empire watch, latest, United States

Three Days of Infamy…

Philip Farruggio

On Monday December 8th 1941 FDR stood before Congress and said “December 7th, 1941, a date that will live in infamy…” and the people of our nation rallied to the cause for justice.

After 9/11 Junior Bush also rallied our people by telling us to “Get down to Disney World in Florida…take your families and enjoy life…” Meanwhile, our great Military Industrial Empire was given the go ahead to gear up for WAR.

On March 19th, 2003 the Bush crew, led by former G.D. Searle CEO Rumsfeld (under his thumb the slow poison artificial sweetener Aspartame was born) announced the newest phony war term. That would be Shock and Awe as we carpet bombed and missile shredded Iraq’s infrastructure and citizenry. Why not, as this was good business for the Bush/Cheney donors who would then get contracts to clean up the mess or AKA Reconstruction. Isn’t infamy great?

This writer has written on more than one occasion my experience of that fateful morning of March 19, 2003. The night before I was glued to my television set watching the news shows from Canada, hoping for an eleventh hour cancelation of the impending attack on Iraq. A month earlier millions, no, tens of millions of people from throughout the entire world marched and rallied against the planned illegal and immoral pre-emptive attack on another sovereign nation. Well, that fateful morning all we had hoped for did not occur. My country did the dirty deed, and its karma still resonates.

I can recall standing in my living room, watching some asshole on either CNN or MSNBC describing the Shock and Awe like a cheerleader at a football game. I cried like a baby. Sadly, many of my friends and neighbors ‘Drank the Kool-Aid’ and marched along with the lying Bush/Cheney Cabal. Remember how many Democrats also wore their flag pins on those lapels? Months earlier, worrying about their upcoming re-elections, too many of them voted to authorize the Cabal’s pre-emptive attack plans. Miss Hillary, destined to be champion of her party in 2016, marched lockstep with the evil doers… and you wonder why she lost her bid for the White House?

Only a fool will deny that most of what our government labels as Al Qaeda or ISIL or whatever fanatical Islamic group is out there, would not even fit inside of a sports stadium with their numbers… IF we never attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq. Ditto for Afghanistan, where the Taliban had offered to turn over Bin Laden after 9/11. No, those two nations had to be controlled. Why? Well, as to Iraq, Hussein was going to begin selling his oil in Euros and not in the dollars he always traded in. Of course, Iraq’s oil reserves were massive and needed to be controlled by us.

Iraq was also right next to the other ‘AXIS of Evil’, Iran, and wouldn’t it be great to have our military right on their border? As to Afghanistan, well, it was a gateway and transport area for the whole oil and gas Caspian region. Plus, as we have later found out, Afghanistan is overripe with mineral deposits, one such being the lithium needed for the hundreds of millions of batteries for the sea of electronic gadgets used worldwide. As the late General Smedley Butler had written in his 1935 short book War is a Racket we need to see who profits from our military engagements AKA Wars.

All the European and Middle Eastern nations that are flooded with this severe refugee crisis should finger the blame on Uncle Sam and their own participation in NATO. For without those terrible attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria by this US led imperialist coalition, more hearts would be still beating, more towns and cities not destroyed, along with a decent way of life for millions.

Question is: When will the hundreds of millions of our citizens wake up and smell the coffee, or shall I say the burning sewage coming from our elected officials and mainstream media? Holding one’s nose is just not enough.

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn , NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his works posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, , Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has an internet interview show, 'It's the Empire... Stupid' with producer Chuck Gregory.


  1. George Cornell says

    Am I alone in being unable to read the word infamy without hearing a nostril-flaring Kenneth Williams in Carry on Cleo say “Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me”?

    • Some Random Passer-by says

      No, you’re not. It’s all I’ve heard in my head (over and over) since I saw the title…

      To be fair, it’s a good joke

      • George Cornell says

        And voted second best pun of all time.

    • Doggrotter says

      Rule 1. My favourite joke, cudos every time it’s repeated.
      Except in this case*
      *See Rule 1

  2. milosevic says

    I believe astronauts went to the moon

    — but nobody died on 9/11/2001, and the two airplanes observed crashing into the WTC weren’t actually there.

    Wow, you really are naive. What’s your evidence for that Official Faery Tale?

    Maybe all the people who weren’t actually killed in the WTC, are now living in a secret base on the far side of the moon. That would explain everything.

    • Mucho says

      I most certainly do not believe they went anywhere near the moon. If you believe that, you believe that the craft in this short film went to the moon, plus more anomolies than I care to mention.
      I don’t understand how people who can see through half of their bullshit can’t see through the other half! It’s like “Sure, they’re lying about 9/11, JFK etc, but…….the moon landings?……No, they’re definitely not lying about that. Those psychopathic, habitual liars are not lying about the moon landings!”
      There are far too many issues surrounding the moon landings for it to be believable, and it’s the same people running the same show.
      For example (one of hundreds!), can anyone seriously defend the Apollo 11 moon lander, as featured in this film?

      • You probably won’t see this mucho but in case you do I’m replying. I’ll read any response you make but will make no further comment as I don’t wish to get into an argument about the moon. When it comes to the moon to me it seems there are anomalies on both sides and so you have to choose the side where you think the anomalies can be explained. To me the biggest thing that hasn’t been explained is the light on the moon. As the sky is black on the moon both day and night and the astronauts went at lunar dawn to avoid extreme temperatures, the moon’s surface is very brightly lit with a black sky. I simply do not see how you can reproduce that on earth and no one has explained how it could be done. In fact, part of the reason I went to see First Man, the film about Neil Armstrong, was to see how they faked the moon landings. They couldn’t fake the light, you can tell the light is not the same and I thought it was interesting that the actor, Claire Foy, who played Neil Armstrong’s wife said the director had a hell of a job trying to fake the moon and said he thought it would have been easier to go there and do it for real. I could easily believe that. (My sister, who adamantly believes astronauts didn’t go to the moon, actually believes the director would have downplayed the faking so it didn’t look exactly like what they showed us for the moon landings – that’s sad, I think.)

        The other thing is that four unmanned modules (Japan, China, Russia and India) and the Google Reconnaissance Orbiter have taken images which match the kinds of images returned by the astronauts and even take images of where they landed. This is Neil Armstrong showing the landing against the GRO images – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqe7-rFRrkc

        I skipped through your video. The thing that struck me immediately is that the videomaker mentions military planes as if they should have the slightest thing in common. They’re not the same thing at all and they operate in a completely different environment. Also, if you look at the pressure vehicle inside, it’s a completely different story to the non-structural shell which is travelling in a vacuum and whose only job I think is to act as a shield against heat and small particles.

    • Cesca says

      You’re usually a fine commentator milosevic but that was a stinker for sure. Talk about drones and i’m right with u.

        • milosevic says

          when comments appear in the wrong place, it unfortunately removes most of the context that would make them comprehensible.

    • As you might imagine, milo, I’m very tired of being disparaged, having my opinions rubbished, being told to go away and shut up, that I need help, that I’m a disinfo agent, etc so I aim to prove my case for staged death and injury on 9/11 point by point.

      I invite anyone who reads this comment, especially if you think I’m an idiot, to respond with a comment that can contradict each of my 10 points. I will put each of my points in a separate comment and they will be in the format:




        Richard Drew, the photographer of the so-called Falling Man which appeared on the cover of Time magazine, just happened to be behind Robert F Kennedy when he was assassinated to capture photos of that historic event – amazing coincidence, no?

        In the sequence of photos taken by him the tower changes angle. How could that be? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMDkvJRHaNM&t=1m5s
        We also have to wonder about the vantage point from which this sequence was taken.
        The body also seems to be in strange positions for a jumping person. Generally, people jumping do not dive and where his legs are apart they seem awfully wide.
        It is interesting that the most famous position of the sequence matches the Hanged Man pose in the Tarot.

        There is a compelling explanation for how the “jumpers” could have been fabricated in the article linked to below.

        In the period leading up to 9/11, a group of Israelis managed to secure “temporary construction” passes to perform work on the 91st floor of Larry “pull it” Silverstein’s leased WTC 1. These passes gave them access to the entire WTC complex. The pretense was an art project called the “B-Thing” and the group is called Gelatin.

        After securing their passes, Gelatin proceeded to remove the heavy WTC windows of an office space on the 91st floor and reportedly constructed a prefab balcony outside of the building. Then they stretched “putty” around the windows and filmed it by helicopter as a stunt shown here. On Aug. 18, 2001 The New York Times even felt strangely compelled to cover this story and considered it newsworthy, or a backstory. On the right is the photo of the balcony as shown in the newspaper article.

        • milosevic says

          In the sequence of photos taken by him the tower changes angle. How could that be?

          Because the angle at which he was holding the camera changed?

          THIS is your evidence? Do you understand how the real world works, AT ALL?

      • milosevic says

        I think you have a potential winner with the Social Security Death Index thing, if that’s accurate. It would seem to merit more research; obvious questions to investigate are:

        — what is the normal error rate in this database?

        — what is the error rate for casualties in large-scale disasters, such as airplane crashes, fires, floods, earthquakes?

        That would give some basis of comparison, to evaluate how anomalous this actually is.

        It would also be worth trying to independently verify the real-life existence of the alleged 9/11 victims whose deaths are listed as having occurred on some other date (except 11/9, I suppose), which seems extremely odd. I don’t know how you could do this, that wouldn’t also be susceptible to fake records, except by tracking down actual relatives.

        I should say that I am quite willing to consider claims that other, lesser terrorist outrages, in particular the Sandy Hook School massacre and the Boston Marathon bombing, are largely or completely fake. There is a lot of evidence that seems to suggest this, so I don’t automatically discount the possibility. In an event of the scale of 9/11, however, it seems to me quite impossible that all the victims could be fake, without a lot of people noticing. (Even more so if there was an “evacuation” BEFORE the airplane impacts (or Japanese air-attack), as you suggest — how could this fact be suppressed???) That the number of victims might have been EXAGGERATED, and some of them completely fictitious, is entirely possible, and worth investigating, if somebody is inclined to do so.

        Regarding your often-repeated point about the scarcity of photographs of dead and injured, consider that 9/11 is far removed from being a “normal” disaster. Two 110-story buildings collapsed, or rather exploded, at freefall speed, which is an entirely unprecedented event. The people who were sufficiently unharmed by the airplane crashes and fires to descend 70, or 80, or 90 floors of stairs, escaped with only smoke or dust inhalation. Those who didn’t escape the buildings, were all killed. But they weren’t just killed, they were pulverized into fragments, by either the building collapses, or actual explosives, and could only be identified by DNA analysis. What kind of pictures would you expect to see, after such an event?

        Of course, you claim that the pictures and video which actually do exist, of people falling to their deaths from the upper floors of the WTC, are only “dummies”, 13-feet tall or otherwise. You base this claim on the circular argument that the deep-state planners would never dare to actually kill people, and that no evidence of actual deaths exists. It’s not clear, then, that any kind of photographic evidence would ever satisfy you, because whatever does exist, you simply dismiss as “fake”. It’s impossible to argue against a self-referential claim like that.

        • My first point, milo, is of the only image of a dead person I can find and I point out why I think it’s fake. If you think the image is of a real dead body please post a comment saying why.

          • milosevic says

            Quite frankly, I lost interest in such discussions when you dismissed the people filmed jumping out of the burning WTC, as “dummies”. Again, what kind of pictures would you expect to see, after such an event?

            I don’t see why I should waste my time pursuing circular arguments; that way lies madness, as you seem to have discovered.

            • I’ve posted a point about the dummies, milo, it’s just not published yet. It points out anomalies and also provides evidence that could certainly explain the dummies if not prove it. I don’t know what you think is so convincing about the jumpers. What makes you think they’re so human-like?

        • flaxgirl says

          Of course, you claim that the pictures and video which actually do exist, of people falling to their deaths from the upper floors of the WTC, are only “dummies”, 13-feet tall or otherwise. You base this claim on the circular argument that the deep-state planners would never dare to actually kill people, and that no evidence of actual deaths exists.

          I think you strawman me milo. There is no circular argument.

          How I assess which hypothesis, “real” or “staged”, is correct is to look at all evidence available as well as reasonable expectations and see if everything available supports one hypothesis or the other without contradiction.

          Your attitude is, “OK, we have these anomalies in the SSDI. Let’s ascertain that they’re correct and meaningful. My attitude is that anomalies in the SSDI are consistent with other evidence supporting staged so the likelihood of Ersun Warncke getting it wrong is probably relatively low – I’ll take it as anomalies. If he is wrong, someone down the track will no doubt point it out.

          I don’t say that the planners would never dare kill people. What I say is that they had no known motive, there would be very difficult repercussions to deal with and it’s relatively easy to fake – all we have to do is look at the visual evidence presented and we can see there’s very little to it. Faking all the dead people on the memorials is definitely a lot more involved but faking people is a part of covert operations so we know they have the techniques to do it.

          I agree that if people were really killed in the building collapses then probably many would be pulverised. At the same time, if 6,000 were injured then you probably would expect some bodies of people who were injured fatally rather than the 6,000 non-fatally wounded.

          Regardless of expectations, the simple fact is that there are no convincing signs of death or injury on the internet for 9,000 people. That is a simple fact and if you don’t find significance in the fact I find that very strange.

          I do not dismiss, milo, I’m not a dismisser, I give reasons. I give reasons for thinking that the body of the jumper is fake in Point 1 on this page and I can see that no one has commented to contradict, including you, so I can only infer that you agree that the body of the jumper looks fake – pretty compelling evidence, don’t you think? Likewise, there is no evidence of serious injury in the alleged injured – everything about them is perfectly consistent with “drill” and the image in front of the Pentagon is simply bizarre in my book.

          Do you see how it all lines up with staged death and injury? There is no compelling evidence that death and injury weren’t staged and quite a number of items that support that they were and there’s nothing compelling saying they were real so I have to ask you, milo, what persuades you that death and injury were real – even partly? What do you find wrong with the hypothesis that death and injury were staged completely – not to say that no one died by accident or whatever but the intention was to stage death and injury completely. I mean, if you think possibly, partly, what would the reason be to only do it partly not completely?

          • Admin says

            Who was inside the Towers throwing the 13ft -tall dummies out the windows?

            And why were they 13ft tall?

            And just a reminder – there IS evidence for death and injury – you just say it’s all fake, without producing any evidence or doing any research.

            You have not even bothered to talk to the McIlvaines before calling the son a fake and the father a liar.


            • Admin, I say WHY I think the evidence is fake. Surely, if you believe that it’s real you can state why you think it’s real. All you ever do is challenge what I say without ever putting forth why you believe death and injury were real. You need to defend your belief rather than simply challenge mine.

              What you believe is required to prove something is not what I believe is required. It’s not that I haven’t bothered to contact Bob McIlvaine, I choose other ways, however, the person who is currently attempting my Occam’s Razor challenge has met Bob McIlvaine a dozen or so times so perhaps in his response to the challenge (assuming he ever submits it) he’ll have the required information from Bob to prove me wrong – we shall see. The thing is even if Bobby were really Bob’s son it doesn’t prove that his death wasn’t faked as two members of the same family, obviously, could be in on the hoax together. In fact, I think they look reasonably similar. My point isn’t so much that Bobby isn’t his son but that the obvious photoshopping of the photo indicates they’re telling us it’s fake.



      — inside the flesh-coloured material that you would expect to be covering legs there don’t appear to be legs, the tube of material is completely flat but there is no evidence of legs having come out of the tube. Also I wonder at the flesh-coloured material – it doesn’t look like trousers either – rather the black material vaguely looks as though it should be trousers but not convincingly there either. Perhaps the flesh-coloured material is supposed to be legs in which case it definitely does not look like legs, it looks like material

      — although there are innards all over the show we cannot see breaks in the person’s body from which they would have emerged

      • Admin says

        This, like much of your ‘scepticism’ seems sourced in your refusal to do basic research. Look up comparable injuries in other bodies, talk to EMTs and ask them if the body looks real. They will explain what happens to human skin when its contents liquify under extreme pressure or impact. At the moment – as usual – you are wielding your ignorance like a weapon.

        • I had to laugh hysterically, I really did. That really is a good one, Admin. I think I can recognise a tube of material from skin without being an EMT. Hubris you reckon? While you may have little confidence in your own ability to judge anything and everything without the help of a professional I’m afraid I don’t lack confidence in my (or most people’s) abilities to that degree. I’ve never heard of the body liquefying as you seem to think it might except in sci-fi type situations. But for someone who seems to place so much importance on professional opinion you seem to place so very little on that of climate scientists.

          If you ever happen to consult an expert yourself please let me know their verdict.

        • Please note, Admin, that while the best you can manage is simply to challenge my offering (providing as absolutely always nothing so daring as a claim for the opposing hypothesis), no one else is challenging this point or any of the others except for Point 6 where milo makes a mild and unfair challenge as my point has more to it than he allows in his criticism.

        • Oh my and you’ve got an upvote.

          An appeal to common sense. I know, Admin, that you defer so very much to professional opinion in every possible situation but perhaps you may be willing to engage in applying some basic common sense here and seeing if just some good ‘ol common sense is not sufficient to work out that this body is indeed a fake.

          Below is an image of the inside of the human body mainly focused on the torso area. Neither of us are experts, however, I think you’ll agree that sausage-looking type innards come of out of the torso while out of the legs it’s longer muscles and bones type stuff.

          In the image of the dead body we see only one exit point at the inner thigh – which I have to say is not convincingly thigh-looking. Just below the thigh we see innardy-looking stuff, not the kind of stuff you expect to see coming out of the thigh, wouldn’t you agree? We also see the innardy-looking stuff on the right of the body. Where on earth did it come from?

          Zero exit points on the torso which isn’t looking in too bad shape considering.

          Really, if that doesn’t clearly look like a fake body to you, Admin, I’m simply at a loss for words, I really am.




      There are no convincing signs of injury in a single photo that can be found on the internet – grimaces but no convincing signs of injury. The photos fit “drill” better than they fit “real”. (To see the photos I have found scroll to Point 8 here – https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html but by all means, of course, find your own.)

      Hospital videos
      In a comment on this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw_IfI9BcEw&feature=youtu.be) showing empty wheelchairs at a NY hospital waiting for the injured, “Nicholas Orsini” said this:

      I was in NYC on 911 and tried to help at a triage unit..there were no injured there at all. It was about 8 blocks away from where the Towers were … I asked an EMS worker where the injured were and his response was there were no injured victims … I also watched vehicles coming out of the area and did not see any crushed or flattened vehicles at all … I was there from 12:00 PM until 9:30 PM … all the vehicles that were coming out of the WTC area were in good condition … it looked like a parade of firetrucks and ambulances … there were flatbeds that had vehicles on them in good condition – those flatbeds should have been carrying the crushed vehicles … what we saw on the media was very different from what I saw in person that day … I have many unanswered questions … it was a strange day indeed … I did see people covered in dust but no one had injuries that I could see … all the emergency prep work was done early and stayed unused … they had wheelchairs and stretchers and folding beds that looked like they were on display in front of hospitals and at the triage units … I saw no dirty linen bins at all … so tell me again about all the hundreds of injured people!!!! I wound up cooking burgers and hot dogs at the triage unit for the firefighters and ems workers … one of my questions is why was there a BBQ set up at a triage unit in the first place?? Maybe they knew in advance that they would not be using that area for any injured people …

      (Nicholas, of course, could be a troll but I just offer it for consideration.)

      I can’t help chortling over this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTx18_yI3Xk) of a man who is being released from hospital and supposed to be suffering burns. No prizes for guessing what he’s really suffering from.​



      Ridiculous survivor stories of the 12-second collapses of the 500,000 ton twin towers – We are told that 16 people survived the 12-second total collapse of the North Tower, including Pasquale Buzzelli, a structural engineer, as explained in this article, Miracle Survivors (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/).

      I felt the walls next to me crack and buckle on top of me,” he says. Suddenly, he seemed to be in free fall, and the walls seemed to separate and move away from him.

      Maybe two hours later, he regained consciousness on a slab of concrete 180 feet below the 22nd floor. (He may be the source of the rumor that someone surfed the collapse and lived.)

      When you watch the tower collapse this simply isn’t credible. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMTFVeRbpC4) It’s also extremely hard to believe that as a structural engineer, Buzzelli, hasn’t picked up on the cause of collapse and isn’t suspicious of government participation. Nor is it credible that he didn’t suffer any obvious serious injury.



      The people we see who are allegedly fighting for justice for their loved ones are tiny in number and are limited to those whose loved ones or colleagues died in the buildings. There are no loved ones of the alleged 265 people who died in planes fighting for justice that I’m aware of. This can be explained by the fact that the perps know that a percentage of people will recognise that the plane crashes were faked and thus having loved ones of the alleged victims of the plane crashes making a fuss will arouse suspicion.

      You don’t find odd loved ones ones with their own web pages demanding justice. It all feels very controlled. You’d think with such a large number affected there’d be some kind of army of people but it seems tiny and they’re all very polite and restrained. We are told that others have been “paid off” but you couldn’t possibly pay off so many loved ones and very often people will not be paid off when it comes to loved ones – they will spend their whole lives searching for the truth and fighting for justice.

      While it is obvious from the “oral histories” that many firefighters recognised controlled demolition they don’t seem to have a campaign going for justice for their 343 colleagues who allegedly died and their website (https://www.ff911truthandunity.org/) is very muted – especially in comparison to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.



      ​Ersun Warncke did an exhaustive check of the list of victims provided on the CNN website. He found that of 2,970 people listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index.

      Of those:

      — only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file and of those, not a single one has a valid “last address of record” on file.

      — the date of death for 14 people ranges from 7 Jan 01 to 1 Sep 01 while the date of death of 7 people ranges from 2 Oct 01 to 19 Dec 01.

      To see listing in Excel format – https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/8/7/2487397/911_victims_in_ssdi.xlsx



      Bob McIlvaine
      Bob McIlvaine is the father of Bobby McIlvaine who died in the lobby of one of the twin towers from an explosion before it came down. Bob appears to be an extremely vocal fighter for 9/11 truth and has joined forces with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

      Below is a link to a photo of Bobby with his mother and father. Notice how the hand around his mother has red on the fingernails and a thumb ring. This seems inconsistent with Bobby’s image. Also notice that his arm across his father’s back extends into the air rather strangely and tapers to his wrist prematurely.

      ​Below is a link to a photo of Bobby with his parents and brother. Notice the position of his hand on top of his father’s and seemingly against his brother’s cheek, with thumb ring and bracelet. He also seems to have an earring but it looks a little strange. These elements are inconsistent with the trouser, tie and shirt outfit. There is a straight line formed between his mother’s dress and his trousers which is not consistent with the line formed when a person is leaning against another. The background is very dim while the people are brightly lit, suggesting a fake background.

      William Rodriguez
      It was while half-watching an autoplay YouTube video about William Rodriguez that I had an epiphany about the false claim of deaths. Rodriguez testified that he experienced explosions before the North tower fell which would suggest controlled demolition but he was also hailed as a hero who’d helped “hundreds” evacuate from the building. It suddenly struck me as anomalous that someone saying things that incriminated the government would be awarded for heroism by it. On his webpage, Mark Roberts, who, ironically, is a believer of the official story, has problems with Rodriguez’s timeline and points out the anomalies. The page starts with a telling quote from William:

      “Once my story came out, some people even joked, they say “Oh, this is Superman. This is a false story because the guy did incredible things on that day.”



      The smoke coming out of the windows in the 5th image on this webpage looks as if it’s emanating from smoke machines, not as a result of bombing. The people at the windows make us think that these are the people who will jump but if the smoke is coming from machines why would they? Whatever its source it looks reasonably benign, certainly not of the nature to force you to jump. Even if you simply need to hang out the window for fresh air why wouldn’t you simply continue to do that rather than jump?

  3. milosevic says

    David Ray Griffin called his first book on 9/11 “The New Pearl Harbour” and this is also the title of a film by Massimo Mazzucco.

    — neither of whom, of course, make any claim that nobody died in the event. Nor did they think of that title themselves; it’s taken from the PNAC planning document Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century (page 51):

    the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

    I have no problem with whoever conducted the attack – it may well have been the Japanese as the official story goes.

    So, it seems plausible to you that the Japanese Navy carefully organized their bombing raid so as to avoid killing or injuring any American military personnel. Having once embarked on that policy, why would they alter it? Maybe the entire war was staged, on both sides — Tokyo was evacuated before being firebombed in March 1945; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked by the same magical holographic technology that you claim was used to fake the 9/11 event.

    Alternatively, none of the tens of thousands of American soldiers and sailors who were “evacuated” from dozens of ships, huge port facilities, and multiple airbases, right before a supposedly-“surprise” enemy attack, ever thought to mention that fact to anybody. They didn’t see anything unusual about it; coincidences like that happen every day.

    Have you considered the possibility that the entire world is a virtual reality simulation? Maybe you’re just a disembodied brain, floating in a vat, with a computer connected to your sensory inputs. It’s a much simpler explanation, and at least as likely, as the vast apparatus of fakery and hoaxing that your theory of the world otherwise requires.

    An even more plausible explanation is that you actually believe none of this, and are simply a disinfo agent. After all, the simplest explanation consistent with the known facts, is the most likely to be correct.

      • BigB says


        I have to say I am in total agreement. Except to perhaps quibble that Flax is a real and genuine person, who is suffering from a ‘baseball cap’ – one size fits all – conceptual analysis paradigm. Everything is a hoax. Which is not surprising given how surreal things are getting. To be fair, some events ARE staged: but not all. I have said to Flax, each event has to be taken individually, and thoroughly investigated. This can take months, and not everyone has the time to do it. I don’t. The ‘staged event hysteria’ that declares “staged!” – as soon as the first video hits GooTube is discrediting. Things are crazy, and about to get a whole lot crazier. But not everyone who is trying to work things out is a ‘disinfo shill’.

        Sorry Flax: but the idea that 9/11 and Pearl Harbour were staged is a little crazy. Especially based on little or no research, that odd distorted photo, and survivor accounts that do not match up. The bad guys sometimes resort to deceit: but sometimes they just kill innocent victims. It is a whole lot easier than faking it.

        • I believe astronauts went to the moon, BigB, but in terms of terror reported breathlessly 24/7 – yes, everything I’ve seen makes me think all of that is fake – but I always judge on the evidence, always on the evidence. Everything I claim I back with evidence. I simply do not understand the problem with my claims. They’re always very, very reasonably backed with evidence regardless of how outlandish they may seem at first sight.

          but the idea that 9/11 and Pearl Harbour were staged is a little crazy

          How can any thinking person not think that it is perfectly reasonable that they wouldn’t have killed 3,000 and injured 6,000 on 9/11 because of the loved ones (and injured themselves) going absolutely nuts and thus would would choose faking it over doing it for real? That is a perfectly logical supposition. Sure, you need to look at the evidence to support it but just as a concept surely it makes perfect sense. It was a PSYOP. Why would they do anything for real in a PSYOP when they only want to make you believe things rather than do them for real and when doing things for real would have extremely problematic consequences.

          And the evidence shows it was staged. BigB, have you even looked at my 10-point Occam’s Razor exercise for staged death and injury on 9/11? I don’t pose it as an IDEA – what an absurdity. I provide REASON, LOGIC and EVIDENCE for it.

          I think you make false accusations and false assumptions.

          I know it’s very, very hard to get through to people despite the clear evidence of it but they TELL us they’re hoaxing us BigB, they tell us so you do not at all need months to work out if these events are staged. That is simply a false assumption – in fact, sometimes it’s a matter of minutes. Why on earth would you need months if they’re telling us loud and clear with over-the-topness, obvious lack of credibility, smiling grievers, leaked footage, massive contradiction between show and tell, things not adding up at all and all the rest of it.

          Please don’t tell me, BigB. Please don’t tell me that you don’t think this “leaked” footage (so obviously deliberately leaked) is incontrovertible proof that Christchurch was staged.

          I have put my money where my mouth is, haven’t I? Unlike any of the commenters who disparage my hypothesis of staged death and injury (Simon Shack came up with it over a decade ago), I have put my money where my mouth is and issued a challenge with rules that include your choice of judge and yet not a single person has managed to respond to this very straightforward, seemingly trivial challenge. Come up with 10 points that support real death and injury. That’s all that’s required. You’d think all the disparagers would be so sick of me constantly beating my drum that they’d want to shut me up once and for all and respond to my challenge. But no, no one does. I do know someone working on it actually right now but he’s getting absolutely nowhere.

          Survivor accounts that “do not match up”? I don’t even know what you mean when you say “do not match up”. Why do you change the words BigB? Why don’t you say the survivor accounts have zero credibility. Zero. And it’s so over-the-top lack of credibility you have to wonder about it … except, of course, if you accept the hypothesis that they TELL us. Then they make perfect sense because they MATCH that hypothesis perfectly. I guess you just dismiss the fact that there are a number of survivor stories that completely lack credibility for 9/11 and there is at least one – Donald Stratton’s – for Pearl Harbour. That means nothing to do you, does it, BigB. Doesn’t mean a thing. No possible parallel there.

          You don’t need lots of research necessarily, BigB, all you need is whatever evidence is required to prove your point – which may be a lot or may be a little – all you need to prove that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy is the 2.25 seconds of free fall in the collapse of WTC-7. That is all you need.

          • BigB says


            If you wanted to prove Pearl Harbour was staged: it would take you decades. To have any credibility that is. You would need to go through the American and Japanese archives (learning Japanese, if you do not already know it) from the late 1920s, and the tit for tat, cat and mouse game that Japanese imperialism played against American imperialism through the 1930s. You would need to learn to decrypt Japanese AN25B code in order to decrypt all the still encrypted traffic the US had. If they have decrypted them by now, there’s 30,000+ documents to read in the Presidential, Congressional and National Archives. To cross reference with the Japanese, British, and Dutch. For what? To prove a personally validated hypothesis? Sacrificing the rest of your life for?

            My friend has a titanium reconstructed face: due to freak accident felling trees …deep in woodland. He crawled 1-2 miles (it gets further each retelling!) with his face smashed in, barely conscious. He knew that if he collapsed he would die. He did not die, he made it to the road. Even though it is physically impossible for him to have done so. It is amazing what you can do when your life depends on it.

            I haven’t seen anyone on this site dispute that 9/11 was a conspiracy. The emptiness of WTC-7 – apart from 3 people who didn’t get the message – is substantial evidence that Guiliani had pre-knowledge of the event. We know for a fact that FDNY firecrews were on the 78th floor of WTC-2 when it collapsed. Not least form Greg Bacon on this site. Did they simulate their own deaths? The FDNY command and control centre was destroyed when WTC-1 collapsed on them. They all died. Are they all joking about it in Acapulco?

            Get real. Your obsession denigrates a lot of the good people to. Like the firefighters who were true heroes. Abandoned true heroes asphyxiating slowly, dying from lung disease. When they can no longer speak for themselves: will you say they faked their own respiratory failure? Where is your humanity? It is not all about the bad guys, sometimes the good guys and gals get caught up. We need to remain open to honour that.

            Please, get help. Do not reply with your usual self-affirming rhetoric. If you look at it objectively, people are trying to help you. You need to have a bit of humility to recognise that though.

            • Cesca says

              And Pearl Harbour wasn’t staged BigB, just all the evidence that it was on it’s way was ignored, so expensive equipment was moved out of the way, zero cost human lives remained tho so stepping into WW2 would be ignored.

              And Churchill/US were totally useless during the war, they just played and committed atrocities with Air bombings, Russia won WW2 by defeating Germany in the needed land battle.

              • BigB says


                As they say: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The Americans, British and Dutch did have non-specific intel that the Japanese were planning something big. And it was big: they invaded Malaya (in the hours before PH); the Dutch East Indies; and attacked PH almost simultaneously. Pacific commanders were warned. They could not have assumed such a large simultaneous attack – because it was assumed impossible at the time.

                Why was the American fleet at PH? Because the Japanese could not reach them, not without refuelling at sea – which was deemed impossible at the time. Guess what: it wasn’t impossible and that is exactly what the Japanese did.

                We do analysis of an analogue world, with digitised minds – of course they knew they were coming. Apart from non-specific diplomatic traffic analysis – did they really? As mentioned: the Americans were shut out of the changed naval code. The Japanese claim they were under strict radio silence.

                So pray tell me: just what evidence was there? Decontextualised diplomatic traffic messages that were not specific to PH. Everyone is a historian and knows exactly what happened, based on? History is a lot greyer than the black and white narratives people try and impose on it. And conspiracy theories.

                When documents turn up – as they do – that point to forewarning – netizens jump to conclusions without any further research. They do not contextualise them with anything else. This is dangerous and distorted.

                And the narratives that are imposed do not always make sense. Japan was carrying out a simultaneous invasion of British, Dutch, and American territories. World war was assured. No need to precipitate American involvement. Perhaps they did get ‘wind’ (referring to the improbable ‘wind code’; but you knew that, right) and saved the carriers. I do not know. I’m not making a definitive case either way. It was not my point to either prove or disprove internet memes. It was to say that Stratton’s survivor testimony doesn’t make a definitive case for anything: least of all a staged event.

                As for staged, someone posted the aftermath below. Doesn’t look staged to me.

                • BigB says

                  Just to be clear: though undeclared – the Pacific War was already technically underway when PH was attacked. So when the PNACers wanted “a new PH”: what they really meant was a new ‘North Malaya’. History is mythologised: there is no need to compound that with untenable narratives.

                  • BigB says

                    Like I said, it was never my intention to prove things either way. Only to show that things are shades of grey, and binary narratives do not sit easily on historical events.

                    As a case in point: I presume that you think you have linked to the definitive version? So the Japanese were just sitting around drinking matcha green tea ceremoniously, and practising ikebana – when FDR cut off their oil supply, to deliberately precipitate war? Because that is a bit silly isn’t it? Have you heard of Nanking? That gave FDR a “first shot” excuse to start a war with Japan in 1937. But he refused, and waited four years in order to deliberately start a war by sacrificing capital ships and men he would have needed? A conspiracy to a war that was already inevitable by that time, merely by accounting for Japanese imperialism and their Axis alliance? In other words: no conspiracy necessary.

                    Japanese imperialism was a very real force in the years ‘l’entre-deux-guerres’. As I referred to as “tit for tat imperialisms”. There is also a ‘FDR was too weak camp’ that claims Acheson started the oil embargo in secret. FDR was against such an embargo, knowing it would precipitate war. Once again, I’m not saying anything definitive …I just don’t see it so obviously as an FDR intentional plan.

                    That he snubbed Konoye to deliberately “trip-wire” the peace party is a bit Russiagate for me. When I get to the highlighted red section that MacArthur deliberately lied about the position of the Japanese fleet – that is a lie. There was a Japanese fleet in the South China sea – only it was not the Kurile fleet that attacked PH. This is where we get into the considerably morass of their being more than one fleet, and more than one target. The fleet in the South China Sea was in open contact with Tokyo: which could possibly account for all the traffic. The fleet that attacked PH was not: they moved in radio silence. Or so they say.

                    As I said, if you want to spend a decade in the archives: feel free. Or you could read Joe Rochefort’s War. He could be lying. I do not know. But the fact that there was more than one fleet and an expanded set of targets muddies the narrative. Which one was the ‘striking fleet’?

                    I have no doubt FDR and Churchill were traitors to humanity. I just don’t need to add a one sided narrative to conclude that. And Japanese imperialism was evil too. And FDR’s support of Chaing Kai Shek, who was a murderous bastard too. And so it goes on, until we uncover the real reasons why. Probably not in conspiracy theories.

                    • milosevic says

                      Have you heard of Nanking?

                      Not only have I heard of “Nanjing”, I’ve also heard of Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan. All of that, just since I learned to read, last Thursday. Yay me!

                      Conversely, have you heard of the USS Maine and the Lusitania?

                      Japanese imperialism was a very real force

                      A veritable Yellow Peril, one might say.

                      Japanese imperialism was evil too.

                      Wow, I guess WW2 really was a Humanitarian Intervention by the British Race, to save the world from the eeeevil Japs and Nazees. At least, that’s what Hollywood and CNN told me.

            • flaxgirl says

              BigB, I’m afraid your argument lacks rigour.

              Perhaps in a law court it might take decades to prove that Pearl Harbour was staged, however, using common sense and reason it may take only a short time.

              You backpedal from “does not match up” and provide “superhuman” as an argument against lack of credibility. I’m with you on superhuman as a phenomenon, however, the power elite really do hand us their fakery very much on a platter – they truly push it at us. There can be no doubt whatsoever the way they do it and it saddens me that people reject the power they hand to us to call them out – I mean, they just hand it to us, gratis – they hand us nothing else so why do we reject this golden gift? So even if we allow “superhuman” (I’d argue that it was supersuperhuman but no matter) we still have the lack of loss of ear in images of Stratton, lack of any evidence of burns to the face and we have the “discharge and re-enlistment to fight in 5 crucial invasions”, which I’d argue was pretty remarkable for any soldier let alone someone who’d spent a year in hospital recovering from 70% burns to the body. So very much to explain away, BigB, so very, very much. But please go ahead. I’m all ears.

              I also have found zero evidence in images of real injury to those injured (likewise for 9/11) but if you can find some, please let me know. And if you can’t, do you just explain that away too? Perhaps they’re hidden away in the archives and we need to spend 5 years tracking them down do you think?

              I’d very much argue that we do not know at all for a fact that firecrews were on the 78th floor of WTC-2 when it collapsed. If Greg Bacon is saying that he may well have been misinformed or is a disinformation agent. They walk among us, BigB, they do. That’s their job, however, I’m not saying at all that Greg is because he could have been misinformed.

              I see that you eschew consulting what makes me so very real but your lack of consultation not so much – my 10-point Occam’s Razor exercise on staged death and injury.

              Point 10 is about issues in the fire department. I present it to you here.

              Missing – expected evidence for the 343 firefighters who died on 9/11

              On August 12, 2005, more than 12,000 pages of oral histories from 503 FDNY firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians were made public after The New York Times sued the City of New York for their release in response to the Bloomberg administration’s decision to withhold the records from the public.

              The FDNY had recorded the oral histories between October 2001 and January 2002 at the instruction of the City’s fire commissioner, Thomas Von Essen, who wanted to preserve the accounts of the FDNY’s members “before they became reshaped by a collective memory.”

              Following the release of the records, researchers began examining them for any evidence as to the cause of the Twin Towers’ destruction.

              In August 2006, Dr. Graeme MacQueen, a retired professor from McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, published the article, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers.” In it, he identified 118 FDNY members (out of the 503 interviewed) who reported witnessing explosions that evidently—based on corroborating evidence—were the actual cause of the Twin Towers’ destruction.


              I was all agog reading these “oral histories” at how they testified so conclusively to controlled demolition. The anomalous lack of reference to deaths of the firefighters’ 343 colleagues or to rescue operations did not cross my mind for a nanosecond. Like so many others I was all focused on the controlled demolition – which was, of course, the intention of the perps: distracting truthers with controlled demolition while keeping the focus off the equally important and necessarily complementary truth, staged death and injury. So clever. I love the touch that they wanted to preserve the accounts “before they became reshaped by a collective memory.” Of course, the reality was that as time passed the accounts might be different for reasons other than having been “reshaped by collective memory.” And the timing was good for future release. Take them shortly after 9/11 and then when all the truthers started to catch on make a big deal of withholding them before releasing them with all the evidence of controlled demolition flashing out at the reader.

              It is also anomalous that the colleagues of the 343 firefighter victims (of a total victim count of 2,606 in the twin towers or 13%) who obviously recognise controlled demolition from their testimonies are not agitating about the deaths of their colleagues. Their website, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and Unity is very muted – compare it to that of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

              I believe that the testimonies are mostly genuine and I have no idea under what circumstances they were obtained but regardless – if 343 firefighters had died on 9/11 their testimonies would be different and they would surely be fighting for justice for them as would the firefighters’ loved ones.

              • BigB says

                So they did not die because their website is a bit shit? Can you hear the things you say? Nothing reasoned or rigorous would make the slightest difference. You are so deep in a silo of your own self-validating circular reasoning: there is no dialogue to be had.

                That’s a very dangerous place to be Flax. A very dangerous place to be. I do not know which would benefit you the most: a course in meditation/yoga, or a course in epistemology. I say that without the slightest malice. Take it or leave it.

                • You argue in a shamefully cheap manner, BigB, you really do. I’d expect better from someone who argues a Buddhist approach. I don’t say their website is “a bit shit”. I say their website does not show the vigour you’d expect where 353 firefighters have died due to the very obvious controlled demolition that their colleagues recognise. I’d expect more jumping up and down. A very serious state crime happens that kills a significant number of your colleagues. Do you just take it lying down? That’s what you’d do is it, BigB? 353 of your colleagues die so very, very obviously by the state’s hand and you’d simply lie down and take it? You wouldn’t say boo? That’s the kind of man you are, is it, just like the 353 dead firefighters’ colleagues? Are you completely blind, BigB, completely blind to the incommensurate protest from loved ones and colleagues in a situation where 3,000 died and 6,000 were injured?

                  So you have nothing more to say on the lack of credibility of Donald Stratton’s survivor story. That’s over now, isn’t it? Doesn’t mean a thing.

                  • Oops! 343 firefighters (getting confused with Pearl Harbour) and I know how important the numbers are in these operations.

          • Admin says

            Your claim to back everything with evidence is simply not true, flax. Where is your evidence that Janette McKinley is still alive? Where is your evidence that Bobbie McIlvane didn’t exist and his supposed father is a crisis actor? Where is your evidence the mangled dead bodies of people jumping from the towers were fake?

            Just saying ‘it looks fake to me’ isn’t evidence. Nor is demanding other people prove you wrong a substitute for proving yourself right.

            • flaxgirl says

              Just to add Admin, when you prove a case, ALL the evidence must be able to fit your hypothesis, one way or another, and cannot fit another – I believe that is all that is required to prove your case, would you not agree, assuming you have sufficient evidence? We can see each piece of evidence as a uniquely-shaped piece in a jigsaw puzzle that we are fitting together from the uncoloured side. We don’t have the image and colours to guide us in assembling the jigsaw, just the shape, however as long as all the pieces fit and there is no other way to assemble the pieces then we know we have the puzzle solved.

              I have absolutely no idea whether Janette McKinlay is alive or dead but nor do I think it essential to prove it. Janette fits into the second part of my 3-part hypothesis that death and injury were staged. The second part of my hypothesis states that the perps implemented a truther-targeted propaganda campaign in order to maintain the biggest lie of 9/11: death and injury were staged. Janette is (or was) a disinformation agent and her job was to help promulgate the death-and-injury lie with the human remains found in handfuls of dust story. There are many pieces of evidence that support the second part perfectly, eg, the Dancing Israelis (discovered to be Mossad agents supposedly) whose van was stopped in a road-block and found to contain explosives dust. That fits staged death and injury (via truther-targeted propaganda) PERFECTLY. Why would agents be so obvious in their behaviour? What is the credibility of this road-block? Would the people who did the controlled demolition really have traces of explosives in their van? The Dancing Israelis serve two propaganda functions: distraction (so very, very much distraction propaganda in 9/11) and to make us believe that outsiders did the actual demolition which makes it easier for us to accept that it was an inside conspiracy – OK, outsiders did it, not US citizens themselves – which seems just a bit beyond the pale.

              I do not focus on proving each piece of evidence – that task would be far too onerous and not necessary I think. What is always going through my mind is “Can all the available evidence fit the hypothesis?” That is my priority. Can everything fit? If there’s something that contradicts then I will focus on that. My contention is that there is NOTHING that contradicts the hypothesis that death and injury were staged and all available evidence supports it. Whereas the same cannot be said for real death and injury. QED.

            • Admin, I will answer your question about the fake dead body so we can dispense with that one and let it never darken the comments section again. Why I think it looks fake (I’m reminded of a scarecrow in fact):

              — inside the flesh-coloured material that you would expect to be covering legs there don’t appear to be legs, the tube of material is completely flat but there is no evidence of legs having come out of the tube. Also I wonder at the flesh-coloured material – it doesn’t look like trousers either – rather the black material vaguely looks as though it should be trousers but not convincingly there either. Perhaps the flesh-coloured material is supposed to be legs in which case it definitely does not look like legs, it looks like material

              — although there are innards all over the show we cannot see breaks in the person’s body from which they would have emerged

              This is the only instance of a dead body of all the 3,000 people who died that we see as far as I can tell. I think that is rather compelling … in addition to the fact that there is no injured person presented to us who looks convincingly injured.

              If you think the body looks convincingly real please tell me what you think about it that looks convincingly real.

        • Cesca says

          Erm, for a start YouTube was 5 years away from appearance back in ’01 BigB, intelligent ppl just knew the official story was a load of shite. It didn’t make sense in any logical way and was obviously just a load of BS, i cld see it as a 14 yr old at the time.

    • crank says

      Have you considered the possibility that the entire world is a virtual reality simulation? Maybe you’re just a disembodied brain, floating in a vat, with a computer connected to your sensory inputs.

      I was rather hoping that flaxgirl is indeed such. It would certainly clear things up for me.
      As would:
      An even more plausible explanation is that you actually believe none of this, and are simply a disinfo agent.

    • Milo, I know nothing of the actual attack so I guess it’s time for me to do some research (especially to be reassured that it was indeed an attack by the Japanese and not a clear false-flag hoax by the US) but what I’ve inferred is that there was some kind of advance knowledge that allowed evasive action. Would you be bothered to tell me what was it about the attack that meant that the advance knowledge couldn’t have been sufficiently comprehensive to take the evasive action required to avoid all death and injury? Could intelligence not have had all the knowledge required, for example?

      What I do know is this:

      — There are no images of the injured from Pearl Harbour on the internet that I can find that show real signs of injury. Admittedly, there are only a few images but of those none show real signs of injury.

      — Donald Stratton’s survivor story is not credible.
      With the burns he alleged he suffered he could not possibly have inched his way along a 70ft rope, nor re-enlisted after discharge to fight in 5 crucial invasions, nor is there evidence of any part of his ear missing or burns to his face in images of him.

      — The images of the injured on 9/11 are not convincing and easily fit “drill” (see a highly-representative sample – Point 8 – https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html)

      — The miracle survivor stories are not credible. http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

      I find this parallel very interesting and I find that the very obviously lacking-in-credibility survivor stories perfectly fit the hypothesis that the power elite always inform us when they’re hoaxing us. What is your opinion assuming you agree with the above four statements?

      • milosevic says

        to be reassured that it was indeed an attack by the Japanese and not a clear false-flag hoax by the US

        what was it about the attack that meant that the advance knowledge couldn’t have been sufficiently comprehensive to take the evasive action required to avoid all death and injury?

        I’ve already addressed those (insanely absurd) claims, in this very thread. If you didn’t bother to read what I wrote the first time, there’s certainly no reason I should climb down your disinfo rathole once again.

        there was some kind of advance knowledge that allowed evasive action.

        Indeed there was, AS I’VE ALREADY DESCRIBED.

        I definitely agree that the idea that nobody was killed or injured on 12/7/1941, is no more ludicrous than the same claim about 9/11/2001. You would think that such a fact would eventually get noticed, but maybe people are just a whole lot more stupid, in the alternate reality that you inhabit.

        • All I can find is this:

          What HAS been suggested, is that the US government knew in some detail what was going to happen, and when. This allowed them to arrange a real evacuation: all their aircraft carriers left Pearl Harbor the day before the attack, and returned on that evening. What was sacrificed was obsolete WW1-era battleships and some of their crew, as the necessary “catastrophic and catalyzing event” (PNAC) to mobilize popular support for entry into the war, and establishment of American global dominance. For the ruling-class planners, it must have seemed a very cheap price to pay.

          I’m afraid I don’t understand. You say that the battleships and some of their crew were sacrificed. But why did they HAVE to sacrifice the crew? Why couldn’t all the people be evacuated with simply the war machinery destroyed?

          • milosevic says


            “During the seventy-three years since the war ended, nobody in Japan has ever noticed that their armed forces were falsely accused of attacking an American naval base? … Maybe Japan doesn’t actually exist; it’s just a myth created by the globalist elite to explain where Pokemon secret agents come from.”

            “none of the tens of thousands of American soldiers and sailors who were ‘evacuated’ from dozens of ships, huge port facilities, and multiple airbases, right before a supposedly-‘surprise’ enemy attack, ever thought to mention that fact to anybody? They didn’t see anything unusual about it; coincidences like that happen every day.”

            Why couldn’t all the people be evacuated with simply the war machinery destroyed?

            Because people would NOTICE that, you clueless idiot.

            Just as the New York Fire Department personnel would NOTICE, if the 343 of their colleagues who were supposed to have been killed on 9/11/2001, had never existed in the first place.

            I don’t see how it’s actually possible for anybody to be this delusional; “disinfo agent” is the only explanation that makes sense. I’m out.

            • flaxgirl says


              Let’s just get clear. I do not say that the Japanese did not conduct the attack (certainly not at this stage when I know so little about it) – the US could simply have managed to avoid getting their troops killed. But hypothetically I’m not sure that the fact that the Japanese not asserting they didn’t do it is proof that they did do it, necessarily, after all Saudi Arabia has never come out and said that their nationals did not fly planes into buildings on 9/11, have they? That’s the thing I find so hard to get my head around – at the top, they’re all in it together. They all treat it as a game.

              One thing that arouses my suspicion is a statement by Donald Stratton in his incredible survivor story. From the article below:

              It was a clear and calm Sunday morning in Hawaii, with the war waging in Europe 7,650 miles away, when 353 Japanese bombers, fighter planes and torpedo planes launched from six aircraft carriers, targeting Pearl Harbour.

              Shortly after 8 a.m., the bombs began raining down, badly damaging eight US Navy battleships, sinking four. Stratton, from small-town Red Cloud, Nebraska, had just left the “chow hall” when he saw a group of crew-mates pointing at planes in the distance.

              “I watched one of them bank and saw the rising sun symbol under the wings and thought: Boy, that’s the Japanese, and they’re bombing us,” he says.

              Within seconds he had clambered 60 feet up four steel ladders to man his five-inch, 25-calibre anti-aircraft gun. “They were coming in so close I could see the pilots when they went by. Some were waving and some were grinning.” Around him ships exploded and black smoke filled the sky.

              I know nothing about bombing and that kind of stuff but it seems to lack plausibility to me. Are you OK with it, milo? I mean, how did they know there were 353 fighting machines launched and could that many be launched from 6 aircraft carriers? I’m all ignorance on these matters as I say but perhaps you can enlighten me on standard expectations.

              Many people could have talked, Milo, but talk doesn’t always make the media, does it?

              It’s funny, isn’t it, milo, in the comment above to BigB I have a point about the 343 firefighters that supports staged death and injury. Scroll down about half-way.

              I’d really appreciate it if you’d just stick to the argument and dispense with the huffing and puffing about what an idiot you think I am. I have issued a challenge to provide 10 points that support death and injury and, so far, no one has been able to respond, including a truther acquaintance that I’m very friendly with and with whom I’ve discussed the challenge at length. He hasn’t yet found a single point. That is a straightforward fact and a significant one in my book.

              • milosevic says

                how did they know there were 353 fighting machines launched

                OBVIOUSLY, they didn’t know that at the time; the article doesn’t say any such thing. It just reports what is now known, from Japanese military records. Can you read properly?

                and could that many be launched from 6 aircraft carriers?


                here’s the Japanese Navy, helping the Americans fake the Pearl Harbor attack; see if you can count how many airplanes are on the flight deck of a single carrier at 1:12, engines running, waiting to take off.

                • Let’s be clear, Milo. I do not say that the Japanese did not conduct the attack, all I’m saying is that I think it’s quite possible that the Americans managed to have their troops and civilians avoid death and injury. Please do not strawman – I do not say the Japanese did not conduct the attack.

                • Thanks, Milo, so now I’m convinced. It was definitely the Japanese … but as I say there’s evidence suggesting no death and injury, including no signs of injury in any of the images of those allegedly injured at Pearl Harbour.

              • OK I realise that 353 fighting machines is not too many for 6 aircraft carriers. It just sounds a lot to someone who doesn’t know anything about these things.

                Nevertheless, I feel the story has an air of implausibility – doesn’t count as evidence, of course. “Boy??”

      • Admin says

        Case in point – you have done literally zero research on Pearl Harbor, but yet feel justified in making the claim it was all a fake, based on the ‘evidence’ of your own assumptions. That is taking hubris to incredible levels.

        • flaxgirl says

          It is not hubris, Admin, it is simply that I believe you don’t necessarily need a lot of evidence, just compelling evidence and also when you study these events you can see the similarities between them so clearly.

  4. systemicfraud says

    Latest figures on the number of Iraqis who died after the illegal US-led invasion: 2.4 million.

    Above all, the false flag terror event on 9/11 was a FUNDRAISER for the banksters and the MIC executives/shareholders…TRILLIONS of dollars flowed–but unlike previous wars in which the USA sold bonds or created a one-time “special tax” to help fund the war–now we have “credit card wars” in which Congress funds these wars with loans which future generations must pay off. An article titled “How America’s Wars Fund Inequality at Home” by Stephanie Savell does an excellent job of explaining how the US currently funds these “credit card wars” and how the elites profit…


  5. Savorywill says

    I remember well the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003, watching it all unfold on CNN, which I was able to do in Japan where I was living. There were countless demonstrations against the war and I particularly was touched by the French spokesman , Villepin, who spoke at the Security Council explaining why France would not vote to support the war. It was an amazing and touching speech, where he explained how Europe had had its fill of wars, whereas for Americans, wars are things that happen in other places, far away, where their ‘heroes’ go to fight for abstract reasons, such as removing ‘regime leaders’, or ‘protecting people from those regime leaders’, and on and on. But the wars never happen in America itself, except the war on crime and things like that, resulting in millions incarcerated in prisons there.

    But, even the Security Council did not get the necessary approval for the Iraq war, yet America and the UK, mainly, went ahead anyway. It was just so sad and really a turning point, I think. I then watched as the war actually started and the reporters from CNN were excitingly reporting the beginning of the barrage of tomahawk missiles from various vantage points, ships from which they were launched as well as from a ‘safe hotel’, designated as such by Saddam Hussein (amazing how such niceties were almost standard for governments, even ‘regime’ ones, back then). The reporters were wetting themselves in excitement, like Brian Williams from CNN in a recent tomahawk missile launched from a ship into Syria not long ago, not only from witnessing missile launches from ships, but also as the missiles hit their targets with big explosive sounds and flashing lights, smoke rising into the sky. Here the reporters informed their captive audiences all over the world that they had it on good information that those missiles (this is right at the start) were targeting Saddam himself, who, on good authority, was having dinner at the restaurant with his family in the area. I thought, but what everyone else who is there, other people in the restaurant or people living next door?

    It was just so heartbreaking, the callous nature of it all…

  6. flaxgirl says

    What utter nonsense are you talking, Basher? What complete and utter nonsense. See comment above.

  7. Edwige says

    Theodore Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy when the Maine blew up and Franklin Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy when the Lusitania was torpedoed.

    It was a good idea to stay on dry land when those Roosevelts were about and there was a war they wanted to get into.

  8. Grafter says

    Meanwhile the cultural trash from Hollywood continues to spread throughout the globe This from movie Hunter Killer.

    “Hunter Killer is a 2018 by Donovan Marsh, director of Hunter Killer, In the depths of the Arctic Ocean, American submarine captain Captain Joe Glass is in search of a distressed American submarine when he discovers that a secret Russian coup is about to happen, threatening to dismantle the world order . With crew and country at risk, Captain Glass must now assemble an elite group of Navy SEALs to rescue the kidnapped Russian president and sneak through enemy waters to halt World War III.”

    Yes you read that right…”threatening to dismantle the world order”, saving the Russian president and preventing WWIII ! Such is the delusional small and dangerous mindset which endorses the fantasy of American exceptionalism. God save us all from these people.

    • harry stotle says

      The entertainment industry perhaps more than anywhere else has been at the forefront of perpetuating an alternative reality that goes into overdrive when it comes to dissembling the bloody history of the USA.

      The habitual portrayal of native Americans as unthinking ‘savages’ is especially egregious, but the Viet Namese, Muslims or Russians fare little better.

      US audiences have been bombarded with these steroetypes to a point where it is simply taken as read (even before the introductory credits have finished) that American protagonists are confronted by an array of foreign, and domestic foes that are barely human – of course this dehumanisation is a necessary condition to rationalise the uber-violence that is usually required to solve complex problems of living.

      Once these films reach a certain saturation point I guess most people eventually become inured to what they actually tell you about the US psyche – an outlook that that suggests paranoia, violence, and an obsession with power and domination are laudable qualities?

      Remember when Gipper started rambling about ‘Rambo’ – is there a better example of the utter disconnect between film fantasy and sickening reality?

      • George Cornell says

        Growing up in N/A I was convinced about several things by Hollywood. Amerindians were indeed savages, unable to shoot straight, who were preying on the peace-loving settlers and their families, just trying to eke out a meagre agrarian existence on land that was really theirs by divine right.

        The Americans won the World Wars, almost singlehandedly. There were no Russian deaths to speak of , and if there were any, they had it coming to them. The Cold War was all about Russian spying and the noble attempts by our heroes to thwart their dastardly intent. All American soldiers were heroes, risking their lives so their families back home could live in peace, but they also were there to protect the enemy’s women and children.

        Sports were contaminated by cheating Russian athletes and judges and drug-free America would rightfully win all events were it not for the cheating. Much more recently the Goebbelsworthy propaganda film Icarus depicted Russian cheating without mention of Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Balco, or THG. The cover ups of Carl Lewis et al. distracted the American Olympic committee from its relentless attempts to increase the number of swimming events (an activity half the world cannot do) perhaps by adding races for left-handers, for blondes, and for many more distances ( there are 50 steps between 50 and 100 metres) etc.

        It was so much easier to believe these fantasies.

      • Film the way west was on uk tv again recentlly….the scene where native americans turned up with their murdered son in full ceremonial mourning costume demanding that the pioneer murderer admit his guilt and be killed in return to rest the soul of rhe dead son….then he eventually he surrendered to his own white peoples confessed and was hanged…wow….very powerful indeed…and must have been a real “shocker” at the time….

        • George Cornell says

          Ah yes Jo, after Bury my heart at wounded knee and Brando’s advocacy there was some revisionism, even some before. But the story of the inexorably progressive land grab, not dissimilar to the Muddle East, has never been told. The Avalon Project at Yale lays it out by publishing all the treaties with the white man over a few hundred years, although you have to work at it. Go to website and just read one treaty but take something for the nausea first. They broke every treaty within an average of 7 years. White man did speak with forked tongue, and for the Yanks they still do.

  9. BigB says

    As the late General Smedley Butler had written in his 1935 short book War is a Racket we need to see who profits from our military engagements AKA Wars.

    We do. As I pointed out the other day, the phone in our pockets comes at the cost of 8-10 million human lives. That’s 1,500 people slaughtered per day – Unpeopled, and their memory erased – for a mobile phone. The Romans called this ‘damnatio memoriae’ when a person is murdered AND their life erased …for a phone.

    So yeah, I’ve got a cheap phone too: so I am not offloading. What I am saying is that there obvious solutions as soon as we stop thinking the life we lead is the only life we CAN lead. There are alternatives, obvious simple alternatives that with collective responsibility can turn things around.

    When we live in one place, work in another, and socialise in another – we need a global telecommunications system. This has is advantages, but also its disadvantages. Globalised systems, when taken to the max, are inevitably systemically fragile and vulnerable to collapse. Localised systems are much more robust, particularly if we re-establish community ties atomised by globalisation. Instead of individual nodes on the techno-singularity – we could meet face to face. If I have a message for George down the road, I will walk down and directly communicate it to him. It would not be too hard to bio-regionalise all life-function systems geo-locally.

    I do not want to scapegoat anyone: but just because I sometimes pay the bill – my stepson sends over 3,000 texts a month. He never leaves his room. He surfs from one device to another. He will text his mum – my partner – to ask when dinner is ready. At this point, I would think, that the number of Unpeople that died to afford this style of life becomes pertinent.

    I do not want to say it is his fault, because it is not. He’s a nice kid. All his mates are the same. For all I know, corroborated by reading, the entire generation is the same. Being a baby boomer: our parents knew war and real austerity. There seems to be a generational disconnect that education, or the lack of, must be contributory to. He doesn’t consume the news, so it came from somewhere transversally – maintained by peer pressure and hyper-conformism.

    As I was saying yesterday: if we bring entropy into our economic calculus: and totally rethink why we, collectively, have the false needs and techno-desires – maintained by devices that cost the earth and entail the ‘damnatio memoriae’ of 10 million Unpeople – we may be well on the road to recovering our humanity. And ending the wars.

    They go to war: but not just for their own ends. We are not innocent of the spoils of war. If we discover our peace in situ: do we really need a globalised terror regime to maintain it? Without the globalised terror regime: where are They?

  10. Quasimodo says

    Actually Stalingrad never happened just one big psycops all those dead russians were a film by Eisenstein.
    All these distractions that’s why I looove the internet. A momument to our impotence. We should be having real disscussion around how we fight back.

  11. Haltonbrat says

    Another journalist scared to mention the elephant in the room, present at the Bush/Blair meeting before war was declared on Iraq. All these Middle East wars have been carried out on the orders of Israel to protect them while they continue with genocide against the Palestinians whose land they have stolen.

  12. The only thing that would wake up your genocidal lot is an EXPLOSION. And you are getting to get it sooner or later. This planet has only one problem called “five eyes”. Once we blind them…. you imagine the rest

  13. Mucho says

    The perpertrators of 9/11, mainly Zionist Neocons and US MIC heavyweights, made their intentions to decimate Iraq very clear prior to 9/11. The famous thinktank, the Project For A New American Century, published many documents which clearly outlined these intentions. The PNAC documents also demonstrate their role in the promotion of false accusations of Iraq having WMDs, which began prior to 9/11.
    One of the most memorable documents they published was called “BOMBING IRAQ ISN’T ENOUGH”, penned by PNAC founders WIlliam Kristol and Robert Kagan, which appeared in the New York Times in January 1998. It makes for chilling reading but exposes the psychpathic tendencies of these evil men for all the world to see. Not that they care

    • flaxgirl says

      Whatever other reasons there may have been for the PNAC document one of its functions was to serve as propaganda aimed at the truthers. I know this because we all swallowed it.

      The propaganda strategy for 9/11 is like no other that I know of – but perhaps other readers may enlighten me. It’s not as if I know anything about propaganda generally.

      In the planning of 9/11, the perps reasoned that controlled demolition would be very obvious and that a small percentage of the population, willing to defy the official propaganda, would recognise it if not by themselves from other researchers. Rather than try to futilely suppress CD they decided to transform it from a truth liability into a magical propaganda asset using a a truth-mixed-with-lies campaign. They pushed CD along with the big 3,000-dead-6000-injured lie in various ways, eg, disinformation agents such as the Jersey Widows, Bob McIlvaine, Janette McKinlay and others. The PNAC document served to persuade us how ruthless the power elite were prepared to be in service of their agenda – yes they would be prepared to kill all those people. (I mean, I know these people really are capable of anything but nevertheless I still think this document was designed to serve as propaganda.)

      They reasoned that truthers with only or two significant truths of 9/11 – CD and plane crashes – would get nowhere without the essential truth that death and injury were staged. Non-truthers would never believe that the US administration would kill all those people in the buildings and planes so truthers would be stymied in getting out their message. The non-truthers are right though to not believe that the US administration would kill all those people in the buildings because they never would – not their MO at all. Sure, they’ll send their soldiers off to self-generated wars and kill hundreds of thousands overseas but they wouldn’t kill the people in the buildings for a number of reasons, a very, very major one being all the loved ones of the dead going nuts because of the obviousness of controlled demolition. If death and injury were real we wouldn’t be seeing the oh-so-polite Jersey widows asking Kissinger if he had a client in the Bin Laden family. No, no, no, no. These women would be screaming, “You killed my husband. Murderers. You killed my husband.”

      I have a page on the propaganda campaign here:

      • Mucho says

        @ Flaxgirl Here is some genuine 9/11 truth, to balance out the delusional, fake bile you keep writing. Anyone interested in finding out what serious intelligent researchers have uncovered since 9/11 should watch these films. War By Deception is one of the most important docs on YT, period
        9/11 and War By Deception https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdWJ4I
        The History of The War On Terror by Chris Bollyn – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuOsiMVlMBw&t=225s

        • Mucho says

          Flaxgirl’s role is to disrupt threads which shine a light on events like 9/11. Promoting bogus conspiracy theories is a tactic which is very effective at turning people off looking at subjects like 9/11 (making 9/11 research sound crazy by promoting implausible rubbish), which is why she does it. I have no idea who is paying her, but I am fairly sure she is on the payroll for posting this crap. Just ignore it, to engage with Flaxgirl is a victory to whoever “it” serves

          • milosevic says

            I have arrived at the same conclusion; no refutation of this idiocy ever makes any impression.

            However, if previously-uninformed people found forums such as this, they might get the idea that everybody who disbelieves the Official Story, believes in this “no planes” or “no deaths” (or even “no Japanese Navy”!) nonsense, in which case the disinfo would have been successful. I think it’s worthwhile to concisely contradict it, in order to prevent that from happening.

  14. harry stotle says

    “Question is: When will the hundreds of millions of our citizens wake up and smell the coffee” – not until those responsible are made to account for their crimes.

    Take the situation in Venezuela – who has Trump called on to deal with the crises there, why none other than Elliot Abrams a sinister war criminal complicit with atrocities in Guatemala.

    Nearer to home its almost impossible to read a copy of the Guardian without the grinning asassin, Tony Blair, offering his thoughts about Brexit, antisemitism or the splinter group headed by a former Labour MP bankrolled by a tory donor.

    Chelsea Manning is in solitary, Assange is cowering in an Ecuadorian broom cupboard – the architects of these wars are laughing at us.

    • Harry, I’m afraid Chelsea Manning is an agent. They’re just pretending to have put her in jail. This is a paragraph in Wikipedia on how she leaked documents to Wikileaks. It’s not credible. Nor is a lot of the rest of the entry.

      On January 5, 2010, Manning downloaded the 400,000 documents that became known as the Iraq War logs.[103] On January 8, she downloaded 91,000 documents from the Afghanistan database, known later as part of the Afghan War logs. She saved the material on CD-RW and smuggled it through security by labeling the CD-RW media “Lady Gaga”.[104] She then copied it onto her personal computer.[105] The next day, she wrote a message in a readme.txt file (see right), which she told the court was initially intended for The Washington Post.[106]

      No reason to believe that Julian Assange is not stuck in a broom cupboard as you say though.

        • flaxgirl says

          George, do you deem the method by which Chelsea is said to have leaked documents to Wikileak credible as stated in Wikipedia? If not, do you know of another source which gives a more credible explanation for how Chelsea leaked the documents? If not and if you peruse the Wikipedia article do you get a feeling that we’ve been had in regards to who Chelsea really is?

          My suspicion was aroused when I saw the very glamorous photo of her in another article about her on OffG – see link to one of my comments https://off-guardian.org/2019/03/09/on-chelsea-manning-and-b-f-skinner/#comment-149750. It struck me that there was a lot of money behind that look. If she really is who they say she is do you think that Annie Leibowitz would be photographing her for Vogue magazine and that she would be interviewed in a very friendly manner by the MSM news channels. Seriously?

      • Feng Shui Mentalist says

        Wikipedia or Chelsea Manning ? I know in whom I would place my trust. And you are right in your opening statement – you are afraid – Chelsea Manning fears nothing – even incarceration.

        • flaxgirl says

          So what explanation of how Chelsea leaked the documents do you believe? I wasn’t aware of another explanation.

        • flaxgirl says

          Very interesting union.

          Yes, I know Wikipedia publishes loads of rubbish but some of it is coded so you know what they’re really saying as in the case of Chelsea Manning. Whenever they hoax us they always let us know with added implausibility to, in many cases, the already-implausible story. In the Wikipedia article, it’s obvious they’re having a laugh in the way they describe how she leaked her documents and some other things and in the use of Masonic numbers.

          Also see my comment on another article. She’s too glamorous and too friendly with mainstream media to be who she says she is I think. https://off-guardian.org/2019/03/09/on-chelsea-manning-and-b-f-skinner/#comment-149750

          • George Cornell says

            Flaxie, I admire your passion and enthusiasm. Your strategy seems to be to find any fragment of inconsistency, or fragment of very large wholes that can be alternatively interpreted, and conclude that therefore the whole does not exist. There may be no historical event for which this is not possible.

            It is reminiscent of what the famous statistician RA Fisher did to Mendel when he claimed his pea experimental results were faked. He dismissed the fact that Mendel got nothing for his efforts, not even recognition, and surely not a penny of grant money.

            Let’s take your good self as an example. Your father would have had billions of sperm and your mother hundreds of ova. The prior chance that the specific sperm and ovum that led to you might hook up would have been one/ a number two logs greater than the number of living humans. Therefore you do not exist?

            There were thousands of eye witnesses for Pearl Harbour, some still alive and you should talk with them. And perhaps spend your considerable energies and intellect on another focus?

            • I’m afraid you’ve read too little of what I write, George. That is not my method at all.

              My method is to say, “Can all the available evidence fit my chosen hypothesis and not support the opposing hypothesis”?

              I have done five 10-point Occam’s Razor exercises on:
              9/11 (WTC-7, plane crashes, death and injury)
              Sandy Hook
              Manchester bombing

              and I’ve issued a $5,000 challenge for people to provide 10-point exercises favouring the opposing hypothesis. No one has been able to respond although I know someone right now is working on the 9/11 death and injury challenge and getting nowhere.

              It’s true I know nothing about Pearl Harbour except that I cannot find any signs of convincing injury in the alleged injured on the internet and I’ve also found an incredible miracle survivor story (from Donald Stratton).

              These two phenomena are also found in 9/11: no signs of injury in the injured presented to us and miracle survivor stories.

              Staged event analyst, Ole Dammegard, has said he was told by an insider that the power elite always give us the clues when they’re staging things such as added lack of plausibility to their – often already – implausible story, things that don’t add up, smiling grievers and so on.

              I think it’s fair to suppose that if the Americans had advance warning at Pearl Harbour they would have managed to evacuate all troops and civilians to avoid death and injury just as everyone was evacuated from the buildings on 9/11 and the only reason they claimed death and injury was to make a more compelling case to get into the war. The two items above are the only evidence I have but nevertheless I think they’re compelling. If you have evidence of death and injury at Pearl Harbour can you tell me what it is.

  15. Makropulos says

    The “day everything changed” for me wasn’t 9/11 but the day I heard GWB suggest attacking Iraq. I always figured that wars were started for reasons other than the ones given. It’s a primary playground manoeuvre: provoke someone else to make the first move and if they don’t, just pretend they did anyway. “Miss – it was him that started it!” etc. But here was a case where there wasn’t even an alleged initialising event. We must attack them because…..they’ve got weapons? So many folk were outraged when this turned out to be a lie. But I always thought it didn’t matter. It violated the whole premise of the Cold War – that no-one would attack another because the other had weapons. Russia – which was certainly armed – didn’t dare attack America for that reason. If that logic worked with Russia then who in their right mind would ever believe Iraq would attack even if armed to the teeth? GWB was clearly talking bollocks. Granted the whole media/political field had always been a sham but this time I could no longer ignore it.

    • Michael McNulty says

      Russia wasn’t the Cold War threat, that was America. They weren’t Russian planes carpet-bombing South East Asia and Russia didn’t start the Korean or Vietnam wars. Then when the Wall fell and the USSR dissolved it was clear even then there’d be nobody to stop America doing as it pleased. And it did.

  16. Helmut Taylor says

    Hey Flaxy, real cool, and hugely convincing assessment of the historical events you bring to our notice. Do the “they”, the “cabal” as repeatedly referred to, have a recruiting station any where near? I think I would like to join!
    PS: You ever heard of Norman Dodd?
    Stay in touch,
    Helmut in Frankfurt.

  17. I have watched Americans I once considered friends, who literally wanted to skin Bush alive in 2003, consider him a hero fourteen years later. I have learnt by that bitter experience to absolutely never trust what anyone committed to an American political party tells me.

  18. 9/11 is called the “New Pearl Harbour”. True, but not exactly in the way people think. Rather than being false flags, they were false-flag hoaxes.

    — 9/11 – https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html
    — Pearl Harbour – you will not find any signs of real injury in those allegedly injured

    Both 9/11 and Pearl Harbour have their unbelievable survivor stories:

    — 9/11 – Miracle Survivors – http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/
    — Pearl Harbour – Donald Stratton’s survivor story – https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/740478/Pearl-Harbour-attack-anniversary-survivor-memoir-Donald-Stratton

    (They always let us know when they’re hoaxing us by giving us things that aren’t believable.)

      • Rather than take up a lot of space in the comments, Raggy, I’ve put links to information to support my claims. Rather than make a comment without first looking at the easily available evidence to support my claim shouldn’t you first consult it? Of what value is your comment if you don’t do that?

        • Yarkob says

          hmm..i have a new icon today. what gives? let’s see if it changes back…

    • Helmut Taylor says

      Hey Flaxy, real cool, and hugely convincing assessment of the historical events you bring to our notice. Do the “they”, the “cabal” as repeatedly referred to, have a recruiting station any where near? I think I would like to join!
      PS: You ever heard of Norman Dodd?
      Stay in touch,
      Helmut in Frankfurt.

    • harry stotle says

      As a matter of interest do you think wars ever took place in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria, or just like 9/11 do you believe they were staged events involving hundreds of thousands of actors on a film set that would put Cecil B. DeMille to shame?

      • The wars, of course, so very real, Harry, so very real. But the excuses to start them – so very unreal. If it were just a case of the events being staged without leading to anything I wouldn’t give them a second thought. It’s what they lead to that’s the problem – and even when I believed that 9/11 was the work of 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters and that 3,000 people died on that day I still thought that. In the case of Pearl Harbour I really don’t know whether that false-flag hoax was a bad thing or not – I’m sure many would argue it was good that the US got into the war. I don’t understand WWII well enough to know, however, obviously not 9/11. So perhaps PH was not such a bad thing. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to see the similarities regardless of good or bad and to know what really happened … or didn’t happen.

    • milosevic says

      So, according to you, the Pearl Harbor attack didn’t actually happen. It was all done with holograms, or something.

      I thought that the 13-foot-tall dummies being thrown out of the burning WTC towers, was your jump-the-shark moment, but that really pales into insignificance compared to this idiocy.

      Perhaps you could write up this theory and put it on your website, so that whenever it appears that somebody is on the verge of taking you seriously, we can refer them to that, and they can then decide whether anything else you have to say merits their attention.

      • They bombed, of course, in Pearl Harbour but the bombing occurred in an evacuated area. You say “according to you”, Milosevic. I only say it because there is no evidence of injury in the alleged injured and Donald Stratton’s survivor story is not credible. Why should I believe they bombed PH? It’s commonly said it was a false flag so what’s the big stretch to make it a false-flag hoax? All they wanted was an excuse to go into war. Very easy to arrange a bombing of an evacuated area and pretend death and injury isn’t it? Why would they sacrifice all those soldiers’ lives when they were just about to enter war and they didn’t have to sacrifice them? Makes no sense of all to do it that way, wouldn’t you agree, Milo?

        I simply do not understand why people constantly resist what I say when what I propose makes much better sense than the official story. Why are people so hung up on the official story when they know we’re lied to constantly?

        • milosevic says

          It’s commonly said it was a false flag

          On the contrary, nobody except you has ever suggested any such thing. During the seventy-three years since the war ended, nobody in Japan has ever noticed that their armed forces were falsely accused of attacking an American naval base? You’ve clearly lost all contact with objective reality; perhaps you don’t believe there is any such thing. Maybe Japan doesn’t actually exist; it’s just a myth created by the globalist elite to explain where Pokemon secret agents come from.

          What HAS been suggested, is that the US government knew in some detail what was going to happen, and when. This allowed them to arrange a real evacuation: all their aircraft carriers left Pearl Harbor the day before the attack, and returned on that evening. What was sacrificed was obsolete WW1-era battleships and some of their crew, as the necessary “catastrophic and catalyzing event” (PNAC) to mobilize popular support for entry into the war, and establishment of American global dominance. For the ruling-class planners, it must have seemed a very cheap price to pay.

          The USS Arizona is still sitting on the bottom of the Pearl Harbor lagoon. Perhaps you imagine that it was surreptitiously placed there by the same people who threw the 13-foot-tall dummies out of the burning WTC towers.

          Get a grip.


          • flaxgirl says

            Some people take “advance warning” to be the equivalent of a false flag, meaning that deliberately allowing the soldiers to die was tantamount to a false flag. The most prolific 9/11 scholar, David Ray Griffin, called his first book on 9/11 “The New Pearl Harbour” and this is also the title of a film by Massimo Mazzucco.

            I have no problem with whoever conducted the attack – it may well have been the Japanese as the official story goes. My concern is over people dying. It strikes me that it was very similar to 9/11. We’re given the story that SOME people were evacuated from the buildings on 9/11 but SOME died. I’d suggest that on Dec 7, 1941 no one died or was injured just as I think the evidence clearly shows that death and injury were staged on 9/11.

            I’m not sure why you think that the USS Arizona at the bottom of the harbour signifies dead people. As I say, of course there was a bombing, it’s just that it was conducted in an evacuated area. Why are you so convinced that it’s as the official story says and only SOME were evacuated while SOME were not. Why do you resist the possibility that everyone was evacuated? Obviously, to go into war it’s a lot better-sounding if soldiers died, isn’t it?

            The evidence for fakery of dead and injured at Pearl Harbour is in the complete lack of injury shown in the alleged injured and also in the not credible survivor story of Donald Stratton – they always give you the clues through implausibility, etc when they’re hoaxing you.

    • SharonM says

      Why do people believe that no one died during the 9/11 event? The U.S. government has murdered millions of people around the world just this century alone, and yet you think they didn’t kill anyone on 9/11? Makes zero sense.

      • milosevic says

        Only disinformation agents claim that nobody was killed in the 9/11 event. The questions that are seriously debated are WHO organized the attack, and HOW it was carried out.

        Those who claim that nobody died, are either themselves delusional, or trying to create the impression that anybody who questions the official story is delusional. Many people apparently believe that “9/11 truth” is equivalent to “no airplanes”, or “no deaths”, so the strategy is working, at least to some extent.

    • SharonM says

      It makes no sense that the U.S. government would kill millions around the world through war, but avoid killing people to start their wars.

      • Basher says

        Agree, but I’ve been through all this before with FlaxGirl. Her response will be – “just coz it makes no sense, or you can’t see the sense in it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen”. It’s a no lose argument – evidence free, but still….

      • flaxgirl says

        Oh but it does make sense, Sharon, it really does. I have performed a 10-point Occam’s Razor exercise favouring the hypothesis that death and injury were staged on 9/11 and issued a $5,000 Occam’s Razor challenge for those who believe that death and injury were real. No one has responded so far, despite much disparagement of my hypothesis in OffG comments. This saddens me as, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Nothing to do with caring about the people, of course, but for a number of other reasons including caring very much about the loved ones going nuts and that they absolutely love to fool us – that is definitely their preferred MO. A few other reasons too but, if for no other reason, they wouldn’t want all the loved ones descending on Washington. No way.

        • Admin says

          The reason no one responds may be in part that you offer no criteria. Your reason for believing no one died is not a lack of evidence it’s that you simply reject the evidence as fake. So what you are asking for is not evidence for deaths (you already have that), it’s evidence YOU ARE PREPARED TO BELIEVE.

          What would this evidence you are demanding look like? You see grieving parents and claim they’re actors, based on nothing but your gut feeling, you see people dying from the toxic dust and claim they didn’t really die, because you just think they didn’t, you see a mangled corpse and claim it ‘looks fake’ cuz you just sorta think it does. You clearly have an idee fixe. How could anyone get through to you and why would they bother to try?

          Maybe you should instead produce some evidence to prove Bob McIlvane is an actor or that Janette McKinley is still alive, or that the mangled corpse is a dummy?

          • flaxgirl says

            Admin, After all our toing and froing on this matter I do believe you still haven’t actually looked at my 10-point Occam’s Razor exercise or my challenge, have you?

            Pray, please look at my exercise and then get back to me. I could paste it into the comments but that would be an ugly sight. Please, just look at the exercise and get back to me then.

            Occam’s Razor has zero to do with gut feeling and everything to do with matching evidence with hypotheses and choosing the hypothesis requiring the fewest assumptions and questions. It is based purely on reasoning – something I’m afraid, Admin, I find you do not engage in with any rigour. If you did you certainly would have consulted my exercise before accusing me so very falsely of going by my gut feeling.

            I am not prepared to discuss any further with you until you indicate you have perused my rationale for my hypothesis.

          • flaxgirl says


            You really are a shameful strawmanner.

            I don’t say it looks fake “cuz I sorta think it does”. I simply say I think it looks fake. What is your better reason for thinking it looks real, Admin? Please tell.

            “You see grieving parents and claim they’re actors, based on nothing but your gut feeling.”
            This is a shameful falsity

            I assert that this is not credible for a real situation:
            — parent (Robbie Parker) calls a press conference the day after his 6 year-old daughter’s death (with no reason given for this press conference), speaks for 13 minutes and mentions, twice in the course of speaking, a fundraising site set up for his child the day before by “friends back home” (the actual date of her death) with no special reason given for this fundraising site
            — the same parent walking to the microphone with a very broad smile on his face
            — other Sandy Hook parents beaming while describing their only very recently deceased child

            Do you think the above could fit a real situation? Is that what you’re going to tell me, Admin. That you think that fits a real situation?

            There are many people who passionately believe in the reality of Sandy Hook and yet not a single person has been able to respond to my challenge to come up with a measly 10 points that support “real” over “staged”. A measly 10 points. In fact, no one can come up with even a single point.

            But there’s a reason for that and that is because they tell us so loudly and clearly that they’re hoaxing us, Admin. I know this is beyond the pale for you but the evidence is overwhelming. If they were trying to do Sandy Hook realistically they wouldn’t have parents walking to the microphone with broad smiles on their faces, would they? They wouldn’t do that. Nor would they have terrorists pop up alive after they supposedly perished in plane crashes. Nor would they have survivors of Pearl Harbour describe the flesh falling off their arms due to burns, and loss of fingerprints and yet manage to inch their way across a 70ft rope.

        • Sharon Marlowe says

          I read your 10 point Occam’s razor article. It makes no sense. You say that there was no reason for the them to kill people when it’s easier to fake it. What world do you live in to think it’s easy to fake those deaths? You may as well say that they faked the deaths in the Oklahoma bombing. It wasn’t a movie set, it wasn’t a controlled environment. It was in New York with millions of people watching.
          They would have to keep all the victims alive and tell everyone they know that they’re dead. You say that they did that because the families of the victims would get all mad and go on a rampage. But they did tell the families that they were dead and no one went on a rampage. You say they have no reason to kill people in this false flag, but the false flag is for killing millions of people in the Middle East. You make no sense. I don’t even know what your bizarre $5,000 challenge could possibly be because the way you reasoned out your argument is so inconsistent and just full of silly premisses that it reads like a joke, or like the other commenter above said–as disinformation in order to make government conspiracy researchers look silly.

          • milosevic says

            To be clear, I think the claim is (to the extent that it’s coherent at all), that the people who were allegedly killed on 9/11/2001 NEVER EXISTED AT ALL, not that they’re actually still alive. Therefore, there are no relatives; the few supposed relatives whose names we know are all just crisis actors.

            As you say, this is either insanity or disinformation. Consider the New York Fire Department personnel — you would think that they would eventually notice that the 343 of their colleagues supposedly killed on that day were either still alive, or had never actually existed. But apparently, in this alternate universe, people are just too stupid to notice minor details like that.


            The fact that observations such as this, do not count as a refutation of the alleged “$5000 Challenge”, demonstrates what a fraud that must be. Congratulations on having the fortitude to plow through it; I certainly can’t be bothered.

          • Ken Kenn says

            In terms of 9/11 I don’t know what happened – in terms of basic physics what happened shouldn’t have happened like it did in near full view of a watching public.

            But happen it did.

            What we do know is that the official narrative was that 16 Saudis did the deed.

            What we also know is that instead of bombing the crap out of Saudi Arabia the wise folks managed to convince the American public that Iraq was responsible when in actuality the Iraqi’s were mortal enemies of the Saudi regime.

            That was a better trick than any holograms etc etc.

            My view of a lot of these incidents/catastrophes is that the PTB get to know that something(s) are going to happen and they either ‘ enhance ‘ the effect for the unknowing masses or set up parallel scenarios of their own to affect the masses.

            I know what shouldn’t have happened on 9/11 but most of the evidence shows me it did.

            Whatever happened was cleverly but cynically done and had the desired effect allowing the US and its grovelling allies to invade/attack numerous countries in the process.

            It is still very much ongoing and we will have to live around 100 plus years before we get to find out what really happened.

            That’s if we still exist as a species of course?

            • milosevic says

              My view of a lot of these incidents/catastrophes is that the PTB get to know that something(s) are going to happen and they either ‘enhance’ the effect for the unknowing masses or set up parallel scenarios of their own to affect the masses.

              Once you’re willing to believe all that, the idea that “something is going to happen” becomes what is known as an “unnecessary hypothesis” — there’s no evidence for it, and it adds nothing to your understanding of real phenomena. It’s unscientific.

              If the state is willing to not only decline to prevent a major terrorist attack, but to actually “enhance” it, in the interests of the corporate ruling class, why would they wait around hoping for some outside gang of terrorists to make it happen for them? Why wouldn’t they just produce exactly the desired effect themselves, at exactly the right time? Like just before invading some country that they had already decided to attack, for other reasons not fit for public consumption.

              The evidence for state involvement in 9/11 and its lesser imitations, is simply overwhelming. The evidence that anybody involved in making them happen was completely independent of the state, is essentially non-existent, making that idea a truly unnecessary and unsupported hypothesis.

              the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

              Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century — Project for the New American Century, September 2000

            • milosevic says

              in terms of basic physics what happened shouldn’t have happened like it did in near full view of a watching public. But happen it did.

              It’s clearly far outside the capabilities of a gang of Saudi Arabian terrorists, to make things like this happen. Somebody with far more power and resources produced this effect. But then why assume the existence of the Jihadi terrorists at all, if that doesn’t explain what actually happened?

              • Ken Kenn says

                Who’s saying 16 Saudi flying aces were successful in three missions and one ploughed into a old coal mine in Shanksville?

                That’s not what I said.

                I said the PTB know that something is being planned.

                They join in ( or take over ) the whole thing.

                Obviously they set up their own missions – nothing new there.

                9/11 is always viewed as a purely government set up – hence the ‘Inside Job ‘ epithet.

                It could be entirely or partly.

                The plane that dived into Shanksville or got blown up may have been the only genuine attempt at an attack solely on Washington DC. The other three could have been added – pre planned – call it what you will.

                As I said previously we would have to live long enough to see the reality of what happened on 9/11. In fact the ‘ truth ‘ may not ever be shown at all.

                What I am saying is that the visual ‘truth’ right in front of our media trained eyes was shown and
                for effect it worked beautifully. That well that even the cynical manipulative MSM were in awe.

                The physics on the other hand gives contradictory evidence to what we and the MSM witnessed.

                Once the deed was done right before our very eyes the debate wasn’t – How did that happen – but who was responsible for it happening?

                Job done.

                The narrative from the 9/11 Commission was not about how the deeds happened but who did it?

                Unfortunately ( with a few exceptions ) the who rather than how has become the main thing.

                I disagree.

                Just two examples of physics and what we saw.

                Nano Thermate burns white hot and the smoke is white.You need a lot of that to bring down a building.

                Did the pictures on TV show that before or during the Towers fall?

                No they didn’t.

                Secondly: How do you get to see two tall buildings peel like a banana virtually equally floor by floor ( despite aysmmetrical damage and launch 10 ton plus core pieces of metal into an arc 100 yards away from the centre of the building?

                Add to that the crushing of bones to the size of pinkie nails flung onto the roof of a nearby bank?

                With explosives of some kind?

                The type that makes more noise before the buildings fall and none during the fall?

                I don’t know the answer to that except that the two methods mentioned above are the only ones I know of.

                Unless the PTB have something we don’t know about?

                And we don’t know more than we do know.

                That’s just how they like it.

                Not so much peeling an onion as adding layers to an existing onion.

                That is the history of most inside jobs.

                We can find ourselves adding our own layers to the onion and that suits th perpetrators just fine.

                • milosevic says

                  9/11 is always viewed as a purely government set up – hence the ‘Inside Job ‘ epithet. It could be entirely or partly.

                  The point is that there is no evidence for “partly”. It’s an unnecessary hypothesis. Why would the government just wait around, hoping for some random terrorists to provide them with a “catastrophic and catalyzing event”, when they could just manufacture whatever pretext they thought necessary?

                  What would have happened if no Moslem terrorists had fortuitously volunteered to provide the essential pretext for the Terror War in September 2001? Would the US ruling class have just given up on their entire Global Hegemony programme? Of course not — they would have manufactured a suitable pretext by themselves, and proceeded according to plan. It wouldn’t have been a very good plan, if it left the enabling event to chance, and the whims of some evil terrorist mastermind, living in a cave in Afghanistan.

                  So what reason is there to believe that isn’t EXACTLY what actually happened?

                  • Ken Kenn says

                    Unnecessary hypothesis?

                    It was necessary ( if you believe the Inside Job theory ) to rig three buildings with explosives prior to the event.

                    It was necessary to fly two planes into two of them and for one to fall down due to fires.

                    It Is necessary to defy the Laws of physics despite evidence right before your eyes in Technicolour.

                    The question is; It was necessary in order to facilitate what exactly?

                    I read many views ( and that’s just what they are ) and some I think are interesting and others are meant to mislead and obfuscate the debate

                    I will only say re; an Inside Job is that if I were planning to do a job similar to the Twin Towers I would find it ‘ necessary ‘ not to tell that dolt George W Bush that I was going to do it in case he blurted it out on TV.

                    I suspect he didn’t have a clue – but possibly Cheney and a few others did.

                    It was ‘ necessary ‘ that they knew.

                    The Government didn’t.

                    So Inside Job no – a cabal maybe.

          • I would not be in the least surprised if they also faked death at Oklahoma but I haven’t studied that event. My feeling is that most big bombings and similar events are faked – not the bombings themselves but the killing.

            I don’t say it’s easy to fake death, but I think it’s a hell of a lot easier to fake death than to deal with the repercussions from the loved ones. A hell of a lot easier.

            Sharon, some questions for you.
            — How many loved ones of the 3,000 who allegedly died do you think are protesting about the murder by the state of their loved one on 9/11?
            — How many of the 6,000 injured do you think are protesting at the injury caused to them by the state?
            — Do you think the number of protesters is commensurate with those 9,000 people?

            • Sharon Marlowe says

              How many loved ones of the 3,000 who allegedly died do you think are protesting about the murder by the state of their loved one on 9/11?

              You assume that all the families think that the State did 9/11. Some families wanted Saudi Arabia held accountable for 9/11. You can find out all about that at 911Truth.org, where you will find that over 2000 victims have been identified through dna. Go to this page:
              “9/11 FAMILIES”

              “More than a Thousand Families Have No Confirmation of Death”

              “Staffers at the medical examiner’s office still work to identify remains that turned up as recently as 2013. Families of 1,113 of the 2,753 who died still have no biological confirmation of death, according to New York’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.”
              “Forty to 50% of the families didn’t have any body parts returned to them. Only a small percentage had an entire body returned to them. Sometimes, it was just a wedding ring with a finger, or a jawbone with teeth.”

              So, at least there’s evidence for over 2000 people having died.

              • Sharon, Sharon it’s all lies and propaganda. 9/11 is a complete lie top to bottom. Of course, they’re going to come out with fake statistics. Doesn’t mean a thing. And they focus on Saudi Arabia and Israel as a form of distraction propaganda.

                People swallow all the bullshit from the government, if reluctantly, under normal circumstances but NOT when loved ones die. Then they turn into super sleuths and are hammering down the doors. You can be sure that the loved ones of people who died on 9/11 would have worked out that it was their own government who brought the buildings down. It’s all over the internet.

Comments are closed.