There are plenty of strange, anomalous details about the crash itself that the mainstream narratives can't explain. Today on Behind the Headlines, we'll be talking about what we really know about the crash, and what might explain the data available at this point in time.
Join us this Sunday, 8 November 2015, from 2-4pm EST / 8-10pm CET, for the perspective you won't hear on the mainstream media.
Running Time: 02:00:00
Download: MP3
Here's the transcript of the show:
Joe: Hi and welcome to Behind the Headlines on the Sott Radio Network, I'm Joe Quinn and as usual my co-hosts this week are; Niall Bradley.
Niall: Hi everyone.
Joe: And Harrison Koehli.
Harrison: Hello.
Joe: So, this world has gone to hell in a hand basket
Niall: Again?
Joe: Well, no. It's really gone this time - it's on the Styx anyway. Isn't that what they called the river in Hades? It's on the Styx and it's moving down and I think there's a waterfall at the end; that goes into another level of Hell.
Harrison: And it just keeps going. It's like the water locks of the river Styx.
Joe: Right. And the rest just goes back to the beginning again. It goes round and round in a hellish loop.
Niall: Another plane has fallen out of the sky.
Joe: It's not just that. The world is obviously and entirely, massively messed up. Has anybody noticed that? Has anybody listening to this show, noticed just how screwed up our world is?
Harrison: Call in and tell us.
Joe: They have to call in and tell us about it otherwise we'll just tell you because it's really not looking good. Because I understand that people may not notice it because it's not the kind of thing that goes from utopia to Valhalla suddenly; we have the proverbial boiling frog thing going on where people slowly acclimatise to worse and worse conditions, on the planet itself, in terms of social conditions, environmental conditions, but also in terms of the excesses and criminality and psychopathology of the leaders. They get away with more and more and people just seem to not do very much about it. Of course the question is: what can anybody do about it? That's a really difficult question to answer and I don't know if it has an answer.
Niall: Worse, people react in ever crazier ways because they're stressed by it although they don't identify the source of this stress.
Joe: Yeah. So, that was just a little opening question. Have you noticed that the whole place is messed up really badly? Just try and think of even something that's like even a half normal or decent world to live in and then compare it to what's going on a daily basis on this planet. Of course to do that you need to that comparison you need to know what's actually happening, and of course there's a lot of lies and manipulation and spin within the media that attempts to convince people with that nothing bad is happening or if something bad is happening that it's always the bad guys over there and our governments are here to, in theory, make you feel like the world isn't such a bad place; at least our governments are trying to protect us. But if you understand, and it's not hard with a little bit of research with a little bit of looking behind the headlines, to realise that your governments aren't interested in protecting you, they're interested in owning you and effectively enslaving you in one way or another, then the picture becomes pretty clear. Niall brought up the crash, the destruction, the obliteration, the dismemberment - in more ways than one - of the Russian plane and it's passengers over the Sinai desert in Egypt. How long ago was it now? Nine days?
Niall: Yeah the 31st of October.
Joe: That was a Saturday was it?
Harrison: I believe so.
Joe: It was Halloween night.
Harrison: Yeah, it was Saturday.
Joe: So, just over a week ago and we mentioned it on last week's show after our interviews with Eva and Navid; (Behind the Headlines: Mid-East Chaos - Interviews with Eva Bartlett & Navid Nasr) but there was very little information at that point, it was only 24 hours or so afterwards so we didn't have very much to say. But we have more to say tonight about it. With more information - or rather a lack of information that has come out about it, of course lots is being said but not a lot of evidence has been presented and a lot of spin is happening, as you probably already know and if you don't, we're going to talk about that.
Niall: The position now, the official line, is the US government is 99.9% certain - that's a high a high level of certainty - that it was a pre-planted bomb by ISIS.
Joe: Well this is just hard to pick through but we need to bring everybody back to reality and realise that no investigation has actually taken place; no investigation can actually take place until several weeks more likely months have passed until it can be investigated. So, all of the stuff you 'know' about the Russian plane that crashed - you don't know that, you're just been told that you know it but you don't know it. Of course we notice that the British and American governments in particular, they couldn't resist capitalising on it and they just run with the fact that the plane crashed and killed everyone on board to do what they usually do. As Niall just said, they're 99.9% sure that a bomb - with no evidence - destroyed the plane and therefore we're going to have to look at increasing security at airports.
Surprise surprise, everybody's happy with that. The already unpleasant experience at airports is going to get worse because they have flagrantly and egregiously lead to conclusions about this crash and decided that it was terrorists; terrorists put a bomb on a plane and all airports are now potentially bomb targets by ISIS and will have to be looked at.
Niall: How much worse can airport security get? It's take off your belt, take off your shoes, and don't bring any liquids...
Joe: Get scanned in a back scanner for the Americans, and irradiated.
Harrison: And if not you get a full body pat-down.
Niall: Well the next logical step is, strip naked.
Joe: What they're talking about here is increasing the fear around flying and also screening every worker at an airport. So, that those airports become almost like prisons. Where the kind of security you have in a prison, to get in and or for example as a visitor, that'll be the kind of security for passengers and the employees will almost be like the inmates because they'll all be potential terrorists who could be plotting to carry a bomb, especially baggage handlers; I wouldn't be surprised if all of them just lost their jobs in the next few months after they impose these ridiculous new measure where they're going to be watching everybody 24-7; everybody's going to feel like a terrorist.
Niall: There is a multi-level pattern, going back, at least, to 9-11, where the airports were like the proving ground for rolling out new measures and new tech. And it didn't end there because there they progressed to stadia for sporting and cultural events, searching, frisking, only have so many liquids, etc., etc. So, the airports are like the ideal, they're like the place we have to go through and they're under control.
Joe: But it's absolutely and obviously disingenuous. It's very hard for people to see through it because they're being terrorised into accepting these kinds of police-state measures by governments, particularly in the west. But if you just allow yourself to think a little bit conspiratorially and look at the nature, the words and the actions of these people who are promoting this police-state infrastructure, these people cannot be trusted; they're very disreputable, dishonest people who should not be trusted. So, when they say that they're protecting you, you should distrust that and look to what their real agenda might be. It's like a friend who hires someone to periodically sneak out of a bush and beat you over the head and then runs away and you don't know that this is happening and your friend says; "Oh, did someone hit you again?! Oh well, you better come with me, come with me and I'll protect you."
And you repeatedly get beaten over the head with this stick and you're wondering what the hell is going on, you think that someone is out to get you, and your friend is the one offering the protection, "Come and live with me. Come into my house and I will protect you." And it just puts you in a complete sate of compliance, based on fear, towards that person, because they are your protector. That's a decent enough analogy to what's actually happening to the public at large, which is they're being periodically terrorised by government so that the people themselves will look to the government for protection, from the bogus threat that the government itself is creating for the population.
Niall: And we've noted before that flying, flights, aircraft, being in the air, they hit that button a lot. Which isn't to preclude that that's definitely what's happening here but it's obvious that at least some of them.... 9-11 were obviously focused on airplanes.
Joe: Yeah. If they want to ramp the fear factor up to the max then they go for an airplane, because that's where most people feel the most vulnerable. Of course other public places like malls, shopping centres, etc.
Harrison: Cinemas and schools.
Joe: These attacks, where they happen, there's obviously a hand behind this and of course you can say that it's terrorists who are doing this and they would obviously have the same mindset to attack people in the west at their most vulnerable spots. The question becomes: who are the terrorists? Over the past month in particular, since Russia began airstrikes in Syria, it has become very clear that western governments are fully in bed with the terrorists; the terrorists are effectively owned by western governments, that much should be clear to everybody by this stage. In which case, the terrorist threat should be seen as coming from western governments. It's not a major leap to conclude that.
Harrison: And you don't even have to read into the news very much to get those conclusions. Even if you just follow official statements from just the US or if you read some Russian sources. In the past week Lavrov came out and said the obvious, from which you can derive the correct conclusion, he said, "Well, the US says it has locations of where ISIS is in Syria but they don't want to tell us." So, what can you derive from that?
Joe: That they don't want to attack those terrorists.
Harrison: Yeah.
Joe: Because they are terrorists.
Harrison: And in addition to the government continually terrorising the population, it continually feeds just bare faced, utter, obvious lies. And it should be completely obvious even without any kind of external analysis; it's just obvious on the surface of it. So, with this Russia plane crash, we have the UK and the US coming out right away saying that it was ISIS and they know it was ISIS. To use your school-yard analogy, this is like hearing from a friend who goes to a different school across the city, "Oh you know, someone got beat up but we don't know who it is." And your friend that goes to your school halfway across town says, "Oh you know, I know what happened, it was this guy and he did this." and this is the first he's heard about it - well how does he know? He can't possibly know. And yet he's saying it so you'd think people would have a natural scepticism when they hear the US saying this right after it happens, when there hasn't even been an investigation. Or you can take the tactic or the line of the Russians - this was a good one - Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, she responded to the UK claims and said, "It is genuinely shocking to think that the British Government has some kind of information that could cast light on what happened in the skies above Egypt. If such information exists, and judging by what the Foreign Secretary has said, it does, no one has passed it to the Russian side."
And I can just imagine her saying this very sarcastically, even though she probably didn't, because she's just taking them at their word and saying, "Oh, well if you guys know this then why didn't you tell us? Why don't you tell us?
Joe: These politicians and the media are encouraging people to think about this Russian crash in Egypt in absolutely ridiculous, illogical and nonsensical ways. For example The Observer, the Sunday version of the British Guardian newspaper said recently that they had, "learned that Egyptian airport and security officials had launched an investigation into the staff at the Sharm el Sheikh airport, which was the airport from which the Russian plane departed. They're investigating airport staff at the airport that came into contact with the Russian plane, i.e., baggage handlers and whoever else. And then they follow that up, "OK, that's an investigation; Very good." But what's the conclusion Observer? Well, the conclusion is, "the move has increased speculation that a bomb may have been smuggled onto an aircraft." That's like saying that the police that go to a crime scene in a residential area, and the reporters see the police going door to door asking questions of all the residents of the area and saying, "This has increased speculation that police suspect that a massive neighbourhood conspiracy was involved in the perpetration of this crime. That each or the neighbours in the neighbourhood all were somehow involved in this crime." That's more or less exactly the same thing.
No. When they talk to or investigate the people at the Sharm el Sheikh airport, they do it as part of an investigation. Do these idiots not know that is how you conduct an investigation, when something happens you go and you follow a procedure. You talk to people, you look at people who might be involved or you just ask questions to those who might have seen something. But no, according to western media this 'leads to speculation that we're 99.9% sure that a bomb blew up this plane and that it was placed on-board by some ISIS operative. Boom! There you go, done.
Niall: The Brits are very good at - this is paralogical suggestion. It's constantly suggesting things. And on the basis of their own investigation put forward, here's their conclusion. And not just the Observer; a paper on the right of the British spectrum - not that that has any meaning - the Telegraph sent one of their journalists to Sharm el Sheikh in the weeks since the crash and had him attempt, and succeed, in bribing a security worker at the airport, to not put his bag through the airport screening for like $20 or something. And as soon as he gets out the other side, he has a selfie with his bag, at the airport, and does a full story on it; "Look, see how easy it is to get past... therefore this increases the suspicion that ISIS put a bomb on a plane this way."
Joe: Well, obviously, this is just one more example of how the western governments and the media that serve them, have always gone about the process of fixing facts around a policy; they all have an established narrative, that is this broad narrative about how the world works and how anything major that happens in the world must fit into that narrative, and how the west understands it, this west centric view of the world. And anything that happens, on a global scale, they immediately go into this process of fixing the facts to suit the pre-established narrative. It's so ridiculous and so far from objective and impartial - as the western media claims it to be... that it is just ridiculous. The best example of that is that term 'fixing the facts around the policy' is exactly what the British government was doing leading up to the Iraq war; they had decided that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as what they wanted to be true and to go ahead and find the evidence to back that up, and if you need to, make it up. So let's fix those facts around this bullshit policy, this fantasy. It's like, "I want unicorns to exist - no. Unicorns exist. Now, where are my minions to go and glue a horn on to a horses head and paint it in rainbows colours".
Niall: Get a photo.
Joe: And parade it in front of the cameras and say, "Let's invade that unicorn!" (Laughter)
Harrison: It reminds me of V for Vendetta, one of my favourite parts of that movie is how the media works. Because it's got to be so close to the truth, like when V in the first part of the movie destroys which building?
Joe: The old Bailey, the high court in London.
Harrison: So, he blows it up and the next day on the news they have this whole narrative ready about how the demolition had been planned for ages, the structural integrity had been compromised and, "Oh! The crew decided to give us a surprise with the fireworks." And then when V goes into the media centre and they shoot one of the guys that V had put the mask on, and then they presented it as evidence that they'd shot the terrorist, that he was dead. And you can just imagine these media types with their CIA or government handlers getting together in a room when something happens and saying, "Ok. Well what's the story we want to tell? And how do we want to tell it?" So, Ok; with the Russian plane, "Ok, well we want it to be ISIS. That's the narrative we're creating. So, let's just put that into any story possible and any little thing that could possibly be twisted to do that, let's do it." Ok, so they're interviewing people at the airport, "We can spin that to possibly mean that obviously they think it's a bomb. So, let's just go with that" and everything comes back to this narrative. No matter how nonsensical, no matter how much of nonsequeter that it is, they do it and they get away with it. And it's completely ridiculous.
Niall: They get away with it by being loudest and first-est.
Harrison: Yeah.
Joe: The most important thing in any major event that happens - and the media and governments know this, especially in the west - is establishing the narrative from the get go. As soon as you can cobble something together, you throw it out there immediately and give wide spread coverage to it so that you infect every bodies minds, and people in that immediate aftermath of this traumatic event - to one extent or another - because they're psychologically open and that means they're more easily programmable with whatever appears in front of their face as an explanation for what happened. Because people after a trauma really want to know how this did happen, what happened? And as long as you get in there first and spread that message it doesn't really matter what happens afterwards; two, three, four weeks or months afterwards, you can come out and quietly change your story and say, "Yeah... that's not actually what happened. It's something totally different...." But it doesn't matter and you can say it quietly because you know no-one's interested. Because they've already been told what actually happened in the immediate aftermath. Go and ask anybody today what happened to flight MH17 over Ukraine last year? Putin - the Rebels shot it down. But that's not actually what the official report that came out over a year and a half later, just a few weeks ago, said.
Harrison: Same with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Joe: It doesn't matter.
Harrison: And because, when you hear a story - there's names for all these cognitive biases', I think this could fall under the, 'What you see is what you get' thing, that Kahneman talked about - we talked about it on the show a month or two ago; (The Truth Perspective - Propaganda & cognitive bias - The battle for your mind) because when you hear a story you automatically put yourself into that story and experience it as if it's real, that's what you do when you read fiction. So, you've heard a story, a narrative, and you respond to that story as if it's true. So, 'Putin shot down this plane' and you react emotionally to that story...
Joe: And that's the memory.
Harrison: ...and that's the memory. So, the jobs already done and it doesn't matter what the truth is, (Laughter) of what story actually comes out because you've already responded emotionally to that story and that's all that matters.
Niall: And you now have a memory associated with it.
Joe: A visceral memory of it that it really happened, (Mockingly) "Because I felt it at the time." But getting back to what we were saying at the beginning, that if you look and it has been revealed pretty clearly to anybody who's been watching, that these jihadi's, ISIS, 'moderate rebels', there's no difference, these nut-job mercenaries who have been bought and paid for by the west and it's client states in the middle east; given that fact, that the west basically owns these jihadi's, it's interesting to hear that there was an initial claim of responsibility by some unknown jihadi group in Egypt. And they released this very poorly put together a very low resolution video of a plane in the distance, flying away and then this kind of explosion with black smoke trailing out of it but the plane just continues flying on. Obviously this is a CGI like situation. So, they're using real footage of it flying away but they had a problem in that they couldn't actually manipulate the real plane and make it do what it should have done after it blew up and black smoke was coming out of it, i.e. at least change course a bit or start to go down a little bit (Laughter) but the plane just keeps flying on into the distance as if the bomb and explosion had no effect on it.
But these guys then put out another statement just recently where they, again, expressly take responsibility for it. But also they expressly describe it as retaliation for Russian strikes in Syria. Now, If I'm a big boss in the Mafia and I employ henchmen to go and give someone who isn't paying their dues a warning, or whatever, paying their monthly subscription to the Mafia magazine, and I want to give them a warning and break up their shop or break their legs, and my henchmen tell the victim why this is happening. The victim obviously knows who the message is coming from right? It's not necessarily the henchmen or the thugs that you have to pay your dues to, it's the controllers...
Niall: The Don behind them.
Joe: Exactly. Now the Don behind these jihadi's is obviously western governments and like we said the client regimes in the Middle East. So, these jihadi's are saying this is retaliation for Russian strikes in Syria, well yeah. This is basically, more of less, an attack, by proxy, by western governments of some description, on Russia, in retaliation for Russian air strikes in Syria, which have seriously pissed off western governments, or the capitol of evil, effectively, in this world, which is, right now, Washington DC.
Niall: It is in effect, a true statement. This is retaliation for you intervening a month ago to the day and mucking up a nice, little thing we had going...
Joe: It was exactly one month. Russian air strikes started on the last day of September. And the last day of October the Russian plane was shot down over Egypt, full of Russian civilians.
Niall: I think that it was Egypt is interesting, possibly. In terms of the war on terror - intervention by Russia in the Middle East because it does look like Egypt under this (Abdel Fattah) el-Sisi guy is taking the side - to put it bluntly - of the Russians.
Joe: Yeah, he's more open to...
Niall: He's not the only one though.
Joe: No he's not the only one. A lot of countries are looking in that direction at the emergence of another country, over the past few years, on the world stage as a major player. It's only natural that countries around the world would start to look at Russia as, effectively, a new kid on the block, with lots to offer, lots of deals to do, etc., etc. It's normal. Its part of Putins, "It's great when we do this together." And it's not just about America dominating everyone as it has done for the past 60-70-80 years.
Niall: The only reason I'm bringing it up is just to answer the question of, OK, it's in 'retaliation to Russia' but hey, Egypt have got a bad deal here too. And well, it could have happened anywhere else, it could have been a plane flying over Turkey.
Joe: It's a message to Russia and a message to...
Niall: What's going to happen to Egypt now? They are going to lose - I heard a figure - 70-80% of their tourism...
Harrison: I saw 80%.
Niall: ...in the region and probably nationally as well.
Joe: Just to make clear we're not saying that there was a bomb on the plane; western governments are saying that there was a bomb on the plane and that's just simply a bogus narrative to back up the ISIS threat. And it's a narrative that would say that ISIS is angry at Russia for bombing ISIS in Syria.
Niall: Why don't we like the bomb on the plane theory?
Joe: We don't like the 'bomb on the plane theory because...well, for a start there's no evidence for it. But again there's not a lot of evidence for what exactly did happen. Based on circumstantial evidence and context, we can say that it's likely that the plane was shot down, one way of another, by agents of western governments or those working on behalf of and even behind western governments; the US empire effectively, because in the context that makes the most sense.
Niall: You initially wrote something, offering a broader possibility that there may have been a natural cause for it. Could you relay how you narrowed it down from that to a manmade cause of some sort?
Joe: Well my initial thoughts, the first thing that came to my mind, strange as it may sound, was that it may have been some kind of an EMP, an electro-magnetic pulse from somewhere, a plane, a drone, from the ground, that fried the electrics, effectively, as least on the plane and caused it to crash. That was immediately afterwards when there was very little information. And since then, looking at the way the west has responded to it - Ok, that was my immediate response but as I said there wasn't much information. The reason I then considered a meteorite or a meteor, essentially blowing up in the sky above the plane and causing shock waves that blew the plane down, was because of the anomalous way in which the plane is recorded or reported to have 'fallen' out of the sky. That it effectively could really not have descended from an upward trajectory to a downward trajectory within one second; it's basically physically impossible to change altitude in less than a second to the extent that it was reported to have done so it made sense to me that, in that sense, it was some external force that pushed the plane down at significant speed. But since then, looking at the wreckage, I tended more towards some other kind of effects on the plane.
Niall: There are some really weird things to pick out in the photos. Now this is a past-time that is a tricky one because people often look at photos and say, "Oh! That's what it shows." when that's not really what you're seeing. And we're also not qualified to positively identify what is in a photo and what is not. However we've got some idea of what crash sites look like and one of the first things is - a lot of the photos are immediate, some of them are from the day...
Joe: They are from the same day, within a few hours of the plane crash. The plane crashed about 100 kilometres. So, within about an hour the biggest and nearest emergency responders went. And it certainly wasn't taken them more than an hour from the plane being reported missing. You know, the plane's reported missing, you do a few checks and Ok, it's not actually on radar anymore, there's a problem, let's get out to its last known position. So they would have been there fairly quickly, certainly within a couple of hours.
Niall: There was no smoke.
Joe: No. So, if it was knocked out of the sky by some concussive force like a blast from a space rock or something like that, the plane would have been thrown out of the sky, hit the ground and would undoubtedly have burst into flames, to one extent or another, with a large amount of fuel onboard. Because the plane was only 23 minutes in to a 4-5 hour flight so it probably had 80% of its fuel onboard, largely in the wings.
Niall: I think it's a much longer flight... (Bad audio)...
Joe: Yeah it's about 5 hours. So, when we looked at the images of the wreckage there were a lot of strange things about it; one of them being basically no images - and there were quite a few images - of the wreckage smoldering or smoking in any way, if you look at MH17 from last year, for example...
Harrison: It was on fire.
Joe: ...it was on fire. I think it was on fire for the whole day or maybe longer. But there was also no evidence of some kind of fire retardant foam... (inaudible) ...fire engine at the scene...
Niall: No.
Joe: ...you just saw Jeeps and that kind of thing. It's almost like by the time they had started to take pictures of it, any fire engines or fire department vehicles that had been there had a quick look around and saw there was no fire so they took off.
Niall: Nothing for us to do.
Joe: And what was left was the recovery, the search and rescue personnel. But you see rescue workers on that day, standing in the middle of the wreckage, no fire, no smoke; there really isn't any sign of the earth being scorched. We're talking about thousands of gallons of kerosene here.
Niall: And there's no drag marks. Where a plane hits and the momentum moves it forward a bit - it just seems to be an imprint on the ground.
Joe: Right. That's the other really strange thing. If you look at other pictures of crash sites, planes, when they hit the ground, tend to make quite a large hole. Or at least dig up a lot of dirt because they're quite heavy, but you don't see that in any of these images. You just see the plane broken open and mangled on the ground. Ok, the official narrative is that the plane broke up mid-air. But if you look at one of the interesting images it's basically the outline of the front section of the plane from the cockpit back to the wings, which is more or less the whole plane. And it is on the ground and it's laid out as if someone put it there and then kind of destroyed it somehow. It doesn't seem to have burned in the typical sense, as we mentioned, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of fire. But you can see this looking from the height that the pictures were taken, it's just this outline from the front fuselage to the cockpit and back to the wings - and the wings were still attached, more or less, to the fuselage. So that half of the plane, apparently, if it broke up mid-air, was still intact; the front half of the plane including the wings came down intact.
Niall: It came straight down.
Joe: Yeah, it doesn't come down if the wings are still attached. It comes down either nose down or maybe it still have some aerodynamic effect capabilities with the wings on it - because the wings are - or what's left of the wings - very clearly still attached to the fuselage. But there's no hole in the ground where it's sitting, it's just flat on the ground and just mangled, kind of broken open.
Harrison: Different pieces just scattered about. So, you've got the nose just facing up and all that part looks charred and the other parts aren't pristine but...
Joe: But they're not melted.
Harrison: No they're not melted they're just kind of mangled. But there's no scorch on it. And if you look at the luggage it's all in pristine condition.
Niall: Some parts completely fried, other parts were recognisable. Like the tail which was some way away. There's a section of the carriage itself, I guess part of the front half of the plane, and it starts to curve down as if towards the nose. And the nose itself has a slight dent in one side but it's sitting upright and it's recognisable as the nose because it's still white, but the wings are just - you can't say they're scorched because it's hard to say, there's no smoke there's no...
Joe: It looks more like there's something - not that there's a lot of images you can get for this - but it looks like something, like an electric burn in effect, not that that caused a fire, but that it had a massive amount of electricity run through it that effectively just disintegrated or blew apart the structure.
Harrison: It looks kind of like those cars on 9-11.
Niall: Ohhh. You're going there.
Joe: Yeah. But if you take a look at it you see, obviously planes have insulation closest to the exterior, so the outer skin of the plane, there's just normal fiberglass insulation - rock-wool, whatever you want to call it - and there's chunks of this stuff lying in the middle of the destroyed fuselage, it's dark but it doesn't look like it's burned, and like I said there's no evidence of a fire having happened. And even this fibreglass or rock-wool is undamaged, it's not burnt but its right there in a place where you would expect, you're assuming that the plane burned up. And I like mentioned the front section just behind the cockpit, there's quite a lot of plastic on the inside part of the plane, as everybody knows the inner façade of the plane is plastic, and there's no sign of that melting or any of that. From what you would expect to be an intense heat from the fire burning from large amounts of kerosene. So, it's very anomalous. It suggests that something very, very strange happened to this plane. The other major strange aspect is there's at least one report of a 10 month old baby Darina Gromova was her name, and there's one report that she was found 34 kilometres away from that main crash site.
Niall: Thirty - say that again?
Joe: 34 kilometres away from...
Niall: That's a long way away. Is she located as the furthest thing in this radius?
Joe: Yes.
Niall: Wow.
Joe: Her name means: Thunderbolt Gift.
Niall: A literal Russian to English translation.
Joe: Yeah.
Niall: Woah.
Joe: Thunderbolt Gift. She was found and how she could possibly have gotten that distance from the plane is not explainable; technically it's impossible. It's the kind of second impossible thing. Because the plane broke up mid-air and therefore it fell pretty close to the break up point, within a few kilometres let's say; the plane once it's falling down it doesn't travel, under no power, it doesn't start to glide, it's falling. It doesn't travel much further than a few kilometres from the point where it becomes no longer aerodynamic.
Niall: It's impossible and yet there it is.
Joe: It's impossible, yeah. She should be in a certain radius; a relatively small radius. And of course she's not going to be blown 25-30 kilometres by wind or something like that.
Niall: There was an initial report from the day itself which had the pilots last communication with Egyptian air-traffic control, was to complain of the 'malfunctioning wireless devices' - that's a quote - and requesting emergency landing at the nearest airport, presumed by the media to have been Cairo to his west or El Arish to his starboard side. That's since been retracted now. The official story now is that no, he had normal chatter with ATC behind him in Sharm El Sheikh and that was it silence.
Joe: That's another example of things to look for in the immediate aftermath of these events. When you hear initial reports, there's no reason to disbelieve them, unless you're going to posit that for some reason some air-traffic control person was spreading disinformation from the very beginning. Why would he spread that kind of disinformation? It doesn't make any sense.
Niall: He was talking to local Egyptian reporters so this is not your western media so it's more likely to be true.
Joe: Right. I can't imagine why someone would do that, even if it was spreading disinformation, it's not really very effective disinformation, that kind of detail or whether he did or didn't say it, doesn't impact on any narrative; unofficial or otherwise. So, that's strange - why that was covered up or deleted from the official record we don't know. The other thing deleted from the official record was, from the very first people who got there, Egyptian emergency responders said that they heard voices from inside the fuselage, or somewhere.
Niall: They said pained voices, i.e., the sounds of people crying for help.
Joe: And that's unmistakeable. You're in a desert, there's nothing around you apart from the wreckage of a plane, apparently there's no fire, so effectively there's no noise, it's very, very quiet; if there's some human voices in the vicinity, that are within earshot, you're not going to mistake them.
Niall: Then you go and speak to a reporter.
Joe: Your whole system is tuned for: there might be someone alive here. Your ears are tuned for the sound of a human voice, and apparently someone heard something but that was then deleted from the official record. So, these are some of the strange and anomalous factors that lead us to believe that this was not a bomb. Because first of all, there's no hard evidence and there won't be. There's obviously no evidence from what we're seeing, under normal circumstances, about what happened to a plane that crashed, until a full investigation has been done and that takes a few months or certainly a few weeks before anything can even be suggested of what possibly happened. We need some hard evidence but...
Harrison: Wait a second Joe; I thought that plane crash investigations took over a year.
Joe: Well MH17 takes over a year but that's only when you're fixing the data around a policy. So, given that this bogus theory about an ISIS bomb has been pushed on everybody in the world, effectively, we're left with no other option but to analyse the available data ourselves and this is what the available data is saying to us. That it's much more complex and much more bizarre than a simple bomb in the luggage department caused this plane to crash. Like I said in the article I wrote about it, to me the wreckage looked like it was effectively fried in some way. (Was an 'exotic energy weapon' used to down Russian plane in Sinai?) The people were kind of dismembered - well, that's the other thing -
Niall: The state of the bodies.
Joe: Many bodies were apparently dismembered; you can imagine what that means yourself. The problem is that that doesn't usually happen with plane crashes like this; people don't just fly apart. It would take quite a strong impact. It's very difficult - not to be too gruesome - but it's very difficult to pull someone's arms and legs off.
Niall: They have difficulty accounting for that. I think they were suggesting it was sheer force. Which if you're coming down at high speed - maybe and yet sky divers will jump out of a plane...
Joe: No. Terminal velocity for a human being is 270mph so that's not...
Niall: So, it wouldn't have. But, even if you were to go with that, many of the bodies with missing limbs were still strapped to their seat.
Joe: So, that's another bizarre aspect to it, how these bodies ended up in this condition.
Niall: The phantom voices remind me of something. When MH370 disappeared there were reports about people making phone calls for help. Like family members back in china and elsewhere were going - I'm telling you.
Joe: Which flight was that?
Niall: MH370. I'm just throwing it out there because it reminds me of it. What connection is there, I don't know. But people wouldn't just make that up. You might have some hysterical people who imagine things but a lot of family members were saying, "No, I'm telling you my cellphone called and I was talking to"...maybe it wasn't that far I don't think people had - Sorry, their phones were still on. Their phones were ringing, suggesting the plane was somewhere.
Harrison: And that the phones were still operational.
Niall: Yes, at least hours after the plane had disappeared.
Joe: The plane and the wreckage reminds me a little bit of what happened on 9-11, to the World Trade Center towers. This glaring inconsistency with the...
Niall: Something else happened.
Joe: Yeah, you don't need to be an engineer to look at the collapse and see that it basically turned into dust which is not the way buildings collapse. They don't turn into dust; they don't plume up in large amounts of dust and effectively destroy the entire building. Of course, we've speculated in the past that some kind of...
Niall: They also don't just collapse just like planes don't just fall out of the sky.
Joe: Right. But to do that, some kind of exotic technology - and I use the word exotic, simply to mean that it's not conventional, it's not in the public domain that this technology exists; some energy source that could break, almost at a molecular level, physical material apart.
Niall: Particularly specific materials. The luggage was all collected from this crash in Egypt.
Joe: So, the other interesting thing about the crash of the Russian plane is that the Israeli military was holding its biggest ever military exercises in the Araba desert which is basically the south of Israel/Palestine.
Harrison: It's just across the border from the Sinai there.
Joe: It's right across the border; it's a continuation of the Sinai desert effectively. So the Israeli's had been conducting military exercises since the 18th October through to 5th of November.
Niall: Officially concluded on 30th but then there was a report in Israel that they decided to extend it till 3rd so it did cover the period.
Joe: So, this is obviously reminiscent of 9-11 when several military exercises were going on that day. And of course assumption there is that military exercises can be used as cover for other types of 'exercises' that have a very specific and temporary agenda or goal. In the case of 9-11 those exercises were used to cover up the situation that happened on 9-11, to the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. And in this case, obviously these military exercises could have been a cover for some kind of weapon being used to bring down the Russian plane. What kind of weapon that was, well we mentioned exotic energy weapons and there is a lot of information out there on directed energy weapons, that usually means lazers, EMP's, electro-magnetic pulse weapons, and even microwave weapons. But if you look these up you'll find EMP's are designed to fry the electronics in a building or some target and not effecting human beings; lazers are self explanatory, and microwave weapons so far have mainly been deployed as anti-personnel, effectively, where a certain intensity of microwaves are directed at a person and it heats up the skin and creates a burning sensation on the skin - it probably does actually burn you, it makes you run away. So, they're crowd control weapons effectively.
Obviously the applications that they're being touted as being used for are quite limited; they probably don't fully exploit the potential of these directed energy weapons. For example, to put it simply, the energy input or output could be increased to create a much more destructive effect on a particular target.
Niall: Another connection with 9-11 is the hurricane or cyclone.
Harrison: Sorry, before we get to the hurricane. Joe, in the article you put up on Sott.net just today, you had a couple of quotes from earlier this year on these types of weapons and just today or yesterday, Ashton Carter in the states was talking about the military's new steps that it's taking in countering Russian aggression. So, he said that, "The United States was modernizing its nuclear arsenal, investing in new technologies such as drones and a new long-range bomber, as well as lasers, an electromagnetic ray-gun and new systems for electronic warfare." The defence chief hinted at additional new weapons that would be, "Surprising ones, I really can't describe here."
Niall: If what we're suggesting is true, and the Russian government has a good idea that that's true, what Ashton Carter just said to them was, "Ner ner, ner ner ner - we did it." That's an admission. He chose yesterday to say it right or after the crash?
Harrison: I don't know if it was yesterday but it was after the crash.
Niall: Right, that's him gloating. Assuming this scenario is in the ballpark.
Harrison: Yeah. And 'Countering Russian aggression', (Laughter) ...right. In a sense that's true right?
Niall: Well they are aggressing on American intelligence assets and American dominance. "It's our world; get your hands off it!"
Harrison: He also said something about Russia and China having the gumption to challenge the world order.
Niall: I saw that today yeah.
Joe: How dare he, how dare Putin do such a thing? The world order being America reigns supreme - it's just fundamentally unfair and unjust, the American position. Just because you've managed to insinuate yourself into a position of relative hegemony or absolute hegemony as you might see it, it doesn't mean that no-one's allowed to challenge you if they're able. You're meant to...
Niall: It doesn't mean you're allowed to do whatever you want to maintain that, including knocking planes out of the sky.
Joe: Right.
Niall: The other anomalous thing was this cyclone. It was the first cyclone to ever make landfall on the Arabian peninsular. People, that's unusual, at least in known history, no cyclone coming up the Indian Ocean has ever veered to the west; it's supposed to veer to the east into Pakistan or India. You may occasionally get an arm brush Oman and dump a lot of rain. But the eye of it went almost directly west, headed for Yemen. So we've got a natural event occurring simultaneously that's doing weird things. We bring that up because there was a similar thing with Hurricane Erin.
Joe: Hurricane Erin was off the coast of New York or tracking in that direction on 9-11, when this, what we assume to be an exotic weapon, was used on the World Trade Center towers to bring them down. So, there's a possibly link there between this kind of weaponry and the energy, perhaps, generated by major hurricanes; how that actually works, well, we'll have to get back to you on that one. But we're talking obviously hi-tech here, very hi-tech, what people would assume is only possible many years down the line.
Niall: We've gotten a lot of flack over the years for putting some incidents - I'm talking in general here not just aircraft incidents - down to natural causes whereas many would like us to see the hidden hand of the empire, the shadow government, behind all or most of these events. Now, we occasionally enjoy lampooning those who see HAARP and chemtrails behind every cloud - excuse the pun. But the powers that be do have some god-life tech and they do use it. The thing is our general point, our base-line if you like, is that as much as they do stuff, it's all happening that within a system that is far bigger and produces far more things and has far more energy available to it, than the powers that be could ever manipulate and control. Where it gets really mind melting is that both they and nature can do things that produce practically indistinguishable results. So, in this scenario here where it looks like plane's been fried by some kind of EMP weapon - say that's one possibility - that still doesn't exclude that nature can do that and better. If you have an EMP resulting from a nuclear explosion in the vicinity and a shock-wave - it can produce the same results; it can produce anomalous effects on specific materials. The study of the Tunguska event back in the 1908, show that there were changes in the genetic profile of flora, fauna and people that were under the track of the object as it came in, and not just in the vicinity of where it exploded. There is probably also space-time distortions caused by meteors and other natural events not just this.
Harrison: Tornadoes.
Niall: Tornadoes. Think of a tornado; when it sticks a chair up a wall and inside of it and the chairs intact and the walls intact too; the two have been put together somehow. This happens all the time, these kinds of bizarre things.
Harrison: Well, when I try to put myself in the mind of a good ol' American weapons manufacturer or weapons guy, the first thing that they come up with is; how can I weaponise this? So, just think about some of the weird stuff that goes on on the planet. And what, in a broad category, can be called 'natural phenomena'; now, by natural I'm including things that could probably be called supernatural by most but I call it natural because it seems like a natural part of the universe we live in. So, we've got precedents for this that has become public, like the army's remote viewing program and things like that. Where they take a phenomenon that does exist, that is real - despite what the sceptics say - and they try to weaponise it; "How can we use this for intelligence and operations?" Now if you just look at tornadoes, the weird stuff associated with tornadoes, even a lot of the weird things associated with psi-phenomena, you've got to think that there's someone in these command structures that thinks, "How can we weaponise this?"
Now the questions are: Have they figured it out? Have they been able to weaponise these things? And what would that look like if they'd been able to do so? If you think about a tornado somehow seemingly changing the properties of matter of the objects involved to the point where they can fuse together in such strange configurations, how might that look? It might look exactly the same. You might have some really weird things going on that would just look like weird natural events; those weird anomalies that people can't explain and they say, "Well, that's kinda weird but we can't explain it and it's just a tornado so we'll just forget about it because it's just one of those weird things that you can't explain." And Joe, you wrote about some of the weird things in Sicily where some weird stuff was happening, do you want to talk about that a bit and give us some examples?
Joe: Yeah that was in 2004 in a place, a little village of 50 people called Canneto in Sicily, in Italy. Basically most of what got into the western press was that spontaneous fires were erupting in the village in peoples homes, washing machines were spontaneously burning. Eventually they reported that water pipes were burning; anything electrical was bursting into flames but there were other aspects were reported as well.
Harrison: When it started burning, didn't they decide to cut the power?
Joe: They did cut the power and they kept burning. Even to the point that electrical wires that they had actually cut in half were still sparking and burning without any power going into the entire village. One guy - this is a report from an Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera - said that his windshield was pierced and shattered by something that he described as an invisible drill-bit. I think there was something that made a hole in his windscreen but there was nothing to be found -
Niall: Or that he could see the hole forming, he just couldn't see what was causing it.
Joe: Maybe, yeah. Other very strange things include a certain type of plant in the area being burnt but only that plant, burned right down to its roots, into the ground. So, its roots system into the ground were kind of carbonised as well.
Harrison: You've got a picture of that where this bush, in the middle of all other bushes, and just that bush is fried, and nothing else around it.
Niall: Not only that - that type of plant, elsewhere in the village, is also fried. It's species specific - that's bizarre.
Joe: Peoples fire alarms were going off on their own; electric gates were opening and closing by themselves; compasses were completely useless they just went completely haywire; peoples USB sticks were instantly wiped of all information, they had been effectively demagnetised. There was Italian civil air-defence. And a helicopter for the civil defence forces was in the area. And there's a picture of a scene of it being chased by something similar to a UFO. And the helicopter had a malfunction and it was forced down and the rotor blades were found to have been damaged, they had burst open in certain sections of the rotor blades. They described that as 'this unknown object had changed the electrical conductivity within the blades', that was the official conclusion.
Niall: Like the flow was reversed or something.
Joe: Who knows? There were obviously a lot of reports into what was going on because it lasted for two weeks, or longer. And there was a confidential file that was sent to the civil defence and the office of the prime minister and the hypothesis was that secret military tests were to blame.
Niall: And before they could announce it, the findings of the report, it was pre-emptively leaked and spun across the western media as: 'Italian government says aliens did it' (Laughter). So, someone was blowing smoke there.
Joe: Well, it was the local people who were suggesting that - obviously trying to come up with all sorts of explanations trying to understand what was happening - they decided for a while that it was demons and they called the priest in. A lot of people were saying aliens, but the alien thing seems to have been a reasonable enough conclusion because there were UFOs seen on several occasions in the area. And even if that was part of the official report, that's reasonable enough.
Niall: They didn't say, but they said some unknown source was using an enormous amount of EM (electro-magnetic) energy.
Joe: So that was something that was interesting, when you consider all of those effects, which would suggest some kind of electro-magnetic energy being beamed over the village. And this confidential report saying that it was 'secret military tests', when you put those two things together, you're able to advance the hypothesis or theory that some aspect of the military or the military industrial complex whatever that is on this planet, has this advanced technology and has been testing it at different times in the last maybe 10 or 20 years. And they train people up on it to figure out how it works and the effects that it has and it's, now at least, certainly at this point, part of their arsenal, of weapons that they can use. It's top-secret and very useful in the sense that...
Niall: It's practically untraceable.
Joe: Exactly. You're talking about something that, as far as conventional science is concerned, doesn't exist and won't be possible for many years into the future. And you have it and you're able to use it, it's effectively anonymity, your use of it. And also forever being exposed that you are first, that you did and you have this technology. So you can imagine that it's very useful. What I'm wondering right now is, assuming this is correct, what the Russian response to this event and, if they understand it - and I assume they do understand it for what it is, which is...
Niall: A counter-attack to what's they did in Syria.
Joe: Right exactly. A fourth generational attack - fourth generational war is a war that, after the cold war where third generational war is more or less conventional war, fourth generational war is: all gloves are off; we can do whatever we want. We basically carry out terrorist attacks against you; economic, political, propaganda - anything.
Niall: Information. The idea of "we'll put our army here and you put yours there and let them duke it out", those days are gone.
Joe: Especially with the idea of nuclear capability. Nuclear capability has tended to - certainly amongst the nuclear powers - take the possibility of any conventional war off the table. So, you have to go for unconventional war which is fourth generational war; which is to attack your enemy in multiple different ways; political, social, economic; hitting your enemies' civilian population, even committing genocide against them if it serves your goal of 'winning'.
Niall: Which is why the US announced it would strike out for full-spectrum dominance in the 90's. Russia is weak at this point - Russia and/or the east Soviet system, "Let's go for it. Full spectrum, we want it all".
Joe: So, the question here is, assuming this is true, and we have every reason for thinking this technology does exist, you'd assume that Russia with its long tradition of investigation into electronic war-fare, let's say, or directed energy weapons. Russia is well aware of this technology and even has the same capability itself, so let's assume that Russia does know what happened to the flight over Egypt, or at least who's responsible, or certainly they got the message that it was from that particular quarter, it's unlikely that they're going to expose it all in a report like, "Yeah, it was this directed energy weapon that Mossad has and they did it because we're pissing them off in Syria." That's unlikely to form part of the final report. So what do they do? I'd assume based on the way Putin and Russia have acted so far, that they'd respond - if possible - in some non-linear way or some oblique way. Russia doesn't have a tendency or a history, at least Russia under Putin, of fighting fire with fire they always look for a more non-linear or oblique way of responding and furthering their own agenda. But you can imagine this is certainly being felt as a pretty serious blow to the Russians, not just in terms of the shooting down of the plane and the killing of 220 people but also the threat that it could happen again, it could be used again.
Harrison: Well if we look at the immediate response so far in terms of the investigation, they're taking the same line they took after MH17 which was, let's wait until we do an investigation before we say anything.
Joe: Right. That's also the rational response because it's also buying them time, while they think about what they can do.
Harrison: Also, they've suspended all flights from that airport and I think that they're working on getting all the Russians in Egypt, out. From that response it looks like they're taking it as some kind of threat that they're taking preventative measures for.
Joe: Yeah, possibly. Although certainly, if you consider the Russian position, they were given a problem with this shoot down, and in terms of how they're going to respond, if they don't want to go with the narrative being pushed by the Brits and the Americans, that it was a bomb and ISIS did it, because that probably wouldn't go down very well at home. So, they don't embrace that, they dismiss that and say look let's follow procedure, let's not speculate, let's have the investigation and then we'll find out. But in terms of removing people from Egypt, it seems that that is something they would be expected to do by the Russian people. Because the Russian people are left with no answers; on the one hand they're getting western propaganda and that it was ISIS, on the other hand they're getting nothing from the Russian government. The Russian government is saying, "No it wasn't a bomb." or, "We don't know." But in the meantime then, what do you do? If there's any possibility that it was a bomb by ISIS, let's say, the Russian government would be expected to protect the interests of the Russian people in Egypt. Even more so because the Brits, the cynical, disingenuous Brits, ramped up the, "Oh, we're going to protect all our uber-special citizens...
Niall: They are so cynical.
Joe: ...out of Egypt." So, it was the British who began with the, "No more flights to Shark el Sheikh. Get all of our passengers" of course they completely botched it! And left a load of them stranded there for days.
Niall: They made some effort anyway.
Joe: But that forced the Russians hand...
Niall: To do as they've done. This is the same British government that wouldn't send a single plane - except fighter jets - to Yemen, to take out hundreds, at least, of citizens, from Yemen, when the Saudis started bombing the crap out of it; that were saved by the Russians who took them out of there. Aaach!
Harrison: My guess for what's going to happen with this investigation - who knows if it will or not - but if the Russians live up to their image, that they've presented of wanting the truth and wanting to tell the truth, well they'll do that as close as possible. So in this investigation, first of all, if there's no evidence of a bomb, they'll say that. If there's something weird they'll say, "There's some kind of an electrical anomaly and this happened and somehow the engine exploded but we have no idea how that happened." So, they'll just say that, "We don't know. This is what happened but we don't know."
Joe: Right. They can describe what happened; let's say they don't know how it happened or what caused it. And that might be enough. And it's certainly hoped that they would do that because - obviously it would satisfy us, to an extent but it would also be a partial exposure, at least, of what can happen. Without saying what it is; without giving exact details. To at least introduce the concept to the public mind that planes...
Niall: And that awareness of it might help protect them.
Joe: And at that point the speculation would be in Russia's favour. At that point you would expect Russia to be encouraging people to speculate on what this might have been. Because there should be enough people out there, if they describe what happened to the plane, without saying what caused it, there might be enough people who would put together the details and say, "Well, what are you saying here; some kind of high energy weapon?" And Russia would be saying "Well, maybe, I don't know, if you think so."
Niall: Their pattern thus far, they just don't lie. They leave things out of course. They're clever; they're cunning but they just don't come up with bullshit. So, I can't imagine them making an exception to this.
Harrison: But as for a direct response, it'll be on the level of...
Niall: I want to see Russian warships landing in Sanaa. (Laughter)
Harrison: ...kind of like Ash Carters statement here about the exotic technology and the weapons. On the surface he's just saying, "Well, this is what we're doing in response to Russian aggression." But at the same time if this scenario is what actually happened, it's a pretty nasty looking thing that he's doing. If the Russians were to respond, I think it'll be this asymmetric response in the sense that, they will respond to this actual attack on them but it won't be a direct attack in the sense that you'll be able to see, "Oh, well this was a direct response to that." Who knows, it might be something like you're saying, increasing what's currently going on; upping the military situation in Syria or doing something along those lines.
Niall: Besides Syria, remember that's only recent, this is a fly on an elephant in terms of the constant steady beat, that the world of a whole is shifting away from the hegemonic system. Trade in non-US dollar currency denominations continues to increase; this hasn't put a dent in that. Trade deals in the east continue to increase. It's just going like a constant steady beat. I think if you asked a Chinese diplomat, his opinion on what just happened, he would say what he said about Ukraine and remember there's a civil war situation there, he'd say, "It's all sound and fury."
Joe: It's the last desperate -
Niall: It doesn't change a thing, "We're the banker of the world tree."
Harrison: In other words, "We'll just keep doing what we're doing."
Niall: Yeah. And it'll aggravate them and they'll do more of their stuff and they'll make mistakes more often. There'll be glitches in these events that will be leaving people in no doubt - maybe not no doubt but at least enough of a glitch to make them not believe the story that's then presented. Even with the situation as it is there's got to be a lot of westerners, at least those who have spent the last month going; "Go Putin! Get ISIS! That's definitely a good thing." Who then saw this and went, "But hang on a second. This is Putin's fault for going in and getting ISIS?" To quote the Guardian: 'Putin's military adventurism in Syria is proof for downing the Russian plane over the Sinai.' People just aren't going to jive so much - those people who've spent the last month going, "Go Putin!" are not going to jive with the spirit of that message, as plausible as it might sound on the surface.
Harrison: Well you can see the narrative being formed; in relation to this whole ISIS thing and Russia's image and the way those two things are tied together. There's this article written by John Bradley. He contributes to: the Economist, the Foreword, Newsweek, New Republic, and Daily Telegraph...
Niall: No relation.
Harrison: (Laughter) Prospect, the Independent. So, he wrote this article just a day or two ago. The headline in the Spectator is; The Russian plane crash could undermine Putin's Syria Strategy. He writes, "it would also be the most unwelcome news possible for Vladimir Putin, who sold military intervention in Syria to the Russian people as a way of making them safer. In turn, opponents of Russian intervention - the US, Turkey and the Gulf Arab despots - would be privately elated. For does this not prove their argument that Russian intervention only complicates the situation on the ground while increasing the threat of terror attacks?" (Laughter)
Joe: Of course. And what do we see as a result of this plane crash? The Brits and the Americans immediately started pushing the bomb theory that ISIS did it, therefore this was blow-back for Russian intervention in Syria; it had just killed 224 Russian's - i.e. Putin had just killed 224 Russians by his action in Syria. That is clearly what they're pushing. And that is what they want to do. And they jumped on that immediately. And it's completely disingenuous in the geopolitical context. You have to immediately see that for what it is which is complete and utter horse shit. And just dismiss these people, dismiss that allegation, it's like somebody immediately capitalising on a weakness that they see in you and calling you all sorts of names that are not true whatsoever. Which is exactly what the Americans and British are doing and that should be ignored.
But anyway, we have a call from Brent in Pennsylvania.
Joe: Hi Brent, welcome to the show.
Brent: Hey. I was thinking, I didn't hear you guys mention it. The founder of RT was found dead. I think he was 57 and he died of a heart attack in a DC hotel, not too long ago. And I thought, given the timing, it just seemed suspicious to say the least. I kind of feel like if they wanted to cause a heart attack in somebody, that they could do it. The timing was interesting you know.
Joe: That was just a couple of days ago right?
Brent: Yeah, I saw the link up on Sott.net not too long ago. The other thing I was thinking about was that if the western powers that be were involved in bring down MH17 last year, it seems like they used conventional weapons to do that like a Ukrainian jet or whatever. So, maybe they learned their lesson, there's too many fingers being pointed now and they decided to pull a satellite out or some other hi-tech gizmo, in order to send a message this time that wasn't as easily traceable.
Joe: It certainly seems to be a ramping up of the pressure on Russia; going from demonising Russia - unfairly accusing Russia of effectively shooting down a plane load of people over Ukraine last year to shooting down a plane load of Russians over Egypt.
Brent: Yeah it's very strange. And I also read recently that they're sending a bunch of these, I think they're called; F-15-C's [Russia: Su-35 Flanker-E - USA: Boeing F-15C Eagle]. They're air to air combat jets to support the bombers who are supposedly bombing ISIS. But the only real reason they would be sending air to air weapons over there would be to threaten the Russians because they're the only ones with jets in the air.
Niall: Right. Good point.
Brent: Very interesting, very sketchy but those were my points and I just thought I'd bring them up.
Joe: Thanks a million for calling Brent.
Brent: Yeah no problem. Take care.
Harrison: Yeah that is kinda weird that this guy had a heart attack in DC. This comes, what, a week after one of the people in the American administration, (was it Clinton?) who said something about taking out RT and basically wanting to take out RT? Do you remember who that was Joe? Was it Nuland or Kerry or Clinton, one of them? [Clinton, commented last year and the senate commentary was made by many.]
Joe: Senator someone-like-that who was railing against RT and how America has to stop this, "vicious anti-American propaganda. Promoting the Putin dictatorship." bla bla bla. But it's interesting, as Brent just said that this guy died - of course people die of natural causes - happening just a few days after the Russian plane gets shot down over Egypt. It's another little addendum to the message; p.s. We don't like RT either.
Niall: It's kind of sneaky. To follow the pattern that Brent was just suggesting there. So, they use an explicit weapon to shoot down a plane in Ukraine, i.e. it was obviously brought down by a weapon; everybody saw that in the beginning and blamed it on Russia. Whereas here, in our scenario, they've gone dark, it's untraceable in many respects; to take down a Russian plane with Russian citizens. And of course they won't just take out someone close to the Kremlin, if this is what happened to him, it would happen in a way that is also untraceable. But the message to those in the know on the other side, it would be an unmistakeable message.
Joe: Right. He died in a heart attack this RT guy, right? Well there's a story in Victor Ostrovsky's book, By Way of Deception [The Making of a Mossad Officer]; Ostrovsky was a Mossad agent back in the late 70's or 80's and he wrote a tell-all book, well he told some of it. And one of the stories is about the way Israeli Mossad is able to induce heart attacks. And make it look like it was heart attack; no marks on the body, etc. etc. I can't go into the details because you probably don't want to know.
Niall: No.
Joe: Ok. Here are the details.
Harrison: But he said no. (Laughter)
Joe: Well what they do is, they break into your hotel room, run a bath full of cold water and put ice cubes in it so you get really ice cold water in the bathtub, and fill it up. And there are a couple of people who give you a quick injection, a sedative or something to knock you out. And then they, I can't remember what pill it is, applied as a suppository that gives you a fever basically, pushes your temperature dangerously high, and then they drop you into a bathtub of freezing cold water which is very likely to cause a heart attack.
Niall: And this was a method being described from the 1980's.
Joe: Right. Of course the Church committee on assassinations back in the 1970's...
Niall: 1973.
Joe: ...had this 'dark gun' - it's on video on Youtube if you want to look at it - they had this dark gun that is effectively an untraceable poison that kills you. It induces - I don't know exactly how it kills you but it kills you by 'natural causes' and the dart itself dissolves to nothing and the poison it uses is no longer traceable afterwards. This is spook methods 101. We're not talking about anything very covert really.
Niall: Fairly risky for him to go to Washington. Oh well.
Joe: Who Putin?
Niall: No this guy Mikhail Lesin.
Joe: But RT has a big presence in the US. It's getting very dicey at the minute, this event over Egypt is going to - the Russians have been talking almost non-stop about it and what to do about it, what it means and how they should respond to it. But they don't seem to have backed off on their Syria campaign. I think the best response to that kind of threat, that sneaky, cowardly, fundamentally evil threat that they issued to Russia by killing 224 innocent people should be, ideally, responded to by Russia, by an upping of their campaign in Syria; to take the gloves off and actively try and target any CIA agents or whoever else.
Niall: They're fair game in the context.
Harrison: Well, there's been a few interesting revelations - they're not quite revelations but the Russians have come out said things that people have pretty much known about for the past month, just in the past week. First of all they came out saying, that air defence units were deployed in Syria, they didn't say when exactly they were deployed but you can guess that probably they were deployed at the same time as everything else. So, they're just now making that public. But there are also these shady reports and rumours that have come out that Russia have also sent electronic warfare units and even Spetsnaz units into Syria. Now this all makes sense Vis a Vis the advisers are doing re-con missions or something like that, you'd expect that sort of thing for the missions that they're doing. They also came out about the Turkish border violation saying that the reason for that jet flying over Turkish borders was that it's systems had an air defence or surface to air radar or something that latched on to the system that was targeting the plane so he took the basic manoeuvres at which point he crossed over into Turkey. So, they've come out with that. And, last of all, there's just a lot going on in Syria and with the Russian presence there it will just increase. I don't think they're going anywhere; they're not going to be...
Niall: It is scheduled to increase. Just last week they just increased two or three-fold; the number of air-strikes or sites targeted.
Harrison: Yeah sites targeted. Because it's about the same number of planes and they can only do so many missions but on those sorties they can target multiple targets.
Niall: I think they more or less said that after the first week, they plan to increase it month on month. So, we can expect more Russians coming. In other words this is part of the same drum beat that goes on in the background, it doesn't matter what takes over the headlines in this asymmetric-BS. The Russian-Chinese are doing their thing and you can't stop them. The only thing you can do is to maintain the illusion that it's not happening.
Joe: Until at some point in the future. We have another caller on the line. This is Stephen from Tampa. Hi Steven!
Steven: Hi. I just wanted to mention a couple of things that I've come up with in my research. I work physically very hard so I don't have a lot of time to do a lot of research on the internet. But a good source for information that I've found is a gentlemen named Ziad Fadel, and he's out of Dearborne in Michigan. He has a website, I forget the website right now but he has hour by hour information of the battles going on in Syria and he's been on this issue for years and he is very competent. So anyway, I wanted to point that out. But my other field of inquiry has to do with Jeremy Scahill and the attack on Mother Agnus. I've found this organisation called Pulse Media, and I wanted to get your feedback because when I go to Google and put in Pulse Media and put in something like Propaganda; what I get is pages that link to Pulse Media. So I'm not getting pages in first three Google pages that have to do with people's critique of Pulse Media. And I tried to find out the funding of this group, Pulse Media - I didn't have a lot of time today, I'm on the highway now - but I'm having a lot of problems finding even just cursory, rudimentary information about this group, Pulse Media.
So, I just find it interesting that when you do some Google searches and you put in parentheses, sometimes it comes up with no results at all. So, I just find it fairly sketchy. But the organisation Pulse Media was the organisation, and an individual who worked for this organisation - I forget his name but he's listed as a personality on there, there's three people that are major [Idrees Ahmad, Danny Postel, Robin Yassin-Kassab] - but he is one that alerted Jeremy Scahill, like, "Hey, don't let Mother Agnus speak" and so forth.
Joe: Who is Mother Agnus?
Steven: Well, Mother Agnus was the woman based out of Syria and she was doing a campaign to present information that it was not the Syrian government that did the sarin nerve gas attacks.
Joe: Right, OK, yes.
Steven: And those personalties - she was due to speak at a Stop the War event in London where she was to present this information. But Jeremy Scahill and other people went into high overdrive to stop her from being able to speak and present her information at this Stop the War meeting in London and this was right during the ramp up for the attacks on Syria a few years ago. But Jeremy Scahill and others just rallied around and eventually Mother Agnus basically said that for, "Hey, for unity and peace sake I am rescinding my acceptance of this invitation to speak at this event." And anyway, this Pulse Media group, an individual there - I'm sorry I'm on the highway and didn't write it down - he was instrumental in communicating with Jeremy Scahill. And Jeremy Scahill went into high overdrive to stop Mother Agnus from presenting this information. I'm doing research on this and Scahill, in my opinion, is a very sketchy individual but I don't want to present allegations - I will present information that would promulgate suspicion on behalf of the readers, but I'm not going to present accusations.
What I'm just pointing out in this article is that we are all in an information war. And on this issue of Syria, I've been really surprised on how difficult it is just to research via the internet and find cogent websites and information that bear on this topic and I think it's pretty interesting. But just a couple of comments about, what you guys were talking about today about downing of this Russian airliner over the Sinai; I would say this, and I don't think it departs from what y'all have presented in your program today. But Ok, let's say there's always the ability that it was an act of nature or a malfunction and all that. And events that would compel you to think there's a connection to something else, nefarious or some kind of plot; yes there are instances or acts of 'nature' or 'malfunctions' that occur even in situations that are fraught where emotions and suspicions are heightened, so that's number one.
The second thing is, let's say it was - which is my suspicion actually - the United States and its partners that did this. That basically did this and it could be deemed a communication to Russia. And it's also - what are the pragmatic reasons for doing this? My opinion would be it would provoke a response on the part of Russia. And Russia they lose their footing and instead of directing the narrative and being somewhat in control of how this unfolds, they're in a reaction mode. In other words, they would say things or do things that would actually work at cross-purposes of their larger, long term goals. So, you could say it's communication to Russia and Putin. And then also at the same time - not mutually exclusive to the first point - is the idea that you want to get them off-guard, in a situation where they're not acting logically; they're not thinking three or four-steps ahead. And they come out making accusations against the United States or whatever.
But I did find it very, very interesting, some of the comments on the part of the western corporate propaganda media, which all of a sudden the British and US intelligence services 'know' it was a bomb by ISL before Russia even comes out and shares what its information is they're already coming out and saying that. I don't want to say that points to anything necessarily but there's definitely information and propaganda war that is central to the goals of the United States and its Saudi allies, and it has to do with its hegemony over the region. But it's definitely, this information war, we are all in the information war. And so being sceptical consumers - for lack of a better term - of the news and information coming from these disparate and very different sources - what I found difficult at this particular moment, is in doing more research, I was a 'man of the left' and I put a lot of stock in these 'progressive' outlets, in these personalities, like Democracy Now, Amy Goodman. And as I've been doing research what led up to and into the lies that they helped to promulgate, having to do with Libya's NATO invasion, I'm at a moment where there's just very few sources for authorities that I can refer to, that I can feel that I can have faith in, in terms of the information that is presented.
That's not to say they are not out there and I have not found then - I have. But the 'progressive left' are not the group of luminaries and thinkers that I am finding efficacious and authoritative and reliable, as per this particular geopolitical drama with Syria. So, I just find it very interesting. Anyway, let me hang up and I'll enjoy listening to the rest of the show.
Joe: Steven! I just wanted to ask you; what was the name of that person you said at the beginning from Dearborn, Michigan.
Steven: One second, I'm on the highway. So, this guy's name was...Ziad Fadel.
Joe: Ok, that's good enough. I can find him from there.
Steven: He's pretty cogent, his information and analysis, and I find it very valuable. He's got archives going back since this whole thing started developing in 2011. Anyway, thanks a lot guys! Take care. Bye-bye.
Joe: Alright thanks Steven.
Niall: Drive safely! I hope to god he was using a hands-free set. (Laughter) Well, to answer one of the comments he made. It's a good thing Steven; you're losing faith in your authorities, because that's one of the key things.
Joe: And there are no authorities...
Niall: Eventually you'll come to have faith in your own authority. In the context of having faith in people you can trust who are also of their own authority.
Joe: Combined authority. Yeah. Well we're kind of running - we're coming to the top of the hour here. And we are going to change the script a little bit here as we wind down and go for a popculture round up from - you know who - let's see if he's got anything to say about the Russian plane and exotic weapons.
Niall: You never know!
Joe: Take it away Relic.
Relic: Aaaand greetings once again everyone. It's your old friend Relic here. I'm still camped out in my cosy, one room, birch barked lined, log cabin on the snow flake packed shores of upper Lake Canada. Where the skies are so dark and clear, and the milk way is so thick that sometimes it looks positively creamy. In fact, just last week I was sitting out on the porch, looking up at the stars when I saw a bright red flaming meteorite blaze across the skies. Upon closer inspecting however, I realised it was actually Caitlyn Jenner riding on the back of Rudolph the red nosed reindeer; flaming indeed. For all I know they were probably on their way to some fancy Hollywood cross-dressing bestiality party with prime minister David Cameron as the guest of honour.
Audio: Yer darn tootin'!
Relic: And speaking of Holly-weird, it's time again for another orotund-iliquaint edition of Popculture roundup. Where we sneak into one of those high-falutin top-secret tinsel-town casinos and watch the over-priviliged rich and famous celebrities gather to double-down and place huge bets on who will wear the best wardrobe during this years Academy Awards red carpet. And like the one-armed bandits of yore, this intrepid reporter with microphone in hand, will bravely call the all-in bluffs of those Beverly Hill's lords and ladies. And in the end, with a little luck on my side, I'll show them who really has the nuts!
Audio: Shazayam.
Relic: So, let's see what the celebrity electronic ultra-net has in-store for us this week. In our first story, Sweeney Todd cannibalistic killer actor, Mr. Jonny Depp, gave an interview with the BBC recently where he admitted that, well; he just doesn't care if he ever wins an Oscar for best actor. And that, just being nominated is enough for him. The Rango actor joins long list of other people who don't really care at all whether he wins an Oscar or not; including me, all my neighbours, everyone I've ever known and everyone else on the whole-friggin planet!
Audio: (Sounds of crowd laughing) you got that right.
Relic: Meanwhile, Jonny Pirate now spends most of his time these days dodging the Australian health authorities who apparently are seeking to euthanase him for bringing his dogs into the country with out a permit! Fortunately for the mad hatter, he let his latest wife, a Miss Amber Heard, take the fall for this particular crime and she's now facing a 10-year prison sentence. You know I never realised, being that Jonny Jack Sparrow is only 5 feet 7 inches tall and that his new bride is young and blonde and flawlessly beautiful, it kinda gives a whole new meaning to the Australian phrase; Shrimp on the Barbie!
Audio: (The Shining) Here's Jonny!
Relic: Moving on now. The new Muppet Show is causing some controversy lately over its move from family, kid-friendly light entertainment to raunchy adult fare that includes references to sex and drugs and bestiality; there's news of Kermit dumping Miss Piggy for a younger sexier girlfriend named Denise. And that causes Miss Piggy to consider getting a bikini wax to get rid of her non-existent puppet pubic hair. And then there's Fozzie the bear who visits websites like Grindr, the gay-sex hook-up app, and is currently dating a human female who's worried that their animal-human hybrid children will want to poop in the woods. And even the kids show Sesame Street got in on the action where the; is he or is he not gay Muppet character, Bert, reads from a book called Fifty Shades of Oatmeal. True story! I guess it makes sense in a weird kind of way I suppose. Because in these final days witnessing the ultimate decline of that festering dung heap that is called 21st century America, it's not surprising to me that the television networks would use their ubiquitous, vampiric influence to deliberately warp the minds of it's nations youngest and most vulnerable citizens by shamelessly adulterating once cherished institutions like the Muppets who are known for their light-hearted, innocent, old-school comedy sketches and turning it all into some depraved triple-X adult entertainment.
Fozzie Bear: Wacka Wacka!
Relic: A sign of the times indeed. And it's a little known fact however that if this experiment in child degradation programming proves successful, TV network executives are planning to adult-ify several other beloved kids' shows. Starting with; Barney - the heroin addicted dinosaur; the I-don't-know-why-I-bother-to-Care Bears; then there's Booze Clues; Spongebob no-Pants; Dora the Whore-a; the Drug Rats; how about Doctor Suess' on-the-juice; Mr. Dress-up in Drag - for all you Canadians out there - the Barren Panty Stained Bears or the Teletubbies obesity gorge-fest challenge; and my all time favourite, Mr. Rogers back-alley crackhead neighbourhood. Yeah, that'll fix-em, fix-em good!
(Imagine by John Lennon plays in the background)
In our last story for the evening, to celebrate the 75th birthday of John Lennon on October 9th, his widow and performance artist Yoko Ono, helped organise an event in New York's central park, to imagine peace by setting the Guinness book of world records for the largest group of human bodies to form a peace sign. Now although Yoko's efforts to honour her late husbands' legacy was a success and did bring together over 2000 people for the event, the gathering failed to break the world record that was set in 2009 and still stands at about 6000 people. But all in all, considering the mountains of puerile nonsense that endless emanates from all the shenanigans from the celebrity elite these days, I must say it's kind of refreshing to see some famous people at least attempting to do something worthwhile on this planet in the name of peace. ("You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one")
And let us not forget this year marks the 35th anniversary of John Lennon's assassination on December 8th in 1980. So, please everyone, would you take a moment with me, ol' Relic, and commemorate the all to short life of a man who's unwavering vision and strength of purpose serves as a reminder to us all what power each of us has as individuals and together, to stand up and speak the truth. In memory to this late Beatle-ite, I'd like to share part of a song by Bob Dylan whose tribute to John Lennon appears on his latest album, Tempest;
Doctor, doctor tell me the time of day
another bottle's empty, another penny spent
He turned around and he slowly walked away
they shot him in the back and down he went
Shine your light
Movin' on
You burned so bright
Roll on, John
From the Liverpool docks to the red-light Hamburg streets
down in the quarry with the Quarry men
playing to the big crowds, playing to the cheap seats
another day in the life on your way to your journey's end
Shine your light
Movin' on
You burned so bright
Roll on, John
And alas, we've come to the end of another show for this week kids. I guess it's time for me to put an end to this worldly burden for now. I'm just too tired even to throw another log onto this dying fire. So, I guess I'll just meander off to bed now and hang my head down upon the pillow and enter that chasm and dreams that lies between darkness and the dawn. So, till next time kids, it's your old friend Relic here saying, always remember; Keep your feet on the ground and your eyes on the stars.
Joe: Alright, thanks for that Relic, that was moving and informative and....
Niall: Funny
Joe: ...all the good things wrapped into one. We're going to leave it here for this week folks. We hope you enjoyed the show. Thanks to our callers and our listeners and to our chatters, we'll be back next week with another show. Until then, stay safe and have a good evening.
Niall: And read Sott! See you next week. Bye-bye.
Harrison: And keep your eyes open.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter