Antony C. Black
If the notion that, ‘truth always lies 180 degrees opposite to the direction pointed by the corporate media’ is not yet a modern maxim, it should be. A useful corollary might be added to the effect that, ‘the depth to which an event is consigned to the establishment memory hole is inversely related to its actual significance’.
Such an event is the occasion of the October, 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, for coming close upon the heels of those of 9/11, the anthrax attacks of early October seemed to stamp with the imprimatur of destiny itself the coming of a new age, a new ‘clash of civilizations’, and, of course, a new conflictual modality, ‘The Global War on Terror’. It is ironic then that barely a decade later the entire episode should be so completely forgotten as almost never to have happened.
So what did happen?
The bald facts – as detailed by author Graeme MacQueen – are these:
From early October until November 20, some twenty-two people became infected by anthrax spores contained in letters sent through the US public mail system. Of these five died. A number of letters containing the spores were sent to several major news organizations and two were sent to the offices of US Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.
The US Administration immediately laid blame for the attacks at the door of Al Qaeda – and, significantly, Iraq, even though the latter had in no way been implicated in the 9/11 attacks themselves.
A number of crude ‘Islamic’ propaganda letters also accompanied some of the anthrax mailings. As it turned out, these proved so crude as to convince virtually no one, but rather as to suggest blatant fraud. Even more problematic was that the ordained authorities chose early on to push the notion that the spores had physical characteristics whose provenance could only be that of Iraq.
This tactic was quickly seen to backfire for when thoroughly analyzed the strain of anthrax used was found, egads!, to have come from US government labs. Shocking.
Needless to say, the Al Qaeda / Iraq motif was quietly dropped as was the heavy curtain of amnesia over the entire wayward affair. In 2010, just by way of tying up loose ends, a government anthrax vaccine researcher, one Dr. Bruce Ivins, was, after conveniently committing suicide, judged in absentia as the ‘lone wolf’ culprit. Case closed.
Well not quite.
In 2008, following Ivins’ death and under pressure from Congress, the FBI reluctantly asked the National Academy of Sciences to review its scientific methodology in the case.
The NSA, after hurdling multiple bureaucratic and technical obstacles placed in its way by the FBI, concluded (in 2011) that, far from being airtight, the case against Ivins was, in fact, built on a foundation of sand.
Thus, not only was Ivins’ alleged ‘deception’ of authorities strongly called into question, but so was the actual physical link between Ivins’ research and the anthrax spores used in the mailings. The NSA findings received reinforcement that same year from an unexpected source.
The relatives of Robert Stevens – the first fatality and the first victim to be identified as suffering from anthrax, (Oct. 5) – in suing the US government for liability in the death of their loved one, incurred a raucous split between the government’s civil and criminal divisions.
The subsequent court battle witnessed the civil branch attacking the results of the FBI and concluding, as per the NSA report, that there was no substantive link between Ivins and the anthrax mailings.
For the government narrative, things got uglier still. In 2011 and 2012 two articles appeared in the Journal of Bioterrorism and Biodefense. The lead author of the two papers, Martin Hugh-Jones, was listed by the FBI itself as a “renowned anthrax expert”.
The papers argued that the spores used in the 2001 anthrax attacks were not only highly weaponized, but employed a very specialized ‘silicone coating with a tin catalyst’. As the authors concluded,
Potential procedures that might be applicable for silicone coating of spores, barely touched on here, are complex, highly esoteric processes that could not possibly have been carried out by a single individual”.
‘Highly esoteric processes that could not possibly have been carried out by a single individual’.
So if not by Ivins, then by who?
The authors of the papers answered this question too.
“The known clues point to Dugway [Proving Grounds in Utah] or Battelle [Memorial Institute in Ohio], not USAMIIRD as the site where the attack spores were prepared. Crucial evidence that would prove or disprove these points either has not been pursued or has not been released by the FBI”.
In short, all the evidence relating to the 2001 anthrax letters points, not just to a domestic false flag attack – that much is conceded – but to a collective conspiracy at the highest levels of the US state apparatus.
But then why? What was all this in aid of?
As mentioned earlier, the context of the 2001 anthrax attacks involved not just the assaults on the Trade Towers themselves, but the whole edifice of the subsequent ‘global war on terror’ that was so rapidly prosecuted by the Bush Administration.
Thus, within just one day of 9/11, i.e. on Sept. 12, Attorney General Ashcroft put forward a ‘use of force’ proposal that leant the President unprecedented wartime powers.
Within a week the Patriot Act was on the table and this was followed in short order by proposals for military tribunals and (on Oct. 4) bulk surveillance powers for the NSA. On October 7th, the US invaded Afghanistan.
As MacQueen shows, the entire ideological thrust of the US executive during this time was to phrase the attacks as acts of war rather than as terrorist incidents, this so as to replace the ‘legal system with the war system’.
And so, within a matter of mere weeks following 9/11, the nation witnessed a naked seizure of power by the Executive Branch such as had not been experienced during its entire two hundred plus years of existence.
But all was not entirely clear sailing for the Bush neo-cons.
The Patriot Act, for one, was, in late September and early October, meeting tepid, if nevertheless substantive, resistance from the Democrat-controlled Senate. And who by chance were the two people most implicated in this resistance? You guessed it, Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.
Thus, Daschle as Senate Majority Leader and Leahy as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee were the two key figures controlling passage of the legislation and who, though largely in obeisance to the Administration’s will, were yet a tad taken aback by the sheer scope and breadth of the powers being ceded by the proposed Act.
Moreover, they protested the unseemly haste with which the Administration was attempting to ram through the legislation. Following reception of the anthrax-laced letters on Oct. 15th, however, their opposition, such as it was, collapsed. The Patriot Act was then quickly signed into effect on Oct. 26.
Though jettisoned of necessity by the revelation of US government affiliation, the overweening importance of the Al Qaeda / Iraq anthrax narrative to the Bush Administration’s whole ‘war on terror’ meme cropped up again, two years later, when Colin Powell made his infamous bogus presentation to the United Nations in the lead up to the assault on Iraq.
Holding up a vial of simulated anthrax Powell inveighed not just against Iraq’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in general, but also against Iraq’s ‘aerial dispersion’ techniques. That it was all a load of total manure matters less for our concerns here than does the significance that the Bush Administration still placed, and had long placed, on the anthrax narrative – and on the idea of ‘aerial dispersion’.
Both of these, it turns out, have a fascinating connection to the alleged perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks themselves.
It is first pertinent to note, however, that the date of confirmation of the first anthrax attack, i.e. against Robert Stevens, was Oct. 3rd. Prior to this date no one knew – or was supposed to know – that the nation was, once again, ‘under attack’. Strange to tell, then, that the press was, all through September, chock-a-block full of reports and analyses of possible anthrax attacks.
The New York Times alone, between Sept. 12 and Oct. 3, fielded some 76 articles related to biological and chemical weapons attacks, of which 27 of these were specifically to do with anthrax.
Furthermore, on Sept. 22, the FAA, responding to special information (that we will visit in a moment) pointing to the possibility of a mass aerial anthrax assault, grounded all of the nation’s 4000 or so crop-dusting planes. Finally, it eventually came out that the White House staff had been placed on the anthrax antibiotic, Ciprofloaxcin, on the very day of Sept. 11.
Now one might at first suppose that all this seeming foreknowledge was merely prudent calculation on the part of both government and media. In short, perhaps this was not ‘foreknowledge’ but rather ‘foresight’. But this supposition is misleading. There was, as such, no obvious, no compelling reason to think that a follow-up terrorist plot by the likes of ‘Al Qaeda’ would come in the form of a biological attack. After all, purely conventional means (i.e. planes, bombs, etc.) offered the far simpler, the far greater threat.
And here we need take note, not only of the extreme technical difficulties in the weaponizing of anthrax, but of the overwhelmingly disproportionate emphasis on the threat of it throughout the period in question.
Nor can one credit the boys in blue – or the media – with some flashy detective intuition, for the plain fact of the matter is that they got it completely wrong, i.e. the provenance of the anthrax attacks were neither Al Qaeda nor Iraq – but US government-military labs!
Still, the FAA did seem to have been on to something when they grounded the nations’ crop-dusting fleet, and that ‘something’ turned out to be the startling revelation that a number (at least a dozen) of the alleged 9/11 hijackers had, over the previous year, been busying themselves attempting to procure crop-dusting planes. And not just procuring, but of making a big, very public splash of it to boot.
On Sept. 24, 2001, for instance, Ashcroft testified before Congress relating how Mohamed Atta, the supposed ringleader of the hijackers, “had been compiling information about crop-dusting before the 9/11 attacks.”
The following day it was revealed that Atta had, in early May, walked into US Department of Agriculture office in Florida and inquired about getting a loan to buy a crop-dusting plane adding that he was looking to modify the plane to carry a large additional chemical tank. After being turned down for the $650,000 loan he sought, Atta apparently then threatened to cut the throat of the loan officer and simply take the money from the safe. He made further blatant allusions to ‘Al Qaeda’ and ‘Osama Bin Laden’ and so on throughout the interview.
Apart from the fact that it is hard to reconcile this behaviour – and a large corpus of similar material relating to the behaviour of the 9/11 hijackers – with a group of men planning an ultra-secret mission of terror, it is also more than curious that the hijackers of 9/11 would be bothering to associate themselves with (presumably) spreading anthrax when it was clear, even according to the government’s own narrative, that ‘Al Qaeda’ was hardly likely to harbour the technical capability for weaponizing the bacteria.
This is, of course, where the link with Iraq insinuates itself, i.e. a state actor is required to provide the weaponized material.
The equation then becomes simple: The anthrax narrative equals the pretext for the invasion of Iraq. Here we may see Powell’s seemingly anomalous waving of the ‘anthrax card’ before the UN, in a new light, i.e. as part of an erstwhile, deeply entrenched (if, by then, completely discredited) script to attack Iraq.
A question now begs to be asked: Is there yet any connection between the hijackers – and the anthrax letters themselves?
The answer is yes, and the link between them is Robert Stevens, i.e. the very first person to be identified as having contracted anthrax (on Oct. 3; he died Oct. 5). Stevens worked as a photo-editor for a tabloid called The Sun in Baca Raton, Florida.
As it transpires, Gloria Irish, the wife of the head of the Sun, just happened to be the real estate agent not only for Stevens himself, but for two of the hijackers, Marwan al-Shehhi and Hamza al-Ghamdi. Two other hijackers moved in with al-Shehhi and al-Ghamdi and, in all, investigators later connected nine of the nineteen hijackers to the apartments located by Mrs. Irish.
But remember, the anthrax attacks did not actually involve Al Qaeda or the hijackers. They originated as a purely domestic conspiracy. Could then a ‘lone wolf’ agent like Bruce Ivins perhaps have deliberately targeted Stevens knowing his physical proximity to the hijackers?
No. The information linking Stevens and the hijackers came out only after Steven’s death.
That leaves either the pure coincidence theory, i.e. that, out of some 285 million people then living in the United States, a number of the hijackers just happened to be connected with the first anthrax victim, or that the entire anthrax narrative – including the reports of hijackers seeking crop-dusting planes etc – was meant to be linked with 9/11, this as a pretext to implicate Iraq in the 9/11 attacks themselves.
Moreover, as Graham MacQueen aptly notes, it matters not “whether actual hijackers were involved in sending out letters laden with anthrax spores: the question is whether fictions, verbal or enacted, were intentionally created to make this narrative seem credible. The Hijackers did not have anthrax, but the script portrayed them as likely to have it.”
The association between the alleged hijackers and the anthrax letters do not, of course, exhaust the many and profound connections linking the hijackers to a false-flag scenario.
There are, for instance, the known connections of a number of the hijackers to Western intelligence services. Of especial interest is the possible relation between the hijackers and Israeli intelligence agents operating in the US at the time. Still, as discussion of these fascinating threads would lead us far astray, let us conclude this exhibit with a final bizarro-world flourish known as ‘Dark Winter’.
Less than three months before the 9/11 attacks a bioterrorism exercise called ‘Dark Winter’ was held at Andrews Air Force Base. Whilst the holding of such exercises are not in themselves unusual, the peculiar parallels between this simulation and the subsequent anthrax attacks are yet worth noting.
Thus, like the anthrax attacks themselves ‘Dark Winter’ involved: contaminated letters being sent to the mainstream media; letters being sent to high state officials; preparations for the drastic restriction of civil liberties; and finally, an emphasis on a ‘double perpetrator’ narrative, even spelling out “Iraq” as the state sponsor in collusion with “terrorist groups in Afghanistan”. Also intriguing are the personnel who were involved in the exercise. Of these, three stand out: Judith Miller, James Woolsey, and Jerome Hauer.
Miller reprised for the simulation her real-world role as reporter for the New York Times; a role she leant zealously towards the framing of Iraq in the lead up to invasion. Also worthy of note is the bio-weapons book she co-authored, entitled ‘Germs’, which was released on Oct. 2/01, just in time to clean up on the anthrax scare and soar up the best-seller list.
Woolsey, reprising his former real-world role as CIA director (under Clinton), was also an erstwhile and virulent proponent of invading Iraq. Hauer played the role of FEMA director in Dark Winter.
In real life, Hauer was both a bioterrorism expert and had been, up until early 2000, the director of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) for New York City. The OEM had been located on the 23rd floor of the World Trade Center #7. According to a July 27, 1999 New York Times article, Hauer’s alternate expertise – and apparent obsession – was building collapse.
In following the chain of evidence adumbrated so far we are led inexorably to a startling conclusion. To wit, far from being just another obscure footnote in history, the 2001 anthrax attacks appear, not just as a domestic conspiracy originating within the highest levels of the US state apparatus, but as a pointer to the truth of that ‘other’ potential – probable – false flag, i.e. 9/11 itself.
As MacQueen summarizes the matter:
Since the Hijackers of 9/11 fame were connected to the anthrax attacks, and since the anthrax attacks manifestly had to be planned and carried out by deep insiders in the US, there is no avoiding the implication that the 9/11 attacks were also carried out by insiders. There is, as it happens, a large body of evidence which supports this thesis.”
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is where, in the lawyering biz they say with steely finality: ‘I rest my case’.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
Somewhere, someone is reading this analysis and thinking: “Well done! So close…”
It must be satisfying, knowing your evil genius was not entirely forgotten.
So you think they really killed and injured the stated people with anthrax, Clay?
I make this comment in the hope that it may be enlightening to those who are hostile to what I say.
Until I woke up to 9/11 in 2014, I was only vaguely aware of Occam’s Razor but I instinctively gravitated towards this magical tool in a bid to persuade others of the incontrovertibility of my claims instead of going around and around in argument with them. It totally didn’t work and no one I’m aware of other than myself sees the slightest significance in the fact that I have done 10-point exercises where I favour one hypothesis over the opposing hypothesis that no one has poked any credible holes in, nor in the fact that no one has come up with equivalent exercises with the favouring reversed. So be it.
People often accuse me of using Occam’s Razor incorrectly when it is they, in fact, who are not using it correctly. This is what Occam’s Razor is not: it is not concerned with probability and it is not concerned with story. There are various definitions of it and the one I use which is so utterly perfect for events committed by the power elite is this: which hypothesis does the evidence fit with the fewest assumptions and questions raised. It truly works like magic except for the fact that people do not recognise this magic.
Let us take the anthrax attacks. There are three obvious hypotheses:
1. Bruce Ivins was responsible for the attacks
2. It was a “real” inside job
3. There were no attacks and it was a complete hoax
Whenever we consider an event we believe the power elite may be responsible for, a double-hypothesis is automatically involved. Past experience shows that they always give us clues so the hypothesis will include parts a and b. Depending on the event there may also be propaganda that is directed at those skeptical of the story so if there is an inkling of that we can include that as a third part:
1a. The power elite did it
1b. They let us know they did it
1c. They directed propaganda at the skeptics of their story
This applies regardless of whether the event is a hoax or for real. In the case of the JFK assassination, they had the alleged assassin choose a relic of Mussolini’s armed forces in WWII, a Carcano, that wasn’t sighted in (adjusted for the curved bullet trajectory) – https://www.quora.com/Could-Oswald-fire-3-shots-in-5-6-seconds-using-the-Carcano-bolt-action-rifle-from-the-sixth-floor-of-the-Texas-School-Book-Depository/answer/Joseph-Mosser. Obviously, a genuine assassin would never have chosen that rifle so they’re really pushing it in our faces – that’s power for you. Also, there is no still of the alleged live footage of Lee Harvey Oswald being shot that matches the famous photo. (This is a relatively obscure clue but nevertheless if they were going all out to fool us they would have ensured that they didn’t do the shooting in two takes or, at least, that the two takes matched so that it was hard to tell.) In the JFK assassination we know they assassinated him but other parts of the story are fake, such as LHO being killed.
If we look at the anthrax attacks which of the three hypotheses (the third being double- or-triple- barrelled) fits best?
There are many anomalies in what they tell us about Bruce Ivins including farfetched stories about him stalking someone, the fact that there are no photos contemporaneous with the time that he allegedly went to court, no convincing photos of him with his family and on and on.
These anomalies perfectly support the second part of the “power elite did it” hypothesis, “they tell us”, which automatically means the first part is also supported. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports Bruce Ivins really doing it over him not doing it.
It was a “real” inside job?
When we look at the evidence shown for people suffering or having died from anthrax it is completely laughable. There is virtually nothing. We see a tiny lesion allegedly suffered by one alleged sufferer, Pat O’Donnell, and then a farfetched story in a postal worker blog of him suffering PTSD 10 years later. There is zero evidence in relation to the sufferers or those alleged to have died supporting “real” over “staged”.
There is evidence of this in the insinuation that one of the victims was targeted because he worked for a media company that exposed the Bush twins carrying on in an unbecomingly drunken manner (completely swallowed this when I first read it). There is also evidence in the fact that the senator, Tom Daschle, who seemingly came out against post-9/11 measures was targeted.
What I’d appreciate is that for anyone hostile to what I say to make a comment on the approach I’ve used to support my claims. Do you think the approach is valid and, if not, why not? Do you suggest another method in its place?
Where people go wrong in arguing with me
People often argue with me in a way that really goes against the Occam’s Razor method. What they do is this:
They focus on a single point that supports my hypothesis and give an alternative explanation for it.(Admin is notorious for doing this).
The problems with this method of argument:
1. Often the alternative explanation is really low on the plausibility scale
2. Regardless of plausibility, an alternative explanation does not debunk my hypothesis. At the outset it’s simply an alternative explanation for a single piece of evidence. To give the alternative explanation any status we need to consider all the other pieces of evidence and see if they support the alternative explanation too. ALL PIECES OF EVIDENCE MUST BE ABLE TO BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE HYPOTHESIS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. We choose the hypothesis that fits ALL the evidence best. All the evidence must always be kept in mind.
So please, do not pluck alternative explanations for single pieces of evidence out of the ether as if they act as a debunker. They do not. All the evidence must be kept in mind and it’s the hypothesis that fits all the evidence best that wins.
I hope this helps in better mutual understanding.
What I didn’t make clear is that when I speak of propaganda targeted at truthers, the propaganda works on the assumption that the truthers know it was “inside” already and that they’re persuading them of other aspects of the story, eg, that people really died when they faked it or other things. They use truther-targeted propaganda to spin a huge story with all sorts of red-herrings to confuse and as a form of distraction from the the basics which are all that is required to prove the case. For JFK all you need are the ballistics and the number of bullets.
Very interesting Ryan Dawson interview here, so much info. He charts the rise of the Neocons, from inception to the current day. Ryan is the producer of War By Deception, arguably the most important documentary on YouTube. I posted it at the bottom of the page. Also very interesting is the Neocon Richard Perle’s “Clean Break” paper, which he discusses, as well as the anthrax attacks and 9/11. The interviewer does a great job too. A must watch for sure
NEOCONS – Who are they? – Ryan Dawson
The “A Clean Break” paper is the blueprint for all the wars we have seen in the Middle East since 9/11, penned by Richard Perle, the spawn of Satan Neocon who has the blood of millions on his filthy hands.
This paper was prepared for Netanyahu, to tell him how the US could fight all these wars for Israel. You cannot make this shit up. Off the scale level of importance.
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the “Clean Break” report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel. The report explained a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on “Western values.” It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of “weapons of mass destruction”. Certain parts of the policies set forth in the paper were rejected by Netanyahu……
click link to read more, your jaw will hit the floor. I’m not joking
Ryan’s website – ANC Report (Anti NeoCons Report)
Why has this linked to war by deception? I posted a link to this
NEOCONS – Who are they? – Ryan Dawson
Ryan is a very courageous young man, who has been vilified and hounded for telling the truth, plus ‘they’ have removed all his information numerous times… so you KNOW HE IS ON TO SOMETHING!!!
I don’t think he can be accessed any more on u tube, but he can here:
here’s the link to Leon Frank’s atrocities:
The UK…what a joke of a place
The US Neocon regime has got to be amongst the most utterly repugnant ones in the past 2 centuries.
That Britain is mow trying to exit a quite civilised Europe and instead become 100% aligned with this disgraceful regime, acting as its global Police Poodle, is shocking to say the least. You Marxists need to wake up about what Brexit REALLY means.
“You Marxists need to wake up about what Brexit REALLY means.”
Your understanding of “Marxist” reasons for wanting to leave the EU is sketchy, to say the least. Many Marxists do think that Britain should leave the EU because it is an irremediably (Google “acquis” and read on from there) post-fascist, proto-neocon constuct that is inherently inimical to the real interests of the working class, whether they are Marxists or not. You may also care to look up the very significant class (or socio-political “layer”) differences between socialist “internationalism” (what many socialists believe the EU should espouse–and have espoused as its founding cornerstone) and capitalist “globalization” (what it currently–and unalterably, see “acquis”–is espousing).
Should you “REALLY” (to quote you) wish to educate yourself in these matters (when soundbite thinking is so much easier), YouTube still has videos of Tony Benn, a British Labour politician (socialist as distinct from Tony Blair’s proto-fascist, proto-neocon “New” Labour degeneracy) presenting cogent arguments against getting into the EU in the first place and others of the then opposing “old” Conservative Party, notably Enoch Powell, presenting Tory arguments to the same end. Both were right, neither carried the day.
America plays no part in those considerations, other than as the prime exemplar of the shitholes (to use a President Trumpism) that countries become when they embrace or are forced to embrace the tenets of modern Western capitalism. The temporal coincidence of a move towards Brexit with a rabidly pro-American modern (a.k.a. “financialized”) capitalism, pro-neocon UK government is unfortunate at best; potentially disastrous at worst, but it is a passing not permanent aspect of the separate considerations impacting on the question of the EU and membership thereof in general.
Finally, most of the large contingent of working class voters who carried the referendum for Brexit and who, for the most part, are still not persuaded otherwise, would not know the difference between Karlo, Groucho, Chico, Harpo, and Zeppo Marx except that one of them had a cigar, one had a harp, one seemed to be from the Italian side of the family, one the beneficiary of nepotism (think Ivanka and Jared…) and one must have died before they hit Hollywood. If, these days, they have heard of them at all. As an adjunct to your self education in matters EU, should you choose to pursue it, you might consider taking a short side course in The Real Lives of The Little People Outside of the *-Guardian Encirclement as well.
Britain sold Anthrax to Saddam Hussein.
If Porton Down had pulled its finger out, they could have sold him some Novichok as well.
In 7 years the FBI never charged Ivans, he never confessed, and handwriting did not match.
The FBI head agent in charge of the anthrax investigation – Richard Lambert – has filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit calling the entire FBI investigation bullsh!t: (2014/15)
In 2010 The Wall St Journal reported that the anthrax must have been siliconized by a crack team in a lab, not a lone wolf in a garage. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704541004575011421223515284
It’s all a hoax. Who was Ivins really if anyone? I know his name is on scientific papers – that’s really the only thing close to reality of him that we can see … and, of course, that could be sham too. It’s all a big bullshit hoax and all these lawsuits and all the rest of it are just completely sham. They string us along with loads and loads of nonsense.
fuck off flaxgirl
I wonder what angers you about me, Mucho. I’m just presenting what I believe with reason and logic. To me, what I say, regardless of the evidence simply makes so much sense. This is what I don’t understand. It makes perfect sense. We call what they do a psyop but we don’t actually believe they commit psyops – we believe they do the most important aspect of an alleged psyop for real – killing people – in which case it’s no longer a psyop – nothing psyoppy about it. It’s a complete failure. The power elite would be so utterly ashamed of doing such a crap job – killing people for real in their alleged “psyops”. You have to have respect for your oppressor, Mucho. You need to respect their abilities. If you don’t do that you’re totally screwed.
Faking an anthrax attack is the absolute easiest thing in the world. There are loads of recognised hoax anthrax and they were happening at the time of the alleged real one post-9/11 – that’s one of their many clues that it was all a hoax. It’s hilarious!
Mucho, the most important part of the PSYOP is making us believe they killed people. That’s the most important part.
Of course, the easiest way of making it appear that people have died is to actually kill them, which would certainly occur to the planners of the PSYOP.
Occam’s Razor, etc.
Occam’s Razor is not based on probability or speculation but on evidence. Evidence, milosevic, evidence! Why do people not get that evidence is the key ingredient in making judgements. There are various definitions of evidence but the one I choose is:
What hypothesis does the evidence fit with the fewest assumptions and questions raised.
The abundant evidence for fakery of death and injury is here: https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html
They actually make it obvious. That’s their rule – they need to make it obvious.
No one, so far, including you has come up with a single piece of evidence that supports real death and injury.
I rest my case.
— the resulting people left without their loved ones are not an easy proposition to deal with
— they love fooling us and are extremely good at it and, in fact, they didn’t really have to go to such extreme lengths to fool us. It’s their MO, they do it all the time.
— a significant number of key people in media, government, response agencies, private sector companies, intelligence need to be involved and they aren’t necessarily going to be AOK in participating in the murder of 3,000 people and injury to 6,000.
We can tell from the snippets below that newscasters Dan Rather and Brian Williams, Jerome Hauer, “WTC Security Contractor” and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant were all involved in what they perceive as a “Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise”. You see, they don’t even see it as a crime. They see it as an “exercise”.
1. Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor asks Jerome Hauer, WTC Security Contractor about the cause of collapse of the twin towers:
“Is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings? Or would it have required the prior positioning of other explosives in the building? What do you think?”
“No my sense is just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building and I think it was simply the planes hitting the buildings and causing the collapse.”
2. Conversation between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse:
“Can you confirm that it was No 7 that just went in?” [“Went in” is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
“And you guys knew this was comin’ all day.”
“We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”
3. Dan Rather reporting on the collapse of WTC-7:
“For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much of on television, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.”
The post-9/11 anthrax attacks were completely staged in terms of death and injury just as were the semi-recognised/recognised false flags:
They pushed out a reasonable amount of truther-targeted propaganda on the anthrax attacks while truther-targeted propaganda on 9/11 is beyond enormous.
I believe that the phenomenon of false flag is an historical myth perpetuated by the power elite to try to make them seem more intimidating and powerful – they can kill their own people and get away with it. It’s also much more taboo to accuse them of the very serious crime of false flag (killing the people) than false-flag hoax (pretending to kill people) so it all just stays in a permanent state of hush-hushness. The court case supposedly happening now for 9/11 is a complete sham just as was the 9/11 Commission and just as the Sandy Hook court cases and many others – we have a few happening in Australia. They are all complete shams. The court case for the Bologna station bombing and subsequent jailing would have been a complete sham too just like the alleged jailing of the fake whistleblower, Chelsea Manning, and for Jack Ruby. (It was after I twigged to 9/11 being a FF hoax rather than a false flag that I looked at the Bologna station bombing, realised it was also a hoax which then made me realise that, of course, they can tell us people have gone to jail when they haven’t. That made me realise that Jack Ruby wouldn’t have gone to jail, etc)
People don’t really give proper respect to the term psyop which they use interchangeably with false flag. A psyop is an operation, as the name suggests, where the only things done for real are the things wanted for real. They don’t want to kill people in psyops except people such as JFK, RFK and MLK. They’re the only people they kill – they don’t kill anyone else. They didn’t kill Lee Harvey Oswald and I bet they didn’t kill the good-looking policeman who was allegedly body-switched with JFK – they would have had all that sewn up without having to body switch. That was just truther-targeted propaganda – they love having loads and loads of “story” to keep everyone distracted and to make out all this clandestine, frightening killing is going on introducing a sense of tabooness. I mean, I know they kill lots and lots of people but they so very often don’t kill the people they indicate that they kill.
I have produced an 8-point exercise to show that the anthrax attacks were a complete hoax. Points 6 and 7 below relate to truther-targeted propaganda. If you go to this page you will see a link to the exercise as well as links to Pearl Harbour and the Bologna station bombing: https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/other-events.html
6. Truther-targeted propaganda – letters targeting media organs who published unbecoming photos and tawdry headlines about the Bush twins
Letters were addressed to both the National Enquirer and the New York Post. The first person to die from the anthrax attacks was Robert Stephens, a photo editor for the parent company of the National Enquirer, American Media Inc. Bob Ivins had no known motive for targeting this quarter (or indeed any of the addressed quarters) but we find on the internet a remotely plausible motive for George Bush (I have to admit with embarrassment that I swallowed it myself). The National Enquirer published photos of his daughter, Jenna, “falling down drunk” while the Post published a plethora of articles on the Boozing Bush Twins.
7. Truther-targeted propaganda – Tom Daschle, allegedly received an letter containing anthrax
While Tom Daschle is shown to put up seemingly important objections to warrantless wiretaps in the wake of 9/11 I think he’s a very suspect character. He is currently a political lobbyist as is his wife, is on the board of directors of the shady Center of American Progress. and has co-written a book, Crisis Point, with Republican senator, Trent Lott.
His words on 9/11 were: “the vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism. I acknowledged that concern, and it is for that reason that the Intelligence Committee is going to begin this effort, trying to limit the scope and the overall review of what happened. But clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened and why.” 
Of course, Tom Daschle has not brought out any truth about 9/11 whatsoever.
His being an alleged target could easily be truther-targeted propaganda to suggest the reason for the targeting was for his stated objections to measures the Republicans wanted to implement post-9/11. But good ol’ Tom just seems to get along fine and dandy with all sides and simply makes the right noises where required.
I am so very tired of bleating on below the line about people who were said to have died who didn’t. Why are the taboos of death so respected by everyone when the power elite do not respect those taboos one little bit. On the contrary, they exploit them to silence and intimidate us. To respect the taboos around death is only to do EXACTLY what the power elite want us to do. Exactly. To be their little puppets. Aren’t we supposed to not want to be their puppets?
Dying is easy.
It’s Living that is hard.
Sgt Rock used to say.
“Dying is easy–comedy is hard–[ a chestnut ]”
I’m not so sure, DunGroanin. Lots of people are desperately unhappy and it’s easy to see why they might kill themselves and, in fact, they think about it all the time but then they don’t. Though, of course, many do too … and, tragically, some whose lives actually seem really quite wonderful in so many ways.
Flaxgirl giving conspiracy theorists a bad name once again with here utterly insane input.
People REALLY died in Bologna.
People REALLY died in NY on 911.
People REALLY died of anthrax post 911.
You are a deluded nutter, try actually talking to those impacted, and those that witnessed these events before you spout more utter shite…but of course you will not, because you are possibly paid to create ridicule around conspiracy theorists.
And no, the Earth is not flat. And yes, 50 years ago today humans did land on the moon.
Avoid ad hom please. Flaxgirl expresses her opinions politely – please try to do the same.
And with logic, reason and evidence – if only those arguing with me would take a look at it.
You might want to watch “American Moon” by Massimo Mazzucco before fully committing to the legitimacy of the moon landings.
What a coincidence, Ken. I just looked up his video last night to read the comments. I firmly believe that astronauts went to the moon but I just thought I’d look at what people said about his video. There was only one negative comment but I inferred from the comments that he didn’t make a convincing case against the moon landings and that wasn’t necessarily his intention – just to raise a lot of questions.
My identical twin and I disagree (we argue to the point of insanity) on the moon landings. I’ve profiled her (and include a couple of friends in this profile too) as someone who by default does not believe anything from the authorities.
The other day the thought occurred to me that Bill Kaysing, a technical writer, and the first person to allege the moon landings were a hoax, may have been a CIA plant, hired to stir up those whose default position is to disbelieve government stories in order to make them a laughing stock. At this point I started to doubt myself. Moon landing hoaxer a CIA plant? Surely not. You’re in too deep now. The whole world is starting to look like one big conspiracy.
However, I consulted that trusty source, Wikipedia, (no sarcasm, it is, indeed, an excellent reference for matters regarding hoaxery) and found the following in Kaysing’s entry:
Kaysing’s daughter, Wendy L. Kaysing, has stated that along with Kaysing’s nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen, she hopes to one day write a book about her father. … Though no specific plans for a release date were given, the authors have stated the working title for this book will be Life and Times with “Wild” Bill Kaysing, the Fastest Pen in the West.
Here is the first part of a talk, Alien Disclosure, by Professor Dietrich von Schmausen of the North American Institute for Xenobiological Research (of which no record outside this video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmNMZexS-cQ
Oh my goodness! My paranoid conspiracy-theory thought was validated by the CIA jumping out at me like an evil jack-in-the-box with a ridiculous book title and silly name. Sometimes, the fakery really gets to me (both of itself and the fact that it’s so hard to persuade others of it) and then a fakery of an absurdly-named professor talking about an alien brain that the power elite throw in for their own amusement (and as the sign they are obliged to provide legally it seems) will have me chortling for days and lift my spirits slightly even though I despise it all.
Just to add:
Ironically, the people who fit the disbelieve-everything profile are, in fact, just as easily brainwashed, if not moreso, than the rest of the population whom they refer to as “sheeple” and they actually interfere with the exposure of truth. They tar all of us, purely evidence-based thinkers and disbelievers alike with the Boy Who Cried Wolf brush. They are a laughing stock because they promote the moon hoax conspiracy theory and then when they’re right about 9/11 being an inside conspiracy their ability and that of the evidence-based thinkers to get the truth out is severely compromised. Wrong about moon landings, wrong about 9/11!
flaxgirl, I think watching “American Moon” is more instructive than reading comments about it. IMO, denying there were any deaths on 9/11 is in “too deep.” I am well aware of the disbelieve-everything-from-the-authorities syndrome; it happened to my brother after I guided him into looking at and discovering the obvious truth of 9/11. He believes in flat Earth now. BTW, I’m still waiting for a manned mission beyond low Earth orbit, purportedly for the first time since 1972, but I won’t hold my breath.
I’m sure it is worth watching the DVD Ken and I should get round to it.
In the case of 9/11 I ask you and any reader of this comment to really appreciate the term psychological operation. 9/11, anthrax attacks and Bologna and many, many other events were psyops. No one ever says semi-psyop, they never SAY semi-psyop but that is how they perceive the event. So are psyops psyops or are they some other breed of event? Are the power elite so incompetent that they cannot persuade us that people died unless they kill them? Their billions of dollars on profiling us etc not sufficient to fake death and injury and persuade us they killed them for real. They persuaded us of the utterly ludicrous 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters story except for the part about killing 3,000 and injuring 6,000. They weren’t up to that level of persuasion they had to do it for real – or some of it at least for real – but then we have the question – who was really killed and injured and who wasn’t?
I have issued a challenge to provide 10 points that support real death and injury over staged to which no one has responded not has anyone come up with a single point. Not a single point. So if you believe people really died and we’re injured where is your single piece of evidence to support that belief.
Just to say while it makes it sound very suspicious that there has been no manned mission beyond low Earth orbit why would there be any manned mission unless they go somewhere specific? The closest place is the moon, so it’s simply a matter of never going to the moon again. I think the emphasis on beyond low-earth orbit is a bit misleading.
Like I said, I’m still waiting. VP of the USA, Mike Pence, has said we’ll be going back by 2024 as part of making the Moon a springboard for a presumably soon to follow manned mission to Mars, and that the first woman and man next there will be from the USA. It will be interesting to see how that unfolds. Watch “American Moon.”
I will but I daren’t show it to my sister. OMG! 🙂
These are the most convincing arguments I have for the landings being real.
* All the footage fits the very different lunar conditions as far as I can tell. The moon has a black sky in daytime and we see very, very bright light reflected off the moon’s surface with no signs of a light source other than the sun (at least in a number of visuals) and even if there are, in some images, seeming evidence of another light source we have to wonder how they achieved that brightness of light. No explanation has been given for how this fakery was achieved.
* Photos from unmanned missions from Russia, China, India and Japan match the images we were shown of the moon.
* All the specifications of the various components involved are very well documented including the computer, the trajectory, the suits, the spaceship, the lunar rover, etc and I have yet to see any compelling criticism of these specifications.
But I guess I’m going to have to watch that damned film.
Almost half-way through Ken. In many ways Mazzucco makes a convincing case and he does raise some very puzzling questions – especially the one about the too short time between Houston to moon exchanges, I must say, but then some of his criticisms are silly.
* When he talks about the LM he only talks about the thermo-shield and de-emphasizes that it is only a covering without reference to the pressure vehicle inside.
*While the behaviour of the dust seems puzzling it also does not seem consistent with the way dust behaves on earth either – a puzzle either way – which makes you tend to favour lunar. And I don’t agree that the dust looks like mud on the rover.
* In this Vintage Space video, an earth rocket, Titan II, is shown launching without a visible flame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsLtAUb1-Lw
* When he talks about “debunkers” the one he most quotes is Attivissimo. Just because Attivissimo may have an incorrect explanation for a seeming anomaly doesn’t mean there isn’t a better explanation.
I feel when he investigates he does not consult enough people to explain the anomalies. Will get back to you when I’ve finished watching.
OK, so I’ve watched it though skipped a bit through the last 90 minutes because the narrator’s voice was annoying and also the film annoyed me because it wasn’t properly researched. You don’t just interview a bunch of fashion photographers who know nothing about the moon. Mazzucco is very selective in his sources. Really, what his film ends up being is simply bullshit.
If you scroll down and look at JayUtah’s comments, it’s clear he knows waaay more about lunar photography than any of the people in this film. He mentions several terms not referenced in the film at all (unless I missed them).
With just some simple googling you can get answers to some of the alleged anomalies he points out. Not saying there aren’t puzzling anomalies but everything said against real moon landings always strikes me as simply in the “anomaly” category. There just is no sense of comprehensive argument that the astronauts didn’t go.
When I first started researching the moon I looked at all the hoax stuff and some of it seemed pretty compelling but then when I looked for myself I just couldn’t get past the conversations. The people involved are not actors, they’re astronauts, they sound completely natural and their conversations go on and on with words that, even though very important in the context, seem pretty banal to the punter. How can this possibly be faked? I simply cannot get past that. It would take more than a few anomalies to convince me the moon landings were faked. Also, there always seems to be an answer for them. For an hypothesis to be correct, all the evidence must be accommodated. At this stage, “real” is winning hands down in my opinion.
You know what really, really pisses me off? They have tainted the moon landings with fake stories. That really pisses me off. I was looking forward to reading some of the 50th anniversary articles and the first one I turned to in the SMH is a fake story about an alleged moon dust experiment that was the brainchild of an Australian scientist, Brian O’Brien.
Interestingly, I can see this fake story goes back to at least 2009 where it is reported in Science Alert. https://www.sciencealert.com/apollo-moon-dust-from-1966-to-2009
In Science Alert we are told that:
The measurements were made by the matchbox-sized Dust Detector Experiments (DDEs) I invented before dinner on National Airlines Flight 58, Los Angeles to Houston, on 12 January 1966
The six measurements provide absorptivity and emissivity values that dictate thermal controls as lunar temperature varies from minus 1700C to 1200C. [This is nothing like the lunar temperature range]
I wonder why you think I make these seemingly outrageous claims. I wonder what you think goes through my mind without, seemingly, any evidence to make these claims.
When you say people REALLY died in Bologna what is your evidence?
I have pages showing the evidence for people not dying in these events. Are you willing to read what I say? I cannot post it all in a comment.
If you’re not willing to read my case for why these events are complete psyops rather than semi-psyops (a contradiction in terms in my book) then you have no argument. Putting REALLY in capital letters does not make an argument.
The thing is Frank Speaker not only did they not kill people they TOLD us they didn’t kill people by making their “evidence”, if you will, for killing so utterly ludicrous and unconvincing … as they do for all their events. I have a page on how they always clearly tell us if you care to look.
In Bologna, they had a witness (22 years old by the way – that old multiple of the magic Masonic number 11 (9/11, JFK 22/11)) tell us:
“People were coming out of the station with blood streaming from their wounds. One middle-aged man was carried to an ambulance with blood pouring from a severed leg.”
And yet the images show nothing of the sort: no people with any obvious injury and no ambulance. They do, however, show us a stretcher (presumably with a person on it although it’s not clear) taken onto a bus. Yes, a bus. No ambulance shown, but someone (or that’s what’s indicated) being taken onto a bus.
Another witness, Malcolm Quantrill, reported as being 44 (yes another multiple of that magic Masonic number) who according to his Wikipedia entry would have been 49 at the time, reported:
“I did not hear an explosion – just the crash of the masonry falling and the sound of breaking glass as the ticket window disintegrated.
“There was blood all over me. Everyone was running, shouting and screaming.”
He indicates he wasn’t deaf in further testimony so we are to believe that he didn’t hear an explosion? When I put this in an earlier post Admin argued that when people are in shock they don’t necessarily hear things. This may well be true but as the first indication to this witness would have been the noise of the bomb he wouldn’t have been in shock at that point so we really have to wonder why he wouldn’t have heard it.
You see how anomaly-ridden the story is? But there’s more, if only you’d take a look and not instantly resort to capitalising REALLY.
And then we have to ask the question: if it’s a psyop (they only WANT us to believe people were killed, they DON’T WANT to kill them) and I think you’ll agree that they like to fool us and have many and varied ways of doing that and they profile us and all sorts to figure out how to target each of our profiles, etc, etc, then why would they have killed them when they could easily not kill them and even fool us that they killed them with an anomaly-ridden story? Why would they actually kill them?
They have brainwashed us to believe that false flags are a thing when they are not (at least for every event I’ve looked at that is recognised or semi-recognised as one). They are not false flags, they are false-flag hoaxes. We have been brainwashed to believe they are one thing when they are another.
These arguments about whether people really died on 9/11 or whatever seem to me to be the same as the arguments about whether the twin towers could have collapsed without controlled demolition – which leads on to stuff about the melting point of steel etc. etc. These arguments can go on from now till the end of time with no outcome – which, seems to me to be very much intended i.e. get everyone squabbling over stuff that can never be decided. Considering that our overlords obviously don’t give a shit about loss of life, it is certainly conceivable that people DID in fact die on 9/11. (Certainly at least as conceivable to the proposition that people actually went to the moon!)
The real issue about e.g. 9/11 is that it was a creation of the Western deep state. Talk of which parts of it “really did happen” are irrelevant and indeed a distraction.
I beg to differ, George.
Firstly, it’s abundantly clear that all three buildings at the WTC came down from controlled demolition. There is no argument about what the buildings came down from in terms of whether it was CD or fire – only die-hard believers of the official story argue fire. There is no possible way of confusing CD and collapse by fire. None at all and high rise steel frame buildings do not come down by fire. It’s very simple and straightforward.
Guess what though? I knew the Judy Wood DEW argument was bullshit in any case but I recently discovered (via Steve De’ak) that they stuffed the buildings full of dust for a number of reasons:
(I was very puzzled that there weren’t genuine cases of people suffering from the toxic dust from the buildings so I was so happy to realise that the dust was not toxic dust from the buildings but obviously some benign dust that would have minimal impact.)
Dust pouring out of a window – https://youtu.be/aoKiBn4tCNw
Exposition by Steve on “hollowed towers” https://911crashtest.org/?p=4008
We know it is of critical importance to ascertain whether 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured or not because the perps have implemented an incredible truther-targeted propaganda campaign to keep truthers persuaded of the lie that people died and were injured. It is a monumental propaganda campaign. So if they know it’s important it must be, right?
Very counterintuitively though, they totally give the game away, despite their massive propaganda campaign. That’s the incredible thing about it. For four years of study, despite the fact that I was aware of other completely staged events, I swallowed the big lie. The first thing I did when it hit me that death and injury were staged was to look at the images for the dead and injured (what I always do when I suspect an event as staged). When I saw the images I face-palmed severely. How on earth had I not looked at these images before? It is so very, very obvious from the images that death and injury were staged.
Whether they give a shit or not doesn’t necessarily have any bearing on whether people lost their lives or not. These things are highly-planned operations and are run by certain rules. Agencies, military, media, corporations, intelligence and government staff are involved. I’d say a few thousand people were involved in 9/11 plus surely so many others would know one way or the other. You don’t kill people here and there in these operations. It’s all done by the book and everyone is accounted for. 9/11 was, essentially, a Full-Scale Exercise pushed out as a real event.
As I say, I’ve issued a $5,000 challenge for people to come up with 10 points that favour real death and injury over staged on 9/11 and no one has responded to the challenge or even come up with a single point.
For an hypothesis to be correct it surely must have a single point that favours it over the opposing hypothesis. There must surely be a single piece of evidence for one of the 9,000 people alleged to have died or been injured otherwise why give it any credence at all? It’s just part of a story … the rest of which we know is complete bullshit from start to finish.
“Whether they give a shit or not doesn’t necessarily have any bearing on whether people lost their lives or not.”
But you talk about “the lie that people died and were injured” – thus implying that no-one died and no-one was injured. Thus it seems that whoever is behind this MUST give a shit – in that they must have ensured that no-one would die. I mean – it’s very difficult to carry out this attack without injuring anyone.
Oh yes, they give a shit about not injuring anyone. I didn’t express myself correctly. What I meant was that even if they didn’t give a shit about the people personally (as they don’t give a shit about their soldiers who die in their self-generated wars and the hundreds of thousands of people they kill in other countries), it doesn’t mean they would have killed and injured them. As far as doing the operation, yes they really didn’t want to kill them. But they had reasons not to kill them other than lack of concern about killing them. It’s simply the fact that it was a highly-planned psychological operation involving thousands of people and by definition would not have been part of the modus operandi.
“Carry out this attack,” George. What attack? There were no hijackings, there were no plane crashes. As far as major events of the day go, all that happened was controlled demolition of three buildings and damage to another. No one thinks that anyone was killed in WTC-7. So if no one died in the WTC-7 demolition why would they necessarily have died in the demolition of the twin towers or in the damaged Pentagon?
Complete evacuation rather than only partial evacuation! Steve De’ak says the twin towers were gutted – I’m not sure to what degree so it could be that there were still some floors “operating” so to speak. I’m sure there were. Also, they carried out at least one drill I know of which was in the subway which would have stopped a lot of people going to work in any case and it was before 8:30am too so many people simply wouldn’t have arrived. Where we see the alleged damage to the buildings could have been all empty floors and lots of fire on the outside but little on the inside so nothing to worry about there.
Not that difficult to carry out at all. Then there’s just all the fakery of the people who died and the loved ones.
If you’re interested I make 10 clear points that favour staged death and injury over real. No one has responded to my challenge to provide 10 points that favour the other way … or even a single one.
I only discovered fellow Sydneysider, Gerard Holmgren, who was a 9/11 research pioneer the other day. He suffered an untimely demise from an aggressive brain tumour in 2010, at the age of 51. No doubt I’d seen his name but I didn’t realise who he was. He worked out that Flights 11 and 77 did not leave the ground and was one of the pioneers of the realisation that there were no planes. He also wrote a brilliant “9/11 conspiracy theory” satire. How I wish he were still alive. If he were I’m sure he would have worked out everything I’ve come to realise since but if not he’d certainly be in agreement with me. He would not have a great mental block about events being false-flag hoaxes rather than false flags as so many readers of Off-Guardian do.
To read his satire: https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/gerard-holmgren.html
When I said “attacks”, I was referring to the (apparent) fact that two planes crashed into the twin towers. Are you saying that that didn’t happen?
I wonder how much 9/11 research you’ve done, George.
Here is clear evidence that Flights 11 (North tower) and 77 (Pentagon) did not even exist on 9/11 let alone crash.
I have a 10-point exercise on the four faked plane crashes.
So the answer to my question is “Yes”.
Many people claim to “know” what they cannot prove. I watched a re-run of the moon landing in 1979 and decided it was s hoax. I have been to every site claiming to have proof of this and skeptical as I am, have never been convinced of their stated “proofs” and therefore still do not “know” the truth of the moon landings.
Many conspiracy theorist sites have proven themselves correct, but not too many.
It’s the same with man made climate change. Neither side can irrefutably prove their case and although I believe that climate change is indeed man made, I don’t “know” this beyond doubt, it’s just my interpretation of the evidence presented to me.
There are those who see a conspiracy in everything they witness, it seems to be a default with them, but that does not mean their beliefs are truly baseless in every instance.
Whilst I disagree entirely with Flaxgirl’s theories most of the time, that doesn’t mean she is wrong all of the time.
I do see that such extensive efforts to concentrate narrative on things that are suspect are very often invaluable in muddying the waters and provide distraction from events that more or all of us should be noticing, as you have stated, it’s not about the details any more, only the certain knowledge through evidence already in the public domain, we should bear in mind always.
I’m a completely evidenced-based thinker, Susan, so when you refer to my “theories” I wonder what theories you refer to and why you don’t believe them. I always make significant points to support my hypotheses and have issued a $5,000 challenge for people to provide points that support the opposing hypotheses. I ensure that when I make a claim there is no evidence that convincingly contradicts my hypothesis which explains why none of these challenges have been responded to despite my engagement with very passionate supporters of the opposing hypotheses.
So I’d really like to know which of my “theories” you don’t believe and is it a case of your simply not “believing” them or do you have evidence that you think invalidates them. If you have evidence can you please provide it. If you don’t have evidence then the question arises as to why you don’t believe them.
I wonder, Susan, if you’ve ever looked at my website and read the cases I make for my “theories”. If not, before you respond you may consider doing that.
I see no reason to get sensitive about the word “theory”. Everyone works with theories. And if, as you claim, your theory has more evidence to support it than all others – at present (which is an important qualification) – then, fine. But to admit you are always working with theories is not a matter of shame. It is the scientific way. I would also put the money away. That seems to me to be a somewhat intimidating unnecessary complexity.
You’re right, George, but, at the same time “theory” in non-scientific use can have a derogatory connotation. Quite honestly, I see nothing theoretical (in the non-scientific sense of the word) about my claims because I provide 10 points that support my claims and invite those who support the opposing hypotheses to provide 10 points to support their beliefs and no one has responded to the challenge by providing even one point let alone 10.
I ask the question:
If there are only two hypotheses needing consideration, Hypotheses A and B, and 10 points can be found that favour Hypothesis A over Hypothesis B while none can be found to favour Hypothesis B over Hypothesis A, in which possible scenario could Hypothesis B be correct?
It’s really a case of everything being “hidden in plain sight” and it is simply mind control that makes people believe the opposing hypotheses. What I say is utterly incontrovertible … but people refuse to see that so very obdurately.
We may be haggling over little things – but I take “theory” to be inescapable i.e. everyone has a theory. Nobody knows all the details of everything therefore they have this theory to “fill in the gaps” – bearing in mind that everything is open to updates.
I don’t mean to get into a big argument here since I think that we both have the same basic point of view i.e. that 9/11 – as presented by the media – is, to use a non-technical though perfectly accurate term, a steaming pile of bullshit.
OK, George, I see your point. What about some theories are proven and some aren’t. I think mine are proven simply because there is no other theory really. The “other” theory is simply a story that has never remotely had anything to support it. So when there’s really only one theory and there’s no other theory to challenge it then surely it must be correct.
… and just to say “my” theories were generally other people’s first, of course. I didn’t come up with them. My only original ones – as far as I know – are for Pearl Harbour, Bologna station (one other person also has the same theory but we came up with them separately), anthrax attacks, Chelsea Manning and the truther-targeted propaganda campaign for 9/11 (although in this case many people already recognised “disinformation agents” and other things directed at truthers) – it’s just that I think no one else has identified a clear truther-targeted propaganda campaign. Of course, like the other Bologna station guy other people may also hold my theories I just don’t know about them. I’m sure they do.
The money is simply to show that I put my money where my mouth is so to speak. I think it helps “prove” my case. It makes it more difficult for people to affirm their belief and yet not respond. If they’re so invested in their belief then surely they’d respond to a challenge where they can gain $5,000, especially when they can choose their own judge – and it’s not as if they have anything to lose – they don’t have to give me $5,000.
I know that it makes no difference if I offered $1,000,000 (I would do that except that I think it’s not right to offer money you don’t have) or I made Bozo the Clown the judge no one can come up with a single point to support the opposing hypothesis … because that’s not the way the power elite stage their events. They are utterly scrupulous in not providing the supporters of their story a single, solitary convincing piece of “evidence” to support it. They surely could fabricate more convincingly but that’s not the way they do things. We really do have to hand it to them there. They’re very fair in that way. They could fabricate things so that they were much more convincing but they never do. So when commenters on this site are so hostile to me and pathetically try to rubbish me without any logic, reason or evidence I have to say I do understand why the power elite treat us like complete morons. It’s not that people are morons though, it’s that they get wedded to beliefs. I don’t really understand that because I myself am just not that bothered about what I believe. I can believe one thing one day and change my mind the next. My beliefs are just not that important to me.
“My beliefs are just not that important to me.”
Umm – I think you’ve definitely lost me there. I presume you don’t mean “beliefs” in the religious sense (although even then – especially then? – they ought to be important to you?) If I take beliefs to be simply what you think happened, then surely that must be important to you?
What I mean is that I can believe something according to the evidence I have at the time and then if more evidence comes along which requires me to do an about-face on my earlier belief I will do it quite happily. Perhaps not instantly but I’m not wedded to my earlier belief. It seems to be me that people go along the truth path a certain distance and then fossilise at a certain point along that path in their beliefs. You cannot afford to be like that when it comes to the power elite because they always have some trick up their sleeve which requires you to turn on a dime. In fact, I’m sure that’s the way they plan their propaganda campaigns. It’s on a timeline and they engineer the point at which most people will solidify in their belief – which is not the point where the real truth is, the real truth is further along.
Google image “Apollo 17 wet flag” and “Apollo 14 lunar module double shadow” for two very damning blows to the official fairy tale. There are so many other photographic anomalies but these two stand out. And “American Moon” does to the Apollo myth what his other film “September 11 The New Pearl Harbor” does to the ludicrous official story of 9/11.
Fucking Stanley Kubrick. Sloppy as wet shit.
Why are you continuing to misrepresent William of Ockham and his successors and libel Chelsea Manning?
Can you explain how you believe I do that Robbo?
Chelsea Manning: you have called her out as a fake. If it came to her attention and she were so inclined (which I suspect she would not be, but), she could launch an action for defamation against you in which she would have to prove that your claim was false (and any establishment civil court would almost certainly count the court martial verdict against her as proof of that, regardless) and that it caused or was likely to cause her financial, reputational or other significant damage (easy) while you would have to prove, as in “prove”, it was true. On your adduction of any “evidence” to date and the inclinations of establishment courts, you aren’t in with a snowball’s (the usual legal formulation is that your case so far is “without merit”).
William of Ockham: we have been through this in some depth, here in the O-G, already. Why does it not surpise me that you seem to have forgotten, or are perhaps a bot? I gave you best advice then. If is not convenient for you to get educated enough in the matter in a traditional way to see how for yourself, mooc off.
Chelsea hasn’t launched a defamation case against so I really don’t understand what your point is, Robbo.
How I use Occam’s Razor is to choose the hypothesis which fits the evidence with the fewest assumptions and questions raised. I have used this perfectly to support my claim that Chelsea is a fake whistleblower. If you can give me any points that say she’s a genuine whistleblower, Robbo, please do. If you don’t have any and you can’t poke any holes in my own points – you do waffle, don’t you, without coming to grips with any actual points for and against – then you have no argument.
The thing is just as with the fakery of death and injury it makes perfect sense that Chelsea would be a fake whistleblower. This is the thing. There is nothing outlandish about the idea that she might be a fake whistleblower as we know the phenomenon of “controlled opposition” is a very real thing. In fact, if the power elite hadn’t, at least, attempted to implement controlled opposition in regard to Wikileaks and Julian Assange that would make no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you don’t agree, Robbo, but I think it’s an absolute certainty that the power elite would have tried to, at least, implement “controlled opposition.” It didn’t cross my mind for a decade that Chelsea was controlled opposition. I was as fooled as everyone else. But when a glamorous photo of her aroused my suspicion, even before I looked at the evidence, I was pretty sure she would be. Because it made sense, Robbo, it made sense. Whether she really is a fake whistleblower or not, certainly the idea that she might be is not outlandish in the least. If you disagree on the simply the idea of her being a fake whistleblower not being outlandish please say why.
And you see, we have to respect the power elite, here. We have to respect them. Many people know about controlled opposition. They know Lenin’s famous words, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” We know about it … and yet they still fooled us. They know that even though some of us are very familiar with the concept of “controlled opposition” they will still manage to fool us … AND even though they actually TELL us that she’s controlled opposition with a ludicrous tale about how she leaked the information on CDs labelled Lady Ga Ga, a variety of other ridiculousnesses and things that clearly do not support genuine whistleblower. It’s truly, truly astounding how they KNOW that they can fool us in this way … but they’re obviously right and even now when I point everything out as clear as day no one’s listening to me. Not a single solitary soul.
I spell it out over and over and over and over and over but you still don’t accept it, Robbo. You are wedded to your story of Chelsea, the brave transwoman whistleblower, sister-in-arms with Julian (who is genuine but suffers from the fatal flaw of arrogance – not a quality you need when you’re duelling with the power elite, definitely not. “Crush the bastards” is simply not the right mindset when you’re up against the power elite, people who’ve been in the business for millennia.) You are wedded so very tightly to that story like so many others.
I wonder how the power elite identify the profile you (and so many commenters on this site) belong to? Is it something like “truther but fossilizes at a certain point where they have become wedded to the story they believe?” I’m sure it’s something along those lines because so many truthers get to “inside conspiracy where the evil US administration killed those poor people in the buildings” but find it so very, very difficult to move to the paradigm that makes far greater sense: “inside conspiracy where, of course, they didn’t kill the people because it was a psyop and that would never have been their MO when you consider all the people involved and at how skilled they are at fooling us”. It took me 14 years to get to “inside conspiracy” and then another 4 to recognise no one died but in the second instance the only reason it took 4 years was that the massive truther-targeted propaganda campaign was so effective – not because the idea that they didn’t kill people was alien. That makes perfect sense and if someone had explained it to me the way I’m now explaining it I would have immediately changed paradigms. It’s true that Simon Shack worked out faked injury and death over a decade ago and I certainly didn’t dismiss his claims but due to the truther-targeted propaganda campaign and lack of awareness of all his information there were parts of the puzzle missing which stopped me from embracing his theory.
I see you posting this faked death and injury stuff all over threads here, and you seem to be at least ostensibly genuine in your desire to uncover the truth, so I will be more charitable to your arguments than I would to other Hasbara clowns here as I’m not so sure that’s what you are.
All this being said, you fall into a number of very basic logical traps in your analysis, which you then proceed to use as evidence of its validity! To approximately paraphrase your own words, you were able to draw these conclusions because ‘regardless of evidence’ they ‘make sense’ to you. Try repeating that last sentence again. Regardless of evidence. Never heard of confirmation bias, no?
You mention Occam’s Razor, though don’t seem prepared to apply it to your own theories. By any realistic assessment, it would be more difficult to stage the injuries than it would be to actually perform the act. Being conservative with our estimates, the hypothesis that the injuries were faked requires something in the region of 10 times more people to be involved in the conspiracy on some level. The chances of a group of a dozen individuals keeping quiet for nearly 2 decades are vastly superior to a group of a few hundred individuals doing the same. Occam’s razor would seem to suggest your theory is less likely than actually carrying out the event.
The fact that a previous poster alluded to going through this with you in the past doesn’t fill me with confidence, however. If you’re a genuine truth seeker, you’d revise your assessment to take these points into account.
Oh dear, Northern, your lack of logic gets an upvote. What a surprise!
Northern, you misinterpret me. When I say “regardless of the evidence”, I don’t mean there is no evidence. There is abundant evidence, I just mean it makes sense without looking at the evidence, without considering it.
When I use Occam’s Razor I apply it only to the evidence. I do not apply it to speculative theories about what is and what isn’t more difficult and if people would or wouldn’t talk. Speculation is not where I direct my energies.
I direct my energies to the evidence that is so abundantly and generously served to us by the power elite. Their munificence in providing clues to their hoaxery and fakery is really quite touching. I’m all gratitude. Of course, they know it will only be appreciated by the so very few of us who are strictly evidence-based, logical thinkers so that is probably why they are so munificent. If purely evidence-based, logical thinkers were more numerous I’m sure they would be stingy, perhaps even change their whole modus operandi so that no clues were provided at all but as purely evidence-based, logical humans are obviously thin on the ground they can afford to be generous because the numerous non-evidence-based, illogical humans maintain an obdurate blindness to this generously-provided evidence.
If you would care to go beyond your speculations and actually look at the evidence then perhaps we can discuss more. If you go to my page providing 10 points that favour “staged” death and injury over “real” in Point 5 you will see 14 photos of “injured” people. If you think these people show clear signs of injury please tell me why. There is also a video of the alleged “last man leaving hospital due to burn injuries”. Do you see that he does have a particular condition, however, it doesn’t resemble burn injuries in my opinion. It looks like something else. You can tell me what you think if you care to take a look. I also found a comment on an ABC video of empty wheelchairs and stretchers outside a hospital “waiting for the injured” on 9/11 where the commenter says that he was at an EMS site on 9/11 in NYC and there were simply no people to tend to. He said there was also a barbecue set up and he wondered why when you would expect EMS to anticipate being very busy tending to the 6,000 injured.
I will point out yet again that I have offered $5,000 to anyone who can come up with 10 points that favour real death and injury over staged for 9/11 but no one has responded to this challenge nor have they even come up with a single point. Now why this very straightforward and, in my opinion, extremely compelling fact lacks any significance to anyone else is simply beyond me … but then I know from lonesomely banging my head against a wall over and over again that the majority of humans are not purely evidence-based, logical thinkers … which is mightily handy for the power elite that rules us, mightily handy.
You know that reply barely says anything, right? You’ve just gone on a self congratulatory typing spree. You do not understand Occam’s Razor and have simply co-opted in an attempt to make your claims more sound more authoritative. In your words, you only apply it to evidence, not speculative theories. Understand we’re both in the business of disproving the official narrative, so by very nature, you’re working with speculative theories.
I had originally written a much longer post dealing with the points you’ve set out but I’ve decided you’re actually one of the more sophisticated troll accounts I’ve come across and to engage with you would be a waste of everyone’s time, or you’re just a genuine poster and you’ve been gazing at your own navel for so long that you’ve forgotten what the rest of the world looks like. Soon as we start talking about alt – right crap like intentionally leaving clues and satanic rituals then you’ve lost me, sorry.
Look at the state of this thread now, two dozen comments about unrelated shit to the thread all because you make elementary level errors. At a certain point it becomes difficult to see it as accidental.
This is how I apply Occam’s Razor: which hypothesis does the evidence fit best with the fewest assumptions and questions raised.
So in relation to staged death and injury I give 10 examples of the evidence fitting “staged” better than “real”, eg, 14 images of injured people where the people don’t look obviously injured, a person emerging from hospital where they tell us he is the last patient suffering from burns but who is not showing signs of burns but of vitiligo and then a video showing empty wheelchairs and stretchers under which is a comment from someone who says they were at the location and whose experience indicated there were no injured needing tending to.
Your alleged use of Occam’s Razor is below with my comments:
This is a speculative opinion and when you look at the 14 pictures on my webpage, the evidence contradicts it. The lack of obvious injury indicates that these people are acting in a drill and that it is very easy to stage it, especially when you’re not really going for realism – which they obviously weren’t.
The number would be greater, I agree, perhaps not 10x greater. Regardless though it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t staged. You are not looking at the actual evidence of staging or real you are simply speculating about something that whether true or not doesn’t mean it wasn’t staged.
This is pure speculation, it also assumes that people are keeping quiet. I’m sure people talk about it between themselves – it’s simply not splashed across the media. This event is taboo. Those in the know, know and those not in the know, don’t.
Occam’s Razor is about the evidence and the hypothesis it fits best, not speculative probability.
I’m with you mate, to my disgust I read through all this shit- initially giving some credence to Flaxgirl. I’m now convinced it’s an obfuscation exercise designed to both obscure the truth and distract other people from looking at what the article is about. I’ll go further, I think this thing is an Israeli hasbara plant. Without being able to give references to other posts in other subjects-I’m a 64year old techno nerd with a steam powered phone- I see similarities to an ostensibly erudite refutation of other contributors which simply divert people from the meat of the discussion. By the way Yitzhak or whatever your name is don’t bother responding as far as I’m concerned you are totally busted.
Just in case you’re unaware I do have a page explaining how Chelsea is a fake whistleblower and the video, Collateral Murder, is also fake.
Why does it not surprise me that you seem to have forgotten that I already know you have web pages advancing those theories from the quite extensive conversation we had about them, here on O-G, at the time?
Apologies. So my question is still unanswered. Can you explain how you believe that I misrepresent William of Ockham and his successors (he, in fact, was not the first to come up with the principle) and libel Chelsea Manning?
“So my question is still unanswered.”
Maybe our timezones, available time and regard for self-justification, as exploited in social media alert systems, etc., differ?
Sorry, Robbo, don’t understand.
Why am I not surprised by so consistently not being surprised by you? Your real name isn’t Eliza Weizenbaum is it? Wouldn’t surprise me.
Why am I not surprised that you spout bullshit because you don’t have any actual argument? Shameful.
Ah, yes, “Collateral Murder”. Well, although I was not involved in its production in any way whatsoever, it happens, by pure coincidence of association, that I have more first-hand evidence of its genesis and development, from an extremely “reliable source”, whom I have no intention of de-anonymizing here, than (almost?) anyone else raising or mentioning the production, either here or in the On-Guardian. On that basis I’d rate your “explanation” is so much phhhht (a.k.a. piss and wind). And no, I won’t disuss it further than that with you.
Incidentally, I find no particular credibility problems with many of your propositions but the craven way you try to dress them up with wannabe academic ‘respectability’ (whatever “academic ‘respectability'” is when it’s at home, which isn’t often and which is seldom much even when it is) is truly sad. Or a good sign that AI still has a long way to go.
The point of the stunt is to induce the act from which there is no return and the next stunt keeps the the last stunt buried.
So the key is indeed to see anything that is designed to induce emotional reaction as a cunning stunt – and this includes when the nature of the stunt is not even trying to be well concealed.
To no longer react as if there is any truth is such stunts is to no longer validate, support or become a doxy, proxy or propagator of someone else’s cunning.
Thanks – but no thanks!
Curious timing for this story what with all the worms exploding from the russiagate tin.
Who was the head of the FBI during that time …oh dear.
All of this reminds me of the story of how Marlon Brando’s main incentive to take part in “The Godfather” is that he thought that film showed how the American political system really worked.
The authorities will continue to lie in order to pursue economic and geopolitical goals so long as;
[a] they are allowed to investigate themselves, and
[b] never found guilty of anything.
Put another way tell me of an ‘official’ investigation who’s methodology was not utterly flawed from the very outset (9/11 being the most glaring example).
Or of any investigation that led to senior figures being convicted?
The anthrax episode is just one of many examples that rely on a public mood that is sufficiently apathetic, sufficiently ill-informed to accept that our brave leaders are doing their utmost to save us from some dread external threat, the kind of threat that mere mortals are unlikely to comprehend but one that is almost certain to require brutal military action in a distant land in order to protect ‘our way of life’ (i.e. unsatiable corporate greed).
Presumably Iran will be next as the media work relentlessly on highlighting deficiencies in this country such as illegal political detention (just like London) or possession of nuclear hardware (just like Israel).
Will the public swallow this latest serving of steaming bullshit – well if the Guardin has anything to do with it then the answer is, of course, yes – yes, with nobs on.
Everyone will continue to lie in order to pursue their private agenda so long as….
[a]they believe it works
[b] they believe that they WANT their private agenda more than self-honesty or integrity of being.
As for Gov and Corps – it is simply the way to induce people to support or at least not oppose actions that they are otherwise critical of or in opposition to.
What are their goals? These are not generally made open to the public but are the result of insider insiders who even the politicians may be unaware of – because the chain of a carrot and stick society allows incentivised assets to operate key components without any sense of a larger design.
If your career, status or survival depend on operating instructions coded in bullshit then you not only acquire the means – but also the means to justify to yourself so as not to be wracked with conflict – else you couldn’t abide it – and fear of pain of loss says you have to swallow this to evade penalty. This pattern goes way deeeper than such manipulations – because we carry our own self-invalidating or self-depreciating scripts. I see the lack of awareness for the latter as the ‘backdoor’ through which we are effectively managed, captured or controlled.
Fear of pain of loss can be anything – but the presentation of a false sense of self in image is ALREADY costing an awareness and sharing in the true – and indeed a fear and demonisation of the true – while the false is suckled as power of protection.
My input is to invite curiosity of an unjudgmental awareness to revisit the beliefs that hold all of this in place, by noticing rather than hiding or turning a blind eye. The willingness for truth and the peace that it brings has to transcend the false framing of a mind-reactive trap – one step at a time. But first we are disturbed. This has to become something we can bring to awareness rather than something that takes over our mind and that is by no longer using what awareness we still have (or notice) to serve loveless, manipulative or hateful purpose – so as to keep the way open for a gift of awareness in place of manufactured reality (sic). The Gift is always already given – but in making our own substitute or private agenda – we have effectively trained our mind not to see it – by learning to see through a sense of self-lack that is inherent to the attempt to become something ‘else’. that there is MORE of who we are and what Life Is to discover is not becoming someone or something ELSE – at cost of denial and sacrifice of the true.
Powell looks as if he was contemplating, what will the people say about me, when I’m gone, “good nigga”?
Talk about an Uncle Tom!
Oh look, another glaring, huge omission published by OffG regarding Israel’s cuplability in the 9/11 crime.
All the intelligence about the spores coming from Iraq, via Mohammed Atta, came from…..have a guess……
“Berlin – Security experts in Germany are investigating whether hijack suspect Mohammed Atta carried anthrax spores allegedly obtained from Iraqi agents to the United States, a German newspaper reported on Thursday.
Germany’s Bild daily cited unnamed Israeli intelligence sources as saying Atta, who is suspected of flying a plane which crashed into the World Trade Centre, received anthrax spores from Iraqi agents during two visits to the Czech Republic.
The mass circulation newspaper reported investigators saying they suspected Atta, who had lived in the northern German city of Hamburg, carried the spores to New York where customs officials checked his luggage for drugs and not bacteria.
Federal prosecutors leading the investigation into suspects in Germany linked to the September 11 attacks were not immediately available for comment on the report.
A series of mail attacks involving anthrax have killed three people and made nine others ill in the United States since the September 11 airliner assaults.
Czech police confirmed this week that Atta visited Prague twice.
A US source recently told Reuters that Atta met an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague in June 2000 and April 2001, but cautioned the meetings were not evidence Iraq was connected to the attacks on New York and Washington.
Iraqi officials denied any link this week to the release of killer anthrax bacteria in the US and accused Washington of fabricating the anthrax attacks as a pretext to broaden its anti-terrorism campaign to include more countries.
Atta, an Egyptian, lived for much of the 1990s in Hamburg where two of the other suspected pilots in the suicide attacks on the US were also students.
Germany has issued arrest warrants for three other men for planning and helping carry out the assault. German Interior Minister Otto Schily said on Monday members of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network may still be in Germany.
The United States has named Bin Laden as its chief suspect in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, which killed 5 400 people. – Reuters”
Best 9/11 documentary covering Anthrax among many other issues. Big Youtube purge coming on Monday, lots of great content will disappear. DL this while you can
911 and War by Deception
Sorry for the completely off topic post but there is some good news which needs to be spread like wildfire
George Galloway attempting to unseat #Slimboyfat Tom Watson
It’s getting harder and harder to be ‘off topic’ these days. As Watson sings the Israeli anthem as part of LFI/BoD/JLM/CAA smear campaign, we must consider :
#Iran – Netanyahu
#Venezuela – Elliot Abrams
#Ukraine – Nuland and the Kagans
#the rise of the far right in Europe – Israel
#Trumpism – Adelson , Kushner
#Algorithmic Internet censorship – Sally Lehrman (Trust Project) , Steven Brill (Newsguard)
#Pedophile sex trafficking blackmail ring at the heart of global power – Epstein, Cohn, Lansky, Maxwell….
Speak now or forever hold thy breath (-or have it held for you more likely).
Thanks for that, M. Good news. Imagine if we had had GG in Parliament with everything that’s been going on the past couple of years = Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Skripal, Russiagate, Board of Deputies smears.
Muchas gracias Mucho, George has a good chance against the Apartheid state supporter and overall scumbag Watson, I will be campaigning for him.
The Intelligence agencies churn out so much information they could fill a library daily, what matters most is not intelligence but ‘POLICY’ if the intelligence aligns with policy, that is a bonus, as the war against Iraq war proved, in that case intelligence was manufactured to fit policy.
Just to add to my comment above on Watson, in 2017 Watson beat the Conservative by 7,783 votes, but in 2015 UKIP also ran and received 7,949 votes, this would put Watson in grave danger of losing his seat
You are right Mucho.
The article though does tacitly point the finger at Miller, Hauer, Woolsey and the Mossad ring around the ‘alleged hijackers’, as well as ‘the Bush neocons’.
Miller, Hauer are Jewish American Israel firsters, as are pretty much all the Neoconservatives from their founders to the current batch. The Neocons are all about putting Israel first, and they have been in control of US foreign policy for twenty years, so when OffG ask, “Do the Neocons really want a new war [in Iran], or are they satisfied with sanctions?” are they really acknowledging the provenance of Neoconservatism but choosing to hide behind a convenient label, or do they really think that the Neocons are American patriots, as they (used to) pretend to be?
It is time for people interested in all this to be explicit.
I think – in the service of truth-telling – we should always speak of ‘The War Against Terror’, using that precise phrase as a strict rule. The acronym is so appropriate.
Pinocchio? Falstaff? Baron v Munchausen? Judith Miller? The NYT?
I need only recall Operation Northwoods ….. in order to think that this may not be a conspitracy theory.
The very fact that somebody could suggest bombing American cities …… to even mention such a scenario with a sense of ease at the highest echelons of the American government, and not be have been taken out back and shot on the spot is enough evidence for me.
Yes, indeed. And Kennedy, who had sacked the evil mad dog behind Northwoods, later to turn up as a leader of NATO, gets murdered shortly thereafter.