Aletho News


The Fake War on Terror in the Philippines

Tales of the American Empire | January 7, 2021

Americans see corporate media stories about Muslim terrorism in the Philippines. This peaceful nation was declared a terrorist battleground by American President George Bush many years ago. A few hundred US troops are quietly based there to assist, but this war on terror is fake. Evidence suggests that the America CIA is responsible for some of the few random bombings each year used to justify an American presence. The Philippine army needs no help, and some terror attacks are the result of false flag operations to justify American aid. Ending America’s fake war on terror in the Philippines would improve relations, save money, curtail corruption, and lessen the violence.


“Why CIA Created the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines”; Geopolitics; October 29, 2016;…

“Osama Bin Laden in the Philippines”; Aangirfan; March 1, 2010;…

“Oakwood Mutiny”; Wikipedia;…

“Meiring, murder, subversion, and treason: Duterte’s beef with US”; Asia Times; May 20, 2016;…

“Report: Multiyear counterterror operation has failed to dislodge extremists from Philippines”; Seth Robson; Stars and Stripes; August 17, 2020;…

Related tale: “The American Conquest of the Philippines”;…

January 13, 2021 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

9/11 and WTC Building 7: “Good Science” vs “Bad Science” and Propaganda: A Review of “Seven”

Dr Piers Robinson | OffGuardian | January 2, 2021

Among the many controversies surrounding the events of 9/11 one of the most prominent has been the question of how, many hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers, the 47-storey WTC7 building suffered a total collapse, all in a matter of seconds.

The persistence of this controversy is hardly surprising. WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane, it had suffered from only a few isolated office fires whilst multiple sources on the day were foretelling the collapse of the building, even though in history no steel-framed skyscraper had ever been brought down by fire alone.

Questions were hardly mitigated by the remarkable length of time it took NIST (the National Institute for Standards in Technology) to publish their investigation of the collapse nor their eye-brow raising conclusion.

And prior to this the 9/11 Commission Report had entirely ignored WTC 7.

The belated NIST investigation concluded that isolated office fires had caused thermal expansion leading to the failure of a single column and then, extraordinarily, an immediate cascading collapse of all columns in the building.

This then brought the building down symmetrically, in a manner consistent with controlled demolition, in under 12 seconds.

To many this did not appear to be a particularly persuasive analysis, and certainly not for the grouping of engineers and architects (AE 9/11) who had been questioning for some time the initiation and behaviour of the building collapses on 9/11.

Indeed, so dissatisfied were the architects and engineers that they funded an independent scientific study in order to rigorously evaluate NIST’s ‘completely new’ theory of thermal expansion and progressive collapse.

Seven tells the story of this scientific study, focusing upon its lead researcher, Professor Leroy Hulsey from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who spent four years examining the WTC 7 collapse along with two engineering PhD students Feng Xiao and Zhili Quan.

The film is beautifully produced and directed by Dylan Avery, narrated by the well-known and much-loved actor Ed Asner, and is underpinned by a powerful music score by Johan Back Monell. It was produced by Richard Gage, Ted Walters and Kelly David from AE9/11.

Interviews with Professor Hulsey are skillfully interwoven with expert testimony from Roland Angle (civil engineer), Kamal Obeid (structural engineer), Scott Grainger (fire protection officer) and Tony Szamboti (mechanical engineer).

The integrity and expertise of these experts is juxtaposed with embarrassing silences from news anchors when members of the US public phone in to ask about Building 7 and the sheepish Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the NIST study. At one point in the film, having introduced the matter of the corroded steel, retrieved by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and reported by the New York Times as ‘perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation’, Sunder is heard awkwardly attempting to explain away its significance:

Er, there is, there is reference often made to a piece of steel from Building 7. There was no evidence that any of the residue in that steel, in that piece of steel, er had any, er, relationship to, er, an an, undue er fire event in the building … or any other kind of incendiary, incendiary device in the building.

The extreme temperatures needed to have corroded or melted the steel were many times higher than those identified by NIST as having occurred due to the isolated office fires. As with so many other aspects of the NIST investigation, evidence that did not fit a preordained conclusion was simply ignored. Scientific method and rigour was thrown to the wind.

Hulsey’s integrity and rigour stands in sharp contrast to NIST’s disgraceful and un-scientific conduct.

Seven carefully describes how Hulsey’s team systematically unpicked the flawed claims advanced by NIST, including demonstrably inaccurate calculations relating to their explanation that thermal expansion worked to move a girder off its seat, and implausible claims that the resulting failure of a single column (out of a total of 50 odd) could ever lead to a global collapse of the entire building at free fall speed.

Using two separate computer programs, Hulsey’s team explored how the building would have behaved according to NIST’s explanation and found that the NIST account was wrong.

When confronted with issues relating to their study, NIST simply responded with evasions and secrecy: they have refused to release their key data whilst specific errors identified in their study received curt responses signed off, not by an engineer, but by a NIST public relations staffer. Hulsey’s study, conversely, and all of its data and calculations, has been fully open to expert and public scrutiny.

After one year of public consultation (2019-2020), almost no substantive issues were identified and his reported was officially published by Alaska Fairbanks University. The Hulsey study conclusions are delivered with devastating effect. The final report states:

… the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behaviour observed in videos of the collapse, whereas no other sequence of failures produced the observed effect

Hulsey is more concise in the film:

All those interior columns came out at once, at once, the exteriors also a few seconds later came out at once, giving you free fall which comes down, straight down.

To its credit, Seven remains focused on the scientific question of why WTC 7 collapsed and, only at the very end, are the broader implications hinted at.

If the building was not brought down by office fires, something else caused it to come down. The events in New York and Washington D.C. on September 11 2001 led directly to a global ‘war on terror’ and multiple wars, with countless lives being destroyed and ruined, and the crumbling of basic civil rights and democracy in the west.

The film closes with Hulsey’s understated but powerful words:

I’m worried, I’m worried about this country right now. We just seem to be doing a lot of yelling and screaming and no hearing. No listening, maybe some hearing but no listening. So are we in a post 9/11? Yes we are. Does that mean just that is a problem? I think it’s bigger than that, I just don’t know where we are right now. It’s a bit troublesome.

Ultimately, Seven calmly and carefully tells a story of good scientists and professionals with integrity battling to establish an important truth through scientific rigour and objectivity. And that truth relates to one of the most important and consequential events of the 21st century whose ramifications are felt ever more powerfully today.

Hulsey’s study is likely to play an important role in some of the legal processes that are currently underway: The Lawyers’ Committee Grand Jury petition and lawsuit against the FBI, the petition to initiate a congressional investigation of the 2001 Anthrax attacks and the Campbell family petition to the UK courts.

But the struggle they have had is testament to how far Western institutions and public spheres have been corrupted in the service of power and become, to all intent and purpose, mediums of propaganda.

At an early stage two students, although keen, elected not to study with Hulsey’s team because of the controversial nature of the research; one prominent University blocked an attempt to discuss Hulsey’s findings; nefarious so-called ‘debunkers’ contacted members of Hulsey’s team and told them not to continue with their work. Hulsey himself speculates that fear of losing lucrative government funding streams has deterred debate among architectural and engineering firms.

The creation of a spiral of silence, fuelled by a compliant and lazy corporate media all too eager to childishly dismiss any questioning as ‘conspiracism’ or ‘conspiracy theory’, has meant that public discussion and debate has been subdued.

The conduct of NIST, more than anything else, highlights how respected scientific organizations have become corrupted.

These issues could not be more relevant today, in 2021, where we see similar processes at work suffocating open scientific debate regarding COVID-19 and obfuscating the very real political and economic agendas now being pushed through. Indeed, the parallels between 9/11 and COVID-19 are striking. And the processes are also seen with the ongoing OPCW scandal regarding alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria in which rigorous science has been thwarted by political power.

But, as much as Seven serves to highlight how far the West’s Enlightenment tradition has been eclipsed by corruption and propaganda, it also serves as an example that not all hope is lost. ‘Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority’ and is achieved through the determined efforts of people with integrity and courage.

Academia needs more people like Professor Hulsey and so too does the world, never more so than today.

You can rent and buy Seven on multiple platforms, here.

Dr Piers Robinson is a co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies and convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. He is an associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 ‘Global War on Terror’. He writes here in a personal capacity.

January 7, 2021 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Film Review, Timeless or most popular | , | 2 Comments

David Chandler on ‘Seven’

OffGuardian | January 5, 2021

Widely-respected voice of the 9/11 Truth Movement, strong critic of the official accounts of the 9/11 collapses, David Chandler talks about ‘Seven’, the new documentary released by, dealing with the recent findings of Dr. Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska Fairbanks relating to the likely cause of WTC7’s mysterious and unprecedented collapse.

In my presentation about WTC7 at the Toronto Hearings in 2011 I began with a story about the shortest proof of the Pythagorean Theorem by a 12th century Indian mathematician, Bhaskara. He simply drew a diagram and said, “Behold!”

I pointed out that with regard to WTC7 a detailed analysis was not needed to see the truth that the building underwent demolition. The clearest proof is to point at the building collapsing and say, “Behold!” I went on to show that the building entered actual freefall. I described this work as simply “proving that you are not crazy.”

Leroy Hulsey’s work takes this to another level. Not only can we see by the externally observable motion of the building that it was demolished, Hulsey and his team show that even with a detailed structural analysis of the building components there was no mechanism by which fire and gravity alone could produce the effects we can see on videotape.

Furthermore, Hulsey and his team document numerous places in the NIST analysis where they committed scientific fraud by misrepresenting the actual structure of the building in their computer model. Without these alterations, even the NIST model would not have initiated building collapse.

The Hulsey report was brought about by the incessant demands of the segment of the engineering profession that has been in denial of reality. As such, the real audience of “Seven,” and the Hulsey report itself, is the engineering community. Seven does a good job in communicating the issues as simply as possible, so the scientifically literate layman can follow the argument.

The bottom line is that the best argument for the demolition of WTC7 is a video showing the event, with the simple comment, “Behold!” For those who waver, showing the measurement of freefall will usually cause reluctant eyes to open. For those who have reinforced their biases with layers of “sciency” rationalization, Hulsey’s work blows those rationalizations out of the water. Good job, Leroy!

Everyone needs to watch Seven to see how strong our case really is.


You can rent and buy Seven on multiple platforms, here. View the Trailer below:

David S. Chandler has a BS in physics from Harvey Mudd College and an MS in mathematics from California Polytechnic University. He has taught physics, mathematics, and astronomy at the high school and college levels since 1972. He is now retired and living in Denver, Colorado.

Since about 2007 he has been active as a researcher with what he calls the “science wing” of the 9/11 Truth Movement. He is currently the Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth, and worked for several years with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics. He has written a six-part serial essay posted at, titled Free Fall.

David maintains a website in collaboration with several other scientific researchers at

January 6, 2021 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Film Review, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 2 Comments

The 2001 Anthrax Deceptions and Those Being Perpetuated Today

By Edward Curtin | Behind the Curtain | January 1, 2020

As I write on January 1, 2021, the new year is not starting very auspiciously. Ominous pronouncements are coming from the usual high places and their media mouthpieces, announcing “highly contagious virus variants” of so-called Covid-19.

Joseph Biden has warned of a very Dark Winter to come. His use of that term Dark Winter has been echoed by officials everywhere adept at reading the talking points handed to them. The echo chamber is resounding with dark warnings. Anthony Fauci and the CDC are predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths this month alone. These officials are now saying the vaccines they are rolling out will take time; will not eliminate the virus, etc. Hedging their bets as they announce utter disaster to come, rather like a fire and brimstone warning from Jonathan Edwards for the sins of celebrating festive times. Guess who will be blamed? Grim projections are following the holidays like buzzards to a dead carcass. Just follow the  mainstream corporate media news headlines to confirm this. You don’t need any linked directions from me.

I prefer to be brief so you can read about the incredibly important 2014 book by Graeme MacQueen, The 2007 Anthrax Deception. Then read his book. His analysis of the anthrax attacks tied to 9/11 sheds important light on the current corona virus crisis.

Also, listen to this new video – before it is disappeared – with Heiko Schöning speaking about the 2001 anthrax deceptions and those being perpetrated today. Schöning is a German doctor and one of the world-wide leaders fighting to expose the truth about COVID-19 and the World Economic Forum’ “Great Reset.”

January 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Review: Seven, AE911Truth’s new documentary about groundbreaking new study on WTC7

By Kevin Ryan | OffGuardian | December 29, 2020

The new film Seven (trailer above), directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.

After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions.

“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

These peer-reviewed conclusions directly contradict the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Seven documents the journey of Professor Hulsey and his team from their introduction to the subject and the related evidence to the final publication of their report in March of this year. It is an interesting story and important for several reasons. First, it shows what an objective group of engineering science professionals will find if they look closely at the destruction of WTC 7. Additionally, it provides a great example of what one concerned citizen can do to make a great difference in shedding light on the truth of the events of September 11, 2001.

The concerned citizen, who was barely mentioned in the film, is John Thiel, a nurse anesthetist from Alaska. In 2010, Thiel began a 3-year process of looking for an engineer to conduct an honest scientific investigation into the destruction of WTC 7. Thiel was not a structural engineer, but he knew that the official reports on the destruction of that building were false and he wanted to do something about it. Ten years later, after contacting 150 engineers, finally finding and gaining Hulsey’s commitment to do it, and persuading Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to get involved, Thiel’s persistence paid off.

Seven also features comments from some brave engineers who have spoken out in the past about WTC 7. This includes fire protection engineer Scott Grainger, structural engineer Kamal Obeid, civil engineer and AE911Truth board director Roland Angle, and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti.  All these men make powerful statements in the film about NIST’s failures and omission of evidence.

The film reviews much of the evidence and how it was treated by the initial ASCE/FEMA building performance study and by NIST. It discusses circumstantial evidence including the suspicious tenants of WTC 7 (e.g. the CIA, the Secret Service, the DOD, and the SEC) and foreknowledge about the collapse of the building. It reviews the inexplicable “predictions” of WTC 7’s collapse by media giants CNN and BBC, both of which reported the collapse before it actually happened.

However, the strength of the film is in exposing the viewer to scientific facts and evidence as described by credible experts like Hulsey, Angle, Grainger, Obeid, and Szamboti. This includes the samples of steel exhibiting intergranular melting and sulfidation that the New York Times originally called “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” but that were ignored in the NIST reports.  It includes the fact that no tall building had ever collapse primarily from fire and that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary and were fed by only 20-minutes of fire load in any given area.  The film also highlights concerns about the lack of scientific integrity in NIST’s manipulation of model parameters like the coefficient of expansion of steel and the omission of shear studs on the WTC 7 floor assemblies.

The film is only 45 minutes long and focuses largely on the evidence related to Hulsey’s study. It does not include some facts and evidence about WTC 7 that have been pointed out in the past. For example, it does not detail NIST’s history of failed hypotheses, like the diesel fuel tank hypothesis or the claim that the design of the building contributed to the collapse. It also doesn’t mention that the new WTC 7 was completed in 2006, when NIST was stating it had no idea what happened to the first one.

In the film, Professor Hulsey comes across as very credible and driven by the desire for an objective approach that gives the public an understanding of what happened to WTC 7. His comments about building his study on a clear palate, using pure science, ring true. Avery tells Hulsey’s story simply, without engulfing the viewer in unanswered questions.

Overall, Seven is an excellent presentation for people with a scientific mindset. As John Thiel wrote to me, “Any engineer or scientist with a basic understanding of physics, who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance, should easily be convinced of the truth after watching this video.” I agree.

If people want to help reveal the truth about WTC 7, and therefore about 9/11, they should share this film with every scientist and engineer they know. It is available on multiple streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Microsoft. As a society, our understanding of the crimes of 9/11 continues to be crucial to our understanding of what is going on today.


Seven is directed by Dylan Avery, released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and available to rent and buy from various platforms, here.

December 29, 2020 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Film Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | 4 Comments

The Nashville Bombing vs. The Oklahoma City Bombing

By Paul Craig Roberts | Institute for Political Economy | December 29, 2020

The Nashville bombing raises questions about the Oklahoma City bombing. In 1995 the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was blown up. Allegedly, the building was destroyed by a fertilizer bomb in a Ryder rental truck parked on the street. The Murrah building had massive reinforced concrete columns, some being 3 feet thick if memory serves. The front third of the building was destroyed with columns turned to dust.

The guilty parties were allegedly Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. According to reports, the blast killed 168 people, injured 680 others, and destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius along with 86 cars and caused $652 million of damage in 1995 dollars.

At the time US Air Force General Partin, who had high level responsibilities for ordinance and weapons development, distributed an expert report to 75 members of the House and Senate. The report proved that the Murrah building blew up from the inside out. Many Americans concluded that the truck bomb was cover for an inside job. McVeigh and Nichols were regarded as patsies who thought they blew up the building, but their role was to direct attention away from those responsible.

General Partin’s report was quickly tossed into the Memory Hole. To get rid of the evidence the Murrah building was hauled away and buried just as the steel in the World Trade Center buildings in 2001 was sent abroad to be melted down, and an official bogus report was issued like the 9/11 official reports. Instead of a real investigation, we got a controlled explanation.

Twenty-five years after the Oklahoma City Bombing we have another bomb in a vehicle parked in the street in front of a building. This time the building is an AT&T building. The parked vehicle is a RV which could hold as much explosives as a rental truck. An interesting difference is that the RV is much closer to the building, seperated only by a sidewalk, whereas if memory serves, the Murrah building was set back from the street.

When the RV bomb went off, 3 people were injured, and building damage seems to be limited to blowing out windows. Clearly, there is no comparable structural damage to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Why? Was the RV bomb just an oversized firecracker? Or was General Partin, clearly an expert, correct when he concluded that the Murrah Federal building was blown up from the inside out?

December 29, 2020 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | | 3 Comments

Nashville Explosion: Lone Bomber or False Flag?

By Stephen Lendman | December 28, 2020

On Christmas day, a recreational vehicle exploded in downtown Nashville, TN outside an AT&T transmission building — one block from the company’s office building.

What happened knocked out communications and 911 emergency call centers over a wide area, including parts of neighboring Kentucky and Alabama.

Was the motive behind what happened what official reports claimed?

Or was something else responsible for the blast? Was it a false flag?

It’s unclear at this time. What is known is that numerous US false flag attacks occurred before — notably since at least the mid-19th century.

They’re a US tradition at strategically timed moments.

Before the blast, the Tennessean reported that Nashville residents in the affected area were warned before the incident occurred, saying:

A “recorded warning” inside the vehicle said “(e)vacuate now. There is a bomb. A bomb is in this (RV) and will explode.”

An area resident said “(w)hoever did it did give fair warning” 15 minutes before the blast.

Fox News Nashville TV reported that city “police got people to safety before the downtown explosion.”

The following day, FBI agents raided the home of a “person of interest” following “more than 500” leads.

That many in hours after what happened is highly suspicious.

How is it possible to identify a possible suspect hours after the incident, including before an investigation began?

Nashville police called the incident an “intentional act,” a likely suicide bombing.

No mass casualties occurred — just three injuries reported and the remains of an individual identified as Anthony Quinn Warner.

Was he responsible for the incident or a convenient patsy to blame for what he had nothing to do with?

Before ID’d from DNA, his residence was searched by federal agents in a Nashville suburb, as explained above — a disturbing red flag.

Why his home alone and no others? Why before an investigation began?

No motive pointing to him is known.

Did what happened follow pre-planning to name him for the incident before occurring?

As the saying goes, dead men tell no tales so he’s unable to defend himself.

Reportedly, police and FBI agents aren’t looking for other suspects, another disturbing red flag.

Who is Anthony Quinn Warner. Local media called him a loner, an unmarried man with no children.

According to the Tennessean, “acquaintances… described (him) as a self-employed computer guru — and a homebody who tended to his pets and kept to himself.”

A next door neighbor called him “a little odd” but friendly, adding:

“If he… ha(d) any political beliefs… that was something he kept to himself.”

Another neighbor called him a “recluse.”

Local authorities claimed that the RV (or one similar to the detonated vehicle) was seen outside his residence for years.

Nothing known about Warner explained above suggests a motive for what happened, one more red flag.

What happened in Nashville is reminiscent of two earlier incidents.

In April 1995, a truck bombing killed 168 people and caused extensive damage in Oklahoma City.

Within 90 minutes of the incident, Timothy McVeigh was arrested on a firearms charge, spent two days in jail, then was charged with the bombing.

On May 10, Terry Nichols was named his alleged accomplice and arrested.

Experts, including professional demolition contractors, concluded that only high-grade military explosives, detonators, and proper multiple internal placements could have caused such extensive destruction.

Elgin Air Force Base’s Armament Wright Laboratory studied the incident.

It concluded that no single truck bomb was involved.

(Ret.) Brig. General Benton K. Partin, an explosives and ordnance expert, said “a truck bomb couldn’t cause steel-reinforced concrete columns to collapse,” adding:

“The total incompatibility with a single truck bomb lies in the fact that either some of the columns collapsed that should not have collapsed or some of (them) are still standing that should have collapsed and did not.”

“This is a classic cover-up of immense proportions.”

“To cause the damage pattern that occurred to the Murrah building, there would have to have been demolition charges at several supporting column bases, at locations not accessible from the street, to supplement the truck bomb damage.”

“(A) careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveal a failure mode produced by demolition charges and not by a blast from the truck bomb.”

More forensic evidence showed other devices were involved, evidence which major media suppressed.

Yet McVeigh was executed for the incident, Nichols sentenced to life imprisonment.

Gen. Partin and others believe they were framed — used as convenient patsies.

So were falsely charged Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan for what’s known as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

Local police lethally shot Tamerlan near Watertown, MA.

Dzhokhar was arrested, falsely charged, convicted and sentenced to death — later reversed to multiple life sentences.

Neither brother was involved with the incident, a state-sponsored false flag.

Like many times before in the US, innocent patsies were wrongfully punished. Innocence wasn’t enough to save them.

Was the Christmas Day Nashville incident the latest example of wrongfully charging a convenient patsy despite no motive or evidence of involvement in what happened?

Perhaps what’s unknown at this time will be revealed later without public attention to set the record straight if the incident was other than what’s reported.

Visit Stephen Lendman’s website: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at

His two Wall Street books are timely reading:

How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War

Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity

Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or archived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.

December 28, 2020 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

British organizations hit by “complex cyber attack”

Press TV | December 19, 2020

A major cyber attack that has hit US government agencies is also believed to have affected a small number of British organizations.

According to Sky News, British officials are “investigating” as to whether government departments have been affected by the big breach.

Hitherto, it is believed only private British companies have been affected.

Paul Chichester, the director of operations at the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), which is an extension of the GCHQ signals intelligence organization, has urged British companies to take “immediate steps” to protect their networks.

“This is a complex, global cyber incident, and we are working with international partners to fully understand its scale and any UK impact”, Chichester told Sky News.

“The NCSC is working to mitigate any potential risk, and actionable guidance has been published on our website”, he added.

Meanwhile, one of the directors of a leading British cyber security company has claimed the attacks could be the most “impactful national security [cyber] breach” that has ever been seen.

John Hultquist, who is senior director of analysis at Mandiant Solutions (which is part of the cyber security company FireEye), told Sky News that: “They [the hackers] managed clearly to gain access to a lot of secure areas. They are going to be very hard to get out”.

FireEye reportedly was the first cyber security company to discover the trans-Atlantic breach.

Yet another major figure in the British cyber security world echoed Hultquist’s assessment by describing the latest breach is “one of the most significant cyber attacks, really that’s ever been seen”.

Ciaran Martin, who is the founder and former head of the NCSC, told Sky News the attack was motivated by “traditional espionage”.

However, Martin, who is currently an academic at the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University, cautioned that “it remains to be seen, what the final picture [about the hacking] tells us”.

US media, in addition to British security sources, have reflexively blamed the hacking on Russia’s foreign intelligence service (SVR) without furnishing any evidence.

December 19, 2020 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 1 Comment

The Next Fake ‘Crisis’ Has Been Planned

Vernon Coleman | November 21, 2020

December 7, 2020 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 1 Comment

Interview 1603 – Lawyers’ Committee Anthrax Petition

Corbett • 12/01/2020

David Meiswinkle and Mick Harrison of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry join James to discuss their petition to Congress for a redress of grievances related to government misconduct in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4

Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry

Interview 1383 – Lawyers Petition for 9/11 Grand Jury

Anthrax Petition Executive Summary

Lawyers’ Committee Anthrax Petition

Anthrax Exhibits Index

Interview 1212 – From Anthrax to Iraq with Graeme MacQueen

Interview 864 – Dr. Meryl Nass Exposes the Anthrax Cover Up

Exhibit NAS NRC review of FBI anthrax science report 13098

U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes Treaty Limits

Episode 383 – COVID-911: From Homeland Security to Biosecurity

Episode 388 – False Flags and the Dawn of Bioterrorism

December 1, 2020 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Guatemala on the brink of serious social crisis

By Lucas Leiroz | November 26, 2020

A major crisis is unfolding in Guatemala. Violent protests, vandalism and mutual accusations fill the scenario of great political, social, and institutional tensions that are forming in this Central American country. Last weekend, amid protests against the government in the center of Guatemala City, there was an attempt to set fire to the National Congress, which gained prominence in the news across Latin America. At first, the main suspicions pointed to criminal actions of violent protesters, but some investigations point to completely different possibilities.

