Clarion Call Outlining the Crimes Against Humanity with host Sacha Stone and guests Dr Judy Mikovits, David Martin, Robert F. Kennedy and Rocco Gallati.
More sanctions, by all means. More grief and suffering and more people around the world wondering what exactly the United States is doing.
I am a recipient of regular, usual weekly, emails from the Department of the Treasury providing an “Update to OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) and Blocked Persons.” OFAC is the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is tasked with both identifying and managing the financial punishments meted out to those individuals and groups that have been sanctioned by the United States government. A recent update, on November 10th, included “Non-Proliferation Designations; Iran-related Designations.” There were ten items on the list, names of Chinese and Iranian individuals and companies. Those who are “Specially Designated” on the list are subject to having their assets blocked if located in the United States and are also not allowed to engage in any financial transactions that go through U.S. banking channels. As many international banks respect U.S. Treasury “designations” lest they themselves be subjected to secondary sanctions that often means in effect that the individual or group cannot move money in a large part of the global financial marketplace.
The complete SDN list is hundreds of pages long. The Treasury Department defines and justifies OFAC’s mission “As part of its enforcement efforts, OFAC publishes a list of individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. It also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country-specific. Collectively, such individuals and companies are called ‘Specially Designated Nationals’ or ‘SDNs.’ Their assets are blocked and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them.”
In reality, of course, OFAC’s sanctions are highly political. They are clearly a form of economic warfare, particularly when entire sectors of a nation’s economy are blocked or a part of a government itself is listed as has been the case with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Force. Wave after wave of “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran have made it difficult for the country to sell its only major marketable resource, oil, and it has been locked out of most normal financial networks, making it difficult or even impossible to buy food and medicines.
In many cases sanctions have no practical effect but are rather intended to send a message. There have been new sanctions directed against Moscow and Russian government officials have been sanctioned due to their alleged involvement in activities that the United States does not approve of. The sanctions are imposed even though those “specially designated” have no assets in the U.S. and do not engage in any international financial transactions that could be blocked or disrupted. In those cases, the federal government is sending a message to whomever has been sanctioned to warn them that they are being watched and their behavior has become a matter of record. It is basically a form of intimidation.
Whether sanctions actually work is debatable. The example of Cuba, which was sanctioned by the U.S. for nearly sixty years, would suggest not. Some would argue that on the contrary countries with totalitarian regimes would actually improve their behavior if their citizens could travel freely and welcome visitors, providing evidence that foreigners do not pose a threat justifying a police state.
Within the United States government, it is largely accepted that the most powerful advocate of the sanctions regime is Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who has been the driving force behind recent sanctions directed against both China and Iran. If that is so he might well be challenged on one of the most bizarre and basically pointless applications of sanctions in recent years, targeting Asma the wife of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as well as her family that lives in London and are British citizens. Per Pompeo’s statement on the new sanctions “The Department of State today is imposing sanctions on Asma al-Assad, the wife of Bashar al-Assad, for impeding efforts to promote a political resolution of the Syrian conflict pursuant to Section 2(a)(i)(D) of Executive Order 13894… Asma al-Assad has spearheaded efforts on behalf of the regime to consolidate economic and political power, including by using her so-called charities and civil society organizations.”
But the real kicker is Pompeo’s condemnation of Asma, of Syrian origin but English born and raised, is how he involves her family. Her father-in-law Fawaz is a renowned cardiologist at Cromwell Hospital in South Kensington who was educated in England and has lived there for decades. “In addition, we are sanctioning several members of Asma al-Assad’s immediate family, including Fawaz Akhras, Sahar Otri Akhras, Firas al Akhras, and Eyad Akhras as per Section 2(a)(ii) of EO 13894. The Assad and Akhras families have accumulated their ill-gotten riches at the expense of the Syrian people through their control over an extensive, illicit network with links in Europe, the Gulf, and elsewhere.”
Inevitably, no evidence is provided to support any of the allegations about Asma al-Assad and her English family. Asma’s charities are for real in her war-torn country and she is highly respected and admired by those who know her and are not influenced by U.S. and Israeli propaganda.
In reality, the United States has been trying hard to overthrow the Syrian government since 2004 when the Syria Accountability Act was passed. Much of the heat in Congress behind the passage of the act was generated by the Israel Lobby, which wanted to weaken the regime and reduce its ability to represent a viable military force possibly capable of regaining the occupied Golan Heights. Be that as it may, the United States has been hostile to the country’s government and has frequently called for regime change. To bring that about, the U.S. supported al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups operating against Damascus and American soldiers continue to occupy Syrian oil fields in the southeast portion of the country. The Syrians have also been subjected to waves of sanctions that have done grave damage to their economy. American and Israeli concerns have sometimes been linked to the presence of Damascus’ allies Hezbollah and Iran, both of whom have military units based inside Syria, but the simple fact is that neither Iranians nor Lebanese in any way threaten the vastly superior American and Israeli forces present in the region.
One has to ask why, given the realpolitik playing out in the Middle East, Washington and Pompeo feel compelled to go after Asma al-Assad and her family, apparently to include absurdly blaming relatives living for many years outside of Syria for fueling the war. More sanctions, by all means. More grief and suffering and more people around the world wondering what exactly the United States is doing.
Finally it has achieved what its elite has pushed for.
America is a united country: its senate, congress and future president are guided by the same ‘progressive’ ideology that is also shared by its financial elite, cultural industry, academia and of course, the mainstream media.
America is institutionally united but Americans couldn’t be more divided.
The United States has been a social testing ground for a while. But from now on until further notice, there is no established or institutional opposition to this groundbreaking experiment.
But I am optimistic, I would give it the necessary time. We may find out soon that all these so-called rebellious ‘reactionaries,’ ‘cowboys,’ ‘rednecks,’ and ‘deplorables’ actually like the new cultural and spiritual offering. They may be quick to adopt the revolutionary spirit. They might, for instance, agree to dump their delusional beliefs in gender being a binary matter. Give it four years or even eight, not one American will be able to recall what man or woman meant.
Following the rapid dismantling of police forces, American thieves and burglars will also be quick to morph. Peacefully they will knock on your door. They will introduce themselves and explain the rationale behind their will to obtain some of your belongings. You, on your privileged part, may save them the energy, by then you will also gather that whatever is precious to you better belong to the people. The shift will be so immense that reactionary 2nd amendment enthusiasts will voluntarily develop repulsion towards their own guns. They will find themselves delivering their lethal toys to their local scrapyard, they may even ask to witness their Colt 45 being melted.
It’s likely that sooner rather than later, we’ll be so used to being locked in our homes that we stop seeking any meaningful social engagement, let alone intimacy of a libidinal nature that may expose us to other people’s disgusting germs.
From the very first day of his presidency, I gathered that by the time Trump finishes his historical role, the United States will be reduced to a very small and insignificant country. This is not a bad thing. America is, by now, far less of a danger to world peace, let alone itself.
I am not going to be nostalgic for Trump, Kushner or Adelson. I never thought that Trump would clean the swamp and I didn’t understand why he believed he wasn’t part of it himself. Trump was and still is a very peculiar character. He was loved and admired by many. He was also hated by at least as many. People who love Trump (and there are many of them) know exactly what they like about him. People who are repulsed by the man and for understandable reasons, also know what they can’t tolerate about him. Trump is certainly an authentic ‘character,’ not something that can be said about any of his rivals. Trump was brilliant in drawing the lines of the battle that is inflicted on all of us. He clearly wasn’t very skillful or subtle in fighting or leading this battle, let alone winning it.
Maybe no one is skillful, brave or sophisticated enough to lead such an impossible battle. It could be much simpler to identify the cultural and ideological elements that impose this war on us all of us. We should then uproot this culture and expose its envoys.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The China lockdown of 50 million citizens overnight was a key element in the long-standing plan to foist a fake pandemic on humanity.
That lockdown provided the model for the rest of the world.
We are now in phase one of Lockdown Civilization.
The “scientific” rationale? THE VIRUS. The virus that isn’t there. The virus whose existence is unproven.
But the story line works: “We have to follow the China model because the pandemic is sweeping across the globe…”
Close on the heels of this con job, we have the intro to phase two: “In order to deal with future pandemics, we must install a new planetary system of command and control; human behavior must be modified.”
Translation: wall to wall surveillance at a level never achieved before; universal guaranteed income for every human, tied to obedience to all state directives; violate those directives and income is reduced or canceled; the planting of nano devices inside the body which will broadcast physiological changes to central command, and which will receive instructions that modify mood and reaction…
Phase one lockdowns prepare the citizenry to accept phase two.
In other words, phase one had nothing to do with a virus. It was part of the technocratic revolution.
“Artificial intelligence has applications in nearly every human domain, from the instant translation of spoken language to early viral-outbreak detection. But Xi [Xi Jinping, president of China] also wants to use AI’s awesome analytical powers to push China to the cutting edge of surveillance. He wants to build an all-seeing digital system of social control, patrolled by precog algorithms that identify potential dissenters in real time.”
“China already has hundreds of millions of surveillance cameras in place. Xi’s government hopes to soon achieve full video coverage of key public areas. Much of the footage collected by China’s cameras is parsed by algorithms for security threats of one kind or another. In the near future, every person who enters a public space could be identified, instantly, by AI matching them to an ocean of personal data, including their every text communication, and their body’s one-of-a-kind protein-construction schema. In time, algorithms will be able to string together data points from a broad range of sources—travel records, friends and associates, reading habits, purchases—to predict political resistance before it happens. China’s government could soon achieve an unprecedented political stranglehold on more than 1 billion people.”
“China is already developing powerful new surveillance tools, and exporting them to dozens of the world’s actual and would-be autocracies. Over the next few years, those technologies will be refined and integrated into all-encompassing surveillance systems that dictators can plug and play.”
“China’s government could harvest footage from equivalent Chinese products. They could tap the cameras attached to ride-share cars, or the self-driving vehicles that may soon replace them: Automated vehicles will be covered in a whole host of sensors, including some that will take in information much richer than 2-D video. Data from a massive fleet of them could be stitched together, and supplemented by other City Brain streams, to produce a 3-D model of the city that’s updated second by second. Each refresh could log every human’s location within the model. Such a system would make unidentified faces a priority, perhaps by sending drone swarms to secure a positive ID.”
“An authoritarian state with enough processing power could force the makers of such software to feed every blip of a citizen’s neural activity into a government database. China has recently been pushing citizens to download and use a propaganda app. The government could use emotion-tracking software to monitor reactions to a political stimulus within an app. A silent, suppressed response to a meme or a clip from a Xi speech would be a meaningful data point to a precog algorithm.”
“All of these time-synced feeds of on-the-ground data could be supplemented by footage from drones, whose gigapixel cameras can record whole cityscapes in the kind of crystalline detail that allows for license-plate reading and gait recognition. ‘Spy bird’ drones already swoop and circle above Chinese cities, disguised as doves. City Brain’s feeds could be synthesized with data from systems in other urban areas, to form a multidimensional, real-time account of nearly all human activity within China. Server farms across China will soon be able to hold multiple angles of high-definition footage of every moment of every Chinese person’s life.”
“The government might soon have a rich, auto-populating data profile for all of its 1 billion–plus citizens. Each profile would comprise millions of data points, including the person’s every appearance in surveilled space, as well as all of her communications and purchases. Her threat risk to the party’s power could constantly be updated in real time, with a more granular score than those used in China’s pilot ‘social credit’ schemes, which already aim to give every citizen a public social-reputation score based on things like social-media connections and buying habits. Algorithms could monitor her digital data score, along with everyone else’s, continuously, without ever feeling the fatigue that hit Stasi officers working the late shift. False positives—deeming someone a threat for innocuous behavior—would be encouraged, in order to boost the system’s built-in chilling effects, so that she’d turn her sharp eyes on her own behavior, to avoid the slightest appearance of dissent.”
“If her risk factor fluctuated upward—whether due to some suspicious pattern in her movements, her social associations, her insufficient attention to a propaganda-consumption app, or some correlation known only to the AI—a purely automated system could limit her movement. It could prevent her from purchasing plane or train tickets. It could disallow passage through checkpoints. It could remotely commandeer ‘smart locks’ in public or private spaces, to confine her until security forces arrived.”
“Each time a person’s face is recognized, or her voice recorded, or her text messages intercepted, this information could be attached, instantly, to her government-ID number, police records, tax returns, property filings, and employment history. It could be cross-referenced with her medical records and DNA, of which the Chinese police boast they have the world’s largest collection.”
“The country [China] is now the world’s leading seller of AI-powered surveillance equipment. In Malaysia, the government is working with Yitu, a Chinese AI start-up, to bring facial-recognition technology to Kuala Lumpur’s police as a complement to Alibaba’s City Brain platform. Chinese companies also bid to outfit every one of Singapore’s 110,000 lampposts with facial-recognition cameras.”
In South Asia, the Chinese government has supplied surveillance equipment to Sri Lanka. On the old Silk Road, the Chinese company Dahua is lining the streets of Mongolia’s capital with AI-assisted surveillance cameras. Farther west, in Serbia, Huawei is helping set up a ‘safe-city system,’ complete with facial-recognition cameras and joint patrols conducted by Serbian and Chinese police aimed at helping Chinese tourists to feel safe.”
“In the early aughts, the Chinese telecom titan ZTE sold Ethiopia a wireless network with built-in backdoor access for the government. In a later crackdown, dissidents were rounded up for brutal interrogations, during which they were played audio from recent phone calls they’d made. Today, Kenya, Uganda, and Mauritius are outfitting major cities with Chinese-made surveillance networks.”
“In Egypt, Chinese developers are looking to finance the construction of a new capital. It’s slated to run on a ‘smart city’ platform similar to City Brain, although a vendor has not yet been named. In southern Africa, Zambia has agreed to buy more than $1 billion in telecom equipment from China, including internet-monitoring technology. China’s Hikvision, the world’s largest manufacturer of AI-enabled surveillance cameras, has an office in Johannesburg.”
“In 2018, CloudWalk Technology, a Guangzhou-based start-up spun out of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, inked a deal with the Zimbabwean government to set up a surveillance network. Its terms require Harare to send images of its inhabitants—a rich data set, given that Zimbabwe has absorbed migration flows from all across sub-Saharan Africa—back to CloudWalk’s Chinese offices, allowing the company to fine-tune its software’s ability to recognize dark-skinned faces, which have previously proved tricky for its algorithms.”
“Having set up beachheads in Asia, Europe, and Africa, China’s AI companies are now pushing into Latin America, a region the Chinese government describes as a ‘core economic interest.’ China financed Ecuador’s $240 million purchase of a surveillance-camera system. Bolivia, too, has bought surveillance equipment with help from a loan from Beijing. Venezuela recently debuted a new national ID-card system that logs citizens’ political affiliations in a database built by ZTE…”
That gives you a chilling outline of Lockdown, phase two.
Lockdowns were never about a virus or a pandemic.
Lockdown Civilization has been in the planning and development stage for a long time.
People say, “Why? Why are they doing this?”
The short answer is, because they want to and they can.
Technocrats don’t view life as life. They view it as a system, and this is their most comprehensive system to date.
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
No, this item is not about COVID and lockdowns. Rather, it’s about the fact that because people like round numbers, a surprising number of alarmist predictions of climate disaster were meant to happen “by 2020” which means it is time to check how clear the crystal ball was. Thus over at Junk Sciencethey praise a video by Climate Resistance that rightly castigates alarmists including James Hansen for all the gloom-laden predictions that didn’t come anywhere close to happening. We don’t expect everyone to be right all the time, and we realize it is difficult to make predictions especially about the future. But we do expect people to admit their errors and, if they make enough of them, to adopt a more seemly tone of humility in making their next forecast. Especially if what they repeatedly say is that everyone must do the drastic things they demand at once or face disaster, and insult or even threaten anyone who dares contest their claims.
While praising other people’s gimlet-eyed look at past alarmist predictions we also invite you to look at our own video based on the research done by Extinctionclock.org, because it is true that a lot of people have made a lot of predictions and it would be unfair to cherry-pick silly claims from the fringes and call them mainstream. But far too many of these predictions come from what passes for the mainstream and there ought to be a cost in credibility for those who continually churn them out or regurgitate them if it turns out they are not just dependably wrong, but dependably wrong in a particular direction.
Speaking of the mainstream, we also want to emphasize that organizations like the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have not, at least in their more serious scientific publications, said what so many activists and politicians claim they have said. The Summaries for Policymakers are somewhat suspicious, not least because they are not just written for but by policymakers, often without any real scientific scrutiny. But the Working Group reports, as we have noted on a number of occasions, are far more restrained in what they say is happening and the degree of certainty they attach to gloomy forecasts. And the same is true of many scientists who do think man-made climate change is at least potentially problematic but are responsible in their line of argument and their predictions.
Even these groups and individuals, in large measure, are still guilty of breathing second-hand fire because they have not used their position and authority to push back against the madness. Including making Greta Thunberg the face of alarmism when she plainly did not understand anything at all about the science, and refusing to denounce ridiculous predictions of doom “by 2020”. They ought to realize that it brings their more sober concerns into disrepute, because the debate has been hijacked by the screamers. And to a large extent it brings science as a whole into disrepute (as does governments thrashing about on COVID while sonorously claiming to be following “the science” even while flipflopping on policy without scientists objecting).
On that basis we venture our own prediction: In the coming year we will hear a great deal of nonsense about what is going to happen “by 2030” if we do not adopt extreme measures to combat global warming. But almost none about 2029 or 2031. And without any accounting for why all the 2020 predictions were so wrong. Which is a warning that we are hearing hype not science, from people with dismal track records.
For the first time, OPCW chief Fernando Arias was asked a series of direct questions at the United Nations about the cover-up of a Syria chemical weapons probe. He answered none of them.
Russia’s UN ambassador asked Arias about several damning leaks, some revealed by The Grayzone, as well as ongoing deceptive attacks on the veteran scientists who challenged the censorship of their investigation. Arias refused to answer in public session, and gave vague, non-substantive answers in private.
Aaron Maté recaps the unanswered questions to Arias, as well as recent attacks on the OPCW whistleblowers via Western state-funded outlets Bellingcat and the BBC.
Syria says the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and its investigation teams have become tools in the hands of countries hostile to the Damascus government, and that reports compiled by the organization lack credibility.
Speaking at a virtual UN Security Council session on Tuesday, Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister and Permanent Representative to the United Nations Bashar al-Ja’afari said OPCW teams have frequently prepared reports without visiting sites and inspecting realities on the ground, and thus such accounts fail to meet the minimum standards of credibility, professionalism and objectivity.
“The reports rely on speculations and proposals, which themselves count on so-called local sources as well as allegations, fabrications and false testimonies of terrorist groups and [the so-called civil defense group] White Helmets,” Ja’afari said.
He condemned actions intended to force the OPCW to adopt a draft decision submitted last November by France to the organization’s secretariat, which falsely alleges Syria is non-compliant with the Chemical Weapons Convention.
The Syrian diplomat denounced the resolutions against Syria as a politicized move intended to incriminate the Damascus government and acquit terrorists and their sponsors of their crimes.
“Syria condemns the use of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction at any time or in any place, by anyone or under any circumstance,” Ja’afari highlighted.
He recalled that the first chemical attack by anti-Damascus terrorist groups took place on March 19, 2013, when Takfiris launched a shell laced with toxic fumes at the town of Khan al-Assal, west of the city of Aleppo, killing 25 people, including 16 army soldiers, and wounding many more.
Ja’afari pointed to striking examples of egregious irregularities in the investigations of chemical attacks in Khan Shaykhun in April 2017 and Douma in April 2018, stressing that Damascus has been unjustly accused despite the fact that its chemical program is completely closed and its chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities have been destroyed.
Syria surrendered its entire chemical stockpile in 2013 to a mission led by the United Nations and the OPCW.
On April 7, 2018, an alleged chemical attack was reported near the Syrian city of Douma near the capital Damascus. Western countries were quick to blame it on the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
A week later, the US, Britain and France launched a coordinated missile attack against sites and research facilities near Damascus and Homs with the purported goal of paralyzing the Syrian government’s capability to produce chemicals.
Damascus, however, said that no chemical attack had happened and that the Douma incident had been staged by foreign intelligence agencies to pressure the government in the face of army advances against foreign-backed terrorists.
It also specifically pointed to the role of the White Helmets, a group which claims to be a humanitarian NGO but has long been accused of working with anti-Damascus militants and staging false-flag gas attacks.
I saw an article’s headline the other day. It said “Is COVID Or Nature Slowing The Increase In CO2”.
So I thought I’d take a look. Here’s the Mauna Loa data. Top panel is the increase in CO2. Bottom panel is the month-over-month change in CO2.
Go figure. One thing is clear.
The rate of increase of CO2 hasn’t changed in the slightest. I offer up no explanation for this … but it doesn’t bode well for those claiming that we need COVID-style lockdowns to reduce the CO2 levels.
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 ae911truth.org, 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.
Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics. He has written a six-part serial essay posted at Medium.com, titled Free Fall.
David maintains a website in collaboration with several other scientific researchers at http://911speakout.org.
By Mark Curtis | MintPress News | November 16, 2022
There is a myth the UK did not support Washington’s war against Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, Labour and Conservative governments backed every phase of US military escalation and played secret roles in the conflict, declassified files show.
UK sent SAS team to Vietnam in 1962, flew secret RAF missions to deliver arms, and provided intelligence to US
UK governments lied to parliament they were not providing military advice to South Vietnam’s brutal regime
Labour government secretly gave arms to US for use in Vietnam, stressing need for “no publicity”
It also connived with Washington to deceive UK public over its support for US
UK governments knew of atrocities against civilians but backed US war aims
Whitehall only started to advocate a peaceful solution, on US terms, once the war became unwinnable
During its war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s the US dropped more bombs than in the whole of World War Two, in a conflict that killed over two million people. The wholesale destruction of villages and killing of innocent people was a permanent feature of the US war from the beginning, along with widespread indiscriminate bombing.
Britain’s role in the war has been largely buried and must be almost completely unknown to the public. When the UK media mentions the war now, reports often simply reference the refusal by Harold Wilson’s government to agree to US requests to openly deploy British troops.
Although this was certainly a public rebuff to Washington, Britain did virtually everything else to back the US war over more than a decade, the declassified documents show. … 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
Aletho News 