11 Articles On 9/11

Friday, July 11, 2014

Rep Massie: Secret 9/11 Document ‘Rearranged my understanding of history’

Rep. Thomas Massie

“It challenges you to re-think everything. I think the whole country needs to go through that.”

___________

TV: Program – Vaken.se – The 9/11 Truth movement in Sweden – ENGLISH SUBTITLES

Published by Admin on 2014-05-21 (1469 reads)

TV: Program - Vaken.se - The 9/11 Truth movement in Sweden - ENGLISH SUBTITLES

A TV-program from 2010 (hit-piece) made by Swedish TV4 about The 9/11 Truth movement in Sweden and also in other parts of the world. TV4:s approach and agenda was to demonize all 911-truthers and forcing a slander upon all intrested in 911 by portraying them in this tv-program as “anti-semitic” and “a threat to democracy”. People watching this program will instantly recognize this unethical approach towards investigating a very serious issue like 9-11.

We put english subtitles on this tv-program to show the rest of the world how the media works in Sweden with subjects deemed as unwanted and not in line with the official unscientific explanations.

Read the English FAQ for more info on what vaken.se is and what we do.

If you sympathise with our mission and goals please like our FB-page and help us reach 3000 likes before 2015.

Read the English FAQ for more info on what vaken.se is and what we do.

If you sympathise with our mission and goals please like our FB-page and help us reach 3000 likes before 2015.

___________
911 Truth.org

Press Release: World Trade Center Bldg. 7’s Controlled Demolition: 9/11 Consensus Panel Releases New Evidence from Witness Testimonies and Architectural Drawings

Originally published at Consensus911.org

Image of WTC 7 before controlled demolitionJune 2, 2014 – The 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel – which includes physicists, chemists, engineers, commercial pilots, attorneys and lawyers – today announced three new studies confirming the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7.

The studies scientifically refute the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claim that, for the first time in history, fire caused the sudden and complete collapse of a large, fire-protected, steel-framed building on 9/11.

(Note that whereas the Consensus Panel uses a scientific methodology to peer-review its work, the NIST report was not peer-reviewed.)

The first Panel study deals with the NIST computer simulations, which purported to show that fire-induced thermal expansion caused a girder to be pushed off its seat at Column 79, thereby initiating a global collapse of the entire 47-storey building at 5:21 in the afternoon.

However, a recent FOIA request has produced WTC 7 architectural drawings showing that the NIST simulations omitted basic structural supports that would have made this girder failure impossible.

The second Consensus Panel study deals with NIST’s claim that it did not recover any steel from this massive steel-frame skyscraper.

This is extraordinary, given the need to understand why a steel-frame building would have completely collapsed for the first time in history from fire alone, and to thereby prevent a recurrence.

We know now that some of the steel was recovered.  Photographs recently obtained by researchers show the strange curled-up paper-thin WTC 7 steel, with a NIST investigator pointing it out.

The third Panel study shows that on September 11, 2001, many people were told hours in advance that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield said early in the afternoon: “I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is going to go down next.”

Many members of the New York Fire Department were confidently waiting for the building to come down:

Firefighter Thomas Donato: “We were standing, waiting for seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.”

Assistant Commissioner James Drury: “I must have lingered there. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to — they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down.”

Chief Thomas McCarthy: “So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down.”

In addition, CNN and the BBC made premature announcements.

This foreknowledge corroborates the evidence presented in previous Consensus Points (WTC7-1 to WTC7-5) that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Source:          The 9/11 Consensus Panel   consensus911@gmail.com    @911consensus

Contact List:    http://www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/

Co-founders:    David Ray Griffin, Elizabeth Woodworth

___________

Donald Rumsfeld and the Demolition of WTC 7

Originally published at Washingtonsblog by Kevin Ryan on 5/22/14

When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), heclaimed that he had never heard of it. This was despite the unprecedented destruction of that 47-story building and its relationship to the events of 9/11 that shaped Rumsfeld’s career. Although not hit by a plane, WTC 7 experienced free fall into its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11—through the path of what should have been the most resistance. The government agency charged with investigating the building’s destruction ultimately admitted that it had been in free fall during a portion of its descent. That fact makes explosive demolition the only logical explanation. Considering how WTC 7 might have been demolished leads to some interesting facts about Rumsfeld and his associates.

The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floorsin WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush’s cabinet.

Image of Rumsfeld superimposed on WTC wreckageSeveral of Rumsfeld and Cheney’s colleagues had access to, or personal knowledge of, WTC 7. Secret Service agent Carl Truscott, who was in charge of the Presidential Protection Division on 9/11, knew the building well because he had worked at the Secret Service’s New York field office located there. Furthermore, Tenet’s CIA secretly operated a “false front of another federal organization” from within WTC 7.  That false front might have been related to the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense, or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), all of which were listed as tenants of WTC 7. The SEC lost many important documents when the building was destroyed, including much of what was needed to effectively prosecute Enron and WorldCom.

In any event, it is clear that covert operatives had access to WTC 7. Through the Secret Service, the DOD, and a secret office of the CIA, the building provided access to many such people. Additionally, electronic security for the WTC complex was contracted out to Stratesec, a security company operated by military arms logistician and Iran-Contra suspect, Barry McDaniel. Wirt Walker, the son of a CIA employee who was flagged by the SEC for suspected 9/11 insider trading, was McDaniel’s boss at Stratesec.

Amazingly, explosives and terrorism were planned topics of discussion at WTC 7 on the day of the attacks. There was a meeting scheduled at WTC 7 for the morning of 9/11 that included explosive disposal units from the U.S. military. The Demolition Ordnance Disposal Team from the Army’s Fort Monmouth just happened to be invited there that morning to meet with the building’s owner, Larry Silverstein. They were “reportedly planning to hold ameeting at 7 World Trade Center to discuss terrorism prevention efforts.” The meeting was set for eight o’clock in the morning on 9/11 but was canceled with the excuse that one of Silverstein’s executives could not make it.

Richard Spanard, an Army captain and commander of Fort Monmouth’s explosive disposal unit, was at WTC 7 to attend the meeting. He was “enjoying breakfast at a deli 50 feet from the World Trade Center twin towers when the first plane hit. General hysteria inundated the deli. Spanard decided that he and the three soldiers with him should move to number 7 World Trade Center, where they had a scheduled meeting.” Building 7 was “full of people in the midst of evacuating. A second explosion was heard, and people began mobbing the three escalators in a state of panic. Spanard and the now five soldiers with him began yelling for everyone to remain calm.”

In yet another “eerie quirk of fate,” Fort Monmouth personnel were preparing for an exercise called Timely Alert II on the day of 9/11. This was a disaster drill focused on response to a terrorist attack and included law enforcement agencies and emergency personnel. The drill simply changed to an actual response as the attacks began.

Fort Monmouth, located in New Jersey just 49 miles away from the WTC complex, was home to several units of the Army Materiel Command (AMC). Coincidentally, Stratesec’s Barry McDaniel had led AMC a decade earlier. McDaniel had an interesting past and, after 9/11, became business partners with one of Dick Cheney’s closest colleagues.

The Fort Monmouth response on 9/11 included the explosives unit and the Army’s Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM). As the drill was converted to an actual response, teams of CECOM experts were deployed to locate cell phone transmissions in the pile at Ground Zero. The remainder of the base’s explosive ordnance company was there by the afternoon of 9/11 and stayed for three days in order to, among other things, help “authorities” look for any possible explosives in the debris.

The explosive disposal/terrorism meeting was not just a request of Larry Silverstein, however, but was actually organized by the Secret Service field office. The U.S. Navy’s explosive ordnance disposal Mobile Unit 6 had also been invited to WTC 7 that morning, again at the request of the Secret Service. As they arrived, the planes began to strike the towers.

Considering all of this, Rumsfeld’s claim that he had never heard of WTC 7 is not believable. It does not reconcile with the facts about the positions he held and those of his colleagues and subordinates. It certainly doesn’t reconcile with the fact that Rudy Giuliani gave Rumsfeld a personal tour of Ground Zero just two months after the attacks. Surely Rumsfeld noticed the huge pile of still-smoking rubble that was once the building where Giuliani’s 23rd-floor emergency bunker was housed. They were photographed standing right across the street from it.

Rumsfeld was the chairman of the advisory board for a company that occupied nearly the entirety of WTC 7. On 9/11 he led the DOD—another tenant of the building. Explosive disposal units from both the Army and the Navy (DOD entities) were scheduled to meet in WTC 7 on the morning of 9/11, ostensibly to discuss terrorism. A DOD-sponsored terrorism exercise was scheduled for that morning in the same area. Moreover, Rumsfeld’s long-time business associate Peter Janson ran AMEC Construction, a company hired to clean-up the debris at the WTC complex (after having renovated the exact area where Flight 77 was said to have hit the Pentagon).

And as stated above, Rumsfeld had been a paid consultant to CIA director George Tenet in the three years prior to 9/11. Immediately after WTC 7 was destroyed, the CIA ordered the immediate area around the building to be surrounded by FBI agents. According to the New York Times, the CIA then “dispatched a special team to scour the rubble.” Reportedly this was to retrieve secret documents. But was the CIA, in conjunction with (or posing as) the Secret Service, also coordinating the military’s ordnance disposal units in their search for explosives in the debris?

Rumsfeld’s comments should be considered in light of the fact that he was among the leaders of a concerted plan to lie about Iraq’s WMDs. Similarly, there has been a pattern of lying about WTC 7 by government officials. The official report on the destruction of the building is patently and provably false and followed a long string of false explanations. When government scientists finally admitted that WTC 7 was in free-fall, indicating that they had previously lied about that fact, even their body language revealed the deception.

When we remember 9/11, we should remember that those crimes initiated and continue to drive the devastating “War on Terror.” We should also remember that war is based on deception and the official account of 9/11 is a prime example. We see the lies about 9/11 everyday as they are still being told, like the one readily seen in the form of a 47-story building experiencing free fall and nearly every statement made about it by government officials since that time.

___________

The 9/11 museum’s absurd gift shop

We Are Change.org

www.nypost.com

911giftshop

The museum at Ground Zero tells the dark story of the 9/11 terror attacks with spectacular artifacts and exhibits. It pays heart-wrenching tribute to the innocents and heroes killed that day.

It also has a gift shop.

The 9/11 museum’s cavernous boutique offers a vast array of souvenir goods. For example: FDNY, NYPD and Port Authority Police T-shirts ($22) and caps ($19.95); earrings molded from leaves and blossoms of downtown trees ($20 to $68); cop and firefighter charms by Pandora and other jewelers ($65); “United We Stand” blankets.

There are bracelets, bowls, buttons, mugs, mousepads, magnets, key chains, flags, pins, stuffed animals, toy firetrucks, cellphone cases, tote bags, books and DVDs.

Even FDNY vests for dogs come in all sizes.

After paying $24 admission for adults, $18 for seniors and students, and $15 for kids 7 to 17, visitors can shop till they drop.

“To me, it’s the crassest, most insensitive thing to have a commercial enterprise at the place where my son died,” Diane Horning said.

She and husband Kurt never recovered the remains of their son Matthew, 26, a database administrator for Marsh & McLennan and an aspiring guitarist.

About 8,000 unidentified body parts are now stored out of sight in a “remains repository” at the museum’s underground home.

“Here is essentially our tomb of the unknown. To sell baubles I find quite shocking and repugnant,” said Horning, who also objects to the museum cafe.

“I think it’s a money-making venture to support inflated salaries, and they’re willing to do it over my son’s dead body.”

 – Diane Horning, 9/11 Victim’s Mother

Among the museum shop’s specially designed items:

• ?A black and white “Darkness Hoodie” printed with an image of the Twin Towers. The pullover, like other “Darkness” items, bears the words “In Darkness We Shine Brightest.” Price: $39.

• ?Silk scarves printed with 1986 photos by Paula Barr, including a panoramic view of the Manhattan skyline. Another depicts “lunchtime on the WTC Plaza.” They go for $95 each.

• ?“Survivor Tree” earrings, named after a pear tree that stood in the World Trade Center plaza and survived 9/11. Made of bronze and freshwater pearls, a pair costs $64. A leaf ornament molded from the swamp white oaks at the memorial is said to change from amber to dark brown “and sometimes pink around the time of the 9/11 anniversary.”

• ?Heart-shaped rocks inscribed with slogans such as “United in Hope” and “Honor.” One rock bears a quote by Virgil that is emblazoned on a massive blue-tiled wall in the museum: “No day shall erase you from the memory of time.” It costs $39.

John Feal, a Ground Zero demolition supervisor who runs the FealGood Foundation for ailing 9/11 responders, said he understands the need to raise money for costs, including six-figure salaries for execs like CEO Joe Daniels, who takes in $378,000.

But Feal blasted the store’s opening Thursday, when only 9/11 relatives, rescuers and recovery workers were invited to visit. Those free visits will continue through Tuesday. The museum opens to the public Wednesday.

“These people are suffering, and they don’t need to be reaching into their pockets,” Feal said. “The museum could have gone six days without asking for money.”

The museum plans to fund its $63 million operating budget with admission fees and donations.

“All net proceeds from our sales are dedicated to developing and sustaining” the museum, reads a notice at the store and online, where items are also sold. “Thank you for helping to build a lasting place for remembrance, reflection, and learning for years to come.”

In a twist, a plaque says the store was “made possible through the generosity of Paul Napoli and Marc Bern,” partners in a law firm that reaped $200 million in taxpayer-funded fees and expenses after suing the city for nearly 10,000 Ground Zero workers.

The museum website lists the firm as having donated $5 million.

“They could have given that $5 million to the sick and suffering — their former clients,” Feal said.

___________

Post-9/11 foreign policy

911 Truth.org

Originally posted at Foreign Policy Blogs by Maxime H.A. Larivé on 5/6/14

Image of the global war on terror

Let’s be honest, foreign policy making has never been democratic. The label of national security has offered governments around the world the power to hide information from their citizens. Aside from this statement, the making of American foreign policy has completely shifted since 9/11. Not only this shift was abrupt and made under intense emotional stress, but it has also created a precedent in the way the U.S. engages in the world. Additionally, American foreign policy has become much more militarized than in the past. A series of recent articles (here andhere), documentaries (here and here), and radio show (here) have been produced looking back at the way the U.S. has conducted itself these last 13 years on the international stage.

Since 9/11, the U.S. has been fighting “evil” – to adopt a very Bushian expression – with evil. The U.S. has used a wide array of instruments considered by international law as illegal such as: rendition, torture — known as an “enhanced interrogation technique” — use of force against countries without legal jurisdiction, drone strikes in countries wherein the U.S. is not at war, mass snooping on American and world citizens, cover-up operations, and so forth. The “Global War on Terror” has been the longest war in American history. Since 2001, the U.S. has invaded two countries – Iraq and Afghanistan – launched an undisclosed numbers of drone strikes in countries with which the U.S. is not at war – Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia (here are the numbers of drones strikes as of April 2014) – and all this in complete impunity.

The real question is: Has it made America safer? It is a very difficult subject to answer in all impartiality. Members of American intelligence community and other departments of the U.S. government would most likely say yes. Not only, I would tend to answer, not really, but I would also argue that American democracy has progressively been the main collateral damage of this endless war.

The starting point in the shifting in decision-making in American foreign policy was the approval of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, of what is known as the AUMF. The famous sentence, as reported by Gregory E. Johnsen and which inspired the Radiolab podcast posted below, that changed it all were these 60 words from the AUMF drafted on Sept. 12, 2001:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organization, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or person.

In French, we would say that the president has now carte blanche, meaning unlimited power. This sentence taken from AUMF pretty much gives unlimited power to the executive branch without any supervision by the Congress, as it gave it up soon after 9/11. Such legal piece was approved by Congress on Sept. 13, 2001 at the exception of only one elected official, the California Representative Barbara Lee, opposing it. In the excellent podcast of Radiolad, Barbara Lee takes us throughout her reflection process about takingBarbara Lee

such decision. At the time she was under intense pressure, and was even called unpatriotic, a terrorist, and so forth. Today, she seems like a visionary as she not only understood the consequences of taking swift decisions under stress and emotions, but also foresaw the legal implications embedded in these words.

For instance, during a 2013 Senate Armed Service committee hearing chaired by Carl Levin – as reported in the Radiolab podcast – about the use of military force, DOD officials argued in favor of the continued use of the AUMF. Throughout the hearing the officials never named one enemy, but only referred to “associated forces.” Senator Angus King responded to these statements by DOD officials, saying: “you guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today.” King’s argument is that the DOD is using the concept of associated forces, not present in the AUMF, in order to justify the use of force against pretty much anyone. The AUMF has in fact changed the entire institutional design of use of force. “The Declaration of War is kind of a dead instrument of national law,” argued Ben Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in the Radiolab podcast. “But the modern incarnation of the Declaration of War is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).”

Such comments fall under the fact that the list of American enemies and the people that the U.S. is in war against is secret. American citizens do not have and cannot have the information about the enemies. The absolute lack of supervision by one branch of the government over the other will undeniably lead to extreme decisions and situations. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is the perfect example, as it led the U.S. to a lengthy and costly war in Vietnam. Additionally, without a clear enemy, it implies that the U.S. could be at war indefinitely. At the distinction with Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, this war seems foreign, remote, distant, and impersonal, making it even more dangerous to American democracy and political system.

Two core problems are at the heart of this nonexistent debate in America. One of the most worrisome dimensions is not the degree of secrecy, but rather that American public opinion simply does not care about the way the two most recent presidents have used forces and extended the power of the executive branch. The lack of interest by American public opinion is worrisome as they do not ask for accountability. In the case of the U.S., the latest numbers illustrates the progressive desire by American citizens for a more isolationist foreign policy. After the 2007 financial crisis, Western public opinion, and principally American public opinion, has started to believe in the “end of foreign policy,” a concept utilized by Richard Youngs in his 2014 bookThe Uncertain Legacy of Crisis. European Foreign Policy faces the Future, considering the lack of discussions and reflections on foreign policy. Such statement materialized public opinion feelings towards foreign policy making.

PEW research chart of American's isolationist views

Second, with the polarization of American democracy and political system, the making of foreign policy is now more about avoiding a political crisis triggered by a failure to stop an attack than actually making the homeland safer. How can foreign policy be made given that, in the case that an attack occurs after restricting the power of the intelligence community and cutting the defense and intelligence budgets, there could be serious consequences for the political legitimacy and the future of a party and/or individual politicians. When politicians base their foreign policy and national security choices on the fear of losing an election, the overall democratic machine and political system are seriously broken. For instance, the politicization of the Benghazi bombing by the Republican party in order to attack Hillary Clinton and other high level Democrats is quite shameful. Unlimited power and budget without democratic supervision do not translate into greater security.

How can such a problem be solved? First, American foreign policy shall be understood as what it is, a policy. Emotions must be removed from decision-making. The decisions made right after 9/11 were irrational, considering the trauma caused by such a horrific event. Americans must reflect on the policies and rules implemented soon after 9/11 and decide on their future and their application and implementation.

Second, American citizens ought to start understanding that foreign policy matters more than before. In a globalized environment, a policy decision undertaken by a group of experts ought to be discussed. When the U.S. deploys drones against countries to kill alleged terrorist, the image of the U.S. is tarnished. How would American citizens react if China were to use drone strikes over the Silicon Valley in order to limit the power and influence of corporations advancing the freedom of social media? In the last political debates – both for presidential and legislative elections – foreign policy suffered from a lack of interest by voters. Furthermore, most American politicians have a weak understanding international relations.

Third, 13 years later, it is time to de-securitized the global war on terrorism. The U.S. cannot perpetually wage war. Neither the “Global War on Terror” or the drug war have solved their respective problems. Terrorism and drugs still exist and will continue to exist. Believing that both can be eliminated is quite foolish.

Last but not least, the AUMF is one among many current shifts in American democracy caused by a progressive implementation of laws removing transparency and accountability. National security, campaign financing, and other important segment of American politics are being striped away of transparency. This is a slippery slope for American democracy.

___________

Skygate 911 – Full Film

Youtube
___________
News Beacon Ireland

From 9/11 to Ukraine – The Dystopian Script Foretold

Sadly but not unintentionally, this information is not circulated where it needs to be. Without knowing the Truth, people have either bought into the mainstream narrative, or if they are catching on they are just too lazy to say or do anything about this fascist totalitarian takeover. Perhaps this is due to fear as they’ve been programmed, or in thinking they can’t make a difference.

by Zen Gardner

The overwhelming evidence that the events of 9/11 could have in no way been perpetrated without inside complicity is irrefutable. Whether the impossibility of those two massively over-designed structures being pulverized and another dropped into its own footprint, or the abject lack of response by the most defended airspace in the world, the events of that day had to have been at least aided and guided, if not co-perpetrated, by inside, complicit forces. The least bit of open minded investigation will lead anyone to that conclusion.

 

The only alternative is to blindly trust the staged media narrative, carefully reinforced by a belated congressional report that clearly ignored important evidence – another government report based on scant clues, planned conjecture, and a lot of falsified, deleted and diluted information.

 

What’s remarkable, and may explain much of the hysteria that accompanied those events, is that all of this was carefully performed after many years of building the demonization of an extremist Muslim uprising, an external enemy of a vague yet suddenly appearing world threatening nature. The perfect target for suspicion in any ensuing violent event.

Laying the Groundwork

When you trace the pattern, this run up of so-called terrorist events then begs many questions: Was the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, immediately attributed to al Qaida, really done by 2 local Arab youth in a tiny boat causing an explosion that blew out the hull of a major naval vessel and killing 17?  Or is thereanother explanation? The 4/11 London bombings is another scenario that doesn’t hold a drop of water. Going even further back, was the horrific 1983 blasting of the US barracks in Lebanon really carried out by radical Muslim “insurgents”? Or were the various embassy bombings similar “attacks”, or were they inside jobs? The list of likely false flags over the years is long.

And the public bought and swallowed the whole enchilada.

The prime example is the stage-setting 1993 bombing of the WTC, proven to be set up and executed by the FBI and their patsies, yet the image in the public mind was virtually set in stone: Muslim terrorists are capable of infiltrating NYC and bombing a major landmark.

If you need an even earlier precedent, the admitted “insider” bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 paving the way for regional and otherwise false flag terrorism has been openly boasted of by complicit Zionists and should serve as a very strong clue as to just what’s behind this staging of an invasion of the middle east. In fact, you’ll find Israel’s handiwork throughout these false flag events, culminating in their deep involvement in 9/11.

Israel-911After all, cui bono? Who benefits?

The narrative was laid down for years preparing Americans and much of the world to believe there were Muslim terrorists afoot, and that these terrorists were eventually attached to a then newly arisen figure named Osama bin Laden and another new phenomenon called “al Qaida”. When the events of 9/11 took place the mainstream media was blaming this same Osama bin Laden and al Qaida within minutes of the towers coming down, following the narrative laid down for the years preceding.

 

An easy sell at that point.

Odd that this same Osama just happened to be from the same mega wealthy Saudi family very close to the Bushes and whose family business was subsequently contracted to build the many US bases in the Mideast region. A renegade son? Or a staged trade-off of some sort. Something to ponder amongst the plethora of other abnormalities. But does the mainstain news even mention this or anything else contrary to the party line?

On to Afghanistan and the Russia Connection

It was claimed bin Laden was masterminding 9/11 while hiding out in a cave deep in the mountains of Afghanistan, a country then run by the Taliban, a by product of the Mujahadeen, an inserted insurgency trained by the US and its CIA to bait and counter the Russians many years prior. Al Qaida literally means “the base”, and is said to be the name of the database of trained insurgents placed there by the CIA. There is much to substantiate this.

 

zbigafghan

Some Historical Perspective

US aid to the armed Mujahadeen Islamic insurgency started six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with the intention of making it more likely for the USSR to attack Afghanistan to support its puppet government. Brzezinski admitted as much in a 1998 interview:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap…. The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter “We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.”

 

zbigmillionpeeps

Brzezinski got his wish, and once the Soviets invaded he sprung into action.

We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.

In that same 1998 interview referred to above, Brzezinski recognized that his policies brought about the Taliban and said it was worth it.

What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

More>

 

9/11 and the March Through Eurasia Were Planned and Staged in Plain Sight

 

Perhaps the most obvious and damning evidence is in these planners’ and own words. Oddly enough, and perhaps part of the dynamic in some macabre way, these same perpetrators lay out their plans for all to see. Globalist advisor to 5 US Presidents (including Obama) Zbigniew Brzezinski has written whole books on the subject. One in particular is called “The Grand Chessboard” where he lays out the plan for global hegemony, even listing those countries that need to be subjugated as the imperialists surround the powers of Russia and China.

 

Interestingly, they include not just the Middle Eastern countries we’ve already seen toppled, but he particularly and ultimately targets the strategic Eurasian region surrounding Russia, including Ukraine. Note the reference to Pearl Harbor. The book was written in 1997.

 

“The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power) (p. xiii)

 

“But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

 

“The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

 

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia — and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)

 

goering

 

The globalist attitude toward democratic peoples and how to herd them:

 

“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (p.35)

 

“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” (p. 211)

 

Zbig On the Ultimate Objective, Encircling Russia on the Eurasian Front:

 

“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above.” (p. 40) [emphasis mine]

 

“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)

 

“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55) (Source)

 

All being blatantly fulfilled before our eyes.

 

pnac2

 

The Coup de Grâce – Zionist PNAC Neocons Justify and Execute the Plan

 

Another such blatant example was the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) report published by a neo-conservative think tank just prior to 9/11. This is now a very famous document that will become more difficult to retrieve as time goes on, but in this report they literally outline a strategy for global hegemony. Their predicament, however, was getting the backing of a fully convinced US populace as well as the compliance of world opinion.

 

Here’s a short summary of some of the PNAC plans and their obvious intentions that9/11 just happened to “catalyze”:

 

A subsequent PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” reveals that the current members of Bush’s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.

The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

 

“Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”

 

A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.

 

The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.

 

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor.”

 

American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

 

“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.

The “new Pearl Harbor,” in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the “war on terrorism” shortly after 9-11. (Source)

 

[If this isn’t obvious enough, see Gen. Wesley Clark’s admission of what he was told at the Pentagon about the war plan.]

 

Now They Have Their Money and Program, It’s Time to Crack Down

 

The populace now has  a new common threat, this time carefully fabricated al Qaida “demons” who “could strike anywhere”, so we need surveillance, tighter controls, bigger and stronger and more militarized government.

 

And here’s the cherry on the cake; how this current surveillance state and “technotronic era” was predicted, i.e. pre-planned, and why it’s in place. Using the excuse of their same manufactured terrorists to gain public backing and money for their plan, they now turn their attention inward to subdue this free-thinking populace, according to their stated strategy.

 

Remember Brzezinski’s words:

 

“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.”

 

As telling as anything can be. And how to take care of this “too democratic” situation?

Techno-Suppression

 

While the following was written over 40 years ago, Huxley’s pharmaceutical control forecast “Brave New World” was written almost 70 years ago. These are long-term planners we’re talking about. Add the ongoing geoengineering programs, GMOs, tainted water and food, transhumanism, etc. to this electro-magnetic warfare well under way and we start to get the true picture of their massive efforts to control the world’s population.

 

Here again from Brzezinski, from his 1970 book “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era”:

 

The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values [like liberty and democracy-ed.] Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.

“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”

“This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government.  National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”  — Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter

“Political strategists are tempted to exploit research on the brain and human behavior. Geophysicist Gordon J.F. MacDonald, a specialist in problems of warfare, says accurately-timed, artificially-excited electronic strokes could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produce relatively high power levels over certain regions of the earth … in this way one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period”

” … no matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using the environment to manipulate behavior for national advantages, to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades.”

– Zbiniew Brzezinski 25 years ago (source)

 

This Isn’t New – And Why

 

Manipulating events to bring about the whims of controlling forces and the subjugation of humanity has been going on for centuries, if not millennia. From the sinking of the Lucitania to the Reichstag fire to Pearl Harbor, major events were staged to achieve desired results, either war or tighter societal controls…or both. And whether it’s the Oklahoma City or Boston bombing, or the 9/11 watershed event, the facts never add up.

 

But the desired results always do.

 

There is now in place a “powerful and aggressive” common enemy. It’s not just a time for war, but easily justified surveillance, tighter controls, and bigger and stronger militarized government at home. That’s their “story”. In reality, this clearly shows the underbelly and true intention of the beast: full spectrum dominance.

 

world_is_awake

Conclusion

 

Sadly but not unintentionally, this information is not circulated where it needs to be. Without knowing the Truth, people have either bought into the mainstream narrative, or if they are catching on they are just too lazy to say or do anything about this fascist totalitarian takeover. Perhaps this is due to fear as they’ve been programmed, or in thinking they can’t make a difference.

 

How wrong they are.

 

May this spur you on to questioning and personal activation, sharing pertinent information wherever you can and disconnecting with this sick, manipulated matrix.

 

That they need, demand and manipulate our complicity, shows the power of our non-complicity.

 

Again, the human reptile global architect Brzezinski:

 

Brzezinski’s call of warning to the “global political awakening” has only intensified in recent years. Last year during a speech in Poland, Brzezinski noted that it has become “increasingly difficult to suppress” and control the “persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples.” Brzezinski also blamed the accessibility of “radio, television and the Internet” for the “universal awakening of mass political consciousness.” (source)

 

We are many, and we are awakening. That’s what they fear.

Keep the fires of awakening burning brightly.

Keep searching, and shoring up your knowledge. It leads to freedom, and meaningful activation.

It’s time to take the battle to them.

Love, Zen

___________

The Undying Role of 9/11 Family Members in Calling for an Independent Inquiry into 9/11

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                            March 28, 2014

Media Relations/Interviews: media@ReThink911.ca

Press Release: The Undying Role of 9/11 Family Members in Calling for an Independent Inquiry into 9/11

Halifax, March 28, 2014 – Yesterday in Parliament Megan Leslie, NDP Deputy Leader and Halifax MP, was blasted by Conservative backbencher James Bezan for a community event that was posted by a constituent on herwebsite.

Bezan was referring to the Halifax stop of a 17-city Canadian tour by architect Richard Gage, leader of 2100 architects and engineers who question the collapses of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7. Many people do not know that an investigation was resisted by the Bush administration, and that the building collapses were never scientifically investigated.

Following major disasters such as the Titanic, Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the Challenger tragedy, commissions of inquiry have been appointed within a few days.

In the case of 9/11 no such inquiry was ordered. It took more than 14 months for the Bush administration, under sustained pressure from the “Jersey Girls” (who lost their husbands in the attacks) and other families who were calling for an investigation into the evidence, to finally launch the 9/11 Commission.

Funded by a paltry $3 million and hampered by a short deadline, the government appointed – amidst considerable controversy – White House insider Philip Zelikow as Executive Director.

The resulting July 2004 9/11 Commission Report was labeled “whitewash” by Harper’s Magazine – “defrauding the nation.”

More than 300 statements by 9/11 survivors and victim family members who contradict this Report have beenposted online.

A strong desire to honor the victims has fueled, for 12 years, their intense study and growing understanding of the events.

Gage’s tour has been inspired by their pursuit of justice for their loved ones, and for the public recognition they seek for their plight.

Many of the unanswered questions have been researched through the work of Gage’s architects and engineers, and through the academic 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel.

To say in Canada’s House of Commons that the evidence being presented by the ReThink911 Tour is “shameful and disrespectful to the victims of 9/11” is to insult the intelligence of thousands of people who are still mourning the loss of their loved ones and who want the truth that anyone who seriously looks into this matter will find.

 

Advertisements

About this entry