Initially, investigators began to question the fact that the Parliament’s security team was very scarce at the time of the demonstrations – even though it was clear that on November 21 there would be protests in the vicinity, having previously been publicly announced. The Congressional protection scheme was limited to a few individuals scattered around the area, without any organized staff to prevent potential acts of vandalism. Still, according to reports, the Guatemalan National Civil Police simply did not try to prevent some of the acts of vandalism carried out during the protests, remaining inert while the crimes were being committed. Witnesses say the police watched passively as the protesters set fire to the Parliament without any reaction. Several photo and video records were posted on social networks around the world, proving police inertia in the face of vandalism, which caused indignation and suspicion.

It was then that the Guatemalan political opposition, led by the party “Unidad Nacional de la Esperanza” (UNE), began to claim that such acts were not committed by protesters, but by government infiltrators, protected by security forces, trying to boycott the legitimate civil acts. The government’s intention, according to the opposition’s allegations, would simply be to delegitimize popular demonstrations through propaganda about the acts of vandalism practiced by such infiltrators, which would make a perfect excuse for the government to take exceptional measures and act violently against the protesters.

To understand the Guatemalan crisis properly, we must analyze the country’s situation profoundly. The peak of popular dissatisfaction, which motivated the violent protests of November 21, was the approval by the parliamentarians of the Budget of the Republic for 2021. The project of State accounts significantly reduced health and education expenses, which generated legitimate popular indignation. Among the social programs that lost funding under the new budget are child nutrition projects, for example – even in a country where the poverty line reaches 50% of the total population. In the same vein, provisions for universities, maternity centers and medical clinics have declined substantially and are now in real risk. After the increase in violence in the protests, budget approval was temporarily suspended.

Despite this being the peak of the revolt, popular indignation began much earlier and encompasses several factors. Guatemala suffers from a serious case of structural corruption, as well as great incompetence to deal with the country’s main social problems. The country has not yet overcome the crisis generated by the new coronavirus pandemic and the two consecutive hurricanes that hit the region recently, leaving hundreds of dead people.

Popular indignation is not restricted to the acts of the Parliament. In the Executive Branch, the situation is similar. Alejandro Giammattei’s first year in office is being marked by criticism and scandals, in addition to a notable inability to overcome internal differences between members of his own team. For example, recently, Vice President Guillermo Castillo criticized Giammattei for invoking international legal documents to legitimize a severe response against acts of vandalism during the demonstrations. Castillo classified the attitude as exaggerated and said that the Guatemalan people do not practice such acts.

In addition, the vice president stated during an interview that he asked the president to resign from his office with the aim of alleviating social tensions in the country. Castillo openly defends the creation of a Guatemalan “commission of notables”, led by religious and popular institutions, which should give to the Congress a list with possible names to occupy the office of new president. This is sufficient to reveal the deep level of dissatisfaction, disunity, and lack of strategic planning within the Guatemalan government and parliament.

While the accusations continue on both sides and the Guatemalan state is fragmented into several political factions, the population suffers from the consequences of many incompetent policies. Now, with the arson attack against the Parliament, popular demonstrations are likely to be suppressed with extreme violence. Although Congress has suspended the approval of the new budget, there is no indication that such suspension will continue – it may be only a temporary measure while the demonstrations remain violent. It is likely that the government will tighten up its security policies and that the restriction on popular acts will grow to the point of preventing any legitimate demonstration against austerity measures. Given the recent history of the country and the entire Central American region, it is difficult to establish any positive scenario for the near future in Guatemala.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

November 26, 2020 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , , | 1 Comment

False Flags and the Dawn of Bioterrorism

Corbett • 11/20/2020

For the past twenty years, the world has been in the midst of a so-called “war on terror” set in motion by a false flag attack of spectacular proportions. Now the stage is being set for a new spectacular attack to usher in the next stage in that war on terror: the war on bioterrorism. But who are the real bioterrorists? And can we rely on government agencies, their appointed health authorities, and the corporate media to accurately identify those terrorists in the wake of the next spectacular terror attack?

Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).


A false flag operation is an action that is carried out in such a way as to make it look like it was done by someone other than the real perpetrator. Taking its metaphor from naval warfare, where ships would sometimes fly false flags as a ruse du guerre in order to sneak up on their enemy, its use has been expanded to include military actions, intelligence operations and even political subterfuge.

It is not difficult to see how governments can use this tactic to whip the public into war hysteria against their political enemies. By staging an attack and blaming their opponents, governments can dupe their population into going along with whatever policies they wish to enact in the name of “fighting the enemy.” It’s a childishly simple tactic but, as we shall see, it has worked for hundreds of years to lead populations into war against targeted groups.

For the past twenty years, the world has been in the midst of a so-called “war on terror” set in motion by a false flag attack of spectacular proportions. And now, the stage is being set for a new spectacular attack to usher in the next stage in that war on terror: the war on bioterrorism.

GATES: We can’t predict when, but given the continual emergence of new pathogens, the increasing risk of a bioterror attack, and the ever-increasing connectedness of our world, there is a significant probability that a large and lethal modern-day pandemic will occur in our lifetime.

SOURCE: Bill Gates speaks at #epidemicsgoviral in 2018 

As the world begins to lose its collective mind over the threat of viruses, the idea that biological agents and infectious pathogens will be the weapon of choice of the terrorists is being seeded in the public imagination. As in every such false flag event, the coming bioterrorist attack will be blamed on a convenient scapegoat: the “invisible enemy” of a deadly new pathogen and the shadowy terror groups who, we will be told, are responsible for releasing it.

But, as history shows, it is the people who are claiming to “predict” this attack in advance, and who are in positions to dictate the world’s response to it, who should be considered the prime suspects in the wake of any such event.

This is an exploration of False Flags and the Dawn of Bioterrorism.

You’re tuned into The Corbett Report.

1.  What is a False Flag?

Although the term “false flag” has been used in a figurative sense since the 16th century to refer to some person or group disguising their true nature or intentions, its modern use derives from the annals of naval warfare, where ships would literally fly the flag of a different nation, pretending to be allies in order to slip past enemy defenses.

The ruse was successful enough that it was adopted for land and air warfare. No longer were literal flags necessary in order to carry out these “false flag” operations. Any use of deception in order to conceal the true origins and perpetrators of an attack could, by extension, be counted as a false flag operation.

It’s a simple idea, but, to those not versed in the art of deceit, it can be devastatingly effective. Unsurprisingly, rulers have used the tactic for hundreds of years to rally their own populations for war against an enemy target.

Take the case of Swedish King Gustav III. In 1788 he was looking for a way to unite an increasingly divided nation and raise his own falling political fortunes. Like many a ruler before and after, he decided that launching a war against his old rivals, the Russians, would be the perfect vehicle for rallying the public around his government. But the king had a problem: there was no appetite among the Swedish public for such a war, and he didn’t have the authority to declare war unilaterally. So he arranged a false flag operation. Gustav dressed up his own soldiers as Russian troops (complete with Russian coins in their pockets) and ordered them to attack a Swedish garrison stationed in Finland. The Swedish public, believing it to be a genuine Russian attack, were outraged, and the Russo-Swedish War of 1788-1790 began.

Or take the case of Seishirō Itagaki, a general in the Imperial Japanese Army who, by 1931, had risen through the ranks to become the Chief of Intelligence in the Kwantung Army, Japan’s largest army group. Itagaki had a problem: he wanted to invade Manchuria, but the Japanese Minister of War wouldn’t allow it. So the general took matters into his own hands by organizing a small cadre of rebels within the Japanese Army and launching a false flag attack. They detonated some explosives on a railway track near a Chinese garrison and blamed the incident on the Chinese themselves. The next day, the Japanese began their attack in response to the “Chinese” provocation and Itagaki got his Manchurian invasion.

Or take the case of the Manning memo. This document records the discussions that took place between US President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House on January 31, 2003. They were committed to starting a war with Iraq, but they had a problem: they didn’t have any actual reason for invading Iraq. As the memo reveals, Bush proposed a false flag solution: painting a U2 spy plane in United Nations colours and flying it low over Iraqi airspace in the hopes that it would be shot down by Iraqi air defense. The outrage, it was assumed, would give the leaders the blank check they needed to wage their war. Blair reportedly balked at the idea, but the pair did agree that the invasion would go ahead regardless of whether or not any weapons of mass destruction were ever found, war crimes be damned.

There are many such examples of false flag operations being used throughout history. But the tactic isn’t an old, dusty relic of the distant past. It very much pertains to the world of the 21st century . . .

2. False Flag Terrorism

It seems inevitable, in hindsight, that the idea of a “false flag” attack would be adapted from its literal use in naval warfare to a more general tactic of deception in military engagements.  So it’s not surprising at all, then, that the concept was further abstracted from a stratagem of warfare to a tool of spy craft.

With the rise of the age of terrorism came the rise of false flag terrorism: spectacular acts of violence designed to look like they were the acts of shadowy terror groups. Once again, the trick is simple but effective.

In the early 1950s, the Israelis were concerned that the British would withdraw their forces from the Suez Canal zone, strengthening Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and his quest to form an alliance against Israel based on Pan-Arab nationalism. Realizing that the only thing that would keep Britain committed to the region was an ongoing state of emergency, they hit upon a simple solution: a false flag terror operation.

Officially codenamed Operation Susannah (but today known as the Lavon Affair), Israeli military intelligence staged a number of bombings around Egypt, hoping to blame the acts on communists, the Muslim Brotherhood, malcontents, or other convenient scapegoats. But the plan was foiled by Egyptian authorities. Several members of the Israeli cell were captured and the Israeli defence minister was forced to resign over the incident. It was never officially admitted until 2005, when Israel formally honoured nine of the spies that had helped carry out the bombings.

But the era of false flag terrorism kicked off in earnest on September 11, 2001, when the neocons in the Bush administration and their accomplices in the military-industrial complex and the intelligence services of multiple countries found an excuse for their longed-for invasion of Afghanistan and the fulfillment of long-standing Zionist plans for carving out a Greater Israel and redrawing the map of the Middle East.

Prized as a pipeline corridor, Afghanistan was also the linchpin of the global heroin trade and an important base of operations for the forthcoming War on Terror. In fact, so important was the country to the Bush administration that it made the full-scale plan for invading Afghanistan the subject of its first national security directive, NSPD-9. The plan was ready and awaiting presidential approval on September 4, 2001, one week before the events that would supposedly justify such an invasion.

RUMSFELD: By the first week of September, the process had arrived at a strategy that was presented to principals and later became NSPD-9, the President’s first major substantive national security decision directive. It w as presented for a decision by principals on September 4th, 2001, seven days before the 11th, and later signed by the President, with minor changes and a preamble to reflect the events of September 11th, in October.”


9/11 was the foundational event of the 21st century, an excuse for numerous items on the checklist of the neocon cabal at the heart of the Bush administration: The creation of the homeland security state. The murderous wars of aggression to reshape the Middle East. The expansion of the military-industrial complex even beyond its Cold War excesses. The formation of the information-industrial complex. We have all watched these events unfolding like a nightmare over the course of the past two decades.

But now, just as the 9/11 myth has finally begun to relinquish its grasp on the public psyche, another event has come along to send the world back into a state of irrational fear. This time, the emergency is predicated not on the Muslim bogeyman but on the invisible bogeyman: SARS-CoV-2.

As we have already seen, the advent of new forms of warfare inevitably brings with it new opportunities for war planners to adapt the false flag strategy for new battlegrounds. And so it is that we find ourselves on the cusp of a new era of false flag operations.

3. The Anthrax False Flag

As it turns out, 9/11 may not prove to be the most long-lasting and world-changing false flag event to have taken place in the fall of 2001. Although largely forgotten today, the anthrax attacks that followed on the heels of “the day that changed everything” have had a profound effect in shaping public policy and setting the stage for the biosecurity state that is emerging today.

The week after September 11, 2001, a series of letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to various media outlets and, later, to two US Senators, Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, who had raised concerns about the Patriot Act which the Bush regime was attempting to rush through Congress. The anthrax-laced letters—which caused the shut down of Congress and lead to the emergency passage of the Patriot Act before legislators even had a chance to read the bill—would go on to kill five and injure 17 others.

In those first chaotic days of the attack, ABC’s Brian Ross began reporting from his anonymous “well-placed” sources that the anthrax spores contained traces of bentonite, a “troubling chemical additive” that just happened to be a “trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program.”

BRIAN ROSS: Peter, from three well-placed but separate sources tonight ABC News has been told that initial tests on the anthrax sent to Senator Daschle have found a tell-tale chemical additive whose name means a lot to weapons experts. It is called bentonite. It’s possible other countries may be using it, too, but it is a trademark of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program.

SOURCE: ABC Evening News for Friday, Oct 26, 2001

Of course, this turned out to be a complete lie (a lie that Ross has never clarified or retracted to this day).

As was later confirmed, the spores in question were actually derived from the Ames strain, a strain of anthrax whose virulence makes it the “gold standard” for research into the bacterium by the biological warriors at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Unsurprisingly, once the anthrax was found to have sourced from the US government’s own biological research labs and not an Iraqi weapons program, coverage of the affair in the mainstream media became less frequent and less detailed.

After years of floating the name of bioweapons expert Steven Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the investigation, the FBI pinned the blame on Bruce Ivins, a “lone wolf” who allegedly orchestrated the entire attack himself because of mental instability. Hatfill successfully sued the FBI for nearly $6 million for undue harassment and Ivins conveniently killed himself before ever being charged with any crime. In the end, not a single person was arrested or indicted for their participation in one of the highest profile attacks in American history.

The anthrax false flag killed multiple birds with one stone:

  • It associated the terror attack of 9/11 with a subsequent bioterror attack that was quickly connected to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. That association was still strong in the minds of many Americans (some who may still have erroneously blamed Iraq for the attack) during the build up to the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003.
  • As Whitney Webb points out in her exhaustive report on the event, the anthrax attack also saved Bioport, the crony-connected DoD contractor that supplied the US military with the highly controversial anthrax vaccine. Facing growing concerns about the safety and efficacy of its vaccine, Bioport faced financial ruin . . . until the anthrax attacks happened and demand for their questionable product skyrocketed. Later rebranding as Emergent Biosolutions, the company benefited from the largesse of the Gates-backed Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, and, as Webb notes, the company “is now set to profit from the Coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis.”
  • The anthrax attack also gave an excuse for the creation of a wide-ranging legislative and institutional framework for implementing medical martial law in the event of a subsequent bioterrorist attack, including the wide-scale adoption of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act authorizing forced quarantines and forced vaccinations in the wake of a declared health emergency.

The anthrax false flag also gave a gigantic shot in the arm to another major wing of the military-industrial complex: the “biodefense” sector. Before anthrax entered the public consciousness as a weapon of terror in the fall of 2001, bioweapons research had been sidelined and shrouded in secrecy. After the attacks, however, the US government—and, indeed, every government in the world—had a perfect excuse to vastly expand its biological weapons programs in the name of “biological security.” As Jonathan King, a professor of microbiology at MIT, explains:

“[The] response to the anthrax attacks and the bioterrorism initiative has been to launch a nationwide, billion-dollar campaign to ‘defend us’ from unknown terrorists. But the character of this program is roughly as follows: You say, ‘Well, what would the terrorists come up with? What’s the nastiest, most dangerous, most difficult-to-diagnose, difficult-to-treat microorganisms that we can think of. Well, let’s go bring that organism into existence so that we can figure out how to defend against it.’ The fact of the matter is, it’s indistinguishable from an offensive program in which you would do the same thing.”

And now, two decades later, that massive billion-dollar campaign made to “defend us” from the anthrax threat has led to the creation of a vast biosecurity infrastructure. From biological labs conducting gain-of-function research to government offices conducting bioterror “simulations” to legislation granting extraordinary powers to unelected health “authorities” in the wake of the next attack, the groundwork has been laid for the next stage of government-sponsored false flag terrorism.

4. False Flag Bioterrorism

Ever since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks of 2001, the public has been told that the next spectacular terror attack would involve biological agents engineered by shadowy terror groups.

REPORTER: At a Tucson gymnasium, people wait their turn for life-saving pills to be taken after an outbreak of a smallpox virus. Scenarios like these are taking place across the United States. Thankfully, they’re only simulations.

SOURCE: RR0304/A USA: Bioterrorism

MR. LYNCH: Although we are fortunate not to have experienced a biological attack here in the United States since the anthrax attacks, post-September 11th the threat remains very real. Foreign adversaries have already demonstrated an interest in developing genetic and biological weaponry.

SOURCE: U.S. Biodefense, Preparedness, and Implications of Antimicrobial Resistance for National Security

JEANNE MESERVE: GNN has just learned a group calling itself A Brighter Dawn, or “ABD,” is claiming responsibility for the creation and intentional release of the Clade X virus. In a youtube video, a spokesman for the group says the goal is to reduce the human population to pre-industrial levels. That, he says, will bring the world back into balance and prevent the destruction of the planet.

SOURCE: Clade X Pandemic Exercise: Segment 2

REPORTER: The Center for Disease Control is one of only two labs in the world which officially holds samples of the smallpox virus. The other is in Moscow. But now, bioterror experts fear many other countries may have the virus, and there are concerns it could be used as a weapon. Bioterrorism experts envisage grim scenarios where a suicide terrorist contagious with smallpox walks through a busy airport, infecting hundreds of others who spread the virus to their destinations.

SOURCE: RR0304/A USA: Bioterrorism

Those warnings have only increased in urgency in this age of COVID.

GATES: We also face a new threat that the next epidemic has good chance of originated [sic] on a computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus or a contagious contagious and highly deadly strain of flu.

SOURCE: Gates: Millions could die from bio-terrorism

STEPHEN COLBERT: What else are we not listening to that we need to take action on now?

GATES: Well, the idea of a bioterrorist attack is kinda the nightmare scenario because a pathogen with a high death rate would be ???

SOURCE: Bill Gates warns of BioTerror attack 2nd Wave

RICK BRIGHT: There will be likely a resurgence of COVID-19 this fall.
It’ll be greatly compounded by the challenges of seasonal influenza. Without better planning, 2020 could be the darkest winter in modern history.

SOURCE: Whistleblower warns of ‘darkest winter’ if U.S. doesn’t plan against virus

GATES: So we, you know, we’ll have to prepare for the next one that, you know . . . I’d say will get attention this time,

SOURCE: A Special Edition of Path Forward with Bill and Melinda Gates

Statements like these not only implant in the public mind the idea that the next spectacular terror attack is likely to be biological, but that when such an attack occurs, we should immediately pin the blame on the shadowy terrorists who (we will likely be told) cooked the pathogen up in their bioweapons lab in the caves of Tora Bora.

But, just as anyone with national security experience immediately recognized that 9/11 was not the work of 19 men with boxcutters but in fact bore the hallmarks of a precisely coordinated intelligence operation, so, too, should the public be aware that those with the means, motive and opportunity to create and disseminate a globally spreading infectious pathogen are not cave-dwelling terrorists but well-funded government and military researchers.

Although prohibited by the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the US has, in fact, maintained an illegal and secret germ warfare research program for decades. Long known to insiders but formally denied by the US government, the existence of the program was confirmed in the pages of The New York Times on September 4, 2001, the same day that the invasion orders for Afghanistan were sent to President Bush for authorization, one week before “the day that changed everything” and two weeks before the beginning of the anthrax false flag.

Although the program was downplayed as “foolish, but not illegal” and portrayed as a defensive program that was largely curtailed in the wake of the end of the Cold War, a groundbreaking 2018 investigation by independent journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva found that a network of Pentagon-run biolabs in ex-Soviet bloc states continues to this day to produce deadly bacteria, weaponized viruses and toxins prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention.

But the US is certainly not alone in its multi-billion dollar quest to develop more deadly—and more precise—biological agents.

Britain’s program, centered around the research at the UK’s secretive Porton Down bioweapon laboratory, included the work of researchers like Vladimir Pasechnik, a microbiologist who had worked on the Soviet germ warfare program weaponizing anthrax and other biological agents before defecting to Britain in 1989. He was hired by the UK government to conduct his own research into anthrax antidotes at Porton Down and died just weeks after the anthrax attacks took place.

Dr. David Kelly, who debriefed Pasechnik after his defection and offered him the job at Porton Down, had told a friend that he was going to write a book exposing what he knew about the bioweapons program—but instead ended up dead on Harrowdown Hill under extremely suspicious circumstances.

The Soviets also had an extensive biological weapons research program. The fruits of that program included the novichok agent that has been blamed for high-profile assassination attempts in recent years, including the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal who were “randomly” discovered by the Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army just ten miles from the Porton Down bioweapons lab.

It was even reported by The Sunday Times over two decades ago that Israel—which is not a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention—has worked on “developing a biological weapon that would harm Arabs while leaving Jews unaffected.” The Israel Institute for Biological Research where this research was conducted is a continuation of HEMED BEIT, a biowarfare unit in the Israel Defense Force whose founders believed that “if microbiology could help in providing the means to establish the Jewish State, so be it.” The institute made headlines earlier this year for its “groundbreaking research” identifying coronavirus antibodies and its subsequent quest to develop an Israeli COVID-19 vaccine.

But beyond the secret biological weapons programs, there has been a publicly acknowledged and funded program to weaponize viruses and pathogens that has been ongoing for years. And once again, the threat of bioterrorism has been invoked as a reason for funding this admittedly dangerous research to create the perfect bioweapon.

ANTHONY FAUCI: Bioterror is—there’s always the potential of bioterror. And we have a major bio defense research and development effort that spans agencies from the NIH to do the basic research to be able to develop better vaccines, how you counter engineered microbes, how you approach drug resistance, engineered microbes. The CDC has surveillance mechanisms to determine if there’s new microbes or anything out there in society particularly toxic that could be used in a bioterror situation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense—we do all of that.

SOURCE: Anthony Fauci on Bioterrorism

This work, referred to as gain-of-function research, involves weaponizing biological agents so that scientists can develop vaccines or other defenses against them. Of course, gain-of-function research is, in its key aspects, identical to an offensive biological weapons program, but is simply framed as a defensive and preventative measure.

The work of the researchers in this field has not been without controversy.

In 1995 researchers dug up a victim of the 1918 Spanish flu from the Alaskan permafrost in order to “resurrect” the virus using genetic sequencing.

In 2015, researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology participated in experiments weaponizing bat-derived coronavirus that even other molecular biologists warned were presenting the world with a “clear and present danger.” The research even received funding from USAID, which was illegal at the time, as the US had suspended funding for gain-of-function research in 2014.

Time and again, those looking at the history of biowarfare are confronted by a key fact: those who have dedicated their lives to weaponizing pathogens and dreaming up bioterror scenarios aren’t the shadowy terrorist biologists in their cave fortress compound, but the government-funded researchers at both secret and public biolabs around the world.

We have entered an age where the threat of a bioterror attack is very real. The only questions facing the public now are: Who are the real bioterrorists? And can we rely on government agencies, their appointed health authorities, and the corporate media to accurately identify those terrorists in the wake of the next spectacular terror attack?


Two decades ago, the idea of a false flag attack was incomprehensible to the general public. “Why would the government attack itself?” was the oft-heard question of those who could not imagine such duplicity being used to fool a nation into war.

But this is not the world of 2001. It is 2020, and by now nearly everyone is familiar with false flag operations. What was once an obscure tactic deployed by military and intelligence agencies in the shadowy world of spies and soldiers is now openly discussed and debated in the mainstream news.

Make no mistake: this is a major step. An important tool of control, used to pull the wool over the eyes of the public for centuries, had gone from a laughable fringe “conspiracy theory” to an openly acknowledged (and vigorously denied) conspiracy reality within the space of two decades.

But have we really learnt the lessons of history about false flag terrorism? Do we even really know what that term means? And would we recognize it if that trick were employed again in a different context?

They say forewarned is forearmed. Nowhere is that adage more aptly applied than in the realm of false flag terrorism. The entire reason that these deception operations have been used by country after country for centuries is that they are so effective. But they are only effective because throughout those centuries the general public was unable to wrap their minds around a trick so devious and downright evil.

Now we have to completely break the spell that governments have cast over the public. In the event of any spectacular terror attack (biological or otherwise), we have to take the history of false flag operations into account and put the government at the top of the list of suspects. When enough of the population has adjusted their thinking in this way, the trick will have lost its effectiveness and those seeking to direct society through fear will have to abandon it altogether.

This is a monumental task, but it is not to be taken lightly. Given the infrastructure for full-scale medical martial law that has been carefully laid over the past two decades, and given the lockdowns, forced vaccinations, enforced unemployment, and digital dollars tied to social credit scores that have been promised by those seeking to put us through the Great Reset, the future of humanity may depend on our response to the next bioterror attack.

The only question is: Can we wake up enough of the public to these tricks before the real bioterrorists launch their next false flag operation?

November 20, 2020 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment