The subject of COINTELPRO comes up quite a bit on our websites and has done so since we became fully aware of its activity in the various "alternative news/views" movements back in late 2001. Up to that point in time, we were thinking that it was probably likely that, now and again, a group might be infiltrated by an agent for a specific purpose. What we were NOT aware of was the vast, overarching program that seems to be in place for the primary purpose of controlling absolutely everything via the control of the minds of the masses!
Yeah, that's a pretty unbelievable project to contemplate, but for groups with unlimited resources and the agenda to stay on the top of the heap, it's really not so hard. And never has this activity been more evident than in the 9/11 Truth Movement which I want to discuss here. But, before getting to that specifically, let me give a little background.
Some time ago I published an article entitled "Cosmic COINTELPRO" which said, in part:
Richard Dolan’s UFOs and the National Security State is the first comprehensive study of the past 50 years of the U.S. Government’s response to the intrusion of UFO phenomena in America. The compiled evidence - which includes government documents - suggests that a group of specialists working in the shadows, set up and executed the most massive cover-up in the history of government; and that the Human Potential movement and the subsequent New Age movements, were key elements of this cover-up. In other words, they not only have used the “colorful community” of alternative ideas as an unwitting tool of disinformation, it is highly probable that most of it was literally created by them as COINTELPRO. Dolan writes:I think that it is pretty easy to "read" the 9/11 Truth Movement into the above description of COINTELPRO in the "New Age." In fact, after all that practice, it must have been a piece of cake to just move in and co-opt those who were suddenly drawn into an "alternative" point of view by 9/11. A lot of people who have absolutely no interest in metaphysics, religion, and so forth, DO have an interest in politics and history and current affairs. I'll never forget reading John Kaminski's article "Agents Provocateur?" where he describes where he was and what he was doing at that fateful moment on September 11, 2001:By the mid-1940s, America’s intelligence apparatus had reason to believe that there were artifacts in the skies that did not originate from America, Russia, Germany, or any other country. These objects violated some highly sensitive military airspace, and did not appear to be natural phenomena. One may presume that the affected national security authorities made it an immediate obsession to determine the nature and purpose of these objects, and we may infer that the issue probably became a deep secret by 1946, or 1947 at the latest.It was at this precise moment in time that the so-called Human Potential movement was “born.”Do we think that this was a coincidence?
By the mid-50s, it was becoming obvious that things were getting out of control and in August of 1956, the FBI began its COINTELPRO operation. When traditional modes of repression (exposure, blatant harassment, and prosecution for political crimes) failed to counter the growing insurgency, and even helped to fuel it, the Bureau took the law into its own hands. Its methods ranged far beyond surveillance, and amounted to a domestic version of the covert action for which the CIA has become infamous throughout the world.
Usually, when we think of COINTELPRO, we think of the most well known and typical activities which include sending anonymous or fictitious letters designed to start rumors, among other things, publishing false defamatory or threatening information, forging signatures on fake documents, introducing disruptive and subversive members into organizations to destroy them from within, blackmailing insiders in any group to force them to spread false rumors, or to foment factionalism, and so on.
What a lot of people don’t keep in mind is the fact that COINTELPRO also concentrated on creating bogus organizations.
These bogus groups could serve many functions which might include attacking and/or disrupting bona fide groups, or even just simply creating a diversion with clever propaganda in order to attract members away so as to involve them with time-wasting activity designed to prevent them from doing anything useful. COINTELPRO was also famous for instigation of hostile actions through third parties so that it looked like just a "disagreement" between two individuals or groups, a "food fight" or something, and there was no way to connect it to any government operation.
Now, let us take a few logical steps. The UFO problem emerged into the national consciousness in 1947, or thereabouts. Not long afterward, a lot of people began asking a lot of questions. The government wasn’t answering, and so the people began to band together to find out the answers for themselves. They started forming groups. And this is where things get just a bit curious. The thing that was most threatened by the UFO/alien issue seems to have been the Standard Monotheistic Religions. Religion seems to be a necessary component of political control. Social control - that is the mainstay of religion - was most definitely under threat. In fact, what seems to be true is that it is not even clear that religions - as we know them - would have survived a full disclosure. So the logical conclusion is that part of the main reason for the cover-up was to “protect the religious status quo ” - or to create a new "religion" by which masses of people could be controlled.
As things stood at the time, protecting the religious status quo - mainly the social controls that stem from religion - was iffy at best. After a century of scholarly investigation into many religious texts, and the raising of many questions about the “old time religion,” there were a lot of people in society who were most definitely turning away from religious dogma. It’s fairly simple to take the next logical step and see that a combining of the questions of those who were disenchanted with religion, with the questions of those who wanted to know just what the heck was going on in terms of possible “extraterrestrials,” was seen as a dangerous and explosive mixture.
Something had to be done.
The activities of COINTELPRO in attempting to neutralize political opposition have been pretty well exposed. But we are now considering the fact that, in addition to political activists, it seems that COINTELPRO has particularly targeted groups that are seeking the truth about the interactions between the US government and Ultra Terrestrials, or so-called “aliens.” That a long-time cover-up of these matters has been in effect is certainly evident to any careful researcher.
The COINTELPRO files show the U.S. Government targeted a very broad range of religious, labor and community groups opposed to any of its agendas, and it is only logical to assume that the same type of operation would be created to cover up the “alien agenda.” Such a theoretical COINTELPRO operation also goes far in explaining why, when the sincere researcher of UFO phenomena enters this field, he or she discovers only lies, lies, and more lies; confusion and disinformation. That is most definitely the signature of COINTELPRO.
Considering all of this, would anybody care to suggest that it did not also occur to the Powers that Be that the chief means of diverting attention and covering up the truth would be to literally fund and create the “New Age” and “Human Potential movement" so that it would follow their agenda of keeping secrets? So that it would create a New Religion of Aliens that THEY controlled?
In other words, it is extremely likely that the most successful and popular of Metaphysical Mavens and New Age Impresarios are COINTELPRO agents - either conscious or dupes of those who are. The objective seems to be to attack and “neutralize” those who are seeking the answers. Those who are sincere, who do bona fide research and seek to explicate the truth, are infiltrated, attacked, and marginalized according to standard COINTELPRO procedures.
What all of this seems to suggest is that the Powers That Be (PTB) have developed COINTELPRO to an all new level of Social Shaping, Cultural Brainwashing, and the main targets of this activity would include virtually anyone who is seeking the truth about the shifting realities of our world. The cases of COINTELPRO activities against political groups must be no more than the tip of the iceberg, given that the great bulk of COINTELPRO-type operations remain secret until long after their damage has been done. By all indications, domestic covert operations have become a permanent feature of U.S. politics and Social Programming, and it is hardly likely, considering the evidence, that the New Age and Human Potential fields are exempt.
The implications of this are truly alarming. Those who manage to get close to the truth of these matters, despite the many obstacles in their path, face National covert campaigns to discredit and disrupt their research and reputations. Clearly, COINTELPRO and similar operations under other names also work to distort academic and popular perceptions of the problems facing our world. They have done enormous damage to the search for the Truth.
“Terrorism is changing. New adversaries, new motivations and new rationales have surfaced in recent years to challenge much of the conventional wisdom...” wrote Dr. Bruce Hoffman, Director of RAND. And he was right. The only problem is, the reader is largely unaware of the definition of “new adversaries” that might be implied in his remarks.
I remember that day all too well. I was standing in front of my TV. I had just awakened and flipped it on, intending to zap the clicker to ESPN to catch the latest sports news, a typical daily habit that occurs just before I stumble into the kitchen to make my coffee. By chance, the tube was set to NBC, where the plastic Today show commentators were talking about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center. So I never changed the channel. I just stood there, eyelids glued apart, and watched as plane number two glided into the south tower, and into history.I just stood there, I don't know for how long. Eventually I turned around, made the coffee, and listened to the aghast commentary of the NBC crew. I don't remember now what it was triggered my next verbal outburst, whether it was Katie Couric reporting the government saying it was Osama bin Laden who was behind the attacks, or some vaguer speculation about Arab terrorists.
I only know I turned around, stalked into the living room, and then with the most certain self-assured vehemence I have ever shown in my life, started bellowing: "No way! No freaking way!"
I knew then, right then and there, that 9/11 was an inside job. ... Nothing I have seen, heard, or read since has caused me to feel even the merest shadow of a doubt about what I felt at that moment.
There are millions of people who had the same reaction, but very few of them in a position, or with the talents, to say or do anything about it. And most of them are not into "metaphysics, religion, or researching strange phenomena." That's too bad. There's a lot about COINTELPRO that we all could learn together.
Now, one of the interesting things we have observed about COINTELPRO is the way it shifts and warps in response to possible exposure. I believe that I was the first to realize the extent and nature of the operation, and I began publishing my speculations about it in the Adventures With Cassiopaea series back in early 2002. Not too long after that, individuals that I KNEW to be "agents" of COINTELPRO began to start ranting about COINTELPRO and pointing the finger this way and that way. Up to this point in time, the lid had pretty much remained shut on the subject - I guess they were hoping that people would forget about it, or think that it was over and done with back in the 70s, nothing to worry about now!
But nope, I saw it and wrote about it and they just had to do something. So, in typical COINTELPRO fashion, they started producing endless noise to obscure the signal. Particular attention was paid to me; I guess I had to be punished for daring to call a spade a spade. I was accused of being COINTELPRO myself, of being funded by George Soros, my husband was accused of being an "ex cold war nuke scientist," and the previous attacks that had alerted me to the COINTELPRO problem to begin with - vile and vicious defamation, character assassination, and so on - ramped up to an unbelieveable level.
As usual, I learned a lot by observing and doing research to find out who was connected to whom.
Of course, once I began publishing such exposes, the program shifted again. The internet was already being scrubbed of articles and stories that did not support the government 9/11 claims that had been published in the early days after 9/11. Seems like some additional scrubbing took place in removing material that might link various agents together. Additionally, such resources as the "whois" services became useless with the use of "proxy registration" of websites. Many things that had been on the web before 9/11 suddenly disappeared. Many things also disappeared from the usually reliable webarchive as well. In some instances, we had the foresight to archive pages, but not always. I even have some pages archived and certified in my files. They may come in handy someday.
With over 100 researchers in our Quantum Future Group, scattered around the globe, we have even resorted to sending a member out to do hand searches in various places. In one case, the member was shortly afterward visited by some "Israeli Art Students." How's that for "personal attention?"
Not long after I published research findings on the people behind GodlikeProductions Forum, we received an email warning, and two "personal contacts" of a threatening nature. Let us just say that when you begin to find connections between such popular websites and drug and pedophile rings, you are cruising into dangerous international trafficking waters and discretion may very well be the better part of valor. I removed the article from our website, though I do still send it to researchers who ask for it privately. I should note, while on the subject, that this is not uncommon: to find such connections; after all, that's one of the ways that secret agencies make their money - drugs and human trafficking, including children - and have the means to control government officials: blackmail. It's a pretty handy set-up: provide the drugs and the sex, get photos and movies or recordings, and voila! Instant control of just about anybody!
So, while I can't take the risk of telling exactly who is who here, just let me give a general warning: drugs and pedophilia - and even arms trafficking - are connected to a lot of people who you would never, ever suspect! Imagine! A popular New Age teacher giving seminars on such things as how to create your higher astral body and meet your angel guides (for example) who also runs a cover operation for shipping arms to CIA sponsored guerilla groups and ALSO has programs for "special children"? Can we say "Star kids" and "Indigo?"
Getting back to 9/11 and COINTELPRO in that venue: if you don't already know that probably 80 to 90 percent of what is out there is noise, then you might want to get up to speed pretty fast.
Now, let's get down to some specifics. There's a new guy on the 9/11 scene who just sort of appeared out of nowhere: Daryl Bradford Smith.
Daryl has declared himself to be the "Black Mamba" of the Truth Movement!
Well, I DO declare! Hush my mouth and shiver my timbers!
I've been watching Mr. Smith (funny, that reminds me Agent Smith in The Matrix!) for a bit now. Among his earlier publications was a sort of "how to recognize agents in the 9/11 Truth Movement guide". It was simple, straightforward, easy for anyone to understand. Even though something about it was disturbing, I included it on Signs of the Times one day.
Recently, I had an exchange with a few other 9/11 researchers on the subject of DBS, and I'd like to share a few excerpts:
Daryl is telling us he has commandeered the 9/11 skeptics movement.
Hoo boy! Well, I've got this handy little booklet here entitled "How to Spot a Spy," which was put together back during the days of the "Global Movement for Justice and Eco-Peace," when COINTELPRO was running rampant and some of those groups learned the hard way. It was sent to me by a member of QFG (thanks DS) I've been thinking about updating it and making it available to 9/11 researchers. Here is what it says, mainly, synopsized and skipping some repetitive stuff:
How To Spot a Spy
One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?
1) The message doesn't get out. 2) A lot of time is wasted 3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged 4) Nothing good is accomplished.
FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.
Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.
Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.
The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.
This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.
It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.
In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:
"You're dividing the movement."
[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]
This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.
The agent will tell the activist:
"You're a leader!"
This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.
This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.
Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.
The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.
The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.
The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.
The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."
Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.
Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.
The agent's expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.
It can usually be identified by two events, however:
First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.
As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.
The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.
A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.
Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:
1) To disrupt the agenda 2) To side-track the discussion 3) To interrupt repeatedly 4) To feign ignorance 5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.
Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.
Saboteurs
Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....
1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites) 2) Print flyers in English only. 3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares. 4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support 5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing. 6) Confuse issues. 7) Make the wrong demands. 8) Compromise the goal. 9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.
Provocateurs
1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement. 2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble. 3) Encourage militancy. 4) Want to taunt the authorities. 5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values. 6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent. 7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.
Informants
1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything. 2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data). 3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend. 4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.
Recruiting
Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.
Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.
Surveillance
ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.
At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!
Scare Tactics
They use them.
Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.
This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.
If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.
COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.
The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "National Security" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.
A slight breach in orthodoxy is sufficient to terrify authoritarian ideologues who see in it the collapse of the system of thought control that has been so effctive in depoliticizing American Society. Noam Chomsky.And that's about it for the booklet: How To Spot a Spy!
Now, getting back to Daryl Bradford Smith and the above referenced article where he claims that he is the "Black Mamba of the 9/11 Truth Movement," let's look at this article which seems to be designed to implicate a Mr. Jon Carlson as a COINTELPRO agent.
First of all, I would have liked to have seen more facts about Carlson and less "ranting." I don't know who Jon Carlson is and DBS didn't do anything to enlighten me except rant and rave and make himself look foolish. However, I can certainly understand a tendency to rant now and again out of sheer frustration.
Having said that, I think that it is dangerous to fall into a "it's either black or white" judgment mode because that is what THEY do and what THEY promote. In a sense, it is the difference between the "good vs evil" via strict laws and NO justice (the psychopathic way) as opposed to the more natural and human Law of Three which posits "there is good and there is evil and there is the specific situation that determines which is which."
I know that the majority of people aren't interested in, or can't deal with, concepts of metaphyisics, religion, hyperdimensional manipulations, and so I was very glad to get the Ponerology material because that "brings it home" to 3 D. Even the guys at the truck stop can understand how an evil government can come to power with this material.
Nevertheless, there ARE many surpassingly strange things on this planet and we need to have theories and explanations that accommodate those things or we are no better than the Catholic church born out of materialistic Judaism which is the underpinning philosophy that led to the mess we are in in the first place. Judaism has been promoting the purely material, linear explanation of reality for a very long time. And anybody who goes in a different direction is immediately attacked and/or vectored. That fact should give some pause to a serious thinker.
I want to try to explain what I mean here by commenting on Smith's rant:
DBS writes: Can you see a pattern with UFOs?LKJ: I don't know if DBS has a particular reason for naming Steven Greer or not. I think, based on what he says further down, that his chief issue with Steven is that he is Jewish. So what? My only beef with Steven Greer is that he specifically promotes UFOs as ETs from outer space, i.e. distant worlds, phyisical explanation, and that they are just "very advanced" and therefore must be "here to help us." (You know, a being can't be more advanced if they are not "good." This is a fatal error!)# Steven Greer is very active in promoting UFOs with his Disclosure Project.
Now, first of all, let us understand that the mainstream media of the United States is, by and large, controlled by Zionists. So is the government. So, you can pretty well figure out that what is being promoted by the media and or the government is what the Zionists want you to believe.
And so, we come to the realization that the image of "aliens" that is most widespread in the U.S. is, by default, the explication that the Zionists WANT everyone to believe. This in no way obviates the reality of the phenomenon. In fact, that the phenomenon has received so much "smoke and mirrors" attention should tell us that it is serious and real, and most definitely NOT what the MSM presents.
DBS: # Stanton Friedman claims be one of the pioneers in UFO exposure.
LKJ: I've communicated with Friedman a few times over the years, have met him personally, and I don't think that he is doing any deliberate disinformation. He is sincere, works very hard, and even though I don't agree with his approach - Stanton is another one who is hard on the heels of finding a "material explanation" for UFOs - that they are ETs from distant worlds in our material, 3 D universe, I don't question his integrity. At least not at this point. He has never given any reason for anyone to question it. So, I don't get DBS' point here unless - again - his point is that Stanton Friedman is Jewish. If that is the case, then we have a better idea of what DBS is up to.
DBS: # Art Bell has been promoting aliens and other ridiculous ideas for years on his coast-to-coast radio show.
LKJ: Can't argue with the fact that Art Bell has been promoting ridiculous ideas for years, but notice that this is fairly typical of the whole ET/UFO situation: it is so obscured by noise that the true signal is completely missed.
Years of digging through cases has convinced me that there IS a signal but that the whole UFO/New Age approach is vectored by disinformation.
If you look at the pattern of disinformation surrounding 9/11, you will see exactly the same pattern of disinfo that surrounds the whole UFO/ET issue. And once you see that, you can draw the obvious conclusion that the noise exists for the very purpose of obscuring the signal. There is, so to say, an ET 9/11 - the real deal - and tons of "false research sites" promoting stupid ideas, even outrageous claims that give the whole field a bad name.
So, either DBS has fallen for this disinfo regarding UFOs and ETs in the same way that many people will be disgusted over the 9/11 Truth movement because of similar activities of disinformation artists within the 9/11 Truth movement, or DBS is one of them. Is Art Bell also Jewish? I don't know. But maybe that is DBS' point.
DBS: The pattern I see is that many of the people who are actively promoting UFOs have strong ties to Israel, or to other Zionists. How many real Jews promote UFOs?
LKJ: I fail to see what "real Jews" - or "not real" Jews - or Jews at all - have to do with the subject here. It is certainly true that the Zionist controlled media and the complicit Bush Administration are largely responsible for the disinfo about 9/11... So, just think about that for a minute. Ask yourself why the owners of the media would promote so much nonsense about UFOs ??? It is EXACTLY the same thing as why they promote so much nonsense about 9/11!!! Because there IS a "real signal" that has to be obscured!
Do you really think that if there was nothing to it that they would spend so much time obscuring it with nonsense???
Do you think that if it was really a benevolent phenomenon that they would spend so much time trying to present it as one???
But none of that has anything to do with being Jewish.
DBS::Can you figure it out?
LKJ: Question is, can DBS figure it out. It looks like he has fallen into the disinfo, smoke and mirrors trap, or... he is part of it. One thing is certain: he is promoting hate.
DBS: These UFO researchers claim to be truth seekers who want the government to stop lying about aliens, but they lie to us about Israel's role in 9/11, the attack on the USS Liberty, the assassination of President Kennedy, and other crimes.
LKJ: I'm not exactly sure what DBS is trying to say here. Is he saying that the government lies about aliens AND 9/11 and the attack on the Liberty, AND the assassination of JFK, therefore, somehow he concludes that this proves his point? (Which it doesn't.)
OR, is he saying that UFO researchers who want the government to stop lying about aliens then turn around and lie themselves about 9/11, JFK, etc... ?
I don't really hang out with the "Aliens are here to save us" gang, Jewish or not, so I'm a bit in the dark on who he is talking about here. Everyone I know who is a so-called "UFO researcher" knows quite well that Israel played a big role in 9/11, that MOSSAD was behind the USS Liberty attack, and that JFK was not assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.
But, in the event that there ARE "UFO researchers" who subscribe to the government disinfo campaign about JFK and 9/11, and other things, I will point out that this just demonstrates how effective COINTELPRO can be. Many, many people have had experiences that make them desperate for an explanation, for a "shelter" from the government instigated ridicule and denial. That makes them RIPE to be taken in by someone who claims to represent a "strange- phenomena- friendly port in the storm." And THEN, once they have "anchored" in that port, they are susceptible to being influenced by the other ideas. It is standard disinfo/cointelpro.
DBS: Also, they lie to us about the role of the media, the banking families, and the Mossad, and they lie about the creation of Israel.
LKJ: Again, it's a bit hard to follow DBS' argument. Who is lying? The Government or UFO researchers? I think he means UFO researchers - specifically Jewish UFO researchers - in which case, again, he ought to be more specific because I certainly don't know any UFO researchers, Jewish or otherwise, who lie about any of those things. I do know quite a few that don't have much interest in those subjects, in the same way that people that are interested in researching banking families and MOSSAD and so forth don't usually have much interest in UFOs. As noted above, many people who were never interested in religion, metaphysics, UFOs, or anything else out of the mainstream interests of the guys at the truckstop, certainly knew instantly that 9/11 was an inside job. I think that if there are UFO researchers who are what DBS describes, then we have to seriously consider them as disinfo or even COINTELPRO set-up organizations. And I should point out that such operations are not restricted to Jews by any stretch of the imagination.
DBS: Some of these people, such as Art Bell, go even further by defending the government story of 9/11 and other crimes.
LKJ: Sure. Art Bell is COINTELPRO from bottom up. Why can't DBS see the connection??? The trap? Or is he deliberately not seeing it?
DBS: These people also promote one another, but they criticize or ignore people who are exposing the Israeli / Zionist connection to these crimes, such as myself, Eric Hufschmid, and Michael Collins Piper. Do you really think it is a coincidence that they don't like us?
LKJ: Well, I could say the same thing with a lot more documentation to back it up, for sure. If you read Joe Quinn's new piece Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 - and Neither Did a Boeing 757 , toward the end, there is a very clear explication of COINTELPRO in action that makes it pretty clear that NOT linking to Signs of The Times is an almost certain indication that a website is COINTELPRO. We certainly notice a lot of so-called UFO research sites that don't link to Cassiopaea except to refer to us as a "cult" or to publish defamatory remarks about us. Again, from what we have learned over the years, that's an almost certain indicator that the website is COINTELPRO.
I am willing to bet that the majority of such UFO researchers as DBS describes ALL promote the alleged "aliens" as PHYSICAL entities from distant planets with a more advanced civilization and benevolent agendas.
Well, actually, in the years since I started talking about hyperdimensional realities and a NEGATIVE "control system" similar (but more developed) to what Vallee has talked about, there has been a "reaction" in that some of the UFO disinfo trappers have started talking about something similar. But in all cases, they talk about it as a "benevolent" phenomenon. The recent TV series, The 4400 is an example. 4,400 people are abducted "from the future." Now, certainly, our Cassiopaean Transmissions claim to come "from the future," but those same C's say, unequivocally, that no "positive" being ever "abducts" anyone. Not EVER. The "good guys" don't "play chess", preferring to work within the natural order of things as a courtesy toward Creation. But here, on network TV, we have a program that mixes all the nonsensical alien stuff with our own work in such a way as to corrupt it and discredit it. Typical COINTELPRO.
The fact is, if a person does NOT allow for the hyperdimensional hypothesis, and if they are truly sincere about their seeking of answers and their desire to promote truth, they WILL be "taken out" one way or the other. We have seen it happen time and again.
And I am not saying that anybody needs to believe it; just take it as a theory and work with the theoretical constructs in terms of self-defense. If you don't, you are TOAST. Take that to the bank!
DBS: Who is Jeff Rense? Try to find information about this man. People will justify his secrecy on the grounds that he is afraid for his life, which is justifiable. However, it is also possible that he is hiding something more sinister. His stepmother, Paige Rense, is editor-in-chief of Architectural Digest. This is one of the magazines owned by Si Newhouse.
LKJ: Well, Rense is a cipher to me, too. I only recently learned that he is a close pal of Jay Weidner and that he and Jay and Vincent Bridges used to be members of Ray Flowers group. The C's pretty clearly indicated Flowers as a COINTELPRO handler. From my point of view, after a long period of observation, Rense is out there pushing the alien noise agenda in a big way. He is a "tar baby." All the folks (and there are MILLIONS of them) who KNOW that the reality is strange, or who have had truly traumatic experiences (I think a lot of it is gov mind control programs) rush to be enfolded in the arms of anybody who will give them some validation, some peace of mind about what has happened to them. And then, they are RIPE for being vectored.
This is a horrible situation, when you think about it. And it is doing nobody any good for people like DBS to come out and simply negate the reality of millions of people and make it an "either/or" or "black/white" proposition. That is exactly what the Zionists/Fundies /Bush Reich do!
DBS: For all we know, Jeff Rense truly believes in UFOs, and associates of Si Newhouse or others are encouraging his UFO habit. See our article about the media if you never heard of Newhouse.
LKJ: I don't think Jeff Rense really "believes" what he promotes. Keeping in mind the close connection between Weidner and Rense, is very instructive to read the entire Weidner exchange that I published on our website . (Weidner is referred to as "Alvin Wiley" and Vincent Bridges is referred to as "Maynerd Most" in many articles.) Some of the beliefs that Weidner espouses, that come up here and there in startling clarity, are truly scary. So, if Rense is a friend of Weidner, and it's a certainty (in my mind, you read the material and decide for yourself) that Weidner is COINTELPRO, then a lot of strange connections begin to make sense. But, I'll save all of that research for another post.
Suffice it to say that Rense publishes attacks on Art Bell, and now DBS is publishing attacks on Rense AND Art Bell. Looks like a typical COINTELPRO three way food fight designed to divert and distract and make a lot of noise and confusion.
Yes, indeed, these people KNOW that the UFO thing is NOT a physical, benevolent phenomenon. And that is exactly why they promote the opposite. And that is why we were targeted by them so early in the game. Read my article "Something Wicked This Way Comes" for insight on this one.
DBS: Why is Jeff Rense posting so many articles from Jon Carlson, Karl Schwarz, and UFO supporters? Is this your idea of serious journalism? If not, please do not support him.
LKJ: See above. DBS' journalism isn't much better.
DBS: If you cannot help, get out of my way I am calling for Jeff Rense to immediately stop promoting Jon Carlson. Carlson belongs on the list of suspects in the 9/11 disinformation campaign, and anybody -- including Rense -- who continues to promote this man after reading his latest articles should also be considered a suspect. And Karl Schwarz should also be investigated. I also want Rense to stop promoting UFO theories. A photo that shows a blurry object in the sky is nothing more than a photo of a blurry object. Anybody who claims the blurry object is a spacecraft with aliens from Alpha Centauri is incapable of proper reasoning, or a disinformation agent who is trying to make conspiracy theories seem idiotic. People who truly believe aliens are flying around the earth should get out of the 9/11 movement and stop pretending they they are 9/11 researchers. We don't need idiots in this movement. This is a serious fight against a lot of intelligent Zionists, and we don't need morons giving us a bad image. We need to attract people who can think, not idiots who believe aliens are making crop circles, or lunatics who believe in Paranormal Holiday Stories. We will not defeat the Zionists with a horde of morons.LKJ: Well, obviously, since my husband is an internationally known theoretical physicist, and the average IQ of the QFG is probably somewhere around 130, DBS just comes across as wildly flinging mud without rhyme, reason, or good sense. His arguments are little better than what might be constructed by an average 9 year old. At the beginning of his interview with John Kaminski, he talked about the "4,000 year old" Jewish messianic beliefs. Just one of his ignorant comments.
Again, just as the noise around 9/11 turns people off to the truth, (people like DBS) so does the noise around the UFO/alien issue turn people off. (people like Art Bell). Ideas that leave out whole, major, slices of reality - of phenomena that DOES happen - do no service to anyone and only add to the noise. But then, maybe that is DBS' agenda?
DBS: If Rense wants to promote UFOs, then he should return to his previous web site, www.sightings.com
LKJ: Rense can't. He sold the domain to Henry Winkler, a noted Zionist.
DBS: Discussions are acceptable; Deception is a crime It is acceptable to discuss the issue of whether there is a god, and whether there are several gods, but it is not acceptable to point to a blurry object in a photograph and claim that the blurry object is God.
LKJ: Gee, thanks DBS for giving us all permission to think and discuss things! And if "deception is a crime," do we arrest him now for lying about the 4,000 year old Jewish Messianic tradition? His little rant about the photo of God, etc, is actually standard disinfo ... It's called "setting up a straw man so you can knock him down." So, does that make him a disinfo artist also???
Good question. But if he's the best they've got, Rense doesn't have anything to worry about. But, maybe that's the point.
One thing we have learned is this: the disinfo only gets subtler and subtler. Once you avoid one trap, the next one is laid...
DBS: Likewise, it is acceptable to discuss the issue of whether there are aliens on the earth, but it is not acceptable to point to a blurry object in a photograph and claim that the blurry object is an alien spacecraft.LKJ: Aside from being tediously asinine, the above is rather confusing coming, as it does, after all else he has said on the subject up to this point. However, we happen to agree with him that it is not acceptable to point to blurry objects and declare that they are alien spacecraft. We don't do that. But this remark seems to contradict what he said earlier:
"People who truly believe aliens are flying around the earth should get out of the 9/11 movement and stop pretending they they are 9/11 researchers. We don't need idiots in this movement. This is a serious fight against a lot of intelligent Zionists, and we don't need morons giving us a bad image."LKJ: So he has contradicted himself, after doing the "set up a straw man so you can knock him down" routine, he has knocked himself down.
At the end of this really nutzoid piece of writing, DBS closes with:
Daryl Bradford Smith will no longer tolerate the contamination of evidence of Israel's complicity in world domination. They are mixing UFOs, crop circles, Remote Viewing, and other drivel to discredit the hard evidence of Zionist crimes.Do not post Smith's material on any site that promotes such nonsense, and don't support the radio hosts who promote it.
I also am asking John Kaminski to stop posting articles on the Rense web site. John, why are you supporting Rense?
People who knowingly deceive people are criminals; con artists; swindlers. The UFO swindlers belong on the list to be guillotined. They are giving the subject of "conspiracies" a bad image, which in turn is allowing corruption to continue.
Please read our earlier article about the guillotine list before you complain about the previous paragraph.
If you think UFOs are real, all you have to do is Remote View the people at Coast to Coast radio, and others like them, and watch them laugh at the Useful Idiots who believe their nonsense.
Hmmm.... "Useful Idiots." I've heard that phrase before. Yes, it's coming to me now: I was introduced to the concept by none other than Jay Weidner.
Now, let's look again at this apparent food fight between Daryl Bradford Smith and Jeff Rense.
I did some checking around and it seems that DBS appeared out of nowhere, as far as we can tell, in February. His domain name was registered on February 8, a few days after our researchers had finished one research project and begun another project that were both related to determining and possible future exposure of, COINTELPRO, but I can't disclose either of them just now. Just suffice it to say that the emergence of this present situation relates very closely to those projects and suggests that the objects of our investigation must have friends in high places who are now setting up this present apparent food fight as a smoke screent. Rr-read this last sentence and read between the lines, please. Smith's domain was registered by proxy, by the way. I'm not even sure the guy really is in France. All that could be smoke and mirrors. His website help is based in Sarasota, Florida. In a rather short period of time, he was able to get more or less "high profile" (in alternative news context) interviewees on his show. What's up with that?
He gets all kinds of promotion from places like Godlike Productions (which we know a lot about, and which, by the way, continuously attack and defame us in truly vicious and illegal ways)and some other strange people, but when you listen to his shows, they are mostly just ignorant pot stirring. It's almost like DBS is a straw man himself, being set up to be knocked down by Rense.
Now, based on what I KNOW to be true, if he is doing these shows in France, he is breaking the law. Promoting hate, as he is doing, is illegal in France.
Anyway, less than two weeks after DBS registers his domain name, (a short time after our researchers had started the project mentioned above), Jay Weidner launched an odd "attack" on our webmaster, as I chronicled here. (Don't skip this one, it's a doozie! You wanna know how these guys operate? Read it and weep if you don't fall off your chair laughing!)
Of course, that could all be coincidental. But there were other "coincidences" related to this same gang. As it happens, immediately after Rense had me on his show to discuss my article "MOSSAD and Moving Companies", at which time he also published Jay Weidner's defamation of myself, my husband, our children, and QFG, Jay Weidner registered "cassiopaea.net" (which is referenced in the above linked exchange.
I had the feeling when Rense invited me on his show, and then published the defamatory piece by Weidner at the same time, that there was a particular agenda. I had the strong feeling that it was his intent to draw me out on the issue of MOSSAD and Zionists, to get me to say things that are illegal to say in France. Well, I refused to be drawn. I later wrote about this as follows (though, at the time, I had no idea of the close relationship between Rense and Weidner.)
As many of you know, almost exactly a month ago, I was invited to talk on the Jeff Rense show as a consequence of the MOSSAD and Moving Companies Article. What was rather surprising was the fact that Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley saw fit to send in a libelous article to Rense about us. (Keep in mind that the term "libel" refers specifically to lies.) Rense put the article as an addenda at the bottom of an article written by Richard Sauder that mentioned Cassiopaea as a possibly valid source of factual information. We found it to be incomprehensible that Rense would invite me to speak while, at the same time publish an article libelling me. Rense himself explained that he had published articles by Alvin Wiley before and always found his research to be good. When he was notified of the facts of the situation and provided with evidence of Wiley and Most' lies, Rense removed the libelous piece and apologized.We have certainly noted that Wiley occasionally writes op-ed pieces on political subjects, generally denigrating the Bush Regime in a mild way and that Most and his other co-horts are fairly active in political comments of a similar nature - decrying the war, the plight of the Palestinians, and so on.
So, it was certainly curious to discover that Wiley and Most would suddenly emerge in opposition to some obvious conclusions about the 9-11 event and possible government complicity. After all, we here at Signs are basically on the same page with Most and Wiley in political position, right? We are all Pro-humanity and anti-War, right? Even if we don't agree philosophically, we will certainly find a common ground politically, right?
One would think so. But we notice in Kevin MacDonald's CofC that the chief way to take apart an individualistic society is to turn the individuals against each other.
What a concept!
After all, even if - in my opinion - Wiley and Most are off in la-la land with their claims to esoteric traditions - I would have to admire any work they do to promote humanity as a whole and the anti-war position.
But exactly the opposite happened here. And I was puzzled.
Maynerd of Arabia? Maynerd Most, journalist? Back on 9-11, as I noted in the MOSSAD Happy Dance, I was extremely puzzled by the fact that Maynerd Most and his gang were crowing with delight at the destruction of the World Trade Center. After all, with his penchant for dressing up in Arabic outfits, that seemed to me to be a bit foolish.
At a later point in time, I really began to wonder about this possible connection to Islamic terrorists since I did find a link between Mujaheedin and Drunvalo Melchizedek and there were many connections between Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley and Drunvalo.
However, iIt was only after a period of long observation that this theory was discarded. After reviewing the material presented in the MOSSAD and Moving Companies article, the light bulb went on and I realized that it was truly COINTELPRO at its finest.Back to Wiley and Most and the Rense show affair.
Two days after this show, it seems that Alvin Wiley - remember Alvin? A guy who regularly posts articles attacking the Bush Administration? We are anti-Bush too, so one would think that we are "in the same camp," so to say - well, Alvin Wiley purchased "cassiopaea.net" to set up an ANTI-Cassiopaea website! (For details, see the Wiley Correspondence, and scroll to the end where these letters are posted)
Huh?
Shortly afterward, Maynerd Most and several others (though they may have just been different identities of Most himself) joined the casschat discussion list in order to begin a campaign of disruption and flaming.
Meanwhile, we discovered a website called "The Ross Institute" which appears to be VERY serious and informative. Their disclaimer states:
The information within the Ross Institute archives has been collected to offer the public a resource concerning groups called "cults," controversial organizations and movements. However, the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a "cult" and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy.
All the information archived must be evaluated critically, through a process of independent and individual judgment. Please note that there are links often prominently posted at the top of each individual page to a group or movement's own official website, which reflect their views. It is important to see what they have to say.
And lo and behold, what do we find on the Ross Institute list of Dangerous Cults?
Why, a link to Maynerd Most' "take" on Cassiopaea!
Now, this is going to get VERY juicy in just a minute, but before we get to the BEST part, let me just present a little exchange Ark had with Rick Ross of the Ross Institute List of "Dangerous Cults!":
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk To: info@rickross.com Subject: correction to your lkinks.html Date sent: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:55:36 +0200
Hi,
My name and name of my wife is mispelled in The Cassiopeia's (Ark Jadcyzk and Laura Knight-Jadcyzk)
It should read "Jadczyk"
And if you don't mind, would you be so kind and provide also a link to the original web-site of Laura and Ark Jadczyk? http://cassiopaea.org
Thank you,
ark
From: "Rick Ross" To: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk" Subject: Re: correction to your lkinks.html Date sent: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:02:59 -0400
The spelling will be corrected, but there seems to be problem. The link you point out on the Institute Links page seems to go to a commercial promotions page. Where is the information specifically warning about a destructive group? Have you deleted it?
Rick Ross www.rickross.com
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk To: "Rick Ross" Subject: Re: correction to your lkinks.html Date sent: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:48:33 +0200
Hi again,
First of all in The Truth about Cassiopeia: Ouiji Alien Alert you link to vincentbridges.com.
Maynerd Most is a liar: See: http://cassiopaea.com/archive/most.htm http://cassiopaea.com/archive/wiley.htm
It is true that we have a politically oriented http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs.htm
and scientifically oriented http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/homepage.htm site.
But in no way our site fits the criteria of "destructive cults".
Therefore Maynerd Most lied again when trying to discredit our site and us by suggesting to you that "Arkadiusz and Laura Jadczyk are a cult".
What I propose is: either delete the link completely, or, if you want to keep the link to the site full of lies about me and my wife, like vincenbridges.com, please be fair and add also the two links above which document the true destructive nature of Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley.
On our site "cassiopaea" we pursue similar goal as you do. See for instance http://cassiopaea.org/cass/schwaller1.htm
Listing us as a "cult", what Maynerd Most suggests, is an error on your part. You probably did not check his facts.
The two pages: http://cassiopaea.com/archive/most.htm http://cassiopaea.com/archive/wiley.htm tell the truth about the man your link promotes.
Sincerely, Arkadiusz Jadczyk
From: "Rick Ross" To: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk" Subject: Re: correction to your lkinks.html Date sent: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:03:37 -0400
The spelling will be corrected.
To better understand the site and the Links page specifically, see the following:
http://www.rickross.com/disclaimer.html
Your request to add additional links is refused.
Rick Ross www.rickross.com
Regarding Rick Ross, Cletus Nelson, a Los Angeles journalist, writes (published on The Lew Rockwell site):
To best understand why agents of the federal government massacred the members of a small Texas church, it behooves the conscientious WACO historian to closely examine the social forces lurking behind this unprecedented disaster.
If there is one sustaining thread which runs throughout this deadly exercise of state power, it is an endless pattern of deception.
From the very outset, the public was falsely led to believe a multiracial spiritual community was largely comprised of gun-running "rednecks" steeped in violent apocalypse theology and martial rhetoric.
As if to further darken the picture, thinly veiled allegations of child abuse and cultic phenomenon were widely circulated on television and in the mainstream press. This egregious use of what media analysts refer to as "negative framing" would seal the fate of the controversial 7th Day Adventist sect when it was deemed politically expendable by Washington officials.
Evidence suggests that these unsubstantiated claims which continue to shade our perception of the events at Mt. Carmel can be attributed to a small cadre of para-political "watchdog" groups.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with citizens banding together to expose government waste, combat police brutality, or warn the public of faulty or dangerous products.
However, in the lucrative realm of public policy activism lurk a number of pro-government advocacy groups whose very existence rests upon the notion that cult activities, political extremism or some other unnamed evil constitutes a dangerous threat to state power.
In order to identify the alleged thought criminals in our midst, operatives aligned with these private surveillance networks infiltrate unconventional spiritual or religious movements, maintain files on American citizens, and work closely with both media and law enforcement to target individuals and organizations whose beliefs run counter to establishmentarian beliefs.
In essence, these ersatz defenders of human rights act as de facto spokesmen for our emergent surveillance society. It’s COINTELPRO redux, only this time with help from a network of dubious, yet-well compensated agents.
One such organization is the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). Although the legendary cult-busters have since disappeared from the public spotlight after suffering a ruinous civil judgement, the once prominent watchdog group still enjoy an infamous place among WACO researchers. Indeed, the first stirrings of the Koresh investigation began when a CAN affiliate named Rick Ross allegedly "deprogrammed" various former Davidians and contacted BATF officials with lurid tales of child abuse and illegal machine guns. [...]
Few bothered to question the credibility of an organization which has flung the "cult" smear at Catholic monasteries, yoga groups, and even Karate classes! Instead, the public recoiled at the stunning accusations leveled against the besieged religious group. Meanwhile, far below the media radar, longtime critics of CAN noticed a familiar modus operandi. Citing outspoken CAN opponent Dr. Gordon Melton, Carol Moore notes that the organization "has found two successful methods of disrupting groups: first, false anonymous charges of child abuse and second, kidnapping and ‘deprogramming’ members."
In the aftermath of the tragic conflagration, Ross would justify the fatal tank attack in a self-serving letter to former Attorney General Janet Reno. "One thing is sure, David Koresh was an absolute authoritarian cult leader who exercised total control over his followers/victims. In the final analysis, he decided to end the conflict." However, Ross would later be subjected to the withering cricism of Princeton University religious scholar Nancy T. Ammerman in a report prepared for the Department of Justice which challenged CAN's ersatz expertise:
"Although these people often call themselves ‘cult experts,’ they are certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The activities of CAN are seen…as a danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been increasingly found to fall outside the law. At the very least, Mr. Ross and any ex-members he associated with should have been seen as questionable sources of information." [...]
Thus it is imperative that we closely scrutinize the information disseminated by the watchdog element and its relationship with government agencies – lest we witness further atrocities (and the ensuing cover-ups) on American soil.
Hmmm... Well, well, well.
Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley DO keep INTERESTING company! No wonder they went bananas over the MOSSAD article!
Coming back to Mr. Rick Ross, implicated in the Waco affair and a host of other unsavory activities that exactly fit what Kevin MacDonald has described in his study of the destruction of Western Civilization, I suppose we should be honored that our status has been bumped up so as to require the special attention of so accomplished an agent! Aside from the fact that it proves our point that the agenda of Most and Wiley and gang, from the beginning, has been to run a COINTELPRO on us - it also leads us a bit closer to the center of the web - the Masterminds of Global Terrorism.
The final email from Mr. Rick Ross is a little reply to Ark's question: "Did you really write the following:
I was not "fined $2,500,000.00." This was a civil judgment, not a "fine."
"I was never charged with "kidnapping," but instead "unlawful" or "false imprisonment."
Just curious,
ark
From: "Rick Ross" To: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk" Subject: Re: correction to your lkinks.html Date sent: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:28:18 -0400
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html
The site you are quoting has received recognition within the Hall of Flames section titled Flaming Websites. See
http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html
Note: See the listing/link for "Rick Ross: Guardian of the truth or garner of attention?"
This site received a maximum four flame award level, quite a stunning achievement.
Let me know when your website work is complete and I will review it for a possible award. Maybe you can earn four flames too.
Rick Ross www.rickross.com
Frankly, we think we deserve FIVE FLAMES for spotting COINTELPRO in action, especially with so many apparent links to MOSSAD.
As far as Signs is concerned, the litmus test has been applied: we KNOW Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley are liars and Rick Ross supports their websites and refuses to post a prominent link to the report on Maynerd Most - verified in every particular.
Remember Maynerd Most? The guy doing the MOSSAD Happy Dance on 9-11 along with the moving guys on top of a truck who were watching the WTC burn? Remember Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley? The guys who have devoted their lives to flaming and libelling Cassiopaea? And all we ever did was decline to be taken over by them.
That says it all.
Coming back now to DBS and his operations in France.
We notice that DBS uses the title: "The French Connection" .
Have a look here for the notice on my French Connection pages which were begun on March 8, 2003.
Now, obviously, I can't talk about The French Connection (mine, not DBS') for very particular reasons. But, even though I can't reveal certain details, I'm going to tell a little story that I hope will enable the reader to "read between the lines." Also, refer again to what I wrote above about drugs and human trafficking and governments and you'll have some idea of some of the forces behind the fact that I can't talk about what was there. These same forces are probably behind the events I am going to recount.
Some background: Recently a reader sent me an item that was posted on Montalk's forum:
Signs of the Times wrote:Comment: Yes, it HAS been a "good year" for the American People, but not in the way Bush is describing it. It's been good because I.Scooter Libby was indicted, possibly leading to more indictments next year; Abramoff is getting ready to sing his lungs out, possibly leading to more indictments of Bush cronies; the Patriot Act was NOT made permanent; Bush crony, Harriet Meiers didn't become a Supreme Court judge; Bush and his Gang have been exposed as vile torturers, and breakers of the Law of the Land, and the possibility of Impeachment is looming on the horizon for next year. Yes, indeedy, it's been a good year for the American People, but a veritable annus horribilis for Bush. Let's make a New Year's wish for Bush: May you get everything you deserve in the coming New Year!
Montalk forum writer:
This was the lead comment on the C's Signs of the Times page (http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs.htm). Unusually positive outlook from them. I wonder if they are engaged in a bit of the wishful thinking they are usually so disdainful of. Sure, when you put it the way they just did, this was a great year for us and a bad year for TPTB, or at least Bush. Could it have been orchestrated to only look bad for him, or are the forces of goodness and STO-ness actually winning?
Perhaps these minor victories have been handed to us only to give us a false sense of victory, in turn breeding complacency? I find it hard to believe that any real positive change could be underway re: Bush. Perhaps TPTB are tiring of him, or lulling us into false hope before the next major "event." But it does seem odd that the group that is always so quick to warn of the dangers of good news is celebrating; perhaps someone is pulling their strings also, or always was.
For those who don't know, Montalk is a young kid who used to be a member of QFG. There was a parting of the ways between him and QFG during the awful summer of 2003 when the events were transpiring that I was writing about in the French Connection. At that time, QFG discovered that Montalk had a number of articles on his site that advocated keeping guns, storing food, joining militias, and hanging out with some pretty fringe characters who are undoubtedly "vacuum cleaner" operations.
Even though these were "old articles" and modified by additional commentary, based on what was happening "on the ground", so to say, in France, we could see that this was a disaster waiting to happen. At that very moment, due to the actions of Vincent Bridges and Jay Weidner in concert with Jeff Rense, Ark and I and the Signs Team were being harassed by a strange group of individuals in France who had some close connections to the French Gendarmerie which was under the control of Nicolas Sarkozy, a close friend of Netanyahu. (Yes, we have enemies in very high places; why do you think so much energy is concentrated on attacking, defaming, slandering, and even physically threatening us?) And so, we relied on the idea that, if we ASKED him to remove those articles, or to publicly distance himself from those ideas, for our safety, and to trust us that we weren't just being paranoid here, he would do so and we could pass through this danger and talk about it later. But he neither trusted our assessment of the situation, nor was he willing to act in favor of our safety.
Certainly, what Montalk had written on his website was pretty "ordinary" in the U.S. Recently Montalk defended his writing by pointing out that it
goes entirely along with law and encourages the involvement of government, as well as seeks reduction in handguns which so many gangsters and thugs like to use. It encourages responsibility among citizens and alleviates some burden off law enforcement and the military, much like the system in Switzerland. Now, how would this attract attention from three-letter federal agencies as the Cass team claims? How would this advocate the stockpiling of weapons for a physical revolution? It wouldn't...the article is a peaceful solution to the gun issue.Guns are a last resort, but not one to be dismissed...
Frankly, despite Montalks protestations, I don't think that the above should be considered a "safe" thing to write on one's website in any country considering the state of the world and the Bush Reich's "war on terror." The reader might want to go and read this essay, and then go back and read "How To Spot a Spy" that I have transcribed above and draw some conclusions of their own. I think that any individual who is concerned about possibly being put on a list to be spied on or picked up and tossed in a gitmo camp should stay away from ANY website that even hints that it supports armed insurrection. It may be "technically legal," but then, the folks at Waco were technically legal also. After Rick Ross did his "they're a dangerous cult" rant to the authorities, nobody cared about legal technicalities: they were all burned to a crisp.
More than that, Montalk completely ignored the exact terms of what we were saying to him: that we were being set up, we could see it, and rational thinking has no bearing on a set-up. Set-ups rely on "knee-jerk" reactions being set off by false claims and taking things out of context. That's a historical fact, and those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Being associated with Montalk and his militia/gun-toting ideas - while living in France where what he was calling "reasonable" ideas are NOT acceptable - at that point would have gotten us thrown out of France in a heartbeat! Or worse, accused of being a cult with designs on the safety of God knows who, surrounded and burned out. Notice Montalks reference to "three letter agencies," as if that was the main thing we were worried about. That is completely disingenuous because of what I wrote to him at the time which included:
I am not sure you realize how all of the recent exchanges have affected us here. I'm not even sure that you understand what danger you have put all of us in. You don't have children, and it is not automatic for you to think of the consequences of actions, associations, and so on - and how it might affect everyone you love.The fact it, Montalk had a lot more information about the situation than he has revealed on his website to date. The urgency of the matter - to take action right now - was completely lost on Montalk. He delayed, fiddled around, and wrote endless emails arguing his right to say "reasonable things" on his own website, and endlessly debating whether we might be mis-reading the situation, and maybe we were wrong, and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, days were passing and the danger was growing. Either he didn't get it, or he got it all too well and all this was just "delaying tactics." Things were happening so fast that I couldn't even write fast enough to keep up with them. More than that, there were things we could not write about without putting ourselves in greater danger. In more recent times, he has written about the matter as follows:Well, I DO think about it all the time - not just for our family here - but for the group at large.
At this moment, it begins to look like an array of "set-ups" all the way around us, all designed to define us as a "dangerous cult." ...
At the present moment, in fact, right after the Rense article/show - someone (we don't know who) filed a complaint against us for doing "psychological damage" to them - that we are a "dangerous cult."
At any event, French intell is RIGHT NOW investigating ALL OUR CONNECTIONS. And you can bet that they will be reading everything on YOUR site also....
This article was just an idea I came up with while researching the subject for a literature class. In the way it's written, it would be benign even in the eyes of federal agencies who may instead nod at its advocacy of responsibility. The only thing the Cass team is threatened by is the illusion they created by taking selected parts out of context and ignoring the rest.
As it turned out, we were right and Montalk was wrong. Those are the facts on the ground. It was no illusion, and we pointed out from the beginning that anything that COULD be taken out of context would be, and that was the point.
Indeed, the situation grew and escalated and Ark and I were eventually summoned for interrogations. We were photographed and fingerprinted. I was ill at the time, but that didn't make any difference: the interrogation lasted almost four hours. Among the prepared questions (I was allowed to see the questions exactly one hour before they were addressed to me on the record), was the loaded one: "What is your relationship or association with the internet character known as Montalk and his ideas?"
Yup. There it was. The question that, had we answered that he was a friend and member of our group, considering his "advocacy of armed insurrection" and having guns in the closet, would have led - at the very least - to an assessment by the French government that we were potential threats to the public order.
Now, as it happened, prior to this interrogation, several other things were going on in relation to the growing threat that Montalk did not know about. Z*** was an individual who showed up on our doorstep in France (at exactly the same time) with the stated intention of "protecting" me from the many dangers he assured me were "out there" waiting to "take me out." His ideas included arming ourselves to the teeth and creating some kind of heirarchical structure where the only people who had access to me were ones vetted by - who else? - Z***! He claimed to be ex-special forces, trained in all kinds of high-falutin' martial arts and whatnot. When I politely, but firmly, refused his offers of "personal security," he left, stealing a number of things from our house before he went. I suspect that he took these items to turn them over to his Voodoo masters so they could try to make big, ugly ju-ju against me. (Sorry guys, doesn't work on me.) So, we had Weidner, Bridges (and Rense by default) broadcasting widely that we were a dangerous cult holed up in the French countryside, an association with a website that advocated guns and armed insurrection, had published a checklist to "Spot the OP," (xenophobia), and a guy on our doorstep with military connections and undoubted connections to some real cult action. (We never did find out much more about him in this respect to any degree of certainty because we sent him packing.) Meanwhile, a formal complaint that we were a cult had been filed in France, and our applications for permanent residence were an open case which included thorough background investigations by French Intell agencies.
What a set up!
We decided to consult the C's about this. The C's pointed out the fact that a trap was being laid, and something needed to be done immediately.
Of course, as described, we first gave the opportunity to Montalk to create the needed distance himself. As a member of the QFG, he was told what the danger was, was asked to do what was necessary to distance QFG from perceived association with radical, revolutionary, and even violent philosophies. We explained that it didn't matter that what he was writing was legal and acceptable in the U.S., or that he had written commentary that encouraged "government involvement" and "reduction" in handguns. What mattered was the environment WE were in, and observing history and how other groups had been similarly set up and the fact that, at that moment, we were being thoroughly investigated and even a whiff of anything "off" would be fatal.
Ark and I - and several other QFG members - wrote to him explicitly that these associations were dangerous to QFG and its entirely peaceful, philosophical aims, under the circumstances that prevailed at the time, and to please distance himself from those groups and ideas for the sake of the safety of all. He just couldn't bring himself to do it. It was easier to accuse us of being "threatened by .. the illusion they created by taking selected parts out of context and ignoring the rest."
We weren't taking anything out of context, we were taking everything IN context, in the context of historical precedent and a realistic evaluation of the clues in the environment.
It was exactly the same dynamic as it was with Vincent Bridges. He was into the Nazi black magic stuff while Ark and I and the nascent QFG were being attacked by agents of the ADL about those issues back in the summer of 2001, and when we spoke to him explicitly asking him to publicly distance himself from that nonsense for the sake of the safety of QFG, he refused. We then had to take steps of our own to make it clear to our readers that we in no way supported or subscribed to such ideas.
It seems that in both cases, Montalk and Bridges were so "identified" with their ideas, with their formulations of reality, that criticism of those formulas was taken as criticism of themselves. They don't even have to be conscious to be agents.
On the other hand, maybe they aren't so "identified" and ARE conscious of what they are doing?
We can't say.
I can say that now, after having read the little booklet on How To Spot a Spy that I have reproduced above that both of them fit the criteria for COINTELPRO agents provocateur. Can't you just see it? QFG is already accused of being a Cult by the Bridges/Weidner/Ross/Zionist disinfo campaign and what happens to cults with guns? Think Waco. We did due to the following C's session (mentioned above):
August 17, 2003
Q: (L) So what was Z**'s agenda?
A: You figured that one out.
Q: (J) Yeah he wanted to "cultify" us.
A: All of these many activities stem from the same "urge." Think about Waco and guns. Put that together with [Montalk] and his guns and you and the charge of "cult."
Q: (L) He could get us killed!
A: Stop and think about the possibility that your work was known in advance and all the preparations were made in advance to make the charge of cult mean what it does today.
Group laughter and shock at concept.
Q: (L) Was it done via time travel?
A: Not necessary. "Mass dreams of the future" anyone?
Q: (L) That's a book where people get progressed into the future and see the future. It's kind of like time travel in your head. (JH) Is that sort of like remote viewing?
A: Oh indeed!
Q: (L) So they can see the future, which has something to do with the Montauk project. And they obviously sought to do something about the future by adjusting the present, in a way. Hmmm... Montauk, Montalk... it even has a signature for anyone who cares to see it! (JH) Do the guys in the Aviary have anything to do with it?
A: You would not believe how many are involved. Many innocently of course.
It is an experiential fact that because Montalk refused to disassociate from his armed encampment ideas, QFG was placed in a very dangerous situation, especially when you include the concurrent activites of Bridges, Weidner, Rense, and then Z*** added to the local "elements" with Zionist connections. A simple request for him to publicly distance himself from those kinds of activities was met with stubborn refusal and QFG was obliged to take action to protect our lives, our liberty, and our work. It was that simple.
Now, was this a case of just Montalk's ego? In the case of Bridges and his Enochian Nazi Magick shtick, was it just his ego and his firm belief in that nonsense? Or was it something deeper?
In any event, we prefer to make it clear that we do NOT promote "revolution" or violence of any kind as the answer to the world's problems. In more recent times, Montalk has engaged in further self justification as follows:
Guns are a last resort, but not one to be dismissed...look at Nazi germany which was disarmed before the Nazis assumed control and thus left the Jews unable to resist, and look at Iraq which the Cass team cheers on for resisting the American occupation with guns and bombs. It's hypocrisy for the Cass team to both dismiss the idea of guns and simultaneously cheer their use in Iraq because America could be no different in the future. It's better to have these available and decide not to use them, than have them banned before they're needed. And if legalized, they should be used responsibly as I wrote in the article.
I think it is going way off the deep end to suggest that Signs of The Times "cheers" the use of guns in Iraq. We abhor violence of any kind. Repeatedly, readers write to us asking what to DO, and our answer is always and ever non-violent solutions. Note also that Montalk says above that he expects America to be engaged in armed violence in the future. Again I would warn anyone who does not wish to be placed on a list of people to be surveilled and/or removed to places like Gitmo, to NOT associate with any groups that promote such ideas. They are "vacuum cleaner" operations, collecting names and data for future use. It's that simple. As for QFG and its non-violent philosophies, we reiterate: Our personal safety depends on our position being made clear to the very real forces we must deal with on a daily basis. Perhaps Montalk doesn't have to worry about such forces?
In the final analysis, we can't say for sure that Montalk is COINTELPRO even if the indications suggest it. What we can say is that he is definitely not someone you would want to have to rely on in a difficult situation. But, people like Montalk and Bridges are useful in another way made clear in the following story:
A man and his dog were walking along a road. The man was enjoying the scenery, when it suddenly occurred to him that he was dead. He remembered dying, and that the dog walking beside him had been dead for years. He wondered where the road was leading them.
After a while, they came to a high, white stone wall along one side of the road. It looked like fine marble. At the top of a long hill, it was broken by a tall arch that glowed in the sunlight.
When he was standing before it he saw a magnificent gate in the arch that looked like mother-of-pearl, and the street that led to the gate looked like pure gold. He and the dog walked toward the gate, and as he got closer, he saw a man at a desk to one side.
When he was close enough, he called out, "Excuse me, where are we?"
"This is Heaven, sir," the man answered.
"Wow! Would you happen to have some water?" the man asked.
"Of course, sir. Come right in, and I'll have some ice water brought right up." The man gestured, and the gate began to open.
"Can my friend," gesturing toward his dog, "come in, too?" the traveler asked.
"I'm sorry, sir, but we don't accept pets."
The man thought a moment and then turned back toward the road and continued the way he had been going with his dog.
After another long walk, and at the top of another long hill, he came to a dirt road leading through a farm gate that looked as if it had never been closed. There was no fence. As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside, leaning against a tree and reading a book.
"Excuse me!" he called to the man.
"Do you have any water?"
"Yeah, sure, there's a pump over there, come on in."
"How about my friend here?" the traveler gestured to the dog.
"There should be a bowl by the pump."
They went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old-fashioned hand pump with a bowl beside it.
The traveler filled the water bowl and took a long drink himself, and then he gave some to the dog. When they were full, he and the dog walked back toward the man who was standing by the tree.
"What do you call this place?" the traveler asked.
"This is Heaven," he answered.
"Well, that's confusing," the traveler said. "The man down the road said that was Heaven, too."
"Oh, you mean the place with the gold street and pearly gates? Nope. That's hell."
"Doesn't it make you mad for them to use your name like that?"
"No, we're just happy that they screen out the folks who would leave their best friends behind."
So, coming back to Daryl Bradford Smith, there are all these funny confluences, combined with DBS' ignorant rant about anybody who talks about UFOs ought not to be in the 9/11 "research" field, and it has just set the warning bells ringing like mad in my head.
What also made me wonder was him coming out with his rant about disinformation artists at the precise time he did. Now, yeah, I've been writing about this for quite some time - having been victimized by it directly and in front of thousands of witnesses. But again, let me point out that it was only AFTER I started writing about it in the way I did, that quite a few other folks "got on the bandwagon." It was only shortly after I mentioned in an article a while back that Rense never gets defamed or attacked that he suddenly started coming up with "the Jews are attacking me" nonsense and "Rense is on the gov list of disinformation sites". Reading his so-called "attack" descriptions tells me that he hasn't got a clue about what kinds of things they can do. Seems rather like damage control to me. Especially when you consider his relationship with Zionist, Henry Winkler. It's all show.
So, more and more I'm beginning to think that DBS is just set up to go after Rense as his own "personal attacker." In this way, it will actually garner sympathy for Rense. DBS is just a "useful idiot" and expendable.
In short, I think that Daryl Bradford Smith is a tar baby. His "attacks" on Rense are just smoke and mirrors. Too many coincidentally "connected" things here. Call me paranoid if you like, but after more than 6 years of this kind of thing, experiencing it, observing it, experimenting and watching reactions, I'm getting pretty good at spotting it. And spotting it is crucial if you want to survive.
I learned a lot from Vinnie and Jay. Thanks, guys.
ORIGINALQuestion: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Indeed, here is an image of what was left of the house:
"Never ascribe to malice those things which may be explained by stupidity." That is an important phrase, and a necessary one; it keeps people from being paranoid. However, it has a corollary most people don't know: "One MAY ascribe to malice those things which stupidity cannot explain."
Robert Canup
As the mail continues to come in on the COINTELPRO issue, a number of questions have been raised - mainly about how to tell the difference between Truth and Lies - and I thought I would take some time this morning to try to cover a few aspects of this issue.
I've covered many aspects of this issue here and there on our websites, but since google manages to ensure that we are suppressed on search results, many people have not yet discovered these collections of observation, evidence, and supporting material. (Regarding google, we have been collecting data and making experiments for over a year now and will soon publish some of the results, but don't expect to them to be trumpeted by google!)
The primary problem that I see humanity struggling with today is precisely delineated by psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski: it is an almost total lack of adequate psychological knowledge on the part of the masses of humanity - the population of ordinary, normal people.
Ever since ancient times, philosophers and religious thinkers representing various attitudes in different cultures have been searching for the truth as regards moral values, attempting to find criteria for what is right, what constitutes good advice. They described the virtues of human character and suggested these be acquired. They created a heritage which contains centuries of experience and reflections. In spite of the obvious differences among attitudes, the similarity or complementarity of the conclusions reached by famous ancients are striking, even though they worked in widely divergent times and places. After all, whatever is valuable is conditioned and caused by the laws of nature acting upon the personalities of both individual human beings and collective societies.
It is equally thought-provoking, however, to see how relatively little has been said about the opposite side of the coin; the nature, causes, and genesis of evil. These matters are usually cloaked behind the above generalized conclusions with a certain amount of secrecy. Such a state of affairs can be partially ascribed to the social conditions and historical circumstances under which these thinkers worked. Their modus operandi may have been dictated at least in part by personal fate, inherited traditions, or even prudishness. After all, justice and virtue are the opposites of force and perversity, the same applies to truthfulness vs. lies, similarly like health is the opposite of an illness.
The character and genesis of evil thus remained hidden in discreet shadows, leaving it to playwrights to deal with the subject in their highly expressive language, but that did not reach the primeval source of the phenomena. A certain cognitive space thus remains uninvestigated, a thicket of moral questions which resists understanding and philosophical generalizations. [ ]
From time immemorial, man has dreamed of a life in which his efforts to accumulate benefits can be punctuated by rest during which time he enjoys those benefits. He learned how to domesticate animals in order to accumulate more benefits, and when that no longer met his needs, he learned to enslave other human beings simply because he was more powerful and could do it.
Dreams of a happy life of more accumulated benefits to be enjoyed, and more leisure time in which to enjoy them, thus gave rise to force over others, a force which depraves the mind of its user. That is why mans dreams of happiness have not come true throughout history: the hedonistic view of happiness contains the seeds of misery. Hedonism, the pursuit of the accumulation of benefits for the sole purpose of self-enjoyment, feeds the eternal cycle where good times lead to bad times.
During good times, people lose sight of the need for thinking, introspection, knowledge of others, and an understanding of life. When things are good, people ask themselves whether it is worth it to ponder human nature and flaws in the personality (ones own, or that of another). In good times, entire generations can grow up with no understanding of the creative meaning of suffering since they have never experienced it themselves. When all the joys of life are there for the taking, mental effort to understand science and the laws of nature - to acquire knowledge that may not be directly related to accumulating stuff - seems like pointless labor. Being healthy minded, and positive - a good sport with never a discouraging word - is seen as a good thing, and anyone who predicts dire consequences as the result of such insouciance is labeled a wet-blanket or a killjoy.
Perception of the truth about reality, especially a real understanding of human nature in all its ranges and permutations, ceases to be a virtue to be acquired. Thoughtful doubters are meddlers who cant leave well enough alone. Dont fix it if it aint broke. This attitude leads to an impoverishment of psychological knowledge including the capacity to differentiate the properties of human nature and personality, and the ability to mold healthy minds creatively.
The cult of power thus supplants the mental and moral values so essential for maintaining peace by peaceful means. A nations enrichment or involution as regards its psychological world-view could be considered an indicator of whether its future be good or bad.
During good times, the search for the meaning of life, the truth of our reality, becomes uncomfortable because it reveals inconvenient factors. Unconscious elimination of data which are, or appear to be, inexpedient, begins to be habitual, a custom accepted by entire societies. The result is that any thought processes based on such truncated information cannot bring correct conclusions. This then leads to substitution of convenient lies to the self to replace uncomfortable truths thereby approaching the boundaries of phenomena which should be viewed as psychopathological. [...]
When bad times arrive and people are overwhelmed by an excess of evil, they must gather all their physical and mental strength to fight for existence and protect human reason. The search for some way out of difficulties and dangers rekindles long-buried powers or discretion. Such people have the initial tendency to rely on force in order to counteract the threat; they may, for instance, become trigger happy or dependent upon armies. Slowly and laboriously, however, they discover the advantages conferred by mental effort; improved understanding of psychological situations in particular, better differentiation of human characters and personalities, and finally, comprehension of ones adversaries. During such times, virtues which former generations relegated to literary motifs regain their real and useful substance and become prized for their value. A wise person capable of furnishing sound advice is highly respected.
It seems that there have been many such bad times in the course of human history, and it was during such times that the great systems of ethics were developed. Unfortunately, during good times, nobody wants to hear about it. They want to enjoy things, to have pleasure and pleasant experiences, and so any literature that relates to such times is lost, forgotten, suppressed, or otherwise ignored. This leads to further debasing of the intellectual currency and opens the gap for bad times to come once again. [Andrew Lobaczewski, Ph.D. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes]
The facts are that good times for one group of people have been historically rooted in some injustice to other groups of people. In such a society, where all the hidden truths lurk below the surface like an iceberg, disaster is just around the corner.
It is clear that America has experienced a long period of good times for most of its existence, (no matter how many people they had to oppress or kill to do so), but particularly so during the 50 years preceding September 11, 2001. During that 50 years, several generations of children were born, and the ones that were born at the beginning of that time, who have never known bad times, are now at an age where they want to enjoy the benefits they have accumulated. Unfortunately, it doesnt look like that is going to happen; 9/11 has changed everything so profoundly that it looks like there will be no enjoyment by anyone for a very, very long time.
How could this happen?
The answer is that a few generations worth of good times results in the above described societal deficits regarding psychological skills and moral criticism. Long periods of preoccupation with the self and accumulating benefits for the self, diminish the ability to accurately read the environment and other people. But the situation is more serious than just a generalized weakness of a society that could be toughened up with a little hard times.
Lobaczewski writes: The psychological features of each such crisis are unique to the culture and the time, but one common denominator that exists at the beginning of all such bad times is an exacerbation of societys hysterical condition. The emotionalism dominating in individual, collective, and political life, combined with the subconscious selection and substitution of data in reasoning, lead to individual and national egotism. The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant retaliation, taking advantage of hyperirritability and hypocriticality on the part of others. It is this feature, this hystericization of society, that enables pathological plotters, snake charmers, and other primitive deviants to act as essential factors in the processes of the origination of evil on a macro-social scale. [Andrew Lobaczewski, Ph.D. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes]
We can conjecture that if one psychologist knows the above, a few others must know it as well. And maybe some of them work for the government that has taken such advantage of 911? If we think about it, it becomes quite logical that, if they know these things then they may very wll have been complicit in 911 for the very purpose of "exacerbating society's hysterical condition." As Lobaczewski notes, it is the hysterization of society that enables pathological plotters to basically take over.
Who, exactly, are the pathological plotters, and what can motivate such individuals during times that are generally understood by others as good to do things that will bring on "bad times." If times are good, why does anyone want to plot and generate evil? Especially since it is obvious to anyone with two neurons firing that such activity will (and has historically) lead to the destruction of the plotters themselves?
Well, certainly, the current US administration has come up with an answer: They hate us because of our freedoms. This is a prime example of selection and substitution of data in reasoning which is willingly and gladly accepted as an explanation by the public because of their deficits of psychological skills and moral criticism. The truth is somewhat different.
Unfortunately, after so long a time of being subjected to lies and disinformation, the likelihood of society being able to overcome the social and cultural programming is difficult, but not impossible. And that is where things like COINTELPRO come into play: psyops agents are masters of triggering emotional programs that put people back to sleep. As a student on the subject, Robert Canup, has said, 99% of all of the problems confronting mankind can be traced to a single cause: the problem of the plausible lie. And the plausible lie is what COINTELPRO is all about.
Plausible lies are monstrous things propagated by evil people for the express purpose of deceiving good people into doing the will of those who do not have their best interests at heart. It's that simple. The most powerful of these lies are so plausible that nobody even dreams about questioning their validity. Allow me to quote Richard Dolan on this point:
Some will dismiss this as one of the many conspiracy theories dotting America's landscape. The very label serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.
The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.
Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. [...]
Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.
America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.
Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.
During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.
Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.
In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]
A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.
If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?
Secrecy, weath and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the world's most sophisticated technology, sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability with US borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars.
Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution...
The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.
[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide something like this for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.
Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.
[E]vidence [of the true nature of the nature of National Security State and how it really operates] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture, [created by COINTELPRO]. [Richard Dolan, UFOs and the National Security State]
Now, even though I know I am little more than a David against the Goliath of the well-funded arms of the National Security State, such as the many diverse and often contradictory sources of information and disinformation, including the mainstream media, many alternative media sources, so-called "Truth seeking groups" of all kinds, so-called New Age and Alternative writers and Impresarios of all shapes and sizes, (most of whom are COINTELPRO bogus organizations), I will continue to point out what can be observed if your eyes are open and your neurons are firing, and what can be asserted with some certainty based on collections of evidence, both material and circumstantial. Having said that, let me ask this: If there is such a thing as a plausible lie, is it not also possible that there might be such a thing as an implausible truth?
Using Canup's example: Suppose that tomorrow when you walk out of your house, an alien spacecraft lands in front of you. Aliens get out and assault you, leaving physical traces. Next, imagine that this is not a hallucination, it is not dream; it really happens. You are now in possession of an implausible truth. What chance is there of you being able to convince anyone else of what happened to you? You know it is the truth, but no one will believe you. And the root of the problem is the fact that truth generally has a feeling of reality to it. However, that feeling of reality which makes truth generally plausible is NOT the same thing as the truth itself. Others who have not experienced aliens landing and assaulting them do not have the same feeling of reality about what you are telling them. If everyone else had experienced a similar event, with the attendant feeling of reality, the truth of that event would be accepted immediately.
In short, people believe what is "familiar," or what is part of a careful, long term program of familiarization of lies that become plausible simply because they are familiar.
When science first discoverd that solid matter was mostly empty space, many people reacted to this truth - this unfamiliar fact of our reality - with outrage. Debates over the "solidity" of matter and "kicking rocks" raged for years. It took a very long time, and a lot of work to gradually make others aware of this truth in order to make this "implausible" fact part of our awareness.
Learning about evil in our society, how it operates on the macro-social scale, is considered by many to be "unpleasant." They don't want to go there. It is too disturbing and even frightening. More than that, talking about these things as I am here is not familiar. To talk about evil as though it were a REAL concept is something we have been programmed to NOT do! As psychologist George Simon says:
[W]eve been pre-programmed to believe that people only exhibit problem behaviors when theyre troubled inside or anxious about something. Weve also been taught that people aggress only when theyre attacked in some way. So, even when our gut tells us that somebody is attacking us and for no good reason, we dont readily accept the notion. We usually start to wonder whats bothering the person so badly underneath it all thats making them act in such a disturbing way. We may even wonder what we may have said or done that threatened them. We almost never think that they might be fighting simply to get something, have their way, or gain the upper hand. So, instead of seeing them as merely fighting, we view them as primarily hurting in some way. [...]The legacy of Sigmund Freuds work has a lot to do with this. Freuds theories (and the theories of others who built upon his work) heavily influenced the psychology of personality for a long time. Elements of the classical theories of personality found their way into many disciplines other than psychology as well as into many of our social institutions and enterprises. [...]
The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freuds observations about a small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.[ ]
We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as opposed to those who cower or run too much. [George K. Simon, Jr., In Sheeps Clothing]
We clearly need to study this problem of macro-social evil in our world in a systematic and scientific way. And we need to get over the idea that thinking only good thoughts, thinking about happy and "nice" things is the way to good psychological health.
If physicians behaved like ethicists and failed to study diseases because they were only interested in studying questions of health, there would be no such thing as modern medicine. [ ] Physicians were correct in their emphasis on studying disease above all in order to discover the causes and biological properties of illnesses, and then to understand the pathodynamics of their courses. A comprehension of the nature of a disease, and the course it runs, after all, enables the proper curative means to be elaborated and employed.[ ]
The question thus arises: could some analogous modus operandi not be used to study the causes and genesis of other kinds of evil scourging human individuals, families, societies? Experience has taught the author that evil is similar to disease in nature, although possibly more complex and elusive to our understanding. [...]
Considerable moral, intellectual, and practical advantages can be gleaned from an understanding of the genesis of Evil thanks to the objectivity required to study it dispassionately. The human heritage of ethics is not destroyed by taking such an approach: it is actually strengthened because the scientific method can be utilized to confirm the basic values of moral teachings.
Understanding the nature of macro-social pathology helps us to find a healthy attitude and thus protects our minds from being controlled or poisoned by the diseased contents and influence of their propaganda.
We can only conquer this huge, contagious social cancer if we comprehend its essence and its etiological causes.
Such an understanding of the nature of the phenomena leads to the logical conclusion that the measures for healing and reordering the world today should be completely different from the ones heretofore used for solving international conflicts. It is also true that, merely having the knowledge and awareness of the phenomena of the genesis of macro-social Evil can begin healing individual humans and help their minds regain harmony. [Andrew Lobaczewski, Ph.D. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes]
Now, let me recommend new readers to take a look at my post on How to Spot a COINTELPRO Agent. Keep in mind that the booklet I am quoting from there was compiled by activists from earlier days that had direct experiences where they were able to see only afterward how they had been duped and sidelined. My grandmother always said: A smart man learns from his mistakes; a genius learns from the mistakes of others. In the case of COINTELPRO, some of those activists were smart, but not geniuses. Most of them got taken out, and some of them literally had their lives completely destroyed because they were sincere and stubborn. The material in that booklet is priceless today because those who compiled it paid a high price to learn those things. Let's try to be geniuses here.
As Robert Canup writes, we face a particular, even monstrous, problem in our world: that most of what we know or think we know is based on plausible lies. A person who is sincere and speaks the truth really has almost no chance against a plausible liar. Yes, I know that goes against everything we have been taught from childhood in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, but it is all too sadly true. We have been taught that "the Truth will always win" and that "anybody who believes a lie about you wasnt your friend to begin with", and a whole host of other platitudes that actually would work in a different world: a world run by people who tell the truth!
But since our world is run by people who lie for a living, you might expect that they have set things up so that liars will always win. And that is, oh so sadly, the case.
Our culture agrees on the signs of lying. Ask anyone how to tell if someone is lying and they will tell you that they can tell by lack of eye contact, nervous shifting, or picking at ones clothes. Psychologist Anna Salter writes with dry humor: This perception is so widespread I have had the fantasy that, immediately upon birth, nurses must take newborns and whisper in their ears, Eye contact. Its a sign of truthfulness. [Anna C. Salter, Ph.D.]
The problem is, if there is a psychopath or those with related characteropathies who doesnt know hot to keep good eye contact when lying, they havent been born. Eye contact is universally known to be a sign of truth-telling. The problem is liars will fake anything that it is possible to fake, so in reality, eye contact is absolutely NOT a sign of truth telling. Anna Salter writes:
The man in front of me is a Southern good-ole-boy, the kind of man I grew up with and like. If anything, I have a weakness for the kind of Southern male who can Sam Ervin you, the Southern lawyer who wears red suspenders in court along with twenty-five-year-old cowboy boots and who turns his accent up a notch when he sees the northern expert witness coming. A northern city slicker on the witness stand will elicit the same kind of focused interest that a deer will in hunting season. You can have some very long days in court with men who wear red suspenders and start by telling you how smart you are and how simple and dumb they are.
I survey the man in front of me. I am not in court; I am in prison, and he is not an attorney but a sex offender, and he has bright eyes along with that slow, sweet drawl. He is a big man, slightly balding, and he has I have to admit there is such a thing an innocent face.
My Southern good-ole-boy certainly knows eye contact is considered a sign of truthfulness. He describes his manner in getting away with close to 100 rapes of adults and children.
The manner that I use when I was trying to convince somebody even though I knew I was lying Id look them in the eye, but I wouldnt stare at them. Staring makes people uncomfortable and that tends to turn them away, so I wouldnt stare at them. But look at them in a manner that, you know, look at this innocent face. How can you believe that I would do something like that? It helps if you have a good command of the vocabulary where you can explain yourself in a way that is easily understood. Dress nice. Use fluent hand gestures that are not attacking in any way.
Its a whole combination of things. Its not any one thing that you can do. Its a whole combination of things that your body gestures and things that say Look, Im telling you the truth, and I dont know what these people are trying to pull. I dont know what theyre trying to prove, but I havent done any of this. I dont know why theyre doing this. You can check my records. Ive got a good record. Ive never been in any trouble like this. And I dont know whats going on. Im confused.
As if reading my thoughts, he breaks off: You dont get this, Anna, do you? he says. You think that when Im asked, Did I do it? thats when I lie. But Ive been lying every day for the last twenty-five years.
The practiced liar: a category of liar that even experts find it difficult to detect.
Problem is, even when dealing with people who are not practiced liars, such as college students who have volunteered for a research study of lying, most observers are not as good as they think in detecting deception. The research shows consistently that most people even most professional groups such as police and psychologists have no better than a chance ability to detect deception. Flipping a coin would serve as well.
If you want to deny something, make sure youve got an element of truth in it. It sounds like its true, and there are elements of it that are very true that can be checked out, and try to balance it so that it has more truth than lie, so that when it is checked out, even if the lie part does come out, theres more truth there than lie.
This man was good enough that once he got away with stomping out of court in a huff. He was accused by his sister of raping her and molesting her daughter on the same day. He played it as a preposterous charge. His sister, he told the court, had once accused his uncle of abuse. She was well known in the family for making up crazy charges like this. He said he wasnt going to put up with such nonsense and walked out. No one stopped him, and no one ever called him back. The charge just disappeared somehow. He now admits that both charges were true.
It is likeability and charm that he wields as weapons.
The double life is a powerful tactic. There is the pattern of socially responsible behavior in public that causes people to drop their guard, and to turn a deaf ear to disclosures. The ability to charm, to be likeable, to radiate sincerity and truthfulness, is crucial to the successful liar and they practice assiduously.
Niceness is a decision, writes Gavin De Becker in The Gift of Fear. It is a strategy of social interaction; it is not a character trait.
Despite the decades of research that have demonstrated that people cannot reliably tell whose lying and who isnt, most people believe they can. There is something so fundamentally threatening about the notion that we cannot really know whether or not to trust someone that it is very difficult to get anyone clinicians, citizens, even police to take such results seriously.
I stare at the childs statement in front of me. It is a report by a social worker of a four-year-olds account of sexual abuse by her father . [excerpts of actual report not included; read the book]
I consider the report carefully. It is filled with detail. The words are a childs words, the description exact. It is clear this child knows what oral sex is. It shows no signs of coaching. But why was this report sent to me with all the personal names and identifying information removed?
This report, I learn, surfaced in the middle of a custody fight. Dad was a wealthy businessman, successful, well respected, and well liked. Mom was an inpatient in a drug unit. My heart sinks. It does not matter how realistic this report is, how many signs of credibility, how few signs of coaching: In our system of justice, lawyers are for sale. Dads money is going to buy some very good lawyers indeed. It isnt clear that Mom has either the money or the will to oppose him. And the child: shell be lucky to be represented at all.
Ive thought many times that if I were accused of a crime, Id rather have the better lawyer than be innocent.
But it seems that the court responds appropriately and appoints two independent psychologists to make a recommendation. Two independent chances to get it right. Two people who are not beholden to either side and who can ask for any test, even a polygraph, as part of their decision-making. Two people whose job it is to know something about deception and to sort out the true from the false.
But both psychologists opt instead for what is termed and interactional assessment. They simply watch the father interact with his daughter, looking for signs of bonding or, conversely, fear. They believe if he abused her, she will be afraid of him; if she loves him, he is innocent. [Anna C. Salter, Ph.D., Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders]
There is no research or theory to support this approach. Sex offenders are notorious for bonding with a child and using that relationship to manipulate the child into having sex with them. In addition, a child might be afraid for very different reasons; the man may have struck her mother, but never laid a hand on her, sexually or otherwise. What justification is there for believing that one can tell from the interaction between child and alleged perpetrator whether the abuse has occurred or no?
Anna Salter stood up at a conference to challenge the interactional assessment approach and was silenced.
In this childs case, the alleged perpetrator is her father. Surely she loves him, even if he did what she has disclosed. He has not used violence. She does not know that there is anything wrong with what he is doing. She is four years old.
One of the evaluators notes: Observations of father and daughter indicate a very happy, spontaneous and positive relationship.
I sigh. As if that had anything to do with anything. The fact that she loves him doesnt mean that hes innocent or guilty. Then I find something in the case file that makes me sit up straight. Of concern are the admissions by Mr. Jones that earlier in his life he had engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with three children These were the children of the woman he was living with at the time.
I stare at the note. This psychologist knew hed done it before in identical circumstances. It is a damning admission and surely means the psychologist should take this latest disclosure seriously. But he does not. Mr. Jones, it seems, is too charming, too rich, too respected. Despite knowing he is an admitted child-molester, both psychologists recommend that full custody go to Dad.
And there the story ends in most cases.
But, in this case, the fathers attorney, so convinced that his client was innocent, sent him to a polygrapher. I know he thought he was innocent because he sent him to a very good polygrapher, not the one to whom an attorney would knowingly send a guilty client. This polygrapher is an unusually good interrogator and has a 98 % confession rate. He tells his clients:
Now the problem with the polygraph is that it cant tell the difference between a big lie and a little lie and I would hate, I would truly hate for you to mess up your polygraph with something little that dont amount to a hill of beans. So if there is anything, anything at all that you want to tell me before the polygraph, nows the time so we can get it out of the way.
Under these instructions, the polygrapher found that Mr. Jones had quite a few things to say:
[Im not including most of the confessions of this man, just selected and highly edited excerpts.]
They shower together and fondle one another. Sometimes he masturbates while they are in the shower and he encourages the child to assist, saying that this is educational for her. They sleep nude together and sometimes things happen. This man bought a vibrator for his four-year-old daughter. And so on.
All of these confessions were made BEFORE the polygraph. What is astonishing is that he fails the polygraph because he was withholding information on oral sex with his daughter.
I find a handwritten note from the polygrapher in the file. He faxed the report to the attorney for the father. It was a private polygraph, after all, requested by the fathers attorney and not one required by either of the independent evaluators (though they COULD have asked for it.] Within five minutes of faxing the report, the phone rang, Ive worked with you for twenty years, the attorney said to him. I hope I dont have to remind you what privileged communication means.
What privileged communication means is that this report fell under attorney-client privilege and therefore was suppressed. What is means is that the fathers attorney was under no requirement whatsoever to release the report to the court, and, by law, the polygrapher could not.
What it means is that the only reports the court saw in this case were by the two psychologists who thought they could tell whether the father way lying by interviewing him and that they could tell if the child was abused by seeing if she loved her father. What it means is that, in 1996, full custody of this child went to her father where it has remained ever since.
The polygrapher, anguished by the outcome, sent the case to me after removing the real names, with the hope that I can use it for educational purposes.
Mr. Jones was a well-respected member of the community with a crazy wife. And he was so sincere. Clearly, the child loved him dearly. Such a man is hardly likely to be a child molester, now is he? [Anna C. Salter]
Another similar case has a report about the father:
Since the father denied the allegations, it is difficult to determine the identity of the perpetrator. In support of the fathers truthfulness he was very forthright during the interview and testing procedures. For example, he acknowledged having difficulty in his sexual relations at time, and he openly admitted that he had a possible drinking problem
Because he admitted some problems, the psychologist concluded that he would not lie about other, more serious problems! Because he admitted problems that were legal, she concluded he would not lie about activity that was illegal! That is just rationalization; the truth is that the psychologist just simply believed the lies.
One clinical evaluator noted in a report about a sexual predator that he stayed back to close one of the doors, a very solicitous gesture that, as it turned out, is consistent with his general pattern of behavior. The report went on to describe him as kind, thoughtful, and considerate, a person who seemed to take pleasure in helping and caring.
Instead of concluding that the man was good at creating a front, the psychologist concluded that the man was not a brutal, violent, serial rapist. Fortunately, there was considerable evidence that he was, and he was convicted. In this case, the court got it right even if the psychologist was out to lunch.
In another case, a very well known psychologist evaluated a three month old infant with bite marks all over him. Only two people had the opportunity to inflict the bite marks in the specific time frame, and they were the parents. Suspicion centered on the father. The psychologist who was asked to evaluate him reported how tenderly he wiped the infants nose in the evaluation, how carefully he held the baby. Based on the mans behavior in the interview, she exonerated him and recommended custody remain with the parents. Two years later, he killed the infant. [From Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders by Anna C. Salter]
This is an issue that will never die. It seems impossible to convince people that private behavior cannot be predicted from public behavior. Kind, nonviolent individuals behave well in public, but so do predators, rapists, murderers, pedophiles and COINTELPRO agents who help to shape the culture in which we live. No, they weren't always called COINTELPRO, but the principle is the same. It has been used since time immemorial. The earliest written records we have are of "clappers" in the audiences of theaters in ancient Greece. What do you think the term "Greek Chorus" means? We have exactly that in the present day in the form of the mainstream media. Did you think that, with the power of the internet to reach millions of people that the "powers that be" would have ignored the necessity of installing a "Greek Chorus" on the net? "The chorus offered background and summary information to help the audience follow the performance, commented on main themes, and showed how an ideal audience might react to the drama as it was presented. They also represent the general populace of any particular story." Discussion boards are ideal formats for "Greek Choruses" as they can be vectored to "show how the ideal audience ought to react," and to "represent the general populace." In this way, the illusion can be created of a concensus when, in fact, such a concensus may not exist.
Polls are another example of Greek Choruses or Clappers.
Consider our legal system. Here you first have to ask yourself just what kind of people were in charge of the creation and shaping of our social norms. Now sure, everybody will agree with the sayings that you cant trust a politician, or power corrupts and so on, but have you ever really stopped to think about that and what it must really mean?
Most people have heard of Ted Bundy; the serial killer who was executed in Florida several years ago. Not many people are aware of the fact that Bundy was studying to become a prosecutor, and that eventually he hoped to become a judge. Those that do know that fact see it as some strangely ironic twist - an inexplicable quirk in Bundy's bizarre makeup. It never seems to occur to most people that the perfect place for a psychopathic serial killer to hide in society is as a prosecutor or a judge; but I assure you that it occurs to the Psychopaths of the world. I would estimate that about 10% of the prosecutors and judges in the United States are in fact, S.A.Ps. The ONLY difference between them and Ted Bundy is that they were able to control outward signs of their Psychopathy until they achieved their goal of being in a position of authority. [...]
John had one overriding dream; to become a judge. Here was the greatest reward possible for a psychopath: to put on the royal robes of the judiciary - to become a demigod - to have others plead to Him and beg His indulgence, to have everyone rise in awe and respect when He entered the room, for His word to literally be law, to be able to create an almost endless amount of human misery, just because He could, to punish summarily anyone who, quite correctly, displayed contempt for Him, to have the power of life and death over people, to be granted the only royal title available in the United States: "Your Honor".
How brilliant of his predecessors to slip that one past the watchful eyes of the founding fathers - who sought to establish an egalitarian society free of the mental disease of royalty. There are, he reflected, no "Your Majesties" or "Your Excellencies" in this country, but we quietly fooled everyone into accepting "Your Honors".
'John House slept soundly. In his dreams he and his kind had finally succeeded in reshaping the world into the image they wanted: the dark ages had returned. Once more the plague swept unchallenged over the country side. John could hear the voice crying out in the mud street in front of his hovel: "Bring out your dead!"
John was in his glory. This was life the way it was supposed to be. He was the new Torquemada: randomly selecting anyone who was unscarred by smallpox for a session on the rack; since anyone who had escaped disfigurement had obviously signed a pact with the devil. Here at last was an era where John and his kind could feel good by comparison: with so much misery around him John knew he was better off than those he could see dying in squalor and ignorance. John reveled in the suffering of all about him. He did what he could to make that suffering worse; no agony was so great that John House could not add to it.'
It is difficult to believe that huge parts of society have been built with the guidance of the mentally ill; but they have been. The average person is heavily invested in doing things the way Psychopaths want them done, and is unaware that the things that the S.A.Ps have them doing are psychopathic. [Robert Canup, The Socially Adept Psychopath]
Richard Dolan has pointed out that those at the top will ALWAYS take whatever measures necessary to stay at the top, and when knowledge is power, that means that they will make sure that they are in control of what people know or think they know. The sad fact is that as a society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian. Social stratification and segregation leads to feelings of inferiority, pessimism and depression among the have-nots, and this promotes the use of "cheating strategies" in life which then makes the environment more adaptive for psychopathy in general. Such individuals may begin their lives in the lower socio-economic levels, but they often rise to the top. Psychopathic behavior seems to be on the rise because of the very nature of American capitalistic society. The great hustlers, charmers, and self-promoters in the sales fields are perfect examples of where the psychopath can thrive. The entertainment industry, the sports industry, the corporate world in a Capitalistic system, are all areas where psychopaths naturally rise to the top. Psychopaths seek power over others, it's that simple, and they gravitate to any field where there is power: medicine, law, industry, politics. It has always been that way; this is nothing new. Indeed, they comprise a very small segment of the population with an extremely large influence. It is due to this influence and the plausible lie that they can magnetize normal, decent people to follow them. They can make social conditions bad so that people feel oppressed and abused, and then they can easily blame it on someone else and agitate the people to go after and kill others based on such lies. Machiavelli discussed this sort of system plainly and openly and it has been the system of power since Cain killed Abel.
So, consider the idea that the ideas behind our social and cultural systems including the legal system were created by people whose agenda was to control society so that they could stay on top. And think about all the many ways they might go about doing that.
These are the same people who set up the legal system so that people would get what they deserved
Now, just think about that for a moment.
Imagine that you are a person at the top of the heap who knows that if you really set up a system where people got what they really deserved, you, yourself, would be instantly replaced - out the door in an instant! And so, if you are not just intent on staying on top and holding power, but cunning also, you will do everything in your power to insure that you and your kind are in charge of setting up that system, and that you remain in charge of it. You would make certain that evil was blended into the social and cultural concepts so seamlessly that nobody would ever notice.
And that is, quite literally, what happened. The individuals at the top of the heap, who had gotten there by being the most vile and rapacious, then set about figuring out ways to deceive the masses all the while keeping their favor and adulation. They knew they had to make laws to keep order, and they knew they had to make those laws seem fair and reasonable to the masses of people or they would lose control. Losing control was the thing to be feared as anyone who has read The Prince by Machiavelli realizes.
And so, Machiavellian manipulators at the top of the heap were deeply involved in the formation of our cultural and social norms, including our legal system.
In the earliest days of this legal system there was a form of justice called trial by ordeal. An example of trial by ordeal was holding a red hot iron to a defendant's tongue. The plausible lie used to justify this behavior was: if the defendant was telling a lie they would have a dry mouth and would be burned by the iron - while a truthful person would have a moist mouth and would be protected.
The fact is a NORMAL person who is telling the truth would most definitely have a dry mouth from fear, while a psychopath, who is incapable of feeling fear, would be the one with the moist mouth!!!
Now, just think about that for a few minutes.
(You might want to read my article on Ponerology and other articles on psychopathy, which quote extensively from several clinical psychologists on the subject of psychopathy just to get a real handle on the issue we are facing.)
Now, our current legal system is descended from trial by ordeal - and really isn't much different though it is much cleverer and simply not as obviously evil as that one was. You have already read a few examples above of just how the system works. As Anna Salter said, if she was accused of a crime, she would rather have a good lawyer than be innocent. That is a truly sad statement on our reality. Heres a simple way to understand our legal system, adapted from the writings of Robert Canup:
Suppose that you are on a team that is engaged in a game and you discover that:
The other team gets to make up the rules. The referee plays for the other team. One of the rules is that you are not allowed to score - the other team is at no risk Only you can be scored against.
That is precisely how our social, cultural, and legal systems operate.
The conditions of our world are designed to create the maximum chance that evil will prevail and the good people will be punished by being good and telling the truth.
Punishing normal, decent, good people involves more than just creating a social system that acts against them. The system is designed to insure that these good people are subjected to as much pain as possible for the simple fact of being good and honest. An obvious example of punishing the innocent may be found in the way the victim in a rape case is treated; their reputations are dragged through the dirt - all in the name of justice of course. Note the case quoted above, of the fellow who raped his sister and her daughter and walked out of court after accusing her of being a mental case.
The system that controls our thinking is set up like the legal system. People are taught to assume that, in any conflict, one side is lying one way, and the other is lying the other way, and people can just form opinions about which side is telling the truth. They are taught that the truth will lie somewhere between two extremes.
That is a wonderfully plausible lie.
Canup suggests that, to see the evil behind that plausible lie, we must make a different assumption: let us assume that in such cases, one side is innocent, honest, and tells the truth. It is obvious that lying does an innocent defendant no good; what lie can he tell? If he is innocent, the only lie he can tell is to falsely confess "I did it."
On the other hand, lying is nothing but good for the liar. He can declare that I didn't do it and accuse another of doing it; all the while the innocent person is saying I didn't do it and is telling the truth.
The truth - when twisted by good liars, can always make an innocent person look bad - especially if he is honest and admits that he has faults. If someone is telling the simple truth, and the other side is lying through their teeth, the basic assumption that the truth lies between the testimony of the two sides always shifts the advantage to the lying side and away from the side telling the truth. Under most circumstances, this shift put together with the fact that the truth is going to also be twisted in such a way as to bring detriment to the innocent person, results in the advantage always resting in the hands of liars.
Canup points out that, even the simple act of giving testimony under oath is useless. If a person is a liar, swearing an oath means nothing to that person. However, swearing an oath acts strongly on a serious, truthful witness. Again, the advantage is placed on the side of the liars.
Proof is a familiar concept to those used to conventional logical thinking. However what passes for proof in cultural, social, and even legal terms often bears only a superficial resemblance to what would be considered proof by those who really use their minds to think.
For example: in formal mathematics, proof rules are established - postulates are set out and a structure is built based on the postulates and the theorem. Mathematical proof is pretty much inarguable: once a proof is accepted as true it is added to the pool of known truths.
In legal proof there is a set of rules and a theory which the prosecution presents, and attempts to prove the theory by clever argumentation rather than facts. Truth is not the objective. Getting other people to believe the theory IS the objective. However, the prosecution's theory is whatever the prosecutor believes that he can get away with based on what is known about the case, or what he can PREVENT from being known. What legal 'proof' does is serve as a structure for convincing a group of people of the guilt of a person, about whom they know nothing.
There is another significant difference: Mathematical proofs are judged by experts in the particular case who are free to study any and all information about the case. Legal 'proof' is judged by people who are guaranteed to be ignorant of the case, who are only allowed to study the information presented during the formal trial, and who are not even allowed to consult the texts for what the rules say.
Our culture is so permeated with this legal argument system that it extends into our daily experience: the one who is the slickest at using the structure for convincing a group of people of something, is the one who is believed. Very few people take the time to obtain hard facts by carefully studying any and all information about a situation.
What we see something here that is set up to deceive people by presenting a familiar structure which, upon examination, is a sham. And again, the advantages fall to the hands of the liars.
As Canup points out, in a courtroom, juries are prohibited by law from knowing anyone involved in the trial. If the defendant is a good person who is being set up and framed, people who know him well and who have had much opportunity to interact with him over a long period of time and observe him would have much more trouble accepting lies told about him. If the jurors knew the prosecutor and knew him to be a bullying liar, they might have trouble believing the lies he was telling. If the jurors knew the defendant, and know him to be a trouble making villain they might be more likely to convict him.
By the same standards, if a person who is guilty is accused of a crime that he DID commit, as we have seen above, it is all too easy to get off. Corrupt lawyers, ignorant "experts," and blind judges let guilty people literally get away with murder all the time.
But, none of the conditions conducive to finding the TRUTH prevail in a courtroom even if we have been brainwashed to think that we have the "best legal system in the world." It is not much different than "Trial by Ordeal," only the hot poker has been replaced by a system that works as effectively to the advantage of liars.
Here then we see the worst feature of the law: it is designed to make the world safe for evil people. In effect the law serves to take the horns away from the bulls, while leaving the lions their teeth and claws. Massive, overwhelming, advantage is placed in the hands of liars. Indeed, without the legal system insuring their safety, the world would be a much more difficult place for evil people.
Everyone knows somewhere deep inside, that there is something not right about our world. In fact, at the present moment, it could hardly be worse. But most people spend their lives avoiding that fact at all cost. The brutal truth is that the our social, cultural, and legal systems are all about making people helpless then hammering them without mercy - all the while involving everyone in the illusion that right prevails.
This is an issue that will never die. It seems impossible to convince people that private behavior cannot be predicted from public behavior. Kind, nonviolent individuals behave well in public, but so do predators, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and COINTELPRO agents who operate largely to shape and vector social norms, or official culture.
I’ll admit it: last Tuesday when I heard that the Pentagon was going to release a new 9-11 video of Flight 77, my heart jumped into my throat because I thought: okay, the government has had 4 ½ years to get one of their Hollywood gurus like Stephen Spielberg or George Lucas to produce a primo high-tech special effects video that would clearly show Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.
But when I turned on the TV, what I saw was mind-boggling. It looked like the same exact Pentagon video that was released four years earlier. In fact, if I hadn’t been told otherwise, I would have sworn it was the same footage.
The only difference, we were told, was as Brett Baier of Fox News reported, “The Pentagon believes there’s a nose cone, then a blur into the Pentagon.” The operative word, of course, is believes because no one can see anything except a miniscule blob in the right side of one fleeting frame. And that’s it.
Vinnie Sammartino summed it up best: “I love when the Pentagon deception is talked about. It’s such a right-in-your-face lie it’s almost comical. It’s almost like they (the neocons) did this on a bet between themselves just to prove how stupid the masses are.” He continued, “There was no way anything they show us can be real. You can’t physically fly a passenger jet six feet off the ground horizontally at any high speed, which is what the video suggests happened. The lack of a vertical stabilizer mark on the wall doesn’t even matter. The very concept of FLIGHT gets in the way of the neocon lies.”
Vinnie is absolutely correct, for there are potentially 84 other confiscated videotapes available which could be shown to the American public, yet the best they can do is one fuzzy blur on one frame of a doctored video.
Russell Pickering, one of the foremost Pentagon researchers in the country, likewise blew the government’s story out the window with an appearance on WING TV (May 17, 2006). Using a conservative, logical, scientifically-based approach, Pickering explained the profound impossibilities of the Pentagon’s latest charade.
Some may ask: why did the Pentagon even produce this updated version if it was such an embarrassment? Answer: because they’re getting scared of the truth, and this was yet another opportunity to lay heavy doses of propaganda on the unwitting and the duped. But why didn’t they get a Hollywood whiz kid to create a stellar new video, you may ask? Answer: the risk was too great. All it would take was one slip-up and the entire 9-11 fiasco would be blown wide open. Sure, they’d love to conjure something up in a state-of-the-art editing room, but the potential for a major screw-up is too immense.
Yet, we’re warned, the government is going to release “more” videos in the future. Sadly, there are people in the 9-11 movement who are actually allowing this obvious reverse-psychology technique to be used on them. They say, “We better stay away from the Pentagon issue because if the government releases more footage we could be embarrassed.”
But don’t they get it? There IS no legitimate footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. None. Zero. That’s why we need to push even hard to get this information out to anyone that has eyes to see. Don’t fall for the con-job where they threaten us with more tapes. It’s a ruse, and we need to look ‘em square in the eyes and expose their lies.
The World Trade Center controlled demolitions are already an accepted fact; now the two primary physical evidence keys are: no Flight 77 at the Pentagon, and no Flight 93 in the Shanksville crater.
ORIGINALThis could be quite possibly the biggest question ever asked of truth seekers everywhere: do you truly want to see the cold-blooded killers who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks brought to justice, or do you want to continue playing ring-around-the-rosie and tossing handkerchiefs at the issue?
I ask this question because right now we know the “hows” of 9-11 (World Trade Center controlled demolitions, and no Flights 77 and 93 at the Pentagon and Shanksville). We also know the “whys” of 9-11 (a new Pearl Harbor to facilitate a Middle East invasion).
So, doesn’t it seem like a logical step to finally focus our attention on the “whos” of 9-11?
I’m not talking about the “plumbers” who actually planted explosives inside the twin towers, or even the “Evil 13” hands-on implementers (see: Phantom Flight 93).
Instead, what I’m referring to is the ultimate driving force behind this diabolical plot: the nation of Israel. They are, as a few other brave souls have pointed out, the lumbering elephant in a room which most everyone in the 9-11 truth movement, alternative media, and patriot movement refuse to confront (or even acknowledge, for that matter).
This situation is so glaringly apparent that it seems as if the Israeli Lobby is sponsoring most every 9-11 event, along with the majority of Internet “truth” sites and radio shows. I mean, it appears as if every possible avenue of investigation is fair game (even those that are patently absurd) except for one: ISRAEL. The protection racket which has been erected around this issue is so obvious that I can’t believe more truth-seekers aren't erupting over it.
But then again, since Israel's Lobby has cornered the 9-11 market, what’s so surprising about this revelation? That’s how this entire scenario was planned from day one – way before the events of September 11, 2004 ever unfolded.
If you don’t believe me, look at the following figures in the 9-11 truth movement (some of whom have otherwise done fine work):
Alex Jones: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Dave von Kleist: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
9-11 Truth.org: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Dylan Avery: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Jim Hoffman: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Paul Thompson: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Webster Tarpley: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Carol Brouillet: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Kyle Hence: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
David Ray Griffin: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Nicolas Levis: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Phil Berg: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Bob Bowman: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Mike Ruppert: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Tom Flocco: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Jenna Orkin: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Paul J. Watson: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Wayne Madsen: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Jimmy Walter: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Gabriel Day: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Janice Matthews: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
David Kubiak: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
Les Jamieson: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
M. Chossudovsky: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
I could continue for pages, but instead I’ll simply ask: why aren’t these individuals covering Israel’s direct involvement in the planning, coordination, execution, and cover-up of the 9-11 attacks?
Especially when the terrorist nation of ISRAEL was directly involved in 9-11.
If you’re still not convinced, take a look at George Noory’s Coast-to-Coast AM radio show. The only 9-11 figures who are ever full-fledged guests on his show are those who belong to the “club” – i.e. those who unflinchingly protect Israel at any cost. Furthermore, in the ten+ years that it's been on the air where literally every conceivable subject under the sun has been discussed, not once has there ever been a show devoted to Israel's multitudinous crimes - EVER! Doesn't anyone ever scratch their head and wonder why? Do you think it could be deliberate, especially considering that they're owned by Clear Channel? Also, don’t be fooled when these individuals use diversionary buzzwords such as “neo-con,” “Illuminati,” “New World Order,” or “globalist,” for they're nothing more than a way to sugar-coat the reality of this situation. Even the use of “Zionist” isn’t fully sufficient, for if we’re going to expose the true 9-11 culprits, let’s identify them forthwith: the nation of Israel and the Israeli Lobby.
Luckily there are a few courageous souls such as John Kaminski, Eric Hufschmid, Mike Rivero, Christopher Bollyn, Michael Collins Piper, Bill Brumbaugh, and the American Free Press who have exposed Israel's involvement in 9-11, while others such as Morgan Reynolds, Professor Jim Fetzer, and Vyzygoth are at least willing to discuss and/or acknowledge the problem. So, sure, the Israeli Lobby will continue to allow a few “limited hang-outs” to be thrown into the public arena (i.e. Charlie Sheen), but be damn sure about one thing: the perpetrators behind 9-11 blew their operation big-time, and they now know that more and more people realize that it was an inside job. The only thing they’re trying to salvage right now is the identity of who ultimately planned and benefited the most from 9-11 --- ISRAEL.
If you want the ultimate, unimpeded 9-11 truth, there’s only one direction left to investigate: Israel. Everything else is simply spinning your wheels (i.e. being manipulated by Israel via the assorted members of their protection racket).
ORIGINALPatsy Smullin has run KOBI-TV for the last 30 years, and her father founded it. If anybody would have known Jeff Rense and the supposed 5,000 newscasts he claims to have made, it would be Patsy.
As it happens, Patsy Smullin does remember Jeff Rense, and in two different telephone conversations I had with her over the past few days, she confirmed that he did have a position at her television station for a brief time as a reporter and news anchor. Smullin stressed that Jeff Rense, or “a guy calling himself Jeff Rense” (her words), was employed at KOBI (an NBC affiliate) from June 1983 to May 1984, and she is not aware of him working at any other station in the state of Oregon either prior to his employment at KOBI-TV or afterward. [I would think if he'd worked at other stations previous to his KOBI position, these would be listed on his job application or resume when given to KOBI-TV.]
Patsy had more to say. She revealed that in her experience as Jeff Rense’s employer (and this is a direct quote), “He was not known for his honesty.” Think about it. Patsy Smullin was Rense’s employer some twenty-odd years ago. After all this tiime, the characteristic that has remained clearly in her memory is that “he was not known for his honesty”. What does that say to you? According to Ms. Smullin, at that time Jeff was also involved in several court battles with other people. One wonders if it has anything to do with him not being known for his honesty?
When asked if she could elaborate on the comment she'd made regarding Rense not being known for his honesty, her response was: "Sure. He was a compulsive liar." Also, when questioned as to the claim that Jeff anchored and produced “5000 newscasts,” Patsy Smullin laughed heartily and stated, “This is absolutely false. He never did that here.” Okay, if not at KOBI-TV, then where? Perhaps Jeff Rense will reveal this to us all at some point so we can check it out.
But on his own website, Jeff Rense claims to have been an award winning news director and TV news anchor for 10-12 years (accounts vary). If not at KOBI, then where?
"…an award-winning television News Director and News Anchor for over ten years, Jeff continually pushed for higher standards of journalism and responsible, intelligent reporting and inquiry. Regrettably, those goals were often at odds with the irrevocable TV news obsession for tabloid exploitation of the trivial, the tragic and the sensational. The situation became so dubious and distasteful that one day he walked away from his highly-successful news anchor/news director career (as high as a 53 Share of the audience - Nielsen) and moved to radio, recognizing it as the last viable approach to bringing reality to the American public...and now with the internet, to the world."
Interesting that Rense declares himself to have worked as a news director and TV news anchor. An online search to verify this claim will return only Jeff’s words – repeated endlessly ad nauseum - as to the truthfulness of this assertion. There is literally no data to substantiate this claim anywhere on the Internet. The claim exists only on the Rense website and a few other websites that have copied and pasted the Rense claims onto their own pages.
Here’s another variation on the same theme: Jeff Rense Hosts Sightings
"During 12 years as an award-winning broadcast journalist, Jeff anchored and produced more than 5,000 television newscasts. This devoted single dad is also author of the book AIDS Exposed and passionately investigates ways to prevent diseases and extend life. His brother is Rip Rense, longtime reporter for the Los Angeles Times. Jeff first did radio while an education major at the University of California Santa Barbara, and in 1994 he returned to this first love with the talk radio show "End of the Line." In 1997, by agreement with Henry ("the Fonz") Winkler and Paramount Pictures, this show transformed into the ratings star "Sightings."
Based on the following article he was a former news anchor at KOBI-TV. However, if one searches KOBI, there is no information on the former popular TV news anchor/news director Jeff Rense to be found.
"Presiding over this conspiratorial miasma is talk-radio host Jeff Rense, whose weeknight show, Sightings, is broadcast from a studio somewhere in Southern Oregon. (Citing threats to his life, Rense asked WW not to print his exact location.) Five nights a week, millions of Americans (including an estimated 21,000 Portlanders) in 120 cities tune in to Rense to catch up on the latest news on alien abduction, Bigfoot, paranormal phenomena--and chemtrails. A former news anchor at KOBI-TV in Medford, Rense began to hear reports of chemtrails in 1999."
The above page also says:
"...By the late 1980s, Rense had worked for a handful of network affiliates in the West. He said his ratings were high, and he got 'lucrative offers' from several Oregon stations. But he had also become disillusioned with TV news and decided to quit the business...." "...After walking away from his TV career path, Rense returned to Santa Barbara and opened three pet stores..."
"...By the early 1990s, he had sold his All About Pets outlets and in 1994 approached KTMS with his idea for a talk-radio show, or at least his version of one..."
A Professional Broadcast Journalist
"As an award-winning broadcast journalist, Mr. Rense has anchored and produced well over 5,000 live 30-and 60-minute television newscasts… He began his End of the Line radio show which is now in its fourth highly successful year. Recently, the End of the Line was acquired by the Premiere Radio Networks, one of the top two radio syndicators in the U.S., and renamed Sightings On The Radio through an agreement with Paramount."
"As a journalist and private citizen, he became aware of the misinformation and propaganda surrounding the worldwide AIDS epidemic. Devoting three years of his life to researching, collecting, and compiling information, Mr. Rense authored the underground best-seller, AIDS Exposed, published in 1996. This 420-page book has been acclaimed as 'overwhelming,' 'invaluable' and 'the supreme public service' by broadcasters, medical professionals, and educators alike. Appearing on scores of radio and TV talk shows as an author, Mr. Rense has also been invited to lecture at such institutions as the University of California and USC. He has also written numerous articles, papers, and reports on a wide range of subjects and acts as a consultant on many different issues."
Rense's radio show "End of the Line" was renamed "Sightings on the Radio" with Paramount's backing.
An extensive online search for articles, journalistic reports and papers from Rense’s purported pre-Rense.com prior journalism career yields nothing.
How can this possibly be if he has written ‘numerous articles, papers and reports’? His book, AIDS Exposed, does not appear to be available anymore, with the exception of potential availability of a random used copy, if you’re lucky.
A search on the publisher of this book, Bioalert Press, coughs up nothing as far as any listing for a company website. The top link on Google search for Bioalert Press says: Bookstore-- Balaam's Ass Suggests you Read These Good Books-- Health AIDS Exposed-- Jeffrey Rense-- BioAlert Press-- Order from Jeffrey Rense, Box 764, Goleta, CA 93116. www.balaams-ass.com/bookstor/health.htm -
The above Google link would not come up for me in multiple attempts on different days. Regarding the Balaam’s Ass link, one has to order the book directly from Jeff Rense. Is Bioalert Press really just Rense? Has anyone out there ever heard of BioAlert Press?
I find it very ironic that Rense claims to have become so disillusioned with the nature of the mainstream news broadcast business and its inclination to report tabloid style and sensationalistic material, when all anyone has to do is peruse the Rense.com website for 10 minutes to realize that this well-funded site – funded by the same mainstream businesses that Rense claims to detest – is full of nothing but a never-ending series of sensationalistic, tabloid-type, speculative, unsubstantiated or fabricated “news” articles. I have to ask: Is it only wrong, disillusioning and distasteful when “other” people do it, Jeff? Or are you doing it for them?
Furthermore, online searches for any evidence of Jeff Rense’s longstanding claims regarding his extremely elusive broadcast journalism career path result in even more dead ends. There is an article on the Rense website entitled “The Most Dangerous Man in Talk Radio”, authored by an alleged LA writer named Kennedy Grey.
In this article, Kennedy Grey tells us, “When Jeff Rense walked away from a #1 rated Oregon TV news anchor position, people suspected job burnout. But Rense wasn't burned out on his job - his dissatisfaction was with the entire news media mainstream itself. Grey also states that Jeff spent “Twelve years as on on-air news anchor and News Director "up and down the west coast". Grey further says, “Rense set out to re-invent himself into a liberator of truth from the confines of a corrupt and bloated news broadcast industry.” He directly quotes Jeff Rense, who states that “Radio is theatre of the mind - a classroom of the mind."
Very interesting comments, aren’t they? The news anchor/news director statement is impossible to verify via the Internet, and thus far Jeff Rense is not forthcoming with information in spite of email sent to him containing a link to our website inquiry dated Friday, May 26, 2006 entitled Who is "Jeff Rense"?.
Does anyone have a copy of any of these 5,000 Jeff Rense newscasts? We’d sure like to see one. Thus far, we have not been able to locate anyone other than one person who remembers seeing Jeff Rense anchoring a TV newscast.
Only one TV news station’s call letters has been identified thus far. KOBI-TV 5 out of Medford, Oregon, which is an NBC affiliate. Pretty slim pickings. Nevertheless, I made a few phone calls to Medford, Oregon. One would think that as popular as Jeff Rense supposedly was, surely someone would remember him from the 1980s – particularly if he had produced and anchored 5000 newscasts up and down the West Coast. I contacted the Mail Tribune and spoke with an employee in the newsroom there. She had never heard of Oregon’s (former) #1 top rated news anchor, Jeff Rense. I’m awaiting a call back from Bob Hunter, editor of the Mail Tribune newspaper, to see if he has any recollections on this matter.
“5000 newscasts” is a lot of face-time, wouldn’t you agree?
Three calls to Rense’s former place of employment, KOBI-TV, speaking to four people who worked there didn’t help Rense very much. The first three individuals I spoke to had never heard of Jeff Rense and have no idea who he is. The fourth person was the owner of KOBI-TV, Patsy Smullin.
Jeff claims to have left KOBI due to his disillusionment with the mainstream news business and the tendency of TV news to sensationalize and dip into tabloid reporting, as stated above. I read Jeff’s published claims about this to Patsy Smullin. She responded, “That’s not the reason he gave to us at all. He said he was leaving to join his wife in their pet store.” (I am currently checking out the pet store information.)
Overall, Patsy Smullin did not give the impression that Jeff Rense had been a good employee while at KOBI-TV. In fact, her remarks lead one to believe that he was dishonest and untrustworthy. It was all I could do to restrain myself from asking if he conducted newscasts while wearing a wig.
The question we are entitled to ask is: why would Jeff Rense make so many claims about himself, and why would he twist the truth and make public assertions that are simply not true? Isn’t the “reinvented Jeff Rense” supposed to be all about truth and realism as opposed to sensationalistic, tabloid-style garbage? If one looks through his massive website, is it conceivable that a person might have some difficulty trying to discern the difference between Rense shinola and honest-to-god truth? Where does one end and the other begin? Furthermore, is Jeff Rense the person we really want to ask? Maybe that’s a little like asking the Bush Gang to investigate 911? (Oh, right! That’s already been done. Vanity Fair called it a “whitewash.”)
“Jeff Rense” is a familiar name to countless political/conspiracy talk radio listeners and web surfers. In these circles, virtually everyone has heard of Rense.com. What very few people realize, or have even stopped to think about, is that very little is known about Jeff Rense himself. The available online biographical information is vague and deals in generalities, and has been copied and pasted from one web page to another over the years. The Rense legend has been dished out for public consumption in small, measured doses over time in word-bytes, with hardly anyone daring to openly question its veracity. Rense fans embrace, and often even vehemently defend the legend; those who don’t end up being ridiculed and attacked. That’s a curious feature of Rense’s position as a “Don of Conspiracy Theory.”
Jeff Rense is an interesting guy, wouldn’t you say? He’s almost a “legend,” and is even listed on a government site as the number one purveyor of “misinformation.” That’s quite an accomplishment in a world where “conspiracy theories” are mostly ignored and/or ridiculed. You could even say that it’s very good PR to get on such a list.
My curiosity about Jeff Rense began to grow when I realized that he has maintained a large Internet presence for over a decade, and despite this, there is virtually no information on him other than that which one finds on his website. How has Jeff Rense managed to keep information about himself off the world wide web all these years? That’s an interesting question.
We live in a time that discourages curiosity about the ‘wrong” topics – that’s a hallmark of the Fascist Bushistas - and it seems that questioning Rense is definitely “off limits”. We have to wonder why that is? Asking questions about the ‘wrong” people is treated almost as sacrilege. We love to hold our heroes and gurus high, don’t we? But we have learned the hard way that questions are only discouraged by those who have something to hide.
What could such a nice guy, such a great “patriot” as Jeff Rense possibly have to hide?
After spending some time combing through his claims and trying to find verification, I began to realize that “Jeff Rense” is little more than a reinvention. He has made some very interesting claims over the years, particularly with respect to his former stints in broadcasting and journalism; claims that served as building blocks in the creation of a legend, a legend constructed from the twisting of truth.
Well, let’s look at “Jeff Rense” shall we?
Claim #1: On the Rense.com homepage, we see the following:
“7-time Peabody Award Nominee”
Peabody Awards
Truth: The Rense.com website claims 7 Peabody Award nominations. The Peabody Awards do not have nominees. Anyone can fill out an entry, and then later the winners are announced. The following is an email from the Peabody Awards Foundation:
"The Peabody Awards program receives between 1,000 and 1,200 entries each year. We have a 15 member judging panel that meets several times during the judging season, as well as listening to/watching entries alone in their homes. They discuss all entries as a group, usually awarding between 30 and 35 Peabodys each year. There are no set number of awards given, and the board does not choose winners according to categories. We do not have a list of finalists or "nominees" as other awards programs have.
Basically we have entrants and winners.
Danna L. Williams Senior Administrative Assistant, emailed Feb. 6th 2006 "
In other words, you could nominate me, I could nominate you, and we could all nominate Bozo the Clown. The Peabody panel will most likely be interested in these suggestions, but ultimately it is THEY who choose the winners – not the public. There are no official lists of “nominees”. Rense’s website claim to be a “7 Time Peabody Award Nominee” is not only misleading, it means essentially nothing. It is presented to create a false impression of Rense’s achievements, basically it’s deceptive bullshit.
Claim # 2: The Rense website states: “Talkers magazine top 100 Host”
Talkers Magazine ‘Heavy Hundred’
Truth: Please note that Jeff Rense isn't listed in the top 100, and he isn't even listed in the additional 250 names cited in the rest of Talkers Top Radio Show Host picks for 2006. Rense failed to make the cut for 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, etc. Rense was on the list once about 6 or 7 years ago, according to a response to my inquiry from Talkers. In fact, they find it pretty interesting that Jeff Rense is continuing to present this claim on his website, creating the appearance of his inclusion on this popular list, when in fact he is currently not listed. Talkers characterized this misleading representation in one word: “deceptive”, saying they will be keeping an eye on Rense and any Talkers-related claims from here on. Take a look at the list linked above. Call Talkers Magazine and ask them yourself if he is indeed on the Heavy Hundred list.
Claim #3: Rense’s Myspace web page at:
Rense My Space Profile lists his location as Ashland, Oregon – yet his Rense.com fan page says he is in California. Which is it? Oregon or California? Does Rense have two residences? If so, how does one afford two residences on an Internet radio income?
Of course, the answer could be that one is his residence and the other is his business address, but again I ask: if he is just doing his thing because he is a “true patriot,” knowing how hard it is for other true patriots to make ends meet, we have to ask who is paying for his office? What money is backing him? His MySpace page states an income of $100,000-$150,000 per year. That’s a pretty good chunk of change for a guy who claims to be in the business out of the goodness of his heart and his interest in truth.
Claim #4: Jeff Rense From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Former television news anchorman Jeff Rense, who lives in Santa Barbara, California, is a popular conspiracy theorist and is the host of the Jeff Rense program which is broadcast on terrestrial radio and on the Internet. He originally became famous in the 90's with the program "Sightings". His radio program and website (See below) cover such subjects as UFO reports, paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories, reports of new diseases and a plethora of other material rarely covered by the mainstream media. Jeff Rense leans towards a populist approach regarding politics and media. Rense does not subscribe to any conventional political standpoint and many of his views are simultaneously left and right leaning. Rense has one brother: writer, Rip Rense. His step mother, New York socialite and editor-in-chief of Architectural Digest Magazine, is Paige Rense. His father, now deceased, was sports journalist, Arthur F. Rense (1917-1990). Jeff Rense is also a vegan."
Here we learn that Rense’s views are simultaneously both left-leaning and right-leaning. Sounds like an impossible contortion to me. It is also established from more than one source that Jeff’s father, Arthur Rense, formerly a sportswriter and sometime poet, also landed a job at Douglas Aircraft doing PR. How does a poet and sports writer qualify for work as a public relations director at Douglas Aircraft, one of the biggies of the Military Industrial Complex? Here is the NY Times obituary for Arthur Rense:
Arthur F. Rense, Public Relations Executive, 74
Published: January 5, 1991
“Arthur F. Rense, a retired public relations executive, died on Dec. 28 at his home in Las Vegas, Nev. He was 74 years old. He died of leukemia, said his wife, Paige Rense, editor in chief of Architectural Digest. Mr. Rense had been director of public relations for the Summa Corporation, owned by Howard R. Hughes, until he retired in 1985. He had been public relations director for the missiles and space systems division of Douglas Aircraft Company and director of public relations at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, Calif. Besides his wife, Mr. Rense is survived by three sons from a former marriage, Kirk of Irvine, Calif., Jeff of Santa Barbara , Calif., and Rip of Sherman Oaks, Calif.; four brothers, Randy, Andy and Frank, all of Cleveland, and William of Denver; and two grandchildren.”
Regarding Summa Corporation: The Washington Post for April 1, 1975, carried this information:
Summa Corp. is the financial umbrella under which most of (Howard)Hughes' worth is contained. . . .Most recently, another Summa "asset" hit the news: the $350 million Hughes Glomar Explorer vessel that Hughes built at the behest (and the expense of) the Central Intelligence Agency . . . Mormons, Hughes, & CIA
Summa Corporation has been tied to CIA contracts on more than one occasion, to say the least. Douglas Aircraft Company is also well-known for its numerous government contracts, not to mention the starring role it is now playing in Bush’s Endless War. So again I ask: how did “poet and sports writer” Arthur Rense end up as public relations director for Douglas Aircraft and Summa Corp? In bed with the Feds? More importantly, what kind of connections does his son Jeff have with these same gangs? After all, his views are “both left and right” which suggests that he could have “left” views to vacuum in his audience all the while subtly converting them to “right” views.
Douglas Aircraft also has ties with RAND Corporation:
RAND (Encyclopedia)
The RAND Corporation is an American think tank.
"A think tank is a group of individuals dedicated to high-level synergistic research on a variety of subjects, usually in military laboratories, corporations,... first formed to offer research and analysis to the U.S. military. The organization has since expanded to working with other government and commercial organizations Project RAND was set up in 1945 by the USAAF, under contract to the Douglas Aircraft Company. An interesting aside, Condoleezza Rice is a former RAND CorporationTrustee 1991-1997 and current Secretary of State for the United States, a war whore if ever there was one."
Okay, I think everybody knows that Summa, Douglas Aircraft, and RAND are all major players with DOD, military and intelligence agencies in the fascist government that Jeff Rense claims to oppose. Yet we find that his father, Arthur Rense, poet, sports writer, was “somehow” a public relations director for both Douglas Aircraft and Summa Corporation? I would very much like to hear Jeff Rense publicly discuss this curious fact one of these fine days and explain how he could live much of his life with alphabet soup guys swarming around and avoid being sucked into the game. Funny how this topic never seems to come up, isn’t it? Perhaps he just keeps forgetting to mention it.
Now I want to come back to the fact that Jeff Rense has been “honored” by being listed on an official government website as a major purveyor of “disinformation.” Among the conspiracy minded crowd, that is a high kudo indeed. But is it evidence that Jeff truly is a news source standing in opposition to the Bush Reich and their Endless Wars of Lies and Agression? Maybe not. As Robin Ramsay, Editor of Lobster Magazine, wrote in the February issue of Fortean Times:
Recently, the US State Department has begun trying to rebut some of the current conspiracy theories about America. Their first targets were a couple of websites - www.rense.com and Conspiracy Planet - and the late Joe Vialls, an Australian. What a boost for the named sites! Attacked by the State Department![...]
[Y]ou don't have to be a PR genius to see that what you simply mustn't do is launch official attacks: all they do is amplify and legitimise the theories by announcing that they are deemed to be worth attacking. [Fortean Times 206, February 2006, p. 19]
What a coup for Rense and Alex Jones! To be officially declared the primo disinfo sites! Now, if you know anything about COINTELPRO, you expect that the real COINTELPRO operations will be attacked "officially" in order to legitimize them exactly as Robin Ramsay has described. That also means that those who are honest and sincere seekers of truth and who do their homework and expose the lies of the Bush Reich will most certainly NOT be martyred by the official government. It's way too dangerous and gives them legitimacy. Rather, they will be defamed by the “officially designated disinformation agents” – and dare we say it? – agents of COINTELPRO - such as Jeff Rense, Alex Jones and similar disinformation agents that have received the Bush Reich seal of approval. In fact, it seems that this is a well-orchestrated plan that is described in detail in that much maligned document, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” A really good way to keep your eye on the ball is to consider Protocol 12...
Now, it is important when reading the Protocols to not assign it's origin to any national, ethnic, or religious group. Rather, consider it to be a statement of any group that seeks to control and dominate and use the public for their own gain Then you will truly begin to understand who is who. (Excerpts of Protocol 12: Control of the Press are located at the end of this article):
Recently, Jeff Rense accused WING TV of engaging in deception, trickery, subterfuge, lying, slandering and libel, just to name a few of the charges. He has publicly called Victor Thorn and myself “dirtball scum” and together with Alex Jones and their groupies, charged us with being “cointelpro assets, government agents and un-American operatives." True to form and apparently attached to Rense at the hip and the lip, (and linked on the official government site, I should add), Alex Jones reinforces, endorses, and repeats Rense’s vomitus, only louder. What’s amusing about this is that Rense, Jones, nor any of their groupie parrots have yet to substantiate any of these bogus charges made against us.
Let me get this straight: nobody has to qualify with data anything they say, including (and particularly) veteran journalist Jeff Rense? Alex Jones has yet to qualify any of his ridiculous comments about us either, and he refuses to hold himself accountable for his own words.
Ask yourself: Why? Is it conceivable to anyone out there that they cannot PROVE the things they say about WING TV? Moreover, this begs the question, can they prove any and all of the other “gospel-truth” claims they’ve made over the years? That is another very good question.
You see, we are supposed to just believe what they say simply because they say it. Forget about facts, data or substantiation. Forget about showing evidence of their assertions; forget about journalistic ethics; just nod your head and agree. Don’t ask questions. Gobble up the lies and twisted half-truths and get your fill of the fix du jour. After all, in the words of Jeff Rense, it is all a “theater of the mind”.
What we observe is that both Rense and Jones pander to a “least common denominator” audience demographic, the people out there who don’t bother to check things out for themselves and will just repeat what they hear and read over and over, like good little automatons. This is the ideal Rense-Jones target audience, one which will worship blindly, surrender critical thinking skills, believe without questioning or disagreement, and of course, shell out the bucks.
Incidentally, I did a search on Kennedy Grey, the LA writer who penned the article about Rense entitled “The Most Dangerous Man in Talk Radio”. He (she) is supposedly the founder of a group called RAS, an acronym for ‘Rock Against Suicide’. Unfortunately, a Google search for Kennedy Grey did not yield a website for the RAS group anywhere, but there is an interview with Kennedy Grey on this website: The Internet Nirvana Fan club.
Nirvana Fan Club. Oh boy, how impressive. A Curt Cobain suicide website.
I was not able to find any links online to Grey’s organization, RAS, or to Kennedy Grey, other than the single article he wrote which is published on Rense.com. I would like to find Kennedy Grey and ask whether he/she even bothered to check out any of the claims Rense made to him in the interview. I’d like to learn if Kennedy Grey is a real person, for that matter, or just a construct of Rense. Whatever the case may be, it doesn’t look like Grey checked out any of the statements Rense made in that interview. If some fact-checking had been done, Grey’s article would probably be written a bit differently. At the very least, it should have been.
Rense and Alex Jones enjoy howling that “Honest-to-God patriots" NEVER attack other patriots. That sounds a lot like:
"For any attempt to attack us, if such still be possible, we shall inflict fines without mercy…. No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification." [Protocols]
The fact is, those who do the research know that the Founding Fathers engaged in a great deal of spirited, heated, sincere dispute with one another. Some of them hated one another with a passion, yet in spite of this animosity, worked together for the common good of all; as the cause was greater than themselves, and they all knew this to be true. So where do Rense and Jones come off bellowing such obnoxious bullshit, especially when we consider the fact that merely branding oneself a “patriot” does not necessarily make it so. I could call myself “Madonna”, but that doesn’t mean I AM Madonna.
Appearances can be very deceiving, especially when some so-called “patriots” choose to hide behind microphones in undisclosed locations, behind wigs and a couple of re-touched, photo-shopped cartoon pictures of themselves, and when all they choose to disclose is a limited amount of extremely vague babble about their alleged past accomplishments, achievements, or experience designed solely to “create a legend”.
And then, when we discover, with a minimum of investigation, that their claims do not hold up, that it is all completely manipulated, twisted, exaggerated, amplified and contorted facts designed to present a false front, we are entitled to question everything else. Why do people tell lies, whether overtly or by omission? Some do it because of mental issues, some do it for profit, and some do it just because they can.
Bottom line: Jeff Rense has falsely accused WING TV of trading in lies, deception, duplicity, innuendo, disinformation and trickery. Jeff Rense better start looking in the mirror, because I see a so-called “patriot” that needs to come clean about a few things, someone who is “not known for his honesty”.
Definitions of deception on the Web:
• misrepresentation: a misleading falsehood
• the act of deceiving
• magic trick: an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
• Deception is providing intentionally misleading information to others.
• To practice deceit.
• To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.
• To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
• to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid intransitive verb : to practice deceit
• be false to; be dishonest with - 2: cause someone to believe an untruth
Stay tuned, because this investigation is not over. More to follow soon.
"The big print giveth and the small print taketh away."
~ Tom Waitts ~
Protocol 12: Control of the Press
1. The word "freedom," which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows –
2. Freedom is the right to do what which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program.
3. We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press to-day? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? …
For any attempt to attack us, if such still be possible, we shall inflict fines without mercy…. No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification.
I BEG YOU TO NOTE THAT AMONG THOSE MAKING ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO BE ORGANS ESTABLISHED BY US, BUT THEY WILL ATTACK EXCLUSIVELY POINTS THAT WE HAVE PRE-DETERMINED TO ALTER. WE CONTROL THE PRESS
4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.
5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent that they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....
6. Let us turn again to the FUTURE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to provide himself with the diploma instituted therefore, which, in case of any fault, will be immediately impounded. With such measures THE INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT WILL BECOME AN EDUCATIVE MEANS ON THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW THE MASS OF THE NATION TO BE LED ASTRAY IN BY-WAYS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE BLESSINGS OF PROGRESS. Is there any one of us who does not know that these phantom blessings are the direct roads to foolish imaginings which give birth to anarchical relations of men among themselves and towards authority, because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits .... All the so-called liberals are anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them in hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest.... FREE PRESS DESTROYED
7. We turn to the periodical press. … if there should be any found who are desirous of writing against us, they will not find any person eager to print their productions. Before accepting any production for publication in print, the publisher or printer will have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so. Thus we shall know beforehand of all tricks preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting ahead with explanations on the subject treated of.
8. Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.
9. In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant. 10. In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.
11. In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.
12. All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
13. In order to direct our newspaper militia in this sense we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of central department of the press we shall institute literary gatherings at which our agents will without attracting attention issue the orders and watchwords of the day. By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.
14. THESE ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO SERVE ANOTHER PURPOSE, NAMELY, THAT OUR SUBJECTS WILL BE CONVINCED TO THE EXISTENCE OF FULL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SO GIVE OUR AGENTS AN OCCASION TO AFFIRM THAT ALL ORGANS WHICH OPPOSE US ARE EMPTY BABBLERS, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders. ONLY LIES PRINTED
15. Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it .... WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.
16. Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, in case of need, will be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official organs.
17. Even nowadays, already, to take only the French press, there are forms which reveal masonic solidarity in acting on the watchword: all organs of the press are bound together by professional secrecy; like the augurs of old, not one of their numbers will give away the secret of his sources of information unless it be resolved to make announcement of them. Not one journalist will venture to betray this secret, for not one of them is ever admitted to practice literature unless his whole past has some disgraceful sore or other .... These sores would be immediately revealed. So long as they remain the secret of a few the prestige of the journalist attacks the majority of the country - the mob follow after him with enthusiasm.
18. Our calculations are especially extended to the provinces. It is indispensable for us to inflame there those hopes and impulses with which we could at any moment fall upon the capital, and we shall represent to the capitals that these expressions are the independent hopes and impulses of the provinces. Naturally, the source of them will be always one and the same - ours. WHAT WE NEED IS THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE ARE IN THE PLENITUDE POWER, THE CAPITALS SHOULD FIND THEMSELVES STIFLED BY THE PROVINCIAL OPINION OF THE NATIONS, I.E., OF A MAJORITY ARRANGED BY OUR AGENTUR. What we need is that at the psychological moment the capitals should not be in a position to discuss an accomplished fact for the simple reason, if for no other, that it has been accepted by the public opinion of a majority in the provinces.
19. WHEN WE ARE IN THE PERIOD OF THE NEW REGIME TRANSITIONAL TO THAT OF OUR ASSUMPTION OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY WE MUST NOT ADMIT ANY REVELATION BY THE PRESS OF ANY FORM OF PUBLIC DISHONESTY; IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE NEW REGIME SHOULD BE THOUGHT TO HAVE SO PERFECTLY CONTENDED EVERYBODY THAT EVEN CRIMINALITY HAS DISAPPEARED ... Cases of the manifestation of criminality should remain known only to their victims and to chance witnesses - no more.
I think that all of the above may sound very familiar to all of you reading this. The only difference is that now we work with the Internet and not printed materials. But the principles are the same.
ORIGINALAfter the publication of an article that I wrote for WING TV entitled Jeff Rense: A Reinvention of What?, we now have official confirmation that Jeff Rense has retained the services of a lawyer who is resorting to coercion and intimidation tactics in trying to pressure Patricia Smullin (owner of KOBI-TV in Oregon) into reversing herself by signing a pre-scripted statement in order to avoid a potential “defamation lawsuit.”
In fact, this is what Attorney-at-Law Eugene V. Anderson wrote in a letter dated May 31, 2006 in which he wants Ms. Smullin to actually sign a statement that he himself wrote and SCRIPTED for her in advance. The next three paragraphs are what Jeff Rense's legal gun "suggests" that Ms. Smullin write and sign:
“You had virtually no day to day contact with Mr. Rense during his tenure at KOBI-TV where he worked under the then news director, Alan Goldberg, as an anchor/director, from May 1983 to June 1984. While at KOBI Mr. Rense worked extremely hard, producing, writing, and anchoring both the 6-7 and the 11 pm newscasts, Monday through Friday. Mr. Rense was a superb anchor/producer and he earned KOBI an Arbitron rating for his newscasts of a 53 point share, which is unprecedented in our station's history.
I categorically deny the quotations attributed to me in the Wingtv.net article titled “Jeff Rense: A Reinvention of What?” by Lisa Guliani. I deny stating that Jeff Rense is a ‘compulsive liar’. I deny stating that Jeff Rense is ‘not known for his honesty.’
I deeply regret the totally untrue statements attributed to me in the Wingtv.net article, and I hereby issue a heartfelt, formal and public apology to Mr. Rense. I personally have a great deal of professional respect for Jeff Rense.”
To read Attorney Anderson’s entire letter, click here:
Jeff Rense Lawyer (page one)
Jeff Rense Lawyer (page two)
Now remember, Ms. Smullin didn’t write a single word above; Jeff Rense’s lawyer did! And, of course, if Ms. Smullin ever signs this SCRIPTED statement (that she didn’t even write), then Jeff Rense (by dangling the threat of a defamation lawsuit in her face) would publish it on his website and pull a bait-and-switch in a transparent attempt to discredit my article. But as can be seen from the SCRIPT, his underhanded tactic has now been exposed.
ORIGINALFrom the 'Protocols of the Pathocrats':
[T]o sow discord in all parties, to dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us, and to discourage any kind of personal initiative which might in any degree hinder our affair. THERE IS NOTHING MORE DANGEROUS THAN PERSONAL INITIATIVE: if it has genius behind it, such initiative can do more than can be done by millions of people among whom we have sown discord.
For the last few years, our website, Signs of the Times has sought, in all honesty, to present the daily news as truthfully as possible. Signs of the Times is one of the very few news and information portals on the web that remains uncorrupted in any way and is staffed by a small group of people who are dedicated to one thing - bringing the Truth to the general public. We are able to do this because we rely solely on support from our readers and our own hard work: book sales. You may not necessarily agree with our take on events but I would hope that you agree that alternative media is now essential to the preservation of our basic freedoms. As I wrote in my editorial for the Signs of the Times Podcast on February 19, 2006:
Knowledge is power. Those who control information can control the masses; it's that simple.
As we researched the subject of the media, we came across The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. As everyone knows, this is a vicious anti-Semitic hoax. We agree. We do not for a minute think that this represents Judaism or ordinary Jewish people.
What was shocking for us was our realization that the Protocols is being implemented almost line by line by many of the members of the Bush Administration and the various government 'think-tanks' that formulate their policy. In other words, the Protocols is not a hoax because it is nonsense, but rather it is only a hoax because it was attributed to Jews.
Here, we present the text of Protocol 12 from which several excerpts were read on the podcast and which we jokingly referred to as "The Gospel According to Karl Rove."
Read it and understand that this is, indeed, the number one issue that America must deal with before they can do a single other thing.
PROTOCOL No. 12 Control of the Press
1. The word "freedom," which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows -
2. Freedom is the right to do that which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program.
3. We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press to-day? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? The produce of publicity, which nowadays is a source of heavy expense owing to the necessity of censoring it, will be turned by us into a very lucrative source of income to our State: we shall lay on it a special stamp tax and require deposits of caution-money before permitting the establishment of any organ of the press or of printing offices; these will then have to guarantee our government against any kind of attack on the part of the press.
For any attempt to attack us, if such still be possible, we shall inflict fines without mercy. Such measures as stamp tax, deposit of caution-money and fines secured by these deposits, will bring in a huge income to the government. It is true that party organs might not spare money for the sake of publicity, but these we shall shut up at the second attack upon us. No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification. I BEG YOU TO NOTE THAT AMONG THOSE MAKING ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO BE ORGANS ESTABLISHED BY US, BUT THEY WILL ATTACK EXCLUSIVELY POINTS THAT WE HAVE PRE-DETERMINED TO ALTER. WE CONTROL THE PRESS
4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.
5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent the they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....
6. Let us turn again to the FUTURE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to provide himself with the diploma instituted therefore, which, in case of any fault, will be immediately impounded. With such measures THE INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT WILL BECOME AN EDUCATIVE MEANS ON THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW THE MASS OF THE NATION TO BE LED ASTRAY IN BY-WAYS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE BLESSINGS OF PROGRESS. Is there any one of us who does not know that these phantom blessings are the direct roads to foolish imaginings which give birth to anarchical relations of men among themselves and towards authority, because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits .... All the so-called liberals are anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them in hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest....
7. We turn to the periodical press. We shall impose on it, as on all printed matter, stamp taxes per sheet and deposits of caution-money, and books of less than 30 sheets will pay double. We shall reckon them as pamphlets in order, on the one hand, to reduce the number of magazines, which are the worst form of printed poison, and, on the other, in order that this measure may force writers into such lengthy productions that they will be little read, especially as they will be costly. At the same time what we shall publish ourselves to influence mental development in the direction laid down for our profit will be cheap and will be read voraciously. The tax will bring vapid literary ambitions within bounds and the liability to penalties will make literary men dependent upon us. And if there should be any found who are desirous of writing against us, they will not find any person eager to print their productions. Before accepting any production for publication in print, the publisher or printer will have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so. Thus we shall know beforehand of all tricks preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting ahead with explanations on the subject treated of.
8. Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.
9. In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.
10. In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.
11. In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.
12. All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
13. In order to direct our newspaper militia in this sense we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of central department of the press we shall institute literary gatherings at which our agents will without attracting attention issue the orders and watchwords of the day. By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.
14. THESE ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO SERVE ANOTHER PURPOSE, NAMELY, THAT OUR SUBJECTS WILL BE CONVINCED TO THE EXISTENCE OF FULL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SO GIVE OUR AGENTS AN OCCASION TO AFFIRM THAT ALL ORGANS WHICH OPPOSE US ARE EMPTY BABBLERS, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders. ONLY LIES WILL BE PRINTED
15. Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it ....
WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.
16. Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, in case of need, will be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official organs.
17. Even nowadays, already, to take only the French press, there are forms which reveal masonic solidarity in acting on the watchword: all organs of the press are bound together by professional secrecy; like the augurs of old, not one of their numbers will give away the secret of his sources of information unless it be resolved to make announcement of them. Not one journalist will venture to betray this secret, for not one of them is ever admitted to practice literature unless his whole past has some disgraceful sore or other .... These sores would be immediately revealed. So long as they remain the secret of a few the prestige of the journalist attacks the majority of the country - the mob follow after him with enthusiasm.
18. Our calculations are especially extended to the provinces. It is indispensable for us to inflame there those hopes and impulses with which we could at any moment fall upon the capital, and we shall represent to the capitals that these expressions are the independent hopes and impulses of the provinces. Naturally, the source of them will be always one and the same - ours.
WHAT WE NEED IS THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE ARE IN THE PLENITUDE POWER, THE CAPITALS SHOULD FIND THEMSELVES STIFLED BY THE PROVINCIAL OPINION OF THE NATIONS, I.E., OF A MAJORITY ARRANGED BY OUR AGENTUR. What we need is that at the psychological moment the capitals should not be in a position to discuss an accomplished fact for the simple reason, if for no other, that it has been accepted by the public opinion of a majority in the provinces.
19. WHEN WE ARE IN THE PERIOD OF THE NEW REGIME TRANSITIONAL TO THAT OF OUR ASSUMPTION OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY WE MUST NOT ADMIT ANY REVELATION BY THE PRESS OF ANY FORM OF PUBLIC DISHONESTY; IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE NEW REGIME SHOULD BE THOUGHT TO HAVE SO PERFECTLY CONTENDED EVERYBODY THAT EVEN CRIMINALITY HAS DISAPPEARED ... Cases of the manifestation of criminality should remain known only to their victims and to chance witnesses - no more.
The position of freedom of expression particularly when it is expressing Truth, is now very serious as the world is slipping steadily into a manufactured chaos - manufactured as described above...
Our website - Signs of the Times - represents one of many alternative sites but we seem to be doing something that most of the others aren't doing as we have now been attacked by some "serious heavies" in the form of the world's biggest, meanest, law firm that just happens to be based in Virginia - and we all know who else comes from Virginia - this is no coincidence.
As many of the readers of Signs of the Times are aware, this attack was launched via a gang we have suspected to be agents of Pentagon psy-ops - abovetopsecret.com and friends - on the night of the 22nd. We became aware that there was a problem only after many of our readers had sent emails asking why Signs of the Times was inaccessible.
Since we experience regular DOS attacks, but have learned to deal with them quickly and efficiently (with the help of the server techs), we first thought that this might be the problem. It was only after writing to the server people that we became aware that the problem was something "other" than just simple DOS attacks. The server techs told us that they had discontinued our service because of having received a notice of "copyright infringement." Well, heck, we get that all the time but the server techs have NEVER been intimidated before; so what was up with this? we wondered. Since the server people know what our site is about and this has NEVER been an issue before, just what was going on here? (To get an idea of some of the nonsense that goes on behind the scenes, have a look HERE).
That was the first clue that tactics were being used that had never been used before.
We got on the phone to the server techs and basically explained to them that heck, if someone is accusing us of copyright infringment, we need to know who it is and what they are claiming is copyright violation so we can take care of it. It was then that the techs forwarded to us the letter from the attorney claiming to represent abovetopsecret.com as follows:
Go HERE to read the letter since we aren't going to risk our server people being threatened again by publishing it on our site.
Now, you will notice that the above letter has certain details removed. Why? Well, that's an interesting part of the story that tells us a great deal about Wayne Jaeschke and Abovetopsecret.com. Let me explain:
As soon as we received the information from our server, and determining from their fear of Mr. Jaeschke that something other than a letter was behind this, we removed the "offending articles" from the server and placed them elsewhere. Since there was no copyright violation (as we had been assured by our own legal counsel), but the fear that was evident in the attitude of the server techs suggested that something more was going on with this issue, we made this decision to place the articles elsewhere. And then, in order to explain the disruption and notify our readers of what was going on, we posted Jaeschke's letter on the Signs of the Times Forum.
Since we were still sitting at our computers (it was the middle of the night here in France) working on changing links and putting in redirects, we were immediately aware when, a few minutes later, the site was taken down again. So, we were back on the phone to the server people who told us that Mr. Jaeschke had called them and demanded that his contact details be removed. (At least that is what they told us; what Jaeschke actually said to them, we have no way of knowing.) We explained that we couldn't do that if the site was not working, so they re-activated it.
I was IN THE PROCESS of doing it, trying to upload the changes, when the site disappeared again!
Yup, three times in less than an hour!
We were back on the phone asking "what's wrong THIS time???" It seems that Jaeschke was screaming that he was getting death threats already because we had posted his info and what he REALLY wanted was that his entire letter be removed, not just the contact details.
The server techs were REALLY scared! We patiently explained that Wayne is just a cointelpro agent and internet psy-ops game player using his position as an attorney to intimidate them. So, after they got calmed down a bit, the site went back up and they stayed on the phone until I gave them the signal that the letters had been removed from all three threads.
I actually felt sorry for those poor fellas! And that kind of terror is what psychopaths count on and that is why it is so important to study psychopathy, to know them fully and well so that you are not susceptible to their maneuvers and manipulations! In this day and time, a course about psychopaths ought to be required for anybody in a position to be intimidated or coerced by such blatant strong-mouth manipulation.
Possibly utilizing the "special psychological knowledge" of the psychopath that Andrew Lobaczewski describes in his work on Ponerology, good ole Wayne did such a number on those poor tech guys that they folded instantly. Seeing how Mr. Jaeschke managed to intimidate the heck out of the tech's really makes you wonder just what kinds of things he said to them on the phone? Geez! Didn't Hannibal Lecter convince a guy to swallow his own tongue? But I digress...
Nevertheless, at this point, the fog began to clear! What Mr. Jaeschke was really concerned about was the public association of his name or the name of his firm with abovetopsecret.com. That's why I wrote in the previous post that it became clear that this was supposed to be a "stealth" attack. We were never supposed to SEE the letter from abovetopsecret.com's attorney, Wayne C. Jaeschke, Jr. of Morrison & Foerster LLP in McLean VA . Nobody was ever supposed to see it. It was sent to our host server, not to us. Notice on the scary letter above the intimidating footer that says:
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
Well, I had certainly read it and, as far as I was concerned, as the subject of the message, I was "authorized to receive for the addressee". And since I was "authorized" to receive, I was certainly entitled to "use, copy and disclose" to everyone the message and the information contained in the message.
Wayne, if you don't agree, sue me, please!!! And also explain to me why we have never received an official letter in the mail - as is standard operating procedure - regarding this matter? Is it because you don't want any hard evidence floating around about your close association with abovetopsecret.com?
As I said, Wayne's pathetic screaming and crying that he was getting death threats within 5 minutes of his publicly available contact details appearing on the internet is what clued us into the fact that it was his exposure as an associate of abovetopsecret.com that was at issue. Why? Because every single one of the contact details that Wayne claims were exposing him to mortal danger just happen to be published on the Morrison and Foerster website which also tells us this:
The International Law Firm for Israeli Companies
Morrison & Foerster combines extensive experience representing Israeli companies in cross-border business transactions and litigation with the high- tech focus of its Silicon Valley practice.
We offer our Israeli clients comprehensive, global legal services that only an international law firm with over one thousand lawyers in nineteen offices around the world can provide in intellectual property, litigation, public offerings, technology transactions, M&A, corporate finance and all other areas of law they face as international players.
Gee, I wonder if they represent Israeli Moving Companies such as the ones that employed the Five Dancing Israelis on September 11, 2001, Urban Moving Company? But I digress...
Getting back to Wayne: is what is said about the Northern Virginia office where Wayne is one of a whole gaggle of associates:
1650 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 300 McLean, Virginia 22102 Phone: (703) 760-7700 Fax: (703) 760-7777
Key Facts about Morrison & Foersters Northern Virginia Office
- Founded in 2000
- 43 Attorneys specializing in the areas of Intellectual Property, Government Contracts, Litigation, Labor, and Corporate Finance
- Serving the technology, life sciences, and financial services industries that drive commerce in the Nations Capitol and beyond
- Named as sixth best place to work in 2005 by Washington Business Journal
- "Home" of two of Washington Business Journal's Leading Litigation and IP Lawyers for 2004.
Managing Partner: Brian Busey
If you click " List of Attorneys in our Northern Virginia office" you can then select Wayne's name:
Wayne C. Jaeschke Associate Primary Office: Northern Virginia Email: wjaeschke@mofo.com Phone: (703) 760-7756 Fax: (703) 760-7777
These are the same phone numbers and the same email that were on the above email to our server techs. What's more, you can even have a look at Wayne's mug... Have a quick peek...
Whiny looking guy, isn't he? Geez, reminds me of a story on Signs of the Times about How to spot a baby conservative - Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional.
Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative. ... The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals. The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding. [...]
Shades of the Protocols!
The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective. [...]
He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial. In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.
Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash.
The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias. [...]
More action according to the Protocols?
Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact?
It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids.
Ragarding the above conclusions, taken in context with the Protocols of the Pathocrats, we have to consider psychopathy and other pathological conditions and how psychopaths can influence those with mental deficits at the social, national, and even global level. It could be said that being whiny and insecure may very well be evidence of congenital mental deficits that tend to make an individual more susceptible to Ponerological dynamics.
Speaking of Ponerology, How many of you are aware that Signs of the Times is never officially censored, but that the censorship imposed on us is covert and comprehensive. We have received many emails from readers about this issue and just the other day a reader who is an EXECUTIVE in a big multinational company branch in the UK sent me the following screen shot that he recently started getting on his computer when he tries to access Signs of the Times:
Go HERE to see the screen shot since we aren't going to risk our server people being threatened again by publishing it on our site.
Now, as I said, this is an executive who generally logs onto Signs to dowload the news for reading later at home. He is not using his work computer to "waste time" or diddle around. Generally, executives are allowed to access whatever they like on their work computers. More than that, Signs of the Times is not a "Newsgroup" or "Bulletin Board," it is an Alternative News Source. I understand that we are also totally black-listed in China.
But back to Wayne's tantrum about his contact details being revealed. Fact is, the law firm actually publishes Directions to their location along with a handy little map. Gee, isn't that right down the road from the CIA? As one of the posters to our forum points out:
"MoFo is a heavyweight law firm. Sort of like the Mercedes-Benz of law firms. These aren't ambulance chasers. Their meat and potatos are IP law and other big corporation stuff. Intel retains them, among others. They don't usually bother with harassment suits, but as long as your coin is good (and plenty), they'll do whatever you want. Whoever is behind this has a lot of coins to throw around."
Another poster responded:
Having said that, there are two Wayne Jaeschke's at MoFo (is that name symbolic?), most likely father and son, of which our Wayne is the son. It seems that while MoFo might be the 'Mercedes Benz' of law firms, Wayne junior isn't up to much other than intimidating customer support at server companies and trying to find new ways to build bigger and better speakers, probably so he can listen to a recording of his own voice telling himself what a big, powerful lawyer he is.
Whether or not MoFo actually represents abovetopsecret.com, for our purposes, the most significant thing about Wayne Jaeschke's letter to our server people (that we were never supposed to see) was that it confirmed the close association of Jaeschke with the abovetopsecret.com "Three Amigos". This brings us to something else most interesting, the whole so-called Project SERPO hoax that abovetopsecret.com - with the gleeful assistance of attorney Wayne Jaeschke - has been running on the internet since last fall. There is a discussion about that on our forum also, which includes many fun facts and findings, and on that discussion page you can see a very interesting image about half way down which I am including here for the reader's convenience..
This is an image of an email that Bill Ryan of Project SERPO sent to me claiming that it had been sent to him by "friends" who were on the list of recipients. When I initially published it on the forum, I blacked out the name of the sender because I wasn't at all sure that a respectable attorney with a reputable law firm would actually be doing what this email suggests he is doing: creating a hoax to propagate on the internet via abovetopsecret.com. But now Jaeschke's involvement with ATS is on the record (even if he did not intend it), I am publishing the image without the name of the sender blacked out:
Go HERE to see the image since we aren't going to risk our server people being threatened again by publishing it on our site.
In short, this high-end corporate attorney is VERY thick in the whole Abovetopsecret gang activity. (Funny, QFG only ever had ONE attorney member and he only lasted about a week. He couldn't stand being in a group that demands the truth, I guess.)
You can see that this email comes from Wayne at "speakerbuilder.net. This is Wayne's "hobby site" where he likes to be called "The Rev". Hmmm... that's pretty suggestive of some strange mental quirks, not the least of which might be fundamentalist conservatism. If you click "email the Rev" you will get this publicly available email address. so if he starts yelling that his contact details are being revealed, he's full of it.
From this email we surmise that Wayne and the abovetopsecret.com Three Amigos and possibly others are communicating about their Hoaxing Activities re: Project SERPO. Apparently the set-up was to create a food fight about Serpo between Ryan and abovetopsecret.com in hopes that I would run to the defense of Ryan and get stuck in the Serpo Tar Baby. The above referenced "Friday the 13th" message was supposed to be the big expose that Serpo was a hoax. Had QFG been defending Serpo, we would have had significant egg on our face. As you can see from the email exchange posted on our forum, we suspected this from the beginning. We haven't been researching UFO and related matters this long to not recognize COINTELPRO when we see it.
One of the things that clued us in was that Bill Ryan removed the list of recipients before sending the email image to me, and my suspicions were raised even higher because he chose to send me an image rather than forwarding the email itself with the headers intact. My guess is that he was on the list of recipients as well.
In short, it tells us that the whole Serpo story is a creation, a game, put together by this bunch of sick turkeys.
Notice also Victor's (Martinez) comment: "If and when the official program goes into effect with legitimate, mainstream news media sources. " That definitely suggests that Victor is convinced that he is in contact with a gov intell guy - or that someone is - and that this whole program is sanctioned by the US psy-ops gang. Victor's question: "were ALL of the postings fake" tells us that he is not completely on the inside.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that Wayne is the author of ALL of the Serpo hoax material with maybe a little help from William Irvine and Mark Allin and Allin's Halliburton employee wife, "Val Hall". In short, abovetopsecret.com is just a nest of vipers, hoaxers and probably a central node for internet COINTELPRO funded by the Pentagon and backed by Dick "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" Cheney.
Meanwhile, a reader of Signs of the Times has sent me a link to another blog, State of the Nation, which carried the following comments the day after our little "event."
Anatomy of a COINTELPRO shakedown II
The image above is the cover of the book Agents of Repression by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall. It is great for getting some history of COINTELPRO but to see how COINTELPRO is used today, which the authors admit would require a whole other book, you may want to read the accounts of Laura Knight Jadczyk. Its not just used against minority or counter cultural political groups. Why would power hungry psychopaths limit it to such groups anyway? It was afterall successful, and now they have both big and small fish to fry. Ms Jadczyk is now one of the many fishes in their sight.
A while back, based on her work, I detailed how COINTELPRO agents work. The chief activities of such agents is to limit anyone with a following that shows the true state of the nation and the world. As Agents of Repression and Ms Jadczyks blog will show you, they spread disinformation, infiltrate legitimate groups, harass and sic their big guns on workers for truth.
This woman must have angered someone in both high and low places because they got some really big guns to shut down her website yesterday. These were lawyers from McLean, Virginia acting on behalf of a group whose activities were detailed on the anatomy of a cointelpro shakedown.
Ms. Jadczyk has documented her experiences and findings beyond what I wrote a while back. The following links lays it all out.
The magus and the swamps of Eugnosia
By the last link, she had decided to lay off the ATS business and I thought they had gotten to her. I thought they scared her into not revealing what she was learning about Above Top Secret (ATS). I still followed her various writings because ATS isnt the world. Theyre just one of many on our planet who knowingly or unknowingly become agents of repression. I was happy however, see that they did not manage to scare her off and her website is back up. They are certainly trying hard to neutralize her.
It is a real lesson on the ways in which COINTELPRO has our nation in the state that it is in now.
Well, you can say that again!
One of the more interesting responses that we have received to our forum posting of the information that ATS was behind the website shutdown is the following forum posting regarding the Project Serpo :
My first impression upon reading the ATS "attack" emails sent to Bill Ryan reflected my opinion of ATS itself: a business. Just as Ms. Knight Jadczyk touched on, they are all about marketing. I see a website littered with advertisements; I see a website trying to sell me something.
So I thought to myself Mr. Ryan here had a good idea but his execution (ie writing and such, as rs cited about story building) was poor. As a business, perhaps ATS saw serpo.org as a good opportunity for money if the Skeptic Overlord took over the marketing and consumer manipulation to match how they make their $$$ over at ATS. From an Occam's standpoint, it might just be simple, if not dirty and bullying, business. Capitalism and all that nonsense.
Except for Mr. Ryan's attitude and activity towards Ms. Knight Jadczyk. Once told that she thought his serpo stuff was all hokey, followed by her inability to provide any assistance, a man with his concern for what he purported (his credibility and website) would have moved on to someone else he thought could help him out if he really thought he was in a pickle. But his continued communication with her shows his concern and attention toward her, not his own business, perhaps shedding light of a different agenda all together.
For ATS and Serpo to all be in cahoots, months and months worth at that, all just to set a trap that in itself isn't definite (ie one would need to go for the cheese to get caught in the trap) seems quite elaborate. Elaborate actions dictate a very serious motive, ie Ms. K must have really pissed off someone, or that it really isn't so elaborate. There is the offchance that ATS and co. are all crazy and they like spending months and months building a card castle just so no one would go inside it.
But simplicity usually lays a heavy hand on human motive, even in the intelligence field. Cointelpro or what have you, people are people first, and people's actions and choices have been observed long enough to get a good idea of using one thing to get a type of reaction. This is why those hollywood blockbusters bust so much block. So the question is, what would have happened if Ms. K decided to go along with the whole hullaballoo so diligently put forth by these conniving con-men?
Editorials notwithstanding, any one of the possibilities here is just that, a possibility. The most weight can be given to one if we can get an idea of which way they are blowing the wind. Discredit to a nice author with a newfound penchant for genealogy? Or this website, and its mentally delicious Pentagon presentation? Judging from how they act on their own boards, ATS would hardly be above stating "Admin of this board is attatched to Loony Bin Mcgee and his Alien Silliness!" followed up with Hoots n Hollers from their camp followers. But all this activity just to try and paint a bad picture of a "competitor" board? That's a whole lot of effort involved here just to gain more webtraffic. Then again, I am constantly amazed at the lengths capitalists go to to get more bang in their buck.
But if this is political that would easily explain away the effort used here. Perhaps the business end of it is just a kicker, a nice bonus. The real intent to Lie and smudge away at someone else's tasty truths, especially if those truths reveal a not so nice view of ones' self (or history, such as shooting our own five sided buildings). Information is puported to be the most valuable commodity. Perhaps that is the showdown here: two cookies vying for the public's mouth; one a tasty truth, the other a tasty something but accompanied by a nightstick. Perplexing quandary at best. Yummy in my tummy or a safety net?
What is becoming increasingly clear from this Stealth Attack, and other signals, is that Signs of the Times is probably the most dangerous site on the internet from the perspective of the Powers That Be. For them to take the risk of exposure as they did (and did they get exposed!) only convinces us that the issues raised in the Flying Fish article and the Pentagon Flash are of such importance that they will pull out all stops to defame, harass, stalk, and intimidate us with the ultimate goal of destruction. They want to see SOTT disappear from the Web, that is certainly clear and it is now becoming even clearer just WHO is behind it.
Now, we are no strangers to COINTELPRO. We have been targeted since I started investigating UFOs in 1993 and talking about it back in 1995. It started out being MUFON and UFO true believer types. Then, it was the New Age types. Then, of course, the standard religious types... though they aren't as bad as the UFO/New Age types. At first, it all seemed to be just random: jealousies, people whose beliefs were being threatened, and so on. And certainly, to a great extent that can be true all by itself. But later on, after I began writing the Wave Series, exposing so much of the New Age Sewage, it got more serious and "dedicated." We have our own full-time agent of defamation who doesn't even have a real job - he seems to have absolutely unlimited time to devote to destroying us, our peace of mind, our reputations, our work, our lives, the lives of our children, our friends, our groups, etc. - Vincent Bridges, associated with Jay Weidner, associated with Jeff Rense, with Ray Flowers, with Drunvalo Melchizedek, funded to the tune of several million by Jirka Rysavy, Czech millionaire who many claim is just a CIA front man with has his fingers in a LOT of New Age pies. At present, their favorite tactic is to post endless defamatory lies on "cointelpro friendly" forums, or to sign on to legitimate forums under various internet "handles" - or anonymously - and whenever a positive reference is made to our work to jump in and rant "cult, cult" or make some of the most bizarre accusations I've ever heard of. My personal favorites are that my husband is funded by George Soros and I plagiarized my autobiography! (Yeah, go figure.)
So, it seems that we were targeted quite early on, but for the past few years, it has taken a more serious turn, obviously because of our 911 research including the "Pentagon Strike." Vinnie and gang are no longer sufficient because people are starting to recognize that when gangs rant "cult," they are identifying themselves as lower level COINTELPRO throwaways. Now they brought in some bigger boys waving their manufactured "creative commons" flags the way Bush waves his "I'm eavesdropping because I can" flag. Remember from the Protocols:
Freedom is the right to do that which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program.
It'll be interesting to see what the next maneuver is!
The subject of the 911 strike on the Pentagon was subjected to intense cointelpro activity - as described in the Protocols above - from the very beginning so that now, even the so-called 911 truth seekers will nod their heads sagely and say "Yeah, it's just a set-up to make the whole 911 truth movement look silly."
I beg to differ.
I admit that I thought exactly the same thing in the beginning when our readers began to write to me and ask me about Theirry Meyssan's book. In fact, I even wrote comments to that effect and urged everyone to NOT touch this one with a mile long pole.
But even though I had made that initial assessment, based on what seemed logical to me, I still put our researchers on it because I WAS curious. And as the info kept coming in, it looked more and more like the Pentagon was, indeed, the "smoking gun" of 911 - even moreso than the collapse of WTC building 7.
I wrote my article "Comments on the Pentagon Strike" based on what info we had collected and as time went by and more data came in, we have added to it.
The Pentagon Flash Video was based, in part, on this article. What really shocked us was the way the video "took off" on its own. I'm not exaggerating when I tell you that it has been viewed by at LEAST 500 million people. Yeah, half a BILLION (and that was six months ago when we assembled the data for a count). It took down about five dedicated servers that were hosting it. It also triggered some VERY interesting reactions. But what I want to point out here is that the extraordinary popularity of this video says one thing: people know subconsciously that it is TRUE, that there was no Flight 77 at the Pentagon. Now notice carefully that I do not say that there was no PLANE, because there certainly was. It was just not Flight 77 nor anything like a Boeing 757.
This short little video did what no other work on 911 "Truth" had done up to that point: it triggered a whole lot of active "damage control" as we will see in a few moments.
What I noticed about the reactions to the Pentagon Strike that we have received via email is that they are overwhelmingly positive. Sensible people who can see through Bush and the Neocons have no problem seeing that there was no Flight 77 at the Pentagon. The negative reactions are also interesting; they fall into two categories: 1) honest, sincere people who have been influenced by the cointelpro/psy-ops who then, without even being aware, become de facto cointelpro agents; 2) the REAL cointelpro/psy-ops agents.
To give an example of what I think is the former type: not too long ago, Jeff Wells, on his Rigorous Intuition blog made the astonishing remark that:
"I've posted a number of times on the blog about the mistake of constructing 9/11 "truth" upon the sand of physical evidence. The "no plane" hypothesis (more than a hypothesis for many; more like an unforgiving creed) is one of the most egregious missteps. One I believe encouraged, if not led, by COINTELPRO."
First of all notice that, like a robot, he is repeating "no plane," as though that is what is being said. It is not. What is being said is that it was NOT a Boeing 757. But this is the first clue that Jeff Wells is mechanically repeating something that has impressed itself on his mind in some way.
The second thing to note is this astonishing phrase: The "sand of physical evidence" ??? !!!!
Now, let me say right up front here that being accused of being cointelpro ourselves is truly bizarre, but not unexpected; after all, that's what cointelpro does: muddy the waters, create foodfights, and generally make it impossible for people to get together and actually make a difference.
The very fact that Jeff Wells can say that (and I think he's a sincere guy) just proves my point about psy-ops and how it affects the mind. It demands of us the question: how someone can be so mentally divided that, on the one hand, they can question why the majority of Americans cannot see through Bush and the Neocons as an evil Fascist system, and on the other hand, turn around and do just what those people who support Bush are doing: believe that "witness testimony" is more reliable than physical evidence! Isn't that something of a contradiction? That's the same kind of general hystericization that has taken over the minds of Americans and makes it almost impossible to show them facts about Bush and Gang and to get them to see the reality. That's the same kind of mindset that allows Americans to sit by complacently while Bush and the Neocons wage pre-emptive war, torture, divest Americans of their rights, engage in illegal spying, vote fraud, destroy the economy of America, and the whole host of criminal activities going on in this country. And if anybody thinks that this gang of criminal psychopaths can't run psy-ops to produce "innocent" witnesses to say anything they want them to say, or to even buy witnesses, think again! And if you still think you can vote the bastards out of office, you had better wake up before it is too late.
So, when somebody says: "the mistake of constructing 9/11 "truth" upon the sand of physical evidence" what he is really saying is that he MUST acknowledge that the physical evidence (or lack thereof) is compelling, but still - because COINTELPRO has been run so effectively on the 911 truth movement - OR because most of the 911 Truth Movement IS COINTELPRO - he just has to go with the "witnesses." And many people will do that because the alternative is far too horrible to contemplate.
And that is the big problem with the whole 911 truth movement. COINTELPRO that produces such muddled thinking as is evidenced in Jeff Wells, a guy I used to read faithfully and really admired. In the case of Jeff Wells and most of the 911 researchers, I am reminded of the Protocols above, where it says:
When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
That is exactly what is being done with the 911 movement.
Turning now to Joe's Flying Fish article that abovetopsecret.com and Wayne Jaeschke and their bosses in the Pentagon are so desirous of making disappear from the internet, Joe Quinn wrote the following::
We notice that very few items of so-called "conspiracy theory" have rattled the "Bushes" quite like our Pentagon Strike Flash did. The Pentagon Strike video came out on August 23rd 2004. Probably nobody really noticed it at that point, but it hit a chord of response in the hearts of millions of people around the world. They began to madly download and forward it to their friends and relatives. Latest stats on how many people have viewed it to date are 500 million!
Apparently it even landed in the email box of the Editor of the Washington Post, which is why Carol Morello sent us an email asking for an interview. Or so she said. My suspicion was that the Post was instructed to do "damage control", albeit oh, so gently!
Now, look at this mini-timeline:
August 23rd 2004: Pentagon Strike Video which propagates wildly for a month.
September 11, 2004: CatHerder post to Above Top Secret forum.
September 21st 2004: First contact by Carol Morello of the Washington Post
October 7th 2004: Washington Post article
It was an interesting feeling to know that if they hadn't seen the Pentagon Strike before, certainly George and Dick, Karl and the gang were watching it after the Washington Post wrote an article about it.October 19th 2004: George Bush visits New Port Richey - a previously unscheduled "whistle-stop" on his campaign trail. NPR is very small, not likely to be a major target of any presidential candidate, but it just happens to be Laura Knight-Jadczyk's hometown. It was our initial reaction that Dubya's visit to Laura's little home town - certainly of no importance on the campaign trail - was deliberately done to send a message to her. Fact is, her daughter's ex-boyfriend wrote to tell her that he had been among those selected to shake the hand of George W. himself! Now, how's that for a coincidence?
As to exactly what Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote to Laura, here is the pertinent passage which is actually quite revealing:
A couple of editors here saw the video/film, and I was asked to find out what I could about it. As you can imagine, we continue to have an intense interest on the attack on the Pentagon and the people who were affected.
I've just begun reporting, so it would be premature to tell you what "perspective" my story would have.
My initial impressions are that the questions and theories expressed in the video got a spurt of attention in early 2002, after the publication of a best selling book in France, then the furor died down for a while, and now they have re-emerged with the extraordinarily wide dissemination of this video on the Internet.
The 911 Commission report appears to have done little to dampen the controversy. I hoped to speak to you about how and why you posted it on your web site, what kind of response you've received and what you think about it. [ ]
Notice that she attributes the resurgence of interest in the "Pentagate" problem to the Pentagon Strike video. Can we say "damage control"?
And if there is damage control, then that means there is damage.
Up to this point in time, the only acknowledgement the administration ever gave to such issues was to refer vaguely and dismissively to "conspiracy theories". Now, suddenly, it seems that dealing with the "conspiracy theories" in a direct manner was seen to be imperative. "9/11: Debunking the Myths" came out in Popular Mechanics Magazine in March of 2005, just five months after the Washington Post article. That's pretty fast work.
Under the tutelage of Editor in Chief Jim "Oh look, a tank!" Meigs, Popular Mechanics assembled a team of researchers, including "professional fact checkers" (impressive eh?) to debunk the 16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists about 9/11. Unsurprisingly, the PM editors claim that, in the end:
"we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate."
In fact, a careful analysis of the article shows that at most, just three of the sixteen claims could have been the result of "reporting error", forcing us to assume that, in the razor-like, emotionally unclouded cerebrum of Jim Meigs, at least 13 of the conspiracy claims about 9/11 are the result of "cynical imaginations aiming to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate".
The sad fact is that, while Popular Mechanics claims to be interested in understanding what really happened that day, their rebuttal of sixteen of the most common claims by so-called "conspiracy theorists" about 9/11 isn't worth the $3.57 of server space that it has so far cost them to publish it.
If there is one glaring hole in the arguments put forward by 9/11 conspiracy "debunkers", it is the fact that such people have never come up with a reasonable argument to explain why, in the wake of 9/11, so many obviously intelligent citizens became gripped by the uncontrollable urge to continually waste their time recklessly and fecklessly "injecting suspicion and animosity into public debate" for no apparent reason. It really is a mystery. Maybe they're trying to take over the world or something.
On the other hand, it doesn't take a degree in psychology to understand the primary motivations of the conspiracy debunkers. You see, the very last thing that many Americans (and others) want to believe is that their government would attack its own people. For 9/11 "debunkers", logic and intellect have no part to play in investigating the question of what really happened on 9/11. It's pure emotion all the way. [...]
Most people think that "conspiracy theories" are made up by "conspiracy theorists", but the term "conspiracy theory" is most often used by those people who have most to gain from the ridicule of the allegations that are directed at them. The tactic has been used to such great effect over the years that certain high crimes committed by government have become the touchstone by which all other "conspiracies" are measured.
Take the folks at Popular Mechanics. In dealing with 9/11 they simply couldn't resist referencing that other most despicable crime committed by a US government - but of course, to them it's just another "theory":
"Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Nobody should take everything they hear--from the government, the media or anybody else--at face value. But in a culture shaped by Oliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently getting harder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate, shadowy theorizing."
Did you catch it? The reference to Oliver Stone can mean only one thing: Jim's "fact checkers" contacted the CIA, and they told him straight up that some bullets really can do magic things.
So far, we have been generous to the people at Popular Mechanics. We have assumed that they are simply well-intentioned but misguided souls. However, it appears that there is a more sinister, and dare we say it, "conspiratorial" side to Popular Mechanics' "innocent" debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories. You see, it turns out that one of the main contributors to the article is one Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of the new Dept. of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff.
American Free Press' Christopher Bollyn, who dug up the information, also claims that Ben Chertoff's mother was a Mossad agent. While there is, as of yet, no evidence of any working relationship between the two, it is certainly noteworthy that the cousin of the current Homeland Security Chief, (who, in his previous incarnation as head of the Justice Department's criminal division was instrumental in the release of obvious Israeli spies before and after 9/11), happens to be behind a high-profile attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories. [...]
According to another 9/11 researcher:
"The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence. More specifically, Shermer attempts to inoculate readers against looking at the decidedly scientific refutation of the official story [ ]
According to another 9/11 researcher:
"The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence. More specifically, Shermer attempts to inoculate readers against looking at the decidedly scientific refutation of the official story [ ]
Shermer's column exhibits many of the same propaganda techniques as the ambitious feature article in the March issue of Popular Mechanics by Benjamin Chertoff, for which Shermer professes admiration:
'The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.'
Comparing the two attack pieces is instructive. Both pieces mention a similar range of issues, with Shermer adding Jewish conspiracy rumors and UFOlogists to the mix...
This last is undoubtedly a direct reference to Signs of The Times, while avoiding giving a direct link to our website out of fear that the reader might be influenced.
Shermer uses an array of deceptive methods to persuade the reader that challenges to the official story of the 9/11 attack are worthy only of ridicule and should not be scrutinized. His primary technique is to use hoaxes and unscientific ideas to "bracket" the valid ideas that he seeks to shield the reader from.
That Shermer went to such great lengths to thoroughly misrepresent the painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work of many researchers is a testament to the success of the Pentagon Strike Video! It really stepped on a sore toe. And that tells us something important, the same thing Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote:
" the questions and theories expressed in the video got a spurt of attention in early 2002, after the publication of a best selling book in France, then the furor died down for a while, and now they have re-emerged with the extraordinarily wide dissemination of this video on the Internet."
We notice that never, in any of the two major "debunking" articles that followed fast on the heels of the Pentagon Strike video, was the video ever even mentioned by name, nor was our website mentioned. Other books, other researchers, other web sites were mentioned, but the deliberate avoidance of Signs of The Times - the origin of the Pentagon Strike, was conspicuous. We notice the same trend in the Above Top Secret forum.
Again we point out: debunkers are sent in only when damage control is needed. And damage control is only needed when it is thought that there might be damage. That means that the Pentagon Strike is understood clearly, in the minds of the perpetrators, to be the weak link in their chain of lies.
Debunkers are sent in not to give answers to the outstanding questions, but to push the emotional buttons of the public, to reassure people who really want "a reason to believe" that their government is not lying to them. [...]
As Laura Knight-Jadczyk notes in her book 9/11:The Ultimate Truth, the attack on the Pentagon is the Achilles Heel of the entire 9/11 coverup, and for one very good reason: while we all saw repeated footage of Flight 11 and Flight 175 crash into the WTC towers, and we all saw the wreckage of Flight 93 and have hundreds of eyewitness testimonies that a commercial airliner did indeed crash in Pennsylvania, there is no reliable evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. No one has seen any footage that shows Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and the tapes that actually exist that could easily and immediately prove what did hit that day, have been confiscated by the FBI and the U.S. government studiously refuses to release them.
The US government claims that a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon on 9/11, many people dispute this, yet the same American government refuses to release video tapes that would put the matter to rest and show once and for all what hit the Pentagon. Use your head and ask yourself, "why?"
There is one very obvious answer.
In other words, you can push arguments about the WTC building's collapse from now 'til doomsday and get nowhere... Even if you prove that it collapsed due to explosives, you can't ever prove that those planes that flew into the WTC buildings were not big passenger jets with alleged Arab hijackers onboard. Even if you forced the government to admit that, yes, there were explosives that brought down the building, it can so easily be attributed to "terrorists" in a big "discovery" of bait and switch. That's why they don't really worry too much about the WTC attacks. That's why all manner of conspiracy theories about the WTC are tolerated with disdainful amusement.
But notice that there is NO real amusement about the Pentagon Strike. Oh, sure, they work really hard to poke fun at it, but the fact is, the Pentagon Strike video - and our work on that subject - is the one and only thing that has baited the Beast from his lair and it was for THAT reason that special "agents" like The Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, abovetopsecret.com and Wayne Jaeschke have been employed to stop it! To STAMP it out! To get RID of it! At ALL costs! Heck, that's probably what was on Dick Cheney's mind when he shot his buddy... he was having a waking dream and thought he was pointing the gun at the SOTT team!
The fact is, there is NO defense against the facts on the ground at the Pentagon except the word of a small group of "special" witnesses against another group of witnesses who say that it was NOT Flight 77. Think about it. As I happens, Dave McGowan, a pretty clever guy, has addressed these issues thoroughly. He writes:
A popular hobby of late among some 9-11 researchers seems to involve disparaging the efforts of, and questioning the motives of, those researchers who refuse to ignore the fact that the available evidence is entirely inconsistent with the crash of a jetliner at the Pentagon. These individuals generally refer to certain other Pentagon investigators as "no-plane" theorists. For the purposes of this article, I have adopted a name for them as well: Tattoo theorists. This appellation is, of course, an homage to the "Fantasy Island" character best known for the tag line, "Ze plane! Ze plane!"
Two of the most aggressive of the Tattoo theorists, by the way, are Jim Hoffman and Brian Salter, both of whom were on the other side of the fence, so to speak, until fairly recently. If you have ever known someone who quit smoking and thereafter embarked on a mission to browbeat and berate every other smoker on the planet, then you have a pretty good idea of how the Tattoo theorists operate.
On February 24, Brian Salter (questionsquestions.net) posted a histrionic denunciation of Pentagon "no-plane" theorists that included the bizarre claim that any efforts to "keep the unnecessary no-plane speculation alive just helps to smear 9-11 Truth activists as hateful maniacs. Maybe that's the idea."
Well, I guess the jig is up. Mr. Salter, it seems, has figured out our diabolical plot. All along, the real goal has been to cast 9-11 researchers as - dare I say it? - hateful maniacs. In fact, the 'talking points' that I receive from my secret CIA backers routinely contain such notations as: "Operation Hateful Maniacs is, as you know, proceeding on schedule; prepare to shift into the next phase of the program, Operation Deranged Psychopaths."
Of course, it could also be that those of us who continue to focus on the glaring inconsistencies in the official story of what happened at the Pentagon are actually pursuing the truth, which is what a "Truth activist" is supposed to do, rather than peddling entirely speculative drivel about a mythical 'plane bomb,' which is what the Tattoo theorists choose to do.
The primary strong-arm tactic of the Tattoo theorists is to cast "no-plane" theorists as part of a Cointelpro-type operation aimed at undermining the 9-11 skeptics' case. The "no-plane" theories, it is claimed, are "straw man" arguments, propped up specifically so that they can be easily brushed aside by "debunkers," thus discrediting the 9-11 movement in its entirety by attacking at points of greatest vulnerability.
In his blog, Salter claims "media debunkers have shown maximum enthusiasm for portraying [Pentagon no-plane theories] as the heart and soul of 9/11 skepticism and making it the centerpiece of practically every hit piece." (http://questionsquestions.net/blog/) Hoffman has written that "the prominence of the no-757-crash theory will damage the cause, particularly as it reaches a wider audience less inclined to research the issue ... The mainstream press is casting the no-757-crash theory as a loony construct of conspiracy theorists, and representative of all 9/11 skepticism." (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html) Mark Robinowitz has joined the chorus by claiming "'No Planes' has been the most effective means to discredit issues of complicity inside the Beltway." (http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html)
Obviously then, everyone is in agreement (as if they were all reading the same 'talking points') that we must immediately drop all support for the "no-plane" theories, because if we don't, we will continue to furnish the enemy with useful ammunition with which to attack and discredit us. Sounds like a good plan -- except for the fact that it is based on a false premise.
The reality is that there have been almost no mainstream media 'debunkings' of the 9-11 skeptics' case, and there is a very good reason for that: the cumulative case that has been painstakingly compiled is (despite the spirited efforts of people like the Tattoo theorists) a formidable one that major media outlets, along with most so-called 'alternative' media outlets, have wisely chosen not to confront.
By far the most ambitious, high-profile media 'debunking' of the claims made by 9-11 skeptics has been the hit piece that graced the cover of the March 2005 edition of Popular Mechanics magazine (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html). Since it is known that this article was co-written by Benjamin Chertoff, reportedly a cousin of our very own Director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, then it is probably safe to assume that a primary objective was to knock down all the 'straw men' arguments that had been carefully planted and nurtured by government operatives. That is, after all, how this game is played, as the Tattoo theorists readily acknowledge.
We should, therefore, expect to find that the Popular Mechanics article focuses considerable attention on the Pentagon "no-plane" theories, and on the Pentagon attack in general. But what we find instead is quite the opposite; instead of emphasizing questions about the Pentagon, the issue is downplayed and given very little attention -- which isn't really surprising given that the attack on the Pentagon has always been, from day one, relegated to the status of a relatively insignificant footnote.
The PM article presents what it says are the top sixteen claims made by 9-11 skeptics, coupled with what are supposed to be 'debunkings' of each of those claims. The claims are grouped into four categories, which are presented in the following order: "The Planes" (the ones that hit the towers); "The World Trade Center" (the collapse of the towers); "The Pentagon"; and "Flight 93." Five of the sixteen claims examined concern the collapse of the WTC towers, four concern Flights 11 and 175, four concern Flight 93, and just three concern the Pentagon attack. In terms of word count, the article runs (minus the introduction) about 5,200 words, and it breaks down roughly as follows: collapse of towers - 2,050 words; WTC planes - 1250 words; Flight 93 - 1150 words; and the Pentagon - a paltry 750 words.
So if we are to use the focus of mainstream media attacks to gauge the points of greatest vulnerability in the 9-11 skeptics' case, then, in terms of both word count and number of claims examined, the collapse of the Twin Towers would be, by far, the weakest leak in the chain (which is kind of ironic, when you think about it, considering that most, if not all of the Tattoo theorists actively promote the theory that the towers were brought down with explosives). As for Pentagon "no-plane" theories, they are, according to the given criteria, the point of least vulnerability. [...]Claims concerning the Pentagon attack don't make an appearance on the Popular Mechanics list until well into the second half of the article. And once they do appear, they are given very little print space. The three claims 'debunked' in the PM piece barely scratch the surface of the cumulative case that has been built to challenge the official version of the Pentagon attack. And the 'debunking' of even these cherry-picked 'claims' is pathetically inept. The undeniable lack of aircraft debris from the alleged crash, for example, is brushed aside with nothing more than this ludicrous emotional appeal from an alleged blast expert and witness to the aftermath of the attack: "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box ... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
You would think that if the Pentagon attack theories were the 'straw men' that the Tattoo theorists claim, then the 'debunkers' would be better prepared to knock those straw men down, and they would devote more print space to doing so. Instead, we find the Pentagon attack being downplayed in a major media attack on the 9-11 skeptics movement -- at the very same time, curiously enough, that a number of 9-11 skeptics have begun aggressively demanding that all "unnecessary speculation" about the Pentagon attack be dropped, and at the very same time that a new purported Pentagon skeptics' site suddenly appeared, professionally designed and complete with new interviews and photos (from insider sources), numerous omissions, copious amounts of spin and disinformation, a new DVD for sale, and, of course, enthusiastic backing from the Tattoo theorists and other 9-11 skeptics.I have to say, quite frankly, that all of this just seems too well choreographed for my tastes. And, I have to also say that the Tattoo theorists' recent efforts to bury the Pentagon "no-plane speculation" seem rather desperate and overreaching.
I suggest that all of you read Dave's newsletter linked above with the Protocols of the Pathocrats held firmly in mind. As another poster in the Signs of the Times forum wrote:
Eye-witness testimony is notoriously pliable, and when already primed by FOUR airliners being hijacked, two have been flown into the World Trade Centre Buildings, and then something hits the Pentagon, it has to be one of the four airliners. It's in the programming, the priming, the following demonstrates this theory...
From 'Forensic & Criminal Psychology' Dennis Howitt:
"Few would doubt that human memory is fallible. An intriguing demonstration of this was a study of memory concerning the crash of an EL AL Boeing 747 jet onto a residential area of Amsterdam (Crombag et al., 1996). The crash had only been verbally reported on news bulletins as NO FILM OR VIDEO OF THE PLANE CRASH EXISTS [emphasis mine] Apart from eyewitnesses, no one could have seen the events. Nevertheless, participants in the research were misled into thinking that they may have seen such images on television by asking them about their recollections of the news coverage. Substantial numbers of participants in the study readily provided visual details of the crash as if they had seen it on film.[...]"The key finding of the research is the failure of participants to recognise the falsity of their claims. That is to say, they did not realise that they were manufacturing memories."...]
This is not to say that eyewitnesses are not at all reliable, they are, but the essential point in the above is that with the right 'cueing' (programming) a vast number of people can be led to manufacture memories. Very sad isn't it, and it is easy to see the comparison here with how most people were led to believe it was a hijacked passenger airliner that hit the pentagon.
The truth is: NOBODY saw Flight 77 fly into the Pentagon. It didn't happen.
And so it is: Joe Quinn's rebuttal of the Pentagon Strike rebuttal, created and propagated by abovetopsecret.com, is just too dangerous to be allowed to continue to be "out there."
Even if it is completely legal to write a critical analysis as Joe Quinn did - utilizing the original article for the critique (how else can you write an analysis?) - covert intimidation and coercion from a fancy law firm in Virginia has been initiated to force the removal of this article from the internet after the pathetic efforts of the abovetopsecret.com "Three Amigos" didn't do the job. This was never supposed to be made public, it was designed to quietly and covertly "kill the messenger."
Discerning those whose intent is to deceive from those who are already deceived, but sincere, is very difficult but it can be done if people will begin to educate themselves and deal with the FACTS. Really and truly grokking COINTELPRO and the damage it does, and learning how to combat it, is a MUST if anything positive is ever to happen on this god-forsaken planet.
At this point, you can pretty well discern the COINTELPRO alternative sites from the sincere ones by who publishes this Exposure of abovetopsecret.com and who doesn't. Right about now, it IS that simple.
Now those of you that have read this far, let me mention that we removed our fundraiser, our fun little "Send Dick Cheney to the Moon" thing because, after a month, we raised less that 20% of our target - that is, double digits in thousands, not triple digits. Meanwhile, we know that the moveon.org people who haven't yet awakened to that fact that all their efforts and all their money is just going down the drain in the face of criminal fascists were able to raise several million dollars. That is another reason for COINTELPRO, to deprive the legitimate and UNCORRUPTED researchers of funds desperately needed to place the truth before the masses of people in a way that can compete with the Fox News type brainwashing.
Do you see moveon.org getting attacked? Do you see their website being taken down? In fact, please try to think of any other website that has been so thoroughly subjected to defamation, repeated DOS attacks, personal harassment, stalking, and now outright assault and intimidation from people with obvious connections to the Bush Neocons.
You can't. There isn't another website that can demonstrate with hard evidence, documentation, the level of attack that SOTT has been subjected to for the past five years.
Think about it.
And think about how much you might want us to continue to be available to you for news, analysis, commentary, and just the TRUTH.
When we are gone, who will take our place?
Febuary 7 2005: In looking at the best known "big names" among those individuals allegedly attempting to uncover the truth about 9-11, high up on the list (at the moment anyway) we find Mike Ruppert of ‘From the Wilderness’.
Ruppert has been making alternative news headlines for the past few months over two issues: the flack he has been taking, and giving, in a war of words with several high profile 9-11 investigators, and the issue of "Peak Oil". Quite often the two controversies are related.
It all began, it seems, with another 9-11 investigator, Dick Eastman, and some comments that he made about Ruppert's focus, or lack thereof, on the Pentagon attack and the evidence for the "no plane" scenario. Ruppert, true to his apparent love of litigation, threatened to sue Eastman, which, not being the most diplomatic response, got Eastman all flustered and the games where on.
Allegations flew back and forth, but sadly for corporate America, no lawsuits. Enter Victor Thorn (real name Scott Makufka) and owner of the Wing TV website. Thorn, apparently just your average dedicated 9-11 investigator, soon became aware of the spat between Ruppert and Eastman and decided that the best place for Ruppert and Eastman to discuss the matter like civilised truth seekers was on Thorn’s internet radio show. Thorn however, made the mistake of mentioning Eastman’s allegations in his invitation email to Ruppert, which was construed by Ruppert as an attack and resulted in Thorn joining the ranks of those threatened with legal action by Ruppert.
Now I have never met nor corresponded with Mr Ruppert, so I have to rely on the opinions of others who have met him or had some interaction with him to come to some idea of what kind of a guy he is. In all of the opinions of Ruppert that have been bandied about in recent months, the one that keeps popping up, and which is admitted to by even his friends, is that he is somewhat ‘excitable’. Frankly, given Mike’s situation, I can understand.
If we look at what thrust Mike into a unique position among 9-11 researchers, we find that it was not his research into 9-11, but rather his shocking revelations about "peak oil". Now it is no surprise that, from Mike’s point of view, this particular issue would eventually eclipse the events of 9-11 altogether, as he stated in his recent lecture at Washington University. After all, what’s the point in pursuing the prosecutions of Cheney and the boys when a large percentage of the population, according to the peak oil scenario, will never get to enjoy the trial anyway?
Thinking a little more deeply about the matter, I would venture to say that, if it were I that had uncovered - (alone or with the subtle help of parties unseen) - information that "proved conclusively" that there was no more oil and that mechanised humanity was in for a very nasty surprise, complete with the whole die off scenario etc, I might be a little testy sometimes too. If I subsequently realised (by my own efforts or with the subtle help of parties unseen), that the dissemination of this all-important information was my responsibility alone, I hope I would be excused for getting a little paranoid now and then. And in the case that I had come to the conclusion (alone or with the subtle help of parties unseen), that there would be lots of people out there pretending to be 9-11 researchers who, in reality, were just attempting to discredit me and my very important message to humanity, I’m damn sure I might strike people as ‘uptight’. Heck, I might even get defensive and aggressive at times, especially in my dealings with people that I suspected to be such disinfo artists - which could be anybody. I might even threaten to sue a bunch of them.
We should all therefore be reading between the lines with Mike and his temperament, but we should not waste too much time on it, and look more closely instead at his message.
If we look at the situation dispassionately (not an easy thing to do given the subject matter - "you’re all gonna die" - tends to make people a little emotional don’t ya know), what seems to be true about Mike’s message is that it is so shocking that it tends to have the effect of suspending the critical thinking capabilities of people who hear it. In a way it is like one of those doomsday cults where blind faith is asked for and given because: "we’re all gonna be toast pretty soon anyway, so what have you got to lose?"
It is also, coincidentally, a very good way to focus attention away from 9-11.
Of course, I am not saying that Mike is running a cult of any description, I am just saying that, whether Mike is aware of it or not, his message tends to promote emotional rather than critical thought, and thinking with our emotions tends to exacerbate an already problematic situation.
I think I can say without much fear of dispute, that, whether he planned it or not (or whether someone else planned it with him in mind), Mike has become somewhat of a saviour for his followers.
By his own admission, the following are Mike’s core beliefs about what needs to be done:
Instead of advocating war I oppose it. Anyone who has attended any of my more than 35 lectures in eight countries (more than 15,000 live audience members) will know, of a certainty, that my position on solutions is absolutely clear. I advocate an immediate cessation of all military conquest and imperialism by the US government and industrialized powers; an end to the war on terror.
I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program – agreed to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical principles – to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity.
I hope that the sharp and sudden increase in heart rate and blood pressure that the words "population reduction" must surely have caused in readers was not too much to handle, and that we can continue and rationally consider the practicality of just what is being suggested by Mike.
The first question that can be reasonably asked is: "What planet has Mike been living on for the past 50 years?"
Please tell me when exactly the wonderful, life-respecting, spiritual beings took over the planet? Was it while I was at the toilet?
Seriously though, can ANYONE imagine Cheney or Putin or Blair or Zhu Rongji, or any other world leader for that matter, who by definition of their position of power have been completely corrupted by that power, suddenly exhibiting "the highest spiritual and ethical principles"? Just about every world leader, including the supposedly "spiritual" ones, have been presiding over mass depopulation for centuries, and they didn’t need any stinkin’ ethics or morals to do it; glee and relish was all it took!
When Mike was challenged by Victor Thorn of Wing TV about his stance on the depopulation question, he stated that, ideally, the job of depopulation would:
" […] include people of more humane vocations than those of the economists, politicians, and financiers who are currently in charge of most domestic and international institutions".
Sure, we would all like to have those "of more humane vocations" included, Mike, but, last time I checked, it was still the "economists, politicians, and financiers" that were running the show. Better yet, let’s have more humane people make the decisions, not simply those who are in positions where the illusion of humaneness is part of the job description.
Mike continues in this vein with his basic point being that it would be better that the several billion of us that sadly have to "go", be put to sleep by the Dalai Lama than prematurely euthanised by the Nazi Neocons.
Again, really Mike, it’s not much of a choice. Either way you are asking us to make the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ in order to clear the board for the "economists, politicians, and financiers" to just start all over again. THAT is the reality of the situation and it’s time we all grew up and accepted it.
The bottom line with Ruppert is that, while his alarmist, doomsday message is a real attention grabber, his solution to the problem really isn’t a solution at all, and for this reason it would be better if he were to just make his point and quietly sit down.
Another troubling aspect of the whole Mike Ruppert travelling show is the fact that he enjoys a level of exposure that is denied most other 9-11 researchers. He seems to have few problems in securing speaking appointments in places like Washington University or the Commonwealth club and having his book "requested by more than 120 press agencies from around the world", including "the largest and most powerful", and certainly the many lawsuits that he has either started or threatened to start must require considerable cash flow.
If there is one thing that the honest modern day truth seekers must come to terms with, it is that nothing is ever made easy. Everything must be worked for, and exposing the truth generally does not pay well in monetary terms. That is not to say that all those penniless "alternative" editorialists are on the level, but if you have a product to sell and maintain, be it a lie or the truth, you need exposure, and the type of exposure Ruppert is getting is usually beyond the reach of those of us who ARE on the level and attempting to scrape a living from it.
It is indeed strange to realise that, for all Mike’s supposed savvy as an ex-LAPD cop, he, like Hopsicker, seems unable to really grasp the true nature of the people that control this planet. On the contrary, Mike would have us believe that he and his little band of researchers should be credited with uncovering and bringing the "reality" of Peak oil, not only to the little people, but also to the Finance Ministers of the world’s seven largest nations! As he triumphantly stated in an essay last October:
WE DID IT!
World’s Seven Largest Economies (G7) Admit They Have No Idea How Much Oil Is Left - Issue Emergency Call for Transparency at DC Summit
A Challenge to the Flat-Earth, Abiotic Oil Advocates and Cornucopian Economists - It’s Now or Never
by Michael C. Ruppert
In the article, Ruppert claims that he and, "a group of dedicated men and women, recognized as being in the forefront of the movement to place Peak Oil front and center on the world’s agenda" had singled-handedly brought the reality of peak oil to the attention of the world’s leaders. Misunderstood ‘new-age’ platitudes about a single person being able to ‘change the world’ aside, is it really reasonable to think that a group of citizens would just stumble upon information as important as "peak oil" BEFORE the people that have been using oil to control and manipulate the world for decades?
If your answer is yes, as Mike’s seems to be, then we humbly propose that both you and Mike are woefully ignorant of the true nature of the control system on this planet.
But then again, wishful thinking WILL get you, EVERY time.
In a final flourish to the article Ruppert states that: "this book may change the outcome of the (2004) election". To which we say: if Mike’s election predictions are anything to go by, we can all relax about "Peak oil" as he presents it.
According to Mike, when big government and big oil exploration and drilling companies proclaim to the world that "we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel here folks", it is not that these patently corrupt men are attempting to manipulate world opinion, but rather that, faced with the dire consequences that peak oil portends for humanity, they are simply concerned for our well-being and future. Ruppert fails however to address the question of whether or not it is reasonable to believe that such men would suddenly undergo a complete reversal of the ethics that had motivated them up until that point in their lives.
As we all know, oil does not naturally flow out of the ground pre-refined into the various forms that are required to keep the post-industrial world turning and well-fed. There is a long and costly process involved in getting the oil to the gas station, and it would not happen if it were not financed by the large multinational oil companies that naturally have very close ties to the governments that require the oil in order for them to have a country and a population to rule over.
If there is an alleged shortage of oil, it is just as plausible that such claims are the result of some new government/corporate strategy rather than the actual drying up of resources.
Consider also the fact that, if we are to believe that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were solely to steal the oil resources of those countries, then things have not panned out as the Neocons hoped. Most reports have been telling us that the expected reserves in Iraq are just not there. Which begs the question: are we really to believe that all the big brains in the US "think-tanks" did not foresee this?
Of course I am not for a moment suggesting that depopulation does not form a part of the plans of ‘the powers that be’. There is too much evidence that governments have, for many years, been working on developing ever better ways to kill ever more people. My problem with Ruppert is that by promoting his "peak oil" debate, he ever so subtly diverts attention away from those who are really responsible for our current predicament and lays the blame for the impending demise of civilisation as we know it at the door of mother nature and the unfortunate fact that she has run out of oil.
How tragic.
While I cannot prove it, I would venture to say that Ruppert is being backed; possibly financially, probably with information, and almost definitely in terms of exposure. Having said that, it is possible - but not likely - that he himself knows little about where the money, information or exposure are really coming from. Such is the nature of the murky world of CoIntelPro and the fate of those who unwittingly become mired in it.
Which brings us to another high profile 9-11 investigator. Daniel Hopsicker of Mad Cow Morning News. The bulk of Hopsicker’s research centers around alleged chief hijacker Mohammed Atta and his association with the CIA and their drug running activities in Florida. Hopsicker’s "smoking gun" is that Atta and 6 other hijackers got their "wings" at a Florida Flight School that was also used for drug running by the CIA. Added to that is evidence that the hijackers received further training at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama. Hopsicker states:
"The most extraordinarily-damning fact that’s been dredged up so far about the 9-11 attack is this one, unearthed in Florida:
"During the same month that Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi began flying lessons at his flight school, the flight school owner’s Lear jet was seized by DEA agents who found 43 pounds of heroin aboard."
It goes to the heart of the relationship between Mohamed Atta and his Hamburg cadre and their criminal hosts here in the U.S. and leads directly to the network supporting, employing, and/or doing business with the terrorists.
Now, I am not contesting any of these details, in fact, it is rather curious that Hopsicker is able to glean such detailed and explosive information about the undoubtedly "top secret" activities of the phoney hijackers, purely as a result of honest and diligent research. Get real!
Hopsicker raises further suspicion and further dilutes his credibility by insisting that all roads simply HAVE to lead to Saudi Arabia, summing up his stance by saying:
Any 9-11"expert" whose revelations don’t frequently use the word "Saudi" in conjunction with the word "Florida" is peddling a red herring.
There are a lot of problems with "the Saudis did it" argument, the most obvious being that this is the main allegation not-so-subtly hinted at by Michael Moore in his widely advertised docu-movie, Fahrenheit 9-11. Given what we know about the mainstream media and it’s subservience to US government interests, it is unlikely that such a movie would have received such publicity if the allegations therein were actually factual.
Secondly there is the problem of the Saudi/bin Laden link. By now most serious researchers should be aware that bin Laden has been a CIA asset since the time of the Russo-Afghan war. During those years, bin Laden was the CIA’s man in Afghanistan and was used to recruit, train and funnel money and arms to the small group of fundamentalist Islamic ideologists and fighters that gave the Russians such a hard time. Of course, the CIA did not dirty their hands directly, preferring to use bin Laden’s folks in the Saudi regime as their middlemen. Having successfully schooled this band of merry Islamophiles in the art of expelling a world superpower from their country, they were then used as the scapegoats in various false flag operations that culminated in the 9-11 attacks. The BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" does a good job of summing up this aspect of the global shell game.
Thirdly there is the problem of the major source of the Saudi Arabia/9-11 link - Pakistani Intelligence – an organisation that is generally accepted as being little more than the CIA in SW Asia.
Did the Saudis know about 9-11?
A new book claims that Saudi princes and a Pakistani official knew Osama bin Laden would strike America that day. But some critics say the whole story could be a neoconservative fabrication.
By Mark Follman Oct. 18, 2003
When U.S. and Pakistani special forces raided a house on the outskirts of Faisalabad, Pakistan, on March 28, 2002, and successfully nabbed top al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah, the mood at CIA headquarters was upbeat. Langley watched the early morning raid via satellite, and once a Pakistani intelligence officer and some quick voice prints confirmed Zubaydah’s identity, the CIA knew it had captured one of its most sought-after adversaries, a figure who could potentially reveal the full story of the 9-11 terrorist plot. Shot several times in the raid, Zubaydah was given enough medical treatment to ensure his survival and hauled away for questioning. According to a new book, what Zubaydah said -- after being subjected to highly controversial interrogation methods -- stunned intelligence officials.
In his book "Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9-11," Gerald Posner makes an explosive allegation: Top figures in the Saudi and Pakistani governments had been directly assisting Osama bin Laden for years and knew al-Qaida was going to strike America on Sept. 11. Posner cites two unnamed U.S. government sources, both of whom he asserts are "in a position to know," who he said gave him separate, corroborating reports. One source is from the CIA and the other is a senior Bush administration official "inside the executive branch," he told Salon in an interview.
According to Posner’s account, four Saudi princes and the head of Pakistan’s air force were deeply involved with Osama bin Laden for years, some of them meeting with him well after al-Qaida began its terror attacks on U.S. targets overseas in the mid-1990s. The fact that some of the figures were so highly placed makes it hard to dismiss the possibility, if the allegations are true, that the heads of the Saudi and Pakistani governments signed off on the policy.
Saudi, Pakistani and U.S. government officials (the latter off the record) have dismissed the story as false. Zubaydah himself subsequently recanted his claims, saying he lied to avoid torture, according to Posner. But Posner thinks the allegations are credible -- not least because four of the five supposed conspirators died under strange circumstances -- and believes the U.S. wants to downplay them for an obvious reason: They’re too hot to handle, painting as they do two crucial allies as working hand-in-hand with America’s Public Enemy No. 1.
But several intelligence analysts and experts on Saudi Arabia doubt the story’s authenticity. While acknowledging that Saudi Arabia has supported fiery proponents of militant Islam and took an early see-no-evil approach to bin Laden, they say it would be highly unlikely that top members of the Saudi royal family would be so deeply involved with a global terrorist organization -- one that seeks to destroy the Saudi regime itself as part of a worldwide jihad against infidels and their allies.
As if to perpetuate the myth of a bona fide "war on terror", Hopsicker also repeatedly makes reference to "the terrorists", apparently taking as gospel the government - spun lie that "Arab terrorists" actually exist as an organised group dedicated to destroying everything American. Again, readers should watch the BBC-aired documentary "The Power of Nightmares" for evidence of this. It is hard to believe that a seasoned supersleuth like Hopsicker is not aware of the vast amount of evidence to suggest that the entire concept of an organised worldwide terrorist network is completely bogus.
Hopsicker is also insistent that the "no plane at the Pentagon" crowd are disinfo artists. Thankfully however, and as if to save us wasting any more time, Hopsicker graciously gives his CoIntelPro position away completely by claiming that anyone caught promoting the idea that the 9-11 airplanes could have been flown by remote control are obviously disinfo artists. Which, if Hopsicker is correct, means that Boeing must also be part of the 9-11 truth movement.
The more we look into the backgrounds of the main players involved in 9-11 research, the more links we find. Ruppert was a member of Hopsicker’s CIA drug running online discussion list. It is interesting therefore that Hopsicker and Ruppert have since had somewhat of a falling out in recent months, mainly due to information that Hopsicker dug up on Pinnacle Quest International (PQI), a company offering "little-known insider secrets of wealth creation" to its customers and from which Ruppert had accepted 4 all expenses paid trips to Cancun with a $1,000 dollar speaking fee. Hopsicker claims that PQI runs scam operations, and with a price tag of $7,500 for 21 CDs, we tend to agree with him. Unsurprisingly, as a result of this interaction with Hopsicker, Ruppert threatened to sue.
Now all of this gives the impression that Hopsicker and Ruppert are on opposing sides and one of them is telling the truth and the other is selling the lie. But as I have already mentioned, nothing is ever that simple in the world of CoIntelPro. You see, even with his "peak oil" slant, Ruppert and his message ran the risk of being just one more voice in the melee of 9-11 investigators and investigations currently entrenched on the internet. In the world of CoIntelPro, there are many ways to draw attention to the lie that you have to sell, and each particular method is tailored to be most effective in deceiving a specific audience. In the case of the conspiratorially-aware members of the alternative news communities on the net, one way to draw attention to disinformation is to have someone attack it AS disinformation.
The benefit of this tactic is that a very convincing argument can be made that the lie is in fact a lie, but care must be taken to leave the issue unresolved and ambiguous. Once the attack has been launched, it is then time to proclaim loudly that the lie is being attacked because it is the truth, which goes down well with conspiracy theorists. This type of CoIntelPro operation presents a more or less win-win scenario for CoIntelPro. In the best-case scenario, that section of public opinion that recognises that our leaders lie to us all of the time will tend to believe that the person being attacked is most likely to be telling the truth. If this is not successful, then, at the very least, much-needed attention is drawn to the lie and invariably infighting in the ranks of genuine truth seekers will have been fomented.
Not bad for a day's work.
The really interesting thing about Hopsicker and Ruppert however, is not what they disagree on but what they seem to agree on.
As stated, many people make the mistake of thinking that the job of CoIntelPro is to simply provide false leads and directly attack genuine 9-11 truth seekers. The fact is that their task is much more complex. Quintuple reverse psychology is not out of the question here, and I'm not joking.
Looking at the current infighting going on at present, it would appear that CoIntelPro agents have done a fine job. No one knows who is who anymore, everyone suspects everyone else, and those members of the public whose minds are not, as yet, welded shut will be the ones to suffer most from the lack of coherent information about what really happened on 911, who really is to blame, or what the real issue is.
For any 9-11 investigator to come out and say that a 757 plane definitely hit the Pentagon is to rob the public of the singularly most important aspect of 9-11 and the one that has the chance to blow the whole dastardly plot wide open.
Certainly, there is much evidence that shows that Flight 11 and Flight 175 really did hit the twin towers, forcing 9-11 investigators to resort to other, and less convincing, aspects of the events of that day to make their case that it was an inside job.
This brings us to the point about the Pentagon attack which is that there exists striking evidence to suggest that it was NOT a 757 that hit the Pentagon, and it is for this very reason that Flight 77 presents THE best opportunity to bring the 9-11 deception to public awareness.
Think about it. If it can be proven that something other than Flight 77 bored that hole through 3 rings of Rummy’s fortress, then it is not necessary to dig for non-existent "smoking gun" evidence that someone "stood down" America’s air defences or about any of the many other suspicious "anomalies" on 9-11, because the game would be up.
Even among those researchers who have spent time and effort on the Pentagon Strike, I know of very few that have looked at one of the most intriguing questions about that event. If we accept the evidence that points clearly to some sort of modified drone craft equipped with a warhead, like the "Global Hawk", having struck the Pentagon, the next question we must ask is, what reasoning was used to decide which part of the building to hit and who to ‘take out’?
Consider the following most interesting news report:
[…] Vice Adm. Darb Ryan, chief of naval personnel, was in his office at the Navy Annex about halfway between Trapasso’s home and the Pentagon. Having learned that New York had been attacked, he was on the telephone recommending the evacuation of the Pentagon "when out of the corner of my eye I saw the airplane" a split second before it struck.
Ryan was overheard reporting some of the initial damage assessment, which included spaces belonging to the chief of naval operations (CNO), the Navy’s tactical command center on the D-ring, an operations cell and a Navy intelligence command center. These included up to four special, highly classified, electronically secure areas. Many of the enlisted sailors involved were communications technicians with cryptology training who are key personnel in intelligence gathering and analysis. Some personnel were known to be trapped alive in the wreckage.
OTHER NAVY PERSONNEL confirmed the admiral’s initial assessment and said the dead numbered around 190, 64 on the aircraft. Among them was Lt. Gen. Timothy Maude, who was in the Army support and logistics section. Many others were Navy captains, commanders and lieutenant commanders with offices between the fourth and fifth corridors (the western wedge of the Pentagon). The Navy’s special operations office, which oversees classified programs, had moved out of the spaces only a few days before. All but one of the senior Navy flag officers were out of the building. Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, deputy CNO for warfare requirements and programs, was near the impact area but escaped without injury.
One of the aircraft’s engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon’s mall parking area between the main building and the new loading dock facility, said Charles H. Krohn, the Army’s deputy chief of public affairs. Those fleeing the building heard a loud secondary explosion about 10 min. after the initial impact.
The E-ring floors above the tunnel dug by the aircraft collapsed, leaving a gap in the Pentagon’s outer wall perhaps 150 ft. wide. Fuel triggered an intense fire that caused the roof of the damaged E-ring section to give way at 10:10 a.m. It was still burning 18 hr. later. Fire fighting was hampered by reports that twice sent personnel fleeing the area. First, at around 11:28 a.m., a warning that "an aircraft is in the air" sent police, FBI and other security personnel to passages under I-395 that lead away from the Pentagon. They quickly returned, but at 11:34, shouted and radioed warnings of another possible explosion sent people running again. However, by 11:40 FBI teams had returned with brown paper bags and gloves to scour the Pentagon grounds for debris in an area bordered by Pentagon City, Arlington Cemetery and the Potomac River.
F-16s from the District of Columbia Air National Guard periodically circled the Pentagon at altitudes low enough to frighten grade school teachers and students in nearby Alexandria. Later, the patrols were shifted to a higher altitude and continued through the night.
Confusion about what had happened, among the 20,000-24,000 employees leaving the Pentagon on foot in long lines, largely reflected where they were in the building when the aircraft struck. The Navy and Army spaces absorbed the damage. Navy officers not in the aircraft’s direct path reported heavy safes being flung across rooms and people thrown from their chairs. They variously identified major damage between the fourth and fifth or third and fourth corridors. No one knew the full extent of the damage. Air Force officers on the opposite side of the building heard or felt nothing until alarms went off. Even then, they thought it was a false fire alarm until orders were passed to evacuate the building.
Just what, we wonder, was so special about those "four special, highly classified, electronically secure areas" belonging to the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) that they had to be ‘taken out’ along with many Navy "communications technicians with cryptology training"? Clearly there is an important lead to be followed here, but both Hopsicker and Ruppert give it a wide berth, preferring to tell the public that Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon piloted by Arab terrorists and "the 9-11 cause is no longer useful as a political tool by activists" respectively.
It is for these reasons that I frown upon researchers like Hopsicker, Ruppert and others who either refuse to seriously consider, or dismiss out of hand, the idea that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. If we look at their reasoning for this stance, we find that there is none, other than that they appear to simply not like the idea that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Perhaps such a concept sits outside of their personal realm of belief, but, if so, it is, as I have already stated, a mistake to make emotional judgements when the intellect is called for, and it is an outright crime to attempt to pull the public into one’s subjective world. It is only through a rigorous pursuit of *objective* truth, without pity for our own illusions and beliefs that the big lie about 9-11 can and will be exposed.
Suspicions are further compounded when we discover that these same people who want us to suspect Saudi Arabia and to believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon, combine their promotion of this "party line" with vigorous condemnation of the "Israel did it" crowd. There is much to explore on the Israel question and much evidence, going way back, that Israel, to all intents and purposes, calls the shots in the US.
Just how far does the power of the Pro-Israel lobby go? Powerful enough to play a leading role in 9-11?
It is definitely NOT beyond the realm of possibility, and it is NOT for Ruppert Hopsicker or anyone else to assert outright that it is, particularly when they refuse to fully investigate the matter. Their position is similar to that of the Bush gang who also rule out, a priori, that it was something other than a conspiracy hatched by a man living in a cave and carried out by 19 crazed "Arab terrorists" several of whom happen to have been confirmed to be still living.
The truth is that the real reasons for the events of 9-11 are much more insidious than any of the theories that have to date been proffered. As part of the process of investigation, most 9-11 investigators have, at least once, suggested that if everyone were just to look to "who benefits", the solution to the whole enigma would quickly present itself. The important thing to remember about the "who benefits" approach however, is that, having identified the party that benefits the most from an event, that lead must be doggedly pursued, regardless of the lack of evidence of that party’s involvement in the event. Indeed, in such a case, a lack of evidence can constitute the most important piece of evidence if we consider that those with the most to gain often have the most to lose if their involvement were to be revealed. And in this case, the wherewithal needed to pull off such a major attack and deception is so vast, that those responsible would certainly have the means and know-how to plant evidence to blame it on others while eliminating the evidence that points back to the truly guilty parties.
As the twin towers crumbled to the ground, the average Western citizen’s perception of Arabs, already suffering from long years of subtle propaganda by the Western press, took an equally disastrous nose-dive. In one fell swoop, millions of people in that big nebulous area of the world known to many Americans as "the Middle East" became "dangerous terrorists" and the soon-to-be recipients of the whipped-up fury and indignation of the American people, conveyed on their behalf by the "world’s most awesome military machine". 9-11 then, certainly secured the enthusiastic consent of the American people for an invasion of whichever country the US government decided to frame for the attacks.
However, it is our contention that Ruppert’s argument that the 9-11 attacks were carried out to facilitate an oil grab by the US government in the face of "peak oil" also makes little sense.
As a result of the first gulf war and under the oil for food program, any Iraqi oil resources that were required for American consumption had already been secured by US interests, so there was therefore little to be gained by the US government embroiling its military in what was always going to be a costly and unwinnable guerrilla war. One has only to look at the pre-eminent global position of the US over the past 50 years to see that its policies were already working quite nicely. So why risk military and economic catastrophe by invading Iraq? Indeed, there was little to be gained from the most recent US invasion of the Middle East if it is understood only in terms of securing oil for consumption. The invasion, in fact, uses up VAST quantities of oil, to what end?
Imagine that, for whatever reason, you were planning a radical reshaping of the Middle East, and you had concluded that, to get the job done, war and the destruction of an entire race of people therein was necessary. Imagine also that you are well aware that you cannot just unilaterally set off a major conflagration, principally because public opinion and certain other nations would not stand for it. Realising that you need some way to mould public opinion towards accepting war and at the same time render impotent those nations that pose a threat to your plans, what might be the best way to do it?
By far the most effective tool for shaping public opinion is fear. And by far the best way to control other nations is economically, or rather, through the control of their oil supply. Hence, 9-11 and the "war on terror".
Unless the US actually physically controls Middle Eastern oil reserves, however, they have no way of controlling to whom those reserves are sold. The only way to do so is to fabricate a reason for invading each oil-rich country in turn and either permanently occupy them or install a proxy government that will do your bidding. This, it would seem, is the process we see unfolding currently with the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq. Iran is probably next. Venezuela may follow. Of course, the public must be given a plausible reason as to why the wells have "run dry", which is the reason for the dissemination of the peak oil myth.
However, maintaining the military necessary for such a task demands tremendous economic and human resources. The costs are driving the United States further and further into debt. At the same time, Bush is giving tax breaks to his wealthy support base, narrowing the income base within the US to pay for his military follies. This makes the US more and more dependent upon foreign governments to shore up the US debt, to the cost of nearly $2 billion a day. The day that the rest of the world decides to take a hit on the value of their dollar reserves in order to bring the US predator to its knees, is the day the war machine will begin to collapse, bringing down with it the fabled "American Way of Life".
But what can be the motivation behind such an insane plot? What can drive a group of people, against all reason and logic, to risk the economic destruction of their own country and therefore their power base?
Such a question cannot be answered without looking at the one country for which successive US governments have bent over backwards to accommodate; which takes us back to Israel.
There is much evidence to warrant an in-depth investigation of the role played by agents of Israel in the 9-11 attacks. Yet the ubiquitous, tiresome and completely baseless threat of being labelled "anti-Semitic" for criticising the actions of the Israeli government effectively prevents all but the most courageous from following the leads. Coincidence? We think not.
During the Clinton years, significant efforts had been made to bring the plight of the Palestinian people and the need for a just solution to the Middle East conflict to the attention of the international community. While Israel had successfully scuppered the Camp David peace talks by making demands which they knew the Palestinian people, and therefore Arafat, could not accept, Israel was finding itself increasingly isolated and increasingly pressured to make the concessions that peace required. Once 9-11 happened, all bets were off.
In fact, on September 10th 2001, the Washington Times ran an article entitled, "U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study" which detailed the findings of an elite U.S. Army study center plan devised for enforcing a major Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that would require about 20,000 well-armed troops stationed throughout Israel and a newly created Palestinian state. The most interesting aspect of the report was the mention of a 68-page paper by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) drafted to analyse the daunting task facing any international peacekeeping force if Israel and the Palestinians ever reached a peace agreement back by the United Nations.
In the report, we are told that:
"the School for Advanced Military Studies is both a training ground and a think tank for some of the Army’s brightest officers. Officials say the Army chief of staff, and sometimes the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ask SAMS to develop contingency plans for future military operations. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, SAMS personnel helped plan the coalition ground attack that avoided a strike up the middle of Iraqi positions and instead executed a ‘left hook’ that routed the enemy in 100 hours."
The exercise was undertaken by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed. The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides. It calls Israel’s armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza [and the West Bank]. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."
Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."
The day after the 9-11 attacks, then former Israeli Prime Minister and current Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when asked what he thought about the event, stated that it was "very good for Israel".
Indeed it was.
9-11 created much-needed sympathy and vindication for the "war on Arab terrorism" that Israel fraudulently claims it has been silently fighting for many years. Again we must ask, who had the motive AND the capability to carry out the 9-11 attacks, and who stood to benefit the most?
Just hours after the attacks, George Friedman proclaimed Israel as the primary beneficiary. "The big winner today, intended or not, is the state of Israel," wrote Friedman, who said on his Internet website at stratfor.com adding: "There is no question that the Israeli leadership is feeling relief." Again we come back to the question that all serious criminal investigators begin with – "Who benefits?"
There exists much evidence, conveniently overlooked by certain 9-11 investigators, including Ruppert and Hopsicker, to strongly suggest that agents of Israel were deeply involved in the events surrounding the 9-11 attacks. For example:
There is the fact of the Israeli spy ring, as exposed, surprisingly, by Fox News’ Carl Cameron. In the four part series aired on Fox News in December 2001 Cameron reports many interesting facts such as:
Two Israeli companies Amdocs and Comverse InfoSys, (now called Verint), manage just about every aspect of the US telephone system.
Amdocs is responsible for billing and records for almost all phone calls in the US. Cameron states: Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America, and more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protected, but it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it.
In recent years, the FBI and other government agencies have investigated Amdocs more than once. The firm has repeatedly and adamantly denied any security breaches or wrongdoing. But sources tell Fox News that in 1999, the super secret National Security Agency, headquartered in northern Maryland, issued what's called a Top Secret sensitive compartmentalized information report, TS/SCI, warning that records of calls in the United States were getting into foreign hands in Israel, in particular.
Investigators don't believe calls are being listened to, but the data about who is calling whom and when is plenty valuable in itself. An internal Amdocs memo to senior company executives suggests just how Amdocs generated call records could be used. "Widespread data mining techniques and algorithms.... combining both the properties of the customer (e.g., credit rating) and properties of the specific ‘behavior….’" Specific behavior, such as who the customers are calling.
Note the comment that "the White House and other secure government phone lines are protected." Well, it just so happens that Comverse InfoSys provides the wiretapping equipment and software for US law enforcement agencies. Cameron tells us:
Every time you make a call, it passes through the nation's elaborate network of switchers and routers run by the phone companies. Custom computers and software, made by companies like Comverse, are tied into that network to intercept, record and store the wiretapped calls, and at the same time transmit them to investigators.
The manufacturers have continuing access to the computers so they can service them and keep them free of glitches. This process was authorized by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. Senior government officials have now told Fox News that while CALEA made wiretapping easier, it has led to a system that is seriously vulnerable to compromise, and may have undermined the whole wiretapping system.
Indeed, Fox News has learned that Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller were both warned Oct. 18 in a hand-delivered letter from 15 local, state and federal law enforcement officials, who complained that "law enforcement's current electronic surveillance capabilities are less effective today than they were at the time CALEA was enacted."
Comverse insists the equipment it installs is secure. But the complaint about this system is that the wiretap computer programs made by Comverse have, in effect, a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties.
Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade. But investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying through Comverse is considered career suicide.
To this last comment we have to ask: Just what level of power do Israeli interests wield in the halls of power in the US that any investigation into Israeli spying activities on US soil against US intelligence agencies can be so completely quashed? Would this constitute a level of power and control that would allow those interests to carry off a terrorist attack like 9-11 and have it blamed on "Arab terrorists"?
Most assuredly.
Cameron goes on to tell us that a group of 140 Israeli spies were arrested prior to September 11, 2001, in the US as part of a widespread investigation into a suspected espionage ring run by Israel inside the US.
US Government documents refer to the spy ring as an "organised intelligence-gathering operation" designed to "penetrate government facilities". Most of those arrested had served in the Israeli armed forces – but military service is compulsory in Israel and a number also had an intelligence background. Many were posing as art students.
These spies were spread out across the US, usually living close to suspected Arab terrorist cells. One group were living just a few blocks away from chief Hijacker Mohammed Atta in Hollywood, Florida. Cameron reports that, according to intelligence sources within the US, a number of the terrorist cells that they had been watching changed their activities and routines immediately after having cover taps put on their communications by intelligence agents.
Now think about this. You have a group of at least 140 Mossad agents and/or their accomplices running around the US with apparent impunity prior to 9-11 conducting a "spying" operation that is designed to "penetrate government facilities". You have two Israeli companies that control the entire US telephone and telephone wiretapping technology that are suspected of passing sensitive information to Israel. You have US intelligence agencies realising that, on a number of occasions, terrorist suspects that they had sought to wiretap and survey immediately changed their telecommunications processes and acting much differently as soon as the, supposedly secret, wiretaps went into place.
But it doesn’t end there.
On the morning of September 11th and just as the WTC towers were crumbling the 5 Israelis were caught doing the "happy dance" as they videotaped the Twin Towers fall. They were spotted by a woman who called the police who contacted the FBI. The 5 were apprehended in a moving company van, which contained $4700 in cash, box cutters and recently taken photographs, one image showing a hand flicking a lighter in front of the destroyed buildings as if mocking the event. The driver of the van later told the arresting officers:
"We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem."
Did this most interesting comment give the world a tantalising glimpse into the REAL reason for and, at the same time, reveal the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks??
The 5 were detained for two months during which time at least two were identified as active Mossad agents. They were subjected to polygraph tests which one of them resisted for 10 weeks before failing. Now ask yourself: What questions might have been asked of this person during the test? We will probably never know, but we can speculate that he was probably asked direct questions about his involvement in the WTC attacks, and he, as a Mossad agent working for the state of Israel, lied.
On their return to Israel, the 5 appeared on an Israeli television show where they made the following telling remark:
"The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
Which begs the question: How can you document an event if you do not know beforehand that it is going to happen?
We should not forget the fact that an Israeli firm was in charge of the security and passenger screening at Logan airport where both WTC planes took off and that an Israeli instant messaging company, Odigo, received a warning about the WTC attacks 2 hours before the first plane hit the WTC. This warning originated in Israel.
As reported by ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, the Mossad had a secret history of supporting radical Islamic groups for its own purposes, and as Seymour Hersh, veteran investigative journalist writing in The New Yorker on Oct. 8, pointed out:
"many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found."
Evidence for the fact that Israeli interests in the US possess vastly disproportionate power was highlighted by US Congressman Jim Moran (Democrat of Virginia) speaking at a 2003 public forum in his congressional district and reported in the New York Times of March 15, 2003, where he stated:
"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."
By "Jewish community" Moran was certainly not talking about the average Jewish American or the average Jew in Israel, but rather the leaders of the Jewish community, those that proclaim to be acting in the interests of ordinary Jews.
The above facts are indisputable and constitute just the tip of the iceberg of what is clearly deep involvement by the agents of the state of Israel in not only the 9-11 attacks but American politics in general.
We will leave it to our readers to decide if there is any disingenuousness in Ruppert and Hopsicker’s dismissal of the Israel question and ponder the implications that such a stance holds for their status as genuine 9-11 researchers.
One of the most interesting aspects of the broader 9-11 investigation that we have recently been exploring concerns the evidence for the fact that there are two very different types of "Jews". Briefly stated (and you will want to read the previous link to get the full and in-depth analysis) those Jewish/Zionist leaders that claim to be acting in the interests of the Jewish people may not in fact be Jewish, in terms of being Semites at all, but are in fact of Aryan origins. Then, there are the truly Semitic Jews - people closely related to the Palestinians, genetically speaking. In the event that the reader does not understand the importance of this issue, read again our report on Ethnic Specific Weapons. For the reader that can read between the lines, this fact should provide serious pause for thought when considered in light of the Nazi agenda during WWII and the many credible attestations of the disturbing actions of certain "Zionists" in relation to the suffering of Jews in the concentration camps and, of course, the events of 9-11 and all that had resulted. The fact is that one of the major results of the last Great War was the creation of the state of Israel at the cost of the lives of several million ordinary Jews along with 60 million other human beings. Strong evidence is available to suggest that that particular war was as manipulated as the current "war on terror" and that certain so-called "Zionists" played a major role in said manipulation. An extremely pressing question that we all need to ponder therefore is: Is another "Great War" looming? And, as has been the case so often in the past, will history once more repeat itself?
Now I understand that all of the above paints a complex and somewhat confusing picture, and you may be struck with the feeling that there is still something missing, some factor that is needed to explain that recklessness with which the main global players are toying with the planet and the lives of every individual on it. One might even say that they are acting like men who have nothing to lose. We have already made a case to suggest that peak oil is a distraction and certainly not the main issue.
So what IS the main issue?
In August 17, 1999, the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau published an article by Robert S. Boyd entitled: Comets may have caused Earth’s great empires to fall which included the following: (emphases, ours)
Recent scientific discoveries are shedding new light on why great empires such as Egypt, Babylon and Rome fell apart, giving way to the periodic "dark ages’’ that punctuate human history. At least five times during the last 6,000 years, major environmental calamities undermined civilizations around the world.
Some researchers say these disasters appear to be linked to collisions with comets or fragments of comets such as the one that broke apart and smashed spectacularly into Jupiter five years ago.
The impacts, yielding many megatons of explosive energy, produced vast clouds of smoke and dust that circled the globe for years, dimming the sun, driving down temperatures and sowing hunger, disease and death.
The last such global crisis occurred between AD 530 and 540-- at the beginning of the Dark Ages in Europe -- when Earth was pummeled by a swarm of cosmic debris.
In a forthcoming book, Catastrophe, the Day the Sun Went Out, British historian David Keys describes a 2-year-long winter that began in AD 535. Trees from California to Ireland to Siberia stopped growing. Crops failed. Plague and famine decimated Italy, China and the Middle East.
Keys quotes the writings of a 6th-century Syrian bishop, John of Ephesus:
"The sun became dark. ... Each day it shone for about four hours and still this light was only a feeble shadow."
A contemporary Italian historian, Flavius Cassiodorus, wrote:
"We marvel to see no shadows of our bodies at noon. We have summer without heat."
And a contemporary Chinese chronicler reported, "Yellow dust rained like snow."
Dendrochronologist, Mike Baillie, established that:
Analysis of tree rings shows that at in 540 AD in different parts of the world the climate changed. Temperatures dropped enough to hinder the growth of trees as widely dispersed as northern Europe, Siberia, western North America, and southern South America.
A search of historical records and mythical stories pointed to a disastrous visitation from the sky during the same period, it is claimed. There was one reference to a "comet in Gaul so vast that the whole sky seemed on fire" in 540-41.
According to legend, King Arthur died around this time, and Celtic myths associated with Arthur hinted at bright sky Gods and bolts of fire. In the 530s, an unusual meteor shower was recorded by both Mediterranean and Chinese observers. Meteors are caused by the fine dust from comets burning up in the atmosphere. Furthermore, a team of astronomers from Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland published research in 1990 which said the Earth would have been at risk from cometary bombardment between the years 400 and 600 AD.
[...] Famine followed the crop failures, and hard on its heels bubonic plague that swept across Europe in the mid-6th century. [...]
Now these are not the voices of the evangelical, "the end of the world is nigh", types, but rather sober university professors who have spent many years in scientific research in their chosen fields. The conclusions they have come to are shocking for sure, but it behooves all of us to put aside our sacred cows for a moment and look at the facts. Over the past few years the incidence of meteorite sightings and impacts around the world has gone through the proverbial roof, as have several of the meteorites, although in opposite directions. We have been charting these events for the past 2 years, and we can safely say that something is definitely ‘up’.
Given the controlled nature of not only the media, but also the academic world, if there was a threat to our planet from some sort of cyclical cometary shower as suggested by Ballie and Boyd, the chances of such information coming to general public awareness, against the wishes of the ruling elite, are very slim. The likelihood is that our leaders would do everything within their power to conceal such information, forcing those members of the public with a drive to know the truth to collect and decipher the bits and pieces of ‘loose’ data themselves. This is exactly what we have been doing for many years now.
The fact is that the idea that the earth experiences cyclical catastrophes, and that a select few of the "elite" are in possession of this information, explains rather well the current warmongering by the US and the political maneuvering by other major powers.
Think about it. If the people who are really in control of the US government know that, in the very near future, the demographics and power balance on the planet are going to be radically and unpredictably restructured by meteorite impacts, they would surely seek to prepare for such an event. Having held power for so long, their preparations would most likely center around a strategy to ensure that, when the dust settles and they emerge from their bunkers, they are able to retake control of the planet. Practically, this would involve a process of conquering as much of the planet and its resources as possible, and we note that this is essentially what successive US governments have been doing for the past 50 years.
If there is one thing above all others that has lead to the precipice upon which we currently sit as a species, it is knowledge, or the lack of it, and the fact that certain small groups of so-called ‘elite’ have always sought to maintain a monopoly on it at the expense of the masses of humanity. Clearly, therefore, it is knowledge that is and always has been the most prized ‘commodity’ on this planet. Unfortunately, the catch 22 to beat them all is the fact that almost no one realises this.
Why?
Because the knowledge that knowledge is key has been deliberately and rigorously denied them by the propaganda of religion where "faith" and "blind belief" in the leader is the key to salvation. The salient point is that it is, and always has been, only in the darkness of ignorance of the true state of their reality that ordinary people can be merrily led down the path that leads, over and over again, to their own destruction.
In summing up, I will leave the final words to Patrick Mooney of Unlearning.org
ORIGINALWhether Peak Oil is true or not is ultimately irrelevant. The energy crash and the economic chaos it causes have been on the agenda of the Bilderbergers and like organizations for some time now. It is a necessary step to re-drawing the political lines of power across the globe to more accurately reflect the one world police state of inhuman design.
The Earth has reached the point where human consciousness will no longer tolerate authoritarian controls on its destiny. The Illuminists know this and plan to break this spirit with a harvest of blood reaped with war, famine and misery. Ruppert would have us spare the Illuminati the trouble of such an expensive use of energy by getting the most "enlightened" of us to sheepishly march to our own end. Those who remain alive must do so in communities that will seem more medieval than post-modern.
Fortunately, there is a way out of all this, if the planet is willing to see through the present "crisis". The crisis we are in is not one of energy or economy, but of consciousness. As long as our consciousness remains mired in the present problems, we will not be able to transcend them to arrive at enlightened solutions
June 2, 2003: The other day I was scanning the news reports and came across a rather mundane item that really got me to thinking. It simply read:
Cloudcroft chief stops Israelis with suspicious cargo
By Michael Shinabery Staff Writer, Alamogordo Daily NewsCLOUDCROFT, NM -- That they were speeding through the school zone first got his attention.
That they had Israeli driver's licenses and expired passports made him suspicious.
Cloudcroft Police Chief Gene Green stopped the 2-ton van on Thursday, for speeding. Initially, Green thought the truck was commercial because of exterior markings. But when he found it was out of Chicago, he asked for documentation such as logs books and manifests.
"They said this is a U-Haul truck and handed me a rental agreement (for) in-town delivery only in Illinois, (which) had expired two days before," Green said. He called for backup, and Otero County Sheriff's Deputy Billy Anders, who patrols the Sacramento Mountains, arrived, along with Capt. Norbert Sanchez and Det. Eddie Medrano.
"We got them out and started digging a little deeper," Green said, "got permission to search the truck. They claimed they were hauling furniture from Austin to Chicago." When officers advised the men they were not exactly en route from one town to another, Green said the two men claimed they were Deming bound. "But they couldn't give us an address in Deming they were going to," he said. "Once we got into the truck, they had some junk furniture I wouldn't have given to Goodwill."
Also inside the vehicle were, Green said, "50 boxes" they claimed was a "private" delivery, but the men insisted they had no "idea what was in them."
At that point, the officers called for drug-sniffing and bomb-sniffing dogs. The men were turned over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and U- Haul recovered the truck.
Contents of the boxes remain unknown, pending investigation.
Well, don't that just beat all? Another "moving company" with Israeli drivers with bad papers, and nobody even noticed...
Well, I noticed.
Not only did I notice, I remembered the strange story about a similar event:
On May 7, 2002, local police authorities pulled over a Budget rental truck in Oak Harbour, Washington near the Whitney Island Naval Air Station. The driver and his passenger were Israeli nationals, one of which had entered the country illegally. The other had an expired visa. Tests performed on the vehicle revealed that there were traces of TNT on the gearshift and RDX plastic explosives on the steering wheel. But no actual explosives were reported to have been found in the truck. [Fox News, 5/13/02]
A report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer the following day reported that the FBI performed follow-up tests on the truck which turned-up negative. One source speculated that perhaps the original tests had actually detected just cigarette residue, and not explosives. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5/14/02, Jerusalem Post, 5/14/02].
Critics argued that it would make no sense for U.S. authorities to use a method of testing that could be skewed by cigarette residue. The website whatreallyhappened.com remarked:
“The specific claim is made that residue from a cigarette lighter confused the tests for TNT and RDX. That doesn't explain why the trained bomb-sniffing dog, who surely knows the difference between explosives and cigarettes [else he would false-positive every smoker, ashtray, and convenience store he came across] gave the first indications of explosives in the truck that led to the tests in the first place. Likewise, were the chemical tests unable to discriminate between tobacco and TNT/RDX, which are chemically quite different from tobacco combustion products, they would give false positive results for every vehicle ever tested in which smokers had ever ridden. Given the likelihood of finding tobacco residues in any car, such tests would have to be designed to tell the difference. The same is true for other products from non- electric cigarette lighters, the vast majority of which are butane.”
The same website also provided references to three documents with detailed information on the tests used to detect TNT and RDX. None of the documents indicated that the presence of cigarette residue might induce inaccurate test results. [International Society for Optical Engineering 1984; Cold Regions and Research Engineering Laboratory 5-1996; Security Management n.d.]
I also remembered another peculiar item: the so-called Urban Moving Company that some researchers suggest was a cover for Mossad.
Many observers have suggested that Israel had foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorists attacks. Some have even argued that they may have been behind the attacks, and it seems that the funny stories about Israelis with trucks and bad papers just keep popping up here and there.
On September 11, five employees of Jewish owned Urban Moving Company were detained as a result of witness accounts that they were taking pictures of the flaming ruins of the World Trade Center and celebrating!
Yes indeedy! Shortly after the collapse of the towers a witness called the police and reported that the 5 individuals were, “going to unusual lengths to photograph the World Trade Center ruins” and they were obviously and blatantly “making light of the situation.” The witness stated that these men were on the roof of the office of their employer, Urban Moving Company, and were posing, dancing, and laughing. [New York Times 10/8/01; Bergen Record 9/12/01; Ha'aretz 9/17/01; Gotham Gazette 11/2/01]
After their indiscreet celebration on the roof of the building, the five Israelis headed down to a nearby parking lot where they mounted the roof of their truck and resumed their photographing and celebrating. Another witness called the police and told them that the men were smiling, dancing, and giving each other high-fives while viewing the destruction of the symbol of Free Enterprise in America. [Gotham Gazette 11/2/01; ABC News, 6/21/02]
A few hours later, the five Israelis were stopped by police while driving their truck. One individual had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, while another had two foreign passports. They were also found to be in the possession of a box- cutter, which they presumably had because of their job as professional movers. [New York Times 10/8/01; Gotham Gazette 11/2/01; ABC News, 6/21/02]
On September 14, Dominic Suter, the owner of the moving company, left the country very abruptly after FBI agents indicated that they wanted a second interview with him. According to ABC News’ 20/20 [ABC News 6/21/02], “Three months later 20/20's cameras photographed the inside of Urban Moving, and it looked as if the business had been shut down in a big hurry. Cell phones were lying around; office phones were still connected; and the property of dozens of clients remained in the warehouse. The owner had also cleared out of his New Jersey home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel.” [New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, 12/13/01; Gotham Gazette 11/2/01; ABC News, 6/21/02; Forward, 3/15/02]
Shortly after the arrest of the men, FBI officials suspected that the Urban Moving company was an Israeli intelligence front. Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism, told ABC News that the FBI was concerned that the moving company had been “set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists in the area, particularly in the New Jersey-New York area.” [ABC News, 6/21/02]
The five employees that were taken into custody were all former members of the Israeli Army. After being transferred to jail, the FBI’s Criminal Division sent the case to the Counterintelligence Section on account of suspicions that they were Israeli spies. They were then detained for more that two months. Some of them spent 40 days in solitary confinement. [New York Times 11/21/01; ABC News, 6/21/02]
Naturally, several individuals attempted to research this item. One high-ranking U.S. intelligence source told Forward magazine that intelligence agents’ investigation of Urban Moving Company led them to believe it was a front for the Israeli Mossad. It should be noted that, at present there is no publicly available information that conclusively confirms this allegation. However the above described incident, reported by various news sources, certainly casts a very dark shadow of suspicion on the company and its employees.
It seems that Urban Moving Company was not an isolated phenomenon.
According to a small local newspaper in Pennsylvania, The Mercury, three Israeli employees working for Moving Systems, Inc. were detained by police on October 11, 2001, after being caught illegally dumping garbage from their moving truck into the dumpster of a restaurant. The suspects had fled the seen after being confronted by the restaurant’s manager, who immediately reported the incident to the police. [The Mercury 10/17/01]
The Mercury reported: “The area was searched by township police, and the vehicle was spotted parked on the curb in front of John Kennedy Ford on Ridge Pike, just west of Industrial Way. An officer proceeded to make contact with the occupants of the truck by knocking on the cab, according to reports.
A Middle Eastern [an Israeli according to Executive Intelligence Review3/29/02] man, later identified as Ron Katar, 23, exited the sleeper area of the cab and said that the operator - Elmakias - was across the street as he pointed toward the Don Rosen Porsche dealer, reports said.
Elmakias and a white female, Ayelet Reisler, 23, were approaching the vehicle from the dealership, but the female then began walking in a different direction, acting as if she were not with Elmakias, according to reports. . . .
Elmakias said that his destination was New York and that he was also coming from New York. He said he was in Plymouth because he was supposed to make a pickup from a male in the morning and pointed toward the Storage USA facility on Belvoir Road and West Ridge Pike, police said. Elmakias could not, however, provide a name or telephone number of the customer.” [The Mercury 10/17/01]
A search of the truck turned up detailed video footage of the Sears Towers along with several other suspicious articles. It was also discovered that the driver of the truck had falsified his driver log.
As of this date, no ties to Israeli intelligence have been made. [The Mercury 10/17/01]
Then, of course, there was the "Art Scandal."
It seems that Israeli ‘art students’ - Israelis posing as ‘art students’ selling their art [actually made in China], - were suspected of spying for Israel. They were detained by the FBI and later deported to Israel on account of visa violations. The FBI first took notice of them in January of 2001.
A highly detailed DEA report that was acquired by French intelligence analysts documented 180 cases of Israeli art students infiltrating DEA facilities. It provided names, drivers' license numbers, addresses and phone numbers of the Israelis. [DEA report 6/01; Insight 3/11/02]
Despite official confirmations of the report, other U.S. officials denied its existence. In response, Intelligence Online released the document to CreativeLoafing.com who published it on the Internet for the public. [DEA report 6/01] The Associated Press also reported that it had a copy [AP 3/9/02] The report acknowledged that the art students “may well be an organized intelligence-gathering activity.” [DEA report 6/01; AP 3/5/02; Sun Sentinel 3/7/02]
Bill Carter, a spokesman for the FBI, said, “After an agency reported suspicious activities by those so-called students, the FBI conducted an investigation and determined that there was no credence to the assumption that this was an Israeli spying operation. None of the Israelis were charged with espionage and they were all deported by the INS for visa violations.” [Forward 3/15/02]
Now, here is where things get VERY INTERESTING!
You see, five of the so-called Israeli Art Students that weren't really art students, had been living at 4220 Sheridan St in Hollywood, Florida.
What is so interesting about that address?
It just so happens that four of the five so-called 9/11 hijackers that were on AA Flight 11 [Mohammed Atta, Abdulaziz Al-Omari, Walid and Waïl Al- Shehri] and one of the five hijackers [Marwan Al-Shehhi] from UA Flight 175 had at one time or another also resided in Hollywood, Florida.
Where in Hollywood?
Why, it just happens that Mohammed Atta, the presumed lead hijacker had lived at 3389 Sheridan St, only a few blocks away from the Fake Israeli Art Students! [Le Monde 3/5/02; Reuters 3/5/02; Jane's Intelligence Digest, 3/15/02; Salon, 5/7/02]
Well, don't that just beat all! And to think, Florida Senator Bob Graham was having breakfast with Pakistani ISI chief Mahmoud-Ahmad on the morning of September 11 - the same ISI chief who was later linked to Mohammed Atta by virtue of the fact that he transferred a LOT of money to the guy.
Hmmm... I smell a rat somewhere!
Of course, the Israelis have a good reason for this: they were "investigating terrorists!"
We are assured by German news sources that: “between December 2000 and April 2001 a whole horde of Israeli counter-terror investigators, posing as students, followed the trails of Arab terrorists and their cells in the United States. In their secret investigations, the Israelis came very close to the later perpetrators of Sept. 11. In the town of Hollywood, Florida, they identified the two former Hamburg students and later terror pilots Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi as possible terrorists. Agents lived in the vicinity of the apartment of the two seemingly normal flight school students, observing them around the clock.” [Der Spiegel 10/1/02]
I guess they didn't observe them "around the clock" enough to see when they were getting on those planes that were hijacked. A failure of intelligence? What's more, this truly pathetic "explanation" doesn't explain the joy of the Israelis at the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, nor why Bob Graham was having breakfast with the guy who paid off Mohammed Atta...
Well, it gets deeper: In addition to the close proximity of the Israeli ‘art students’ to the Florida-based hijackers, other ‘art students’ in Texas, California, and Arkansas were operating close to several of the other hijackers suspected of taking part in the 9-11 attacks. [DEA report 6/01]
And if that doesn't just crumble your cookies, how about the fact that six of the students had mobile phones that had been purchased by a former Israeli vice consul in the U.S.? [Le Monde 3/5/02]
The passports of the students revealed that they had been visitors in several different countries including, Thailand, Laos, India, Kenya, Central and South America, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada. [Insight 3/11/02]
In spite of the findings of the DEA report, the students were deported back to Israel on account of visa violations. [AP 3/5/02]
Now, let me try to understand this: at that point in time when every single American citizen was subject to being a suspected terrorist, a gang of Israelis with "SPY" practically branded on their foreheads, were simply shipped home with NO QUESTIONS ASKED?!
EXCUUUSE ME?!
We had to stand in line for four hours - with our dog and four children - at the Miami Airport to have our luggage searched by hand, to be scanned, inspected, questioned, suspected, and in every way insulted by privacy violations - and these thugs just went home to do the happy dance?
What is the Bush Reich covering up by protecting Israeli spys who are claimed to have been monitoring Islamic terrorists, but apparently not well enough to know what they were really up to, or didn't bother to tell Georgie and his gang of warmongers? The question these facts bring to mind are crucial. Is the U.S. government complicit in Israeli spying activities? Are the Israelis spying on Americans with the permission of America's own elected officials? Ooops! sorry. Lost my head. I forgot for a moment and thought we had elected officials. Now I remember: America is the new Banana Republic with fixed elections, courtesy of the Bush gang.
Well, anyway, back to the problem at hand: It just so happens that Israeli suspects also seem to know when they are being investigated by agencies of the U.S. Government.
In several investigations of Israeli suspects, the suspects quickly modified their behavior after U.S. enforcement agencies began wiretapping them. This suggests that the suspects may have known that they were being monitored. [Fox News 12/12-13/01]
In other words, either somebody very high in the U.S. government is warning them when those silly lower level bureaucrats get nosey, or there is a major mole in the U.S. intelligence services.
According to Executive Intelligence Review, “A well-placed Washington source has alerted EIR that there is growing suspicion among U.S. government law enforcement and intelligence agencies that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has dispatched special operations teams into North America. The warning came in the context of a discussion about the recent deportation of five Israelis who were detained on Sept. 11 for suspicious behavior… You know, the guys doing the Happy Dance when the Towers fell?
"Portions of the funds garnered from the illegal operations, according to sources, are funneled to offshore bank accounts of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Some of these dirty funds were reportedly diverted to Sharon's election campaigns. This Israeli mafia apparatus receives technical support via a number of Israeli communications firms, that subcontract with major American telephone companies and government law enforcement agencies” [EIR 12/13/01]
In other words, the same companies helping the spies, are the companies that run the American phone systems... and are embedded in American Law Enforcement units. What a SWEET operation!
In spite of the U.S. federal agency claims that "there is no Israeli spy network," several of the same federal agencies have in the past year taken steps to protect themselves against espionage! It seems that things were getting mighty sticky because the U.S. Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive officially warned federal employees in March 2001 about the art students and urged them to report any contact with such art students! The warning read, “These individuals have been described as aggressive. They attempt to engage employees in conversation rather than giving a sales pitch.” [Insight 3/11/02; AP 3/9/02; Forward 3/15/02]
What seems to be emerging as the obvious solution to this mystery is that there is both high level U.S. government complicity with Israeli espionage in the U.S. AND a major mole in the U.S. intelligence services. (Unfortunately, being in bed together did not produce any appreciable exchange of intelligence that might have led to the prevention of the attacks on the World Trade Center.)
DEA communications employees were put on alert. According to John Sugg, “a Dec. 18 e-mail among DEA communications employees makes clear that the agency underwent self-scrutiny as the ‘result of the Fox network expose on Israeli counterintelligence activities’.” [Creative Loafing, Atlanta 3/27/02]
Pentagon and DOD ended practice of awarding foreign companies contracts involving sensitive projects. The World Tribune [World Tribune 3/12/02] reported, “Israeli nationals could be banned from participating in U.S. defense contracts under new regulations that seek to keep foreigners out of sensitive projects.” The article revealed that these restrictions were specifically targeted at “IT” and other “computer-related” contracts.
Pete Nelson, the deputy director for personnel security in the Pentagon, stated, “Some foreign nationals — those in the most sensitive positions — may not be permitted to remain in those positions. As we review our security requirements as a nation, we need to ensure all people with access to sensitive IT [information technology] systems are cleared and properly vetted for the material to which they have access.”
On December 13, 2001 the EIR's Washington Bureau Chief Bill Jones asked Colin Powell, “There were 60 Israeli citizens who have been picked up in the post- Sept. 11 sweep, many of whom, if not all of whom, are connected to Israeli intelligence. Are you concerned about such intelligence operations on U.S. soil, and have you taken up this issue with your counterpart in Israel?”
Powell responded: “I'm aware that some Israeli citizens have been detained, and I've been in touch with the Israeli government as to the fact that they have been detained, in making sure that they have rights of access to Israeli diplomatic personnel here in the United States. With respect to why they are being detained, and the other aspects of your question, whether it's because they are in intelligence services or what things they were doing, I will defer to the Department of Justice and the FBI to answer that; because, frankly, I deal with the consular parts of that problem, not the intelligence or law-enforcement parts of that problem.” [Fox News 12/17/01; EIR 12/28/01]
Now wait just a minute! Any American who is just simply vocal against the Bush Reich policies can be branded an "enemy combatent" and have all his rights as a human being and American citizen instantly revoked, but these Israelis who were patently spying during a period of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, have "rights of access to Israeli diplomatic personnel"????
Something is wrong with this picture.
Justice Department Susan Dryden, spokesperson, referring to the numerous articles citing the leaked DEA report, claimed, “At this time, we have no information to support this.” [Le Monde 3/5/02; AP 3/9/02; Fox News Service 3/5/01]
Ms. Dryden went even further to say that the story was “an urban myth (!) that has been circulating for months. The department has no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage.” [Washington Post, 3/6/02]
According to one independent journalist who was investigating the ‘art students’ a CIA officer had told him, “We’ve just closed the book on it. And I recommend that you do the same.” [Salon, 5/7/02]
Whoa! Now what's THAT supposed to mean? Is that a threat?! Again I ask why law-abiding American citizens must submit to the loss of all their constitutional freedoms while very suggestive evidence exists that Israel may be complicit in the 9-11 attacks - from which THEY AND THE BUSH GANG ALONE BENEFITTED - is closed to scrutiny?
One official of the present administration stated that the “evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.” [Fox News 12/12-13/01]
Which brings up the question as to why the Bush Administration is not only blocking an unbiased investigation into the events of September 11, but are also stalling on releasing the reports that HAVE been assembled? What do they REALLY have to hide?
Well, maybe the following provides a clue:
Pro-Israeli director of the Middle East Forum Daniel Pipes wrote an op-ed piece asserting that the whole espionage story was just a ‘myth.’ In spite of all the above evidence, he claimed the story was baseless and amounted to little more than fodder for the ‘conspiracy theorists.’ [New York Post 3/11/02]
Critical media coverage of investigations into Israelis has been virtually non-xistent. The major media, with the exception of Fox News, completely ignored the Israeli spy scandal. But Fox soon canned the story under pressure from pro-Israeli lobbies.
Well, that's not a surprise considering that Jews control the media in the U.S. As Kevin MacDonald has written:
The rise of Jewish power and the disestablishment of the specifically European nature of the U.S. are the real topics of CofC. The war to disestablish the specifically European nature of the U.S. was fought on several fronts. The main thrusts of Jewish activism against European ethnic and cultural hegemony have focused on three critical power centers in the United States: The academic world of information in the social sciences and humanities, the political world where public policy on immigration and other ethnic issues is decided, and the mass media where “ways of seeing” are presented to the public. [...]
By all accounts, ethnic Jews have a powerful influence in the American media—far larger than any other identifiable group. The extent of Jewish ownership and influence on the popular media in the United States is remarkable given the relatively small proportion of the population that is Jewish. [The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
I guess warnings to "close the book" carry a lot of weight. Salon reported, “Oddly, four days after the Cameron investigation ran, all traces of his report -- transcripts, Web links, headlines -- disappeared from the Foxnews.com archives. [Normally, Fox leaves a story up for two to three weeks before consigning it to the pay archive.]
Asked why the Cameron piece disappeared, spokesman Robert Zimmerman said it was ‘up there on our Web site for about two or three weeks and then it was taken down because we had to replace it with more breaking news. As you know, in a Web site you've got x amount of bandwidth -- you know, x amount of stuff you can put stuff up on [sic]. So it was replaced. Normal course of business, my friend.’ …
When informed that Cameron's story was gone from the archives, not simply from the headline pages [when you entered the old URL, a Fox screen appeared with the message ‘This story no longer exists’], Zimmerman replied, ‘I don't know where it is.’ [Salon, 5/7/02]
Le Monde, attempted 3 times to acquire the transcripts from Fox. The requests were ignored until February 26, when Fox explained that there was some sort of ‘problem’ preventing them from sending it. The ‘problem’ was not explained. [Le Monde 3/5/02; see also Salon, 5/7/02]
Several pro-Israeli organizations put pressure on Fox to halt its probe and retract its story.
In response to the Fox News stories, the Israeli embassy stated the following, “The report on Fox News contains no quoted source, it has in no way demonstrated anything more than anonymous innuendo, and should be regarded accordingly. Israel does not spy on the United States of America.” [Jerusalem Post, 5/14/02]
In response to the DEA report that was publicized by Intelligence Online, a spokesperson at the Israeli embassy in Washington claimed, “No one in the US is taking this story seriously. I categorically deny the claims and my embassy has received no complaints from the US. . . . I am not aware of a single Israeli who has been charged with espionage.” [Independent 3/6/02]
Forward, after initially denying the allegations of an Israeli spy ring, acknowledged its existence in mid March 2002, [Forward, 12/21/01] but claimed, “far from pointing to Israeli spying against US government and military facilities, as reported in Europe last week, the incidents in question appear to represent a case of Israelis in the United States spying on a common enemy, radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism.” [Forward, 3/15/02]
This, of course, begs the question as to why 9-11 occurred if the "Israeli spy-ring" was "on top of things," so to say. It also begs the question as to why individuals who are suggestively implicated in such a spy ring were doing the Happy Dance when the WTC towers fell?
August 23, 2001: According to German newspapers, the Mossad gave the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and said that it appeared that they were planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the same exact 19 names as the actual hijackers or if the number is a coincidence. However, at least four names did refer to actual 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Haaretz, 10/3/02]
The Mossad appears to have learned about this through their "art student" spy ring; the same "art student spy ring" that the U.S. government warned their agencies to beware.
So what's the story? Is there an Israeli spy ring that the U.S. is trying to circumvent? Or is there an Israeli spy ring that tries to cooperate with the U.S.? If they are cooperating, that begs the question as to why the purported "warning and list" was not treated as particularly urgent by the CIA and also were not passed on to the FBI.
Would that constitute a "failure of intelligence?" Or criminal negligence? The next item, however, suggests complicity.
It is not clear if this warning influenced the adding of Alhazmi and Almihdhar's names to a terrorism watch list on this same day, and if so, why only those two. [Der Spiegel, 10/1/02]
These details create additional problems since Israel continues to deny that there were any Mossad agents in the US. [Haaretz, 10/3/02] and the US has denied knowing about Mohammed Atta before 9/11, despite other media reports to the contrary and despite the fact that Florida Senator Bob Graham was, on the morning of September 11, 2001, having breakfast with the Pakistani ISI chief who was later directly linked to Mohammed Atta.
None of this matter is cut and dried. On September 10, 2001, the Army School of Advanced Military Studies issued a report written by elite US army officers, which was made public just prior to 9/11. The report gave the following description for the Mossad: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." [Washington Times, 9/10/01]
Hmmm... I guess that the Bush Gang didn't read that particular item of Intell. They were too busy reading the "cooked intell" that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, I guess.
At this point, things take a strange turn. With all the questions about an Israeli Spy Ring being brought up again and again, a neat solution has been found: They aren't really Israelis! They are Islamic terrorists PRETENDING to be Israelis!
EIR reported that a number of the Israelis that were detained after the terrorist attacks “have been linked to suspected ‘Islamic’ terrorist cells in southern California” [EIR 1/11/02]
Here is another interesting item along that line from awhile back that ought to give us pause:
On January 12, 2000, 11 Islamic preachers were detained in India prior to boarding a flight headed for Dhaka, Bangladesh on suspicions of being terrorists. Although, the Indian official eventually cleared the clerics to leave, officials in Bangladesh indicated that they would not grant them visas.
The Muslims, who all had Israeli passports, were allowed to board a flight to Israel – under Israeli pressure. An Indian intelligence analyst, Ashok Debbarma, explained to The Week, “It is not unlikely for Mossad to recruit 11 Afghans in Iran and grant them Israeli citizenship to penetrate a network such as Bin Laden's. They would begin by infiltrating them into an Islamic radical group in an unlikely place like Bangladesh.” He added that Israel's obvious concern for the men, and the haste with which they were flown back indicated a possible “aborted operation.” [The Week, 2/6/00]
There is another spin being put on the whole thing:
In March 2003, the U.S. State Department published a fact sheet, in which it reported, “In the United States, approximately 80% of ecstasy seized in 2000 came from or through the Netherlands. Israeli [drug] trafficking syndicates are currently the primary source to distribution groups operating in the United States, smuggling through express mail services, via couriers aboard commercial airline flights, or more recently, through air freight shipments.” [U.S. Department of State, 3/20/03, also cited in the Ha’aretz, 4/6/03]
So now, they could be Islamic terrorists disguised as Jews, or they could be a maverick Jewish drug ring. But in NO CASE can they possibly be Israeli spies that are spying against the U.S.!
Now, let's go back a minute to the fact that Senator Bob Graham was having breakfast with the Pakistani ISI chief on the morning of September 11, 2001. Keep in mind that this man, Mahmoud Ahmad, was later linked directly to Mohammed Atta, the purported "head terrorist" of the 9-11 attacks. With that in mind, read the following report in which Pakistan's ex spy chief "blames Mossad" AND "Renegade U.S. Air Force elements" for the 9-11 attacks:
Wednesday, 26 September 2001 15:05 (ET)
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan, Sept. 26 (UPI) -- The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States were perpetrated by renegade U.S. Air Force elements working in conjunction with Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, according to the retired Pakistani general who is closest to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
Gen. Hameed Gul, head of Inter Services Intelligence, the equivalent of a CIA-cum-FBI combination, during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, spent two weeks in the war-torn country immediately prior to Sept. 11. He has been acting as "strategic adviser" to Pakistan's extremist religious political parties. Four religious leaders left his house in the army's principal garrison town as this reporter arrived at 9:30 p.m. Tuesday. The interview lasted 90 minutes.
Already countless millions of Muslims believe that the World Trade Center and Pentagon suicide attacks were part of a Mossad plot to force the United States into confrontation with the Muslim world.
[Notice in the next line that what Gul is saying is pronounced to be "disinformation" that those poor, misguided Muslims will actually believe!]
Now Gul has added a new disinformation wrinkle to the plot. And what Gul says or writes is taken at face value by religious leaders and is repeated in thousands of mosques at Friday prayers.
In an exclusive interview with United Press International, the fundamentalist general said it is now clear that there was also a plot by U.S. Air Force officers against the Pentagon.
[Actually, we have been saying that almost from the beginning. See our report on The Pentagon Strike.]
"The twin towers were first attacked at 8:45 a.m.," he said, "and four flights were diverted from their assigned air space, and yet Air Force jets didn't scramble until 10 a.m. That smacks of a small-scale Air Force rebellion, a coup attempt against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders fail. No IFF -- friend or foe identification -- challenge ... This was clearly an inside job. (President) Bush was afraid and rushed to the shelter of a nuclear bunker.
"(Bush) clearly feared a nuclear situation. Who could that have been? Will that also be hushed up in the investigation, like the Warren report after the Kennedy assassination?"
Gul said that his friend bin Laden had sworn to him on the Koran that he was not involved.
"From a cave inside a mountain or a peasant's hovel," Gul asked, how could bin Laden mount such a sophisticated operation? "Let's be serious," he said with a smile. "Mossad and its American associates are the obvious culprits," he added by asking, "Who benefits from the crime?"
Asked why Israel would benefit, Gul replied, "Israel knows it has a short shelf-life before it is overwhelmed by demographics (and it) has now handed the (Bush administration) the opportunity it has been waiting for to consolidate America's imperial grip on the Gulf and acquire control of the Caspian basin by extending its military presence in Central Asia."
[...] Bush 43 doesn't realize he is being manipulated by people who understand geopolitics. He is not leading but being led. All he can do is think in terms of the wanted-dead-or-alive culture which is how Hollywood conditions the masses to think and act."
"Bush 43" is actually Washington shorthand for distinguishing President George W. Bush from his father. President George W. Bush is the 43rd president: George Bush Sr. was the 41st.
Gul admitted that he turned against America when the United States walked away from Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.
"We were all pro-American (during the war) but then America left us in the lurch and everything went to pieces, including Afghanistan."
[...]
Asked to consider the possibility that bin Laden -- or OBL as he is referred to in Pakistani conversations -- was lying to him and is indeed guilty as charged by the United States, Gul said, "If Taliban are given irrefutable evidence of his guilt, I am in favor of a fair trial. In America one is entitled to a jury of peers. But he has no American peers. The Taliban would not object, in the event of a prima face case, to an international Islamic court meeting in The Hague. They would extradite Osama to the Netherlands." [United Press International]
This abbreviated collection of data (believe me, there is a TON of material out there on this subject) does seem to support the idea that MOSSAD may, indeed, have been responsible for the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and that the Bush Reich was not only complicit in ordering the U.S. military and intelligence services to "stand down," but that they were directly involved in the plot as the evidence of the link between Bob Graham and Mahmoud Ahmad demonstrates.
And, of course, though each group is playing the other as in Spy vs. Spy, there are many things that Israel ought to consider in the volatile climate of burgeoning anti-Semitism around the world.
Never mind that Bush and Co, and American Intell organizations have been stirring the pot for years. Just as people were "angry" and wanted an "answer" to 9-11, what kind of answer will be given when the heat is turned up on the Bush Reich? Just imagine what would happen if suddenly, all the fingers pointed to Israel and MOSSAD as the masterminds of Global Terrorism?
ORIGINALFlight 77 took off at 8:20 a.m.
The pilot had his last routine communication with the control tower at 8:50 a.m. "At 9:09 a.m., being unable to reach the plane by radar, the Indianapolis air controllers warned of a possible crash," the Washington Post reported. Vice-President Dick Cheney would later explain that the terrorists had "turned off the transponder, which led to a later report that a plane had gone down over Ohio, but it really hadn't." [Meet the Press, NBC, 16 Sept 2001]
On 12 September it was learned that the transponder had been cut off at about 8:55 a.m., rendering the plane invisible to civilian air controllers. During this period of invisibility, the plane was said to have made a U turn back to Washington. This is, of course, an assumption. The information that the plane turned around has no known source.
The problem is: turning off the transponder, under the conditions that prevailed that day, would have been the best way of raising an alert.
The procedures are very strict in the case of a problem with a transponder, both on civilian and military aircraft. The FAA regulations describe exactly how to proceed when a transponder is not functioning properly: the control tower should enter into radio contact at once with the pilot and, if it fails, immediately warn the military who would then send fighters to establish visual contact with the crew. [see FAA regulations: http://faa.gov/ATpubs]
The interruption of a transponder also directly sets off an alert with the military body responsible for air defenses of the United States and Canada, NORAD.
The transponder is the plane's identity card. An aircraft that disposes of this identity card is IMMEDIATELY monitored, AUTOMATICALLY.
"If an object has not been identified in less than two minutes or appears suspect, it is considered to be an eventual threat. Unidentified planes, planes in distress and planes we suspect are being used for illegal activities can then be intercepted by a fighter from NORAD. [NORAD spokesman: http://www.airforce.dnd.ca/athomedocs/athome1e_f.htm]
See also Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath, Boston Globe, where you will read: "Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft."]
Thus, according to the official version, considering the conditions that prevailed on September 11, 2001, the "terrorists" actually gave the alert that SHOULD have led to almost instant interception FORTY minutes before the plane struck the Pentagon.
In certain regions, ari traffic contrllers do have radars, called "primaries," that are able to detect movement in the air. But, the radars they normally use are called "secondaries" and are limited to recording signals emitted by the transponders of airplanes which tell them the registration, altitude, etc. Turning off the transponder permits an aircraft to vanish from these "secondary" radars. Such an aircraft will only appear on "primary" radars. According to the FAA, the air traffic controllers did not have access to primary radars in Ohio.
See: Pentagon Crash Highlights a Radar Gap, where you will read: "The airliner that slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11 disappeared from controllers' radar screens for at least 30 minutes -- in part because it was hijacked in an area of limited radar coverage. [...]
The aircraft, traveling from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles, was hijacked sometime between 8:50 a.m. -- when air traffic controllers made their last routine contact with the pilot -- and 8:56, when hijackers turned off the transponder, which reports the plane's identity, altitude and speed to controllers' radar screens.
The airliner crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 a.m., about 12 minutes after controllers at Dulles sounded an alert that an unidentified aircraft was headed toward Washington at high speed.
The answers to the mystery of the aircraft's disappearance begin with the fact that the hijacking took place in an area served by only one type of radar, FAA officials confirmed. Although this radar is called a "secondary" system, it is the type used almost exclusively today in air traffic control. It takes an aircraft's identification, destination, speed and altitude from the plane's transponder and displays it on a controller's radar screen.
"Primary" radar is an older system. It bounces a beam off an aircraft and tells a controller only that a plane is aloft -- but does not display its type or altitude. The two systems are usually mounted on the same tower. Primary radar is normally used only as a backup, and is usually turned off by controllers handling aircraft at altitudes above 18,000 feet because it clutters their screens.
All aircraft flying above 18,000 feet are required to have working transponders. If a plane simply disappears from radar screens, most controllers can quickly switch on the primary system, which should display a small plus sign at the plane's location, even if the aircraft's transponder is not working.
But the radar installation near Parkersburg, W. Va., was built with only secondary radar -- called "beacon-only" radar. That left the controller monitoring Flight 77 at the Indianapolis center blind when the hijackers apparently switched off the aircraft's transponder, sources said. "
The only effect, then, of turning off the transponder at that precise point was to make the plane invisible to only CIVILIAN aviation authorities. One wonders how the "terrorists" knew that this act would make them invisible to the civilian air traffic controllers. Again, under the conditions prevailing that day, and as a general routine, turning off the transponder SHOULD have brought the aircraft to the direct attention and scrutiny of the Military Defense Systems of the United States AUTOMATICALLY. It is therefore a near certainty that, at all times, it was visible and monitored by the Military.
According to the statement of General Myers, the military waited three quarters of an hour before ordering fighters to take off. [Senate hearing, 13 Sept. 2001]
Two days later, on 15 September, NORAD issued a contradictory press release. It said that it hadn't been informed of the hijacking of flight 77 until 9:24 a.m. and had then immediately given orders to two F-16s to take off from Langley, 105 miles from the Pentagon, instead of Saint Andrews, only 10 miles from the Pentagon. They were in the air by 9:30, much too late... the object that impacted the Pentagon arrived at 9:37.
This version puts all the blame on the FAA for waiting.
But this is implausible due to the established procedures that were automatic.
The question that needs to be asked, considering all that WAS known at that claimed "late moment" of awareness is: why were fighter jets sent instead of a missile?
The fact is, independently of the interception of flight 77, the crisis situation that existed that day demanded maximum air defense protection over Washington. This activity would have fallen to Saint Andrews Air Force Base, just as General Eberhart, CO of NORAD had already activated the SCATANA plan and had taken control of the New York airspace in order to position fighters there.
For the military, from the moment they were alerted of flight 77s disappearance, which was, indeed, the moment the transponders were turned off, and NOT when the FAA supposedly got around to calling them, it was not a question of speculating that they were dealing with a mechanical failure. The Facts on the Ground were rather precise: shortly after two airliners were flown into the WTC towers, the transponder of another plane was cut off and the pilot failed to respond to radio contact. The job of the military could not have been clearer: shoot down the plane that was claimed to have been headed for Washington.
These facts show clearly that the U.S. Military had NO INTENTION of shooting down whatever was heading for the Pentagon despite the menace it represented.
On 16 September 2001, Dick Cheney tried to justify the military's failure by claiming that the shooting down of a civilian airplane would be a "decision left up to the president." He played on the sympathy of the American people, saying that the president just couldn't take such a decision hastily because "the lives of American citizens were at stake."
However, Cheney's claims are disingenuous. He equated the interception of the aircraft with the decision to shoot it down.
Interception is merely establishing visual contact, giving orders with light signals, and being ready to take action. A shoot down means that the fighters are already positioned to receive the order.
Further, it is incorrect that this decision can only be made by the President. The interception of a suspect civilian aircraft by fighters is automatic and does not require any kind of political decision making. It should have taken place on 11 September when the transponder was cut off. The fighters should have taken off immediately - unless they were ordered to "stand down."
Again, let me reiterate the fact that the flight 77 was invisible ONLY to CIVILIAN aviation authorities. The fact that the transponders were turned off automatically alerts military air defense.
Next problem: There are five extremely sophisticated anti-missile batteries in place to protect the Pentagon from an airborne attack. These anti-missile batteries operate automatically.
Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Vic Warzinski claimed the military had not been expecting such an attack. This is not credible. Because the transponder had been turned off, the Pentagon knew full well where that aircraft was. Communications between civilian air traffic controllers and the various federal authorities functioned perfectly.
At 9:25 a.m., the control tower at Dulles airport observed an unidentified vehicle speeding towards the restricted airspace that surrounds the capital. [Washington Post, 12 September, 2001] The craft was heading toward the White House. "All of a sudden, the plane turned away. ...This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital and to protect our president... We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. ... And then the Washington National controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, "Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit." [Danielle O'Brien, ABC News, 24 October 2001]
The Army possesses several very sophisticated radar monitoring systems. the PAVE PAWS system is used to detect and track objects difficult to pick up such as missiles flying at very low altitudes. PAVE PAWS misses NOTHING occurring in North American airspace. "The radar system is capable of detecting and monitoring a great number of targets that would be consistent with a massive SLBM [Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile] attack. The system is capable of rapidly discriminating between vehicle types, calculating their launch and impact points. [http://www/pavepaws.org/ and http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/pave paws.htm]
Thus, contrary to the Pentagon's claims, the military knew very well that an unidentified vehicle was headed straight for the capital. Yet, the military did not react, and the Pentagon's anti-missile batteries did not function.
Why?
Military aircraft and missiles possess transponders which are much more sophisticated than those of civilian planes. These transponders enable the craft to declare itself to the electronic eyes watching American airspace as either friendly or hostile. An anti-missile battery will not, for example, react to the passage of a "friendly missile," so that, in battlefield conditions, it is ensured that only enemy armaments and vehicles are destroyed.
Thus, it seems that whatever hit the Pentagon MUST have had a military transponder signalling that it was "friendly" - i.e. it would take an American Military craft to penetrate the defenses of the Pentagon - or the anti-missile batteries would have been automatically activated.
Strangely, the entire responsibility for air defense is attributed to NORAD, and that is simply not the truth.
The National Military Command Center, located IN the Pentagon centralizes all information concerning plane hijackings and directs military operations. The NMCC was in a state of maximum alert on the morning of 11 September. The highest military authority of NMCC is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On 11 September, General Henry Shelton fulfilled this role. However, Shelton was en route for Europe, somewhere over the Atlantic. Thus, his job fell to his deputy, General Richard Myers who was hobnobbing with Senator Max Cleland at the time of the attacks.
In short, the answers to what happened on that day devolve to claimed technical failures, coordination problems, temporary incapacity, absence of commanders, transfer of responsibility, and so on.
That, of course, does not answer the question as to why the automatic systems in place did not work. Mike Ruppert has written that there were "military exercises" taking place that day suggesting that the automatic systems were temporarily turned off. If that is the case, then it is either the greatest coincidence in history that the same day was the day some crazy terrorists, planning from a cave in Afghanistan decided to attack America, or there is someone in the U.S. government who told them.
In short, the Greatest Military machine on earth is obliged to declare itself the Most Incompetent. And because of its incompetence, thousands of American lives were lost and no one has been held accountable. At the same time, Draconian laws curtainling American freedoms have been passed to "make American Safe." The fact is, if the systems already in place had been online, there would not have been an attack on the second WTC Tower, much less the Pentagon.
Considering all aspects of the problem suggests that the systems WERE operational... and the object that hit the Pentagon was "read" by the anti-missile batteries as "OURS."
"It must be remembered that the first job of any conspiracy, whether it be in politics, crime or within a business office, is to convince everyone else that no conspiracy exists. The conspirators' success will be determined largely by their ability to do this." [Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy]
The truth about 9/11 is obviously of central importance.
We're incessantly reminded by prominent politicians and voices in the mass media that "September 11th changed everything".
9/11 has become the defining event of the new century, used to justify an unprecedented surge in militaristic and repressive policies within the USA and elsewhere.
Yet despite the evident significance of 9/11, there has been an astonishing lack of informed discussion in the mainstream media about what really took place on that fateful day.
Many anomalies and suspicious leads in the official story, curiosities which the mass media often helped put into the public domain in the first place, have not been followed up or given the attention they clearly merit. The obvious question: "why is the US Administration so averse to a transparent public inquiry?" has scarcely been asked.
Indeed, the western mass media's reluctance to question the official version of 9/11 critically - and the key role played by elements of the media in actively propagating this unlikely story - calls for explanation in its own right. Any objective investigation of 9/11 must account for the extraordinary phenomenon of gross media bias and apparent blindness. [Physics 9-11 org]
This series of comments was begun in September of 2002 when many readers of our website deluged us with emails asking what we thought about the evidence that a Boeing 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon. Up to that moment in time, there was no question in our minds that the events of 9-11 happened exactly as described by the media and the Bush Administration. Of course, we had certain ideas as to WHO was behind those events, but the important point is that we did not question the "facts on the ground" of the event.
Certainly, because this was our "belief," we began to search for data with something of a bias. I was quite certain that the "no-Boeing" theory was designed to set up people who were asking "whodunnit" so that when the "proof of the Boeing" hitting the Pentagon was finally unveiled, everyone who suspected an "inside job" would look completely stupid and all such conspiracy theories would be thoroughly squashed thereby. In fact, I expected such a revelation daily and began to wonder what was really going on when it never came. Could it be possible that there was NO proof that a Boeing hit the Pentagon?
I also did not consider it within the realm of possibility that such a "switch" could have been perpetrated upon the American public, much less the media. Surely no criminal element within our own governent would be crazy enough to launch a Drone plane packing a missile and try to pass it off as a Boeing and expect to get away with it! What a lunatic idea!
And so, it was with such ideas in mind that I began to research the issue. I has now been over two and a half years, and still no proof of a Boeing hitting the Pentagon has been dramatically unveiled. What is more, we recently (Jan. 2005) received information that the REASON for the initial claims that there was no Boeing was due to the fact that satellite images of what really DID hit the Pentagon were taken by satellites belonging to other governments. Up to this point in time, these images have been withheld mainly because "mutual blackmail" at the highest levels of power is the norm. But what we have learned is that these images have been circulated among certain foreign intell groups with, shall we say, planned leaks. After learning of these images from a very trustworthy source who, for obvious reasons, cannot be named, I realized that the stakes of the game are a lot higher than anyone imagines.
Certainly, anyone who approaches this subject and suggests anything other than the accepted media/government version is going to be accused of being a "conspiracy theorist." I need to state for the record that I have spent 30 years studying psychology, history, culture, religion, myth and the paranormal. I also have worked for many years with hypnotherapy - which gives me a very good mechanical knowledge of how the mind/brain of the human being operates at very deep levels. This leads me to certain facts about the human mind that I don't think the average person knows. These facts are illustrated by the following story about hypnosis:
A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.
Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.
So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.
Guess what happened?
He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.
Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.
The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego is established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe. This is "transference." We transfer our desire/need to please our parents to our society, even our government.
Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.
So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)
One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.
Realities, objective, subjective, or otherwise, are a touchy subject. Suffice it to say that years of work inside the minds of all kinds of people has taught me that we almost never perceive reality as it truly IS.
In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessable to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.
And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. In the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.
Let's face it: we are all taught to avoid uncomfortable realities. Human beings - faced with unpleasant truths about themselves or their reality - react like alcoholics who refuse to admit their condition, or the cuckold husband who is the "last to know," or the wife who does not notice that her husband is abusing her daughter.
I am not surprised at the state of denial of the majority of human beings. It is the cultural norm. I am also not surprised at the projection of their discomfort onto those who ask uncomfortable questions by accusing them of being "conspiracy theorists."
Now that the reader has some idea that they are probably going to deny nearly everything that I am going to say, let us move to the "context" that I believe may be important to the events of 9-11. The context is that the term "conspiracy theory" has been tootled for a number of years in such a way that the mere pronouncing of the words acts to turn off the thinking capacities of the average American. It is almost as effective as pronouncing any criticism of Israeli government to be anti-Semitic.
The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word "conspiracy" evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a "conspiracy theorist." It just isn't "acceptable." It's "un-scientific" or it's evidence of mental instability. Right? That's what you are thinking, isn't it?
In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.
Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such a strong "recoil?" After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in "high places" thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves.
Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:
The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.
The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.
Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the world's most awesome weapons in complete secrecy... [...]
Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.
America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.
Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.
During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.
Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.
In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]
A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.
If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?
Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the wrorld's most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within US borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]
Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution... [...]
The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.
[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide [anything] for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.
Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.
[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. [Don't hold your breath.]
This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection. [Richard Dolan]
Now, think about the word "conspiracy" one more time and allow me to emphasize the key point: From a historical point of view, the ONLY reality is that of conspiracy. Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. ...Deception is the key element of warfare, (the tool of power elites), and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. Secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.
And how do they do that? By "official culture."
And official culture, understood this way, from the perspective of elite groups wishing to maintain the status quo of their power, means only one thing: COINTELPRO. And here we do not necessarily mean the specific FBI program, but the concept of the program and its application in our society, and the likelihood that this has been the mode of controlling human beings for possibly millennia. Certainly, Machiavelli outlined the principles a very long time ago and little has changed since.
The fact is, it is almost a mechanical system that operates based on the psychological nature of human beings, most of whom LIKE to live in denial or need to live in denial to please their parents, their peers, their religious leaders, and their political leaders. After all, "if ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." This is most especially true when we consider the survival instinct of the ego. If the official culture says that there is no Third Man in the room, and if it works through the inculcated belief systems, there is little possibility that the "subject" will be able to see the source of the phenomena in our world. It will always be an "invisible Third Man."
Consider this also: even if Dolan is writing specifically about America, in a world dominated by the United States, it must be considered that pressures are applied elsewhere from within this "National Security State" to comply with the demands of the US.
The reader might wish to have a look at Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements where they will learn that "ethnic Jews have a powerful influence in the American media—far larger than any other identifiable group. The extent of Jewish ownership and influence on the popular media in the United States is remarkable given the relatively small proportion of the population that is Jewish."
In other words, Israel is in control of the means of creating the "official culture" of America to suit its own agenda, including making the terms "conspiracy theory" and "anti-Semitic" such horrible epithets that no one would dare to speak anything that might put them at risk of be so branded!
There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult.
So wrote Victor Marchetti, a former high-ranking CIA official, in his book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. This is the first book the U.S. Government ever went to court to censor before publication. In this book, Marchetti tells us that there IS a "Cabal" that rules the world and that its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Paraphrasing, Marchetti:
This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. It's membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally.
"The main threat to Democracy comes not from the extreme left but from the extreme right, which is able to buy huge sections of the press and radio, and wages a constant campaign to smear and discredit every progressive and humanitarian measure." - George Seldes"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself." Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Senator
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)
Remember: those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo and the way this is done is via "official culture" which is a product of COINTELPRO.
The most effective weapon of COINTELPRO is Ridicule and Debunking. Notice that Marchetti points out that this is done via manipulation of individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media.
Bottom line is: if you have bought into the emotionally manipulated consensus of "official culture" that there are no conspiracies, that there is no "Third Man," it is very likely that you are being manipulated by fear of ridicule. You are in denial. You have been hypnotized by the suggestions of the holy men of the Secret Cult. And you have chosen to believe them over your own possible observations and senses.
From an "Expert" on Lies:
The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast masses of a nation are, in the depths of their hearts, more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.
The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones. Such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts.
Even explanations would long leave them in doubt and hesitation, and any trifling reason would dispose them to accept a thing as true. Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most imprudent of lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know only too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end.
~ Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf
Now, let me back up a bit. On September 14, 2001 - just a few days after the Terrorist Attack - I read a curious article on a Russian News Site, www.strana.ru, that caught my attention and left me feeling strangely uneasy. It was an interview with a former Russian high official and specialist in Russian secret services which was translated for us by a reader who sent it in, and I am going to reproduce it as I read it with underlinings and other emphases that I have added to show those points that struck me as most interesting:
Acts of terrorism carried out on 11 September in America, and their consequences are commented upon in an interview with Andrey Kosyakov, former assistant to the chairman of the Russian Congress, a specialist in International Security.
Q: What suggests that terrorism in THE USA was planned well in advance?
A: First, the conspirators possessed the professional skill to fly an aircraft. There had to be at least four of them with substitutes on hand in the event one of them failed. There is a high probability that the hijacking of an aircraft will fail, thus there had to be stand-by hijackers and/or pilots in this eventuality.
In the second place, all participants in the operation were ready to sacrifice themselves, and such individuals are not easy to find.
Finally, the departure times of the aircraft from four different points were coordinated minute by minute. This means that the routes and timing were known well in advance, and these particular flights were selected specifically for their routes and schedule.
All of this is sufficiently complicated to necessitate a long period of planning.
Q: And how long, in your opinion, would it take to plan something like this? How large an organization would it require? Could, for example, the Red Army carry out such an operation? Some analysts say that only a National organization could do this.
A: As far as the time of preparation is concerned, it would require months. And such an organization must be very powerful.
But, the participation of a National organization, such as a government of a country, is very doubtful.
I assure you that National resources have not been used here.
No secret service would risk their operatives in this way. They spend a lot of time and money training their agents. However, if President Bush had been the target, then one would suspect a secret service of some organization. But here, the target was different: civilians.
As for the Red Army, it doesn't fit for one simple reason: it consists of mainly orientals and it is too easy to distinguish Japanese from Americans.
Q: So, what do you conclude from all this?
You see, analyzing this situation, I was struck by one significant fact: it is known that there were telephone calls from the plane. One of the calling persons was a professional journalist. And yet, not one of the calling individuals said that they were being hijacked by "moslem terrorists." There was, apparently, nothing unusual about the appearance of the hijackers. There was no attempt to describe them. No one said: "Moslem terrorists have hijacked the plane," which would have logically been the first comment by this journalist IF it was apparent that the hijackers were "foreign." There was obviously nothing unusual about them in terms of appearance, accent, pronunciation, or other similar factors.
Q: But, secret organizations could hide these things, couldn't they?
A: All these calls were private. And even the FBI was not able to suppress the fact that these calls took place. So, the conclusion which comes to mind, is that the external appearance of the hijackers was in no way different from the other passengers. Only in such cases would the communicants indentify the hijackers in a shorthand way. This suggests that the hijackers were European in appearance.
There is also the suspicious fact that the conspirators left a huge "clue" in the leased automobile at the airport with a copy of the Koran and instructions for flying a plane in Arabic.
Now look, not one organization claimed responsibility. This means that the terrorists want to hide their identity.
With every other aspect of total control and professionalism, how could they make such a mistake?
This does not compute with all the rest of the perfection of the operation.
All this says that the criminals want to create a false track.
In this way, the secret services have been induced very cleverly to look for "Moslem terrorists. "
Q: But indeed the practice of self-sacrifice is typical to the Moslem culture?
A: You are completely right. But who told you that those who died were not Moslems?
This way we can narrow the radius of our search.
On the basis of this information which we have, by analysis, we may come to the consclusion that those who did it were Americans or Europeans who were followers of radical Islam.
They were manipulated so that the true criminals will be thus spared for follow-up actions.
It is completely clear that this is a multi-phase operation. [...] ... it seems that the target is precisely America; precisely civilians.
Q: But, we remember that some analysts were claiming that if George Bush was in the White House on September 11, then the aircraft would have been aimed at the White House instead of the Pentagon.
This is highly improbable. In that case the White House or the Pentagon, but not peaceful population would be the first targets.
Indeed after a first successful terrorist act, the chances of success for the rest fall.
You see that the last action did fail in the crash of the aircraft in Pittsburgh. It was most certainly shot down. However hard it is to admit, this was the correct thing to do.
So it is clear that the main targets are civilians.
There is this formula that is part of the mentality of terrorists: the civilian population in the democratic countries are responsible for the actions of their government. The terrorists accept and use this formula. Therefore, the next terrorist acts will follow the same pattern. Obviously, they will occur on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. Why? I don't want to explain the terrorist's logic. But it is based on a certain sense of the "rightness" of the thing.
But I would like to repeat this: the fact that no terrorists are claiming responsibility, tells us that they will kill again and again until the next stage of global conflict is achieved. This is precisely the goal of these actions. Only then will they reveal their identity in order to get followers.
Q: How could the special services OF THE USA fail to detect such a terrorist act?I will give two examples. Half a year ago Israeli reconnaissance carried out studies through the use of aerial targets for conducting terrorism.
It is certain that the Americans had access to these studies. But it seems to not have entered their minds to apply this information in defensive ways.
And other - in March of 1991 in our office sat Korzhakov, and we told him about the situation leading to the September government coup. We predicted that everything would occur in September. Everything actually occurred, exactly following our scenario, only it happend one month earlier: August. No one paid any attention. This means that when there are predictions of scenarios that seem to be improbable, no one takes them seriously, especially the secret services. That is why Putin says that what is needed is a union of all secret services of all nations.
Q: What is the probability that the American secret services will succeed in finding the leader of this operation, or that they simply will present to society a fake?
A: Very high. There are people, there are apartments where they were located, which means, there are traces, certainly. Following these traces, one may find the leader.
Q: And who this? Ben Laden?
Hardly.
Yes, there was the interception of his conversation with someone, where they reported to him the destruction of two targets.This was seen as indirect confirmation of his participation. But he is not an ideologist. He is too well known. And the one who organized all of this is too smart to be noticed.
Ever.
Now, remember, this interview with an intelligence expert took place just a few days after the 9-11 attacks. Several points in this article started me to thinking. Those points are as follows: the attacks were carried out against civilians, targets that are highly symbolic to the ordinary American. In other words, the American people were the real targets, but not in the way that is usually thought. It was intended to make every single American full of fear and outrage so that whoever came along as a "strong man" pointing a finger at culprits and declaring that he was gonna go after them, would be able to do anything he wanted to do. And that is exactly what George W. Bush did. The Russian intell guy said that it was obvious that the attacks were carried out by a very "powerful organization" that wishes to blame Moslems - to create a false trail - for these attacks. And he also noted that, because the attacks were so carefully planned, it was obvious that the planners would be too smart to be noticed - and certainly much too smart to leave clues lying about such as passports and "how to fly" videos in Arabic. Indeed, the passports and videos were dead giveaways to the fact that they were planted so as to falsely blame the act on Islamic terrorists.
Another thing that struck me rather forcibly was his remark that Israeli reconnaissance carried out studies through the use of aerial targets for conducting terrorism followed by his assertion that "It is certain that the Americans had access to these studies."
So, I began to think about what this intell guy was saying a bit more deeply despite the fact that he confidently assured his interviewer that no "national service" did this.
(Regarding the KGB guy's remark above about the shooting down of the fourth hijacked plane, see: video clip: How the authorities responded: A concise analysis of the events from http://www.itn.co.uk/news/ondemand/video/ )
This Russian intell expert aksed the loaded question: "How could the special services OF THE USA fail to detect such a terrorist act?"
This assessment struck me as one of the more intelligent bits of commentary about the 9-11 attacks to come out AT THE TIME, emerging through the hysterical rants about Osama and those nasty Muslims like a small island of sanity.
What I found to be most interesting was exactly WHO was most vigorously pointing the finger at Radical Islam: a veritable Greek Chorus led by a former cheerleader, our own George Bush and the Warmongers.
When we look at the fact that, from the very beginning, this event has been compared to "Pearl Harbor," we have to wonder if this is a sort of "signature?"
I remember back in 1986, when I came across the documented evidence that the attack on Pearl Harbor was known to the United States well before it happened. I was shocked. Not only did the government do nothing to prevent it, they did not even warn those who were going to be attacked. The loss of American lives was horrendous. And the blame lies on the doorstep of the leaders of America. There is even evidence that they deliberately manipulated the situation, at the highest levels, to ensure that the attack would take place.
Why?
Well, to get the United States into the war, of course. War is big business. Whenever you have a slow economy, a little war-mongering is always the answer. In ancient times, it was the business of the day: go to war, kill the men, capture the women and the wealth of the enemy, and go home until you have spent it all and gotten tired of the women, and then go out and do it over again. Even Herodotus understood this to be the reason for war. And human beings haven't changed at all - at least not those who seek power positions.
Is it possible that the government of our country had an inkling that the events of 9-11 were going to happen?
After examining all the evidence available, indeed, that seems to be true.
And if so, is it possible that they did nothing?
Again, that seems to be true as well. And when they did finally wake up from their war games and school reading classes, the only thing they did do was the exact opposite of trying to get to the bottom of the matter, trying to find the real culprits, and instead, went after the False Flag clues that were left to lead everyone astray and denied anyone the right to question the conclusions that they propagandized so vigorously.
Well, sure, such clues might lead the average citizen astray. They might not be aware of what are called "False Flag operations." They aren't educated in the ways of intelligence and don't know about all the evil manipulations that go on all the time in the world of spy vs. spy.
But surely, the president of the Greatest Nation on Earth is not going to be taken in by such blatant nonsense as a "how to fly" video in Arabic, is he?
Apparently so.
So here we have an administration not acting when and how it ought to act, either before or after the attack.
Is this a coincidence?
We read endless reports of this spreading like wildfire over the web. A dozen or more commentators of great or lesser prestige simply do not believe in the "failure of intelligence" that is the administrations answer to why and how George and Co got caught with their pants down. Many, many people are certain that the government not only knew about the attack, but that they condoned it for their own nefarious purposes; that it is the new Pearl Harbor or even Hitler's Reichstag fire.
So, we have two opposing forces here: the administration supported by the mass media, against a growing percentage of the population that claims that there was no failure of intelligence, that the government deliberately condoned or even participated in this attack, and that it is part of a planned schedule to impose a One World Government on all of us, to abridge our freedoms, and entrap us in a fascist state.
On their side, George Bush and his administration say that we have to accept some new, restrictive laws to make us "safe" (never mind that the INTELL was available, and it was the government that failed to heed the intell and make America safe), make some significant changes in the way the country does business, and most definitely, we need a little war here and there to level things out again (not to mention the economy.) And all of the Joe Sixpak's of the world may be buying it. All the grandmother Sally Stockmarketinvestors are sitting at home, glued to their televisions, hoping that Uncle Sam will take charge here, nuke the Afghanis, give Saddam a major spanking, wipe out the Iraqis, and anybody who ever helped them, and pass all the laws necessary to ensure the safety of this great nation. Never mind if that includes moving to a cashless society and implanting micro-chips under the skin so that everyone will be trackable so as to ensure that they aren't committing terrorist acts on their lunch break.
There's a saying attributed to Franklin Roosevelt: "In politics, nothing happens by accident, if it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Maybe he really said it, maybe he didn't. Whether he did or not, anyone who studies history deeply can figure out that it comes pretty close to the truth. I also once had a conversation with a fellow who was trained in military intelligence and he told me that one of the first rules of intell is to observe the situation AS IT IS, and extrapolate to who will gain from it. So these two principles were uppermost in my mind as I was considering all the data. Clearly, the attacks on 9-11 are "political events."
The situation at present is a bit complex. But we notice that it has only become complex AFTER the fact. It is only the wild speculations and constant playing of agendas and counter-agendas that has tended to obscure the basic essentials of the matter. There are groups that go on and on about a "flash of light" that was emitted between the two airliners that crashed into the WTC, and this proves there was some sort of missile fired. That's an interesting idea, but it really doesn't even make it to "theory" status because there are other possible explanations for such a flash, including a discharge of electricity between the plane and the building as soon as it is close enough to be "grounded".
There are groups that make a big deal about supposed "pods" under the aircraft that hit the WTC. We can pretty easily dispose of that one by carefully examining photos of the underside of that particular type of aircraft.
Then, there's the group that takes the cake, in my opinion: the "hologram" people. That is about the silliest thing going. That is not to say that I don't think that hologram technology exists, that it might be used in a number of ways, but I don't think that holograms photograph too well since they are produced by light and there are the endlessly repeating videos of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center Towers.
So, let's go back to ground zero of the present situation and look at the event itself, by itself, and ask the first important question: Who benefits?
It's easy to see that the Military-Industrial Complex in America has been the primary beneficiary along with Israel. Actually, the two are almost one creature, so it's hard to think of them as separate entities. It could be suggested that, by focusing the anger of the citizens of the United States against the Moslems, Israel has powerful backing for their expansionist goals, and with much of the MIC in their pockets, they have the money to do what they want to do: the money of the American tax payer.
We also observe the events in Israel during the months prior to the WTC attack: many people were withdrawing their support from Israel and there was a growing feeling of dis-ease among the peoples of many countries, that Israel was simply going too far in its actions against the Palestinians. Everyone was getting tired of the constant harassment of the Palestinians, of the constant attacks against anyone who said a single word against Israel's political ambitions; who - if they did not support every single thing said and done by Israel - were flamed as "antisemitic."
In short, Israel was losing its grip on the collective guilt of the world. Sympathies were turning against them, and toward the Palestinians.
So, after those nasty Islamic fundies attacked America, Isreal had the biggest bully on the global block on their side. With the repeating rants of how evil Muslims are, how fanatical they are, how cruel and unusual they are, the whole rest of the world had better fall in line with Israel's thinking and help them find the "final solution" for Palestine and those other A-rabs.
Gee, shades of Nazi Germany going after the Jews!
Thus we see that the main "benefit" of the WTC attack falls, primarily, to Israel.
There is compelling hard evidence to support this view. Let's take a look:
On September 10, 2001, the Army School of Advanced Military Studies issued a report written by elite US army officers, which was made public just prior to 9/11. The report gave the following description for the Mossad: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." [Washington Times, 9/10/01]
Hmmm... I guess that the Bush Gang didn't read that particular item of Intell. They were too busy reading the "cooked intell" that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Alone, the quote form the Army School wouldn't mean much, but as things developed after Sept. 11, 2001, more pieces were added to the puzzle. It wasn't until June 2 of 2003 that the picture began to make sense. On that day, I was scanning the news reports and came across a rather mundane item that really got me to thinking. Read my article: MOSSAD and Moving Companies for details. This collection of data (believe me, there is a TON of material out there on this subject) does seem to support the idea that MOSSAD may, indeed, have been deeply involved in the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and that the Bush Reich was not only complicit in ordering the U.S. military and intelligence services to "stand down," but that they were directly involved in the plot as the evidence of the link between Bob Graham and Mahmoud Ahmad demonstrates.
Now, let's get down to brass tacks here.
The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center were followed live on television by hundreds of millions of people around the world. Everyone was shocked by the horror of the attack. TV networks broadcast the videos of the attacks over and over again with very little reporting since no one really knew what to say; it was just too shocking and unexpected. All the while the attack was being shown repeatedly, there was no explanation of the events because no one knew any details.
During the next few days, bits and pieces information were released to the press by government officials, reports were issued and retracted, and most news focus was concentrated on the frenzy of rescue efforts. Over the next few months, more information was released in bits and pieces, but again, few people were paying any attention to the data because, by then, the shock had turned into terror.
The meta-facts are that several thousand people died in America on September 11, 2001, and the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as a result, killing hundreds of thousands more human beings, including killing or permanently maiming many thousands of its own citizens.
The events of 9-11, however, are still a confusing morass of contradiction that has only been exacerbated by the so-called official 9-11 Report. Nevertheless, the public of the United States have been, for the most part, accepting of the "official culture" version of the attacks. The claim that "National Security" requires the authorities to conceal much of the data about this crime is accepted almost without question. It is actually quite amazing how LITTLE the average American really knows about the events of that day even if you restrict your definition of "events" to what was reported by the media.
The most troubling fact of all is that the Official Version gleaned from the news reports and information released by government officials does not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.
What bothers me most of all is, considering the fact that the attacks on 9-11 were about the most audacious crime in American History, there was no proper forensic investigation. There was no Sherlock Holmes on hand to use his magnifying glass and his great knowledge of different kinds of cigarette ash; there was no Hercule Poirot called in to exercise his little gray cells; there was no Columbo bumbling about with his seemingly innocuous questions that annoy the heck out of the perpetrators. (This was also the case with the assassination of JFK. The crime scene was so thoroughly violated before a proper investigation took place that there was no possibility of finding the facts.)
You would think that, in the alleged greatest and most powerful nation on Earth that the investigation would have been the most thorough and scientific ever conducted.
But that isn't the case.
Although the terror attacks of September 11 were clearly criminal acts of mass murder, no effort was made to preserve the integrity of the crime scenes and the essential evidence was disposed of like garbage. Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani hired two large British construction management firms to oversee what many experts consider to be massive criminal destruction of evidence. The editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine, William A. Manning, issued an urgent call to action to America's firefighters at the end of 2001, calling for a forensic investigation and demanding that the steel from the site be preserved to allow investigators to determine what caused the collapse. Have a look here for some comments about the destruction of evidence and evidence of destruction.
Just for the exercise, let's assume that the conspiracy theorists are correct and the government is lying and covering up the truth of the attacks on 9-11 either in whole or in part. Without any real evidence, without any real impartial investigation, what do we have to go on?
Admittedly, not much other than to observe the behaviors of all the parties before, during and after the event. But even though we have very little in the way of forensic evidence, we can still assert:
When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth! - Arthur Conan Doyle
Contrary to those who claim that there were no real passenger jets at all, that it was all a hologram, it seems rather clear that actual commercial jets hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center exactly as described by the many witnesses and as confirmed by government officials. It was on film, and we simply cannot refute that in my opinion. It happened, and everyone saw it.
But that does not mean that a commercial Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Why do I say that?
Because the fact that large commercial jets were SEEN to hit the World Trade Center, over and over again on TV could very easily have "conditioned" the public to believe that the same type of craft hit the Pentagon when they were told that this was the case by government officials, backed up by "witnesses" who also happened to be government officials.
Brain studies show that what is suggested during a period of pain or shock becomes MEMORY. The brain sort of "traps" the ideas being assimilated at times of pain and shock into permanent "synaptic patterns of thought/memory."
The conditions surrounding the events of 9-11 were perfect for creating specific impressions and memories - manipulation of the minds of the masses by shocking events and media spin.
So, since we have video images of commercial jetliners hitting the World Trade Center towers film, it is certain that this is what happened. The issue of the collapse of the buildings is different and most certainly does suggest prior planning to ensure that the buildings would not survive the impact, and that the collapse would be dramatic and shocking.
We now turn to the strike against the Pentagon. This one is a bit more problematical.
Reuters news agency was first on the scene of the Pentagon attack. Based on the information they gathered there from eyewitnesses, they announced that the Pentagon had suffered damage from a helicopter explosion. Associated Press confirmed this with Democratic Party consultant, Paul Begala.
2:41:05 PM "The Pentagon is being evacuated in expectation of a terrorist attack. It is believed a fire has broken out in the building." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)
2:47:43 PM "There are reports that a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon. An eyewitness said that they saw the helicopter circle the building and after it disappeared behind it, an explosion occured." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)
2:52:26 PM "Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed a explosion near the Pentagon shortly after two planes crashed into World Trade Centre. ‘‘It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball,’’ Begala said. He said another witness told him a helicopter exploded." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)
Shortly afterward, the Department of Defense said that a plane was involved. New "eyewitnesses" came forward that contradicted the first ones that now supported the "official version."
Fred Hay, assistant to Senator Bob Ney, was the first to claim that he saw a Boeing aircraft fall as he was driving down the highway next to the Pentagon. Senator Mark Kirk claimed that he was leaving the Pentagon parking lot after breakfast with Donald Rumsfeld, and he declared that a large plane had crashed into the Pentagon.
It was several hours before the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, declared that the "suicide plane" was the Boeing 757, AA flight 77 which had taken off from Dulles airport in Washington D.C. bound for L.A., and which had been lost to air traffic controllers at 8:55 a.m.
The air traffic controllers said that, at 8:55 a.m., the Boeing flight 77 descended to 29,000 feet and did not respond to their instructions. It's transponder then went silent. They assumed electrical failure. The pilot was not responding to them, but apparently was able to intermittantly turn on his radion which allowed them to hear a voice with a strong Arab accent threatening him. The plane then made a turn "back toward Washington" and after that, all trace was lost.
The air traffic controllers notified FAA headquarters that a hijacking was suspected. The FAA staff said that, in the midst of the panic of that day, they just thought this message was another notification concerning the second plane that hit the WTC. It was only a half hour later that they realized it was, in fact, a third plane. That is to say, at about 9:24 they knew they had a third problem.
General Richard Myers, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that prior to the crash into the Pentagon, military officials had been notified that another hijacked plane had been heading from the New York area to Washington. He says he assumed that hijacked plane was the one that hit the Pentagon, though he could not be sure." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)
On September 13, General Myers was unable to give a report to the Senate on defensive measures taken to intercept this Boeing. Based on his testimony, the Senate Armed Services Committee determined that no attempt at interception had taken place.
NORAD immediately jumped up and said "Not so!" They issued a press release the next day stating that it only received the warning of the third hijacking at 9:24 and had most definitely immediately ordered two F-16's from Langley AFB in Virginia to intercept Flight 77. BUT, they claimed that the Air Force did not know its location and went in the wrong direction! Apparently, a military transport taking off from Saint Andrews Presidential bas happened to spot the Boeing by chance, but by then, it was too late.
A Boeing 757-200 measures 155 feet long and has a wingspan of 125 feet. Fully loaded, it weighs 115 tons and cruises at 560 miles per hour.
So, this last claim above is simply not plausible. We are expected to believe that the U.S. military radar system could not locate a Boeing within a range of only a few dozen miles? The military radar of the most powerful nation on earth? And further, that said Boeing - a flying whale - could outmaneuver and elude two fighter jets???!!
It is known that the security arrangements that protect Washington were revised after a plane managed to land on the White House lawn in 1994. It is also known that those security arrangements, while mostly secret, include five batteries of anti-aircraft missiles installed on top of the Pentagon and fighters stationed at Saint Andrews. Yet, we are expected to believe that "The Pentagon simply was not aware" that a hijacked Boeing was headed its way? That "no one expected anyting like that here?"
Essentially, the headquarters of the most powerful nation on earth had been helpless to defend itself.
Strangely enough, the reports of odd happenings at the Pentagon kept coming in until late in the day:
4:05:16 PM "A second aircraft has crashed into the Pentagon building. It is not known whether this plane was that which was hijacked from Boston airport a short time ago, the fourth such plane to be used in this major attack on the US. Earlier, a small plane had slammed into the building and set it ablaze." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)
4:17:03 PM "Part of the Pentagon building outside Washington has collapsed. It had been hit by two planes apparently hijacked by terrorists in Boston earlier today." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)
6:40:29 PM Fighter jets are patrolling the skies above Washington after a jet hijacked by terrorists struck the Pentagon. An aircraft has crashed on a helicopter landing pad near the Pentagon, and the White House. The Pentagon has taken a direct hit from an aircraft. The nerve centre of the US military burst into flames and a portion of one side of the five-sided structure collapsed when the plane struck. Secondary explosions were reported in the aftermath of the attack and great billows of smoke drifted skyward towards the Potomac River. Authorities immediately began deploying troops, including a regiment of light infantry. General Richard Myers, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that prior to the crash into the Pentagon, military officials had been notified that another hijacked plane had been heading from the New York area to Washington. He says he assumed that hijacked plane was the one that hit the Pentagon, though he could not be sure." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)
Members of the press were kept away from the scene for the ostensible reason that they might "hinder rescue operations." However, the Associated Press obtained photos taken by a private individual from a nearby building. It is due to those photos that the biggest questions about the strike on the Pentagon are raised.
After all of this confusion, it was finally announced that, according to officials, the explosion at the Pentagon was caused when American Airlines Flight 77, a 100 ton Boeing 757 commercial airliner, crashed at ground level into the only section of the building that was being renovated to be more "blast resistant" and which housed the fewest amount of employees in it. Flight 77 was allegedly hijacked by five Arab Islamic terrorists on an apparent suicide mission killing all 64 people on board. Officials claim the the flight recorders from Flight 77 and the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board where found at the crash scene.
First of all, we should consider the "mindset" of terrorists who would want to inflict the most damage possible. Certainly, if a Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization managed to get hold of a plane, and then get it into range of the Pentagon, what a great coup that would be! Imagine! Being able to completely destroy the nerve center of the hated "Satan" which is, by the way, how these fundamentalists view the U.S.
Okay, so these alleged terrorists managed to destroy the "commercial symbol" of the United States, or so we are told. And now we see that they also had other objects in their sights - the symbol of the United Military Supremacy. We are told that they had flying skills to beat the band and yet, somehow they missed their chance. They hit that part of the Pentagon that was least occupied?
What?
Yup.
Just consider this: In order to cause the greatest damage to the Pentagon, the plane should have dived right into the Pentagon's roof. The building is a pretty big target; it covers a surface area of 29 acres, and this would have been an easy "hit". Instead, what actually happens makes no sense at all from the perspective of terrorists - we are assuming real "freedom hating" terrorists here - who now have their chance to do some real damage: they chose to strike a single facade, the height of which was only 80 feet instead of getting a bull's eye on that 29 acre target? Huh? What is up with that? Terrorists that can fly a 757 like a barrel racer rides a horse, and they opted for minimal damage?
Sorry, doesn't compute.
The alleged Boeing, purported to be in the hands of Islamic Fundamentalists with burning hatred in their heart of the United States and "its freedoms," with unerring accuracy, steered said flying whale into a flight path as though they were going to land on the Pentagon lawn. While remaining horizontal, this amazing Boeing came down almost vertically, and struck the Pentagon at the height of the ground floor. What is more, it managed to do this without even ruffling the grass of the Pentagon's immaculate lawn. And then, despite its weight and forward momentum, the plane only destroyed a small section of the first ring of the building.
What is more, these deadly terrorists with race car driving skills that sacrificed their lives to hit the Pentagon in such a way that only a small section was damaged, and it happened to be a section that was undergoing renovation and many of the offices of that section were unoccupied! What I do find interesting is that the Navy's brand new Command Center was destroyed.
Early press reports claimed 800 deaths at the Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld did not correct this grossly exaggerated figure the following day when it was certainly known.
"Up to 800 people may have died Tuesday when a hijacked commercial airliner was crashed into the Pentagon, officials said. The more than 20,000 civilians and military men and women who work in the Pentagon streamed into the surrounding parking lots, driven by blue and white strobe alarm lights and wailing sirens." -CNN (9/12/01)
PENTAGON CASUALTIES OF THE TERRORIST ATTACK "125 people were killed on the ground at the Pentagon. * An additional 59 perished aboard American Airlines Flight #77. We do not count the five terrorists. Approximately 63 people were wounded/injured in the attack." -DoD
The shock of the impact was felt throughout the entire building. 125 people in the Pentagon lost their lives, to which should be added the 64 people aboard the Boeing which can carry 269 passengers. In other words, it was almost empty.
I could go on, but there are many other websites that cover the details of that day in very competent ways not to mention the dozens of websites that only add to the confusion. At the present moment, I am of the opinion that a Boeing 757 most definitely did not hit the Pentagon, that the object that struck the Pentagon WAS different from the commercial jetliners that were clearly seen to fly into the World Trade Center Towers.
Now, let's move on to the "How did they do it?" question.
I once spoke at length with an individual who served in the Persian Gulf conflict. His job was to "program" missiles - VERY smart ones. Even though it was his job, he was completely astonished at their capabilities. He said: "They can be programmed to go down the street just above the ground, turn right or left at a cross street, and hit the designated building at the exact floor, even the exact window, that you tell them to hit!" He then said that he was exaggerating, but not much, and he was describing it this way just to emphasize for me the capability of modern guidance systems.
Now, that's amazing.
But let me make this perfectly clear: I don't think that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.
The point of mentioning the smart missiles in use during Gulf War I is to bring up the subject of the guidance system. We notice in the above reports that the circumstances of the strike even led some witnesses to describe what hit the Pentagon as a helicopter!
But there were so many reports of a plane that I think we should assume that it was a plane, even if it was a plane that could "fly like a helicopter."
Once I realized that the descripton of the smart bomb maneuvers exactly fits what happened at the Pentagon, the question that I asked myself was: Could such a guidance system be used in a plane? Even commercial jetliners?
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."
According to the news reports, the action of the plane that hit the Pentagon was quite in keeping with the "smart missile guidance system." Now have a look at he "Universal Pilot Replacement Program" and take note of just what this handy gadget can do! It even shows diagrams of maneuvers of exactly the kind we are talking about! (Do go and read the technical paper to assure yourself of the possibility that such a guidance system was, indeed, available and does, indeed, describe exactly the behavior of this anomalous 757.)
The very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action - repeated that something smaller than a 757 was seen to strike the Pentagon.
This certainly creates some confusion. What can we make of it? Can the early witnesses be trusted more than the ones who came forward later, after having watched the shocking impact of commercial jetliners on the World Trade Center, over and over and over again on television and after hearing the repeated assurances that a Boeing hit the Pentagon as well? We must certainly consider that it is altogether possible that such repeated exposure to the WTC event by the media could create certain synaptic maps of the event that were then overlaid on the Pentagon event by simple suggestion. One of our researchers looked into this problem and wrote:
Some witnesses said they saw a commuter plane, and others like Army Captain Lincoln Liebner, (who may have had an agenda) said he saw a large American Airlines passenger jet. Now such confusion at any accident scene is understandable. What is more, with the craft going 460 mph, added to the shock of it all, it was probably hard to tell what they really saw.
One of the things that didn't make sense to me were the many reports that the object hit the ground, when we know from the photos, it didn't. Something that was supposed to be as big as a 757 was certainly flying low enough to clip light poles and didn't scrape the ground? Something is wrong with that picture.
Some even claimed they saw people on the plane - faces in windows.
The many confused descriptions - confused even while declaring it to be a commercial jet - leads me to believe that as long as they could see it with their eyes, it registered as being a passenger plane of some sort. And, even though the propaganda machine tells us that it was supposed to be a huge plane, it was obvious from the descriptive terms used by the witnesses - and by the evidence on the ground - that this was not the case - even if the "impression" was. What I did notice was those who did NOT SEE the plane, had a most peculiar "impression" related to the sound.
"At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball."
"I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.
"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."
Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. And because he saw it he also said "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."
What he said next, however, not in keeping with a 757: "I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."
Notice that the witness says: "I guess it was hitting the light poles." One suspects that he couldn't see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said: "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."
Two witnesses have described a sound of a "whoosh!" The second one, when he couldn't see it, said it was like a "WHOOSH whoosh," just like the other man who couldn't see it. But then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely NOT a 757 flying low over his head.
A 757, under NO circumstances makes a sound of "whoosh!" And if the "whoosh" sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the "whoosh" of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there's a 757 right overhead that's hitting light poles, and it's going 460 mph, I doubt it would be "whooshing"!
If a 757 was low enough to hit light poles, it should have blown the witnesses' eardrums out along with everything else in the engine's way.
Another problem with this part of the story is the following comments from a resident of the DC area:
I live in the DC area, and the street lights are not very tall. In fact DC is a very "treed" city. Many of the trees are taller than the lamp posts. [...] If the wings of a 757 were hitting the lamp posts, the engines would be driven into the ground, provided that the plane was in a straight and level position.
The exhaust of those huge engines - that would necessarily be scraping the ground if they are hitting light poles - is like a supersonic cannon! The vortex and power of the exhaust would have produced an experience that is unmistakable - impressive beyond words - and hard to forget.
You might want to take a look at the engine of this plane...there's 2 of them and they hang lower than the plane itself. Go HERE to learn about the jet engine specs, exhaust velocity contours, and so forth.
Nevertheless, the most they can say is that it went "whoosh." Other witnesses described a "whistling" that it "whined" like a missile.
"Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives."
Now, here's some pictures taken inside the Pentagon and of the workers.
The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft. And yet, there were supposed to be indentifiable body parts all over the place?
And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down while, at the same time claiming that it was the force of impact that vaporized the aircraft? It just doesn't add up. [LAM]
All of this is interesting, but it only adds to the confusion. We can't make too much of the various witness accounts. But let's look at still another report:
Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. [...]
He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."
In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a "silver commuter jet," he also said that the plane SOUNDED like the "high-pitched squeal" of a fighter jet.
A series of photographs taken by an official federal photographer at the Pentagon crash site show what appears to be an easily identifiable piece of a small-diameter turbofan engine. If the government wants to prove that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon, why is no one willing or able to identify which part from which engine this is? The photographs show a part of a turbofan jet engine and were taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a photographer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the Pentagon crash site on September 13, 2001. The round piece appears to be less than 3 feet in diameter and is propped up against what appears to be part of the engine housing and thick pieces of insulating material.
A Boeing 757 has two large engines, which are about 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length. A Pratt & Whitney PW2043 engine, used on some 757 aircraft, has a fan tip diameter of 78.5 inches. Nothing this large is to be seen in the FEMA photographs. The photo ID numbers are 4414 and 4415 and can be seen on-line.
For those who say a smaller plane or unmanned drone, such as a Global Hawk, was involved in the Pentagon attack, identifying the piece in the photo could prove what kind of aircraft hit the building.
The Global Hawk is a singe-engine drone that uses a Rolls Royce Allison engine hand-built in Indianapolis, Indiana. The AE3007H engine has a diameter of 43.5 inches. The unmanned Global Hawk, using a satellite guidance system, is capable of landing within 12 inches of its programmed destination.
Because the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, the engine is contained in a heavily insulated housing to be extremely quiet. This corresponds with eyewitness reports. American Free Press asked eyewitness Steve Riskus, who said he was within 100 feet of the aircraft, what he heard. He said he “did not recall hearing anything.” If a 757 or jet fighter flew at high speed 100 feet from an eyewitness the sound would be deafening.
The important thing is, if you have ever seen a 757 up close, the main words you will use - even if it passes you at 460 mph - are HUMONGOUS, or HUGE, or GIGANTIC - words along that line. You will also - even at a distance - be overwhelmed by the noise of the jet engines. But over and over again, even those who later NAMED the object that hit the pentagon as a "commercial airliner," used descriptive terms that are quite different from those that would have been used if a real 757 had been the impacting object. This could easily be a consequence of the "memory making" process I have described above. The fact is, until the spin machine had done its work, except for a few government officials, most of the witness' descriptive terms are more in keeping with descriptions of something other than a Boeing 757.
Many heard a jet. Others heard a missile. (All military men.) Those near Flight 77 as it came over the cemetery, saw it and heard it pass silently (no engine); whereas those near the killer jet which came by the freeway and knocked down the lamp posts heard its loud scream as it put on speed to reach the wall as the airliner flew over it. Witnesses who saw only one plane fall into two distinct groups, each seeing a different plane, on a different path, at different altitude, with different sound, at different speeds. A third set of witnesses saw two planes approach the Pentagon and one of these veer away. [
Nevertheless, we are certain that it was a plane - it had wings - it knocked over poles on the incoming trajectory that it maneuvered "like a smart missile." And we know that there is a "guidance system" that has the capability of doing exactly what this object was described to have done.
As it happens, a correspondent had an interesting encounter on a train that goes along with the story about the military transport plane that so "luckily" spotted the "Boeing." In his own words:
I met a gentleman that was of Jamaican descent who said he was an artist by trade. He was heading back home to Washington. I have no reason to doubt the man's story as he seemed very sincere and told it "as a matter of fact".
He said that when he heard on the radio of his car about the WTC event that the tension around the capital was rising, he was on his cell phone talking to other people while he drove. He was in viewing distance of the Pentagon at the time of the attack and he saw TWO planes in the air, one of them being a "small commuter type jet" but he didn't ID the other plane. He said it was this smaller plane that hit the Pentagon, so it could have been laced with explosives and remote controlled in by that other plane (reports were of a C-130 in the area as I recall).
The claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is extremely suspect for another reason: there is NO PROOF that the plane that disappeared from rader over Southern Ohio actually "turned around" and headed back for Washington. See the Washington Post article that discusses the thrity minutes of complete Radar Invisibility. This report says, in part:
The aircraft, traveling from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles, was hijacked sometime between 8:50 a.m. -- when air traffic controllers made their last routine contact with the pilot -- and 8:56, when hijackers turned off the transponder, which reports the plane's identity, altitude and speed to controllers' radar screens. The airliner crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 a.m., about 12 minutes after controllers at Dulles sounded an alert that an unidentified aircraft was headed toward Washington at high speed. [...]
With no signal on their radar screens, controllers did not realize that Flight 77 had reversed direction.
At 9:09 a.m., unable to reach the plane by radio, the Indianapolis controller reported a possible crash, sources said.
The first time that anyone became aware an aircraft was headed at high speed toward Washington was when the hijacked flight began descending and entered airspace controlled by the Dulles International Airport TRACON facility, an aviation source said.
The first Dulles controller noticed the fast-moving plane at 9:25 a.m. Moments later, controllers sounded an alert that an aircraft appeared to be headed directly toward the White House. It later turned and hit the Pentagon.
The report from the Washington Post also contradicts other reports which said that the radios transmitted sounds of voices with Arabic accents making threatening sounds:
Unlike at least two of the other aircraft, whose pilots apparently held radios open so controllers could hear the hijackers, there was only silence from Flight 77.
There are just too many problems of the Pentagon strike that indicate that it was not a Boeing 757 that plowed into the building. And this leads us to the most interesting questions.
If it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, why is the Administration rabidly declaring that it was and attacking anyone who questions that story with the slur of "conspiracy theory" rather than providing the evidence that it was for the public to examine themselves?
Why would George Bush and his gang be so resistant to an impartial investigation? (The official investigation cannot be considered impartial.)
Why was all the evidence of the crime scene immediately destroyed even though the government claims that "their experts" were taking care of everything?
Why can't we see the various films of the event that certainly exist from numerous security cameras in the area?
Why is the public denied full access to all the information about the crime?
After all, if the perpetrator has been identified, there should be nothing about a crime scene that would need to be withheld in order to catch the criminal, right? And if there is so much certainty about the perpetrators, why not let the public know all the details? If it was true, it could only help the Administration's case, right? So why all the stonewalling, all the backpedaling and secrecy? If actions are undertaken in good faith with the honest purpose of discovering the truth, there is no need for carefully guarded secrecy. In such circumstances, only the guilty seek the darkness to hide their crimes.
The whole thing has been so "managed," so quickly"figured out" and cleaned up and put away, that it stinks to high heaven of a "sales job."
Can it be that the public has been "sold" an answer - the answer that the Bush Administration wants them to believe and has arranged, with the complicity of the mass media?
The administration doesn't seem to have any problem at all believing that some crazed fundies hijacked four planes in the Most Powerful Nation on Earth, flew them around for extended periods of time, flew two of them into the World Trade Center Towers even though an intelligence expert plainly said in the early days after the attack that the clues leading to this conclusion were standard for False Flag Operations.
But, let's assume that's what happened. Let's also give the Administration the benefit of the doubt about their hurried naming of the perpetrators and their too quick destruction of the crime scene. Let's assume that their experts did handle everything well and they just have some psychological need for secrecy, or that there IS some compelling reason to stonewall a proper investigation.
We are still faced with the sticking point here: hypothesizing that somebody went to the trouble to arrange for a couple big jets to hit the World Trade Center, and we were shown the films of these jets hitting said buildings over and over again, why was the attack on the Pentagon so "different" in scope and evidence, most particularly the repeated showing of the attack on television?
Why can't we see the surveillance videos of the same type of commercial jet hitting the pentagon???
We are stuck with a marvelous conundrum. If no 757 hit the Pentagon, why is the government claiming it did?
Let's assume that it WAS a smaller, or different type of plane that hit the Pentagon. No matter who was behind the events, if they did not use a 757 to strike the pentagon, WHY? If they were able to commandeer large aircraft, why not use one for the Pentagon?
Now here I am going to go in a couple of different speculative directions, so bear with me. The little grey cells are smokin'!
We notice that there is one major difference between the strikes on the WTC and the Pentagon: the extent of the destruction.
That is what IS.
And so, let's ask the question: could there be a reason for this?
The first thing we notice when we compare the two events - that is, the attack on the Towers and the attack on the Pentagon - is that the World Trade Center Towers were totally destroyed and there was enormous loss of life, while the Pentagon only had a small hole, and the collapse of a section that was not even fully occupied because it was still under construction. Or so we are told. We have already noted this supreme failure on the part of the suicidal Islamic Fundies who could plan such an extraordinary operation and yet do such limited damage to the Pentagon.
So, doing limited damage to the Pentagon canNOT have been the objective of Fundamental Islamic Terrorists who were ostensibly striking at the heart of the "Great Satan" with burning hatred of the United States and its freedoms.
What if the limited damage was the intended difference between the very public and well publicized strikes against the World Trade Cener? Total destruction as opposed to minimal destruction and damage? Or "targeted" destruction.
This leads us to why a different type of plane might be used in the strike on the Pentagon: the only answer that presents itself as obvious is that of the necessity for precision so as to inflict an exact amount of damage, no more, no less..
So let us theorize that precision was the major concern in the strike on the Pentagon and that is why a different attack device was utilized.
Which brings us back to the idea of a plane that had onboard smart missile guidance system - a system that can guide its carrier to literally turn corners and hit the target with such precision that "it is amazing."
Theorizing that precision was a major concern - precision of the type that can hit an exact window on a designated floor and do an exact and designated amount of damage - we arrive at the idea that such precision and limitation was essential for some reason.
What could that reason be?
Why would the conspirators want to totally destroy one target - where civilians were the main victims - and only partly destroy another?
What immediately comes to mind is this one of the oldest tricks in the criminal play book: self-inflicted injury as an alibi.
But there is a second possible reason as well. Readers may remember the Tylenol murders where cyanide was put in a random selection of bottles, placed back on the shelves in the stores, so that random persons would die to cover up the fact that a specific murder was the objective of this seemingly "random" act of terror.
So, what if there was someone - or something - in the Pentagon that someone wanted to preserve OR destroy?
We notice that the Navy lost its new command center.
We wonder, of course, if the Navy ONI was one agency that had not been compromised by the NEOcon invasion of Washington? Could that be one of the reasons that the Naval Command Center was destroyed? Consider the following:
Al Martin's book "The Conspirators" is a secret history of the late 20th century and an uncensored version of what really goes on in the back rooms of realpolitik brokers and go-fers. - In his book, Al writes that contrary to popular belief, ONI is the most powerful US intelligence agency. "The ONI already had a deep existing covert illegal structure. They had a mechanism before the CIA even existed. They had contacts in foreign intelligence services and in foreign governments that the CIA never could have hoped to obtain."
"The only people the CIA wouldn't step on to accomplish their aims was ONI. They would easily subvert an FBI or DEA investigation, but never ONI, because they were frightened of them." - "ONI is where the real deep control is. It's where the real deep secrets are kept. That was what ONI always did the best. Keeping secrets. Accumulating secrets. Warehousing secrets for the purposes of control."
"When I asked him 'what secrets?' he replied, "One thing I can tell you is the ONI was instrumental in dethroning former Mexican President Louis Portillo. Portillo got very friendly with George Bush and the CIA, and ONI had never alligned with the Bush faction. I know what people think, but that's not true. From what I can tell, it has never been aligned, but has always been hostile to that Eastern Country Club Bush Cabal and their friends in the CIA. The Bill Casey faction is the George Bush-Allen Dulles Faction."
Not a very nice idea, is it? That the United States has been taken over by a coup d'etat, that the secrets of the ways and means of keeping "American Freedoms" may have been destroyed in the WTC, and in a few selected rooms of the Pentagon.
So, this hypothesis has actually split into two directions: that of alibi, or intentional murder.
If we consider the Alibi conjecture, we include the idea that precision was necessary to insure the safety of CERTAIN occupants of the building. If you inflict an injury on yourself to allay suspicion, you don't want to make a mistake and blow your head off!
In short, considering the above questions, it is possible that a number of the conspirators were IN THE PENTAGON AT THE TIME IT WAS HIT, or that certain TARGETS were in the builiding, and this was the reason for a different "mode of attack" - a precision strike. And it is possible that both objectives could be served with a precision strike.
We notice that Newsweek coyly mentions that "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
If what we have theorized is true, it's not likely that they canceled their travel plans because they might get on the wrong jet - after all, according to them, they didn't know about a possible terrorist attack - but rather to assure that they would be in place for their alibi - or their destruction. I would be very interested to know who those guys were.
Without data we can't answer these questions and with either of these two lines of conjecture, we really can go no further.
The fact is that the buildings that represent not only our status in the world, but also our ability to maintain that status - i.e. our military organization - were hit by alleged terrorists. The emotional reaction of the masses of citizens was that the U.S. not only had a right to strike back with all its power, but also that it MUST. That is also "what IS." The masses of pedestrian thinkers do not look at the possibility of a self inflicted wound being an alibi.
Criminals have been pulling this wool over the eyes of juries for a very long time.
There is another problem with the fact that the government will not release the security videos that obviously would show WHAT HIT the Pentagon.
Because there is no reason that the conspirators should NOT release the videos EVEN IF A DIFFERENT CRAFT WAS USED TO STRIKE THE PENTAGON because, after all, a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack no matter what kind of plane they use, right?
If, according to the cover story of the current administration, Osama bin Laden had the resources to set up the hijacking of commercial jets to hit the World Trade Center, there is no reason he could not also have had the resources to get his hands on a fancy guided drone plane, or even a smaller jet, or anything similar for that matter. And it would have been just as easy to lay it at Osama's door. That is to say, if Osama can be blamed for hitting the WTC with a couple of commercial jets, there is no reason he can't be blamed for hitting the Pentagon with something else.
In other words, no matter what it was - a Boeing 757 or a kite with a nuke attached to its tail - there is no reason the Powers That Be could not spin it to their advantage.
So why won't they release the security camera tapes????
If it was Flight 77, why can't we SEE it?
If it was something else, why can't we SEE it?
Heck, the American people are pretty accepting of explanations. There's no reason they wouldn't accept that Osama and gang could get ahold of something else and fly it into the Pentagon. After all, Osama was said to have a massive underground hideout with missiles and a small army and about everything else. There's no reason why he couldn't also have been accused of getting his hands on a Global Hawk!
So again, and again, and again: why can't the American People SEE WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON?
It clearly is not because of concern for the families of the victims and their grief. After all, the videos of the planes flying into the WTC were shown over and over and over and over again until the entire world was whipped into a frenzy of grief and rage.
Surely, assuming our theory of direct complicity of Bush and Co. to be correct, if the conspirators were setting this thing up as long as we think they were, they would have prepared the craft that hit the Pentagon very carefully and there would be nothing about it that would arouse suspicion or reveal their identiy, right? Then they could just haul out the videos and show them around the world and blame Osama, right?
Indeed, this small item is a problem. It suggests that if the surveillance videos of what hit the Pentagon were shown, it would reveal the truth. And whatever truth that is, the Powers That Be will fight to the last gasp to conceal it.
The only answer that makes any sense is that the Pentagon was hit by a craft that an expert could easily identify as bein inaccessible to anyone at all except the military personnel of a very powerful state: The United States or, perhaps, even Israel.
Remember what I wrote at the beginning, that we recently received information that satellite photos of what really hit the Pentagon DO exist in the hands of other governments?
Well, the story is that whatever hit the Pentagon was launched from a ship offshore, and it wasn't a missile. Go again and look at the nice images of the "Universal Pilot Replacement Program" to see the clever launching ramps they have for these handy planes. Have a good look at the demonstrated maneuverability and compare it to the descriptions of the flight path of that amazing mythical Flight 77.
In fact, it is altogether likely that the Universal Pilot Replacement Program was used on all the hijacked planes. It was, after all, manufactured by Boeing - one of the biggies of the Military Industrial Complex - and could easily have been installed during "routine maintenance." It would also have been quite easy to install some poison gas to be released via the onboard ventilation system that would kill everyone on the plane at the point that the UPR took over. The issue of why Flight 93 had to be shot down is easily explained by a possible glitch in the release of the gas. If it didn't work as it was supposed to, or someone noticed and managed to get an oxygen mask on in time, it would certainly explain why the plane had to be shot down.
Now, we come to the final issue: what happened to the REAL Flight 77? What happened to the passengers? In order to approach this problem with sufficient data and mental coolness, the reader might wish to have a look at What Really Happened to Flight 93?
The conclusion of this interesting analysis is shocking, but compellingly logical:
So there is clearly a case to be made that the plane was [shot down by a U.S. military jet], and yet this theory leaves some evidence unexplained as well – including the phone calls from the soon-to-be counter-hijackers.
There is also the question of why this particular flight would have been targeted to the exclusion of the other three hijacked flights. It wasn't, after all, near any potential targets and was not posing an immediate threat to anyone but its passengers. Since that threat certainly wasn't alleviated by scattering the body parts of those same passengers over a Pennsylvania field, it makes little sense that flight 93 would be shot down while the others were allowed to fly unimpeded into the very symbols of U.S. economic and military power.
Some have argued that the U.S. government would have quickly taken credit if it had in fact ordered the downing of flight 93. Taking credit for shooting down what was essentially a guided missile, albeit a manned one, would offer Washington officials a chance to at least partially redeem themselves for failing to respond to the other three hijacked flights.
It appears then that there are arguments that could be made against either theory.
But what if the two theories are not mutually exclusive? What if we were to take a look at what happened to flight 93 from a slightly different perspective? What if we were to take the point of view that the events of September 11 were essentially an inside job - with U.S. military and intelligence services either directly complicit or, at the very least, turning a blind but knowing eye?
Then the shooting down of flight 93 raises another rather obvious question: why would the U.S. national security apparatus shoot down any of the four flights? Assuming that some General somewhere didn't get the hare-brained notion that it was actually his duty to defend the country against these attacks, why would a plane be shot down that was for all intents and purposes on a covert mission for the very people who would have ordered the downing of the aircraft?
If this were the case, then there would be only one reason for shooting the flight down: to destroy any and all evidence in the event that the mission became compromised for any reason.
And how, you may wonder, might the mission be compromised? One possible scenario could be if, say, the passengers were able to disarm the hijackers and take control of the plane? That would conceivably leave dozens of eyewitnesses to what really happened on those planes that fateful day. The contents of 'black boxes' can be suppressed quite easily; a parade of eyewitnesses, particularly eyewitnesses rightly viewed as American heroes, is another matter entirely.
As disturbing as it may be to contemplate, the answer to the question of what really happened to flight 93 could be that it was shot down precisely because the passengers were able to overpower the hijackers, or at least were making an attempt to do so. It could be that the very heroism for which they have been cynically praised by the Bush regime may have earned them a summary execution.
A "summary execution."
The problem with the above is that there was a news report that Flight 93 was landed at Cleveland and evacuated:
Reported by 9News Staff
Web produced by:Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AMA Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.
White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight. United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.
On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved. "United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.
When you go to the link where the story was archived, you find this:
Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard
Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by: Liz Foreman 9/11/01 11:43:57 AMThis story has been removed from WCPO.com. It was a preliminary AP story, and was factually incorrect.
Now, just suppose that it wasn't Flight 93 that landed in Cleveland but that it was actually Flight 77? This is perhaps not so crazy a solution since there is an unverified witness report that
...something is odd with the serial numbers of Flight93 and Flight 175. The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are SAME serial numbers of the planes that ARE STILL FLYING. 591UA 612UA
Although N-number can be transferred, the manufacturer's serial number CANNOT be transferred. According to some spot-witnesses, Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 is flying around Chicago under the alias 594UA. According to the FAA, N594UA Boeing 757-222 flies now with a DIFFERENT serial number, namely 28145.
If they can change numbers around in that way, there's no reason to think that Flight 77, could not be similarly maneuvered about in any way chosen. The fact is, all the "9-11" airports were serviced by one Israeli owned company, ICTS. ICTS sells services to every airport from which the hijacked planes operated, including security, sometimes through wholly owned subsidiaries like Huntleigh USA Corporation.
It has been suggested that the incredible feat of hijacking four aircraft without a single arrest at the gate would require the resources of a nation-state. [...] One company had automatic inside access to all of the airports from which hijacked planes departed on 9-11... An Israeli company. One that Mossad agents could easily find employment with without the management knowing who they were or what their purpose really was.
But one thing is clear. By virtue of the Odigo warning, someone knew enough about the planned attacks to warn Odigo before the planes had even departed the airport gates, yet they did not call the Israeli security company at the airports which could have stopped the flights from leaving. Think about that one for a while.
So what happened to the passengers of Flight 77? When Flight 77 disappeared from radar, did a Drone plane suddenly appear on the radar to head straight for the Pentagon and make its precision strike? Is that the reason for all the strange anomalies of the flight path of Flight 77 and the odd stories about Flight 93? Where did the body parts come from that were so quickly identified as those of the passengers of Flight 77 that allegedly hit the Pentagon? Body parts that survived from a massive aircraft that was claimed to have vaporized almost instantly?
In a strange way, the question about what happened to the passengers of Flight 77 leads us to the core of the mystery. If it wasn't Flight 77 on the surveillance videos, why must the "Powers That Be" INSIST that it was even if they could just as easily have revealed that Osama had, in addition to hijacking two commercial jets, flown a guided drone into the Pentagon, or anything else? They could possibly even explain a U.S. military plane being flown into the Pentagon by claiming that Osama owned one and painted it up to look like a U.S. craft.
The "proof" that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon rests entirely on the testimony of government officials who most certainly might have an agenda, even if it is just to keep their jobs in the face of the massive numbers of individuals who have had their lives and careers destroyed by speaking out against the Bush Administration. In fact, the MAIN proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon was the famous "phone call" from Barbara Olson to her husband that could NOT have happened!
The official version of events included numerous reports of cellphone calls made from hijacked planes on 9/11. These reports lent credibility to the official 'Arab hijacker' story within hours of the attacks, in the most dramatic manner. Yet cell phone calls from fast-moving aircraft are not commonplace. The frequency and durations of the calls allegedly made on 9/11 stretch credulity. Is this the Achilles Heel of the Bush / CNN account of 9/11? [Physics 9-11 org]
Keep in mind that Barbara Olson was married to the US Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a close aide and friend of President George W Bush, she was a prominent member of Washington's conservative elite; this group, which also included the Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas and the independent counsel Kenneth Starr, prompted Hillary Clinton to complain of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Check the Center for Cooperative Research for a detailed timeline including Ted Olson's conflicting reports about the alleged phone call from his wife.
So, where is Babs and Flight 77?
For all we know Babs was in on the plot from the beginning and was even prepared with a suitable gas mask to protect her from the poison gas that killed everyone else onboard. If so, it is not unlikely that she is "making the bunker homey for the "housewarming" when Bush and the Gang all arrive to ride out the apocalypse they have initiated. Or, she could have had a little plastic surgery and is waiting for Ted (who has recently quit his job) on that nice Carribean Island they always wanted to retire to. They "meet and marry" and everyone is glad to see that Ted has found love again!
As for the body parts identified by DNA analysis from the wreckage at the Pentagon, let's not fool ourselves. Any group that has the will and power to commit the destruction that occurred on 9-11 would have no problem fetching some real samples from the gassed bodies onboard Flight 77 after it was landed at Wright Patterson airport in Southern Ohio.
ADDENDUM:
In the two and a half years since this series of comments was first started, the movement of people who doubt the official story of 9/11 has grown. There are now many websites devoted to the question. But how many Americans are willing to look at the facts in the face and confront the truth: the "attack" of 9/11 was an inside job. The reader may wish to have a look at our articles: Mossad and Moving Companies: Masterminds of Global Terrorism? as well as The Fifth Column and Mahmoud Ahmad and The Secret Cult.
As Mike Ruppert delineates in his upcoming book "Crossing the Rubicon" there were at least five "Training Exercises" in progress on the morning of 9/11 2001. Each and every one, and any others we may not yet know of, was under the control of our vice president Dick Cheney.
1 ) MILITARY EXERCISE NORTHERN VIGILANCE: Transferred most of the combat ready interceptors and possibly many AWACS from the north east into northen Canada and Alaska. This explains,in part, why there were only eight ( 8 ) combat interceptors in the NE on 9/11.
2 ) NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: FEMA arrived in NYC on 10 Sept 2001 to set up the command post for FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on Manhattan's PIER 29. This shows our masters are loving, they made a strong effort to minimize the required deaths. This was probably forced on them by the CFR, nice guys who must occasionally kill innocent people.
3 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. The 9/11 commission made only mention of this single exercise and lied about its purpose. The commisssion said its purpose was to intercept Russian bombers.
4 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT WARRIOR: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.
5 ) WARGAME EXERCISE NORTHERN GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.
At the time of the real hi-jacking there were as many as 22 hi-jacked aircraft on NORAD's radar screen. Some of these drills were "Live Fly" exercises were actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control were simulating hi-jacked aircraft. Some of the drills electronically added the hi-jacked aircraft into the system. All this as the real hi-jackings began. NORAD could not tell the difference between the seventeen bogus blips and the five actual hi-jacked aircraft blips.
Cheney could. It is clear we know almost nothing about how 9/11 was executed. We should know it was an exceeding highly technological operation involving dozens of major projects each employing large resources.
Half a million people have just marched in New York against George Bush. They are angry he has brought on war, deficit, tax cuts for the rich, and the most striking loss of rights ever seen in the USA. But how much coverage did this march get in the media? How many of those 500,000 people know how bad the situation really is? How many are willing to consider that Israeli Intelligence with the help of a group of people in the Bush government, may very well have organised and staged the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to justify a "war on terror" -- that is, the Arabs? This war began in Afghanistan and has continued into Iraq. It looks now as though the administration is ready to take on Iran and eventually Syria, the countries named in a 1996 report prepared for Israeli PM Netanhayu by members of the neo-con cabal. Eretz Israel, it is called. The land God gave the Jews. And they want it all.
ORIGINALAfter the release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August 23rd, 2004, a veritable onslaught of new articles were published that sought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. One such article, that is frequently referenced by certain '9/11 researchers' was authored by a member of the forum at the "Above Top Secret" (ATS) website. Interestingly, the article was written just a few weeks after the release of the Pentagon Strike Flash animation, which by then, was winging its way around the world and into the inboxes of millions of ordinary citizens. Perhaps you were one of them...
The claim that promoters of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory were doing immense damage to the truth/accountability movement was raised in Mike Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon. In a stunning piece of warped logic, Ruppert claimed that, while he is quite convinced that it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, he chose not to talk about or deal with the subject as part of his overall case for conspiracy because of the "implications". According to Ruppert, the "implications" are that anyone that suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, is then forced to answer the question as to what actually happened to Flight 77. If that's the case, then we better just wrap up the whole 9/11 Truth Movement and go home and have a beer.
Ruppert balks at the idea of offering an answer to this question to his readers because, he claims, most people would be unable to accept it, and, he suggests, 9/11 researchers serve only to alienate the public support that they wish to attract by stretching the boundaries of the collective belief system. What Ruppert doesn't explain is why any member of the public would happily accept that U.S. government officials participated in the slaughter of the passengers on Flights 11 and 175 and the occupants of the WTC towers (as he details in his book) yet would be unable to accept the idea that the same government officials played a part in disposing of the passengers of Flight 77 in a much less imaginative way. Let's be honest here, in the context of 9/11 being the work of a faction of the US government and military, the answer to the question as to what happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon is quite obvious - Flight 77 and its occupants were flown to a specific destination and “disposed of” by the conspirators. That's pretty simple; cut and dried; no need for much stretching there! But, for some reason, Ruppert (and others affected by this paramoralism) seems to think that killing thousands of citizens by crashing airplanes is easier to accept than cold bloodedly murdering them "in person," as it were.
Since Ruppert's declaration about the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory, many other "9/11 researchers", such as Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman, have seized upon Ruppert's idea and even expanded upon it by suggesting that the "no planers" are actually government agents trying to discredit the REAL 9/11 researchers with the 'kooky' "no plane" theory.
In order to really understand the insidiousness of this patronising claim that the public could not accept the implications of the idea that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, let's look at the "evidence" as presented by the ATS member that it really was Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon that bright September morn.
First, however, I would like to make a few observations about 9/11 research in general.
Anyone who takes on the formidable task of digging into the events of 9/11 is immediately at a disadvantage because the US government has already declared the case closed. The government knows how it happened and who did it and have informed the entire world. As a result, there is no possibility of access to the raw data, to the crime scene or analyses of same. Here is where we meet the major obstacle: since the US government is the prime suspect, we cannot simply take as truth everything - or anything - that they say in relation to the case.
Investigation of the 9/11 attacks should be approached like any murder investigation. When confronted with a murder case (like 9/11) and a suspect that has a history of deceit and murder (like the US government and its agencies) and who had an opportunity and a motive to commit the murder, do you take as fact any claims by the suspect that he did not commit the murder? Do you seek to fit the facts around his claim that he did not commit the murder? When you confront evidence that suggests that the suspect is lying about his account of where he was and what he was doing, or you find inconsistencies and logistically impossible scenarios in his account, do you ignore these and focus only on the fact that he said he did not commit the murder and try to find and present evidence that backs up his claim to innocence?
The fact is that researchers coming to the 9/11 investigation after the fact, and after the case has been officially closed, are not only confronted with the task of trying to find out what actually happened - they also face the already well established public belief, by which they themselves are also influenced, that the official story is the truth. The best approach for any 9/11 researcher with honest intentions is to, if possible, wipe from their minds the official version of events and take the attitude of someone who has just returned from a 5 year trip to the outer reaches of the solar system, during which time they had no communication with planet earth. Start with a beginner's mind, turn off the sound of all the conflicting voices and their claims, and just LOOK at the evidence without prejudice.
Now, if the person with a truly open mind is given all of the publicly available evidence and has been additionally furnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that of missile impacts, what would such a person conclude about the most likely cause of the Pentagon damage? Of course, not all of the evidence was made available to the public, but there is still sufficient visual evidence from "ground zero" (both in terms of place and TIME), to form a pretty good "best guess". For a definitive conclusion to be reached, the "private" evidence, like the video tapes of the event that the FBI confiscated, would have to be released, and we don't expect that to happen any time soon. Of course, the fact that the definitive evidence of the videos has not been released is in itself a key piece of evidence that suggests that the official story of what hit the Pentagon is not the real story.
The purpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for the fact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagon theory, the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed to the influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantly parroted the official government story about what happened on 9/11 for the three years prior to the writing of the article. As such, he has failed to don the mantle of objective observer of the available evidence that is so crucial to finding the truth, and instead exerts a lot of effort to make the available evidence fit the government claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th 2001. Either that, or he/she is part of the "official government cover-up." After you read everything below, you can make a call on that one yourself.
Here is the ATS article as it appears on the ATS site with my comments interspersed in blue text.
We apologize that we cannot carry this analysis on our website since we are under threat of lawsuit from COINTELPRO agents abovetopsecret.com and their neocon attorney, Wayne Jaeschke. The analysis is served on a foreign website and it will load slowly, but it is worth a couple minutes wait. Click the following link to read what the Powers That Be do NOT want you to see and read. Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757Having experienced the flame war of Jews charging us with "antisemitism" because we do not subscribe to their conviction that their god is the one and only god, and that they are the one and only chosen people, chosen by this god, and their subsequent posting of our home address on their newsgroups with the suggestion that somebody "find and take care of" us, we know whereof we speak. Several members of our research group spent days reading through the posts on some of the Jewish lists, reporting that the contempt of the members of these lists - most of them orthodox Jews - for all human beings who were not Jews, was beyond anything they had ever encountered. It certainly made it difficult for us here to work at promoting peace and the specialness of all human beings and the marvelous diversity of ethnicity and the ways in which we are all enriched by same, including Jews AND Palestinians.
Thus we see that the "benefit" of the WTC attack falls, primarily, to Israel.
However, another compelling observation is the fact that the United States power clique has a lot to gain as well. As noted, war is good business. Not only that, all of the claims that the government seeks to institute overt controls, as in the "Mark of the Beast," can be seen to be a partial motivation here.
But is it that simple?
Go to ORIGINALI recently had an exchange with Mike Lindemann on the subject of the sighting of low, slow, flying black boomerangs which seemingly had such disastrous effects on my health and which was followed, 11 months later, by the Initiation of the Cassiopaean Transmissions.
Mr. Lindemann opined that what I had seen was "one of ours," but did not provide any definite citation for this knowledge. I pointed out to him that the boomerangs were first sighted in this area on the night, and at the time of the hypnosis session with an "abductee" whose husband had worked for various government agencies, and who, herself, had a top level security clearance for most of her professional life.
On that occasion, the object was apparently sighted over my house at the time of the session.
[The second sighting of this type of object, involving myself, was the event recounted in the St Petersburg Times article by Thomas French, The Exorcist in Love, where the children and I were watching a meteor shower from my backyard swimming pool.]
I pointed out to Mr Lindemann that the kind of surveillance that was implied by the knowledge that I was going to do that hypnosis session, particularly when nothing about aliens or abductions was ever mentioned, would be predicated upon mind reading.
And further, that the second sighting, which seemed designed especially to get my attention and induce fear, implied further surveillance that, if our government possesses and uses it, WE ARE ALL SCREWED! Which is, of course, a distinct possibility!
Continue with ORIGINALAlmost thirty years ago, I received my first formal training in hypnosis. Over the years, I not only sought out additional training, I employed this skill on behalf of many troubled individuals. Until 1994, I had never encountered what is popularly known as an "abductee" - that is, an individual claiming to have been abducted by alleged aliens. I have to admit that when I did, it presented certain problems both in terms of having a well-established technique to deal with it, as well as my own categories of what is or is not possible.
I often tell people in a sort of joking way: of all the people who never wanted to know anything about aliens and UFOs, I deserve a place at the head of the line. Very few people really understand how deeply serious this remark is. When I opened the door to consider the possibility - quite remote as I thought - of the possibility of "other worldly" visitors, life as I knew it ended. That was eleven years ago. But then, a completely new life was born from the ashes. And so, here I am producing a book about UFOs and aliens. The road from there to here has been difficult, to understate the matter, and complicated by all the High Strangeness that seems to surround the subject.
Continue with ORIGINALToday's attack was indeed a "bloody massacre", but Israel was not content until it had rubbed salt into the bloodied corpses by claiming that they thought there was no one on the obviously packed beach. Meanwhile, the mainstream media sits back and says nothing and American taxpayers continue to allow their government to funnel billions of dollars each year to enable Israel to continue the massacre of innocent Palestinian lives.
With this massacre of Palestinians by Israel on a Gaza beach, Hamas has said today that it will renew its attacks on Israel...how very, very convenient for Israel and its need to perpetuate a state of conflict with a Palestinian enemy in order to pursure its bloodthirsty agenda.
Al-Qaeda condemns referendum
Aljazeera has aired a video in which al-Qaeda's number two leader urges Palestinians to reject the referendum proposed by their president and praises Abu Musab al-Zarqawi without mentioning his recent death in Iraq.
One of the most interesting things about the news of his death is the timing. There have been talks going on since the election last December by US and Iraqi officials to try to bring the homegrown insurgency back into the political process. Certainly there was tension between the homegrown Iraqi insurgency and Zarqawi's foreign fighters. So it's possible a deal was finally cut by some branch of the Iraqi insurgency to eliminate al-Zarqawi and rid themselves of his heavy-handed influence.
The announcement of the new bogeyman is expected sometime in the coming weeks.It has already happened. What has been happening in the past several months? The "real threat" has moved from Iraq to Iran. Bush and gang can't have everyone focused on al-Zarqawi; they need Americans to direct all their attention on Iran's leaders. It is the next psy-ops campaign, and despite the fact that it is exactly the same one used against Iraq and Saddam, it seems to be working!
That's how many times this guy has signed bills into law and then, after the camera left, signed a separate document he calls "a signing statement," that, in effect, says, "Just kidding. Here's which parts of that bill I just signed that I will enforce, and which parts I won't enforce."
Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements; in fact he wrote the book on the subject: By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action. Two years ago Cooper wrote that George W. Bush had issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges; and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.
That number has now passed 750.
The White House claims all this is constitutionally kosher. But how can it be? Would someone explain to me how these noxious signing statements are any different from the line-item veto, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional? If you read one of Bush's signing statements they read very much like a line-item veto -- "Yes to this part of the bill, no to this part," etc. Sure looks like a duck to me.
For those of you unfamiliar with a Bush signing statement, here's a sample. Bush signed this little gem right after signing the USA Patriot Act "Improvement and Reauthorization Act," earlier this year. The president hailed that bill in a presigning statement for the cameras. What he didn't mention was the little piece of paper under the bill that he would sign after everyone left the room. Here it is:
President's Signing Statement on H.R. 199, "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005"
Today signed into law H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005," and then S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006." The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.
The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 9, 2006.
"Shall construe?" Who gives a fig how the president "construes" something he's about to sign? Surely not the U.S. Constitution. And most certainly the courts don't care. I've read a lot of Supreme Court cases where the "intent of Congress" in passing a bill was central to the case. But I have never heard of a case in which the "intent of the president" in signing a bill was given a scintilla of regard. Because it doesn't matter, constitutionally. If the court sees that a president signed a bill, rather than vetoing it, they consider it prima facie evidence of only one thing -- that the president intended to sign the bill into law. Not some of it; all of it.
(Besides, when it comes to "construing" the meaning of laws, isn't that the job of the third branch of government, the courts? Is Bush claiming that right now as well? Our newly self-minted Construer in Chief-Justice?)
Therefore, can any party of the first, second, third or millionth part, explain to me why a single member of Congress has yet to drag this White House into court over this clear and present attack on the Constitution's separation of powers?
After all, established law (stare decisis) is on the side of the angels in this matter. We've been here before, and not that long ago. The Supreme Court settled this matter with a clear and unambiguous decision in 1998. The court ruled against a law Congress passed that granted the president the power to pick and chose which budget items he would or would not enforce, the line-item veto. The court struck it down and told both Congress and the president that, if they wanted to rearrange the constitutional balances of power, the only constitutionally legal way is with a constitutional amendment.
"U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York." Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in a concurrence of the opinion of the Court, objected to the argument that the Act did not violate principles of the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty, stating that the "undeniable effects" of the Act were to "enhance the President's power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another." (More)
Bush's signing statements are an even more egregious constitutional insult than the line-item veto. At least the line-item veto was granted to the president by Congress. This time Congress wasn't even asked. Bush simply claimed this power for himself. And so far, he's gotten away with it.
So, I ask again, why has no member of Congress filed suit? You would think that they would at least be offended. Besides being unconstitutional, Bush's signing statements are also condescending. They might as well be worded like this:
To: Congress
From: The President of the United States
To Whom it May Concern:
I have read your bill noted above and I signed it in front of the TV cameras surrounded by all you smiling jackals. Because I understand you need to show your constituents back home that you really are doing something up here after all.
But I didn't like some of the parts of the bill you gave me. Rather than embarrass you with a veto or -- God forbid! -- provide you with an opportunity to embarrass me with veto override, I will simply ignore the parts of this bill that I don't like.
So, for your records, here is my marked-up copy of your bill. For your convenience I drew a happy face :-) next to the sections I will enforce, and a frowny face :-( next to the sections I intend to ignore.
Now, y'all all have a nice day.
George W. Bush :-)
This administration has usurped plenty of congressional power over the last six years as well as chipping away at the third "co-equal" branch of government, the courts. But Bush's signing statements, which treat congressional legislation like boxes of See's candy, are the most blatant, obnoxious and dangerous coup of them all.
"These signing statements are to Bush and Cheney's presidency what steroids were to Arnold Schwarzenegger's bodybuilding. Like Schwarzenegger with his steroids, Bush does not deny using his signing statements; does not like talking about using them; and believes that they add muscle. But like steroids, signing statements ultimately lead to serious trouble." --John W. Dean, former White House Counsel under Nixon
Where's Congress today? Well, the Senate is voting on an amendment to the Constitution -- to protect us from the scourge of same-sex marriages.
Where are key Democrats?
Hey, Hillary, tell us if you will, which poses the greatest threat to the American way of life -- flag burning or presidential signing statements? Hmm?
Hello, members of Congress! Is anyone home? Did you all forget that the Supreme Court is just across the street? Hell, you could pitch a briefcase full of Bush's signing statements and hit the goddamn place. Shouldn't you be storming the steps of the Supreme Court, frothing at the mouth, lawyers in tow, demanding the court's immediate and urgent attention to this attack on the legislative branches' constitutional power?
Shouldn't you? After all, didn't each of you take the oath pledging to "obey and protect the U.S. Constitution"? Or did you have your own little signing statement tucked into your pocket when you took that oath? Maybe you signed later. You know, "just kidding." That's about the only thing that would explain it. I look forward more and more with each passing day to the first Tuesday of November. Because on that day I'm going into the voting booth loaded for bear -- incumbent bear. Shame on you. You are beneath contempt. All of you.
Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.