Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- PNAC & Deep-State Manifestos for False Flag Operations

Welcome to our fourteenth episode of Probable Cause. In our last two episodes we discussed coups and false flag operations initiated to win hearts and minds. I provided you with the 1980 military coup in Turkey and the 1953 coup in Iran as contexts, and talked about the synthetically-created events and false flag operations that preceded these coups to not only make them possible but also long-lasting. In this episode we are going to delve into a major aspect present in many of these deep state operations. We are going to talk about Manifestos- Manifesto defined as: A public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives, as one issued by a government, group, sovereign, or organization.

Interestingly, despite the general populations’ feign of ignorance, the intentions and objectives are more often than not boldly stated and documented for the majority of the deep-state created false flag operations and synthetic events. For our discussion today we will examine the similarities and parallels between the manifestos for the 1953 Coup in Iran- Operation Ajax, Operation Northwoods, and of course, the most recent manifesto- Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

As always, our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

Listen to the full episode here:

SUBSCRIBE

Show Notes

In declassified document, CIA acknowledges role in '53 Iran coup

Operation Northwoods: Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962

The Project for the New American Century

PNAC: Rebuilding America’s Defences

The CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. Andrei Tudor says:

    Sibel, why do you think they publish these papers? Why did they declassify Northwoods, and why was PNAC’s manifesto out in the open? I’ve always struggled with this question. My theory is that they do it to send a warning to those knowledgeable enough to find it and analyze it, to show that they are morally capable of monstrosities, and that they have the means and the power to pull them off, and thus to scare the hell out of those interested to investigate further. And they know that so few people will come across this information that it won’t really translate into any significant popular awareness.

    • Andrei,

      First, we all know that the players (Neocons) are extremely arrogant. They have the confidence driven from this arrogance that guides their path, including the manifesto.

      Second, it is possible to hypothesize that making information like this public is part of their ‘desensitization’ plan. A good example would be: Why would the NSA/Gov want their illegal mass surveillance operation known to the public? It started with little info trickling here (2004-2005), a little info trickling there (2008-2010), and then, bam, the so-called Snowden revelations, putting everything out there as ‘absolute & confirmed.’ In the end, congress, courts, and the public came to view it as ‘another fact of life’- normalcy. Sure, they had that initial outcry, expression of outrage from a few irate minority- but it quitted down fairly quickly. Today, every American knows that he/she is being spied upon: a general accepted knowledge.

      I think the same principle applies here, with the Manifesto being public to begin with. Most Americans have known about our CIA evil operations around the world during the last half century- whether long after the fact (through declassification) or for some, at the time. When you talk to them you usually get: ‘Well, situations at the time warranted. They had to do what they had to do … I know those were horrible things, but sometimes we have to do horrible things …’

      With PNAC, I think they plugged it in as open to begin with. Maybe this was part of their experimentation. The results, so far, have proven the experiment successful. Not only that, we began to see the same ‘approach,’ modus operandi, being used/utilized and implemented by other ally nations as well (France, UK …).

      I’d like to hear your theory on this, and others’ as well.

      I’ll be back with more responses/comments shortly (have to rush for an appointment).

      • I think that they publish their manifestos because it all would leak out anyway, so why not own it and control the release and spin. In this country, no matter how bad the story, it becomes accepted as not such a big deal in the media and in majority perception after not too long. The 2nd Bush presidency showed that even horrible bald faced lies with horrific consequences had such a short shelf life that he got re appointed as president with barely a whimper. They are even trying and run a 3rd Bush who was a PNAC signatory after the disaster of Bush 2 (by this I mean that he wound up with an approval rating in the 20’s). Why hide these plans when they can publicize them and have them accepted by a public that as a whole has been incapable of holding government accountable for upholding the constitution, the laws of the land, or even common decency.

      • Andrei Tudor says:

        To understand the purpose of the PNAC paper, one needs to know who the intended audience is. Who reads these policy papers? Definitely not the public at large. It doesn’t make sense that they would write it to communicate among themselves, either – they know their own plans. That probably leaves a larger circle of deep state insiders (both inside the US and outside), who would be able to interpret the message correctly and position themselves accordingly before the event.

        The paper was published in September 2000. By that time preparations for 9/11 were in an advanced state (as a side note, it makes sense why that Gore wasn’t allowed to win the election in 2000, the right people had to get into office for 9/11 to run smoothly). They basically announced what they were going to do, for the benefit of whomever was able to decode the message.

        Just my two cents.

        • By that time preparations for 9/11 were in an advanced state (as a side note, it makes sense why that Gore wasn’t allowed to win the election in 2000, the right people had to get into office for 9/11 to run smoothly).
          Your side note is very important. What did they do to not allow Gore to win? I mean besides falsifying the vote. What was the most effective piece of dirt they threw at him?

          • Andrei Tudor says:

            I’m not aware of anything like that. i was only referring to the Supreme Court decision to stop the recount in Florida.

    • “…that they have the means and the power to pull them off…”

      That would explain why Richard Clarke suggested that the journalist Hasting’s mysterious car crash “was consistent with a cyber car-jacking”.

  2. Yes, I believe the PNAC document qualifies as a manifesto. The neocons give every indication of being the single most influential force in current American foreign policy. The single most dangerous geo-political act that is currently taking place in the world is to spit in the eye of Russia with the ongoing subversion of Ukraine, which appears to be spear headed by Victoria Nuland, wife of PNAC signatory Robert Kagan. Whether one considers the neocons as smart or stupid or evil or some combination, one can’t argue that they are not well organized and know how to stay on point. That seems to be a key ingredient in their power base. Oddly, I recall seeing the iconoclastic neocon Richard Perle coyly denying the very existence of “neocons” when being queried in the context of the disaster in post invasion Iraq. Maybe not so “odd” as the very heart of neocon philosophy is the ‘noble lie’ of the ever-threatening external enemy; so if they’d lie THAT BIG what could possibly restrain them otherwise? On top of that — and this was a point made by Valentine — America was born of “Manifest(o) Destiny” which set the course of divine empire from the beginning. Neocons might better be seen as the current iteration of plans laid centuries ago. So we’re stuck trying to tell the mother (USA) that her child (destiny), is not marked for greatness. The neocons certainly understand this deep psychological imperative of Americans gained via propaganda and shamelessly invoke it regularly, as does Obama with his Presidential rhetoric of “the indispensable people”. Quite a pickle.

    • CuChulainn says:

      “single most dangerous geo-political act that is currently taking place in the world is to spit in the eye of Russia”
      my own sense is that Putin continues to betray Russia to the west as he has always done; Gorby/Yeltsin were too transparently traitors, so a little flag-waving was required to keep the scam going
      https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/the-west-can-only-do-this-because-they-know-putin-is-precisely-the-opposite-of-what-they-accuse-him-of-being/
      the vision of Putin as a fearsome leader whom our leaders are recklessly provoking is wonderful theater but the Ukraine situation shows that Putin has more in common with Kiev than with the people of Donbass

      • CuChu,

        “…my own sense is that Putin continues to betray Russia to the west as he has always done; Gorby/Yeltsin were too transparently traitors, so a little flag-waving was required to keep the scam going”- That makes you and I. I feel so lonely out there when I point out to this solid ‘reality.’ So many are falling for that ‘heroic Putin countering the West.’ As you said, it is ‘Yeltsin’ dynamics written all over it.

        I am so glad I am not the only one;-)

        • Sibel,

          We should keep in mind that at the highest levels – the controllers ultimately control ALL actors. They finance all sides in any wars and end games leading up to turmoil all over the world, right? Not much room for any good-guys.

          • Dennis,

            “Not much room for any good-guys”- Absolutely. One look at the occupiers in our government-all three branches, and it is pretty clear: Good guys are not considered ‘viable.’

        • SIBEL and CHUCHUCHUAIN; I don’t have any evidence that Putin is BETRAYING RUSSIA! BETRAYAL is too heavy a word based on “sensing”–My logic class instructor would call you on such a generalization. ….”.perhaps”, “sometimes”,etc. are qualifiers. Generalizations are hard for this brain. I can only guess at Putin’s intentions and witness certain events. Betrayal? nope.

          • Hey Ron – yeah betrayal is a heavy word. Do you remember the hope that Obama engendered among his base during his 1st campaign after the devastation of the Bush administration? As I responded to those who pushed this on me back then, “If he was half as good as you say, he’d be dead and the press would have worked to destroy his candidacy which they haven’t. Also, please look at where he is getting his money from and who his advisors are.” Has Obama betrayed those who believed his act?

            The truth is that there is a lot that we don’t know. The Russian press and the American branches of it refer to Putin as the chess grandmaster outmaneuvering the stupid west again and again. If so, why after the Yeltsin years of pillage in which Russia was raped of its wealth by the west, saw its standard of living and average lifespan plummet, did the genius put almost the whole of the Russian economy in the service of the West??? Why has he kept up a public relationship with Kissinger? It is well known that he is one of the richest men alive and that the west knows where his money is (not to mention the obvious fact that they could have included his money in the sanctions and didn’t) and could let the Russian people know how he has looted the country for his own benefit – making him an easy blackmail target and controllable, and etc.

            We are propagandized from birth. Again and again we fight to peel away layers of untruth. Betrayal is a heavy word, but you can see why one might think so, right??

      • I certainly don’t rule it out that this is theatre, but that’s not my read at this point.

    • PeterM; You are on it!

  3. kariflack says:

    more discussion of this type needs to be had on this regarding 9/11. my complaints throughout all the truth movements is that they seemed plotted themselves, taking people who were rightly skeptical down weird paths that made theories sound crazy rather than focusing on the really mundane functions of the state to maintain power. lots of disinfo that i’m sure was either well-meaning, spread by people getting spectacular sources, or people more sinister and connected to cover for the backlash. that is not to downplay 9/11 at all, but rather to keep it in perspective. and i think you’ve done a great job in illustrating how this power works.

    • Kariflack,

      ‘…taking people who were rightly skeptical down weird paths that made theories sound crazy…’- Agreed. I’d say it has been, by far, the most damaging and self-destructive force when it comes to 9/11 truth movement. We have lost so many good people who got frightened/disgusted/exasperated, and vacated their activism seats. I am hoping to gradually bring those people back- at least some of them. We cannot let this die- disappear, self-destroy. At least we have to try. I am not prepared to accept the destinies such as Kennedy Assassination, Iran Contra … We must learn from those past mistakes, the pitfalls, and self-defeating approaches … and try, and then try it again.

  4. corcair1366 says:

    “The neocons certainly understand this deep psychological imperative of Americans gained via propaganda and shamelessly invoke it regularly”

    I think this is key. The “Pax Americana” ideology runs deep, and simply implies, if WE don’t dominate the world, someone else will, and they’ll be worse than we are because we Americans really are Gods chosen people. And it’s scary how much psychological appeal this has, even if we intellectually reject it. It’s mothers milk programming in this country.

    I think PNAC was clearly intended as a “check out what we can get away with” document with a “and guess what we can get away with doing to you” subtext.

    I would question the assertion that the “neocons are the single most influential force in current American foreign policy” however. Not that it’s inaccurate, but I always feel there is a one-upmanship going on between the PNAC gang and whatever gang Zbigniew Brzezinski is a part of. Perhaps a reiteration of the British Crown and the Vatican satellites in a gentlemanly race to see who can conquer the world first. Sparing factions within the Deep State would be true to form, if we remember a time when cousins killed each other in feuds over who gets the crown. Perhaps manifestos are like gang members tagging certain areas. And why bother with conquest if not for Glory!? This “dialectic” may also present itself in the pendulum swing of US elections, with each gang taking turns furthering imperial hegemony, and then blaming each other for any missteps that come under public scrutiny.

    I mean, aren’t these all frat kids grown up and running the world? There’s fun in playing these game for them, is there not? How can the Deep State be anything other than the ancient bank accounts of international Capital, encompassing US, Brit, and Continental vaults of gold accumulated over a millennium? There must still be intergenerational feuds wrestling for being on top of some dog pile, but each faction pushes for the same global hegemony. I doubt that PNAC is a manifesto of a “one and only Illuminati” but more likely the territorial pissing of one warring faction. “New World Order. Same Old Sh!#”

    • Absolutely agree that there exists competing factions among the top elites.

      • Peter M,

        This is a good point to expand upon. Let’s define ‘the top elites.’ Who do we/you see as ‘the top elites’? In what way, how, do you see them compete?

        Anyone?

        • “Who do we/you see as ‘the top elites’?

          Great question and I wanna be careful here lest I step in it — though I likely will anyway — and say that I think ‘the elite’ has a variety of components. I admit up front that it’s not a real answer unless one can document and name the names. So here’s a series of thoughts for now.

          Elites are the ones who never get killed by deep events like 9/11. JFK was an elite, but in his case he was the target for the crime of breaking concensus and going off the reservation.

          Rumsfeld and Cheney qualify in my book as they not only held top political and military positions, but also were CEOs of major corporations and — this is key — were part of the COG planning group for suspension of US Constitutional law. I’d think one’s really got to ‘pass the test’ to earn that seat. One need not necessarily be the richest to qualify.

          There was a study done a few years ago of the interlocking boards of directors of 147 of the largest corporations and that study would surely cough up many names. If one also controls the media one can largely control the message. If one controls the weapons (nukes, anthrax, etc.) one can exert perhaps maximum control.

          Foundation money and those who control it like Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.. Add to this list those who controlled the early wealth and land of the nation.

          The ‘new rich’ like Gates who has already established his foundation and is already telling us via Common Core what track our education system should follow. Buffet piled in with a lot of his money which is another indicator.

          Core members of the Council on Foreign Relations would make my list.

          Big question that deserves a better answer. The old saw, “Real power is never where it seems to be,” might be an apt way to bail out here.

        • SIBEL; PeterM is doing such a good job, maybe I’ll just say nothing now. I just lied!
          It is not so much a fact that “pure neocons” run the National Security part of the Deep State; it probably can be said the Neocons have influenced a great deal of important powerful people in NSC, the Military, and political advisors. Here is an interesting list from circa 2000-2006:
          DONALD RUMSFELD*—Presidential Advisor and Secretary of Defense
          PAUL WOLFOWITZ* —Assistant Sec.. of State and Deputy Sec. of Defense
          LEWIS LIBBY* —-Assistant to WOLFOWITZ and CHENEY’S chief of Staff
          FRANK CARLUCCI —-Deputy Sec & Sec. of Defense and —-Middle East Policy council
          RICHARD PERLE Sec. of Defense for Int’l Security and —Chair, Defense policy board
          RICHARD ARMITAGE* Dept. Asst. Sec. of Defense and —-Deputy Sec. of State
          COLIN POWELL Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff and —-Deputy Sec. of State
          PETER RODMAN* Policy Planning Staff and –Asst. Sec. of Defense
          JOHN BOLTON* U.S. Agency for Int’l Development and Sec. of State for Arms Control
          DOUGLAS FEITH* Asst.. Sec. of State and Undersecretary for Policy, DOD
          *ELLIOT ABRAMS** Assistant Sec. of State and Senior Director, Nat’l Security Council
          * Signed the PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY(PNAC)
          ** Indicted for Perjury, pled guilty to withholding information from Iran-Contra Investigation
          All these guys were infected to various degrees by psychopaths of various degrees
          A book I read by a former neocon “They Knew They Were Right”(Jewish author) as well as other authors of articles ,etc. suggest that a “pure neocon” is Jewish and usually has dual citizenship w/US and Israel. Ergo, Bush(W) is not a “real” neocon—they needed a dull brain to control and whisper dark thoughts into whatever was behind his ears. IMO, one can call Rumsfeld and Cheney straight-up neocons are they won’t get an argument from me. This list should give us something to chew on.
          PNAC was a MANIFESTO, but I only came to know that about 2004!! The MSM will never let us know what’s up with deadly neocon-like cabals in real time.
          As an afterthought, just to show you how cunning some of these guys are—take R. PERLE. If you ask him if he is a neocon he will probably deny this. He was asked by a reporter and said he was not a neocon. We are, therefore, so deep in Orwellian/Deep State- Speak that War is Peace, etc., etc., …..You know the deal. Now? We are way past “gone.”
          SIBEL: Off topic; but I’m getting jittery about Greece and global fiat currency collapse–maybe a future topic??

        • 344thBrother says:

          Top Elites:
          I would put them as the un-named and un-nameable ones.
          Start at the top, anyone who has amassed over 500 billion (Or a Trillion if you prefer) (Global) dollars of personal wealth and properties. To me, it’s the heads of royal families, really massive international banking family heads like the Rothschilds etc. . Old money.

          People who have amassed massive amounts of wealth over the centuaries have been in the business of playing both sides against each other for a very long time.

          Thinking like an old family elite who has more money than they can ever possibly spend here, what do you do with all that wealth?

          Hang onto it by any and all means necessary and amass more.
          Marry each others heirs. Swap crown jewels. Steal more.
          Hire experts in finance and law and “Intelligence” (I hate that word) groups.
          Intrigue against everyone outside of your power base.
          Play both sides against each other while funding both sides.
          Murder, threaten, blackmail, incorporate and buy off people who pose a threat.
          Invest in wars, especially those that weaken nation states lend money to both sides.
          Build up global military power and technology.
          Inveigle against all competitor inside and outside your group.
          Control the message on all levels.
          Create mega corporations and cut-outs.

          I see the top “Neo-con-artists” as high level tools and cut-outs used by the real powers to implement their agenda(s). They’re also used as layers of “Plausible deniability”. These groups and individuals are disposable firewalls, similar to “World leaders” and presidents.

          I probably over-simplify a lot.
          peace
          d

          • Brother, I don’t think you over-simply by much. I’ve noted that those closest to the top of the power pyramid have the most visceral concept of power. This is probably because there is nothing else in their life which presents any challenge other than becoming King of the Hill.

            When I was a kid and anyone in the neighborhood had a dump truck load of dirt dumped for making a garden or whatever, it was time to play King of the Hill! Great fun and we were fairly careful to push each other only into the soft dirt. I wonder if the real game of King of the Hill is like that, if they have a …I won’t say gentlemen’s agreement…a understanding of some kind to not get to the top simply by slitting each other’s throats, because that would be more like another game I’ve played in virtual space, namely Slayer.

            Absolutely agree that the players we see are minions and operatives at most. One of my dear friends was complaining about, “Obama this..”, and, “Obama that…”, and I did a bit of rug-pulling by making the analogy that Obama is in charge of the so-called Free World in the same way Ronald McDonald is in charge of the McDonald’s Corporation.

    • I get this pleasant jolt every time I see a new name/voice popping up here! Welcome, corcair1366!

      “I would question the assertion that the “neocons are the single most influential force in current American foreign policy” however”- This a very important and valid point, corcair. This why you rarely hear me use the word-Neocons. Instead, I refer to them all as ‘the deep state and their arms/tentacles. Because you are absolutely right. Whether it is Brzezinski and cabal, Obama foreign policy cabal, those referred to as Neoliberals … are all the tentacles extending from the same beast-the deep state. I can’t emphasize this strongly enough. Because just like partisan divide & conquer, so many people have been blinded by these cosmetic titles: Neocons, Neoliberals … Look, Cheney is gone from the scene; Wolfowitz gone … when was the last time we heard from Pearl or Feith or …? They have been replaced with new names and new faces, yet, the stage is the same, the act is the same .

      Thank you for bringing this up. See, this is what I mean by needing every voice, every pair of eyes, every opinion, every approach. Loving it!!

      • CuChulainn says:

        to refer to neocons as powerful is laughable if you have ever known a neocon. i had the (mis-)fortune to know one of the faces in Sibel’s gallery personally and this fellow would make Walter Mitty look like Jean Gabin. in Washington one gets power only by serving power, and those who appear to have it are generally the most servile.

        • Interesting point.

          Let me guess: Was it Graham Fuller?

          • CuChulainn says:

            he has the same initials as Alexei Mozgovoi, although he represents the opposite pole of human potential. better not to name him.

          • Got it, CuChu.

            By the way, have you seen this: http://rt.com/politics/239137-putin-ngo-agents-list-removal/

            A few months back, during one of my interviews, I said: ‘…on the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised by the wise move by Putin on Western NGOs…’

            Here it is reversed. I wonder what he got for that behind the scenes. Of course, knowing that it, the original move, was to please and pacify the ‘real nationalists’ in Russia in the first place.

        • Colonel Wilkerson described neocon Douglas Feith as “maybe the dumbest man I ever met”, yet we see neocon goals and objectives being pursued and achieved in large and regular measure. In your view, what am I missing?

          • CuChulainn says:

            Peter, I’d refer again to Marx: I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/power.htm

          • I don’t think you’re missing much. The only thing I would add: You are looking at third level from the top on the hierarchy of the deep state( Let’s say Rockefellers, then, Kissinger, then Feith/Obama/etc.); the front-men.

            Many people put so much emphasis on Georgie W., but just look at the guy? Does he have anything it takes to be considered ‘architect/designer’?

            The signatories on this were the deep-state errand boys. Not architects. Not the top-tier in the hierarchy. Look at the mix: Academia, foreign policy, civil servants, analysts, businessman, even a foreigner-Afghanistan (not counting the Israelis;-)… It gives that ‘broad spectrum’ flavor for perceived legitimacy.

          • CuChulainn, I’m gonna take as your point that the neocons are hired guns for this agenda? If that’s the case it seems as we are headed toward a short list of very wealthy people and/or institutions.

          • CuChulainn says:

            haha a fellow i know went to George Washington HS in NYC with Heinrich, as he was not so affectionately known at State; HK was then a dry-cleaning delivery boy (before he met the Rocks.)
            re. Putin, Sibel, notice where his daughter lives (the Hague) and where he keeps his money. he looks like a greedy little man to me, though people call him charismatic. two links (of many): https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/selected-reminiscences-of-eduard-hodos/ https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/ilyukhin-only-lived-a-month-after-he-made-this-speech-i-dont-know-how-he-died/

          • CuChulainn says:

            as i see it Peter the neocons are errand boys for capital

          • Duly noted.

        • Putin’s main contact in the west has always been Kissinger. They have met periodically for years. One link of MANY http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/1171-kissinger-putin-and-the-new-world-order Just like all of the other truths we talk about here it exists in the light of day, but still functionally invisible.

          By the way Sibel, The New American is the mouthpiece of The John Birch Society which has had a long and close relationship with Ron Paul. This is why during the 2012 presidential primaries the media could ignore Ron Paul’s early successes, everyone knew that if he gained traction with the voters his Birch roots would be shown and the show would be over.

          • MANDELA: I certainly respect your words–have for a while now. I am aware that Putin has a very questionable/dodgy background…ex-KBG, etc. I assume he knows Oligarchs from various countries. I know he is ridiculously wealthy–which actually pisses me off. Kissinger is a war criminal–straight up! Kissinger should be tried Internationally for War crimes. But these facts alone do not tell me that Putin is Betraying his country. It’s a bit semantic at this point–i., e.,….We need to define terms and look for logical fallacies, etc.. For me, this is not the format–this thread of Sibel’s, that is.
            Regarding betrayal of his homeland, I would need more evidence. I certainly am not saying he would not betray it. As you know, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” These people in power can never be trusted, as I mentioned a few episodes back. Now, in the time of Orwell/Fascist-Police States anything can happen. And geopolitics is now stranger than fiction. And I agree, there is a monstrous amount we will never know. You have a very interesting pseudonym ,BTW, “mandela” is an ancient Sanscrit word. I’ve seen plenty in my days–especially in Berkeley in the 60s.

          • Ron & Mandela

            “But these facts alone do not tell me that Putin is Betraying his country.” — Ron

            Like Ron says, I do not rule out the possibility, but would require substantially more evidence to believe that Putin is ‘in on the plot’. A fascinating and worthy question though.

          • Ron & Peter,
            In episode 10 Sibel told the story of Alternative Man, who we all assume to be GG. Through blackmail he is forced to do that which he would not otherwise do. He still is alternative man, seemingly working the message of those who want to limit government power, but what he reports on and what he doesn’t is carefully orchestrated. If he goes any further, his wealth, power, and freedom are finished. Is he betraying his beliefs and those who rely on him for news?

            In the ’90’s Clinton and Gore campaigned heavily for GATT and NAFTA. Ross Perot, remember him??, was a very public figure contesting what this would do to the country. I remember in a debate between him and Gore, Perot saying, “Al, these Mexicans, who you claim are going to buy American products and create domestic jobs, will be paid $2 a day. What are they going to be able to buy from us?” As Gore kept deftly changing the topic to questions about Perot’s past and motivations – he was hugely prepared to move the discussion from facts and critical thinking to spin and inuendo, Perot at some point just stopped dead looked Gore in the eye and said, “Al I always thought that you were a good guy who worked for what would be best for the USA. Now look me in the eye and tell me that you really believe what you are saying about this bill. Tell me that I am wrong and that we will not hear a great big sucking sound of jobs leaving America?” Gore had no problem whatsoever telling the big lie convincingly. This is what betrayal looks like. Clinton, Gore, GG, and countless judges, journalists, world leaders, and etc. betray their countries in countless heinous ways. It doesn’t mean that they are in the employ of foreign agents. I don’t need to know who wrote what checks or made what promises or threats o Clinton and Gore to push that legislation through to know that they betrayed America. I do know that Perot was told that if he didn’t withdraw from the race that there would be a terror event at his daughter’s wedding.

            With Putin I see that he is eminently blackmailable, and that he makes decisions that are beyond questionable at times. Muammar Gaddafi was not blackmailable. He was openly stealing 25% of the countries wealth, but worked very hard to use the other 75% for the benefit of his people. He refused to have his country’s or to the extent that he could control, Africa’s resources exploited by the west. That is why he had to be killed. He stole from his people, but he would not betray them. He could not be controlled. I see Putin as more like Alternative Man.

    • Andrei Tudor says:

      ” And why bother with conquest if not for Glory”

      That touches on a very important point, namely motivations. For the second / third tier people money would probably be a good guess, but for those at the top, there most be more than that. They have all the money in the world, and if they want more, they can always print it. For them, making money must be as easy as taking candy from a baby.

      So yes, we could be looking at a continuation of old dynastic feuds. After all, why would that have stopped being an incentive, after having motivated those in power for so many centuries?

      • Andrei,

        Another great angle.

        One of my favorite professors (literature) used to say, ‘to understand XYZ’s poem you must look at it from several angles.’ Then, he would take his chair turn it on its side, and say, ‘from this angle,’ and then turn it upside down and say, ‘and this angle,’ and then to the other side, ‘and this perspective as well.’ This is exactly what we are doing here: coming at it from all sorts of angles, perspectives, and through all different lenses. Some, look at it from ‘ideological’ angle: Neocons/neoliberals/etc driven by their twisted ideology? Others are looking at it from the $$$$$ angle. Are they serving those who directly benefit via $$$$ and domination?

        Or, is it a mixture of several macro objectives for them?

        With the end of the Cold War the MIC was seeing its end (diminished value/utilization). Then, their expansion With 9/11, and the following perpetual war (many-fronted, indefinite). I can’t ignore this fact. We can’t. To say that they became beneficiaries by sheer luck would be …

        With Iran Coup we talked about the ‘nationalization of oil.’ Immediately after the coup, 5 US oil companies were given the rights/access to that oil (no nationalization, and ending BP’s/Brits’ monopoly). Was that a default benefit? Or, did capitalization of that oil was one of the driving forces for designing and implementing the coup?

        Similarly, Middle East oil/gas resources will be replaced with Central Asia/Caucasus. Erecting bases and controlling the region has been a major objective- in order to control the resources, thus, domination. So is the Major oil companies’ benefit/gain just some positive externality after the fact? Or, was it part of the objective and drive behind the plan (manifesto + Operation) in the first place?

        • Andrei Tudor says:

          I see what you’re saying, and I think you’re right. It makes sense to analyze events individually, rather than attempt to ascribe a blanket rationale to all. There are common themes running through all these operations, but there are significant differences as well – rooted in the particular circumstances of the time and and place.

          I suppose the overriding common concern, for people like the Rotschilds and the Rockefellers is perpetuation of power and control. Power of its own sake, and who knows, maybe even some deluded notion that they are doing mankind a favor. Benefits accruing from that (money) flow to their minions in the MIC and oil industry, who in turn are indispensable for perpetuation of said power and control. A nice feedback loop running between them. I realize that models like that are gross oversimplifications, but they help me achieve some clarity.

        • 344thBrother says:

          Regarding resources like oil:
          Control the resource, control its distribution and production.
          Control the availability.
          Control the price.

        • SIBEL, CHUCHUCHAIN: to shrug off neocons is at your and everybody’s peril. My sense is that there seem to be deep pathologies at work among them. They are very cunning–not intellectual giants–cunning, cold, lack conscience. I knew 2 rather well….extremely verbal and straining to be sophisticated and screaming generalization after generalization! Secretly, I felt like “bitch slapping” them backwards into the swimming pool–but that would violate certain ethics I know struggle to maintain. I simply stopped being friends with a family that was dear to me because of those 2. I grew up in tough neighborhoods and studied enough martial arts to last 3 lifetimes–it was my dark side fantasizing.
          A fox cannot write a term paper, by try hunting one. Same deal.
          The cunning creatures, after all are responsible for PNAC! and “A NEW “PEARL HARBOR”
          was their “mantra.”
          And here are some specific areas they have been frequenting for decades:…Their offices are located in… “the Pentagon’s E-Ring, the CIA’s Seventh Floor, the State Department’s Seventh floor. Keypads lock their doors. Next to their desk are a safe and two computers, one classified, the other unclassified. Down the hall is a SCIF(Sensitive compartmented information facility) They speak in acronyms and code words that the public has never heard.” This is a quote from NATIONAL SECURITY AND DOUBLE GOVERNMENT by Michael Glennon, 2015, page 22. In this quote he is referring to what he terms “Trumanites”– the hidden non-elected officials whose career is tied up with National Security and what we would call the DEEP STATE. Of course, neocons are embedded in this NETWORK and have been key players not to be underrated, IMO.

    • Just wanted to highlight the confluence of terminology and timing, in that the PNAC document obviously refers to the 21st century, and 2001 was in fact the first year of the 21st century. Many people think it was the previous year, but no.

      The selection of the exact date for the 9/11 attack may be a ruse related to the Battle of Vienna in 1683.

  5. A few have commented about the arrogance shown in publishing these manifestos. Why is anyone truly surprised?

    If you google “michael kraus dacher keltner studies” (I chose not to embed links, in case I miss any that are important) you will find a number of very interesting studies in the past decade about social classes and resulting behaviors, with the first two names involved in many of them. The class most likely to lie, cheat, and steal is the rich.

    People are social beings and empathy for others is innate – we are always judging others (within about 5 seconds we subconsciously form a judgment on meeting a stranger; this is done without even deciding on which connections should be relevant) and judging ourselves by their reaction to us.

    When someone achieves great wealth or great privilege, they are now above everyone else, and so better than everyone else. They can also feel they are above the laws of behavior and courtesy the rest of us live by.

    Those atop the deep state live a life with no practical mechanism for being held accountable, so why should we expect compassion or a sense of justice?

    • Dave,
      “Those atop the deep state live a life with no practical mechanism for being held accountable”- Another highly important (and relevant) point.

      Now time for me to check out “michael kraus dacher keltner studies” and educate myself.

    • 344thBrother says:

      Dave re:
      “When someone achieves great wealth or great privilege, they are now above everyone else, and so better than everyone else. ”

      After WW1 Rockefeller (I forget which one) was “The most hated man in America”. He undertook a personal policy of keeping a pocket full of dimes to throw to all the poor and downtrodden he chanced across in his wanderings. “Hey buddy can you spare a dime” was coined about this practice during the great depression.

      It must have worked.
      p
      d

  6. PNAC was blueprint for the “Neo-Cons” to implement 9-11 to catalyst the further actions of the “Progressives” and “Globalists” plan for the Mid East. This connects with “Deep State Manifestos”, especially about what’s going on now..Tony Cartalucci had a great post ( http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/03/obama-netanyahu-fallout-is-theater.html ) about The Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran-strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf
    Another script for the actors to play their parts in the psychopathic theater of power and control.

    • Hi Rebel, another new name today! Welcome to our forum.

      Cartalucci: He has had some excellent analyses. One of very few sites I visit frequently. And as far as I can tell: he is truly independent- a rarity. He’s been spot on.

  7. http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/04/the-victory-of-the-noble-lie/
    I have never listed a site, but y’all might want to read this.

    • Ron, from your link: “This is the way they deal with truth.”

      We need to keep in mind how a Machiavellian psychopathic mind at the top levels of the power pyramid defines truth and lies: “Truth is what serves me by conforming to my self-serving narrative. A lie is what obstructs me by contradicting my self-serving narrative.”

      That’s really it. This thing we call objective reality is to them an unsophisticated concept they discard and transcend. Their world is a thing of their creation, ideally. If you get in their way, you are a bug underfoot. The only constraint on crushing you is how much stink doing so might release.

      Those at the top must work through minions, of course, and their minions are mostly “lesser” beings not endowed with their “vision”, so these minions must be controlled and motivated by greed and fear. But people are not robots. We must never forget this.

      In Classified Woman, one of the “minions” in the FBI stonewalls Sibel and then in parting congratulates her on her bravery. A minion yes, a robot not quite yet. Somewhere inside is a spark of humanity, which may only emerge on his deathbed. If he’s allowed to die that way, that is. Sudden death is one way to prevent deathbed confessions.

      In The Lone Gladio, Greg decides to save Elsie because of a self-imposed intellectual morality with a bit of underlying sentimentality (my interpretation), though he only saves her in the physical sense. He does nothing to shield her psyche from the corrosive reality he lives in – in fact he traps her in it.

      What I come away with from both books, and my personal experience, is this: Most minions will probably not slaughter us just because we “see” them, but in seeing them and understanding their reality, we suffer damage. Knowledge is sorrow. We choose to live in the reality where truth is cherished and immutable, but we must fully comprehend another reality where the term is perverted, used and discarded like toilet paper. To be truly effective, we need to learn how to think like “them” almost reflexively, like knowing and using a second language. That undertaking can never be anything but uncomfortable.

      [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

      • Ya, KNARF. I like where you are going with this. You seem to get the “grit” of this thing called
        “reality” at street level. Also my experience suggests many realities—even right under our nose.
        Power to you, brother. These people are barely human.

  8. Ronald Orovitz says:

    Just happened to listen to this interview of Paul Craig Roberts… http://itsourmoney.podbean.com/e/the-whole-story-022515/ Beginning at around 43 mins, he gives a nice little history of the neo-cons, starting with how Reagan chased them out of his administration: “He wanted to end the cold war, but they wanted to WIN it”… By his narrative, it seems that the War on Terror was only a diversion, and now they’re getting back to their goal of WINNING the Great Game…

    If these sociopaths – and yes they are really little pathetic worms of men (and a few women) – not the “Masters of the Universe” they fancy themselves to be… But if they WIN it, I’m afraid it will be a Pyrrhic victory, as we all together starve in a nuclear winter.

    • 344thBrother says:

      Ronald:
      Yeah Bush Sr. used to call the neo-cons the nut cases or something like that. All the while he was furthering their agenda while publicly reviling it. Lets face it, it never was the “Reagan/Bush” Whitehouse, it was always Bush. Reagan just stepped forward for sound bites and to take blame for things like Iran Contra. It was a nice little firewall for Bush Sr. who always played up the feeb angle for himself, successfully.
      p

    • Ronald: That is rather close to my take, as well.

  9. These manifestos are interesting, as is the question of why they issue them publicly. Besides arrogance, and contempt for the American public’s ability to understand and react, they know very well that the media will not call them on anything. Therefore the manifesto can hide in plain sight. Why not put it out? Perhaps it’s an efficient call to arms for the outlying cognoscenti.

    After all, what happens when we share this information with people who do not have an interest even in viewing it critically? Nothing happens. What we might see as virtually a smoking gun, they see as us being paranoid. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has had the conversation.

    Me: See? New Pearl Harbor?
    Them: Big deal.
    Me: Big deal?!
    Them: Oh, so it says new Pearl Harbor one time in an enormous document, and you’re seizing on that one tiny thing.
    Me: Oh. How many times would they have to say it before you thought it was noteworthy?
    Them: America is not going to attack itself! Why on earth would it?
    Me: Well, do you see the goals listed in the PNAC document? And have you seen our actions since 9/11?
    Them: Oh sure, they’re going to publish their intent and then commit the crime of the century, you’re crazy.

    That’s more or less verbatim transcript of conversations I’ve had. Not just me right? So it seems to me they’re risking nothing by publishing it, and gaining, however weirdly, plausible deniability and maybe (speculation alert) announcing intentions to circles of people who might want to get on the same page with them.

    If there’s one thing we know for sure by now, it’s that most people willfully keep the dots disconnected. “Gimme the blue pill, shut up and gimme the blue pill!” If it ain’t a NY Times headline, it ain’t news.

    • CuChulainn says:

      it was a former (?) intelligence officer (non US) who first explained to me the brilliance of hiding in plain sight

      • The concept of deniability is applicable to the sleeping masses. Do almost anything you please in full public view, and it will be soon forgotten and moved past, as long as you have an official spokesman who can earnestly look the cameras in the lens and say it didn’t happen, you didn’t see what you thought you saw, and anyone who says otherwise is just a hater.

        In tandem with deniability, is the simple tactic of delay. “We can’t comment pending a full investigation by the Inspector General’s office.” No further official word is forthcoming, the issue drops out of the news cycle, the official report is delayed and delayed again, while more and more people just forget about it. Finally something redacted is released 5 PM on the Friday of a holiday long weekend, the following week an official spokesman tells the three reporters who remember to inquire, that the investigation found no wrongdoing, the case is closed, next question please.

        There’s so much coming at us all the time that it’s hard to catch the important bits and follow up on them. BFP has a founder and contributors who notice, and follow up, and analyze what the mainstream has forgotten or ignored. Very, very valuable. Those of us who receive value from this place are truly acting in our self-interest when we support BFP in whatever ways we can.

        [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

  10. Not to sound too hopeless, for every hundred people I’ve managed to alienate, there’s probably been one or two who have said “oh my god, this changes everything.”

  11. Hi everyone,
    1st post for me here at BFP!
    I’m surprised no one has mentioned the 1996 predecessor to PNAC, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, another Perle and Feith production. That one is an outline of exactly what has happened in the middle east since 9/11.

    • Welcome Lizzie! Thank you for the important/relevant reminder.

      Also, please let us hear your voice and take often. Looking forward to your coming comments.

    • 344thBrother says:

      lizzie welcome and great point. Cheney was a big “Clean break” advocate I think?
      peace

      • 334thbrother,
        Cheney was on the JINSA Board of Advisors along with Perle, Feith, and John Bolton before the W. regime. JINSA is another lobby/think tank that was very instrumental in the 1990’s in shaping the hell that was unleashed so far this century.
        Interesting note: I was just reading around to brush up on PNAC, Clean Break, JINSA,etc to refresh my memory and came across a page on Feith’s personal website in my search results attempting to walk back any formal responsibility for the paper. Pathetic.

  12. chris bagg says:

    I think that John has it right about hiding in plain sight. Putting the PNAC manifesto out for all to see clearly begs us to ask the question “Why would these neocons announce their intention beforehand if they truly planned to engineer an “new pearl harbor”. Doesn’t the mere fact that they made it public preempt anyone’s accusation that “they” were the ones who murdered 3000 Americans? Would a real guilty party so publicly announce their intent to commit such a crime? Instead, I think that we are supposed to see the PNAC document in the context of Rham Emanuel’s assertion that “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste”. This ghastly unexpected thing happened to America, but luckily we had some hard nosed realists in charge who knew how to make the best possible use out of this tragedy. In other words, I think that we were allowed to see the PNAC manifesto because it actually helps exonerate those involved. It simply makes the Big Lie even bigger and harder to challenge, so fewer will try. For those who might, it coyly invites them into the “let it happen on purpose” v.s. “made it happen on purpose” conspiracy swamp. This is not a place that many are yet ready to set foot.

    I do find it odd, by way of contrast, that the Operation Northwoods document ever saw the light of day. Perhaps the Kennedy administration wanted a record kept of this outrageous policy suggestion, and put it in a place where it could not be permanently concealed. The same might be said about the manifesto for the overthrow of Mossadegh. One might ask, in this vein, what ever happened to the policy manifesto for the Gulf of Tonkin incident, for instance, or the manifesto for the USS Liberty attack? These plans were so top secret that they probably never even made it onto actual paper. In any case, they were made after the coup against Kennedy had taken place, and thus were well hidden.

    • Well, in 1995 McNamara acknowledged in a conversation with General Giap that the Gulf of Tonkin attack was indeed a false flag, as he was also involved in the Northwoods Operation it gives quite strong credibility about the fact that the Northwoods Operation is genuine.

  13. @Cuchulainn & Sibel
    “as i see it Peter the neocons are errand boys for capital”
    Understood. So who and how many big players would seem to be the questions. How much overlap?

  14. A Heads Up:

    I just posted our three-week-long campaign announcement and objectives. It is now in our homepage (Right Column), and has the details, including all the links on the page: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2015/03/11/bfp-quarterly-campaign-pursuing-truth-working-toward-real-change-one-member-at-a-time/

    For the next three weeks we will be providing our new members with a signed and personalized copy of ‘Classified Woman’ + One bonus BFP Exclusive DVD.

    Let’s give it our best, and expand our solid community.

    * Peter B will be recording an interesting interview with Ken Silverstein on Greenwald & Intercept/Omidyar (Silverstein left the corporation a couple of weeks ago)

    ** Mark Mondalek is working on a BFP exclusive article. It should be up by tomorrow.

    ***I am going to try my best to pre-record one more Probable Cause episode before I leave (Friday evening). We will be flying (on and off) for 27 hours;-)

  15. My own thoughts about the manifestos:

    – Northwoods. If we believe wikipedia, it was part of a multi-million document declassification. The screening may have been too superficial, concentrating on the assassination only. In other words: The declassification may have been an error. Well that’s a question actually: Could it have been an error?

    – Following a speech by Cynthia McKinney in which she juxtaposed the Oded Yinon plan, the Clean Break article, and the PNAC document, I went looking for more from where those came from and stumbled upon this gem that I hadn’t seen mentioned in our circles: “The Afghan Vortex”, dated April 2000:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20010228095817/http://www.israeleconomy.org/strategic9/strat9.htm
    If you hadn’t seen it, here’s a quote to give you the taste:
    “… It is for this reason that external intervention is crucial. Only the United States has this capability. …”

    – About whether or not the PNAC document is useful to enlighten a broader public, my limited experience is that it is generally not enough: The people I talk to that are say only 97% dismissive of the default story want to be presented with what I consider the most likely alternative story. Just saying that the default story doesn’t make sense is also not good enough, because from their point of view, alternatives might be even less sensible. And so I find that you need to have a story that includes:
    1. Motivation (This is where the manifestos help).
    2. Implementation (this is where the manifestos don’t help), which includes:
    a. Setting up the patsies
    b. Flying the planes
    c. Creating the audio
    d. Optionally bringing buildings down
    e. Covering the tracks: Silencing insiders & misdirecting investigations before and after the act.

    It needs quite some time investment for people to believe that the implementation is feasible, which I find they are not prepared to make. I can’t completely blame them, as I myself are not particularly inclined to go and find the error in reasoning of the Nth inventor who claims to have a design for a free energy machine. Rather than aiming directly at 9/11 I first massage them with Northwoods. Even that document I find needs specific argumentation, which I wrote down here: http://www.historynotebook.org/blog/?p=121 . A further advantage of the Northwoods document over PNAC, is that Northwoods unlike PNAC is quite detailed about the implementation, and proposal 8 even has the remotely guided planes idea, which helps for imagining such a scenario being feasible 40 years later.

    • Olivier,

      This is great. I like your approach with this comment: statements, questions, suggestions, and offering other possible approaches/alternatives. As we know, almost all alternative mediums approach issues/cases as problem statement and possible explanations/theories. And then, they leave it hang in there.

      “…my limited experience is that it is generally not enough …”- My experience as well. I think we all concur that it is not ‘enough.’ It is a great starting point. As you put it: Step/point A.

      “Covering the tracks: Silencing insiders & misdirecting investigations before and after the act.”- This was ‘the’ main objective of our gov whistleblowers organization (NSWBC). If you search you’ll find how we collectively tried to expose some of these cover-ups/lies through press conferences, rallies, signed statements/collective petitions, etc. I think one of the main missing ingredients in our approach was: going with your step ‘e’ without Step a, b, c, as part of it. I guess it was not being able to come up with a way to do it, without making it too big and too complex to convey/communicate. We said: Let’s keep it clean and straight-forward; let’s limit it to each testimony by each highly credible witness (with their specific gov agency, department, title, etc.)… and let the public add the 2 and 2 together. This way, we thought, we would not be accused of theorizing, generalizing, speculation, exaggeration, publicity-seeking, etc. While the approach was effective and successful in that regard (establishing credibility, remaining 100% truthful armed with facts/documents), it failed miserably in other areas. It was like throwing a few pieces of puzzle out there, and hope that people would connect it with other pieces (The manifesto, the holes in the patsies’ background stories, etc.).

      Anyhow. Good/valid points. Here, at BFP, we are at the stage of lining up all our ‘2’s’ and then add them up, and then come up with the best way to present the twos and how and what they add to. The beauty of going about this in this interactive way, organically, is that: together, collectively, we have a much better chance of coming up with the better way (or ways) and approaches. For example, your comment taking us to another important aspect of our subtopic.

    • Andrei Tudor says:

      Very helpful information – for my own knowledge, as well as about what it takes to convince others. Thanks. I suspected that Norhwoods might have been declassified by mistake, but I just did not know where to look for further info. Turns out the information was much more accessible than I would have thought.

  16. arealjeffersonian says:

    I do agree with the position that PNAC is a genuine Manifesto. I don’t put much stock in coincidences, so to believe that PNAC puts out its position and then just by coincidence within a year the absolutely necessary event takes place is too much of a stretch. Add to that the fact that the signatories were persons in positions of power, who not only stood to gain, but also were in positions to help implement and cover up.

    Working on a couple of prospective new members – here’s to a successful campaign.

  17. Very good listening and reading. Much to think about. PNAC as manifesto shows Intent. All the cited documents show intent before the [f]act. Intent is part of law. A crime generally must have intent proven. Another FOIA release[] dicussing protection of Warren Commission strategies also uses the ‘transformative’ word. So transformative or ‘transformation’ is recognised as a real motion of thought transference one ‘thing’ into something next…needing form; substance.(creating new realities:Rove) directional. [limited hang-out] The manifesto as script. To be followed rather than prophetic. Makes me think of another user of the ‘transformative’ : ‘Public myth’ maker Phillip Zelikow . V.much like the idea of NORTHWOODS release result of insider horror reaction to Kennedy coup.

    • Remo,

      I like the implementation of the crime within criminal justice system to this case.

      Intent & motive: Checkmark
      Means: Checkmark
      Opportunity: Checkmark
      Evidence: Checkmark
      Witnesses: Checkmark

      I almost always use these points when I talk about 9/11. I ask people: Let’s say you have a murder case- (a wealthy man has been murdered; he has a life insurance worth $1 million with his current wife and two grown up kids from his previous marriage as beneficiaries; he is also in this business partnership feud with another wealthy powerful man; etc etc. ). One of the first thing the law enforcement/investigators have to establish: who was going to benefit from this man’s death? Who had motive(s)?

      Well, this is one criteria never pursued by the pseudo investigations of 9/11. NEVER.

      Next, they have to establish who had the means/opportunity. Again, that line of investigation was never pursued.

      Next, evidence. Same thing.

      Next, witnesses. Who? How many real trials have we had with ‘real’ witnesses testifying? None.

      Obviously the FBI believed they had ‘NO’ case against Bin Laden and Company. Even they couldn’t bring themselves to place the man on the most wanted list (no evidence, no witnesses, no intent/motive ever established).

      If I were in court, at this point I’d say, ‘We drop all charges, and we rest our case, your honor’;-)

      • Since reading Ruppert I’ve been asking myself this question: Is there a clear distinction in the criminal justice system between means and opportunity? If yes, what are the exact definitions used?

        • That’s a good question. It’s been nearly two decades since I took all those courses in CJ and forensic science. I am going to look it up. If I were to guess: means= the ability & access (access to the hard-to-purchase … let’s say poison/pills, access to remotely disable pilot functions and put the pane on remotely controlled mode …). Opportunity: being in the ‘right’ place in the right ‘time’ to execute the criminal action; let’s say: with no witnesses around you happen to be on top of this skyscraper’s roof top with the victim (while you have the intent), he is sitting at the edge of the roof, and you give the needed to push to send him down there.

          Pls don’t quote me on the above. I am quickly typing and guessing.

          Anyhow- a good question in need of further research for the right answer.

    • One more thing: During my work with the bureau, this was known and acknowledged by every single agent, analyst, linguist … The Bureau had ‘zero’ case to pursue any of the ‘officially’ named culprits in a court of law.

      Thus, this is how the CIA/Pentagon could go about this: Black sites, torture, kidnapping, Guantanamo … A made-up narrative on main supposed culprit being assassinated (of course, even that one with ever-changing versions and narrative lines). Case closed: the deep state rests its case, your honor;-)

    • 344thBrother says:

      remo re “Intent”:
      It does show intent. I’m guessing that PNAC and other manifestos serve the function of putting the signatory’s asses on the line. “Sign on the line or you’re out” “In for a penny, in for a pound” “Blood in blood out”. Sort of a gang thing like graffiti.
      p
      d

      • Save, I like the analogy.

      • 344thBrother says:

        Continuing on this thought… The gang mentality and graffiti.

        By clearly stating their intentions in a manifesto like PNAC or the Northwoods document, the signatories are also laying claim to the operation and the proceeds from it.

        People who are insane for power always want more and greater and more limitless power. What does it take to seize the greatest power of all?
        Plan an enormous crime.
        Sign onto the plans publicly.
        Commit the crime.
        Get away with it.
        Then bask in all the profits, knowing that everyone is in awe (Shock and awe) of what you have done and that they fear you.

        They get bragging rights too, something that is very important to psychopaths who cherish power. I’m sure there have been a lot of very jovial parties where they have all had a good laugh about 911 and how they did it.

        I’m very sure that it will live in the annals of their personal histories as a great work.

        p
        d

  18. A Heads Up:

    Our author/reporter Mark Mondalek has done a great job with ‘Odeh Trials.’ He just left the courthouse (he’s been following the case and attending the trial). He will be available to read your comments and answer your questions under the comments section of the post (Homepage: BFP Exclusive). Let’s salute him for the great piece executed with the needed humanistic approach, and provide him feedbacks.

    This is what I mean by ‘My Goals for BFP’: Wouldn’t it be great to have 3 or 4 dedicated, compassionate and independent journalists who cover blacked out stories like this and more? Another project I have in mind: Contracting independent photographers to provide us (and the majority) with photos that speak more than a million words: our daily murders around the globe, the many orphans we create …

    All right. I am going to go start packing. I’ll check the forums regularly.

  19. jpcarson says:

    Hi Sibel,

    You have and are making significant contributions, but for me to really push others to support Boiling Frogs, it has to become a “real” membership organization in which dues-paying members have a formal role in the polity, with bylaws, elections, etc.

    That is democracy, to me at least, which is what I perceive you, as I, as others in “irate minority” defending.

    Joe Carson

    • JPCarson,

      It will never happen here. We will never be ‘that’ kind of a ‘formal’ organization. I have severe allergies to bylaws, NGO status, board of directors, board of advisors, blah blah blah … You are more than welcome to continue your membership and access here (unless you force the issue I will not eliminate that access), but people from ‘your camp’ will never be welcomed here. This is not a right home for you and those with that mentality.

      Will this approach prove to be futile? Maybe. Is it possible for it fail? Yes. But I take that chance rather than giving in to those with that kind of ‘organizational,’ ‘hierarchical’ mentality and vision (or lack of).

      PS- This is me exercising my ‘utter most patience.’ Out of character for me, so please don’t push it too far. You blew the whistle, you have had integrity, but there are tons of other things that sets you apart from where I stand, who I am, and what ‘we’ are about.

  20. arealjeffersonian says:

    jpcarson,

    Perhaps you missed Episode 8, where there was a rather extensive discussion of the pitfalls and evils of “organizations”. No better way to kill something good than to “organize” it.

  21. Every Good Luck on your journey.

    regarding intent ;
    Daniel Hopsicker “Welcome to Terrorland”
    David Ray Griffins “The 911 Commission Report:Omissions and Distortions” .
    “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7”
    Kevin Ryan’s “Another nineteen” .
    Christopher Bollyn’s “Solving 911”. reporting the absolute imperative NOT to have any 911 case contested in open court.

  22. chris bagg says:

    I doubt that many of the PNAC signatories had any real foreknowledge of what exactly was going to happen on 911. Some may have known that something big was going down soon, but I suspect that the event was presented as an “immanent threat” that those in charge were ready to overlook, much as the real Pearl Harbor attack must have been presented to the top brass in 1941. The manifesto served as a template for how the nation should respond, so that all might be on the same page. Also, as dave points out, it was a kind of blood oath taken by the leading neocons, ensuring that a common front was presented to America and the world.

    While we are on the subject of PNAC and Pearl Harbor, I thought readers might want to see this documentary by Massimo Mazzucco, “The New Pearl Harbor”. It is an excellent compilation of the case for conspiracy, and an effective way to introduce the uninitiated to the stark reality that America confronts.

    • 344thBrother says:

      chriss:
      We disagree on whether or not the PNAC signatories had foreknowledge. If they didn’t why did Jeb Bush declare a state of emergency just days before the attacks? How did Cheney know to keep the drills going and to let the “Orders still stand” etc. ?

      The plans for the demolition of the towers probably were in play from early in their construction just in case those towers full of asbestos didn’t pay well (They didn’t). There’s so much evidence for foreknowledge that the highest level PNACers either knew or they didn’t want to know.
      p
      d

      • chris bagg says:

        I’m only guessing, but I would think that most of them would have been clued in only on a need to know basis. I agree that Cheney and Rumsfeld had to know, as they were some of the original COG planers. All of the people mentioned by Kevin Ryan in “Another Nineteen” must have known. Jeb and George ditto. In truth, many hundreds of people must have known. Nevertheless, I would think that the people who really did plan 911 would not have wanted such a hard line between those who knew and those who didn’t. They would have wanted to rope in some who could be counted on, but really didn’t know the details. Some of those PNAC guys are probably on that list.

        On the question of whether plans for demolition were in play from the start, I would agree also. Look up John McPhee’s 1974 book ” The Curve of Binding Energy” . This is a scary book about the possibility of miniaturizing nuclear weapons, (Don’t worry, I’m not suggesting that they used one) At the end of the book you will find a description of what would happen if a terrorist planted a bomb at the base of one of the WTC towers. The subject of the book, Ted Taylor, a specialist in designing small nuclear weapons, is looking down at the plaza between the towers with McPhee, and describes what would one might expect to see: “If you exploded a bomb down there, you could conceivably wind up with the World Trade Center’s two buildings leaning against each other and still standing,” he said. “There’s no question at all that if someone were to place a half-kiloton bomb on the front steps where we came in, the building would fall into the river.”
        Astonishingly, this book was written in 1974. Clearly, though this book was written only a year after the towers were completed, specialists were already considering the possibility of a terrorist attack on the WTC towers. Might the architects, or perhaps someone more obscure, have been asked to design in some sort of potential countermeasure to Ted Taylor’s chilling scenario?

        • chris bagg says:

          I am not suggesting here that the WTC buildings were set up for demolition way back in the 70s, but rather that access was left to those key structural areas around the core columns where demolition charges might need to be placed should it be determined that a terrorist attack was immanent. (Hence the significance of the white house memo ” Bin Laden determined to attack US.”) I do find this forgotten book by McPhee rather striking and prophetic. Why did TedTaylor say those ominous scary things about buildings which crumpled into their own footprint 28 years later? We know that a massive “elevator upgrade” was being completed in the months before 911, which potentially could have given technicians access to the core columns.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            There is one person – Paul Laffoley – who claims to have worked for Emery Roth and Sons on the WTC construction. He says that chief architect Minoru Yamasaki had brought in the Saudi Bin Laden construction company to work on the project, one of whose people had inquired with Lafolley as to where would be the best places to install demo charges as part of the construction… The idea being that planned obsolescence was then in vogue. There are questions about Laffoley’s credibility, he is a bit loopy – there are articles on the claims of and questions about Lafolley at 911blogger.com if you’re interested.

            I know Sibel doesn’t like these tangents – the various and sometimes bizarre theories of what “dustified” the WTC – but I have to admit it is something of a guilty fascination on my part… Guilty in that I acknowledge it is a divisive issue, but fascinating nonetheless in that it truly is the mystery of the century. What I don’t understand however is why it need be so divisive within the 9/11 truth movement between the proponents jealously defending their pet theories. Once we acknowledge that we are dealing with vast epistemic lacunae on this matter – i.e. we really don’t know what we think we know – the proponents might be a little less jealous and acrimonious about the hypotheses they examine… In the process, they might cooperatively succeed in reducing the epistemic lacunae.

          • 344thBrother says:

            chris. Then I guess we don’t really disagree that much after all.

          • CuChulainn says:
          • CuChulainn says:
          • CuChulainn
            Thanks for the links to the work of “niqnaq” (RB ?) of whom I was previously unfamiliar. In his analysis he incorporates and recognizes the seemingly disparate work of Ryan and Bollyn and instead finds an integration which is itself revealing. A cautionary tale not to fall too much in love with our ideas — especially early ideas and analysis — and maintain the ability to step back yet again to better comprehend the whole picture we are looking at.

    • Ronald, thank you for prompting me to grab a dictionary for ‘epistemic lacunae’. What a fabulous term.

      I agree with you when you stated, ‘What I don’t understand however is why it need be so divisive within the 9/11 truth movement between the proponents jealously defending their pet theories.’

      And would add that if 9/11 investigators and ‘truthers’ cannot hold a rational debate amongst themselves then there is simply no way a public awareness of the truth of this crime will ever occur – such a debate will likely not be driven by people who believe the events of that day were performed by 19 men with box-cutters, a mobile phone and a laptop.

  23. Something from Baudrillard’s Perfect Crime that seems appropriate with regard to PNAC announcing its intentions: “The perfection of the crime lies in the fact that it has always-already been accomplished — perfectum. A misappropriation of the world as it is, before it even shows itself.”

    He concludes that the crime will therefore never be discovered. We shall see. Even Baudrillard, theorist of hyper-reality and simulacra par excellence, theorized 9/11 only as the exposure of the void of capitalist spectacle that we all secretly craved (a sort of nihilistically Lacanian take on blowback). He had all the analytical tools assembled but he missed the boat on the greatest simulacrum of them all.

    • CuChulainn says:

      to his credit Baudrillard did lose some of his social caché after the 911 book, but Debord’s _Commentaires sur la société du spectacle_ had already spelled things out more clearly

  24. KNARF, this message is for you:

    I just finished reading your e-mail. You have not been blocked by the site, and there are no comments from you in that ‘Pending’ basket of our wordpress system. I forwarded your message to our admin, and he will be contacting you. This is highly strange. Others have been posting comments with no problems. This morning I saw one trapped in ‘pending’ category by Chris, and immediately released it (by pressing ‘approve’ button.

    You are a highly valuable activist member, and I love hearing your voice/points here @ BFP. Actually I was wondering where you’d been … Let’s get it fixed one way or another. And let’s do it right away because we are leaving later this evening (will be flying on and off for almost 30 hours), and get you back where you belong:-)

    • Knarf,

      You have an e-mail from our admin. We found the issue: There are two categories- Pending (for approval) and ‘Spam’ baskets. For ‘some’ reason there were two comments from you in that spam basket. Very unusual, because 1- there were no links in content to cause anything 2- The rest of the items in the ‘spam’ basket were all justified (various advertisement spam messages).

      Anyhow. I released your comments manually, and asked our admin to find out (with your help) what the cause is …

      • Sibel, I am so sorry, it was me. For any who may have the same issue at some point, enabling of Javascript is necessary to make a comment here, otherwise the comment is seemingly accepted but actually goes into a spam filter. Live and learn.

        Wishing you and family a safe and joyful journey, Sibel.

  25. Sibel, thank you so much for this podcast. It gets deeper all the time and I have to say that this is the first time that any site/blog has caused me a profound realignment of my ideas about the public world today. So much so that I felt a bit down in the mouth last week after absorbing all the details and becoming more conscious of all the innocent lives that have been lost by the thoughts and actions of the parasitic ‘ ‘conspiracy of minds’, as a friend recently called it.

    I’m glad you’re going away for a while (and I wish you a safe trip!) because I can hardly keep up with listening and reading. Being the rural type and making our living off the land to a considerable degree, spring is always a very busy time – but I wouldn’t miss the podcasts & comments for anything, even if I can’t get around to following anything else on BFP at the moment.

    This situation also means that I won’t be able to easily find a new member as I meet relatively few people. So I have made a payment via the donation page which you can use for whatever purpose, including a sub for someone trusted who can’t afford it. This is a bit of ‘activism by proxy’ and the best I can do in the meantime.

    I would also like to say again how inspired I am by what I hear & read on this site, it’s throwing a lot of pebbles in my pond which are making many new interference patterns 🙂

    All the best
    Corylus

  26. Just a quick ‘bon voyage’ for Sibel — travel safely and enjoy!

  27. PeterM, Sibel, I like this para from PeterM;

    ‘Yes, I believe the PNAC document qualifies as a manifesto. The neocons give every indication of being the single most influential force in current American foreign policy. The single most dangerous geo-political act that is currently taking place in the world is to spit in the eye of Russia with the ongoing subversion of Ukraine, which appears to be spear headed by Victoria Nuland, wife of PNAC signatory Robert Kagan. Whether one considers the neocons as smart or stupid or evil or some combination, one can’t argue that they are not well organized and know how to stay on point. That seems to be a key ingredient in their power base. Oddly, I recall seeing the iconoclastic neocon Richard Perle coyly denying the very existence of “neocons” when being queried in the context of the disaster in post invasion Iraq. Maybe not so “odd” as the very heart of neocon philosophy is the ‘noble lie’ of the ever-threatening external enemy; so if they’d lie THAT BIG what could possibly restrain them otherwise? On top of that — and this was a point made by Valentine — America was born of “Manifest(o) Destiny” which set the course of divine empire from the beginning.’

    So much wisdom here and so much wisdom in your latest podcast. I believe the last 3 podcasts in particular form a clear and cogent argument for both the presence of the deep state as well as their role in 9-11.

    Thanks again for the gentle and razor-sharp logic you have performed on this subject over the previous months.

    I asked a friend to join BFP this week and he told me he would. He is a smart mid-twenties guy who has a lot to offer this community.

    I hope your trip overseas is a rewarding one.

    Regarding the names of the true power elites who run this show, I am inclined to suspect that all the names and faces we know, no matter how pathological, arrogant, dull-witted or brilliant, neo-con and dastardly – are merely the replaceable tentacles of the true beast.

    Shane

  28. Sibel – friends,
    I’ve just finished reading Methodical Illusion by Rebekah Roth. I recommend it. Another reminder that today, truth can only be told under the mask of fiction. Pretty much sums up 9/11 from the perspective of flight attendants and pilots – with a lot of insightful experience.

    • Hi Dennis
      I’ve listened to a couple of interviews with Ms. Roth and am not sure what to think about her and her book (which I have not read). You might want to check out this interview with her where she may well be right on a number of things, but she comes off as dismissive on the sincere work of others including the work of David Ray Griffin.
      http://noliesradio.org/archives/96035

  29. 344thBrother says:

    In my humble opinion. *and it really is humble*. What the 911 truth movement needs a whole lot less of is “I’m right and you’re wrong” and a whole lot more of THE OFFICIAL STORY IS 100% BS and PEOPLE NEED ARRESTED RIGHT F’ING NOW.

    We could start with Kevin Ryan’s “Another 19” I’m cool with that it snatches up some of the main players for sure. Arrest them, interrogate them, sweat them, turn them against eachother. You know LIKE REAL POLICE WORK. NYPD take a hint.

    Happy trails to you Sibel, until we meet again.
    p
    d

  30. “In my humble opinion. *and it really is humble*. What the 911 truth movement needs a whole lot less of is “I’m right and you’re wrong” and a whole lot more of THE OFFICIAL STORY IS 100% BS…”
    Agreed Dave, and thanks PeterM for your comments as well. The bickering within the 911 truth movement hurts it. The many researchers, in my very humble opinion, have already illuminated all the inconsistencies and lies of the official story. That’s enough of a starting point while the pieces of the puzzle come together.

  31. “Once we acknowledge that we are dealing with vast epistemic lacunae on this matter…” — Ronald Orovitz

    Ronald, it’s already been acknowledged, but this expression and sentiment is perfect (“epistemic lacunae”). We are all on the outside looking in, and we do so because it’s a matter of monumental import in all our lives. The community is doing great work in piecing this puzzle together, and though some pieces are not likely to ever be found, we nonetheless study the gaps. We are not insiders so we do what we can.

  32. CuChulainn says:
    • Reading and listening to Valentine’s work has helped me parse out the maze of the government’s bureaucratically stated goals and objectives of various policies versus the unstated (secret) goals and objectives. In skimming through your link I’m reminded of that — that this could as easily be a classified CIA document describing much of the inner workings here in the US and elsewhere. Alternate title might be “We’ve Got Control And Here’s How We’re Going To Maintain It”.

  33. CuChulainn says:
  34. FRIENDS: In terms of looking for the “ELITE” of the DEEP STATE, consider this: THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH employees some 2.7 MILLION PEOPLE!! ALL the KEY DEPARTMENTS fall under it’s rubric. DEFENSE, DEPT. OF STATE, CIA, NSA, NSC, all sorts of committees, organizations, black ops, drone firing…on and on and on…The EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, the COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, THE OLIGARCHY(e., g., KOCH BROS, zillionaire BANKSTERS..) are the “playgrounds” of these denizens.
    NONE of these people were elected! They cover their ass. PSYCHOPATHS(NEOCON OR NOT) seek one another out. NETWORKS are formed. They deceive, deflect, distort and deny. Most is done in D.C./WALL ST. And, of course, they are globally connected to other such UNELECTED organizations(E.U.,, BIS, CENRAL BANK OF EU, etc., etc.)and NATO, Geez!! It doesn’t stop! This the turf of the elites and it’s also a bit fluid. Some are on 6 different Boards of Directors of BIG OIL, BIG PHARMA, BIG AG… Everything is purposely opaque and contains a much larger % of psychopaths than the general population. Not everyone in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH is an “elite player.” Many just go to work and are oblivious to the fact that George Soros and Richard Perle are in the building. Such is our task: to find these lizards and shape shifters(that’s a metaphor)and see what they are up to and/or assess our probabilities(I shy away from predictions).
    A spin on RONALD’S word– The elite must maintain KNOWLEDGE BLIND SPOTS which we can never access and their associates can never access. COMPELITY is at a CRITICALITY NOW. BLACK SWANS CIRLE.

  35. Won-a-pa-lei says:

    Can someone please explain to me how figuring out the exact minutiae of how 9/11 was pulled off will result in the cessation of the ongoing rape/torture/slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women, children and babies worldwide?

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      Good question. We do have enough probable cause to identify the suspects who need to be arrested and tried. Is their any faith however that the justice system as it stands will allow the trials to proceed as they should? You have to convince the sheriffs to arrest these people where they live. You have to count on the sitting judges to not dismiss the cases out of hand.

      All of the officials involved in seeing due process take its course are either compromised or simply deluded by the “received wisdom” about 9/11, thanks to the dominance of the mainstream media over their perceptions. Seems the only thing to do is to keep chipping away at those perceptions.

      To your larger question: even if we did bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, will this stop the current worldwide havoc being wrought? No, because the war class has moved on and is using other pretenses for their foreign misadventures. They have however encountered obstacles in some of those plans… The situation could be worse. Take the near bombing campaign against Syria in Sept. 2013 that was thwarted in part because there was just enough skepticism about the pretense for the bombing (the chemical attack) that the war planners could not generate the requisite public support. I doubt they will ever again (well, at least in the immediate future) get the kind of support they had after 9/11 and up to the Iraq invasion, although they did get away with Libya. But again, the end result of that “bombs for peace” campaign only reinforces the public’s skepticism and lack of confidence in their “fearless leaders”.

      Another encouraging sign of the public’s wising up is the backlash that the 47 Republican Senators (including Rand Paul) are getting for their sabotage letter to Iran. The New York Post – a fairly good indicator of the Joe-six-pack state of mind – had the nerve to call them “TRAITORS”!

      • Ronald Orovitz says:

        Correction: that was The New York Daily News.

        And to add… There is still much work to do in changing the public’s perception of its government and media, and the fabled history they’ve been inculcated with. It can’t be denied however that progress has been made, and I dare say that some war avoidance has been achieved thanks to that progress.

        Post-Vietnam, the U.S. military has relied on an all volunteer force; hence, more effort has been expended in cultivating public perceptions of enemies to fight, in order to inspire enrollments. Thinking about it this way, Bin Laden was just a glorified advertising campaign. If the public becomes more and more skeptical of these campaigns, however, enrollment will drop precipitously.

        The war class, however, knowing that it cannot count on the kind of enrollment and public support that it got in the “good-old-days” (for them) of post-9/11, and that they cannot count on getting away with another similar false flag event, nevertheless are not undeterred. They are pursuing different strategies, one of which seems to be to just wage war by other means and without really telling the public what is happening. They do so by relying more on robot armies, secret armies, proxy armies, NGO agitators and the like.

        ISIS is an interesting case because it serves on the one hand as a cartoonish bogeyman for public loathing, while at the same time serving as a proxy army for destroying what’s left of Arab nationalism in the Middle East – which just happens to be a strategic goal of Israel. The challenge then in waking up the public to what’s going on here is more formidable… As soon as you mention “Israel” in this context, people start to get very uncomfortable, due to this state being tied up with religious sentiments and holocaust guilt. On the other hand, after the Gaza bombardment, it is becoming more OK to criticize Israel; many see this as a case of generational abuse. They were abused when they were the vulnerable people in Europe, and now they are the abusers as the table are turned in Palestine.

        Revealing the situation in the Ukraine should be less formidable – the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government by a motley hodge-podge of coup plotters including neo-nazis with U.S. State dep’t officials caught on tape conspiring with the coup… The facts of the case are simple enough. The problem is that the Ukraine is basically out-of-sight and out-of-mind with the general public. It receives considerably less coverage on mainstream news than ISIS, which itself receives less coverage than the weather. Yet, this is the front where things could potentially become very ugly and a mortal threat to life on Earth, should the conflict escalate into a nuclear confrontation. It may be that it is most imperative that the public be woken up about this situation above all others.

    • Figuring out the exact minutiae is impossible and non-productive (although an interesting puzzle), but I don’t know anybody pushing that as a way to change the world. Exposing 9/11 for what it is, however, is a different matter, and would (have a chance to) be a paradigm shifter. The fundamental shared assumption in Mainstream USA about black operations murder and mayhem is that it’s done to The Other on behalf of Us. If people were shocked into recognizing that these guys aren’t working for us, that The Other is Us too, sh*t could get real.

      Or, it might just get rationalized away like everything else. As always, all we can do is fight the fights that seem important. Then at the end of our lives we can look in the mirror and ask OK, well, did I try my best?

    • Won-a-pa-le: Note Ronald’s comment “even if we did bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, will this stop the world wide havoc? No.” ….Endless war is their business plan! Also, you might want to look into the psychopathy of the warmongers and their fixation on what amounts to a lust. Many of these people are absolute soft cowards and would never place themselves in a war that they desire. Check out Neocon history and draw your own conclusions.

  36. Won-a-pa-lei. 911 is the door. Is the gate human consciousness was sucked through in cognitive holocaust.
    It created and cemented a common mind-set accepting deceptive and murderous practices of an identified deep state benefiting FROM it. Directly. To cease the slaughter resulting ; first put out its stink. Expose it . It can be Proved. by forensic Xexamination and open contest in a court of Law. Properly conducted.You light on HOW and WHO, and you light on WHAT follows globally ..all geopolitic subsequent to it.
    I Awoke this morning to the same 14 million children displaced and in jeopardy in Syria and Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan and – name the countries rooted by the deep state since 911- as you did. All resulting from 911. From the mind fck of 911. You break that one; you break ’em all. THATs why.
    Minutia is just another way of keeping toward that end.
    Got any suggestions ?

    • Ya know Remo, I don’t know if I agree with your answer to Won-a-pa-lei, but sometimes you are a fcking poet!

    • Won-a-pa-lei says:

      I really appreciate everyone’s comments. I am no where near as eloquent as most of you as it seems I prefer and have a habit of looking at things more in black and white…no fifty shades of grey for me.
      I felt the need to ask the question because as stated by Ronald, even if we could technically prove who was responsible for 9/11, I have little confidence anyone would be prosecuted and even less confidence it would change the mindset of the majority. It’s old news at this point, just water under the bridge.
      We need to get in front of these attacks. Ole Dammegård has given several interviews recently asking people to keep an eye and ear out for any drills that might be planned in their area. He believes that he may have thwarted a false flag event in Copenhagen a month before the recent event took place. He asked for people to go to the drills and take videos and photos of all areas and events. I realise that this tactic may prove futile and exhausting but at least it is pro-active in some sense.

      I wish I had the answer to unlock the cognitive dissonance so profoundly entwined in the un-irate majority.

      • Your remark about prosecution echoes this 2004 post from Daniel Hopsicker:
        http://www.madcowprod.com/2004/05/05/the-red-herrings-of-911/

        He has a point that there’s a much larger chance of getting anywhere prosecution-wise by grilling Rudi Dekkers and Wallace Hilliard, than by theorizing about peak oil. That’s because the two are so close to the hijacker and/or patsy operation, because they are confabulating, and because Hilliard is two handshakes away from Barry Seal.

        Prosecution is one thing, convincing my neighbor that there is a problem is another. If a large section of the population thinks there is a problem, it might increase the chances of prosecution being initiated in the first place. (Don’t hold your breath though).

        Now about my neighbor, imagine this dialogue between Bob and Will:
        Bob: You can’t trust the 9/11 report
        Will: Why not?
        Bob: There’s many witnesses who’s story wasn’t included, and they don’t talk about WTC7.
        Will: So what, what are you getting at?
        Bob: Well, I don’t want to speculate, I’m just saying: It should be investigated more seriously.
        Will: No but seriously, there’s been a big investigation already, you can’t dig up all details, and yeah they’re probably hiding their own incompetence, turf wars, whatever, why spend more time on it?
        Bob: Everything we know about 9/11 is a big lie.
        Will: Er.. what do you mean. So what do you think did happen?
        Bob: Everything points to the reptilians. My take is they beamed down from the other side of the moon into the planes, that’s why we don’t see them, you can see it in the video evidence.
        Will: Yeah right. I’ll stick to the 9/11 report for now.

        By which I mean to say: You can either completely refrain from speculating about the implementation, which I find won’t get you beyond the incompetence/turf war conclusion, or you start talking about implementation, which is my answer to your question: In order to convince my neighbor that there’s a problem beyond incompetence and turf wars, I need to talk implementation. In order to avoid talking about reptilians, I need to have a reasonable model of what happened. This lures me into looking at minutiae.

      • 344thBrother says:

        Wo….
        Actually we are out in front of the attacks now. We can’t stop them outright, but we can accurately predict the types of attacks, why they’re happening and who (on a macro scale) are behind them. It’s not enough but it’s a huge start. Now, every TIME one of these false flags happen we’re ALL OVER THEM. If I was one of the attackers I’d be thinking that maybe this way of pushing power is becoming less and less valuable.

        p
        d

  37. Aw…thanks Mandela (;)
    And Won-a-pa-lei:it is projection. Courts. prosecution. A projection of ‘hope’ – ideals of actual justice..processes of actual justice…..everything recent history tells us is not going to happen.
    Somehow this all exists beyond courts and prosecution. The PavRovian dimension. How to bring it back?

    In terms of the overall perception management dynamic- consider this one paragraph from Nafeez Ahmed’s wonderful work on google
    https://medium.com/@NafeezAhmed/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

    “So the very same senior CIA official and CIA-NSA contractor involved in providing the seed-funding for Google were simultaneously contemplating the role of data-mining for counter-terrorism purposes, and were developing ideas for tools actually advanced by DARPA”

    • 344thBrother says:

      remo “PavRovian response”
      An excellent pun!
      Americans trained to salivate on command at a false narrative supplied by those in power. It’s even worse than salivating at a bell.
      p
      d

  38. CuChulainn says:

    this is a book that everyone who shares Sibel’s mission should know: http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theory-America-Discovering/dp/0292757697 Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance deHaven-Smith

  39. chris bagg says:

    The thing we should remember here is that the evidence for controlled demolition is incontrovertible. History and science are both on the side of 911 truth. Videos taken of all three collapsing buildings prove that they dropped with free fall acceleration, a virtually unimpeded 32 feet per second per second. This is impossible without the presence of demolition charges. In addition, all three collapses show “squibs” of pulverized concrete being ejected many floors below the collapse front. This is the unique signature of a controlled demolition. All that the 911 truth movement really needs to do is to get the world to acknowledge these undeniable facts, as AE911truth seeks to do.

    This is what should have happened on September 12, 2001, and indeed, some commentators and witnesses came close, though the obvious facts were quickly buried in a barrage of accusations against Osama Bin Laden. Nevertheless, the statute of limitations on a crime of this magnitude does not expire. It will never be water under the bridge. The evidence is all there, and its implications are staggering. Eventually the perpetrators of this crime will be trapped in a three sided box with only one way out. That way will be to explain, and to justify, the presence of these demolitions in all three buildings.

    What will they say? How will they explain this shocking anomaly?There is only one plausible excuse that they can offer. They will have to say that this was done as a highly controversial and top secret safety measure, to prevent further loss of life during an anticipated terrorist attack. I think that the truth movement needs to stand squarely in front of this exit door, proving that this is a contrived rationale, and forcing the perpetrators of this world changing event into the four sided box that is their destiny, a four sided box otherwise known as prison. When this happens, the fraudulent origins of the war on terror will be exposed, and the world will wake from the nightmare conjured by the “Indispensable Nation”. which will be indispensable no more.

    • History and science are both on the side of JFK getting killed as the result of a conspiracy as well. Fifty years later we’re still pounding our fists on the table and expecting people to see the obvious. Not that I think it’s hopeless. But truth is not enough. Facts are not enough. This much is painfully obvious.

    • @chris bagg

      To your question “What will they say?” I happen to have ‘undergone’ an answer, see below in response to this post by Kevin Ryan that I sent to a friend: http://digwithin.net/2015/02/15/science-died-wtc/ )

      The google search he’s referring to is probably something like
      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=wtc7+structural

      And in words, here’s the passage from the mail I received:
      ————–

      so yes i do consider the guy confused; peer-review is a process for submitting academic to journals not for reports like the nist one.  it’s like criticizing it because it wasn’t sent to rolling stone for review.

      the nist report was never going to conduct basic research (he seems to think that they should have performed physical experiments themselves) – it was a fact gathering exercise along supplemented with expert interpretation of the facts and circumstances.

      but to go from this fact to claiming that there is no real scientific support for the findings is bullshit; there are literally hundreds maybe even thousands of peer-reviewed papers supporting the nist finding with respect to wtc7.

      but you hardly expect controlled-demolition theory proponents to draw attention to them do you?

      but here’s a absolutely tiny selection since you asked (took about 2 minutes with google):
      http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345
      http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/structural-response-of-tall-buildings-to-multiple-floor-fires%28fc11ff4e-f9e1-47ba-92fb-da1c4cadf722%29.html
      http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10694-012-0286-5

      now can you provide a link to a SINGLE peer-reviewed paper which supports an alternative theory for the collapse of wtc7?

      so yes i believe high scientific standards should be applied when compiling reports like the nist one.  and the existence of hundreds of peer-reviewed papers supporting the nist version of events gives me confidence that high standards have been used.  the complete lack of ANY published peer-reviewed research to support an alternative theory (particularly controlled demolition) gives me confidence that these theories do not survive critical examination.
      ————-

      I can go and point to the Harrit paper, or Jones’, which I haven’t done yet. This being a chess game of sorts, I can anticipate his move: He will put into question the authority of the publishing journals.

      And so, in the end, if you don’t want to rely on appeal to authority, you have to get down to the scholarly articles mentioned, check out whether they really explain the mechanics, i.e. say, the symmetry, the sudden onset, the initial near-free-fall acceleration etc., which I didn’t. I’d rather have a page on ae911truth that explains to me whether those papers did, in fact, explain the mechanics.

      Next we can point to non-mechanical phenomena like residual temperatures, residual chemical signature, residual iron spheres, etc.

      Just saying: Your point that evidence is incontrovertible might be correct for some, but not for all, it depends on how much time you spend on it.

      My own assessment: If I’d have to bet, I’d bet 7 was demolished. Once you bet 7 was demolished, you leap to 1&2 being demolished. However, the argument that I hear on ae911 documentaries is not the ‘proof’ they claim it to be: The free-fall argument should be made quantitative: HOW far off from free fall would you be if there’s no explosives? This video could be an argument supporting that it’s actually very far off, but then again, it’s anecdotal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xctvw0KZpfI
      The other A&E argument: “The upper section can only eat up a part equal in size of the lower section of a tower”, holds only if floors get pulverized to dust as they hit each other, otherwise you would be arguing that pancakes can never occur. Looking at Kurt Sonnenfeld’s videos of ground zero, it looks indeed like there’s no large concrete left, but it’s not a 100% fail-safe argument, since you can’t see everything.

      • chris bagg says:

        Olivier_ If you still haven’t come to conclusion that the evidence for controlled demolition is incontrovertible, I suggest that you listen to these two interviews with Kevin Ryan. Go to the bottom of the page on the first link and listen to the Ryan interview.
        http://www.911truth.org/another-peer-reviewed-paper-published-in-scientific-journal-active-thermitic-materia
        http://themindrenewed.com/mp3/TMR_079_Interview_KevinRyan_NISTReports_128kbps.mp3

        The first is an overview of the evidence with some detail about the nanothermite found in the dust. The second is an explanation of why the NIST report is nothing but politically directed pseudoscience. No forensic testing was done on the WTC residues, even though that was mandated by law.
        As for the question of free fall for the two WTC towers 1 and 2, they came down in 10 to 12 seconds. A pancake collapse would have taken at least 40 seconds even if it had been possible under the circumstances, which was not the case. I noticed that you forgot to mention the obvious squibs, a signature characteristic of controlled demolition. These have never been satisfactorily explained by the official story. Then there is the huge quantity of molten metal in the pile which burned for months. No fire can burn for months under a pile of rubble without an oxidizer. The chemical makeup of the smoke from those fires matched the expected emissions of thermite perfectly. With all due respect, I am afraid that there is no escaping the fact that the buildings were blown up.

        • Hi Chris, maybe we should define incontrovertible. For me the concept carries some kind of transferability, meaning: Once I get to learn the ‘proof’, I can teach somebody else, and I will be able to convince that person with a 100% success rate. This typically works very well with mathematical proofs once your audience reaches a certain level of proficiency. That’s how I use the word incontrovertible. (It may be incorrect / unconventional usage).
          My experience however with the arguments that you mention and that we’ve probably all looked at a zillion times, is that they’re not transferable. Your targets for proselytizing, when savvy, will go to 911myths or debunking911, find an argument, fallacious or maybe even not, that gives them a way out, a possible different interpretation of the observations, improbable or unusual but plausible to a certain degree. That includes the arguments that you mention as far as I remember.

          Once people go through that procedure three or four times, you will get classified as a free energy machine inventor: No point in spending more time on your rantings.

          And so, following my personal requirement of transferability of conviction, the science is not incontrovertable, because I can’t convince several people that I consider intelligent. One thing that would need to be done is for ALL arguments and counterarguments to be collected side-by-side, so that somebody who takes 911myths as their point of reference would have an easy way to find out if 911myths is in fact the truth, the whole, and nothing but. I’m not aware of that having been done. DRayG is trying to cover the field, but it is difficult to know where in his books to start reading, when you’re trying to find the rebuttal for a particular 911myths argument. In fact it’s one of the reasons why I started my own site, by which I don’t mean to say that it actually fulfills that desired goal (yet). Maybe one day. 🙂

          • CuChulainn says:

            Olivier, what is your URL?

          • I admire what I would call your scientific “due diligence”, without it there is only infinite wriggle room. This proof rests on good science which is there however denied.

          • Cu, here’s a random link to the database I’m filling:
            http://historynotebook.org/snippets/#view/652808140-4162
            That’s where most of my typing went. There’s a few thousand of such entries and more relations. It’s sort of a mix between various other people’s ideas:
            1. historycommons (with dates added to entity relationships, which gives quick timeline overviews)
            2. Logical relationship software (extended with subjective opinions about them, presented as shades of green/red, rather than just true/false)
            3. “The Brain” software, (see also Menu > Logic > Argument Graph, which is a prototype graph of the logical statements contained in the DB)
            4. “Trivium Method” understood as collecting any data you can get your hands on, trying to transform it into an informed consistent opinion, and presenting that opinion to the outside world
            5. Dialectics, understood as juxtaposing pros and cons, hoping to get to a synthesis once all arguments have been taken into account. The idea is that in the future, several people can enter their personal opinion about every single logical statement, and so you can compare your own reasoning with your buddy’s reasoning, and zoom in on smaller differences if any..

            Apart from that database, you can also go Menu > Outreach > Blog where I had a few tries at writing in a more linear style, but that’s more on the side.

          • chris bagg says:

            Olivier- All that is required to prove to yourself and friend that the evidence for explosive demolition of the three WTC skyscrapers on 911 is “incontrovertible” is modicum of attention span and a rudimentary knowledge of newtonian physics. If an object is falling at free fall acceleration, it means that there is no energy left to do any work, i.e. to pulverize supporting structures. This is why a gravity induced pancake collapse cannot occur at free fall acceleration. It is really that simple. We have video records of all three collapses showing that they occurred at or near free fall. Building 7 fell in 7 seconds, and the other two in approximately 12 seconds. No one credibly disputes this. The fact that the collapses occurred at anything close to these these rates means that energy was being added to demolish and remove the supporting structures. To claim that this could happen without demolitions being present is to flout the universally accepted laws of physics.
            Of course NIST doesn’t even make this claim. Notice that NIST does not even address the issue of why the buildings collapsed at the rate that they demonstrably did, but instead only addresses the issue of “collapse initiation”. Here is their caveat, from a footnote to the NIST study, which Neils Harrit has called “the most important footnote since the second world war”:
            “The focus of the investigation was the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the towers after conditions for the collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”
            Why do you suppose that NIST felt compelled to address only the issue of “collapse initiation”, but felt it could ignore the extremely bizarre implications of the rate of collapse? Was it because there already existed a nonpublic, i.e. top secret, explanation for the rate of collapse itself?

          • I’m with Chris here. There aren’t any weasel words with the Newtonian physics, only denial. David Chandler and Jonathan Cole have a great site for understanding the arguments: http://911speakout.org/

          • Hi Chris, please forgive me for doing an appeal to authority here: I have a masters in theoretical physics and a PhD in mathematical physics. So I know the modicum of Newtonian physics. Suppose I would have given my students of old the assignment to prove that WTC7 came down by demolition, and I would have given them the video that Chandler analyzed.

            Here’s what the student does: Let’s call W the acceleration of the roof of WTC7, and F the free fall acceleration. Student does what chandler did, and concludes that the difference between W and F is pretty small. It’s a quantitative field, so the student is expected to make a quantitative statement: The student starts counting pixels and estimates, say, that |W-F| < 0.1 m/s^2 . Here's the first difference with ae911: A student will NEVER say W=F. There's no such thing as free fall acceleration, there is always some kind of resistance somewhere, if only air resistance, and on top of that you have measurement uncertainty, which by the way you can immediately convince yourself of from the Chandler data. OK, next step: The student needs to accept the demolition hypothesis and dismiss the fire hypothesis. Let's say we give her a break and allow her to assume explosives completely blow away floors, and allow her to disregard air resistance. OK in that case, the idealized explosive case has W=F, and so that scenario is compatible with the observation that |W-F| 1, say.

            Scenario excluded, check, quod erat demonstrandum, proof complete.

            Now, this last step: Proving that |W-F| > 1 , under whatever circumstances without explosives is NOT evident to me. I would BET it is true, also because of the other video I mentioned, but I haven’t seen it proven to hold in general. The situation is even worse, because my ‘authority’ stops here: I’m not a structural engineer, so I have no clue how to make reasonable estimates, and apparently there is this split within engineering literature, some of which supports the gravitational collapse hypothesis, some of which the CD hypothesis. So I presume that even the engineers haven’t been presented with / able to construct such a proof.

            Now I’m not saying you can’t prove it, I’m just saying I haven’t seen the proof. I can try and construct a proof, but I will need to make assumptions about that construction. Assumptions that will no doubt be challenged. Assumptions that I wouldn’t even trust myself given that I have zero experience with structural engineering.

            Just stating that “observed acceleration equals free fall acceleration” doesn’t cut it if you want to reach the ‘incontrovertible’ level.

            That being said, I do bet they were demolished.

          • Hi Chris, please forgive me for doing an appeal to authority here: I have a masters in theoretical physics and a PhD in mathematical physics. So I know the modicum of Newtonian physics. Suppose I would have given my students of old the assignment to prove that WTC7 came down by demolition, and I would have given them the video that Chandler analyzed.

            Here’s what the student does: Let’s call W the acceleration of the roof of WTC7, and F the free fall acceleration. Student does what chandler did, and concludes that the difference between W and F is pretty small. It’s a quantitative field, so the student is expected to make a quantitative statement: The student starts counting pixels and estimates, say, that |W-F| < 0.1 m/s^2 . Here's the first difference with ae911: A student will NEVER say W=F. There's no such thing as free fall acceleration, there is always some kind of resistance somewhere, if only air resistance, and on top of that you have measurement uncertainty, which by the way you can immediately convince yourself of from the Chandler data. OK, next step: The student needs to accept the demolition hypothesis and dismiss the fire hypothesis. Let's say we give her a break and allow her to assume explosives completely blow away floors, and allow her to disregard air resistance. OK in that case, the idealized explosive case has W=F, and so that scenario is compatible with the observation that |W-F| 1, say.

            Scenario excluded, check, quod erat demonstrandum, proof complete.

            Now, this last step: Proving that |W-F| > 1 , under whatever circumstances without explosives is NOT evident to me. I would BET it is true, also because of the other video I mentioned, but I haven’t seen it proven to hold in general. The situation is even worse, because my ‘authority’ stops here: I’m not a structural engineer, so I have no clue how to make reasonable estimates, and apparently there is this split within engineering literature, some of which supports the gravitational collapse hypothesis, some of which the CD hypothesis. So I presume that even the engineers haven’t been presented with / able to construct such a proof.

            Now I’m not saying you can’t prove it, I’m just saying I haven’t seen the proof. I can try and construct a proof, but I will need to make assumptions about that construction. Assumptions that will no doubt be challenged. Assumptions that I wouldn’t even trust myself given that I have zero experience with structural engineering.

            Just stating that “observed acceleration equals free fall acceleration” doesn’t cut it if you want to reach the ‘incontrovertible’ level.

            That being said, I do bet they were demolished.

          • Sorry, something is going wrong with the “bigger than” and “smaller than” signs / html here, trying again:

            …. Let’s say we give her a break and allow her to assume explosives completely blow away floors, and allow her to disregard air resistance. OK in that case, the idealized explosive case has W=F, and so that scenario is compatible with the observation that |W-F| is smaller than 0.1.

            Check.

            Next: We need to dismiss the fire-induced, possibly debris-induced collapse. You do that by for example proving that for such a scenario you’re always going to have |W-F| is bigger than 1, say.

            Scenario excluded, check, quod erat demonstrandum, proof complete.

            Now, this last step: Proving that |W-F| is bigger than 1 , etc.

      • Andrei Tudor says:

        Olivier,

        Have you seen this paper published at the Journal for 9/11 Studies?

        http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013EastmanColeVol37Apr.pdf

        It’s a review of the peer reviewed literature on the tower collapse theory (all towers, not just WTC7). Basically, a much more scientific version of the Google search that your friend did. Their results are very different. I quote from the paper:

        (1) Within the first ten years after “9/11” (namely September 11, 2001 through September 11, 2011), the mainstream peer-reviewed literature, worldwide, contained no paper on WTC 7 that concludes with the Progressive Collapse (PC) hypothesis (Note: Two such PC papers appear in the short-lived Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories);
        (2) Within the first ten years, there are 31 distinct CD papers (i.e., arguing for the Controlled Demolition hypothesis, including 14 that address WTC 7) versus 19 distinct PC papers (i.e., arguing for Progressive Collapse, including only 2 as noted immediately above that address WTC 7);
        (3) Overall, from 9/11/01 through 12/31/2012, there are 34 distinct CD papers versus 25 PC papers; among these, 15 of the CD papers address WTC 7 whereas only 4 PC papers do so, again indicating overall the importance of the CD hypothesis;
        (4) Although most CD papers (and one PC paper) derive from the Journal of 9/11 Studies, six qualified and distinct CD papers appear in mainstream journals.

        There is a more detailed breakdown of the search results, as well as a description of their methodology. The paper is worth reading in its entirety.

      • CuChulainn says:

        Olivier, i appreciate your thoroughness. would you be so kind as to ask your skeptical friend for his reaction to the photo linked here: https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/the-bullet-went-right-round-me/ highlighted as “this photo,” and the description given there?

        • Hi Cu, I’d prefer NOT to send him the picture, here’s why: It’s a safe bet to assume he will see no argument being provided by the picture. I can see confirmation of my own hypothesis, but he’s not going to see anything. I can keep on bombarding him with 100 arguments, non of which are going to convince him and he’s just going to get irritated that I’m asking him to still spend time on attempt no 101.

          So rather than feeding him with arguments that are not going to make him budge on the 911 side, I’m trying to make him budge somewhere else, the purpose being to make him have less a-priori confidence in the institutions.

          Just now I sent out a mailing to a bunch of family/friends that went as follows:
          ——————————————————————————
          Subject: Join the FBI!
          Body:
          https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrorist/

          Or the military I might add:
          http://www.historynotebook.org/blog/?p=121
          ——————————————————————————

          Who knows what nice flowers will grow from this guerrilla gardening..

        • I answered, but ended up in the moderation queue. Just realized: There’s a default wordpress setting which moves comments with more than one hyperlink to the queue.

  40. 344thBrother says:

    Won-a-pa-lei says:
    March 15, 2015 at 11:51 pm
    Can someone please explain to me how figuring out the exact minutiae of how 9/11 was pulled off will result in the cessation of the ongoing rape/torture/slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women, children and babies worldwide?”

    The minutiae of 911 has positive and negative effects. On the positive side, even the “No planers” accept that something other than the official story is going on here, so, that weakens those who push that story. And some people are just more interested in that aspect, or the Pentagon attack, or WTC 6 and the apparent smart bomb crater(s), or the impossible plane maneuvers or or or… ad infinitum. They all have one thing in common, disbelief of the official fable, so that’s good.

    On the negative side, it keeps the movement splintered and endlessly debating about the different issues rather than uniting over LETS ARREST THE PERPETRATORS RIGHT NOW!!! Which I believe, hope and pray is coming and it’s a race to the finish line between us and them.

    Me, I like Kevin Ryan’s approach in “Another 19” where he names names and puts together Means, Motive and Opportunity for each suspect. Cheney and Rumsfeld are at the top of that list. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend a listen.

    So, the minutiae keeps things stirred up, I see it overall as a good thing as more and more people examine the different aspects of the false flag attack. I think we’re winning.

    Lets just keep pressing forward against the guilty with hope.

    Good question Won-a-pa-lei
    p
    d

    ps. is it just me or do people in this forum have a lot of hard to spell nicknames?

    • 344thBrother says:

      ps, to finish that thought, the perpetrators and those behind them and the elite at the top who set wars into motion and destroy the planet are vulnerable to a critical mass. Like remo, I see 911 (In the USA anyway) as the door to attacking them directly.

      Elsewhere in the world, different issues, but 911 has the power to wake people from their induced trances and here in the USA where we’re more brain controlled than anywhere else in the world, we need that.

      Without the USA as the engine for global domination, the military aspect of the attacks collapses.

      p
      d

      • It seems as if that should be so, that 9/11 has the power to wake people up, and in fact I continue to think so myself. After all, once you see it, it’s so obvious. But again, I also think the same thing about the JFK assassination. There’s still a whole active community around that, still pounding away, been doing it since 1963, still convinced that one more fact might tip the scales.

        What are we into with 9/11 now? Coming up on the 14th anniversary this year. Hey, I’m keeping the faith and all, but damn.

        And the JFK people had a whole big Hollywood movie, and the HSCA re-investigation and the ARRB — stuff we’d be jumping up and down over if we could get that far.

        The system is…resilient.

    • Brother: Ahh…it isn’t just you.lol.

    • Won-a-pa-lei says:

      The name is from the book Island of the Blue Dolphins…a favorite when I was young.

      I listened to a couple of interviews on RedIce today…not sure if it was the John Friend interview or Jared Taylor but one of them suggested that if we were able to find a link between the dna of Bush, Cheney and Rothschild that the information could prove quite significant in some way, particularly as pertains to 911.
      I suppose it would add credence to a factual conspiracy but again, who would prosecute? Has anyone ever actually set up a common court of sorts in this country? Yikes, what a thought imagining how that would play out!

  41. Resilient. persistent. determined.multifaceted :
    “At the request of President François Hollande, the French Socialist Party has published a note on the international “conspiracy theorist” movement. His goal: to prepare new legislation prohibiting it to express itself. In the US, the September 11, 2001 coup established a “permanent state of emergency” (Patriot Act), launching a series of imperial wars. Gradually, the European elites have aligned with their counterparts across the Atlantic. Everywhere, people are worried about being abandoned by their States and they question their institutions. Seeking to retain power, the elites are now ready to use force to gag their opposition.”
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article187030.html

  42. Yes Remo, a number of countries have floated trial balloons making dissent equivalent to terrorism. It is a natural progression of current trends. As Sibel once said, sites like this will most likely be shut down at some point. The game plan has been and continues to accelerate………..

    • Mandela and Friends; We know we are being watched–that’s a given. Not that I care much, at least at this point; what’s your take on whether or not someone is posting here? If/when that happens, my thing is to be cool about it…give enough rope, etc., etc., But a shut-down could happen suddenly–that’s a bummer!

      • When a shut down happens it will probably be a widespread shutdown in the name of national security. Nothing immanent. I doubt that anyone is posting here, the readership is too small and not susceptible to common forms of propaganda. What you can be sure of is that everything is collected and stored as with all calls, emails, texts, and skype communications in case needed at some future date. In other words this site gets the same treatment as all other communications in a free and democratic society.
        Dave, don’t get too nostalgic about the 1950’s. The same trends had started gaining steam that plague us today, but back then they still needed an educated US middle class to create foreign infrastructures for future cheap production. Once there were cheap alternatives, then the acceleration of the plan to dumbing down the no longer needed and “too expensive” populace could go full bore. They needed us to be happy then. Now they don’t give a cow turd.

  43. Have we been dumbed down? Check this link out and drive your friends crazy!!!

    http://rense.com/general75/pass.htm

    • Ron, thanks for that link. That was from my era. The results from sharing it with younger friends was very strong. You never know what little piece of info will trigger an awakening. Today children are expected to be students – a receptacle for knowledge dumped into their heads by teachers. In 1954, children were still thought to be responsible learners. The teachers presented the information, but it was your responsibility to learn it. Being a ‘learner’ is a powerful position to hold, and serves one for a lifetime (obviously not wanted by the System today). There are only learners here, and we question. I have been encouraged at times when I find young people today who turn into learners despite the system. In most cases, it seems that their parents provided experiences to broaden their viewpoint. Some do it on their own, which is amazing and a hopeful sign.

      • Dennis; Exactly, as you say, “You never know what little piece of info will trigger an awakening.” This, my friend, for me is the quote of the month! Thanks.

  44. 344thBrother says:

    Ron you wrote: “We know we are being watched–that’s a given. Not that I care much, at least at this point; what’s your take on whether or not someone is posting here?”

    I’m not sure exactly what you question is, some people feel the need to keep their heads down in this unstable world nowadays. It’s hard to blame them for that.

    I don’t. Personally I feel that “He or she who dies with the biggest file wins”. (Obviously Sibel is in no danger of competition from me) but it’s not for lack of tryin!

    You and I came up in similar times and circumstance. 60’s Bay area scene etc. . And I was most heavily influenced by my grand parents so I got a lot of “Old-old-school” values and ideas instilled in me. My grandparents (and yours perhaps) grew up in a time when automobiles were brand new and were still alive when the first moon shots happened. I try to keep that in mind when I think of things like culture shock and how that alone must discombobulate and influence people.

    There were no computers when I was born. Robots were just being conceived. Small efficient cars were almost entirely for the race track. Jets were mostly military and they didn’t leave “persistent contrails”. The vote still counted. Police were polite. Surveillance was for private eyes and detectives. Television was brand new. People believed that “America was good” (Now, not so much). Culture shock.

    I have dealt with this by sort of refusing to budge. I believe that the “olden” days were better days inasmuch as people were more polite, less stressed, less competitive, more family group oriented, more middle class and to me, generally better off. I can’t live that life any more, now I’m a hermit and the locals call me “Conspiracy Dave” a name which I’m kind of proud of. But I can remember those times. Culture shock.

    Anyway, I don’t blame people for being unwilling to post or to express their views. As long as they are willing to learn and perhaps educate their families and friends on the sly. We need some people who are burrowed into the system like ticks who can change things from the inside. We need people with guts and intelligence and honor to carry on after us oldsters fade away. It’s my sincere hope that during the course of my personal digital life I’ve informed enough people to make a difference down the line. I’ve certainly annoyed my share, so I take that as a good thing. : )

    People like you and I and many of the posters in here are sort of the digital-cannon fodder I think. Our files are fat and when the time comes, the fat files will be the first to fall. I’m cool with that too.

    To all you digital warriors out there whether you post or not, if you’re reading this, I salute you.

    To every person out there with a family to protect who quietly carries the message forward, I salute you.

    To the people who will resist when the time comes and the chips are all down, I salute you.

    To all of you whistle blowers and digital warriors who have put everything on the line to try and force some change, who have already lost jobs, and been rounded up, surveilled, threatened, coerced, imprisoned, tortured, ridiculed, scoffed at, or who just face an uncertain future because of your efforts, I really have no words to express my appreciation, so I salute you.

    Sincerely,
    David Short

    • Andrei Tudor says:

      Well said, Dave. I’d like to add one thing: whomever is not posting for fear of being rounded up (and I don’t believe that to be many), consider the other aspects of a world where people are being rounded up just for voicing their opinion. If it gets to that, then we will probably be involved in a large scale war, which most likely would be nuclear. Life outside prison would not be much safer or more pleasant than inside. So let’s fight now, as hard as we can, so that we don’t reach that point, because once we’re there, there will be no safety, whether you keep your head down or not.

    • Solid words, Brother Dave!!

  45. CuChulainn says:

    “…These experiences, and the fact that I spent nine years in Special Forces and that kind of thing, caused me to think. Then I began to wonder. How much of what we read and what we see is propaganda? Not foreign propaganda, but domestic? How much of that domestic ‘information’ is propaganda? …We are being smothered in one lie after another. All in the name of politics. It seems to me that these politicians are almost complacent with us behaving like suckling pigs, absolute ignorant morons” Free, unfettered, uncensored information exposes the lies their governments prefer to feed them, allowing their citizens to know and understand the truth. Authoritarians, like dictators, communists, fascists and many sectarian or religious governments, are said to enhance their authority over their citizens with the use of filters.”
    who wrote those lines? Chris Hedges? Glenn Greenwald? some other fearless defender of civil liberties?
    actually, Joel Harding, leading Ukraine troll: http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Can-the-Ukrainian-Governme-by-George-Eliason-American-Terror_Americans-Killed_Government-Bullying_Government-Crime-150319-980.html

    • You certainly won’t see anything like that from Joel Harding’s keyboard today. Either he developed a taste for the finer things in life or he has been blackmailed into joining the dark side.

  46. Ribbit-Mark says:

    I would like to comment briefly on Sibel’s podcast and some of the comments that were made in this section.

    Though I agree with Sibel on the importance of the three documents she discussed pertaining to Operation Ajax, Operation Northwoods and PNAC’s RAD, I must take exception to her declaring them to be manifestos and also her statement that the majority of false flag events are documented in manifestos.

    Sibel starts out her podcast defining a manifesto correctly: “A public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives, as one issued by a government, group, sovereign, or organization.”

    Since Operation Ajax and Operation Northwoods were covert actions planned by the military and all documentation pertaining to them were top secret,
    by definition, those documents can not be considered a manifesto (a public declaration).

    As far as PNAC’s RAD paper is concerned, though it was released and made public, it still can not be considered a manifesto.
    Had the document been written by the government and published as such, then certainly it could have been described as a manifesto.
    But it was written by a think tank; one of dozens in Washington. Its members were simply making recommendations to the government; a policy paper.
    Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a non-profit, educational organization, an organization that was not in a position to act on any of its recommendations.

    In addition, Sibel stated that the majority of false flag events are documented in manifestos.
    I honestly can’t think of even one false flag event that occurred, that was documented in a manifesto.

    Re: comments that were made in this section asking “Why do you think they publish these papers?”
    In the case of the first two papers (the Operation Ajax and Operation Northwoods memoranda), they were simply declassified. They were never meant to see the light of day.
    In the case of PNAC’s RAD, it was simply a policy paper. Though almost all of its objectives/recommendations have been adopted and acted upon by the government since it was published, unfortunately nothing in it could be used in a court of law as evidence to establish guilt in anything that occurred on 9/11.

    • Ribbit Mark: Your precision in general, seems good. But PNAC can be called a MANIFESTO to those who came to clarity regarding 9/11 ” a new Pearl Harbor”. PNAC and it’s acute importance caught the eyes of millions with a 9/11 glow in the background. Hmmmm… Bldg 7? Demolition, free fall, etc.
      What is your take on Bldg. 7?
      I’m not trying to be clever here; but the connection between 9/11 and PNAC is just too tempting not to call it a Manifesto. And there have been many manifestos throughout history that are straight up legal. One need not say PNAC invited an indictment to its authors; but it is one hell of an eyebrow raiser!!
      And in the future, who knows, many of us wish for a torrent of indictments.

      • chris bagg says:

        I have to agree with Ribbit here about the PNAC document. The phrase ” absent a new Pearl Harbor” appears only once on page 51. The context is a discussion about the transformation of America’s armed forces from what the writers feel in an inadequate state of readiness to one they see as prepared for the 21 century. The new Pearl Harbor stuff is kind of a throw away line in an otherwise boiler plate policy paper, much like the rhetoric in other papers by such groups as the Committee on the Present Danger during the Carter years. Another example is The Trilateral Commission’s policy book “Crisis in Democracy”, which stated: “A government which lacks authority will have little ability, short of a cataclysmic crisis, to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary to deal with foreign policy problems and defense”. Or, as P D Scott points out in “The Road to 911”, Brzezinski echos this thought in his “The Grand Chessboard”, writing that what would make the American public willing to sacrifice for “imperial mobilization” would be ” a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” In hindsight, it is relevant to point out this line about a new Pearl Harbor in the PNAC document, but it hardly constitutes a “manifesto”.

        • Ribbit-Mark says:

          Chris wrote:
          “The new Pearl Harbor stuff is kind of a throw away line in an otherwise boiler plate policy paper, much like the rhetoric in other papers by such groups as the Committee on the Present Danger during the Carter years. Another example is The Trilateral Commission’s policy book “Crisis in Democracy”, which stated: “A government which lacks authority will have little ability, short of a cataclysmic crisis, to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary to deal with foreign policy problems and defense”. Or, as P D Scott points out in “The Road to 911″, Brzezinski echos this thought in his “The Grand Chessboard”, writing that what would make the American public willing to sacrifice for “imperial mobilization” would be ” a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

          And let’s not forget Brit Sidney Rogerson’s mother-of-all ‘Pearl Harbor’ incantations.
          This was written in his book ‘Propaganda in the Next War’ published more than three years before Pearl Harbor.

          Rogerson wrote: “Though we are not unfavourably placed, we shall require to do much propaganda to keep the United States benevolently neutral. To persuade her to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed.
          It will need a definite threat to America, a threat moreover, which will have to be brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will again take arms in an external quarrel. The position will naturally be considerably eased if Japan were involved and this might and probably would bring America in without further ado.”

    • The definition of the word “manifesto” is much broader, actually.
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifesto

  47. …and WHAT a ‘simple policy paper’ that PNAC RAD was, Ribbit !!
    But. I shouldn’t worry too much .
    In the courts of Law establishing the guilt of 911:
    “The Cause of the Destruction Of The World Trade Center Buildings on September 11, 2001 and the Admissibility of Expert Testimony Under the Standards Developed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc. “(Stevan Douglas Looney, J.D.) http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles.html
    will be more the point.

    • Remo: Yes, indeed!!

    • chris bagg says:

      Thanks for that link remo. It is an appropriate rebuttal of Olivier’s above comment. My earlier response to it is stuck in moderation.

      • Hi Chris, I’m not sure I really made an argument worth of rebuttal. I guess I said three things:
        1. I have a friend who after googling for two minutes convinced himself that NIST is probably OK.
        2. I myself would bet 7 was demolished, mostly because of the reasons I collected here:
        http://historynotebook.org/snippets/#view/1919559757-2013
        (The background colors indicate whether I believe them, white means I didn’t really dig much deeper).
        3. I haven’t seen an argument that I consider proof that my bet is correct. (Otherwise I could use it to convince other people).

        If you want a laugh at my level of nerdy confusion, this spaghetti graph is a visualization of some statements I looked at (not particularly user friendly): in the above link go Menu>Logic>ArgumentGraph, you get a big spaghetti graph, you need to zoom out your browser to see the whole thing. Every node is a logical statement, or something/somebody that supports/attacks one.
        clicking the node gives you a short text. Dragging the nodes gives you some fun.

        I’m planning to make this a social thing at some point. So other people can assign their own colors to the statements, compare them with their buddies, drill down into other people’s pros- and contras etc.

  48. Won-a-pa-lei says:

    Not sure if you all are familiar with Rebekah Roth’s book, Methodical Illusion, but she gives some serious 911 minutiae in her recent interview at RedIce Creations. She mentions Sibel as well.

    Dave, that was lovely, thank you and a salute right back at ya.

  49. 344thBrother says:

    : ) Thanks fellas

  50. For me PNAC, as mentioned earlier in this thread was a MANIFESTO straight up. But try this link; seems like there are some damned angry people out there!! ‘Reminds me of the 60s! My. My.
    http://www.oilempire.us/pnac.html

Speak Your Mind