Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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


Archive for May, 2016

By Rod Dreher
May 30, 2016
The American Conservative

Denny Burk is having a melancholy Memorial Day. After reading the Gettysburg Address, he reflected:

I read this speech with heaviness of heart this year. It seems like the nation that Lincoln describes is slipping away. It seems less a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” than it is a people of the government, by the government, for the government. As the people decrease, the state increases. And the people have decreased in virtue, historical awareness, and commitment to ordered liberty “under God.”

The 2016 race for the presidency is a direct reflection of our current malaise. As a nation, we seem to have embarked on a Commodus-like decline. Out of all the people who campaigned for president this year, the two major parties have selected candidates that are not qualified for the office they seek. Both of them have disqualified themselves on moral grounds. As such, neither of them represents the best of our traditions, but they do seem to reflect what the nation has become. And this is much more distressing than the candidates themselves.

It is the conceit of great nations to think that things will always be as they have been–that national greatness is automatic and assured. But this is alas only a conceit.

Burk, a friend and a Southern Baptist pastor and theologian, adds:

Perhaps we are in the twilight of a great Republic, but perhaps not yet. But if it is, I won’t let it go without a fight. I hope and pray you won’t either.

Read the whole thing.

Man, that gets to me, this short piece of his. It’s sobering, and captures my own sadness. What does it mean to be a patriot when the country is going mad? I wrote a while back about the words of UVA political scientist John Owen IV, from 2004. Denny’s piece sent me back to them. Owen wrote back then that 9/11 served to bring a fracturing America back together to some extent. But he added:

September 11 has clarified matters. Though American society may deploy many corrupting influences against the Church and its members, the American state, by the grace of God, mostly continues to allow the Church to do its thing. The state, being the supreme coercive power in any country, is capable in theory of forcing the Church (and other communities) to change their practices or suffer punishment. America’s religious toleration is a reason why America not only deserves our loyalty, but also merits our continuing involvement. [Emphasis mine — RD] In a democracy the state is in principle responsible to the society it governs. Were Christians to cease being Americans in any meaningful sense, to withdraw completely from society, the state would be less responsible to us, and maybe less hospitable. God may use state persecution to purify His Church, but it is a perverse and unbiblical ethics that teaches that the Church should try to force God’s hand by enabling the state to become more oppressive.

When I cited Owen’s 2004 essay, I also cited the highly controversial 1996 First Things symposium, “The End of Democracy,” which speculated on whether or not judicial oligarchy had fatally compromised US democracy. I wrote:

Nearly twenty years on, concern about the judicial usurpation of politics remain, but the situation has become more radical. What happens when democratic politics itself produces results that orthodox Christians find not simply morally disagreeable (as happens all the time), but morally unacceptable? If memory serves, Father Neuhaus concluded in the End of Democracy symposium by saying that as long as we retain the capacity to work effectively for change within the regime, we must give it our moral assent, however grudgingly.

I wonder what Neuhaus would say today, though, if he were here. Is it possible for orthodox Christians to work meaningfully for change when the demos has become so post-Christian? After all, it won’t do to blame five unelected judges for imposing same-sex marriage on America. It’s true, but it’s also true that had the Court ruled the other way, we would have had same-sex marriage from coast to coast within 20 years, via democratic vote. The situation is far more radical than Neuhaus and his First Things cohort faced in 1996.

I don’t know what the definitive answers are. But I know it is time for serious orthodox Christians to start asking ourselves these questions. Both the Iraq War debacle and Obergefell — in their particulars, and in what they symbolize — are game-changers for Christian conservatives.

At the conference I was at this past weekend, law professor Bruce Frohnen touched the third rail of the Benedict Option: if the Ben Op critique is correct, does that require us Americans to abandon belief in liberal democracy? I think this, in the end, is why the idea of the Ben Op unsettles so many conservatives. And it really is unsettling. I don’t like where the logic of all this is taking me, and I confess that I’m resisting it. But the structures of our secular liberal democracy are such that given the tectonic cultural change now under way, and the abandonment of traditional Christianity by the masses (not just the liberal elites, as conservative mythology holds), means that the constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, may soon be used to oppress Christians in substantial ways.

If it were just that — just something affecting my own tribe — that would be horrible, but tolerable, if there were some hope of reform. I think of the loyalty black Americans had to this country when its laws in many places still oppressed them terribly. They had faith that America would live up to the promises of its founding and its Constitution — and because America was still a Christian nation in the sense of Christian teaching having authority, however attenuated, in the public square, the Civil Rights movement used the rhetoric of the Bible to press their case.

Now, America is post-Christian. Even Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, concedes this in an NPR interview:

“Conservative Christians in America are undergoing a huge shift in the way we see ourselves in the world,” Mohler says. “We are on the losing side of a massive change that’s not going to be reversed, in all likelihood, in our lifetimes.”

It’s not a case of “now that we’re not in charge, we’re going to take our football and go home.” It’s far deeper and more serious than that. It has to do with John Adams’s statement that our Constitution can only work for a religious and moral people. By this he meant that people must have inner order to live in the liberty our Constitution grants them. There’s no question that Christians will have less and less influence on the social order from here on out. The greater question — a question that involves every American — is whether John Adams was right: can liberal democracy be sustained without religion?

In any case: May God bless our beloved war dead. May their memory be eternal.

Daniel McAdams
May 27, 2016

Most Americans would think that after 9/11 and the four trillion dollar, 15 year “war on terror” that followed, the US government might actually wish to prevent individuals from visiting the country who are affiliated with al-Qaeda. Sadly, they would be wrong.

The McClatchy News Service reports that Labib al Nahhas, an official in the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamist fighting group Ahrar al Sham, was granted a visa to enter the US for a brief visit.

In a recent State Department press briefing, one journalist questioned Department Spokesman Mark Toner about the purported visit. “Were US officials aware of this visit?” asked the journalist.

State Department Spokesman Mark Toner replied in an almost bored tone of voice: “I’m not sure that we were aware of it. I don’t think he had any meetings here [in the State Department]…and I can’t speak to visa records, [due to] privacy considerations.”

After being told that trillions of dollars had to be spent to prevent another 9/11 an official of a group affiliated with the organization that did 9/11 comes to the United States and the US government is not “not sure we were aware of it”?

Read more

Published on 29 November 2014
The Mind Renewed

For this important interview we welcome Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer and 9/11 researcher, who joins us for a detailed discussion on crucial evidence that, in the words of his research group, “clearly demonstrate(s) that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent.”

With the group’s recently-published white paper as our focus, “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports” which lists 25 Points seriously challenging NIST’s work in this area, we discuss striking new evidence demonstrating that NIST intentionally omitted significant structural components from its analysis of Building 7, and explore the almost inescapable conclusion that this was done in order to avoid the explanation of controlled demolition. We also discuss the potential these findings might have for legal action.

(Tony Szamboti is a U.S. Navy Veteran, he holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Villanova University, and has worked predominantly in the Aerospace industry for the last 28 years.)

Read more

May 27, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts

The forever changing 9/11 story is entering a new phase. Blame is being transferred from Osama bin Laden to the Saudi Arabian government.

There are 28 pages classified secret of a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that allegedly found Saudi financial support for the alleged 9/11 hijackers. Neither the George W. Bush nor the Obama regimes would release the classified pages. Only a few members of Congress have been permited to read it, and they are not permitted to speak about it. Nevertheless, Congress now has before it the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act which, if passed, permits families of victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue the Saudi Arabian government for damages. In other words, although Congress has no information except rumor with which to support the bill, Congress is going ahead. Obama says if Congress passes the bill, he will veto it.

The refusal to declassify the evidence against the Saudis and the veto threat have put many commentators in high dudgeon.

What is going on here?

Read more

By Tom Wyke for MailOnline and Associated Press
25 May 2016

The Senate’s unanimous passing of legislation that allows families of September 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia may not be as groundbreaking as it was first believed.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) was initially reported as being a chance for the families to pursue damages from the Saudi government but now it has emerged a clause was inserted to water down the bill’s power.

The wording of the loophole states the Secretary of State just has to engage ‘in good-faith discussions with the foreign-state defendant concerning the resolution of claims against the foreign state,’ according to the NY Post.

It had been feared the legislation would trigger potential diplomatic issues with Riyadh, which was threatening to pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, if the bill is enacted.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Senate passed legislation Tuesday, May 17, 2016, that would allow families of September 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister (pictured May 9), told Washington that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750bn in treasury securities and other assets in the U.S. before they could be frozen by American courts

The legislation, sponsored by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., gives victims’ families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks that killed thousands in New York, the Washington, D.C. area and Pennsylvania.

The House still must act on the legislation. However the loophole means that the legal action only requires discussion with Saudi Arabia.

Relatives of September 11 victims have urged the Obama administration to declassify and release U.S. intelligence that allegedly discusses possible Saudi involvement in the attacks.

Passage of the bill on Tuesday sends the message that the United States ‘will combat terrorism with every tool we have available, and that the victims of terrorist attacks in our country should have every means at their disposal to seek justice,’ Cornyn said.

Schumer said that any foreign government that aids terrorists who strike the U.S. ‘will pay a price if it is proven they have done so’.

Senate Democrats had firmly supported the legislation, putting them at odds with the Obama administration.

Read more

May 25, 2016
by Paul Craig Roberts

Having successfully used the EU to conquer the Greek people by turning the Greek “leftwing” government into a pawn of Germany’s banks, Germany now finds the IMF in the way of its plan to loot Greece into oblivion .

The IMF’s rules prevent the organization from lending to countries that cannot repay the loan. The IMF has concluded on the basis of facts and analysis that Greece cannot repay. Therefore, the IMF is unwilling to lend Greece the money with which to repay the private banks.

The IMF says that Greece’s creditors, many of whom are not creditors but simply bought up Greek debt at a cheap price in hopes of profiting, must write off some of the Greek debt in order to lower the debt to an amount that the Greek economy can service.

The banks don’t want Greece to be able to service its debt, because the banks intend to use Greece’s inability to service the debt in order to loot Greece of its assets and resources and in order to roll back the social safety net put in place during the 20th century. Neoliberalism intends to reestablish feudalism—a few robber barons and many serfs: the One Percent and the 99 percent.

Read more

Pepe Escobar
22 May, 2016

So foreign ministers from the 28 NATO member-nations met in Brussels for a two-day summit, while mighty military power Montenegro was inducted as a new member.

Global Robocop NATO predictably discussed Afghanistan (a war NATO ignominiously lost); Iraq (a war the Pentagon ignominiously lost); Libya (a nation NATO turned into a failed state devastated by militia hell); Syria (a nation NATO, via Turkey, would love to invade, and is already a militia hell).

Afghans must now rest assured that NATO’s Resolute Support mission – plus “financial support for Afghan forces” – will finally assure the success of Operation Enduring Freedom forever.

Libyans must be reassured, in the words of NATO figurehead secretary Jens Stoltenberg, that we “should stand ready to support the new Government of National Accord in Libya.”

And then there’s the icing on the NATO cake, described as “measures against Russia”.

Stoltenberg duly confirmed, “We have already decided to enhance our forward presence in the eastern part of our alliance. Our military planners have put forward proposals of several battalions in different countries in the region. No decision has been taken on the numbers and locations.”

These puny “several battalions” won’t cause any Russian planner to lose sleep. The real “measure” is the deployment of the Aegis Ashore system in Romania last week – plus a further one in Poland in 2018. This has been vehemently opposed by Moscow since the early 2000s. NATO’s argument that the Aegis represents protection against the “threat” of ballistic missiles from Iran does not even qualify as kindergarten play.

Every Russian military planner knows the Aegis is not defensive. This is a serious game-changer – as in de-localizing US nuclear capability to Eastern Europe. No wonder Russian President Vladimir Putin had to make it clear Russia would respond “adequately” to any threat to its security.

Predictably all Cold War 2.0 hell broke loose, all over again.

A former NATO deputy commander went ballistic, while saner heads wondered whether Moscow, sooner rather than later, would have had enough of these shenanigans and prepare for war.

Read more

May 23, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts

As readers know, I have seen some optimism in voters support for Trump and Sanders as neither are members of the corrupt Republican and Democratic political establishments. Members of both political establishments enrich themselves by betraying the American people and serving only the interest of the One Percent. The American people are being driven into the ground purely for the sake of more mega-billions for a handful of super-rich people.

Neither political party is capable of doing anything whatsoever about it, and neither will.

The optimism that I see is that the public’s support of outsiders is an indication that the insouciant public is waking up. But Americans will have to do more than wake up, as they cannot rescue themselves via the voting booth. In my opinion, the American people will remain serfs until they wake up to Revolution.

Today Americans exist as a conquered people. They have lost the Bill of Rights, the amendments to the Constitution that protect their liberty. Anyone, other than the One Percent and their political and legal servants, can be picked up without charges and detained indefinitely as during the Dark Ages, when government was unaccountable and no one had any rights. Only those with power were safe. In America today anyone not politically protected can be declared “associated with terrorism” and taken out by a Hellfire missile from a drone on the basis of a list of human targets drawn up by the president’s advisers. Due process, guaranteed by the US Constitution, no longer exists in the United States of America. Neither does the constitutional prohibition against the government spying on citizens without just cause and a court warrant. The First Amendment itself, whose importance was emphasized by our Founding Fathers by making it the First Amendment, is no longer protected by the corrupt Supreme Court. The Nine who comprise the Supreme Court, like the rest of the bought-and-paid-for-government, serve only the One Percent. Truth-tellers have become “an enemy of the state.” Whistleblowers are imprisoned despite their legal protection in US law.

Read more

March 20, 2016
The New Observer

A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the “best way to help Israel.”
In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the “right thing” to personally threaten Bashar Assad’s family with death.

In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government.

The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012.

The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.

Read more

May 20, 2016
By Finian Cunningham
Strategic Culture Foundation

America is exceptional alright. It is the most frightened nation on Earth, subjected to hysterical propaganda over decades warning about foreign enemies and ideologies. No wonder its supposed democratic freedom is in so appallingly bad shape, when the preponderant population is imprisoned by their rulers in a virtual cage of fear.

Paradoxically, though, the dissonance of supposed freedom could not be more abysmal. At a press conference at the Cannes film festival last week American screen actor George Clooney digressed from his latest movie to talk about Republican presidential contender Donald Trump. Clooney, who is well known for his liberal brand of US politics and a big supporter of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, predicted that rightwing business tycoon Trump would not win the forthcoming November presidential contest.

Clooney dismissed Trump as a demagogue sowing fear and divisive tensions along racial and xenophobic lines. Which is fair enough. Of interest here is not so much the actor’s views on Trump’s chances of political success. Rather, it is Clooney’s premise that Americans would not succumb to reactionary fear peddling.

Seated at the press conference alongside his American co-star Julia Roberts and film director Jody Foster, Clooney told his Cannes audience: «Fear is not going to drive our country… we’re not afraid of anything».

Well, sorry George, but you are dead wrong on that score. Fear is the paramount emotional driver in American politics since at least the Second World War, and probably decades before that too.

Contrary to Clooney’s bravado, Americans are very, very afraid.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud