware” of the law, and their family blames a “misunderstanding” for their arrest.

The pair, identified in media reports as Jolie King and Mark Firkin, were prolific travel bloggers who had traveled through Asia documenting their journey on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Their last stop before Iran was Pakistan.

One of the goals the couple had reportedly set for the themselves was to “break the stigma around traveling to countries which get a bad rap in the media,” the Australian reported.

With mainstream media taking the bloggers’ side and using the incident to take yet another shot at Tehran, some pointed out that ignorance of the law has never been an excuse, no matter the country.

“Is there a stigma around following laws of the nation you’re traveling to? Or a stigma around doing research?” a tweeter wrote.

“A cautionary tale about breaking laws you didn’t know about,” another tweeted, noting that it’s standard practice for a country to regulate the use of drones, as they can be used for surveillance purposes and disrupt air traffic.

“Wouldn’t you get arrested in Sydney if you flew a drone without approval and inappropriately?” a commenter chimed in, while another called the spin that media put on the affair an example of “the usual West hypocrisy for propaganda.”

September 12, 2019 Posted by | Aletho News | | 2 Comments

A False Accusation of Antisemitism from Where You Would Least Expect It

By Jeff Blankfort | Dissident Voice | September 12th, 2019

I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.

— Benjamin Netayahu, 2001, quoted in Ha’aretz, July 15, 2010

It is not uncommon, of course, to be labeled “anti-Semitic” for calling attention to the inordinate power of the Israel Lobby over our political processes or suggesting that the Iraq War was launched on Israel’s behalf. The last place that I would expect to find such an allegation, however, was on the CounterPunch website to which I have contributed a number of articles on the subject over the years.

On August 2nd in an opinion piece by Ron Jacobs, headlined, “Israel—The Largest US Aircraft Carrier in the World,” those, like myself, who have described, in detail, on CounterPunch and elsewhere, the manner in which the Israel Lobby controls both Congress and the White House on issues relating to Israel, were accused of propagating “what is an essentially anti-Semitic argument concerning the nature of the Washington-Tel Aviv alliance.”

That Jacobs, a veteran of the Sixties as long of tooth as myself, a prolific writer and frequent contributor to Left publications, would make such an allegation, after what we have learned about the role of pro-Israel Jewish neocons in fomenting the Iraq War and following that, implementing crippling sanctions on Iran while agitating against the nuclear agreement with Tehran, is as mind boggling as it is insulting.

Jacobs did this under the cover of what purports to be a review of a new book by historian Stephen Gowans, Israel: A Beachhead in the Middle East, which Jacobs contends is “a necessary and forceful rebuke of those on the left and right who insist that Washington is Israeli-occupied territory.”

First, a book review it is not. One cannot do justice to any serious book in just 764 words which is the length of Jacobs’ piece, although whether Gowans’ book which amplifies the charge of antisemitism can be taken seriously is open to question.

If not a book review then, what is it? Let’s start with the title, a quote from the late general and Secretary of State Alexander Haig whose very sanity came into question following the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan when Vice-President George HW Bush was away from the capital. At that point, as the New York Times described it, Haig “raced upstairs [to the press room] and went directly to the lectern before a television audience of millions. His knuckles whitening, his arms shaking, Mr. Haig declared to the world, ‘I am in control here, in the White House.’ He did not give that appearance.”

In any case, Gowans use of Haig’s quote in his book turned out to be hearsay from a dubious source.

From Jacobs’ opening sentence, it seems clear that his intention was to provide “damage control” for the plethora of predominantly Jewish organizations whose primary raison d’etre is pushing the agenda of the Netanyahu government on Capitol Hill whose activities, not to mention, existence, have been largely ignored or dismissed by others on the “Left” who share Jacobs’ aversion to blaming even a segment of American Jews for anything. (Think Noam Chomsky, Phyllis Bennis, Stephen Zunes).

“The Israeli government does not control the foreign policy of the United States.,” is how Jacobs began his article. True, but none of those he is criticizing argue that it is and Jacobs must surely know this. They affirm, with considerable evidence to back it up, that supporters of the Israeli government are largely responsible for shaping US policies in the Middle East and nowhere else. In other words, Jacobs has created a straw man.

If we restrict ourselves to this millennium, one only has to look at the appointees from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) that George W Bush brought into his administration, and particularly to the Pentagon and who became activated, like sleeper cells, after the events of September 11.

From PNAC, came a troop of 20, foremost among them, Dick Cheney, Dubya’s Vice-President, Donald Rumsfeld, (Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz, (Deputy Secretary of Defense), Richard Perle, (Defense Advisory Board), Doug Feith, (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy), Lewis (Scooter) Libby (Cheney’s Chief of Staff), and John Bolton who received a recess appointment as UN ambassador when it was clear he wouldn’t get Senate approval. (Bolton would later be hailed by Israel’s UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman, as “the sixth man in our office” and last year, after replacing H.R. McMaster as Trump’s National Security Adviser, he received the “Defender of Israel” award from the Zionist Organization of America).

Launched in 1997 by neocons Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, (son of Irving Kristol, the neocon movement’s co-founder), PNAC drew attention on Capitol Hill the following year when it sent a letter to then President Bill Clinton, calling on him to overthrow Saddam. Among its signatories were Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. Legislation was passed, the Iraq Liberation Act, in 1998, which stated that it was US policy to oust Saddam but no action was taken or contemplated.

What makes the Israeli connection indisputable was that PNAC was preceded a year earlier by a policy paper prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, entitled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Its authors were a study group led by Perle which included Feith, David Wurmser and his Israeli wife Meyrav Wurmser and called for the removal of Saddam Hussein, highlighting Iraq’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction.” Wurmser would go on to become a Middle East Advisor for Vice President Cheney and with Feith, help set up the Office of Special Plans to produce evidence of Iraq’s WMDs when the CIA failed to come up with it.

What those who insist that the 2003 war on Iraq was just a continuation of traditional US imperialist policies refuse to acknowledge is that the invasion of Iraq marked a 180 degree break with what US Middle Eastern policy had been up to that point, namely, to maintain stability in that oil rich region.

That is why former president George HW Bush, his Secretary of State, James Baker and his National Security Advisor, former general, Brent Scowcroft, publicly opposed the war and why Bush Sr resisted demands from the neocons and Israel’s allies in the media, to have US troops march to Baghdad and remove Saddam from power after ousting Iraqi troops from Kuwait a decade earlier.

When this fact was pointed out to George W Bush by Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, Dubya responded, “I answer to a higher father.”

Before the war went south, Perle and Wolfowitz were competing in the media for credit for the great victory over Saddam. Both men, along with Cheney, Feith, and Bolton, were also members of JINSA’s Advisory Board, an influential but little known neocon operation that came into existence in 1976, apparently in response to President Gerald Ford having suspended a shipment of US jet fighters to Israel for six months upon Israel’s refusal to give up land in the Egyptian Sinai that it had captured in the October 1973 war.

Moreover, Ford sent a private letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin warning him about a likely re-evaluation of US-Israel relations, hinting that he might call for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders. Rabin made the letter public which alerted AIPAC to respond. It struck back against Ford by getting 76 senators, three-quarters of that body, to sign a letter to the president, warning him that the US-Israeli bond was sacrosanct and should not be meddled with. Ford quickly backed off and over the years, many more such letters, drafted by AIPAC, would reach the desk of our presidents.

JINSA saw its goal as making sure that the US and Israeli militaries would become so entwined that no future president would ever contemplate or be able to disentangle the armed forces of both countries. To ensure that, it created a large advisory board composed of former generals and admirals and a few police chiefs while arranging programs to take newly retiring generals and admirals on all expense paid trips to Israel. There are currently 57 former generals and admirals on the JINSA advisory board. The first and last article about JINSA in a national publication appeared in The Nation in 2002 and like PNAC, its existence has been ignored by those engaged in damage control on Israel’s behalf.

Even Colin Powell’s attribution of the war to Donald Rumsfeld’s embrace by “the JINSA crowd,” in Karen DeYoung’s biography of Powell, Soldier, did not stir any of the latter to reconsider their positions.

Going back to the first US war on Iraq, all of the sanctions put in place against governments viewed by Israel as its enemies, have largely been the work of AIPAC and its sister organizations such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. WINEP or TWI (its current acronym) was spawned by AIPAC in 1985 in order to make the step from lobbying for Israel to actually making policy itself. It has become arguably the most influential of the Beltway think tanks whose “experts” routinely appear before Congressional committees and whose op-ed pieces invariably find their way into the opinion sections of our leading newspapers and the inboxes of members of Congress.

To enforce the sanctions, after 9/11, President Bush set up a special department in the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence which, beginning with the appointment of pro-Israel zealot, Stuart Levey, became the exclusive provenance of pro-Israel Jews, the latest of whom, Sigal Mandelker, is actually an Israeli. It is this department, in essence, an arm of the Israeli government, that determines what countries and companies are adhering to or breaking sanctions on Iran and Syria and which organizations should be placed on the terrorist watch list.

When Obama took office, the Israeli press reported that Levey had made a special trip to Israel to assure Netanyahu that under the new president, nothing would change.

Were there not sanctions on Iraq and on Iran, the major US oil companies would have been more than happy to do business with both countries. The last company that tried, Conoco, was obliged to cancel a deal it had made with Tehran in March, 1995.

The only way the Obama Administration was able to sign the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) with Iran and the other members of the UN Security Council plus Germany was to declare it to be an agreement, not a treaty, thus avoiding having a vote on it by the Senate where it would surely have been defeated. Not to be denied, Israel’s friends in Washington had the Senate pass a bill requiring Obama and succeeding presidents to ratify US participation in the agreement every 90 days. This was the equivalent of a poison pill and a perfect set-up for Donald Trump.

There is far too much evidence of Israel’s control of Washington to include in this short article but two more items should seal the debate.

The first begins in 2015 in Las Vegas when Jewish multi billionaire Sheldon Adelson held two auditions for prospective Republican presidential candidates at his Venetian Hotel to determine which one would be the best for Israel. Adelson was at the time and still is the owner of the most widely read newspaper in Israel, Israel Hayom, which is provided free and has been seen, until recently, as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu. On the day he opened his newspaper, he apologized to his Israeli audience for having “worn the uniform of the US army and not the Israeli Defense Forces,” a clip of which can still be seen on You Tube.

Adelson’s choices after the auditions were first Ted Cruz and then Marco Rubio. When both failed to attract the voters, Adelson switched to Trump, pumping tens of millions of dollars into his campaign and, judging from Trump’s gifts to Israel, not the least of which was moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, it is safe to say that Adelson bought himself a president.

Cut now to last December, in Florida, at the annual convention of the relatively new Israeli American Council, the major funder of which happens to be Adelson. On the stage as the host was Israeli-American Haim Saban, one of the Democratic Party’s major funders who once boasted to a New Yorker writer that he was a “one issue man and that issue is Israel.”

It was shortly after the November mid-term elections and Saban was interviewing the returning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, the Senate’s top ranking Democrat. As Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) described it on Dec. 2:

Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat who likely will be speaker of the new US House of Representatives, listed pro-Israel lawmakers she plans to name to key committee positions and said her party remained fundamentally pro-Israel.

’We have people very well placed to share our values,’ Pelosi, a California Democrat, said in addressing the final event Sunday of the annual Israeli-American Council conference, after listing planned assignments.

Pelosi said she would name Rep. Nita Lowey, D-New York, to chair the Appropriations Committee; Eliot Engel, D-New York, to chair the Foreign Affairs Committee; Ted Deutch, D-Florida, to chair the Middle East subcommittee; Adam Schiff, D-California, to chair the Intelligence Committee; Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, to chair the human rights-monitoring Helsinki Committee; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, to a key Appropriations Committee position; and Lois Frankel, D-Florida, to a key Foreign Affairs Committee position.

All have longstanding pro-Israel records and all but Hastings are Jewish.”1

Pelosi’s exchange with Saban can still be viewed on You Tube but don’t look for any report on that conference outside of the Jewish press. The corporate media, like Congress, is under the thumb of the Israel Lobby.

Notes

  1. Wasserman-Schultz had been the chair of the DNC who was forced to resign after the release by WikiLeaks of the DNC’s emails exposed the DNC’s efforts to sabotage Bernie Sanders on Hillary Clinton’s behalf. Obviously, that did not hurt her in Pelosi’s eyes.

Jeffrey Blankfort can be reached at: jblankfort@earthlink.net.

September 12, 2019 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 10 Comments

Trump the Russian Puppet. A Story That Just Will Not Die

By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 12, 2019

Certainly, there are many things that President Donald Trump can rightly be criticized for, but it is interesting to note how the media and chattering classes continue to be in the grip of the highly emotional but ultimately irrational “Trump derangement syndrome (TDS).” TDS means that even the most ridiculous claims about Trump behavior can be regurgitated by someone like Jake Tapper or Rachel Maddow without anyone in the media even daring to observe that they are both professional dissemblers of truth who lie regularly to enhance their professional resumes.

There are two persistent bogus narratives about Donald Trump that are, in fact, related. The first is that his campaign and transition teams collaborated with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton. Even Robert Mueller, he of the famous fact-finding commission, had to admit that that was not demonstrable. The only government that succeeded in collaborating with the incoming Trumpsters was that of Israel, but Mueller forgot to mention that or even look into it.

Nevertheless, Russia as a major contributing element in the Trump victory continues to be cited in the mainstream media, seemingly whenever Trump is mentioned, as if it were demonstrated fact. The fact is that whatever Russia did was miniscule and did not in any way alter the outcome of the election. Similarly, allegations that the Kremlin will again be at it in 2020 are essentially baseless fearmongering and are a reflection of the TDS desire to see the president constantly diminished in any way possible.

The other narrative that will not die is the suggestion that Donald Trump is either a Russian spy or is in some other, possibly psychological fashion, controlled by Russian President Vladimir Putin. That spy story was first floated by several former senior CIA officers who were closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently because they believed they would benefit materially if she were elected.

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell was the most aggressive promoter of Trump as Russian spy narrative. In August 2016, he wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled “I Ran the CIA. Now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton.” Morell’s story began with the flat assertion that “Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president – keeping our nation safe… Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.”

In his op-ed, Morell ran through the litany of then GOP candidate Trump’s observed personality and character failings while also citing his lack of experience, but he delivered what he thought to be his most crushing blow when he introduced Vladimir Putin into the discussion. Putin, it seems, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, is “trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities… In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

How can one be both unwitting and a recruited agent? Some might roll their eyes at that bit of hyperbole, but Morell, who was a top analyst at the Agency but never acquired or ran an actual spy in his entire career, goes on to explain how Moscow is some kind of eternal enemy. For Morell that meant that Trump’s often stated willingness to work with Putin and the nuclear armed state he headed was somehow the act of a Manchurian Candidate, seen by Morell as a Russian interest, not an American one. So much for the presumed insider knowledge that came from the man who “ran the CIA.”

The most recent “former intelligence agents’” blast against Trump appeared in the Business Insider last month in an article entitled “US spies say Trump’s G7 performance suggests he’s either a ‘Russian asset’ or a ‘useful idiot’ for Putin.” The article cites a number of former government officials, including several from the CIA and FBI, who claimed that Trump’s participation at the recent G7 summit in Biarritz France was marked by pandering to Putin and the Kremlin’s interests, including a push to re-include Russia in the G-7, from which it was expelled after the annexation of Crimea.

One current anonymous FBI source cited in the article described the Trump performance as a “new low,” while a former senior Justice Department official, labeled Trump’s behavior as “directly out of the Putin playbook. We have a Russian asset sitting in the Oval Office.” An ex-CIA officer speculated that the president’s “intent and odd personal fascination with President Putin is worth serious scrutiny,” concluding that the evidence is “overwhelming” that Trump is a Russian asset, while other CIA and NSA veterans suggested that Trump might be flattering Putin in exchange for future business concessions in Moscow.

Another recently retired FBI special agent opined that Trump was little more than “useful idiot” for the Russians, though he added that it would not surprise him if there were also Russian spies in Trump’s inner circle.

The comments in the article are almost incoherent. They come from carefully selected current and former government employees who suffer from an excess of TDS, or possibly pathological paranoia, and hate the president for various reasons. What they are suggesting is little more than speculation and not one of them was able to cite any actual evidence to support their contentions. And, on the contrary, there is considerable evidence that points the other way. The US-Russia relationship is at its lowest point ever according to some observers and that has all been due to policies promoted by the Trump Administration to include the continuing threats over Crimea, sanctions against numerous Russian officials, abrogation of existing arms treaties, and the expansion of aggressive NATO activity right up to the borders with Russia.

Just this past week, the United States warned Russia against continuing its aerial support for the Syrian Army advance to eliminate the last major terrorist pocket in Idlib province. Once against, Washington is operating on the side of terrorists in Syria and against Russia, a conflict that the United States entered into illegally in the first place. Either Donald Trump acting as “the Russian agent” actually thinks threatening a Moscow that is pursuing its legitimate interests is a good idea or the labeling of the president as a “Putin puppet” or “useful idiot” is seriously misguided.

September 12, 2019 Posted by | Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

Bolton has left the building – hopefully, so too have his crackpot ideas

By John Wight | RT | September 11, 2019

John Bolton is no longer Donald Trump’s national security adviser and no right thinking person will mourn the departure of this noxious neocon.

Though, as befits the chaos of the Trump White House, there is a dispute over whether Bolton resigned or was fired, for a world laboring under the dead weight of US exceptionalism and the hegemonic posture it gives rise to, this particular dispute is otiose.

What is not in doubt is that, whereas President Trump embraced the credo of ‘America First’, Bolton’s religious attachment to ‘American Military Power First’ had long marked him out as an extremist, even within neocon circles.

Indeed, it is chilling to contemplate that if this warmongering zealot had had his way, Washington would likely have become embroiled in multiple hot wars and military actions across the world – with an ocean of blood being spilled in Latin America, Ukraine, on the Korean Peninsula and in the Middle East.

Trump’s appointment of Bolton in March 2018 came as damning evidence of the President’s abject surrender to the neocon and liberal interventionist lobby in Washington, all under the pressure of Russiagate.

His campaign pledges, to engage in serious diplomacy with America’s primary designated adversary, Russia, to recognize the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, draw down the US military presence in Afghanistan, talk to North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, and revisit America’s commitment to NATO – all of this succeeded in pitching the War Party into paroxysms of barely concealed fury and angst.

Trump was besieged on the very day he entered the Oval Office by a Washington establishment that considered his election to have been an act of heresy in the first place. The objective of his liberal interventionist enemies was to box him in and prevent him from being able to act on his foreign policy instincts.

The small fact that those instincts were eminently sound, given the calamitous record of countries and societies that had been reduced to rubble at the behest of his predecessors, this mattered not.

In the fevered minds of the denizens of the War Party, the primary role of the President of the United States is the maintenance of an empire that has been forged in blood and is sustained by destruction in the name of hegemony and unipolarity.

So in the door came mad dog Bolton and out the door went reason and sanity.

The result? In short order, after the President contracted out his foreign policy to Messrs Bolton and Pompeo, the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, pulled out of the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) Treaty with Russia, and withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council.

And even where Trump did assert a measure of control on foreign policy – i.e. in sitting down with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in Singapore and Hanoi – Bolton succeeded in reducing both summits to glorified photo-ops, convincing his boss to agree to making North Korea’s complete denuclearization an absurd condition of any lifting of crippling US sanctions.

Not satisfied with that, Bolton also did his utmost to effect regime change in Venezuela, attempting to install his own placeman, Juan Guaidó, in Caracas in place of the country’s elected President, Nicolás Maduro. Bolton’s Twitter feed throughout this particular crisis you’d imagine would have belonged to Al Capone if social media had been around in Prohibition-era Chicago.

As to the crisis with Iran, conflict seemed inevitable at various points over the summer, with Bolton known to have urged a military strike against the Islamic Republic in response to the downing of a US drone.

In deciding here to draw back from the brink, Trump demonstrated a rare example of sound leadership and wisdom in the Oval Office.

The casus belli, the proverbial straw which broke the camel’s back, was Bolton’s stern opposition to Trump’s attempt to bring closure to 18 years of US military deployment in Afghanistan – a country that even a blind person can see is destined to be ruled once again by the Taliban.

Looking ahead, Trump is a leader in desperate need of a meaningful breakthrough on foreign policy. His first term has been spent mired in a bitter struggle in Washington with the War Party for the right to shape that foreign policy according to the pledges he was elected on.

Fidelity to those pledges and to his own instincts demands that he now discard forever the notion of appointing another neocon ideologue in the now-vacant position of national security adviser. A fork in the road has been reached and the President has a decision to make.

Does he continue to proceed down the old and chaotic unipolar path of trying to be President of the World in the interests of a bloated military industrial complex?

Or does he embrace the opportunity of being President of the United States in the interests of the American people and a world in desperate need of stability, serious diplomacy and peace?

Returning, finally, to John Bolton, this draft-dodging reprobate. In bidding him farewell, the words of Winston Churchill are irresistible: “He has all of the virtues I dislike, and none of the vices I admire.”

September 12, 2019 Posted by | Militarism | | 2 Comments

9/11: 40 phone-calls that changed the world – but were they real?

The U.S. government’s 9/11 evidence says not

An extract from the book VOICES: The US Govt’s 9/11 Phone Call Evidence by Rowland Morgan, Investigative Journalist

On March 22nd, 2006, U.S. high-court judges handed down a decision that allowed the release of all 1 the evidence presented in the trial of a hereditarily paranoid-schizophrenic Moroccan named Zacarias Moussaoui. He had been in U.S. custody at the time of 9/11, but U.S. prosecutors claimed he had been an accessory to the plot and threw the book at him, demanding the death sentence. Much of the trial had been held behind closed doors, and avid U.S. mass-media corporations had applied collectively for release of what the judges called “the extraordinary quantity” of evidence presented.

In granting permission, the judges’ first sentence went as follows:

On September 11, 2001, members of the terrorist organization al Qaeda hijacked three passenger aircraft and crashed them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center towers in New York.” 2

Ironically, the very evidence the judges were releasing contained information that pointed to their own statement being mistaken.

The evidence gave unsourced details of more than 40 telephone calls that over the previous five years the U.S.A.’s war-mongering mass media had spun into a legend of heroism. The human face of the calls had always been a fascinating aspect of the events and sure enough, one of the three U.S. prosecutors in the case had given them prominence during the trial, as the Associated Press reported on April 6th, 2006:

Much of what happened aboard Flight 93 is known because passengers used cell phones in flight to call their loved ones. Earlier in the trial, prosecutor David Raskin transfixed the jury by reading accounts of the last moments of several of the Sept. 11 planes based on cell phone calls by passengers and flight attendants to family members and ground controllers.

This AP report showed that prosecutor Raskin had not studied his own evidence, which claimed only two cellular telephone calls out of some 35 ostensibly heard from Flight 93. It is no wonder that the AP reporter described the jury as “transfixed”, because the deluded prosecutor was describing to them cell phone calls that:

  1. in 2001 people aboard Flight 93 at cruising altitude could not have made for technical reasons;
  2. that the prosecution’s own evidence did not claim happened;
  3. the alleged contents of which constituted inadmissible hearsay.

In the U.S.A. giving false testimony in court, the crime of perjury, is punishable by serving up to 20 months in federal prison.4, the possibility of some cellular calls on other flights nevertheless remained.

The evidence fudged the data, with phone numbers not given, and no computer data supplied that would have automatically been captured by Claircom or Airfone, the phone providers, had they in fact been seatback phone calls. Other voices heard ostensibly via seatback phones (although attributed to cell phones at the time) simulated cell phone calls by their brevity and by being cut off abruptly.5

The telephone data contained more bombshells of which Moussaoui’s prosecutors apparently were unaware:

  • The world-famous 9/11 telephone calls from TV-pundit Barbara Olson to her husband Theodore Olson at his office in the Department of Justice had never occurred.(The U.S government’s call data said she made a call but did not get through. This meant that the U.S. Solicitor-General, a key member of the Bush administration, had connived at, or been deluded about, a crucial deception, one that had placed “hijackers” armed with “cardboard-cutters” aboard Flight 77 ostensibly speeding towards the Pentagon.)
  • The world-famous 9/11 in-flight telephone call from Todd Beamer, the one in which an Airfone operator heard him shout the Pentagon’s recruitment slogan “Let’s Roll”, had never occurred.(The U.S. government’s fudged data said Beamer had made separate calls in the same second.)

Because the existence of hijackers aboard the rogue planes partly relied on them, the collapse of these two vital telephone calls alone badly damaged the U.S. Government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. What’s more, internal evidence indicated that the evidence in these two vital calls had been fabricated with criminal intent in order to nod at the official story while evading a minimum 30-month prison sentence from the U.S. district court for obstruction of justice. 6

Furthermore, the demolition of these two famous phone calls meant that they had been faked during the events, opening up the possibility that other calls, too, had been fraudulent. The calls that fell under suspicion were those (a minority) that allegedly had mentioned hijackers and their atrocities.

It was not just U.S. federal prosecutors Robert Spencer, David Novak and David Raskin who were implicated. The trial evidence had been arranged at the highest levels. “These are political decisions,” [said] John Zwerling, a criminal defense attorney in Alexandria, Va:

The shots are being called at the very highest level of our government — the president, the vice president, and the attorney general. The prosecutors have to march to their orders, and whether or not they believe in it is irrelevant.”7

Even the venue of the trial was political:

after the [9/11] attacks [sic], the Justice Department decided to make the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia the hub of terrorism prosecutions. There were several reasons for the choice. Virginia juries had a reputation for being sympathetic to prosecutors, the federal court in Alexandria was known for quickly moving cases through its ‘rocket docket,’ and Alexandria lay just across the Potomac from Washington — where prosecutors would have easy access to their colleagues at Main Justice and the myriad federal agencies that would become involved in any trial.”8

Top Department of Justice (DOJ) officials had been involved in constructing the telephone evidence.

Moussaoui’s December 2001 indictment was signed by three officials representing each DOJ arm involved. There was Paul McNulty, the Eastern District of Virginia’s new and politically connected Republican U.S. Attorney (who has since been nominated to the DOJ’s No. 2 spot); Mary Jo White, the outgoing Clinton-era U.S. Attorney in New York whose office had overseen the first World Trade Center bombing and East African embassy bombings [sic]; and Michael Chertoff, the head of the Criminal Division at Main Justice in Washington and a former U.S. Attorney in New Jersey [now head of the vast Homeland Security department]. McNulty has appeared in the courtroom at key stages of the case.” 9

In addition to the manipulation of the official 9/11 story by lawyers, earlier the U.S. mass-media had spun the array of in-flight 9/11 cellular telephone calls so comprehensively that even U.S. prosecutor Raskin believed that they had occurred. He had expounded them to the jury, and the Associated Press had passed on his words to the world.

Yet his Moussaoui trial evidence proved that many of the cell-phone calls had not taken place. The U.S. prosecutor was deluded and the government’s conspiracy theory lay in shreds on the court-room floor. 10

This was in spite of the showmanship used at the trial. For example, prosecutors played to the jury the cockpit voice recording (CVR) alleged to have been retrieved from the mangled and buried wreckage of Flight 93 (that nobody outside the secret state had seen).

Passenger voices were heard shouting outside the cockpit (although normally only the pilots’ voices were recorded). The drama of shouting pilots and their chillingly cool rogue replacements was played out on high-tech equipment:

As jurors heard the cockpit recording Wednesday, they watched a color video showing a transcript, synchronized with the voices and the plane’s instrument readings of its speed, altitude, pitch and headings.

There was no mention of the crucial eight minutes of the recording transcript that were mostly marked “unintelligible”.

No mention of the original view that the CVR recording solved nothing.11

No one explained to the jury how Flight 93’s rogue pilot could have obtained permission from Reagan International airport air-traffic controllers to change the flight plan and fly towards Washington D.C.12

The telephone evidence ruined all the prosecution’s video razz-a-matazz. As 9/11 sceptic David Ray Griffin had written:

If even one of [the] essential claims [in the official story] is disproved, then the official story as such is thrown into doubt. Critics do not need to show the falsity of every essential element in the official account; they need to show only the falsity of one such element.”13

NOTES & SOURCES

1. In spite of the enormous volume of the evidence presented, a certain amount was nevertheless held back from public scrutiny on grounds of security.

2. United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit, No. 06-1301.

3. http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/2j1_3.htm; for the sentence consult the U.S. federal sentencing table here: http://www.ussc.gov/2003guid/5a.htm.

4. See Endnote 11.

5. Both U.S. prosecutors and media managers knew that cell phones would not work at cruising altitude without the installation of a special pico cell system. Technology expert Omar Maslow told MSNBC Today Show on December 15th, 2004, upon the authorisation of new systems to enable cell phone calls in-flight, that “cell phones do not work over 10,000 feet”.

6. The basic offense level for substantial interference with the administration of justice is 17 points, or up to 30 months. http://www.ussc.gov/2003guid/5a.htm.

7. Witness Flap Casts Doubt on Call for Death in Moussaoui Case, Sarah Kelley and Jason McLure, Legal Times, March 21, 2006, quoted in Law.com. Link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1142862089177

8. See Note 5.

9. See Note 5.

10. An FBI witness also discounted in court all the Flight 93 cell phone calls but two. “In the back of the plane, 13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls to family members and airline dispatchers, a member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified Tuesday.” By GREG GORDON, McClatchy Newspapers, April 12, 2006. From KnoxNews.com.

11. As expressed by best-selling author Jere Longman in his believer-book “Among the Heroes”, N.Y. Harper Collins 2002.

12. From Co-operativeResearch.com: 9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Requests a New Flight Plan. Shortly before Flight 93 reverses direction and heads east, someone in its cockpit radios in and asks the FAA for a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington, DC. [ABC News, 9/11/2001; ABC News, 9/14/2001] Jeff Krawczyk, the chief operating officer of a company that tracks aircraft movements, later comments, ‘We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual.’ [Washington Business Journal, 9/11/2001] Who it is that makes this request is unclear. The hijacker takeover of Flight 93 occurred around 9:28 a.m. September 11, 2001) [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 11], so it is presumably made by one of the hijackers. Twenty-five minutes later the pilot hijacker [sic] will also program a new destination into the plane’s navigational system.”

13. Griffin, 214; see Bibliography

September 12, 2019 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | | 2 Comments

Why 9/11 matters in 2019

By Catte Black | OffGuardian | September 11, 2019

On 9/11 2001 three steel-framed high-rise buildings collapsed completely at near free-fall speed allegedly due to fires – which, if true, makes them the only steel-framed high-rises in construction history to have ever done this. Only two of these buildings had been struck by planes.

The official explanation for this event is that Moslem terrorists somehow confounded all the usual security procedures and ‘attacked America’ because they ‘hated our freedoms.’

This version of the meaning behind 9/11 was the catalyst for the perpetual war currently being waged, the ultimate fail-safe irrefutable argument to silence criticism of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo and the creeping emergence of fascism in the Western world.

A narrative as crucial as that needs to be closely examined, but the mainstream media has not only failed to perform this function, it has successfully persuaded many intelligent people that it doesn’t need to be done, and that only lunatics would bother subjecting the official story to any examination.

Eighteen years ago the idea of large scale false flags or government deceptions may have seemed absurd to most of us. But the unraveling of so many official narratives in recent years; the lies over WMDs, the lies over Ghouta, the lies over Libya and Ukraine, the repeat evidence for wholesale manipulation, if not fabrication, of events to promote war, means it ought to be impossible for any thinking person to simply take the events of 9/11 on trust any more.

How can any of us continue to question everything 9/11 has brought us, but not question 9/11 itself?

It all comes down to some very  basic questions:

  • Has the government sufficiently explained its version of events?
  • Does this version fit the observed facts better than any other?

The fact this is still considered by so many intelligent people to be an “out there” thing to ask speaks volumes about how much even the most savvy of us are currently brainwashed.

But beyond the media silence, complicity and ridicule things are changing.

Today New York first responders are launching a campaign for a new inquiry into the events of 9/11.

A new scientific study finds fires did not bring down WTC7.

The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry are working on behalf of victims’ families to get justice for those who died or were injured that day.

The phrase “conspiracy theorist” is an empty meme invented to deter enquiry. We don’t think this is a good thing and we don’t intend to be controlled by it. We believe facts really should be sacred – however unpopular they may be and whatever label someone may have attached to them.

September 12, 2019 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism | | 3 Comments