Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Tag: Insider trading

Glenn Greenwald
April 7 2017
The Intercept

In every type of government, nothing unites people behind the leader more quickly, reflexively or reliably than war. Donald Trump now sees how true that is, as the same establishment leaders in U.S. politics and media who have spent months denouncing him as a mentally unstable and inept authoritarian and unprecedented threat to democracy are standing and applauding him as he launches bombs at Syrian government targets.

Trump, on Thursday night, ordered an attack that the Pentagon said included the launching of 59 Tomahawk missiles which “targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars.” The governor of Homs, the Syrian province where the attack occurred, said early this morning that the bombs killed seven civilians and wounded nine.

The Pentagon’s statement said the attack was “in retaliation for the regime of Bashar Assad using nerve agents to attack his own people.” Both Syria and Russia vehemently deny that the Syrian military used chemical weapons.

When asked about this yesterday by the Globe and Mail’s Joanna Slater, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged an investigation to determine what actually happened before any action was contemplated, citing what he called “continuing questions about who is responsible”:

But U.S. war fever waits for nothing. Once the tidal wave of American war frenzy is unleashed, questioning the casus belli is impermissible. Wanting conclusive evidence before bombing commences is vilified as sympathy with and support for the foreign villain (the same way that asking for evidence of claims against Russia instantly converts one into a “Kremlin agent” or “stooge”).

Read more

The 2017 WTC 7 Resolution

AIA-Resolution-Upcoming

For the third year in a row, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has rallied members of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to submit a resolution that calls upon the AIA to officially support a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001.

The resolution, which can be found on page 34 of the Delegate Information Booklet, will be debated and voted on by hundreds of delegates at the AIA’s annual business meeting — before the start of the Orlando convention — on Wednesday, April 26.
Why Support a New WTC 7 Investigation?

As the largest association of architects in the world — with some 90,000 members — the AIA is a respected voice on matters concerning the built environment and on larger issues such as social equity and human rights. The AIA routinely weighs in on the challenges facing our society, and the message it sends matters a great deal to our political leaders and to millions of Americans.

When it comes to understanding what happened on September 11, 2001 — a day that reshaped our world — architects are uniquely qualified to contribute to the ongoing debate.

At 5:20 PM, the 47-story WTC 7 fell completely and symmetrically into its own footprint in the manner of a textbook controlled demolition. Seven years later, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that the collapse was due to normal office fires (which had never before brought down a steel-frame high-rise). But today thousands of architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation.

For more on why the AIA should support a new investigation, we invite you to read lead sponsor Daniel Barnum’s letter to the AIA membership.

Read more

By Daniel Larison
April 6, 2017
The American Conservative

The destruction of Syria: made in America? (Volodymyr Borodin / Shutterstock.com)

The case for attacking the Syrian government remains as weak and unpersuasive as ever, and the reasons not to do it make much more sense. Regardless, Trump appears to be seriously considering launching an illegal attack on the Syrian government on the dubious grounds that “something should happen.” I have talked about the potential dangers of such an attack for years, so regular readers will already be very familiar with what I’m going to say, but I will offer a quick summary of why the attack shouldn’t happen.

The U.S. has no authority or right to strike at the Syrian government without U.N. authorization, and that authorization won’t be forthcoming. Despite the conceit that the U.S. is the world’s “policeman,” our government has no right to launch a war against another government because of its alleged war crimes. Possible strikes are being described as a punitive measure, but our government is not the world’s appointed executioner and our military should not be used for that purpose. Put simply, attacking the Syrian government would be illegal, which would be all the more ridiculous when the attack is being carried out ostensibly in the name of upholding international order.

The U.S. cannot pretend that it is enforcing any U.N. resolutions, and it is not acting in self-defense or the defense of a treaty ally. An attack on the Syrian government would also be difficult to justify in other terms. There is little likelihood that an attack would deter further use of chemical weapons, and it is more likely to help drag out and intensify the current conflict rather than hasten its end. If the ultimate goal is or becomes regime change, that will produce even greater evils than the ones the attack is supposed to prevent. Even if regime change is not the goal, it is difficult to see how killing more Syrians makes anything better. Joining in the carnage in Syria will not help the civilian population, but will most likely subject them to additional suffering. Insofar as an attack significantly weakens the regime, it would benefit only jihadists and their allies, and doing that makes no sense.

Read more

USAWatchdog.com
March 5, 2017

Read more

by Patrick J. Buchanan
April 04, 2017
Antiwar.com

“If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.”

So President Donald Trump warns, amid reports North Korea, in its zeal to build an intercontinental ballistic missile to hit our West Coast, may test another atom bomb.

China shares a border with North Korea. We do not.

Why then is this our problem to “solve”? And why is North Korea building a rocket that can cross the Pacific and strike Seattle or Los Angeles?

Is Kim Jong Un mad?

No. He is targeting us because we have 28,500 troops on his border. If U.S. air, naval, missile and ground forces were not in and around Korea, and if we were not treaty-bound to fight alongside South Korea, there would be no reason for Kim to build rockets to threaten a distant superpower that could reduce his hermit kingdom to ashes.

While immensely beneficial to Seoul, is this U.S. guarantee to fight Korean War II, 64 years after the first wise? Russia, China and Japan retain the freedom to decide whether and how to react, should war break out. Why do we not?

Would it not be better for us if we, too, retained full freedom of action to decide how to respond, should the North attack?

During the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, despite John McCain’s channeling Patrick Henry – “We are all Georgians now!” – George W. Bush decided to take a pass on war. When a mob in Kiev overthrew the pro-Russian government, Vladimir Putin secured his Sebastopol naval base by annexing Crimea.

Read more

Trump Giving Commanders Increasing Autonomy to Conduct Operations

by Jason Ditz
April 02, 2017
Antiwar.com

While most of the talk about the Pentagon’s proposals for various wars to President Trump has focused on requests for more troops in more countries, a much less publicized effort has also been getting rubber stamped, one giving commanders in those wars increasing autonomy on operations.

Buried in the details of almost every proposal from Iraq and Syria to smaller operations like US troops in Yemen and Somalia, there is always a mention of commanders wanting to be able to conduct strikes at will, both airstrikes and ground raids.

This has been a change that the Pentagon has been quite eager to seek, after years of complaining about President Obama “micromanaging” the various US wars, but it appears they may be trying to get a much broader collection of grants of autonomy than they’ve ever been granted before.

While President Trump is eager to make such moves early on to show that he is “listening to the generals,” granting so much autonomy to the military to fight its own wars without political oversight is risky business, since the president will ultimately be held responsible for what the military does.

The long term ramifications could be even more dangerous, as it further distances America’s direct foreign interventions from politicians, and by extension from the voters, turning the details of major military operations into little more than bureaucratic details for career military brass.

These major changes are happening in almost complete silence, as while there have been mentions of the Pentagon seeking these new authorities, always as an afterthought to getting more troops, there is little to no interest in debating the question.
Last 5

by Jacob G. Hornberger
March 30, 2017
Antiwar.com

On March 21 — 9 days ago — I published an article entitled “Prepare Now for Blowback,” in which I pointed out what would seem to be obvious to any reasonable person after some 27 continuous years of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East and 16 continuous years of interventionism in Afghanistan: that some people who sympathize with the people who the U.S. government is killing, bombing, and destroying are going to retaliate with terrorist attacks. It’s just a fact of interventionist life.

I suggested that people should ponder the blowback from U.S foreign policy now, when things are relatively calm, because when another big retaliatory terrorist attack occurs here in the United States, rational thinking is going to be in short supply. That’s when U.S. officials will be exclaiming about how the terrorists (or the Muslims) hate us for our freedom and values and will be completely ignoring the role that U.S. interventionism plays in producing the deep anger and hatred that motivates acts of anti-American revenge.

Back on December 1, 2016, I published an article entitled, “OSU’s Foreign Policy Blowback,” in which I commented on how large crowds of people on sidewalks in Las Vegas were an inviting target for a terrorist vehicle attack. I wrote: “There was nothing local authorities in Las Vegas could do to prevent a car going at top speed from plowing into the throng of people on some sidewalk on the strip.”

A couple of weeks later, on December 19, 2016, a terrorist intentionally drove a giant truck into a crowded market in Berlin with the intent to kill as many people as possible. He succeeded in killing 12.

Then, last week, two days after I published my March 21 article, a terrorist struck in London by intentionally driving a sport utility vehicle into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, killing four and injuring dozens more.

No, I am not some sort of Nostradamus or psychic who is able to predict the future. It’s just a matter of logic and common sense. When a government goes abroad and kills, maims, bombs, assassinates, and destroys individuals, wedding parties, families and homes, businesses, and properties, there are likely to be some people who get angry about that.

Of course, from the standpoint of the U.S. government, the ideal is that foreign citizens passively and submissively accept their death and and destruction as simply their plight in life.

But that ideal is not reality. The fact is that people tend to get angry when a foreign regime invades their lands and kills, maims, bombs, and destroys people, businesses, and country, and some of them inevitably decide to retaliate.

Read more

Administrator’s Note: The Rockefellers were very much part of the 9/11 conspiracy as detailed by Aaron Russo in an interview shortly before his death. See the second video below.

March 28, 2017
The Corbett Report

Source and Notes

by Patrick J. Buchanan
March 31, 2017
Antiwar.com

“If we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time.

“On the world stage, who could vie with him?”

So asks Chris Caldwell of the Weekly Standard in a remarkable essay in Hillsdale College’s March issue of its magazine, Imprimis.

What elevates Putin above all other 21st-century leaders?

“When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that.

“In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.”

Putin’s approval rating, after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin’s appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Trump’s?

Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind’s future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization.

What they abhorred, Putin abhorred. He is a God-and-country Russian patriot. He rejects the New World Order established at the Cold War’s end by the United States. Putin puts Russia first.

And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism.

The U.S. establishment loathes Putin because, they say, he is an aggressor, a tyrant, a “killer.” He invaded and occupies Ukraine. His old KGB comrades assassinate journalists, defectors and dissidents.

Read more

The U.S. doesn’t have enough troops to run a successful counterinsurgency campaign there.

By Charles V. Peña
March 22, 2017
The American Conservative

According to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the situation in Afghanistan is a “stalemate” that “will require additional U.S. and coalition forces.” The senators cite testimony by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, to the Senate Armed Services Committee in which he said he needed several thousand more troops. There are currently about 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus another 6,300 troops from other countries. So will a few thousand more soldiers—presumably American—make a difference?

The clear answer is no.

The rule of thumb for successful counterinsurgency—largely practiced by the British—is a requirement of 20 troops per 1,000 civilians, which is the standard set in the U.S. Army’s counterinsurgency manual. With a population of about 32 million, that means a force of 640,000 troops would be needed in Afghanistan. (For a sense of scale, consider that the total U.S. Army active duty force is less than 500,000 soldiers). Indeed, you would probably have to combine the whole of the U.S. Army with the entire Afghan army of 183,000 soldiers to meet the requirement. Adding a couple thousand troops to some 15,000 U.S. and coalition forces already in Afghanistan is hardly enough.

To be fair to Senators McCain and Graham, it’s not all of Afghanistan that requires counterinsurgency operations. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, out of the country’s 407 districts, 133 are contested and another 41 are either under insurgent control or influence. These represent a population of almost 12 million people, which would require 240,000 troops. Even this would be a bridge too far for U.S. and coalition forces. If the entire Afghan army—a little less than 200,000 soldiers—shouldered the bulk of responsibility, it would still require another 25,000 U.S. and coalition troops beyond those currently deployed in Afghanistan.

But counterinsurgency is more than just troop levels. Successful counterinsurgency requires the use of harsh—even brutal—and indiscriminate military force to impose security and order. Again, the British example is a good one, such as when their forces put down the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s. The problem with such tactics is that while such action may kill the enemy, it also all too often results in killing innocent civilians, no matter how hard we try to avoid collateral damage. Last year, air strikes caused 590 civilian casualties, including 250 deaths, nearly double the number in 2015 and the highest since 2009. More recently, air strikes in the Helmand province are believed to have killed more than a dozen civilians, mostly women and children.

The inevitable result of this collateral damage is alienation of the civilian population, which makes them more sympathetic to the insurgents. Indeed, this is one of the most important lessons of the last decade and a half.

Most importantly, the threat in Afghanistan doesn’t warrant a continued U.S. military presence.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud