Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

Eric Margolis
June 25, 2016
The Unz Review

War with Russia appears increasingly likely as the US and its NATO satraps continue their military provocations of Moscow.

As dangers mount, our foolish politicians should all be forced to read, and then re-read, Prof. Christopher Clark’s magisterial book, ‘The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914.’ What is past increasingly appears prologue.

Prof. Clark carefully details how small cabals of anti-German senior officials in France, Britain and Russia engineered World War I, a dire conflict that was unnecessary, idiotic, and illogical. Germany and Austria-Hungary of course share some the blame, but to a much lesser degree than the bellicose French, Serbs, Russians and British.

We are seeing the same process at work today. The war party in Washington, backed by the military-industrial complex, the tame media, and the neocons, are agitating hard for war.

US and NATO combat forces are being sent to Russia’s western borders in Ukraine, the Baltic and Black Sea. NATO is arming, financing ($40 billion so far) and supplying Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. Prominent Americans are calling for the US to attack Russian forces in Syria. US warships are off Russia’s coasts in the Black Sea, Baltic and Pacific. NATO air forces are probing Russia’s western air borders.

Some of this is great power shadow boxing, trying to cow insubordinate Russia into accepting Washington’s orders. But much appears to be the work of the hard right and neocons in the US and Europe in spite of the desire of most Americans and Europeans to avoid armed conflict with Russia.

Hence the daily barrage of anti-Russian, anti-Putin invective in the US media and the European media controlled by the US. Germany’s lapdog media behaves as if the US postwar occupation is still in force – and perhaps it is. Germany has not had a truly independent foreign policy since the war.

Read more

June 25, 2016
Source

James joins Sean Stone on Enter The Buzzsaw to discuss central banking, the stock market bubble, cryptocurrencies, the China SWIFT alternative, the New World Order and more.

The Corbett Report
June 23, 2016

As NATO forces conduct full-scale military exercises on Russia’s doorstep, the world’s attention once again turns to Eastern Europe. But as Professor Michel Chossudovsky, author of Towards A WWIII Scenario and The Globalization of War points out, in this era of total warfare, the real threat is not just a military one and its scope is truly global.

Read more

By Daniel Larison
June 22, 2016
The American Conservative

The 2016 presidential election has been a dispiriting one for Americans interested in a having a more restrained and responsible foreign policy. The Republican field was overflowing with hawkish candidates, and Hillary Clinton arguably has the most aggressive foreign policy of any Democratic nominee since Lyndon Johnson. The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, offers the public a jumbled, incoherent mix of nationalist bluster, support for torture, yet an apparent wariness of new wars, combined with a shaky grasp of international affairs. A Clinton win will ensure at least another four years of the failed conventional Washington consensus, and no one really knows what a Trump administration would do overseas. That’s the bad news.

The good news this year is that the election may bring a few important changes to the make-up of the Senate that could have a salutary effect on the quality and direction of our foreign-policy debates. Several high-profile hawkish members of the Senate face difficult re-election fights this fall or are not seeking re-election. Their possible replacements promise to be a significant improvement, at least when it comes to opposing new wars and supporting diplomatic engagement with rivals and troublesome states.

In Illinois and Wisconsin, incumbents Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson are generally considered the two most vulnerable senators running for re-election this year. Both are first-term senators elected in the Republican wave six years ago, and both have been consistently trailing behind their respective challengers, Rep. Tammy Duckworth and former Sen. Russ Feingold. Kirk and Johnson have been struggling with abysmal approval ratings below 40 percent, and they look likely to be defeated in November. The outcomes of these two elections could represent the biggest shift on foreign policy that we see this year, and in each case it would mean replacing aggressive hard-liners with committed critics of the Iraq War and the foreign policy it represents.

Kirk has been a vocal Iran hawk, and over the last few years he repeatedly compared the negotiations over the nuclear deal with Iran to the 1938 Munich conference. Once the deal was done, he denounced it as being even worse than Munich, going so far as to say that “Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than [Under Secretary of State] Wendy Sherman got out of Iran.” Kirk’s hawkishness hasn’t been limited to Iran, however. As a member of the House, he voted for the 2002 Iraq War authorization and backed the war to the hilt in all later votes. In 2013, he supported attacking Syria, and he backed the intervention in Libya in 2011.

Read more

Or can they? More bombs and less talk on Syria

Philip Giraldi
June 21, 2016
The Unz Review

It is ironic that fifty-one U.S. State Department employees, perhaps overly-generously dignified in the media with the title of “diplomats,” have come out in favor of removing a foreign head of state by force. Detailing their opposition to the status quo, the signatories submitted a dissent memo through established Foreign Service channels. The document itself is classified, even though the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal clearly have obtained copies, presumably leaked to them by some of the dissident officers.

The signatories have reportedly demanded “targeted air strikes” and the “judicious use of stand-off and air weapons which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process” to bring down the al-Assad government. They justify their dissent by arguing that “The moral rationale for taking steps to end the deaths and suffering in Syria, after five years of brutal war, is evident and unquestionable. The status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic and terrorism-related challenges.”

The memo describes the Syrian government’s alleged barrel bomb attacks on civilians “the root cause of the instability that continues to grip Syria and the broader region. Crucially, Syria’s Sunni population continues to view the Assad regime as the primary enemy in the conflict. Failure to stem Assad’s flagrant abuses will only bolster the ideological appeal of groups such as (IS), even as they endure tactical setbacks on the battlefield.”

Based on the media leaks though without having seen the actual document, one might nevertheless reasonably conclude that the authors of the memo clearly see Bashar al-Assad as the fons et origo of all the evils currently prevailing in Syria. The intention is to use military force to compel al-Assad to negotiate seriously to dismantle his own government, himself included, a blunt approach that has not necessarily worked very well elsewhere in recent memory. In fact, it has not worked at all. And the assertion that al-Assad is the major problem is, of course, questionable, ignoring as it does ISIS. The memo conveniently leaves out of the reckoning the U.S. role in destabilizing the entire region by invading Iraq and also pushing for regime change in Syria as early as 2003 since that would presumably implicate the signers in counterproductive policies. The Syria Accountability Acts of 2004 and also of 2010, like similar legislation directed against Iran, have resulted in little accountability and have instead actually stifled diplomacy. Congress sought to punish Syria with sanctions for supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and for its links to Tehran, making any possible improvement in relations problematical. The 2010 Act even called for steps to bring about regime change in Damascus.

Read more

Source: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

June 20, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts

A few readers are still trying to help me to prove the official Orlando shooting story line. Unable to find videos of the massive presence of ambulances and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) that 50 dead people and 53 wounded people would require, readers are reduced to supplying me with telephone numbers of someone who might know something.

Amid conflicting reports of one shooter vs. several shooters, the proven presence of crisis actors on the scene, the substitution, as in Sandy Hook, of photos and names as proxies for bodies, the interviews by media of only one hospitalized shooting victim as proxy for the 52 others, internet reports that many of the alleged victims have no social media presence, etc. and so on, we are reduced to what strangers tell us on the telephone! This constitutes powerfu evidence that we cannot substantiate the story we are told.

As I said in the beginning, I do not know what happened or why. What I see in Orlando is the same pattern as in the other events: no bodies, questionable shootings, crisis actors, an official story set at the moment of the event’s announcement, no EMTs, conflicting testimony, no investigation by media, just endless repetition of a set story.

We know that governments lie in order to serve their agendas. To mention only a few recent proven government lies: the Gulf of Tonkin North Vietnamese attack on a US Navy ship, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Iranian nukes, Russian invasion of Ukraine. These lies are monstrous. They resulted in wars that killed thousands of US soldiers and killed, maimed, and displaced millions of Vietnamese and Muslims, some of whom are now overrunning Europe as refugees from Washington’s wars. Other of the government’s lies brought risk of war with more powerful militaries such as Russia’s and Iran’s.

It seems to me that a government that will lie on this scale will lie on smaller scales as well, such as Orlando, Boston, San Bernandino.

If I had to bet on what Orlando is about, I would place my bet on gun control. Sandy Hook also led to a big push for gun control. The victims being children was a plus for gun control, but apparently 20 was not a large enough number. The absence of wounded children did not raise any questions. Lanza’s kill ratio was 100 percent. The Orlando shooter’s ratio was just under 50 percent.

The Orlando shooting produced a reported 103 casualties. Moreover, the victims are not children in a school, but people having fun in a night club. In other words, everyone is threatened by guns in the hands of lone nuts, but not by guns in the hands of authorities—despite the fact that US police killed more Americans during 8 years of the Iraq war than the US lost soldiers in combat.

Some time ago I wrote that the Second Amendment was the only remaining provision in the Bill of Rights, which became part of the US Constitution in order to protect citizens from government. I made the point that the Second Amendment is inconsistent with a police state and that as
Americans, Congress, and the legal community have accepted the police state, the Second Amendment would have to go, along with habeas corpus, due process, privacy, and all the rest.

I also noted how strange it is that progressives and the left-wing are on the side of the police state and want to disarm American citizens. The way the issue is now positioned, the “moral” element in the population demand gun control and only the immoral “gun nut” portion want to allow crazy people to continue mass slaughter.

Some time ago I concluded that the American people are too gullible to be capable of preserving liberty. Nevertheless, I have continued to try to help people break out of the Matrix that controls their consciousness.

One of the most frustrating aspects of many Americans is their naive disbelief in conspiracy because “someone would talk.” It boggles the mind that anyone would think that people involved in a successful conspiracy to achieve their agenda would blow the whistle on their success.

Uninvolved people who might stumble upon the conspiracy know that it is their voice against the government’s and that credibility, career, job, and perhaps life itself is at stake. Just look at the fate of whistleblowers who disclose government crimes. Despite their legal protection under US federal law, they are mercilessly prosecuted. Just look at the invective thrown at people such as myself who try to raise the public’s consciousness.

Moreover, there are people who talk, such as 118 firemen, policemen, first responders, and WTC maintanence personnel who were in the towers and report hearing and experiencing massive explosions one after the other. We even have an organization, Firemen for 9/11 Truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uor8NhUr_90&feature=youtu.be

The chairman, vice chairman, and legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission talked. They said that the government lied to the committee, withheld information from the committee, and set the committee up to fail.

We even have the owner of the World Trade Center stating on TV that the decison was made to pull WTC Building 7. That means the building was wired for controlled demolition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

None of this talk had any impact. Media ignored it or explained it away. My favorite example is the media explanation of Silverstein’s statement on TV that the decision was made to pull the building. Media said that what Silverstein said or meant to say was that “the decision was made to pull the firemen out of the building.” There was no fire of any significance in the building, and there were no firemen in the building to be called out. Watching the building come down in a controlled demolition you do not see a building in flames.

Foreknowledge was also associated with WTC Building 7’s destruction. BBC TV reported the destruction of Building 7 about 20 minutes prior to its actual destruction with the BBC announcer shown standing in front of still standing Building 7. There are so many anomalies associated with Building 7 that the building’s destruction is not even mentioned in official reports.

Congress, the legal community, the President, and the American people did not demand an investigation based on the intriguing admissions and testimony from people intimately connected with the event.

The “dancing Israelis” also talked. These were the suspected Mossad agents who were observed filming and celebrating the airplane strikes on the towers. They were apprehended and arrested, but their obvious foreknowledge of the event did not fit the official story. They were quietly sent back to Israel where they appeared on Israeli TV and said that they were sent to New York to film the event. You can witness this at about the 6 minute mark on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs

Of course, the translation could be deceptive, but the subscripts are there in Hebrew, so anyone who knows Hebrew can see if they correspond.

There is another interesting element in this film at about the 5:45 mark, one that the film-maker does not notice. The film shows the film we have all seen of an airliner hitting one of the towers. Notice that the airplane enters the building without any damage to the airliner or the building and explodes only after it is inside the building. Notice that the airliner hits the tower at an angle that has been calculated to have resulted in impact with eight floors, each reported to contain an acre of concrete, plus all the steel girders and supports, and the airliner does not break apart. The film shows that the airliner just effortlessly enters the building. How is this possible? Wouldn’t the impact have resulted in the airliner breaking up and falling to the ground below? Why would the airliner explode only after it miraculously passed fully into the building and not upon impact with the building?

Consider how many years passed before anomalies such as this were even noticed.

In this video Jim Fetzer overviews recent events ascribed to terrorists. Whether or not he convinces you, it is worth watching just as a lesson in learning how to notice anomalies in official accounts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6PdSoNXwlM

Unless Amerians become more observant and act upon what they observe, American liberty is doomed.

An excellent Russian English language website that will add to your perspective is here:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/20/orlando-wrap-up.html

Duct tape diapers, or naked from the waist down and freezing to death in a cell.

By Charles P. Pierce
Jun 15, 2016
Esquire Magazine

If little faults proceeding on distemper
Shall not be winked at, how shall we stretch our eye
When capital crimes, chewed, swallowed, and digested,
Appear before us?

—Henry V, Act I, Scene 2

Sooner or later, we’re going to have to talk seriously about the atrocities committed in our name by elements of the United States government, and about the subsequent cover-up of those atrocities by elements of said United States government, only some of which were the same elements of said United States government who committed those atrocities.

This would be an interesting topic for debate in, say, a presidential campaign. At least the American Civil Liberties Union is going to keep shoving until somebody notices.

“These newly declassified records add new detail to the public record of the CIA’s torture program and underscore the cruelty of the methods the agency used in its secret, overseas black sites,” said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. “It bears emphasis that these records document grave crimes for which no senior official has been held accountable.” The documents include new records about the death of Gul Rahman, who died at a CIA secret prison in Afghanistan in 2002. The CIA “Death Report” on Rahman released today details the horrific conditions he was subjected to:

“Often, prisoners who possess significant or imminent threat information are stripped to their diapers during interrogation and placed back into their cells wearing only diapers. This is done solely to humiliate the prisoner for interrogation purposes. When the prisoner soils a diaper, they are changed by the guards. Sometimes the guards run out of diapers and the prisoners are placed back in their cells in a handcrafted diaper secured by duct tape. If the guards don’t have any available diapers, the prisoners are rendered to their cell nude.

“Rahman froze to death in his cell, naked from the waist down. The ACLU represents Rahman’s family in a lawsuit against the two CIA-contracted psychologists who designed and implemented the torture program, James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen.

These two guys are the first ones.

Squeeze them until their eyeballs bleed, or until they give up everything they did and everybody else who directed them and covered up their actions, whichever comes first. (If you need a reason beyond simple humanity, then explain in detail how these two guys betrayed their profession.) I mean, it’s not like these people didn’t know what they were doing is wrong.

Read more

Was 9-11 one of them?

John Denson talks to Lew Rockwell.
June 17, 2016
Lew Rockwell.com

911, Pearl Harbor, the killing of JFK, RFK and more

Better Tag Cloud