A commenter BTL called Petra made this claim recently in regard to the conspirators behind 9/11 etc.
All glaring anomalies are deliberate examples of “revelation of the method” / “hidden in plain sight”…
She was referring to the fact Building 7 was so very obviously ‘pulled’. Her thesis being the elites are basically infallible, literally incapable of human error and when they appear to goof or slip up and reveal their lies or fakery, this is all part of their plan.
They are gods essentially, not mortals, and whatever they reveal unto us will be what they choose us to know of their infinite power.
OK.
So, here’s my reply to her.
I recall a true-crime show once where a total psychopath planned his wife’s murder in meticulous detail. Gave her antifreeze by injecting it into an unopened coke bottle or something. Planned an alibi for when she died, covered his tracks.
But then he didn’t empty the trash and the antifreeze container was found there, plus a receipt in his car for the purchase.
Oh, and he had googled ‘how to kill your wife and get away with it’ and hadn’t deleted the search.
Do we think this was intentional “revelation of the method”? Or just an idiot getting caught out?
Do we assume the guy’s intention all along was to get found out and put on death row – because that is where he ended up? Or do we figure he wanted to get away with it, thought he’d been brilliantly deceptive but was defeated by his own limitations?
And, by the way, he was not an isolated example. True crime is littered with people such as this. Often highly educated, intelligent, privileged people who hatch plans to remove a spouse, rival, business partner etc that combine superficial cunning with breathtaking omissions of basic common sense.
You or I could do much better, except we wouldn’t. The fact seems to be that being psychopathic enough to want to do these things renders you, by and large, incapable of doing them successfully or plausibly.
Their lack of empathy makes them ruthless but also incapable of reasoning to the extent of creating an interlocking, three-dimensional narrative of innocence.
The point here being that the minds behind the mass-murdering psyops are of exactly the same kind as those killing spouses, and the motives are just as base – greed, gain, power and other pointless things.
The ‘conspirators’ crank it up a few notches but, just like the guy with the antifreeze, their shenanigans are a dizzying mishmash of ruthless cunning and utter simpleminded incompetence.
They do the equivalent of carefully injecting poison into the coke and then leaving the evidence in the trash – because the idea someone might disbelieve their initial story enough to do even a bit of investigating never crosses their minds.
And of course they’re in no danger of ending up on death row because, unlike hapless antifreeze guy, they own the judiciary, legal system and entire political class so the incentive to try hard isn’t even there.
While we’re on the subject this is a good time to remember these psyops/false flags are never smooth well oiled machines. Their very nature tends to preclude that. They’re not clever heist movies. They are a bedlam of isolated groups working often competing interests. The required level of secrecy and compartmentalizations means control is diffuse and therefore often less than total and easily lost.
The greed and impairment of the driving forces affects every level. There are petty rivalries, one-upmanships. They lie to each other as much as to us. They sell each other out and stitch each other up. Different pockets may be working competing or conflicting narratives. The unexpected inevitably happens. Plans need to be changed or adapted on the fly and not everyone gets to know soon enough.
When this happens fresh panic ensues, emergency narrative improvisations happen and then may be subsequently cancelled due to major plausibility issues.
And so we get smiling Silversteins, smugly thinking they can improvise a backup story of ‘pulling’ building 7, only to be told later that won’t fly, because you can’t rig a building for ‘pulling’ in a matter of hours.
Cue sudden change of direction and WTC7 being airbrushed from the narrative.
The supervillain version of ‘them’ touted by some forgets all this messy human reality and replaces it with unreal and quasi hero-worshipping assumptions of godlike power. And THAT is exactly how these greedy little narcissists want to be seen. It’s their favorite autoerotic workout routine. “That’s right, I’m all powerful, that’s right I play with your mind. Oh yeah baby, I’M A GOD.”
Someone tell Petra and her ilk they are simply asking us to ignore the silly little clown behind the curtain and tremble at the awesome power of Oz.
The Constitution of the United States represents the classic solution to one of humankind’s greatest political problems: that is, how does a small group of states combine into a strong union without the states losing their individual powers and surrendering their control over local affairs?
Although the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, a “bill of rights” was demanded and became an eventuality in order to protect the citizenry’s fundamental rights or “first liberties” against usurpation by the newly created federal government.
Unfortunately, although the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments of the Constitution—was adopted as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, in America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.
Here is what it means to live under the Constitution, post-9/11 and in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic.
The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone. Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault.
The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited to the battlefield.
The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.
The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears.
The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.
The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.
As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts.
If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.
Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.
It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.”
In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.
Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.
Heroes are rare; they are tragic and inspiring at the same time. Such a real-life hero is Zakaria Zubeidi, 45, from Jenin in Palestine. A man of brawn and brain, of sword and harp, he was an al Aqsa Brigade commander as well as the director of the Freedom Theatre. Years ago, the Sunday Times called him ‘one of Israel’s most wanted and implacable enemies’. A cat of nine lives, he survived many Israeli assassination attempts; he had been in and out of jail many times; he got his first Israeli bullet at 13; his film premiere at 14.
A few days ago, he staged an audacious escape from Israel’s high security prison, together with five other convicts. They dug a 20 yard-long tunnel with their spoons, just like the Count of Monte Cristo, and emerged outside the walls, squeezing through a narrow communication channel. This brave, nay impossible feat encouraged the captive Palestinians and gave them a second wind when they were exhausted and desperate. The people in the Holy Land and the large Palestinian diaspora held its collective breath following their escape and prayed for them to reach safety.
It is normal for humans to empathise with fugitives, rather than pursuers. Young readers of Uncle Tom’s Cabin thus followed the plight of Eliza, child in tow, crossing the frozen Ohio River from bondage to freedom, escaping the murderous dogs and slave catchers. Alas, Zakaria never reached the safe shore. In the Dixie of the 1830s, there were courageous and noble white people who harboured the runaway black slaves. Germans and Russians, Poles and Frenchmen provided refuge for the Jews that escaped from the camps. In Israel 2021, not a single Jew offered the fugitives water and food nor helped a Palestinian runaway; everyone who saw them immediately informed police, said the authorities. In a few days, four starved prisoners were hunted down, beaten up and taken back to jail; two are still at large.
I saw on Israeli TV news four shackled prisoners in the court. Zakaria had been badly beaten. His capturers broke his ribs and jaw, while he was already handcuffed. His face was grim and stern like that of a suffering Christ before the crooked court of Synedrion. It was a sad sight, the return of the hero to the dark dungeons of the Jewish state. But then, he was born and brought up under the occupation. His story is the story of the cheated generation that came to the fore after the great betrayal.
In 1993, the State of Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo accords; this agreement certified by handshake on the White House lawn promised Palestinians full independence after five years of transition. The Jews reneged on the deal. While individual Jews can be honest and honourable; as a collective they are extremely untrustworthy. It comes from a Jewish superiority complex, of a refusal to obey the rules established for lesser species; of feeling they can do whatever they find expedient. Fair play is not a Jewish idea at all.
The Palestinians, swindled by Israel, had nobody to turn to; they responded by initiating the Second Intifada, the rising taking place in 2000. It was the pivotal event for Zakaria’s generation; for me, too. I was radicalised by the Intifada, by the dishonesty and cruelty of the Jewish state and by the courage of Palestinian resisters. In 2001, I began writing in English to an international audience; next year, in 2002, I entered the church, parting with Jewry.
The Jews became radicalised, too: The support of US Jewry for the 9/11 narrative and for the War on Terror can’t be understood outside of this context: the Oslo accords, reneging on Oslo, the Intifada and 9/11 are links of one chain. Before 9/11, Jews were condemned for reneging on Oslo and for the bloody suppression of the Intifada. After 9/11 they could smash the Palestinians with all their might. For young men like Zakaria even survival was problematic.
Zakaria deserves a Plutarch to write up his life, but I’ll do what I can, until a Plutarch comes along. Zakaria was born and grew up in the Jenin Refugee Camp, a place where the expelled Palestinians from Haifa’s Carmel were corralled in 1948 by the victorious Jews. His father was an English language teacher; he died rather young, leaving his widow and their eight children to survive.
Zakaria was 11, when the First Intifada began. It was a spontaneous protest, caused by the enclosure of common Palestinian lands and their transfer to Jewish settlers. Jewish lawyers, predominantly ladies of liberal persuasion, applied the English 16th century idea of ‘enclosure of the commons’ and claimed all commonly held lands as belonging to Jews only. In England this policy caused ‘enclosure riots’; as it did in Palestine. In response to Jewish land grabbing, unarmed peasants took the nearest handy stone and threw it at Jewish settlers’ cars. The Jews replied with fire. Hundreds of unarmed Palestinians were shot and killed. The children suffered most.
Instead of being cowed, the camp boys like Zakaria took the danger in their stride. The daredevils would throw stones at invading jeeps like the 13-year old boy, Farris Odeh did. Farris was the Palestinian kid we saw throwing stones at Israeli tanks with the nonchalance of a village boy chasing away a ferocious dog. It was a dangerous game: the famous picture of Farris was taken on October 29, and a week later, on 8th of November, a Jewish sniper murdered him in cold blood. Boys like Zakaria lived dangerously in the camp. The Israeli army treated refugee camps as their hunting ground. They would drive in on their Jeeps and shoot around, terrorising children and grown ups. Chris Hedges, of the New York Times, wrote of their modus operandi in his Gaza Diary, published in Harper’s magazine: “the refugee camp … is still and peaceful. Children play with scrap-paper kites and ragged soccer balls. Suddenly two IDF jeeps with loudspeakers pull up. They immediately taunt the boys with obscenities, luring them up to the fence. Then [a] percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than 10 or 11 years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me… The soldiers shoot; the bullets from the M-16s tumble end over end through the children’s slight bodies. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”
Karni crossing point between Israel and the Gaza Strip, on the outskirts of Gaza city, Oct. 29, 2000. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours)
In similar circumstances, 13-year-old Zakaria had been shot by a Jewish soldier. The bullet entered his leg; he spent six months in hospital and went through multiple operations. He remains lame to this very day. The soldier has never been tried or punished for shooting a child, but a Jewish soldier is practically never tried or punished for wounding or murdering a Palestinian child, and there are thousands of murdered children.
As Zakaria recuperated, his mother (who was a great believer in peaceful coexistence with Israeli Jews) invited a new theatre company to do rehearsals at her home. She gave them the upper floor of their house, fed them and helped them. It was a children’s theatre, performed by camp children and for camp children, organized by an unusual person, Arna Mer. This Jewish communist lady “betrayed her people” (as many Jews were prone to say) and married an Arab, an Orthodox Christian Palestinian Arab, also a communist, even a prominent member of Communist Party. They called their son Sputnik, as a sign of their love for the Soviet Union, the beacon of light for such liberation movements. Eventually Sputnik found his name too exotic, and changed it to ‘Juliano Mer’. He became a friend of Zakaria. Together they acted on stage; the company consisted of six or eight children. The theatre was called The Stone Theatre. It was around 1988-89, at the height of the First Intifada, the rising that convinced Israel to seek an accommodation and enter Oslo accords with Palestinian leadership.
Years later, Juliano Mer made a film Arna’s Children, based on their memories and video archive. It turned out that the majority of the young actors were killed by Jews by that time. Zakaria’s mother was also killed by a Jewish sniper, shot through the window, while she was at home. One hour later, the same sniper shot her elder son and killed him. Their house, which had served as a home for the Stone Theatre, was bulldozed together with many other homes in Jenin.
Jenin was the place for a Jewish onslaught on the Palestinians in 2002. Recently the Israeli court banned Jenin, Jenin, a film about these fateful events, but you still can find it on Bitchute. Zakaria was a great fighter; he became the commander of Jenin’s Al Aqsa Brigade. He survived four assassination attempts by the Israelis: in 2004, they murdered five Palestinians, including a 14-year-old child, while targeting a vehicle suspected of carrying Zakaria. On another occasion they killed 9 Palestinians, but Zakaria escaped.
Zakaria became widely known and respected in the West Bank and even in Israel. He was befriended by Yasser Arafat; he supported the election of Mahmud Abbas, Arafat’s successor. An Israeli woman, Tali Fahima, came to Jenin to support Zakaria and serve as his human shield. Israel arrested her in 2004 and she spent three years in prison for ‘aiding a terrorist organization’. After her release, she converted to Islam having become totally disillusioned by the massive Jewish support for the bloody punitive actions against Palestinians. Zakaria, who spoke perfect Hebrew and had many Israeli friends, was also disappointed by the Israeli Jewish Left. None defended him during these terrible years, despite all the efforts of his late mother to build relations with Israelis.
However, the uprising was defeated. And Zakaria continued his struggle by other means, establishing, together with Juliano Mer, his childhood friend, a new and bigger theatre company, the Freedom Theatre of Jenin. It is still around, and even prospers, though Zakaria is now in jail, and Juliano Mer was killed by unknown assassins. In 2007, Zakaria accepted the amnesty offered by Israelis to the Fatah fighters, though by its conditions he couldn’t leave Jenin. He abided by the amnesty conditions, but it didn’t help him: a few years later, Israel rescinded the amnesty. In 2019, Zakaria was caught and sent to jail for life.
He would rot in jail like other prisoners, and every second Palestinian of his generation had been in an Israeli jail for some part of his life. But then, the audacious breakout brought his name back to our awareness. He returned hope into the hearts of the Palestinians and their friends, but alas, for a short time.
It happened exactly twenty years after 9/11, the event that empowered the Jews to smash Palestinian resistance. Nowadays, the Jews can do whatever they want with their captive goyim. People aren’t even allowed to object. At the recent Tokyo Olympic games, an Algerian judoka Fethi Nourine refused to pair with an Israeli sportsman, saying his support for the Palestinian cause made it impossible for him to compete against an Israeli. The International Judo Federation promptly suspended the brave Algerian for ten years.
In the discourse, the Jews possess an unassailable position, and whoever demurs finds himself jobless and castigated as a ‘bigot’. Every time I post an item about Palestine, Facebook’s Zuckerberg bans me for a week. Never was Jewish dominance so complete. Before 9/11, the right wing was traditionally anti-Jewish. Nowadays, the European and American nationalist Right accept the rules of the game. It’s hard to find a ‘fascist’ or ‘white nationalist’ who doesn’t worship Israel. The Jewish ‘left’ in Israel avidly supports the current Israeli Prime Minister Bennett who is as strong a Jewish chauvinist as has ever held this position; and Bennett says openly that Palestinians will never be free.
And we also have lost our freedom. Freedom to roam the land, freedom to have and voice our opinion. Freedom to refuse a dubious ‘medical’ treatment. What 9/11 started, Corona completed. We are all Palestinians now.
However, as I watched the stern Christ-like face of Zakaria Zubeidi in the courtroom, I thought that despite all efforts of the Synedrion, the suffering and crucified Christ came back to life. So will Palestine. So will the World. Resurrection is as inevitable as Death, and it beats Death.
The twentieth anniversary of 9/11 last Saturday has raised many of the usual issues about what actually happened on that day. Were hijacked airliners actually crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or was the damage in New York City attributable to explosives or even some kind of nuclear device? These are fundamental questions and the so-called “Truthers” who raise them have been inspired by their reading of the 585 page 9/11 Report, which is most charitably described as incomplete, though many would reasonably call it a government cover-up.
I have long believed that unless one actually sees or experiences something first hand the description of any event is no better than hearsay. The closest I came to “seeing” 9/11 was the panicked evacuation of a CIA office building, where I was working at the time. Another related bit of 9/11 narrative also came from two close friends who were driving into work at the Pentagon when they each independently observed what appeared to be a large plane passing over their cars and striking the building. I consider the sources credible but was it an airplane or a missile? And I was not there to see it with my own eyes, so I am reluctant to claim that my friends actually saw something that in retrospect might have been misconstrued.
Critics of the physical and engineering aspects of the accepted narrative certainly have a great deal of expert evidence that supports their case. The way the towers fell as well as the collapse of Building 7 nearby are suggestive of something other than the impact of an airliner near the top of the structure, but I am no expert in the science of the matter and have avoided expressing a view regarding it.
Apart from what happened, I have always been more intrigued by “Who done it?” I found the 9/11 Report to be conspicuously lacking in its failure to cover possible foreign involvement, to include the Saudis, Pakistanis and the Israelis. Indeed, President Joe Biden has taken steps that have resulted in the declassification and release of 16 pages of the notorious 28-page redaction of documents relating to any possible Saudi role. The document consists of interviews with Saudi student Omar al-Bayoumi, who reportedly helped support several hijackers.
The Saudis are being sued by 9/11 survivors, but it is unlikely that anything really sensitive will ever be exposed, as explained by investigative journalist Jim Bovard. Indeed, the documents released last Saturday did not demonstrate that the Saudi government itself played any direct role in 9/11, though it is clear that wealthy Saudis and even members of the Royal Family had been supporting and funding al-Qaeda. It is also known that that Saudi Embassy and Consulate employees in the U.S. had funded the alleged hijackers.
Friends who were in CIA’s Counterterrorism Center at the time of 9/11 tend to believe that the Saudis were indeed supporting their fellow citizens while in the U.S. but were likely not knowledgeable regarding any terrorist plot. They observed, however, that there was considerable evidence that Israel knew in advance about what was impending and may have even been instrumental in making sure that it succeeded.
The evidence of Israeli involvement is substantial, based on the level of the Jewish state’s espionage operations in the U.S. and also its track record on so-called covert actions simulating terrorist attacks designed to influence political decision making in foreign countries. But, of course, in reporting on the 9/11 tragedy no one in the mainstream media did pick up on the connection, inhibited no doubt by the understanding that there are some things that one just does not write about Israel if one hopes to remain employed. That is true in spite of the fact that the Israeli angle to 9/11 is without a doubt a good story, consigned to the alternative media, where it can be marginalized by critics as a conspiracy theory or the product of anti-Semitism.
In the year 2001 Israel was running a massive spying operation directed against Muslims either resident or traveling in the United States. The operation included the creation of a number of cover companies in New Jersey, Florida and also on the west coast that served as spying mechanisms for Mossad officers. The effort was supported by the Mossad Station in Washington DC and included a large number of volunteers, the so-called “art students” who traveled around the U.S. selling various products at malls and outdoor markets. The FBI was aware of the numerous Israeli students who were routinely overstaying their visas but they were regarded as a minor nuisance and were normally left to the tender mercies of the inspectors at the Bureau of Customs and Immigration.
The Israelis were also running more sophisticated intelligence operations inside the United States, many of which were focused on Washington’s military capabilities and intentions. Some specialized intelligence units concentrated on obtaining military and dual use technology. It was also known that Israeli spies had penetrated the phone systems of the U.S. government, to include those at the White House.
All of that came into focus on September 11, 2001, when a New Jersey housewife saw something from the window of her apartment building, which overlooked the World Trade Center. She watched as the buildings burned and crumbled but also noted something strange. Three young men were kneeling on the roof of a white transit van parked by the water’s edge, making a movie in which they featured themselves high fiving and laughing in front of the catastrophic scene unfolding behind them. The woman wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police, who responded quickly and soon both the local force and the FBI began looking for the vehicle, which was subsequently seen by other witnesses in various locations along the New Jersey waterfront, its occupants “celebrating and filming.”
The license plate number revealed that the van belonged to a New Jersey registered company called Urban Moving Systems. The van was identified and pulled over. Five men between the ages of 22 and 27 years old emerged to be detained at gunpoint and handcuffed. They were all Israelis. One of them had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock and another had two foreign passports. Bomb sniffing dogs reacted to the smell of explosives in the van.
According to the initial police report, the driver identified as Sivan Kurzberg, stated “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” The five men were detained at the Bergen County jail in New Jersey before being transferred the FBI’s Foreign Counterintelligence Section, which handles allegations of spying.
After the arrest, the FBI obtained a warrant to search Urban Moving System’s Weehawken, NJ, offices. Papers and computers were seized. The company owner Dominick Suter, also an Israeli, answered FBI questions but when a follow-up interview was set up a few days later it was learned that he had fled the country for Israel, putting both his business and home up for sale. It was later learned that Suter has been associated with at least fourteen businesses in the United States, mostly in New Jersey and New York but also in Florida.
The five Israelis were held in Brooklyn, initially on charges relating to visa fraud. FBI interrogators questioned them for more than two months. Several were held in solitary confinement so they could not communicate with each other and two of them were given repeated polygraph exams, which they failed when claiming that they were nothing more than students working summer jobs. The two men that the FBI focused on most intensively were believed to be Mossad staff officers and the other three were volunteers helping with surveillance. Interestingly, photo evidence demonstrated that they had been seen “casing” the area where they were seen celebrating on the day before, indicating that they had prior knowledge of the attack.
The Israelis were not exactly cooperative, but the FBI concluded from documents obtained at their office in Weehawken that they had been targeting Arabs in New York and New Jersey. The FBI concluded that there was a distinct possibility that the Israelis had actually monitored the activities of at least two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers while the cover companies and intelligence personnel often intersected with locations frequented by the Saudis.
The dots were apparently never connected by investigators. Police records in New Jersey and New York where the men were held have disappeared and FBI interrogation reports are inaccessible. Media coverage of the case also died, though the five were referred to in the press as the “dancing Israelis” and by some, more disparagingly, as the “dancing Shlomos.”
Inevitably, the George W. Bush White House intervened. After 71 days in detention, the five Israelis were inexplicably released from prison, put on a plane, and deported. One should also recall that when the news of 9/11 reached Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pleased, saying that “It’s very good. Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” It will “strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.” And, of course, it was conveniently attributable to Israel’s enemies.
The possible role of Israel in 9/11 was first explored in book form in 2003 by Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo in his The Terror Enigma, a short book focusing on Israeli spying and inconsistencies in the narrative that bore the provocative subtitle “9/11 and the Israeli Connection.”
Currently, the twentieth anniversary of 9/11 has inspired some others to take another look at the possible Israeli role. Ron Unz has recently completed an exhaustive examination of the evidence. He observes that 9/11 and its aftermath have shaped “the last two decades, greatly changing the daily lives and liberties of most ordinary Americans.” He asks “What organized group would have been sufficiently powerful and daring to carry off an attack of such vast scale against the central heart of the world’s sole superpower? And how were they possibly able to orchestrate such a massively effective media and political cover-up, even enlisting the participation of the U.S. government itself?”
Ron Unz answers his question, concluding that there is “a strong, perhaps even overwhelming case that the Israeli Mossad together with its American collaborators played the central role” in the attack. His argument is based on the noted inconsistencies in the standard narrative, plus an examination of the history of Israeli false flag and mass terrorism attacks. It also includes new information gleaned from Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman’s recent book Rise and Kill First: the Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.
To a certain extent, Unz relies on a detailed investigative article written by French journalist Laurent Guyenot in 2018 as well as on an argument made by an ex-Marine and former instructor at the U.S. Army War College Alan Sabrosky in an article where he records how “Many years ago I read a fascinating discussion of the ‘tactics of mistake.’ This essentially entailed using a target’s prejudices and preconceptions to mislead them as to the origin and intent of the attack, entrapping them in a tactical situation that later worked to the attacker’s strategic advantage. This is what unfolded in the 9/11 attacks that led us into the matrix of wars and conflicts, present (Afghanistan and Iraq), planned (Iran and Syria) and projected (Jordan and Egypt), that benefit Israel and no other country — although I concede that many private contractors and politicians are doing very well for themselves out of the death and misery of others. I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation. But Mossad did not do it alone. They needed local help within America (and perhaps elsewhere) and they had it, principally from some alumni of PNAC (the misnamed Project for a New American Century) and their affiliates within and outside of the U.S. Government (USG), who in the 9/11 attacks got the ‘catalytic event’ they needed and craved to take the U.S. to war on Israel’s behalf…”
Economist and author Paul Craig Roberts has also been motivated by the anniversary to review the evidence and concludes “Circumstantial evidence suggests that 9/11 was a scheme of George W. Bush regime neoconservative officials allied with vice president Dick Cheney and Israel to create a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ that would generate support on the part of the American people and Washington’s European allies for a Middle Eastern ‘war on terror’ whose real purpose was to destroy Israel’s enemies in the interest of Greater Israel… This is the most plausible explanation, but, if true, it is not one that the U.S. and Israeli governments would ever acknowledge. Consequently, we are stuck with an official explanation long championed by the presstitutes that no one believes.”
Yes, an implausible explanation that no one really believes for the greatest national security disaster in America’s twenty-first century. And Israel gets yet another pass.
Describes how enlightened land management can make landscapes more resilient to drying and heatwaves. It reports the most recent research showing heatwaves are not made worse by rising CO2 but by altering the earth’s surface
One of the arguments that interventionists, including many U.S. military veterans, use to rationalize the U.S. defeat in Afghanistan is that U.S. forces were fighting to bring “freedom, democracy, and women’s rights” to the country. In fact, the Pentagon even coined the term “Operation Enduring Freedom” as one of the ways to justify the invasion and occupation of the country. Even though the effort failed, the argument goes, interventionists, including veterans, should nonetheless feel good about their “service” to both America and Afghanistan.
There is a problem with this rationale and justification, however. The problem is that it is evil to the core.
In any invasion and occupation, there are inevitably going to be people killed, injured, and maimed. There is also going to be destruction of homes, business, and infrastructure. That certainly proved to be the case in Afghanistan.
Therefore, what interventionists were — and are — saying is that all those deaths, injuries, and property destruction were worth bringing freedom, democracy, and women’s rights to Afghanistan.
But who died and made these people the arbiters of that type of mathematical life-and-death calculation? After all, those who were killed in the process would never have experienced freedom, democracy, and women’s rights. That’s because they would be dead.
Now, it’s one thing for the citizens of a country to decide for themselves whether to revolt against the tyranny of their own government. Violent revolutions can be very costly in terms of life and property. That’s why people might decide to put up with a lot of tyranny before they revolt. They don’t want to lose their family members, friends, and countrymen by revolting, until the situation gets so bad that they feel that they have no choice but to do so. In the final analysis, the decision to revolt and when to revolt can be highly subjective.
But that’s a far cry from U.S. officials making that decision from afar. Their decision is a cavalier one because they don’t put the same value on Afghan life that the Afghan people do. In fact, interventionists put little or no value on Afghan life. That mindset is reflected by the fact that early in the invasion and occupation, the Pentagon, with the full support of Washington, D.C., officials, made the conscious decision to not even keep track of how many Afghans they were killing. Moreover, there was never an upward limit on the number of Afghan people who could be killed, injured or maimed in the effort to bring freedom, democracy, and women’s rights to the country. It just didn’t matter. Any number of Afghan people killed in the effort would be considered worth it by U.S. interventionists.
That’s why the purported concern that U.S. interventionists, including many U.S. military veterans, express for the Afghan people rings hollow, given that they were willing to kill or maim any number of Afghans to reach their political goal.
How many Afghan lives were worth the U.S. effort to bring “freedom, democracy, and women’s rights” to Afghanistan? None! It was never morally or religiously justified for the U.S. government to kill even one single Afghan citizen for the sake of a political goal. Killing, injuring, or maiming even just one single Afghan, much less tens of thousands of Afghans, for the sake of “freedom, democracy, and women’s rights” has always been the epitome of evil.
FINALLY, an MP has challenged the government on the horrific levels of Covid vaccine damage recorded under the Yellow Card Scheme run by our watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). It currently shows 1,632 deaths and 360,000 injuries since December 1, 2020, far more than any vaccine in the past.
Sir Christopher Chope, Conservative MP for Christchurch, has researched the reporting system set up in 1979 and its accompanying compensation programme and found them woefully inadequate; a fact anyone who has tried to claim for damage by a vaccine is painfully aware of. He has introduced the Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill to deal with the vaccine claims which are currently handled in what is best described as a hostile environment.
Chope told the Commons last Friday that he estimates that more than 10,000 people ‘have suffered real, serious damage as a result of doing the right thing’, and was shocked when the Labour MP for Cambridge, Daniel Zeichner, suggested there were more urgent priorities, asking: ‘I wonder why this issue should get preference over others?’
Chope was clear in his criticism: ‘Families should not be left hanging around for years wondering whether they will be eligible for any compensation. That is totally the wrong message. The government should be sending the message that, “if you do the right thing, you will be looked after by the government if something goes wrong”.’
He recognised that some of the injured had ‘taken one for the team’ and that their sacrifice should be recognised in a similar way to a soldier suffering severe injury. He said: ‘In a sense, that is what we do with the military covenant. People enter the armed forces of our country and, if something goes wrong, they expect the government to look after them, and we do.’
A petition to update the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) circulated in July but received only 17,000 signatures; 100,000 are needed to trigger a full debate in the House of Commons. Still, the government had to respond to signatories, which it did on August 5, but Chope was scathing. He told the House the response said: ‘The government has a robust system to monitor potential side effects of the Covid-19 vaccine and has added the vaccine to the VDPs. We will consider further action as more evidence becomes available.’
Chope was not impressed. He said: ‘We already have a lot of evidence that people have suffered damage, if not death, as a result of these vaccinations. The government are saying they are “looking at how it can improve the operational aspects of the VDPS to better meet the additional demand created by the inclusion of the Covid-19 vaccine and improve the customer experience. Once more is known about the possible links between the vaccine and potential side effects, it will be considered whether a wider review of the VDPS is needed.” My Bill answers that question by saying that we need such a review now.’
He told the House that until June 23, there had been 154 applications for compensation: ‘Obviously, there are many, many more now, but there are only four people in that department dealing with all vaccine damage applications, so no decisions have been made and there is no indication as to when any decisions will be forthcoming.’
Claimants will have a rough experience if history is anything to go by. It took Jackie Fletcher 18 years to win compensation for her son Robert, who was severely damaged by the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine as a toddler. The injured, in a time of great need, are likely to find they are gaslighted, that they must spend thousands on specialist lawyers and that the burden of proof to explain why they are vaccine-damaged will be on them rather than Big Pharma, who manufactured the shots.
Chope set out the scheme’s inadequacies. He said: ‘The Pearson commission [1979 reform of compensation for personal injury, including from vaccination] found that those injured as a result of vaccination should have access to financial support, however, the 1979 Act makes provision of a maximum payment of £120,000 together with a threshold of 60 per cent disablement. As a result, fewer than 2 per cent of applications are successful. My Bill calls for the Government to set up a judge-led inquiry into the issues raised.’
Like all MPs and leaders to date, Shaun Bailey, Conservative MP for West Bromwich West, was more concerned with upholding the integrity of the vaccine programme and protecting Big Pharma than the victims. Missing the point, he said: ‘How do we ensure that we do not create a culture of hesitancy where people do not uptake vaccines or, equally, do not produce vaccines because of the fear that they might cause mass severe side-effects?’
If Big Pharma have not worked out how to avoid mass severe side-effects after hundreds of years of vaccination, and government are approving vaccines with that knowledge, we really are in trouble.
Chope agreed and basically said the government had to take responsibility rather than hide serious vaccine damage as it consistently tries to do. ‘We cannot suppress reports of coroners saying that somebody has died as a result of vaccination. I know from personal experience people who were in really good health and then had their first vaccine. I know one person who had a stroke and then severe heart problems. These are not just anecdotes; these are facts known by people across the country. We need to say to people we will look after them 100 per cent without expecting them to get lawyers engaged which is agonising for families and loved ones.’
The AstraZeneca jab is incurring double the number of adverse event reports of Pfizer. There are rumblings that it will be discontinued under the guise of a mix ’n’ match programme.
MHRA Yellow Card reporting published September 9 2021, figures to September 1
Pfizer – 21.9million people – 40million doses – Yellow Card reporting rate: 1 in 197 people impacted
AstraZeneca – 24.8m people – 48.9m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate: 1 in 107 impacted
Moderna – 1.4m people – 2.3m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate: 1 in 93 impacted
Overall, 1 in 134 people injected experienced a Yellow Card Adverse Event, which may be less than 10 per cent of actual figures, according to MHRA.
DOCTORS yesterday warned Euro MPs that they will be held personally responsible for harm and death caused by Covid vaccines.
Doctors for Covid Ethics, a group of doctors and scientists from 30 countries, sent letters to all European Parliament members giving notice of liability.
They sent the same letter to Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency.
Their action came as the parliament resumed business with a debate on health and prevention of disease, which will be voted on today.
The notice, served with supporting documentation, read: ‘The rush to vaccinate first and research later has left you in a position whereby Covid-19 vaccination policy is now entirely divorced from the relevant evidence-base.
‘As you consider your next steps in mandating a vaccine that is contra-indicated by science, we draw your attention to recently published Freedom of Information requests, which reveal gross negligence in the Covid vaccine authorisation process, including misleading the Commission on Human Medicines as to whether any independent verification of vaccine trial data had occurred.’
Its website says: ‘We have written three letters to the European Medicines Agency, urgently warning of short term and long term dangers from Covid-19 vaccines, including clotting, bleeding and platelet abnormalities. We first began warning of blood-related risks before media reports of clotting led to vaccine suspensions around the world.
‘In the absence of crucial safety data, we are demanding the immediate withdrawal of all experimental gene-based Covid-19 vaccines.
‘We oppose vaccine passports, which threaten public health and violate Nuremberg and other protections. We are warning that “health passes” place coercive pressure on citizens to submit to dangerous medical experimentation, in return for freedoms that once were human rights.’
There’s been an absolutely brutal campaign against Ivermectin in the public press. I thought it was time to deploy my background as a Toxicologist to review the known toxicity of Ivermectin. Fortunately, a world-class review paper on Ivermectin came out in 2021 by Jacques Descotes, a prominent toxicologist working at the behest of Medincell.
That comprehensive review of Ivermectin reveals that it is among the safest and most well-tolerated drugs ever introduced to the market.
In this episode I walk through the expert review of Ivermectin by Jacques Descotes MD, PharmD, PhD which was conducted in early 2021. We discuss the safety, toxicity, and known side effects and drug interactions, few and mild as they are. The conclusion is that “Ivermectin human toxicity cannot be claimed to be a serious cause for concern.”
Our healthcare system is broken, a fact nobody would have disputed in precovid days. Regulatory capture is a reality, and the pharmaceutical industry is fraught with examples. Yet we trusted private-public partnerships to find an optimal solution to a global pandemic, assuming a crisis would bring out the best in historically corrupt institutions.
Here is a brief list of less-than-savory behavior demonstrated by our titans of healthcare:
Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson plead guilty to “misbranding with the intent to defraud or mislead” and paying “kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe [their] drugs,” resulting in fines of $2.3 billion in 2009 and $2.2 billion in 2013, respectively.
Pfizer settled another lawsuit for “manipulating studies” and “suppressing negative findings” just a few years later.
Gilead Sciences paid $97 million in fines, because it “illegally used a non-profit foundation as a conduit to pay the Medicare co-pays for its own drug.”
In 2005, AstraZeneca’s drug Crestor was shown to be linked to a life-threatening muscle disease while the company withheld evidence of this and two dozen other effects from the public.
In 2012, GlaxoSmithKline paid $3 billion in fines, as it “failed to include certain safety data” relating to their drug, since labeled as connected to heart failure and attacks.
Thankfully, our public health guardians are in place to protect us from the greed and deceit of the private sector, right? Wrong. Enjoy another brief list:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) worked behind the scenes with company Biogen to alter previously conducted trials of their $56,000 per year Alzheimer’s treatment, and “by removing the subset of people for whom the drug didn’t work, they found a slight statistical effect in favor of the drug.” Even after doing this, an advisory committee voted 10–0 against approving the drug. The FDA approved the drug anyway, causing three committee members to resign.
In that case, the third-party advisors did the right thing. This is not always the case: a study by Science Magazine tracking 107 FDA advisors for four years found that 62 percent received money from related drug makers, with 25 percent receiving over $100,000 and 6 percent receiving over $1 million. It only takes a few corrupt advisors to fix a panel and feign medical consensus.
In 2017, it was revealed that the acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director for heart disease and stroke prevention had been secretly communicating with Coca-Cola, providing guidance on how “to influence world health authorities on sugar and beverage policy matters.”
The American healthcare system remains mired in good old-fashioned crony capitalism, fascism, corporatism, mercantilism, protectionism … fancy words for when private companies work with governments to subvert the forces of competition. The suppression of research into off-patent drugs is a nasty symptom of this problem.
While there are countless drugs to which this applies, we will discuss ivermectin. First, addressing the drug’s dismissal by its own manufacturer, Merck, let it be known that ivermectin is no longer under patent. Merck no longer owns exclusive rights to the drug’s production. The forces of competition have been bestowed upon the drug, thus making it far cheaper. Meanwhile, Merck is also currently rolling out an oral covid treatment, which the US government is providing $1.2 billion in funding to research. This would be under patent and may explain the company’s opposition to using ivermectin.
The usefulness of ivermectin remains debatable. However, it’s important to note that in early April 2020, a study at the University of Monash in Australia suggested it can be effective. Moreover, the drug is FDA approved, has existed for forty years, won a Nobel Prize, and is extremely safe when used at recommended levels. Given the crisis and ivermectin’s safety—safe even if not conferring big benefits for covid sufferers—the rush to condemn use of the drug appears suspect. Indeed, a week after the Australian study was published, the FDA advised against using ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, forcing desperate people to the black market and to self-prescribe versions of the drug intended for animals.
The FDA noted subsequently that “additional testing is needed.” Yet, to date, there has not been a single completed government-funded study on the effectiveness of ivermectin against covid-19. Meanwhile, they have funneled billions toward research into vaccines and patented treatments. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded trials for remdesivir, still under patent with Gilead, despite it being less effective and having more severe side effects than ivermectin. The FDA approved remdesivir under emergency use authorization (EUA) despite published trials, later stating “remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits.”
One would think that if “additional testing” is so important, the US government might be interested in funding research to examine the potential benefits of cheap, safe, and proven drugs that have shown some promise in treating covid. But that’s clearly not what going on. Funding is geared toward helping huge pharmaceutical companies develop new patented drugs. As long Big Pharma wants it, and if there’s a profit to be made, apparently our government will be there to provide funding.
Freddie Sayers, the host of UnHerd’s ‘Lockdown TV’, has written an interesting piece for The Telegraph. Commenting on the Government’s insistence that we must vaccinate 12–15 year olds – in defiance of its own expert panel – he notes that a “dangerous new wisdom is forming, which views action as always better than inaction”.
“In this view,” Sayers continues, “long-standing rules and institutions of liberal democracies have been demoted to fussy obstacles that prevent us from replicating the successes of the command-and-control governments of Asia.”
He then makes the important but often overlooked point that “action can be every bit as damaging as inaction”. If only politicians had taken this into account last year, the response to the pandemic might have looked very different.
When I asked Philippe Lemoine why lockdowns were implemented with so little regard for costs, he suggested that politicians didn’t want to “leave themselves open to the accusation of not having done anything to curb the epidemic”. They had to do something, even if that something ended up causing more harm than good.
This fallacy was popularised by the much-loved British sitcom Yes, Prime Minister. In the episode ‘Power to the People’, Sir Humphrey Appleby is talking to his predecessor Sir Arnold Robinson about the Prime Minister’s plans to reform local government.
Sir Arnold says, “He’s suffering from politician’s logic,” to which Sir Humphrey replies, “Something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do it.” In other words: ‘Something must be done; lockdown is something; therefore we must do it.’
The incentives that gave rise to ‘politician’s logic’ in this case are obvious. While the ‘benefits’ of lockdown are immediate and visible, the costs may take months or even years to materialise. (By ‘benefits’, I mean the reduction in social and economic activity that is believed to reduce viral transmission.)
Furthermore, even if lockdown’s impact on mortality turns out to be marginal, politicians can claim that things would have been far worse if not for their tough and far-sighted decisions.
After all, we can’t observe the counterfactual of what would have happened in the absence of lockdown. And the politicians themselves? They may well be out of office by the time the full costs of lockdown become apparent.
Incidentally, the fact that ‘politician’s logic’ is a fallacy obviously doesn’t imply we should never do anything. In the case of the pandemic, there was something else we could have done, namely focused protection.
Let’s hope that when the next pandemic arrives, there are a few people around who remember the lessons of Yes, Prime Minister. Just because this is something, doesn’t mean we have to do it.
By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | July 8, 2021
Gene research companies tend to come and go. They start out banging and popping like fireworks in the sky, and then they fade out—selling themselves to larger outfits who’ve hired better liars…
Once upon a time, it sounded easy. Start with a disease, find the gene responsible for the disease, and correct the problem.
Then, researchers wondered, was disease the result of one gene or a group of genes acting together?
Either way, the proof would be in devising cures for diseases using gene therapy. “Not yet, but soon…”
And regardless, the major need was: money. Lots and lots of money.
This need required good PR people. “We have to pump up the idea that we’re on the edge of tremendous breakthroughs. We’re always on that edge…”
This hype also needed to obscure the fact that there wasn’t (and isn’t) ANY gene cure for ANY disease. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
