Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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


Archive for December, 2011

This is a clip from a movie but it describes the real reason behind many conflicts and wars. There are, of course, political objectives as well. For example, one purpose behind WW I was to bring about the League of Nations – the first attempt at world government. When that failed, WW II was instigated. Permanent world government necessitates a never ending war. Hence the ‘war on terror’.

Why Your Government May Murder You for Profit

by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

How can I fool thee? Let me count the ways.

Terrorism isn’t real. This is a broad generalization but essentially correct.

My own estimate, as a “big name” counter-terrorism expert is that 95% of acts we call “terrorism” were done by governments for profit.

Were it not for the dissolution of the free press and secret prisons and mental hospitals for whistleblowers, we wouldn’t have terrorism.

Which government? You choose. Of late, Israel has the lead but the US and Russia aren’t far behind. Then we have France and Britain.

We crash airliners, the Israeli’s are specialists at car bombs, almost artists, we spread crop diseases, test interesting new diseases on the general public, occasionally releasing a new strain of influenza on the New York subway.

Fear is a business and without fear, you don’t have hate. Mix fear and hate and you have dictatorial control of any political system.

There can be no democracy when a population lives in fear. As soon as the first “terror alert” comes out, you can be certain of one thing, you are living in a police state.

From then on, everything you will hear is about keeping you and your family safe and how you have to keep an eye out for those around you. Anyone could be a terrorist or perhaps a subversive, especially if they ask too many questions about why everyone running for office seems a bit “off.”

Can you see me now?

Imagine this is December 2001. You are in an airport. A group of dark skinned foreigners sit nearby. What are your first thoughts?

Will they cut off your head or will they crash the plane into a building somewhere. Lie to me and tell me you haven’t thought that.

The day you did was the day you lost your freedom. You have been a slave every since. That was the plan, that is the plan that’s why we have terrorism.

If we didn’t have Al Qaeda, someone would invent it. How does this sound?

The truth? We did invent it. If you want to know where the people live who wish you and your family ill, go to Washington DC.

Meet your Senator of member of Congress. Invite them to lunch with your family. Try it again, but offer them $50,000 as an incentive, your chances will be a bit better.

Got friends in Homeland Security, high up? Tell them you invented a new secret way of making millions of people really sick. In about an hour, a pharmaceutical company will call you. You will never travel “coach” again.

Link to the rest of the article Terrorism Isn’t Real

Associated Press
Tehran, December 25, 2011

First Published: 23:09 IST(25/12/2011)
Last Updated: 23:11 IST(25/12/2011)

Iran has rejected a New York judge’s finding that Tehran is liable in the September 11 attacks along with the Taliban and al Qaeda. According to state TV, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman referred to last week’s judgement as “clumsy scenario-making” by the US. The spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, repeated Iran’s insistence that al Qaeda has no presence in the country.

On Thursday, Judge George Daniels in Manhattan signed a default judgement finding Iran, the Taliban and al Qaeda liable in the 2001 attacks. The ruling came in a $100 billion lawsuit brought by family members of victims.

The findings also said Iran provides al Qaeda members a safe haven.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly denied any Iranian connection to the September 11 attacks or to al Qaeda.

See also this article Justifying War with Iran

by Kelley B. Vlahos, December 27, 2011

The year 2011 marked a critical confluence of militarism and revolution, not only in places like Libya and Egypt, but also here at home, where massive demonstrations in cities and towns throughout the country were met with a well-oiled law enforcement machine deployed in camouflage and Kevlar, lobbing tear gas grenades and packing rifles with rubber bullets.

SWAT police at antiwar protest at Qantico in September (Kevin Zeese photograph)

Like tanks, bulldozers commandeered by police over the last weeks crushed several “Occupy” encampments in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Salt Lake City, and more. It could be the first time for such a strange juxtaposition in global images: the massive iron will of authority chewing away dissent here and in such far-flung places as Tahrir Square in Egypt.

As recent events in Egypt have demonstrated, revolution does not necessarily begin with resistance and end with an election. In the United States, Americans are facing decade two of a domestic war on terror that has expanded a vast security and surveillance apparatus that seems to be in perpetual confrontation with our Constitutional rights. The trouble is that every time the public cedes more control to the government, Washington just takes more (see the new military detention policies just passed by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act).

In other words, war and the struggle for control is constant. Last year at this time, the world was absorbing tens of thousands of WikiLeaks documents that offered clues to how our governments behave, plot, and prioritize behind closed doors. They offered us, too, grim and dreadful windows into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they have been credited in part for exposing corrupt government behavior and providing a catalyst for massive street demonstrations in places like Tunisia, which overthrew its dictator, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, in January.

Today, the leakers of those documents are on trial. One, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, is in the United States. The other, Julian Assange, faces extradition to Sweden on unrelated charges. Meanwhile, we watch to see if our influence — or lack thereof — in places like Syria and Bahrain will hamper genuine triumph over tyranny and whether the U.S., undeterred by the now apparent failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, will continue its covert operations and drone attacks in Pakistan and in less reported fronts in North Africa and the Middle East.

Link to the rest of the article 2012: Revolution or Devolution

Monday, December 26, 2011

In a groundbreaking interview, Infowars Nighly News host Rob Dew speaks with Don Browning, a K9 unit police officer for OKC, and Holland Van den Nieuwenhof, writer & producer for already classic exposé A Noble Lie. Browning, who found many living and dead in the Murrah rubble, discusses how he received thinly-veiled threats from the feds after he began asking questions about the inconsistencies he witnessed in part of a continuing series of interviews re-examining the official lies of the Oklahoma City Bombing, which paved the way for 9/11 and false flag events yet to come.

By Stewart Ogilby
Veterans Today
December 10, 2011

I recall my father calling my brother and me into the house from the backyard where we were at play that brisk December afternoon, December 7th, 1941. He had us listen to a news report coming from our Philco radio and told us that we would remember that day for the rest of our lives. It was then that I had my introduction to foreign affairs.

Somewhere in the world, a long distance from Staten Island, New York, a place called Pearl Harbor had been attacked by airplanes. As he explained, since that was a part of our country we were in a war.

We had a small mounted globe of the world in the dining room close to the radio. Showing us where Japan is located, he told us that Japan was our enemy. He went on to say that there was another country, considerably more dangerous, with which we would soon be at war. Turning the globe all the way around, he pointed to Germany.

He said that Germany’s goal was to conquer the world. Placing my finger on the small area called Germany I asked, “How can a little country like that take over this huge globe?” Father said that they were already well on their way, showing us areas Germany had occupied. “Do you think that we will win?”, I asked. I recall my father looking very grave and saying, “Yes, we will win, but it will be very difficult and things will never be the same.”

My father was honest, a brilliant self-educated research chemist, a farmer, and a patriotic man. Years after I had left home and my father was approaching retirement, there was a television in the farm house, an item I had never seen there before. During a visit, as my father watched Watergate unfold I saw tears come to his eyes when President Richard Nixon appeared on screen. “That man lied to us”, he muttered. By “us” he meant my mother and himself. Both had voted for Nixon. The patriot in him had been betrayed. My Dad would be 110 years old. I wonder what he and others of that generation would think today.

The historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, concluded that President Roosevelt had been designing a casus belli with Japan in 1941, having personally ordered three small US Naval ships to sea to confront the mighty Japanese navy. In my own small library I treasure a copy of Admiral Kemp Tolley’s, Cruise of the Lanikai. Tolley had been CO of one of those three small antiquated 1941 US Navy vessels. His book contains a photocopy of that order, signed personally by President Roosevelt.

When that ruse failed, Roosevelt had no recourse other than to engineer, by default, the December 7th Pearl Harbor attack. The machines used for decoding Japan’s Purple Code had been deliberately removed from Hawaii, leaving both our Army and Navy commanders there blindfolded. Barnes’ work and conclusions have since been completely verified through FOIA documents.

Link to the rest of the article One Lie After Another – And Now 911

AE911Truth Congressional Outreach Team leader Wayne Coste and other 9/11 Truth activists prepare to engage the public about the destruction of WTC Building 7. Coste used the AE911Truth “human microphone speech” developed by his Congressional Outreach Team to inform the crowd.

Written by Wayne Coste

With assistance provided by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Remember Building 7 campaign and NYC CAN organized Occupy Building 7, a two-day protest designed to raise awareness about the destruction of Building 7, the third World Trade Center skyscraper to fall on 9/11. On November 19 and 20, the marches and vigils were held from Zuccotti Park in the Wall Street District of Manhattan along the sidewalks for several blocks to the site of the rebuilt WTC Building 7.

“ I was told afterward that some of the police quietly asked us for information about the 9/11 evidence ”

Zuccotti Park, which is the heart of the Occupy Wall Street movement, lies in the figurative shadow of the Twin Towers and in the literal shadow of their replacement tower that is currently under construction and now reaches over 20 stories into the air.

Over the last two months, AE911Truth supporters and others have provided “occupiers” across the country with information about the explosive 9/11 evidence. The occupiers are becoming informed about the logical and scientific fallacies in the official accounts that make those versions not just implausible, but impossible.

Link to the rest of the article Occupy Building 7 March Impacts Manhattan: Police, OWS Protestors Informed About Explosive 9/11 Evidence

This May 10, 2011 interview of Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, was conducted by Michael Rudin of the BBC.

Interview of Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, on the faulty NIST investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses, the evidence of controlled demolition, and where the demand for a new investigation stands.

You’ve heard about indefinite detention in the defense bill. But it also contains some eyebrow-raising language regarding the transfer of terrorist suspects to foreign countries.

By Nick Baumann
Wed Dec. 21, 2011
Mother Jones Magazine

A defense spending bill that passed both houses of Congress overwhelmingly and is set to be signed by President Barack Obama as early as this week could make it easier for the government to transfer American terrorist suspects to foreign regimes and security forces.

The National Defense Authorization Act (PDF) contains a section that says the president has the power to transfer suspected members and supporters of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated” groups “to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”

That means if the president determines you’re a member or supporter of Al Qaeda or “associated forces,” he could order you to be handed over to the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Yemenis (“any other foreign country”), any of their respective security forces, or even the United Nations (“any other foreign entity”). (You can read the relevant section of the law in the document viewer at the end of this article; look for the highlighted annotations.)

Many legal experts consider the NDAA a congressional codification of war powers the Bush and Obama administrations have claimed they already possess. David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and expert on the law of war, argues that Obama already had the power to transfer suspected Al Qaeda members (even Americans) to foreign custody, and the NDAA simply endorses that view. “If the president could lawfully transfer a German prisoner of war to a foreign country, then in theory he could do the same thing with an American prisoner of war,” Glazier explains.

But turning the Bush and Obama administrations’ interpretations of their war powers into an actual law is “no small thing,” as Benjamin Wittes, a legal expert at the Brookings Institution, explains. Under this law, the government has far-reaching powers to detain and try terrorist suspects inside or outside the civilian justice system—or, if necessary, to transfer them to the custody of foreign powers—and it will serve as a signal to judges. “When you put all that in a statute, it becomes a much more permanent fixture of the US justice system,” says Daphne Eviatar, a lawyer with Human Rights First. “It’s not necessarily changing the authority the US government has today, but it’s institutionalizing it.”

Eviatar adds that there are “a whole lot of scenarios” where the government might want to transfer a suspected terrorist—even a US citizen—to foreign custody. For example, the administration might not want to go through the political mess of determining whether to send a suspect to Gitmo, try him in a military commission, or use the civilian system. The administration might also want to avoid the mandatory habeas corpus review that would come if the US held the suspect itself. In such a case, transferring the suspect to a foreign security force might present an appealing option.

An amendment sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says the relevant section of the NDAA doesn’t change “existing law” with regards to the detention of US citizens, permanent legal residents, and terrorist suspects captured in the United States. The problem is that there’s a debate over what “existing law” is.

Civil liberties advocates and some members of Congress argue that the government can only indefinitely detain an American if he is, as Feinstein explained on the Senate floor, “taken an active part in hostilities against the United States and is captured outside the United States in an area of ‘active combat operations,’ such as the battlefields of Afghanistan.”

But many legal experts, members of Congress, and both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that existing law allows the US to indefinitely detain all people, including American citizens, who the president determines are part of or “substantially supported” Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. (You can see an Obama administration argument on this subject here.) The Supreme Court has yet to issue a definitive ruling on the issue.

Link to the rest of the article Did Congress Just Endorse Rendition for Americans?

Better Tag Cloud