Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Archive for May, 2013

by Philip Giraldi
May 30, 2013
Antiwar.com

Two time Medal of Honor recipient Marine Major General Smedley Butler once said “war is a racket.” He might have added that while enriching the few it victimizes and degrades everyone else who is caught up in the meat grinder, soldiers as well as civilians.

Consider how accounts of soldiers who are captured and subsequently turn on their own country are as old as warfare. American soldiers taken prisoner are only supposed to provide their names, ranks, and serial numbers to their captors though in practice many find themselves agreeing with their interrogators or even signing confessions to avoid abuse or obtain better conditions in their prisons. A number of American prisoners were described as having been “brainwashed” during the Korean War, the expression initially suggesting that they had been subject to psychological conditioning and indoctrination that made them question their loyalties and which subsequently produced episodes of aberrant behavior. In some cases the psychological conditioning was combined with physical torture, but in most cases not. In nearly all cases the victims later recanted the confessions they provided to their captors, were despondent over what they had done and said while under North Korean and Chinese control, and sometimes had difficulty in readjusting to life in the United States.

Vietnam also produced its own crop of American prisoners of war, numbering perhaps as many as 2,000 when the Paris peace talks started in 1973. One of them was John McCain, now a reliably hawkish Senator from Arizona who has recently visited Syria in an attempt to jump start a new war in the Middle East. While it is well known that McCain was a captive of the North Vietnamese for more than five years after his plane was shot down while bombing a power plant, considerably less well known is his behavior while a prisoner of war in Hanoi which has long been the object of some speculation due to allegations of possible cooperation with his captors. McCain, who was saved from drowning by a Vietnamese civilian and was treated at a Hanoi hospital for his wounds, was the son of the Admiral commanding the Pacific Fleet, so he was what might be referred to as a high value captive for the North Vietnamese regime. As such he received considerable attention from his captors, was referred to by his fellow prisoners as the “Crown Prince,” and was, by some accounts, handled with kid gloves. And his connections may have ensured that he would receive additional high value treatment from the Pentagon upon his return to the U.S., he being awarded an astonishing Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for his 22 missions spent bombing mostly civilian targets in North Vietnam.

Read more

Some eager-to-believe progressives heralded the speech as a momentous change, but Obama’s actions are often quite different than his rhetoric

by Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk
Monday 27 May 2013

US President Barack Obama speaks at the National Defense University on counter-terrorism. Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images

The hallmark of a skilled politician is the ability to speak to a group of people holding widely disparate views, and have all of them walk away believing they heard what they wanted to hear. Other than Bill Clinton, I’ve personally never seen a politician even in the same league as Barack Obama when it comes to that ability. His most consequential speeches are shaped by their simultaneous affirmation of conflicting values and even antithetical beliefs, allowing listeners with irreconcilable positions to conclude that Obama agrees with them.

The highly touted speech Obama delivered last week on US terrorism policy was a master class in that technique. If one longed to hear that the end of the “war on terror” is imminent, there are several good passages that will be quite satisfactory. If one wanted to hear that the war will continue indefinitely, perhaps even in expanded form, one could easily have found that. And if one wanted to know that the president who has spent almost five years killing people in multiple countries around the world feels personal “anguish” and moral conflict as he does it, because these issues are so very complicated, this speech will be like a gourmet meal.

But whatever else is true, what should be beyond dispute at this point is that Obama’s speeches have very little to do with Obama’s actions, except to the extent that they often signal what he intends not to do. How many times does Obama have to deliver a speech embracing a set of values and polices, only to watch as he then proceeds to do the opposite, before one ceases to view his public proclamations as predictive of his future choices? Speeches, especially presidential ones, can be significant unto themselves in shaping public perceptions and setting the terms of the debate, so Obama’s explicit discussion of the “ultimate” ending of the war on terror can be reasonably viewed as positive.

Read more

The “metro” version of the ad is one of several that are being developed for various types of outdoor media. The highway billboard version will be much simpler. Read the fascinating story below about the design and polling of the ReThink911 ad.

WTC 7 to Take Center Stage with $600K Ad Campaign

Yes… you read that right: $600,000. ReThink911* (a.k.a. Operation Tip the Planet) has raised $300,000 in pledges to match every dollar YOU raise by July 31 for this massive September advertising campaign.

The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?

By Ron Unz
April 29, 2013
The American Conservative

In mid-March, the Wall Street Journal carried a long discussion of the origins of the Bretton Woods system, the international financial framework that governed the Western world for decades after World War II. A photo showed the two individuals who negotiated that agreement. Britain was represented by John Maynard Keynes, a towering economic figure of that era. America’s representative was Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury and long a central architect of American economic policy, given that his nominal superior, Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., was a gentleman farmer with no background in finance. White was also a Communist agent.

Such a situation was hardly unique in American government during the 1930s and 1940s. For example, when a dying Franklin Roosevelt negotiated the outlines of postwar Europe with Joseph Stalin at the 1945 Yalta summit, one of his important advisors was Alger Hiss, a State Department official whose primary loyalty was to the Soviet side. Over the last 20 years, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and other scholars have conclusively established that many dozens or even hundreds of Soviet agents once honeycombed the key policy staffs and nuclear research facilities of our federal government, constituting a total presence perhaps approaching the scale suggested by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose often unsubstantiated charges tended to damage the credibility of his position.

The Cold War ended over two decades ago and Communism has been relegated to merely an unpleasant chapter in the history books, so today these facts are hardly much disputed. For example, liberal Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein matter-of-factly referred to White as a “Soviet spy” in the title of his column on our postwar financial system. But during the actual period when America’s government was heavily influenced by Communist agents, such accusations were widely denounced as “Red-baiting” or ridiculed as right-wing conspiracy paranoia by many of our most influential journalists and publications. In 1982 liberal icon Susan Sontag ruefully acknowledged that for decades the subscribers to the lowbrow Readers Digest had received a more realistic view of the world than those who drew their knowledge from the elite liberal publications favored by her fellow intellectuals. I myself came of age near the end of the Cold War and always vaguely assumed that such lurid tales of espionage were wildly exaggerated. I was wrong.

The notion of the American government being infiltrated and substantially controlled by agents of a foreign power has been the stuff of endless Hollywood movies and television shows, but for various reasons such popular channels have never been employed to bring the true-life historical example to wide attention. I doubt if even one American in a hundred today is familiar with the name “Harry Dexter White” or dozens of similar agents.

The realization that the world is often quite different from what is presented in our leading newspapers and magazines is not an easy conclusion for most educated Americans to accept, or at least that was true in my own case. For decades, I have closely read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and one or two other major newspapers every morning, supplemented by a wide variety of weekly or monthly opinion magazines. Their biases in certain areas had always been apparent to me. But I felt confident that by comparing and contrasting the claims of these different publications and applying some common sense, I could obtain a reasonably accurate version of reality. I was mistaken.

Aside from the evidence of our own senses, almost everything we know about the past or the news of today comes from bits of ink on paper or colored pixels on a screen, and fortunately over the last decade or two the growth of the Internet has vastly widened the range of information available to us in that latter category. Even if the overwhelming majority of the unorthodox claims provided by such non-traditional web-based sources is incorrect, at least there now exists the possibility of extracting vital nuggets of truth from vast mountains of falsehood. Certainly the events of the past dozen years have forced me to completely recalibrate my own reality-detection apparatus.

Read more

MAY 21, 2013
By Glenn Greenwald
New York Times.com

President Obama has repeatedly hailed himself for presiding over “the most transparent administration ever.” At the same time, he has waged a sustained and unprecedented war on whistleblowers, press freedoms and the basic mechanisms of the newsgathering process.

But it is the administration of Barack Obama that has prosecuted more accused leakers under “espionage” statutes than all prior administrations combined — in fact, double the number of all prior such prosecutions.

This is the vital context in which the Obama Justice Department’s conduct regarding both The A.P. and Fox News’ James Rosen must be understood. Time and again, this administration has proven that it has little other than contempt for time-honored protections to safeguard whistleblowing and transparency.

It tried to impose a lengthy prison term on Thomas Drake, a former National Security Agency official who exposed serious agency corruption and wrongdoing, only for its case to fall apart shortly before trial. A formal United Nations investigation found that its detention treatment of Bradley Manning, who exposed multiple acts of serious government deceit and wrongdoing, was so abusive that it amounted to “cruel and inhuman” treatment.

Read more

by Philip Giraldi
May 23, 2013
Antiwar.com

Sinclair Lewis once wrote that if fascism ever comes to the United States it will be wrapped in the American flag and carrying a cross. Lewis might have been describing our contemporary “political Christians,” the mostly evangelicals who believe that Washington has a manifest destiny to make the world behave while simultaneously expunging the constitution of all those troubling un-Biblical bits that were pulled together into the Bill of Rights. Well, it hasn’t quite happened that way. The “Moral Majority” remains influential in the Republican Party, but it has been replaced by the “moral hypocrisy” crowd that came in with change we could believe in in 2008. Who would have thought that a Democrat preaching inclusion and talking to one’s enemies would have gone on to complete the job begun by George W. Bush in transforming our republic into a full blown national security state? Well, someone should have thought of it if history is anything to go by. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, promised peace when he was elected in 1916 even as he was conniving to enter the First World War. Franklin D. Roosevelt, another Democrat, ran on a platform asserting that he had kept the nation out of war while he was colluding with Winston Churchill fight the Germans. The lesson that was apparently not learned well enough was to beware of politicians falsely proclaiming themselves to be peace candidates.

The Founding Fathers included impeachment in the constitution for a reason. Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing his Secretary of War, surviving the process by one vote. Richard Nixon would have been impeached because of Watergate and Bill Clinton might have suffered the same fate over perjury connected with his inability to keep his trousers on. As much as I would like to see George W. Bush in jail for starting a war of aggression, he is more likely to be indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes than he is to face any retribution in the United States as he is now out of office. But we still have Obama.

Read more

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
May 23, 2013

Have you ever wondered how the government’s misinformation gains traction?

What I have noticed is that whenever a stunning episode occurs, such as 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing, most everyone whether on the right or left goes along with the government’s explanation, because they can hook their agenda to the government’s account.

The leftwing likes the official stories of Muslims creating terrorist mayhem in America, because it proves their blowback theory and satisfies them that the dispossessed and oppressed can fight back against imperialism.

The patriotic rightwing likes the official story, because it proves America is attacked for its goodness or because terrorists were allowed in by immigration authorities and nurtured by welfare, or because the government, which can’t do anything right, ignored plentiful warnings.

Whatever the government says, no matter how problematical, the official story gets its traction from its compatibility with existing predispositions and agendas.

In such a country, truth has no relevance. Only agendas are important.

A person can see this everywhere. I could write volumes illustrating how agenda-driven writers across the spectrum will support the most improbable government stories despite the absence of any evidence simply because the government’s line can be used to support their agendas.

For example, a conservative writer in the June issue of Chronicles uses the government’s story about the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, to argue against immigration, amnesty for illegals, and political asylum for Muslims. He writes: “Even the most high-tech security systems imaginable will inevitably fail as they are overwhelmed by a flood of often hostile and dangerous immigrants.”

Read more

Written by Chris Sarns
May 21, 2013
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

Award-winning actor Ed Asner provides an intriguing narration to Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 that eases viewers into the astonishing evidence surrounding the skyscraper’s destruction on 9/11

Editor’s Note: If you see the 5-minute version of Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 on your local PBS station, please let us know. Just use the Contact Us form on our website; make sure to select “Other” In the “Subject Area” field and enter “Spotlight On” in the “Subject” field. Thanks!

AE911Truth is proud to air once again the fascinating 5-minute excerpt of Architects & Engineers: Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 on PBS stations nationwide!ed-asner-solving-the-mystery-w-wtc7Award-winning actor Ed Asner provides an intriguing narration to Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 that eases viewers into the astonishing evidence surrounding the skyscraper’s destruction on 9/11 This mini-documentary, narrated by Ed Asner, introduces viewers to the “collapse” of WTC Building 7 on 9/11 and includes the expert testimony of technical and building professionals. The shortened version of our Youtube hit fills in between 55-minute PBS programs such as Frontline, Masterpiece Theater, and News Hour.

The 15-minute version of the film was created for those who choose to visit the AE911Truth website. It is also the best version to share with others because it concisely demonstrates the utter falsity of the official explanation for the skyscraper’s destruction.

This short video has the power to move mountains…–Mike Marino

Here’s the back story on the creation of this compelling documentary:

In September of 2009, I was volunteering with AE911Truth, verifying our petition signers, when I came across some interesting comments from petition signer Wendy Rapkin. She is an associate producer for Trivue Entertainment who produces Spotlight On, a series of 3-to-5-minute programs that air on PBS stations throughout the country. She suggested that we at AE911Truth avail ourselves of this opportunity for national exposure. “I really wanted to get the word out about Building 7,” Rapkin said, “and the first video that AE911Truth produced, 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, was all about the science of its destruction.”

The AE911Truth team decided to move forward with the idea, but several delays, including the Australia/New Zealand/Japan tour and the 1,000 A&E press conference took precedent, so the project was put on the back burner.

However, San Francisco-area volunteer Mike Marino compelled it back to the forefront by continuously pressing AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA. When the video was finished, Mike noted that “This short video has the power to move mountains.”

In September of 2010, Mike, Richard, Gregg Roberts, and I started working on the script. We wrote an introduction and assembled some powerful evidence, but it wasn’t until Mike came up with a more appropriate introduction that we all knew we had the winning combination. “It eases the viewer into the reality of what happened to WTC 7,” noted Mike. “After being invited into the world of fascinating structures designed by architects and engineers, you’re shown a modern high-rise that was ‘built to last.’ Then you see it come crashing down.”

Read more

Yet another serious escalation of the Obama administration’s attacks on press freedoms emerges

by Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk
Monday 20 May 2013

Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen had his emails read by the Obama DOJ, which accused him of being a co-conspirator in a criminal leak case.

It is now well known that the Obama justice department has prosecuted more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined – in fact, double the number of all such prior prosecutions. But as last week’s controversy over the DOJ’s pursuit of the phone records of AP reporters illustrated, this obsessive fixation in defense of secrecy also targets, and severely damages, journalists specifically and the newsgathering process in general.

New revelations emerged yesterday in the Washington Post that are perhaps the most extreme yet when it comes to the DOJ’s attacks on press freedoms. It involves the prosecution of State Department adviser Stephen Kim, a naturalized citizen from South Korea who was indicted in 2009 for allegedly telling Fox News’ chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen, that US intelligence believed North Korea would respond to additional UN sanctions with more nuclear tests – something Rosen then reported. Kim did not obtain unauthorized access to classified information, nor steal documents, nor sell secrets, nor pass them to an enemy of the US. Instead, the DOJ alleges that he merely communicated this innocuous information to a journalist – something done every day in Washington – and, for that, this arms expert and long-time government employee faces more than a decade in prison for “espionage”

The focus of the Post’s report yesterday is that the DOJ’s surveillance of Rosen, the reporter, extended far beyond even what they did to AP reporters. The FBI tracked Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department, traced the timing of his calls, and – most amazingly – obtained a search warrant to read two days worth of his emails, as well as all of his emails with Kim. In this case, said the Post, “investigators did more than obtain telephone records of a working journalist suspected of receiving the secret material.” It added that “court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist”.

But what makes this revelation particularly disturbing is that the DOJ, in order to get this search warrant, insisted that not only Kim, but also Rosen – the journalist – committed serious crimes. The DOJ specifically argued that by encouraging his source to disclose classified information – something investigative journalists do every day – Rosen himself broke the law. Describing an affidavit from FBI agent Reginald Reyes filed by the DOJ, the Post reports [emphasis added]:

“Reyes wrote that there was evidence Rosen had broken the law, ‘at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator’. That fact distinguishes his case from the probe of the AP, in which the news organization is not the likely target. Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a ‘covert communications plan’ and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information. . . . However, it remains an open question whether it’s ever illegal, given the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.”

Read more

Better Tag Cloud