Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

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

Archive

Tag: Phony war on terror

March 5, 2015
by Paul Craig Roberts

John Pilger is the kind of well-informed, hard-hitting journalist with gobs of integrity that no longer exists in the Western mainstream media. He has the most distinguished career of all in the business.

In the article below he brings stunning information to one of my own themes–the creation by Washington and its NATO vassals of an artificial reality consisting entirely of propaganda into which Washington has placed the entire Western world and all outside who inspire to be part of it. Westerners live in The Matrix, and the presstitutes keep them there. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR, and the TV channels perform as agents (as in the Matrix film) actively suppressing any glimmer of factual reality.

Western people have no comprehension of the real reasons for Washington’s murderous interventions in Yugoslavia, Middle East, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, Indonesia, or Latin America. The most transparent lies are fed to people too ignorant to recognize the lies. The lies have cost huge numbers of deaths and injuries and are leading directly to war with Russia and China.

It is probably too late to stop this war. The war is inevitable because Washington’s doctrine of world hegemony does not permit the existence of other strong countries with independent foreign policies. Unless the House-of-Card US economy collapses, the only way Russia and China can avoid war is to accept Washington’s overlordship.

John Pilger himself speaks of growing up inside The Matrix as did all of us:
“I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine.” I doubt that even the most determined of us ever become completely free of the disinformation in which we are indoctrinated. Pilger himself still shows traces of it when he assumes that Hitler started World War II by invading Europe when in fact Great Britain and France initiated World War II when they declared war on Germany. Hitler’s invasion of Europe was a response to the declaration of war on Germany. From day one the propaganda was that Germany started World War II by rolling up the British and French armies. This lie was enshrined in 1946 by the Nuremberg Tribunal when the Tribunal defined “the supreme international crime” to be “to initiate a war of aggression” and ascribed this crime to Germany.

The Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes are more guilty of “the supreme international crime” than was National Socialist Germany. Today the crazed Washington warmongers are driving toward war with Russia.

Read more

John V. Walsh

This video should go viral. It is from the Israeli media.
Watch, laugh – and cry.

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4633404,00.html

Now let’s be serious.

First, the Congress is completely humiliated, dancing to the tune of Netanyahu who is the representative of a foreign power. That humiliation extends to every American who cast a vote, expecting the Congresspeople to represent the voters, the American voters – not the Israeli ones.

Second, there is a sentiment found in “progressive” circles that the US is the boss in the U.S. Israeli power dance. Their vulgar “theory” of imperialism tells them that. If this bit of humiliation does not wake them up, who knows what will. Empires are full of examples of the “lesser” ally pulling the strings to make the greater one dance. And Israel with its well funded operation that extends from AIPAC to many Temples and fundamentalist evangelical churches provides a super charged example of this kind of operation to subvert sovereignty.

Finally, Obama is not to be lionized in this encounter either. He is not trying to make peace of sorts with Iran for noble purposes. He and others like Brzezinski want to get the Israeli albatross cut loose from their necks; they want out of the Mideast quagmire which makes the populace war weary and takes up resources. Obama wants those resources freed up to take down Russia and China. And that is even more dangerous than the involvement in the Middle East since that can lead to World War III. The need for a solid and massive anti-interventionist of the Ron Paul type is desperately needed.

So watch, laugh and cry.

John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com He thanks an Israeli expat friend for sending the video his way. (The two couch potatoes in the video are far Right ministers in the Israeli government and settlers in the criminally and illegally occupied territories.)

Chad Nelson
March 02, 2015
Antiwar.com
images

As a proponent of free and open information, I was initially reluctant to call for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s return to Israel. Despite my dislike of Netanyahu and Israeli foreign policy generally, his scheduled Congressional address, on its face, does little more than add an additional perspective to America’s foreign policy debate. More debate and discussion is usually welcome, because too often American foreign policy is conducted behind closed doors with the dubious claims of politicians going unchecked. Only after war is underway do tidbits begin to leak to the public about the intelligence which supposedly made war necessary. If Iran is in Barack Obama’s or Congress’s crosshairs, one part of me says: Let Netanyahu’s puppetmastery be a matter of public record.

With that said, Americans already know what Netanyahu’s U.S. tour is about: more war. And that is why they largely oppose it. Americans don’t need Netanyahu in Washington to explain his position – they’re already well aware. A fair number in Congress toe the Israeli line, adopting Netanyahu’s murderous ideology wholesale. It is an ideology that sees diplomacy as a last resort, and has a loud voice in Congress thanks to the efforts of AIPAC – the Israeli propaganda machine operating in Washington. One need only look at their work to learn what Israeli warmongers want.

So while more discussion and new information are normally welcomed, Netanyahu’s antics give us neither. His Congressional hosts will use his address to bolster their calls for the continued American war state, one which is waged as much by the Israeli state as the American one. Yes, Israeli foreign policy is regarded throughout the rest of the world as an extension of American foreign policy, and rightfully so. Stolen taxpayer loot funds Israel to the tune of several billion dollars per year. For a small country, Israel is not only armed to the teeth, but is also able to simultaneously lock down an entire Palestinian population. This is what American foreign aid, paid for by you, spent by Washington, achieves.

Read more

eremy Sagan is a computer programmer, AE911Truth supporter, and the son of the late astronomer Carl Sagan and biologist Lynn Margulis, who appears in 9/11 Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out. He and Andy Steele discuss the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence, the work of both his parents, and the state of the media and government establishments as they try to cover up the facts surrounding of the 9/11 crime in New York.

February 25, 2015
By Philip Giraldi
Thehill.com

Lawfare, as the name suggests, is the concept of using the law itself as a weapon of war. What it has meant in practice is turning American courtrooms into battlegrounds between private actors and foreign litigants seeking leverage in international political disputes. As a court case just concluded this week in New York against the Palestinian Authority highlights, the increasing abuse of Lawfare litigation in the U.S. courts may soon have dangerous and irreparable implications for American foreign policy interests in the Middle East.

Israel’s Shurat HaDin Law Center has featured in much of the Lawfare litigation, seeking to harass groups and individuals that it regards as hostile, tying them up with litigation so they become ineffectual or even bankrupting them when a friendly judge rules its way. Shurat HaDin is headed by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and her husband Avi, who have described their organization as a means of “fighting back,” particularly appropriate for Israel because “the Jews invented law.” As of 2012, Shurat HaDin claimed success in obtaining $1 billion in judgments, freezing $600 million in defendant assets, and collecting $120 million in actual reparations payments.

Such court cases often play out over the applicability and meaning of loosely worded anti-terrorist legislation in the U.S., which makes it illegal to provide “material support” to any group identified as a terrorist organization. This deliberately vague language has opened the door for Lawfare to justify litigation if a State Department designated terrorist organization is in any way involved or can plausibly be implicated. Many of the charges are frivolous and only intended to advance foreign political interests through exploitation of the U.S. judiciary system. The suits frequently accomplish little beyond tying up American courtrooms. Those who are sued have to waste time and resources defending themselves, which is precisely what is intended.

Recent Shurat HaDin activity has included a flurry of litigation aimed at stopping 2011’s Gaza Flotilla. A lawsuit was filed in federal court in New York City claiming that the sponsoring organization the Free Gaza Movement was raising money and preparing ships to be used in “hostilities” against American “ally” Israel, a violation of the U.S. Neutrality Act. Despite describing itself as an NGO, the organization works closely with the Israeli government, and received marching orders to stop the Gaza flotilla at all costs, as well as an offer of full support, directly from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Read more

The Republican front-runner seems to be addicted to the warmongers and regime-changers who inspired his brother’s foreign policy. Which should drive a sane person to drink.

By Michael A. Cohen
February 27, 2015
Foreign Policy.com

The writer F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that there are no second acts in American life. But that’s clearly not the case with American foreign policy.

Last week, when former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced the names of his 21 informal foreign-policy advisors, it read like a who’s who of Republican presidents past. There was George Shultz, secretary of state in Ronald Reagan’s administration; James Baker, who held the same job for Bush’s father; and Robert Zoellick, who served under Baker in George H.W. Bush’s State Department and later became U.S. trade representative.

But it is the more recent names that were most notable. Seventeen of the 21 officials on Jeb Bush’s advisory board served in the administration of Jeb’s brother, George W. Bush. In case you’ve forgotten (as it appears many Americans have), George W. Bush was president from 2001 to 2009, and he had the most calamitous foreign-policy tenure of any U.S. president, perhaps ever.

He also started a war in Iraq, which didn’t work out too well. In fact, it was a kind of an unmitigated disaster. In 2008, it was the focus of the presidential campaign and a good part of the reason that Barack Obama (who opposed the war) prevailed in the Democratic nomination fight over Hillary Clinton (who initially backed it) and defeated John McCain (who basically supports every war) later that year.

Yet within two cycles it seems that the Iraq misadventure and Bush II’s disastrous foreign policy in general are practically ancient history — and that those responsible for it have been so quickly rehabilitated that his brother is citing them as reason to have confidence in his foreign-policy judgment.

An example: You might think that Paul Wolfowitz — who was deputy secretary of defense in W’s first term and told Congress a month before the Iraq invasion that “it’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army” — would no longer be taken seriously in the U.S. foreign-policy community. But you’d be wrong. Wolfowitz, who is generally considered one of the architects of the Iraq War, is on Jeb’s advisory board.

Read more

Feb. 26, 2015

Two weeks from today, Dr. Niels Harrit, the distinguished co-author of the landmark nano-thermite paper, will appear in Danish High Court to bring an appeal in his libel suit against the Danish newspaper Weekendavisen.

In a December 2012 article titled “Madness in the Royal Library,” Weekendavisen writer Søren K. Villemoes referred to Dr. Harrit and his fellow 9/11 activists as “crackpots,” while also comparing them to creationists and Holocaust deniers.

“. . . Is the library soon going to open its doors to an exhibition showing us ‘alternative’ theories about evolution? . . . Why not just invite in Niels Harrit and the other crackpots from the 9/11 skeptics movement while we are at it? What about the holocaust denial movement?”

Søren K. Villemoes, Weekendavisen, December 7, 2012

For Dr. Harrit, a scientist who taught chemistry for 40 years at the University of Copenhagan, this amounted to an allegation of scientific misconduct and a baseless attempt to damage his hard-earned reputation. So he decided to seek recourse under Denmark’s strong libel law — and give himself the opportunity to prove in a court of law the scientific legitimacy of his 9/11 research.

Now Dr. Harrit Needs Our Help

The lower City Court ruled against Dr. Harrit in 2013, basing its decision on politics rather than the law. Dr. Harrit, of course, appealed.

This time around, he’ll be allowed to submit more evidence, and he is now receiving assistance from attorney Mads Krøger Pramming, chairman of the Danish whistleblower organization Veron. Although Mr. Pramming is providing his services at a greatly reduced rate, he still needs to be compensated for his indispensible assistance to Dr. Harrit.

And so we are asking you to make a modest donation to Niels Harrit’s legal fund, and help raise us $15,000 by next week!

Support Niels Harrit NOW
Click here

Of course, this is about much more than undoing baseless insults. It’s an opportunity for a leader in the 9/11 Truth Movement to show in a court of law that the science behind controlled demolition is not just legitimate, but overwhelming.

Moreover, because Dr. Harrit has been a national figure ever since his 2009 appearance on TV2NEWS, the case is likely to be widely covered in the Danish media — especially if he wins!

What the Case Comes Down To

Under Danish libel law, Villemoes has the burden of demonstrating a factual basis for his claim. As a journalist, he must also demonstrate that his reporting meets the standards of good journalism. At the first trial, he did neither. Still, the judge egregiously ruled in his favor.

In the High Court, Villemoes will have a much harder time, because Dr. Harrit is being allowed to submit more evidence — namely, the video of WTC 7’s destruction, as well as an actual sample of the WTC dust, which Dr. Harrit will use to demonstrate the dust’s authenticity, and therefore his good scientific conduct.

Dr. Harrit will also call two witnesses. One, Jan Utzon, is a world-renowned architect and AE911Truth petition signer who testified previously. The other, Dr. Per Hedegård, is a physics professor from the University of Copenhagan’s Niels Bohr Institute. His statement to a newspaper in 2010 dismissing Dr. Harrit was the only evidence used by Villemoes at trial. Today, Dr. Hedegård has completely reversed his position and insists on testifying in support of Dr. Harrit!

Thanks to Dr. Harrit’s relentless pursuit of the truth, we now have an incredible opportunity to achieve some symbolic justice for all 9/11 researchers and activists.


You can learn more about the case by reading the recently published article.

February 26, 2015
by Paul Craig Roberts

This week I was invited to address an important conference of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing. All of Russia is distressed that Washington alone has destroyed the trust between the two major nuclear powers that had been created during the Reagan-Gorbachev era, trust that had removed the threat of nuclear armageddon. Russians at every level are astonished at the virulent propaganda and lies constantly issuing from Washington and the Western media. Washington’s gratuitous demonization of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has rallied the Russian people behind him. Putin has the highest approval rating ever achieved by any leader in my lifetime.

Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war from the grave in which Reagan and Gorbachev buried it. Again, as during the Cold War the specter of nuclear armageddon stalks the earth.

Why did Washington revive the threat of world annihilation? Why is this threat to all of humanity supported by the majority of the US Congress, by the entirety of the presstitute media, and by academics and think-tank inhabitants in the US, such as Motyl and Weiss, about whom I wrote recently?

It was my task to answer this question for the conference. You can read my February 25 and February 26 addresses below. But first you should understand what nuclear war means. You can gain that understanding here: http://thebulletin.org/what-would-happen-if-800-kiloton-nuclear-warhead-detonated-above-midtown-manhattan8023

The Threat Posed to International Relations By The Neoconservative Ideology of American Hegemony, Address to the 70th Anniversary of the Yalta Conference, Hosted by Institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Moscow, February 25, 2015, Hon. Paul Craig Roberts

Colleagues,

What I propose to you is that the current difficulties in the international order are unrelated to Yalta and its consequences, but have their origin in the rise of the neoconservative ideology in the post-Soviet era and its influence on Washington’s foreign policy.

The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad. At that time China’s rise was estimated to require a half century. Suddenly the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the “world’s only superpower.” Neoconservatives proclaimed “the end of history.”

By the “end of history” neoconservatives mean that the competition between socio-economic-political systems is at an end. History has chosen “American Democratic-Capitalism.” It is Washington’s responsibility to exercise the hegemony over the world given to Washington by History and to bring the world in line with History’s choice of American democratic-capitalism.

In other words, Marx has been proven wrong. The future does not belong to the proletariat but to Washington.

The neoconservative ideology raises the United States to the unique status of being “the exceptional country,” and the American people acquire exalted status as “the indispensable people.”

If a country is “the exceptional country,” it means that all other countries are unexceptional. If a people are “indispensable,” it means other peoples are dispensable. We have seen this attitude at work in Washington’s 14 years of wars of aggression in the Middle East. These wars have left countries destroyed and millions of people dead, maimed, and displaced. Yet Washington continues to speak of its commitment to protect smaller countries from the aggression of larger countries. The explanation for this hypocrisy is that Washington does not regard Washington’s aggression as aggression, but as History’s purpose.

Read more

By John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart
The Guardian
February 24, 2015.

One of the most unchallenged, zany assertions during the war on terror has been that terrorists present an existential threat to the United States, the modern stateand civilization itself. This is important because the overwrought expression, if accepted as valid, could close off evaluation of security efforts. For example, no defense of civil liberties is likely to be terribly effective if people believe the threat from terrorism to be existential.

At long last, President Barack Obama and other top officials are beginning to back away from this absurd position. This much overdue development may not last, however. Extravagant alarmism about the pathological but self-destructiveIslamic State (Isis) in areas of Syria and Iraq may cause us to backslide.

The notion that international terrorism presents an existential threat was spawned by the traumatized in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York at the time, recalls that all “security experts” expected “dozens and dozens and multiyears of attacks like this” and, in her book The Dark Side, Jane Mayer observed that “the only certainty shared by virtually the entire American intelligence community” was that “a second wave of even more devastating terrorist attacks on America was imminent”. Duly terrified, US intelligence services were soon imaginatively calculating the number of trained al-Qaida operatives in the United States to be between 2,000 and 5,000.

Also compelling was the extrapolation that, because the 9/11 terrorists were successful with box-cutters, they might well be able to turn out nuclear weapons. Soon it was being authoritatively proclaimed that atomic terrorists could “destroy civilization as we know it” and that it was likely that a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States would transpire by 2014.

No atomic terrorists have yet appeared (al-Qaida’s entire budget in 2001 for research on all weapons of mass destruction totaled less than $4,000), and intelligence has been far better at counting al-Qaida operatives in the country than at finding them.

Read more

February 24, 2015
by Paul Craig Roberts

Foreign Affairs is the publication of the elitist Council on Foreign Relations, a collection of former and current government officials, academics, and corporate and financial executives who regard themselves as the custodian and formulator of US foreign policy. The publication of the council carries the heavy weight of authority. One doesn’t expect to find humor in it, but I found myself roaring with laughter while reading an article in the February 5 online issue by Alexander J. Motyl, “Goodbye, Putin: Why the President’s Days Are Numbered.”

I assumed I was reading a clever parody of Washington’s anti-Putin propaganda. Absurd statement followed absurd statement. It was better than Colbert. I couldn’t stop laughing.

To my dismay I discovered that the absolute gibberish wasn’t a parody of Washington’s propaganda. Motyl, an ardent Ukrainian nationalist, is a professor at Rugers University and was not joking when he wrote that Putin had stolen $45 billion, that Putin was resurrecting the Soviet Empire, that Putin had troops and tanks in Ukraine and had started the war in Ukraine, that Putin is an authoritarian whose regime is “exceedingly brittle” and subject to being overthrown at any time by the people Putin has bought off with revenues from the former high oil price, or by “an Orange Revolution in Moscow” in which Putin is overthrown by Washington orchestrated demonstrations by US financed NGOs as in Ukraine, or by a coup d’etat by Putin’s Praetorial guards. And if none of this sends Putin goodbye, the North Caucasus, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, and the Crimean Tarters are spinning out of control and will do Washington’s will by unseating Putin. Only the West’s friendly relationship with Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan can shield “the rest of the world from Putin’s disastrous legacy of ruin.”

When confronted with this level of ignorant nonsense in what is alleged to be a respectable publication, we experience the degradation of the Western political and media elite. To argue with nonsense is pointless.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud