Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Archive for March, 2014

A country can remain constantly at war, or enjoy low taxes and civil liberties protections, but it can’t do both.

CONOR FRIEDERSDORF
March 27, 2014
The Atlantic

Once the Cold War ended it didn’t make much sense for neoconservatives and small-government conservatives to remain in a coalition. But breakups take time, and post-9/11 politics briefly created the illusion that Bill Kristol and George Will belong in the same political party. I am here to tell you that they do not, even if many people who identify as small-government conservatives still don’t realize it.

There are kind, intellectually honest neoconservatives who genuinely believe that their hawkish, imperial approach to foreign policy would bring about a better world. Their notion of the good is still incompatible with small-government conservatism and libertarianism. And the darkest strains in neoconservatism—the zealous defenses of torturing prisoners, for example—are incompatible with the professed beliefs of a lot of social and religious conservatives, too. How could the GOP possibly serve the agendas of all these factions?

If neoconservatives got their way, as they did during George W. Bush’s first term, the United States would spend more on its military and wage war in more countries. Neoconservatives still believe the Iraq War was a good idea. They’d have preferred to keep our troops in Afghanistan longer. They urged greater American involvement in Egypt and Libya. They wanted President Obama to intervene in Syria.

As they urge actions that would require spending tens of billions of additional dollars in the Middle East and North Africa, they also insist that NATO grant security guarantees to countries like Georgia, as if the sanctity of its borders is worth risking nuclear war. And having urged a geopolitical strategy that stretches America thin across much of the rest of the world, they criticize the Obama Administration for not doing enough to “pivot toward Asia” in the Pacific.

Many small-government conservatives may be morally comfortable with interventionism. What they must realize is that neoconservatism’s particular agenda would require dramatic tax increases, or significant borrowing, to carry out; that neoconservative strategists have shown an utter inability to produce competent analysis of how the interventions that they favor will unfold; and that the costs are often borne by the young Americans who are killed or maimed in lost wars.

Read more

By Pepe Escobar
March 27, 2014
Asia Times Online.com

German Chancellor Angela Merkel could teach US President Barack Obama one or two things about how to establish a dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As if Obama would listen. He’d rather boost his constitutional law professor self, and pompously lecture an elite eurocrat audience in the glittering Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels, like he did this Wednesday, on how Putin is the greatest threat to the US-administered global order since World War II. Well, it didn’t go that well; most eurocrats were busy taking selfies or twittering.

Putin, meanwhile, met with the CEO of German engineering and electrical conglomerate Siemens, Joe Kaeser, at his official residence outside Moscow. Siemens invested more than US$1.1 billion in Russia over the past two years, and that, Kaeser said, is bound to continue. Angela was certainly taking notes.

Obama couldn’t behave otherwise. The constitutional law expert knows nothing about Russia, in his (meager) political career never had to understand how Russia works, and may even fear Russia – surrounded as he is by a coterie of spectacularly mediocre aids. His Brussels rhetorical tour de force yielded absolutely nothing – apart from the threat that if Putin persisted in his “aggression” against eastern Ukraine or even NATO members-countries the president of the United States would unroll a much stiffer sanction package.

What else is new, considering this by supreme CIA asset and former Pentagon head in the first Obama administration, Bob Gates, is what passes for political analysis in the US.

Read more

March 28, 2014
By Paul Craig Roberts

Does Obama realize that he is leading the US and its puppet states to war with Russia and China, or is Obama being manipulated into this disaster by his neoconservative speech writers and government officials? World War 1 (and World War 2) was the result of the ambitions and mistakes of a very small number of people. Only one head of state was actually involved–the President of France.

In The genesis Of The World War, Harry Elmer Barnes shows that World War 1 was the product of 4 or 5 people. Three stand out: Raymond Poincare`, President of France, Sergei Sazonov, Russian Foreign Minister, and Alexander Izvolski, Russian Ambassador to France. Poincare` wanted Alsace-Lorraine from Germany, and the Russians wanted Istanbul and the Bosphorus Strait, which connects the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. They realized that their ambitions required a general European war and worked to produce the desired war.

A Franco-Russian Alliance was formed. This alliance became the vehicle for orchestrating the war. The British government, thanks to the incompetence, stupidity, or whatever of its Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, was pulled into the Franco-Russian Alliance. The war was started by Russia’s mobilization. The German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was blamed for the war despite the fact that he did everything possible to avoid it.

Read more

The Senate Intelligence Committee is as sclerotic and turf-obsessed as the agency it’s meant to regulate.

By PHILIP GIRALDI
March 26, 2014
The American Conservative

Government bureaucracies, like many private sector businesses, are initially created in response to a perceived need either to do something or provide a service. The Department of Defense in its current incarnation rose out of the developing Cold War in the post-Second World War environment, while the CIA was created to prevent a second Pearl Harbor. But as bureaucracies mature they become less and less connected to their founding principles as circumstances change and they fail to adapt. They then go into a self-defense mode that makes maintaining jobs, budgets, and political turf in Washington their top priority. This compulsion to protect equities is the reason we are currently hearing of alleged CIA spying on a largely disengaged Senate committee in an attempt to forestall any accountability for torture and rendition policies that many believe to be war crimes.

Mostly lost in translation is the fact that the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, like CIA, is also a stale bureaucracy, one largely inhabited by senators who have been in place for many years. Committee staffers reflect their sense of entitlement, believing themselves untouchable as they bask in their celebrity since 9/11. In short, they too are prone to go into self-defense mode about what they have and have not done, making Sen. Dianne Feinstein no hero for opportunistically attacking the CIA for spying on her committee. Her attempts to shift the blame for now-discredited and abhorrent activities in which her committee was almost certainly complicit are obvious, though this in no way exonerates the Agency.

Read more

Note: Ryan is right about the “elect” using certain words to shut off debate. But there was no Nazi holocaust and no dead six million Jews. See the site Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (http://codoh.com/) for more on this topic.

03/25/2014
by Kevin Ryan

Over the years, one of the most mindless techniques used to suppress questioning of 9/11 has been to equate such questions with Holocaust denial. This smear tactic has been used by propagandists like Glenn Beck, Michael Shermer, and Rachel Maddow, as well as by government representatives like Michael Chertoff. Recently I’ve thought about how absurd such diversionary claims are while at the same time recognizing that I have met some incredible people over the past decade. Two of those people led lives that were Holocaust-related and, for different reasons, their story should be better known.

During the time that I worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL), I lived next door to an extraordinary woman. Sherry Moses was a widow who lived alone except for occasional visits from her children. She was unafraid, despite having suffered more than anyone I had ever met. I knew of her past suffering because she showed me her tattoo and told me how all of her family was killed at Auschwitz. Sherry was only a child when she was sent there.

In one of the interviews she had with the local newspaper, Sherry told her story of being shipped to Auschwitz on a cattle train, being hungry all the time, and watching others die.[1] She was actually walking in line behind her parents, grandparents, brothers, and sisters, as they were led to the crematorium. Because of the specific number tattooed on her arm, she was spared along with a few, younger girls. She never really knew why.

When we were next-door neighbors, my wife and I found Sherry to be a charming and principled woman with a great sense of humor. When I raked her lawn or shoveled her sidewalk, she insisted on paying me something for the job. When she locked herself out of the house, I told her to ask the butler to open the door. Without missing a beat, she said that she had given him the day off. Sherry told my wife that she thought I would do something great some day.

Sherry died exactly six years after I was fired by UL for attempting to shed light on the origins of another mass slaughter—the U.S.-led War of Terror. When I first spoke out about 9/11 the mainstream media was ignoring any such questioning, but six years later they had begun claiming that anyone like me must be a Holocaust denier.

To the contrary, I’m a Holocaust believer. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the people behind the Holocaust were connected to the people who committed the crimes of 9/11. After all, the FBI has recently revealed documents that suggest that Adolf Hitler might not have died in 1945 but, instead, was hidden in Argentina until his death in 1965. It’s common knowledge that thousands of Nazis, many considered war criminals, were sheltered in Argentina and other South American countries.

Read more

By Russ Baker
Feb 28, 2014
WhoWhatWhy.com


The FBI had a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden in 1993 and discovered that he was eager to finance terror attacks on the United States, according to little-noticed testimony in a court case several years back.

The testimony, just reported by the Washington Times, underlines how poorly we understand the degree to which the federal government was interacting with Osama bin Laden and monitoring the activities of a network that came to be widely known as Al Qaeda.

The information, which emerged during an obscure employment dispute case filed by an agent, was provided by Edward J. Curran, who had been a top official in the Bureau’s Los Angeles office. “It was the only source I know in the bureau where we had a source right in al Qaeda, directly involved,” Curran told a nearly empty courtroom in 2010.

The source was credible enough that the Bureau was able to use his information to prevent an attack on a Los Angeles Masonic temple at the time.

Several former lawmakers involved with 9/11 reviews told the newspaper they were unaware of the FBI-Al Qaeda connection.

“I think it raises a lot of questions about why that information didn’t become public and why the 9/11 Commission or the congressional intelligence committees weren’t told about it,” said former Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), who chaired the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the aftermath of the 9/11 report.

Read more

Federal legislators and pundits are asked questions about the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence on C-SPAN’s program, “Washington Journal”.

Video includes:

*Tom Ridge (former DHS Secretary) responds to WTC dust evidence..

*Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) gives an excellent, candid answer to a question about Building 7, encourages C-SPAN callers to keep pushing.

*Josh Rogin of the Daily Beast tells a caller it’s not the job of the press to litigate what happened on 9/11.

*Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) is asked about the United States government’s loss of credibility for looking away from the Building 7 issue.

This is Part 7 in a series.

To call C-SPAN’s Washington Journal program:

Democrats: 1-202 585-3880

Written by Dennis P. McMahon, Esq
Tuesday, 11 March 2014
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

“Gray Lady of 43rd St.” Found Wanting

By now

By now, as most AE911Truth supporters are aware, the ReThink911 campaign ran a billboard ad directly across the street from the NY Times Building for two months. It asked the self-proclaimed “Paper of Record,” ‘Where is your story on the collapse of Building 7?’ The massive sign, which also points out that over 2,000 architects and engineers cite evidence of the controlled demolition of Building 7, was called to the attention of New York Times reporters and employees, and (an estimated) 100,000+ passersby, as memorialized in our incisive two-minute video starring one of our top AE911Truth Action Group leaders – Austin Farwell.

Farwell has been working with AE911Truth as a volunteer since he moved to New York in 2012. He was one of the many activists hitting the street in New York City, and a key part of the events surrounding the NY Times Billboard Campaign. “It was a great experience filming that day,” Farwell said. “I was so pumped to see people really getting into conversations with staff from the NY Times and articulately stating our case. The key is outreach, exposure and creativity. There are so many smart, encouraging people involved with this grass roots group. We have centralized our arguments and have become a concerted voice.”


This video exposes the New York Times’ abdication of responsibility to cover the challenges being made to the official account of Building 7’s destruction. Watch and share the video.

Read more

by Patrick J. Buchanan
March 22, 2014

Sweeping through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania this week, Joe Biden reassured all three that the United States’ commitment to Article Five of the NATO treaty remains “solemn” and “iron clad.”

Article Five commits us to war if the territory of any of these tiny Baltic nations is violated by Russia.

From World War II to the end of the Cold War, all three were Soviet republics. All three were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to by FDR, and on the other side of the NATO red line, the Elbe River in Germany.

No president would have dreamed of waging war with Russia over them. Now, under the new NATO, we must. Joe Biden was affirming war guarantees General Eisenhower would have regarded as insane.

Secretary of State John Kerry says that in the Ukraine crisis, “All options are on the table.” John McCain wants to begin moving Ukraine into NATO, guaranteeing that any Russian move on the Russified east of Ukraine would mean war with the United States.

Forty members of Congress have written Kerry urging that Georgia, routed in a war it started with Russia over South Ossetia in 2008, be put on a path to membership in NATO.

Read more

The intelligence agency — and the White House — are holding hostage the truth about torture

March 19, 2014
by John Glaser


Then-President George W. Bush and then–CIA Director George Tenet at the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va., in 2001. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

The White House and the CIA are currently engaged in an unrelenting battle to cover up the George W. Bush administration’s torture program and to maintain a system of impunity for what are obvious war crimes. Disturbingly, they are even willing to break the law — again — to win that battle.

The historic testimony given by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on the Senate floor on March 11 laid bare the efforts of the Central Intelligence Agency to block the publication of a 6,300-page investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the Bush-era interrogation program. She accused the CIA of violating both statutory laws and the Constitution.

The committee, chaired by Feinstein, began a comprehensive review of the post-9/11 detention and interrogation program in 2009. As part of the investigation, the CIA was compelled to provide the committee and its staff with all relevant documents.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud