Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Archive for April, 2015

When such a vulnerable person hears the evidence that 9/11 skeptics present, he . . . may become silent and unresponsive as though disoriented, so that he appears “spacey.”

By Frances T. Shure
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

Editor’s Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: “Why Do Good People Become Silent — or Worse — About 9/11?” The resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of both academic research and clinical observations.

In answering the question in the title of this essay, the March 2015 segment — Part 15: The Abuse Syndrome — explored how the “nothing we can do about it” reaction to hearing the evidence that refutes the official account of 9/11 may be a result of toxic early relationships — often characterized by trauma bonding — which bring about feelings of powerlessness, shame, or apathy in adulthood.

Here, in the April 2015 installment, we continue Ms. Shure’s analysis with Part 16: Dissociation.

Dissociation is a psychological defense mechanism that occurs on a continuum, ranging from mild detachment, which we all experience from time to time, to the most extreme form, known as Dissociative Identity Disorder. The latter, DID for short, was formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder. DID is a coping mechanism for the victim of torturous, repetitive abuse — usually endured at a very young age. To protect himself from the unbearable pain of such torture, the victim may fragment into two or more distinct identities, with each identity, or personality, taking control over the individual at various times.1

In the middle of this wide continuum is a severe and, unfortunately, all too common level of dissociation that, in common with DID, also originates in trauma that is usually incurred at an early age. What differentiates the mid-range level of dissociation from learned helplessness and from the abuse syndrome, which are related in that they are also trauma-initiated, is that the adult victims of this form of early trauma do not react to abuse or to challenging information — such as the evidence presented by 9/11 skeptics — with powerlessness, shame, or apathy. Instead, they automatically defend themselves by biologically shutting down their awareness to the point of becoming emotionally detached at the very time when expressing emotion would be considered a more normal response to the situation.

Read more

The main outcome of the Saudi air campaign will be terrorism and boatloads of desperate migrants

By Patrick Cockburn
April 26, 2015
The Unz Review

Yemen is short of many things, but weapons is not one of them. Yemenis own between 40 and 60 million guns, according to a report by UN experts published earlier this year. This should be enough for Yemen’s 26 million people, although the experts note that demand for grenades that used to cost $5, handguns ($150) and AK-47s ($150) has increased eightfold. Whatever else happens, the war in Yemen is not going to end because any of the participants are short of weaponry.

Yemeni politics is notoriously complicated and exotic, with shifting alliances in which former enemies embrace and old friends make strenuous efforts to kill each other. But this exoticism does not mean that the war in Yemen, where the Saudis started bombing on 26 March, is irrelevant to the rest of the world. Already the turmoil there is a breeding ground for al-Qaeda type attacks such as that on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

The collapse of the country into a permanent state of warfare will send waves of boat-people towards Western Europe or anywhere else they can find refuge. It is absurd for European leaders to pretend that they are doing something about “terrorism” or the refugees drowning in the Mediterranean when they ignore the wars that are the root causes of these events.

So far the Yemen war has been left to the Saudis and the Gulf monarchies, with the US ineffectually trying to end it. The reality of what is happening is very different from the way it is presented. The Saudis allege that they are crushing a takeover of Yemen by the Houthi Shia militia backed by Iran and intend to return the legitimate president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, to power. In fact, the Houthis’ seizure of so much of Yemen over the past year has little to do with Iran. It has much more to do with their alliance with their old enemy, former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, who still controls much of the Yemeni army. This enabled the Houthis, whose strongholds are in the north of the country, to capture Sanaa easily last September, though UN experts note that the capital “was guarded by no less than 100,000 Republican Guards and Reserve Forces, most of them loyal to the former president”.

The Saudi air campaign is geared more to inflicting severe damage on the units of the Yemeni army loyal to Saleh than it is to weakening the Houthis. The Houthi militiamen are experienced fighters, their military skills and ability to withstand air attack honed between 2004 and 2010, when they fought off six offensives launched by Saleh, who was then in power and closely allied to Saudi Arabia. It was only after he was ousted from office in 2012 that he reconciled with the Houthis.

The Saudi war aim is to break this alliance between the Houthis and the Saleh-controlled military units by destroying the army’s bases and heavy weapons. The more lightly armed Houthis are less likely to be hard-hit by air strikes, but without the support or neutrality of the regular army they will be over-stretched in the provinces south of Sanaa. In Aden, they are fighting not so much Hadi-supporters, but southern separatists who want to reverse the unification agreed in 1990.

The problem with the Saudi strategy is the same as that with most military plans. The 19th-century German chief of staff, General Helmuth von Moltke, said that in war “no plan survives contact with the enemy”. The same warning was pithily restated more recently by the American boxer Mike Tyson, who said that “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”.

The danger for Saudi Arabia is that wars build up an uncontrollable momentum that transforms the political landscape in which they are conceived. Had the Saudis not intervened in Yemen, it is unlikely that in the long term the Houthis would have been able to dominate the country because they are opposed by so many regions, parties and tribes. Yemen is too divided for any single faction to win an outright victory. But the air war has been justified by Saudi Arabia to their own citizens and the Sunni world as a counterattack against Iranian and Shia aggression. It will not be easy for Riyadh to back off from these exaggerated claims to reach the sort of compromises required if Yemen is to return to peace. A further danger is that demonising the Houthis as Iranian puppets may well prove self-fulfilling, if the Houthis are compelled to look for allies wherever they can find them.

Read more

04/26/2015
From the History Commons Groups blog

A large number of entries have been added to the Complete 9/11 Timeline at History Commons, including mg many that provide new details about the events of September 11, 2001, and some that describe the initial official accounts of the military’s response to the 9/11 attacks.

Air Force Secretary and Chief and Chief of Staff Learned of Attacks during Meetings

Several new timeline entries detail the actions of James Roche, the secretary of the Air Force, and John Jumper, the Air Force chief of staff, on September 11. Roche was alerted to the first plane crash at the World Trade Center during a meeting with several congressmen in his office at the Pentagon, in which the subject of Islamic fundamentalism was being discussed. Jumper, meanwhile, learned about the crashes at the WTC during a routine staff meeting, but he continued the meeting instead of responding right away.

After Jumper headed upstairs to Roche’s office, the two men were escorted to the Air Force Operations Center in the basement of the Pentagon shortly after the building was attacked, at 9:37 a.m. When they arrived at the Operations Center, they started assisting the Air Force’s response to the attacks.

A couple of entries relate to the Army’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER) at the Pentagon. A dozen ODCSPER officials went ahead with a 9:00 a.m. meeting, unaware of the first crash at the WTC, which occurred at 8:46 a.m., and they were not alerted by their colleagues when the second crash occurred at 9:03 a.m. Ironically, Timothy Maude, who ran the ODCSPER, was originally scheduled to attend a meeting at 9:45 a.m. to discuss what to do if a disaster should hit the Pentagon.

Crisis Actions Teams Were Activated

A number of new timeline entries describe the actions of various “crisis action teams” in response to the 9/11 attacks.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff activated its Crisis Actions Team (CAT) at the Pentagon sometime after the first hijacked plane crashed into the WTC. The Air Force’s CAT was reportedly activated at around 9:00 a.m. However, the Operations Center at the Pentagon where it worked from had to be evacuated later on and at 1:00 p.m. a replacement facility was established at Bolling Air Force Base. The Air National Guard’s CAT was activated shortly after the Pentagon was attacked and carried out its operations at Andrews Air Force Base, just outside Washington, DC.

The Army’s CAT at the Pentagon was activated after the second hijacked plane crashed into the WTC. It was reportedly “formally stood up” at 9:43 a.m. and its members then responded to the terrorist attacks. Major General Peter Chiarelli, who gave the order to activate it, was informed, shortly before the Pentagon was attacked, that a hijacked aircraft was heading toward Washington and was possibly aiming for the Pentagon.

Crew of Airborne Operations Center Thought Attacks Were Part of an Exercise

A timeline entry describes how crew members on an E-4B National Airborne Operations Center plane at Andrews Air Force Base initially thought the terrorist attacks were part of a training exercise when they were alerted to them. Their plane took off at around 9:27 a.m. and then flew to a base in Nebraska. Another E-4B took off from Andrews at around 9:45 a.m.

Meanwhile, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) representative on the Pentagon’s air threat conference call reported, shortly after the Pentagon was attacked, that Ralph Eberhart, the commander of NORAD, had not yet declared the situation that morning an air defense emergency.

A couple of timeline entries relate to problems experienced by the plane carrying Henry Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that day. After Shelton learned of the attacks, his plane had to spend hours flying in “holding patterns” near Greenland and then over Canada before it was cleared to fly back into the US. It therefore only landed at Andrews Air Force Base at 4:40 p.m.

Read more

by Kira Lerner
April 24, 2015

This weekend, Republican presidential hopefuls, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), will travel to Las Vegas to audition for billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson’s backing at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s spring meeting. In their speeches, the candidates will make their pitch to Adelson that they mostly closely share his interests.

Mega donor Adelson and his wife Miriam spent nearly $150 million on the 2012 election — more than the Koch brothers — and are likely to match that amount this campaign cycle. With his $32 billion net worth, Adelson was the single largest campaign donor in American history.

Early in the last presidential election, Adelson made a decision to give a majority of his donations to conservative nonprofits which do not disclose donors. At the time, Adelson said he believed the media’s use of the phrase “casino mogul” when discussing his contributions is not helpful to the people he is trying to elect. By the time President Obama was reelected, Adelson had given close to $50 million of his contributions to dark money groups that were created after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stream of rulings against political spending limits.

But even though his donations may not be disclosed, his intentions are still transparent.

Last year, the “Sheldon Adelson primary,” as it has been called, auditioned Gov. Chris Christie (R), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), among others. Those candidates and the ones speaking this year will all try to one-up each other by appealing to the policies Adelson most strongly supports.

Adelson owes hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes each year, a low amount considering his wealth that he achieves through loopholes like shifting his stock holdings in ways that exempt the transfers from federal taxes. The GOP candidates speaking at this weekend’s meeting have all proposed making his rate even lower.

Read more

By Glenn Greenwald
April 24, 2015
The Intercept

In all the years I’ve been writing about Obama’s drone killings, yesterday featured by far the most widespread critical discussion in U.S. establishment journalism circles. This long-suppressed but crucial fact about drones was actually trumpeted as the lead headline on the front page of The New York Times yesterday:

The reason for the unusually intense, largely critical coverage of drone killings yesterday is obvious: the victims of this strike were Western and non-Muslim, and therefore were seen as actually human.

Pakistani lawyer Shahzad Akbar, who represents 150 victims of American drones and was twice denied entry to the U.S. to speak about them, told my Intercept colleague Ryan Devereaux how two of his child clients would likely react to Obama’s “apology” yesterday:

“Today, if Nabila or Zubair or many of the civilian victims, if they are watching on TV the president being so remorseful over the killing of a Westerner, what message is that taking?” The answer, he argued, is “that you do not matter, you are children of a lesser God, and I’m only going to mourn if a Westerner is killed.”

The British-Yemeni journalist Abubakr Al-Shamahi put it succinctly: “It makes me angry that non-Western civilian victims of drone strikes are not given the same recognition by the US administration.” The independent journalist Naheed Mustafa said she was “hugely irritated by the ‘drone strikes have killed good Westerners so now we know there are issues with drones’ stories.” The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson this morning observed: “It is all too easy to ignore … the dubious morality of the whole enterprise — until the unfortunate victims happen to be Westerners. Only then does ‘collateral damage’ become big news and an occasion for public sorrow.”

This highlights the ugliest propaganda tactic on which the War on Terror centrally depends, one in which the U.S. media is fully complicit: American and Western victims of violence by Muslims are endlessly mourned, while Muslim victims of American and Western violence are completely disappeared.

When there is an attack by a Muslim on Westerners in Paris, Sydney, Ottawa, Fort Hood or Boston, we are deluged with grief-inducing accounts of the victims. We learn their names and their extinguished life aspirations, see their pictures, hear from their grieving relatives, watch ceremonies honoring their lives and mourning their deaths, launch campaigns to memorialize them. Our side’s victims aren’t just humanized by our media, but are publicly grieved as martyrs.

Read more


The Clinton Foundation scandal is all about the corruption of empire

by Justin Raimondo
April 24, 2015
Antiwar.com

The income stream of the Clinton Foundation, which includes many millions of dollars from foreign governments and individuals with close links to foreign governments, has created a firestorm of controversy. A forthcoming book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by Peter Schweizer, contends that, during her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton granted favors and concessions to governments that were generous in their donations to the Foundation that bears her name.

More than that, reporting published prior to the book’s publication shows that enormous speaking fees were paid to both Hillary and Bill Clinton by entities closely tied to these same foreign interests. The Washington Post informs us that Bill Clinton alone collected $26 million in speaking fees in his work on behalf of the Foundation.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was supposed to have filed full disclosure reports, and the Clinton Foundation was supposed to have forsworn donations from foreign governments during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure. The latter did not happen, and as for the former: there are huge loopholes in the disclosure rules, one of them being that, while sponsors of paid speaking engagements must be revealed, “sub-sponsors” are exempt. As the Washington Post tells it:

“[I]n 2012, Hillary Clinton’s disclosures show, Bill Clinton was paid $250,000 for a Boston speech to the Global Business Travel Association. But the documents filed by Bill Clinton’s office show that a proposed sub-sponsor was the aircraft manufacturing giant Boeing. During a 2009 trip to Russia, Hillary Clinton made a personal pitch for a state-owned airline to buy Boeing jets.”

Bill’s documentation was only made public because Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, sued to obtain it. But Bill’s haul in that instance is just chump change compared to the big money that poured into Clinton Foundation coffers – and Bill and Hillary’s pockets – from foreign governments and companies owned or controlled by those governments.

Read more

9/11 Exposed is an educational documentary that examines the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 on September 11th, 2001.

*Warning* Explicit Language. This film may not be suitable for younger viewers.

Released: April 21, 2015

Links:
Rethink 911
Remember building 7
AE 911 Truth
Loose change 911
William 911
911 A conspiracy theory

Other 9/11 Documentaries:

9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out (Free 1-hour version)

Loose Change Final Cut

September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor

Fabled Enemies

Who Killed John O’Neill?

9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009)

9/11: Press for Truth (2006)

by Eli Clifton and Jim Lobe
Lobelog.com

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke bluntly about his plans for raising campaign funds for his prospective presidential campaign in an interview published today on “Washington Wire,” a Wall Street Journal blog. Over a glass of Riesling, according to the account, he answered a series of questions, including how he plans to finance his campaign.

He described “the means” as the biggest hurdle facing his potential campaign, adding:

If I put together a finance team that will make me financially competitive enough to stay in this thing… I may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding. [Chuckles.] Bottom line is, I’ve got a lot of support from the pro-Israel funding.

Indeed, pro-Israel heavyweights, such as Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and other heavyweight donors of the Republican Jewish Coalition, are emerging as the go-to funders of the Republican Party. Graham’s observation—whether meant lightly or not (or uttered under the influence of the Riesling)— tends to confirm that access to their millions is critical to the fortunes of any Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

Graham’s Desires

Graham hasn’t made any secret of his desire to curry favor from the RJC’s pro-Netanyahu, pro-Likud board of directors. But suggesting that “pro-Israel funding” may determine his choice of cabinet secretaries (as well as his policies) may make even his potential benefactors squirm just a little bit in light of the purposes to which real anti-Semites who believe “Jewish money” controls the U.S. government might put such a statement.

Back in December, during a trip to Jerusalem, Graham assured Netanyahu that “the Congress will follow your lead” in pushing the Kirk-Menendez Iran sanctions bill. This was an unusual statement for a U.S. senator to make to a foreign leader in that leader’s capital, given the fact that the sitting president of the United States was ardently opposed to the bill and three weeks later vowed to veto it in his State of the Union address.

Graham is clearly hoping that Adelson and other RJC billionaires will come through for him, although his needs appear relatively modest. After referring to the “pro-Israel funding,” he riffed:

Can I raise enough hard money to get through Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina with a staff about 75?…South Carolina is unique because I’m from there. So here’s the deal. If I can raise $15 million — that’s enough and that can make me competitive…If I can perform well in Iowa to get some momentum coming into New Hampshire, hit hard here, finish in the top tier, I’ll win South Carolina and I’m in the final four.

“If I raise the money, I’ll run,” Graham told Fox News Sunday.

Read more

April 21, 2015
by Paul Craig Roberts

US Representative Ed Royce (R, CA) is busy at work destroying the possibility of truth being spoken in the US. On April 15 at a hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs of which Royce is chairman, Royce made use of two minor presstitutes to help him redefine all who take exception to Washington’s lies as “threats” who belong to a deranged pro-Russian propaganda cult. http://www.prisonplanet.com/bloggers-compared-to-isis-during-congressional-hearing.html

Washington’s problem is that whereas Washington controls the print and TV media in the US and its vassal states in Europe, Canada, Australia, Ukraine, and Japan, Washington does not control Internet sites, such as this one, or media, such as RT, of non-vassal states. Consequently, Washington’s lies are subject to challenge, and as people lose confidence in Western print and TV media because of the propaganda content, Washington’s agendas, which depend on lies, are experiencing rougher sledding.

Truth is bubbling up through Washington’s propaganda. Confronted with the possibility of a loss of control over every explanation, Hillary Clinton, Ed Royce, and the rest are suddenly complaining that Washington is “losing the information war.” Huge sums of taxpayers’ hard earned money will now be used to combat the truth with lies.

What to do? How to suppress truth with lies in order to remain in control? The answer says Andrew Lack, Royce, et alia, is to redefine a truth-teller as a terrorist. Thus, the comparison of RT and “dissident” Internet bloggers to the Islamist State and the designated terror group, Boko Haram.

Royce expanded the definition of terrorist to include dissident bloggers, such as Chris Hedges, John Pilger, Glenn Greenwald and the rest of us, who object to the false reality that Washington creates in order to serve undeclared agendas. For example, if Washington wants to pour profits into the military/security complex in exchange for political campaign contributions, the politicians cannot say that. Instead, they claim to protect America from a dangerous enemy or from weapons of mass destruction by starting a war. If politicians want to advance American financial or energy imperialism, they have to do so in the name of “bringing freedom and democracy.” If the politicians want to prevent the rise of other countries, such as Russia, President Obama has to depict Russia as a threat comparable to the Ebola virus and the Islamist State.

Noam Chomsky summed it up when he said that Washington regards any information that does not repeat Washington’s propaganda to be intolerable.

Read more

Published on Apr 19, 2015
Corbett Report.com

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: Click here

Better Tag Cloud