Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Tag: Pentagon

In modern Western societies, if a new idea is covered in a serious way on television or in the newspaper, then, and only then, is it considered “real.” Well, at least it becomes discussable in polite company.

Part 21: The Role of the Media: Act I
by Frances T. Shure
Dec. 30, 2017
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

“The primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time.”1 — Statement of Principles by the American Society of Newspaper Editors

What is wrong with the Western media? Why have they not jumped at the opportunity to cover the scoop of the century — the wealth of crystal-clear evidence that proves the government has been lying about the attacks of September 11, 2001, for the past sixteen years?

That’s a question many of us in the 9/11 Truth community have wrestled with — even agonized over — ever since that world-changing, tragic day.

Consider, then, how much more investigative journalists, who are trained to delve for truth and adhere to the above-cited principles of their profession, have been agonizing — not just since 9/11, but for decades — over the disastrous breakdown of the press. Some of them have written volumes about their frustration and disillusionment, and in those volumes they have analyzed the causes of that breakdown.

Now that I’ve read their plethora of analyses probing what has gone wrong with the Western press, how can I possibly summarize these investigative journalists’ conclusions so that my readers will understand the enormity of the problem?

British journalist and media critic Nick Davies sums up my dilemma with this astute observation:

. . . there is a deeper difficulty that, since we are talking about the failure of the media on a global scale, the problem is simply too big to be measured with any accuracy. It is like an ant trying to measure an elephant.2

Precisely.

Nonetheless, because the role of the media is arguably the most powerful reason why good people become silent — or worse — about 9/11, I will do my best to measure and describe this elephant.

I will approach the subject as if we — my readers and I — are attending a courtroom hearing, listening to the testimony of one witness after another. In this courtroom, all of our witnesses are award-winning journalists and/or whistleblowers-turned-journalists. Each of them has a distinguished track record of truth-telling. After we listen to them present their evidence, which they have laid out in numerous books, articles, and interviews, I will attempt to distill this testimony into a simple summary of the key reasons for the media censorship we observe today.

Then, based on this summary, I will explain why there has been no serious truth-seeking in the mainstream media’s coverage of the September 11, 2001, events. The same case can be made, unfortunately, for the absence of truth-telling in much of the alternative media. My focus will be on the American media, but there will be occasional references to the international media, which likewise have refused to violate the taboo against questioning the official account of 9/11.

The next four installments — or “acts” — of this series will focus on the media. (The terms “media” and “press” will be used interchangeably throughout.) I will explore such topics as:

  • Who and what are the obstacles to reporting on the most critical story of the 21st century?
  • Is there any chance the topic of 9/11 will ever be seriously broached and honestly investigated by the media anytime soon?
  • What is the history of the media?
  • How have the institutions charged with delivering the news changed over time?
  • How do we recognize propaganda and disinformation?
  • How do we ferret out the truth in a world where mendacity and calumny are the norm?
  • Finally, what are the solutions to this dismal failure of the media to fulfill its primary duty — namely, to report the truth — so that citizens can make informed decisions?

To illustrate the depth of the problem, I will tell a story about my encounter with a well-socialized American who holds a firm faith in the unfettered freedom of this country’s press.

Read more

Proliferating enemies with no end in sight

Philip Giraldi
December 26, 2017
Unz Review

The end of the year is full of goodies. I watched with glee the 128 to 9 vote at the United Nations condemning the Trump Administration decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and was even more amused when the Associated Press and the New York Post tried to twist the story into a victory for the United States and Israel because the outcome might have been even more lopsided. CNN’s Jake Tapper, a vocal critic of Trump in nearly everything, also cheered the White House decision, demonstrating once again that loyalty to his tribe is more important to him than doing the right thing for the American people.

Also last week I watched what had been described as President Donald Trump’s annual National Security Strategy (NSS) review speech, the first he has given since assuming office. Having missed the first two minutes while letting our bulldog Dudley out for routine maintenance, I came back and wondered if someone had changed the channel. Trump was going on and on in what appeared to be a campaign speech, talking about the failures of the Obama Administration before proceeding to describe how wonderful and safer everything is now that he is president.

While I am not terribly enamored of the Obama record on national security, particularly its targeted killings and its stealth wars, what turned out to be the Trump rebuttal was not what I expected, rather like a cheap shot directed against someone who can no longer respond effectively. President Trump did eventually get around to talking about national security but the presentation was clearly aimed at pleasing what Trump views as his most solid group of supporters, i.e. American voters who tend to see, as he does, the world as a place where enemies and threats prevail, requiring an always truculent response and an overwhelming military to back up the words.

Most Americans who watched the speech were probably unaware that it was a much-shortened version of a congressionally mandated 68 page long document that was put out simultaneously by the White House entitled National Security Strategy of the United States of America December 2017. The speech, its Jeremiad at the beginning aside, only partly reflected the document and in some cases actually contradicted it.

Both the speech and document were broken down into four broad categories: I. Protect the American People, the Homeland, and the American Way of Life; II. Promote American Prosperity; III. Preserve Peace Through Strength; and IV. Advance American Influence. I was particularly interested in hearing what the administration would actually do and was hoping that the speech would avoid bromides and generalized commentary. In fact, there was a lot of chest thumping and relatively little in the way of pledges for action.

Read more

Trump Seen Upset at Not Getting Mideast Support at UN Vote

Jason Ditz
December 22, 2017
Antiwar.com

One day after a massive Thursday loss at the UN General Assembly on the Jerusalem issue, President Trump complained on Twitter that the US “foolishly spent $7 trillion in the Middle East,” suggesting the focus needed to shift to US infrastructure.

This comment was perceived by some reporters as being about Trump’s threat to withdraw foreign aid from countries that voted against him at the UN, as well as lamenting how little influence the US had actually bought.

Of course, the $7 trillion is mostly not foreign aid, but military spending, and as President Trump is always eager to remind people, he is particularly supportive of massive military increases, and has continued and escalated overseas operations, largely in the Middle East, since taking office.

Trump has, however, been fond of presenting the money spent on the Middle East as a waste, making a similar claim back in February, albeit when it was just $6 trillion, and complaining then that the US didn’t get a single oil well out of all that war.

It is still noteworthy, however, that President Trump does have these moments of reflection, wherein he actually tries to assess what the US has gotten out of all this spending in the Middle East.

It is disheartening, at the same time, that he is able to ascertain that the money was wasted, but has no intentions of not continuing to squander money at an increased rate in the Middle East.

“If I can help the next generation to fight for the truth, I’ll certainly do that.”Drew DePalma

Sixteen Years After Losing His Mother on 9/11, Drew DePalma is Ready to Speak Out

By Craig McKee
Dec. 21, 2017
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

It is just one story of thousands from that day. But for Drew DePalma, it’s the one that forced him to grow up very quickly.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the then-17-year-old lost his mother in the destruction of the World Trade Center’s North Tower. Jean C. DePalma was one of 295 employees of Marsh & McLennan Companies who were among those killed in the event that would be used to launch the so-called “War on Terror,” which continues to this day.

Now, shortly after his 34th birthday, the events of 9/11 may change Drew DePalma’s life again, but this time in a very different — and more positive — way. The New Jersey resident has chosen to speak out about his growing suspicions concerning the world-changing event that claimed his mother’s life. Now, for the first time, he is coming to the conclusion that the official story we’ve been told about 9/11 is not true.

Remarkably, DePalma’s re-evaluation of 9/11 began little more than a month ago, when he was attending the Greenbuild International Conference and Expo in Boston (November 8 and 9). As he walked among the booths of companies involved in sustainable building, he came across one operated by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which was participating in the trade show for the first time.

DePalma, who has a Bachelor of Science degree, runs an MEP engineering firm (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) that designs heating, cooling, electrical, and other types of systems. The knowledge he has gained through his job, he explains, helped pique his interest in what AE911Truth has to say about the scientific evidence. He came back the next day to sign the AE911Truth petition.

“I had no idea that the push for an independent investigation was still going on,” he says. “I had no idea there was a whole organization of architects and engineers fighting for the truth. Architects and engineers are not people you tend to think of spinning conspiracy theories. If they are fighting for something, there must be some sort of science behind it.”

After his introduction to 9/11 truth, he realized that he felt compelled to help, so he has joined the organization’s advocacy for a new investigation of 9/11 — in particular, its effort to advance the Bobby McIlvaine Act, which calls on Congress to launch a new investigation. DePalma says he is looking forward to meeting passionate 9/11 truth activist Bob McIlvaine, whose son Bobby was killed by a powerful explosion as he was entering the lobby of the North Tower.

Read more

December 19, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

What do we make of Trump’s national security speech? First of all, it is the military/security complex’s speech, and it is inconsistent with Trump’s intention of normalizing relations with Russia.

The military/security complex, using Trump’s position as President, has defined Russia and China as “revisionist powers,” Washington’s rivals who seek to put their own national interests ahead of Washington’s unilateralism. Russia and China are “revisionist powers” because their assertion of their national interests limits Washington’s hegemony.

In other words, Washington does not accept the validity of other countries’ interests if those interests are contrary to Washington’s interests. So, how does Trump expect to work with Russia and China when he reads a speech that Russia and China seek to “shape a world antithetical to our interests and values.”

“Our values” means, of course, Washington’s dominance.

Trump begins by honoring the military, police, Homeland Security, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In other words, “America first” means domination by Washington over the citizenry as well as over foreign countries.

Trump then cloaks himself in the American people who “voted to make America great again.”

Then Trump’s speech picks up the Israel Lobby’s line about a bad deal with Iran and asserts that previous administrations tolerated ISIS, when in fact they created it and set in upon Libya and Syria.

Read more

By Arjun Walia
Lew Rockwell.com
December 18, 2017

“All three buildings were destroyed by carefully planned, orchestrated and executed controlled demolition.”

– Professor Lynn Margulis, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and National Academy of Science member, one of many academics who has been very outspoken regarding 9/11 (source) (source)

Are the government, its allies, and the ones who who sit above governments and dictate most decisions and government policy (corporations and financial institutions, comprising the Deep State), lying to us? It’s far from a conspiracy to think so. If we look at 9/11 (one of many examples), approximately 50% of Americans don’t believe the official explanation of their government, and why should they? Since 9/11, several pieces of evidence have emerged suggesting that something fishy happened here, and “the powers that be” may have been responsible. In fact, if we look at just how much information and evidence has emerged, it’s almost impossible to say there was not any foul play. Perhaps this is why the U.S. government continually refused to re-open the investigation. The type of information and evidence mentioned, by the way, receives very little if not zero attention from mainstream media.

What really happened that day? Who really knows for sure, but imagine your own government creating an event in order to justify the invasion of multiple countries in the Middle East. This is what seems to have happened, and it’s called false flag terrorism, something more and more people are becoming aware of.

What also lends more credence to the theory of false flag terrorism is the fact that terrorism organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS have had a long history of relationships with Western intelligence agencies. These groups are commonly funded and armed by Western intelligence agencies. This was one of the topics of discussion a few years ago at the International Conference on the New World Order, which was organized and sponsored by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation, where academics and politicians discussed these ties.

A couple of years ago at the G20 summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed 40 different countries that have ties to, or are directly funding the terrorist organization known as ISIS (read more about that here), and multiple high ranking United States Defence personnel have come out and said they have absolutely no reason to invade Iraq. General Wesley Clark stated that it’s the perception of the United States that they have a powerful military and can “take down governments.”

The global elite tend to call this globalization, but it’s really infiltration and invasion. Our own intelligence agencies have infiltrated multiple elections and governments, installing a presence that best fits their own needs back home. The Middle East is littered with U.S. military bases.

(clip)

Read more

By Doug Casey
International Man
December 16, 2017

Is a police state in the US possible? Absolutely.

That’s because people are essentially the same the world over, regardless of their culture, religion, race, or what-have-you. A certain percentage of them are sociopaths.

There is a standard distribution of sociopaths across time and space. It’s a function of Pareto’s Law, better known as the 80-20 rule. 20% of the people do 80% of the work. Another 20% are responsible for 80% of the crime. 20% of the population always winds up with 80% of the wealth. And so forth, through all areas of human endeavor. This observation can be represented by a bell-shaped curve—a “standard distribution”—with a small minority at each extreme, but the large majority in the middle. The people who will take us to a police state are sociopaths—criminal personalities who don’t respect the liberty or property of others. And sociopaths gravitate towards government, and eventually come to control it.

My view is that 80% of human beings are basically decent, get along, go along types. 20% are what you might call potential trouble sources, that can go either way. But then you take 20% of that 20% and you’re dealing with the sociopaths.

When social conditions reach a certain stage these really bad guys come out from under their rocks and take advantage of the situation. We’re seeing that right now in the US, across the political spectrum. Just as we’ve seen in the past in hundreds of places throughout history.

A major tipping point occurred sixteen years ago, on September 11, 2001, with the attacks in New York and Washington. They were disastrous. But not nearly as disastrous as the government’s reaction to them.

Among them the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Anybody that speaks German knows that a reasonable translation of Homeland Security is Geheime Staatspolizei, which is usually abbreviated to Gestapo. Anybody that goes through airline security these days should ask themselves, “Where the hell did they find these people? Didn’t they have jobs before they went to work for this moronic agency?” The answer is that there are people out there who like wearing costumes, are willing to boss, herd, interrogate, and go through the dirty laundry of their fellow citizens. They take their jobs seriously and you better not even look at them sideways. There’s no reason to believe it’s going to get better as they groove into their jobs, and their employer cements itself into place. More likely the trend will accelerate.

Read more

Three Engineers—Geotechnical, Chemical, and Structural—Tell Their Stories

By Laurie Sihvonen, Michael DeFilippo, and Andrew Grasso
Dec. 15, 2017
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Now that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is closing in on 3,000 architect and engineer petition signers, we are taking this opportunity to introduce our readers to some of the individuals who make up the ranks of our building and technical professionals.

Below are profiles of three engineers who have added their name to the petition. In so doing, they lend their expertise and credentials to our call for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

After you read their stories, let us know if you’d like to meet more of our engineers and architects!

Anthony Lusich, ASCE, Geotechnical Engineer

Anthony Lusich studied civil engineering at the University of Southern California, earning his Bachelor of Science degree in 1975. Subsequently specializing in geotechnical engineering, he has centered his career on the design and building of structural foundations in the Bakersfield area of California. Now a senior engineer at Kleinfelder, a civil engineering firm in San Diego, Lusich has facilitated residential, commercial, and institutional construction and has also contributed to various transportation, oilfield, and water-related projects.

Lusich is active in the engineering and local business communities. For the last eight or nine years, he has served as Kern County Chapter president of the American Council of Engineering Companies; as a member of the board of directors of the Kern Transportation Foundation; as treasurer of the Kern County Branch of the American Public Works Association; and as a member of the Government Review Council of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce. He is an affiliate of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and has been a fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for over 40 years.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Lusich observed the North and South towers of the World Trade Center collapse while watching news coverage of the jet impacts on television. He remembers: “I was definitely not expecting either collapse. While watching the towers burn, I had no educated suspicion that the buildings would inevitably fall.”

Asked if he recalls whether the collapses seemed plausible at the time, Lusich admits that his “consternation precluded any thoughts either way.” Such a reaction is unsurprising, given that most people glued to their TV sets that morning — building and technical professionals included — were in a state of shock, recalls AE911Truth founder Richard Gage.

As the years elapsed and Lusich’s memories of that fateful day faded, he came to accept the findings of the initial investigations. But in the last two years, he began to doubt the official narrative. Prompted by his daughter, he decided to take a look at the investigative work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Read more

A new cabinet will mark neocon ascendancy

Philip Giraldi
December 12, 2017
The Unz Review

Back during the admittedly brief shock and awe period that immediately followed on the Trump electoral victory, it appeared that there might be an actual realignment of American foreign policy. The neoconservatives virtually unanimously had opposed Donald Trump in the most vile terms, both in the GOP primaries and during the actual electoral campaign, making clear that Hillary was their choice for a future full of unrelenting, ideologically driven warfare to convert the world to democracy. By that metric, one would assume that Trump would prefer to be roasted on a spit rather than have neocons on his national security team, and many in the punditry did agree with that analysis and went on to share that view.

At the time, I agreed, but I did note that the neoconservatives have proven to be remarkable resilient, particularly as many of them have remained true to their Democratic Party values on nearly everything but foreign policy, where they are irredeemable hawks, hostile to Russia and Iran and always reliably in the corner of Israel. In short, many neocons can be unmasked as Hillary Clinton Democrats if one looks at them issue by issue, which certainly helps to explain some subsequent developments.

Some Washington observers who actually care about such things have been writing how there has been a kumbaya process going on between self-described conservative neocons and liberal interventionists. Katrina vanden Heuvel describes the progressive hawks as “the essential-country crowd,” borrowing a phrase from ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

There are inevitably minor disconnects between the two groups based on their motives for aggression – Democrats claim to do it to bring democracy and freedom while Republicans say they do it to enhance national security. Both are lying in any event as it all comes down to great power rivalries, with big powerful nations pushing smaller weaker nations around because they are able to get away with it and feel more comfortable if everyone lines up behind them.

So everyone in Washington and New York’s financial services industry agrees that a more assertive America is a better America even when the reality is that no one winds up with either democracy or security. Which brings us to the latest shuffle in the Donald Trump cabinet and what it is likely to mean down the road. Multiple sources are predicting Tillerson out and Mike Pompeo in at State Department with Pompeo replaced at CIA by Senator Tom Cotton. The White House is denying the story, calling it “fake news,” but it is clear that Trump is uncomfortable with the current arrangement and Tillerson will be gone sooner or later.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud