Guy Fawkes, the Gunpowder Plot, and how false flags have shaped history

A portrait of Guy Fawkes, who was executed for ‘the gunpowder plot.’

Remember, remember, the 5th of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
-Old English folk rhyme (anonymous)

By Barrie Zwicker (Special to Truth and Shadows)

Today, November 5th, is Guy Fawkes Day, also known as Gunpowder Day. In 2012 it’s the 407th anniversary of The Gunpowder Plot or Gunpowder Treason, as it was first called.
It also happens to be my 78th birthday. So I’ve been more aware of Guy Fawkes Day than most. I’m especially happy about how ubiquitous the Guy Fawkes mask has become.
The mask was hugely popularized in the movie V for Vendetta. As stalwart 9/11Truther Kevin Barrett wrote, a year ago, in a piece entitled “Unmasking Media Lies: Why BBC’s V-for-Vendetta Mask Piece is Fawked Up”:
“V for Vendetta may be the most revolutionary film ever made. Its obvious message is: Let’s get out there and visit some rough justice on the treasonous bastards who created the 9/11 and 7/7 media spectaculars, and destroyed the freedoms for which we’ve been fighting for centuries.
Watch (on YouTube) V for 9/11 Vendetta: Past, Present and Future
It is also possible to read the film from an interior, psychological perspective: Rather than just a call to action, it’s about the psychological process of coming to terms with the 9/11 and 7/7 inside jobs, by allowing oneself to feel the overwhelming anger that is the natural response. Once one has faced the facts, overcome fear, and come to terms with one’s own righteous anger, THEN it’s time for revolution.
The real message of the V mask is simple: We know you bastards blew up the Trade Center. We know you’re blowing up the economy. We know you’re lying to us 24/7/365. We know you’re trying to keep us poor and weak and fearful and impotent. Well, guess what? We’re not afraid of you. We’re not afraid to die. And we’re coming to get you.
No wonder the BBC is afraid to admit what the V mask really means.”
Yet for the first 71 years of my life I had entirely the wrong idea about the gunpowder plot: what happened, who was really behind it, and its impact on history. An impact that continues to this day. It was in 2005 that I read I read Webster Tarpley’s superb book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA right after it came off the press. He introduced me to the historical element.
True, the brazen events of 9/11 and the mind-boggling cover-up that followed opened my eyes to state-executed terror frauds and the power they deliver to the dark forces that order them. But I didn’t know from nuthin’ about the Gunpowder Plot.
Nor at that time did I appreciate that it and 9/11 are but two examples from thousands of false flag operations that have changed history.
False flag ops are the least-recognized, highest-impact category of human deceit. In terms of emotional wallop, even the most brilliant lies perpetrated by the most talented demagogues pale, in comparison to a big false flag op, for the power to manipulate the public. On this anniversary let’s look more closely at this particular false flag op for some lessons. As William Faulkner put it in his Requiem for a Nun: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” Then we will touch briefly on one of the most recent false flag ops – a leading edge digital one that perversely misappropriates the Fawkes name.

On the Throne of England in 1605 sits James the First, a Protestant, the King who ordered the translation of the Christian Bible that bears his name.
As midnight approaches on November the 4th – the eve of the traditional opening of Parliament – armed agents of the King raid a basement room of the Houses of Parliament. They discover and apprehend one Guy Fawkes. His age, 36, coincides with the number of barrels of gunpowder they find with him. They find a tunnel leading to the room. Fawkes is a known agitator for the rights of English Roman Catholics. In his possession are a pocket watch (a rarity in those days).
Had he succeeded in detonating the gunpowder, the next morning King James and his queen would be mangled bodies, as would all the members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Smoking rubble would be all that would remain of the Palace of Westminster complex, including historic Westminster Abbey.
So goes the palace version of the events of the late evening of November the 4th, 1605. The English public is stunned. It’s the equivalent of 9/11. “A cataclysm,” Adam Nicolson describes it in his book God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. Upon his arrest, according to the official account, Fawkes admits his purpose was to destroy king and Parliament.
That there was some kind of plot is not in doubt. By November the 8th, on the rack, Fawkes names 12 co-conspirators. Those not killed where they are tracked down are found guilty of treason later in a trial lasting less than a day. They and Fawkes are hanged, drawn and quartered.
The following Sunday, November the 10th, the King James Version of the plot is broadcast from the leading pulpit of the Church of England, that of William Barlow, Bishop of Rochester. Barlow thunders that the enemy, meaning papists, is satanic in its wickedness. The King, their hoped-for victim, on the other hand is, Mr. Nicolson writes, characterized as an unqualifiedly good man . . . virtually a Christ-figure.
Soon all the pulpits of England echo the official account. Between 1606 and 1859 the Fifth is remembered in an annual service of thanksgiving in every Anglican church, writes James Sharpe in Remember, Remember: A Cultural History of Guy Fawkes Day. Until 1959, it was against the law in Britain not to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day. Celebrate, because from the beginning the public was giving thanks that the realm was saved and the treasonous conspirators dispatched. For centuries effigies of Fawkes were burned.
The palace version becomes historical truth for humankind including me – duped again! – for most of our lives.
Mr. Nicolson and others now cast serious doubt on that version. Many anomalies concerning the events have surfaced.
Fawkes was not apprehended in a basement room but rather a ground floor room, one remarkably easily rented by the plotters. There was, accordingly, no tunnel. The authorship of the letter by which the King learned of the plot is murky. It was turned over to the King by the Royal Chancellor, Sir Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury.
Sir Cecil I would characterize as the Dick Cheney of his day. Because plots were common at that time Cecil had an efficient network of spies seeded among Roman Catholic dissidents. He kept tabs on all plots the spies discovered. This one featured a large cast of characters from several cities.
Cecil kept the King in the dark about the plot except for the obscure letter. The gunpowder, it turned out, was of an inferior nature, unlikely to have achieved much result. This was odd, as Fawkes definitely knew a thing or two about gunpowder. He had developed expertise with it while serving with distinction in Spain’s army against Protestant rebels in the Netherlands. It’s conceivable the gunpowder could have been switched by someone; loads of it existed because of all the hostilities. Some handwriting on Fawkes’s confession differed from the rest.
Ignored until recently is a book by Jesuit historian John Gerard, What Was the Gunpowder Plot: The Traditional Story Tested by Original Evidence. Gerard died in 1606 but his book was not published for almost three centuries, in1897, an interesting temporal fact in itself. While it’s true, as Sharpe writes, that accounts of the plot differ as per the biases of the authors, I find Gerard’s account pretty compelling. He writes:
“When we examine into the details supplied to us as to the progress of the affair, we find that much of what the conspirators are said to have done is well-nigh incredible, while it is utterly impossible that if they really acted in the manner described, the public authorities should not have had full knowledge…”
Exactly. The evidence points to a particular kind of false-flag operation. There are many variations. In some (9/11 being the leading example) an outrageous event is carried out by the perpetrators and blamed on the chosen enemy. In others (example, Gulf of Tonkin) nothing happens but a fiction blames the chosen enemy. The Gunpowder Plot is midway: a plot was underway but the precise intentions of the plotters can never be known. The main feature is that, with or without taking a hand in the plot, the Cecil elements manipulated events brilliantly.
Cecil was heavily involved in an influential London group known as “the war party.” It wanted to push James into a confrontation with the Spanish Empire, from which the group’s members hoped, among other things, to extract great personal profit.
The war party considered it politically vital to keep persecuting Roman Catholics. Sir Cecil set out, writes Tarpley, to sway James to adopt his policy by means of terrorism.
It amounts to this: Either Cecil and the war party made the Gunpowder Plot happen or they let it happen –and made sure of a brilliantly timed “exposé.” And if they let it happen they made it happen.
James himself had negotiated peace with Spain the previous year. His other advisors told him there was no chance of a general Catholic uprising and that no foreign Catholic powers were involved in the plot.
The King knew, Sharpe writes, that “the reality of Catholicism in England around 1600 was very different from the image conjured up in government propaganda and contemporary Protestant myth.” Sharpe again: “…even in the face of … persecution it seems that most of England’s Catholics remained loyal to their monarch and wanted nothing more than to be allowed to practice their faith unmolested.” (The parallel with most Muslims living in the UK and Canada today springs to mind.)
For his part, James downplayed the plot. “James and his ministers,” Sharpe writes, “showed more restraint than many modern regimes faced with similar problems.”
Nevertheless, the power of the imagery of what might have happened burned itself into the public’s psyche, and was repeatedly fanned by the Protestant and war promoting establishments.
The outcomes of this ongoing propaganda campaign are incontestable. Tolerance for English Roman Catholics is replaced by a period of terrible bloodletting for them. Numbers are killed. Catholics’ homes are burned. A string of laws is passed restricting their rights and liberties.
The English become “fixated on homeland security,“ Nicolson writes. An inclusive, irenic idea of mutual benefit between Spain and England – trade between the two countries, because of the peace treaty, had been growing –“is replaced in England by a defensive/aggressive complex.” All Catholics, of all shades, never mind their enthusiasm or not for the planned attack, are identified as the enemy.
Most significantly, war with Spain ensues. England’s course is set for a century of wars against the Spanish and Portuguese empires. England for various reasons comes out victorious and on these war victories the British Empire is founded in blood, deception and conquest.

There’s no way of knowing whether the British Empire – and all the consequences of its rule from Capetown to Canada to Iraq to its American colonies — would have emerged anyway or in what form or at what pace, but we cansee in retrospect that the Gunpowder Plot was pivotal in what did transpire.
It would be a failure of imagination not to see the parallels with 9/11 and society in our day of blanket war propaganda, teeming with covert agents, ever-encroaching surveillance, ever decreasing civil rights and liberties, and either helpless or conniving leaders.
Let’s look at false flag ops generically. It’s difficult in my opinion to over-estimate their terrible place in history, and their place in making history terrible. Think of the wars and millions of deaths that followed the Gunpowder Plot, the sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbour in 1898 that kick-started the US Empire’s expansion to the Philippines and beyond, the sinking of the Lusitania that brought the USA into World War I, the torching of the German Reichstag that boosted Hitler to power and enabled his bloody grab for world domination, the assassination of John F. Kennedy that yanked U.S. foreign policy onto a warpath, the alleged attacks during LBJ’s presidency the next year by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on U.S. warships in the Gulf of Tonkin — attacks that simply did not take place but that provided the basis for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, passed 88-2 in the US  Senate. That resolution constituted the “legal” basis for escalating the Vietnam War with an eventual death toll of more than 3-million. And 9/11. To name a few.
Without false flag ops most wars would be harder to launch. Some would barely be possible. Think of the unprecedented millions of peace marchers who took to the streets prior to the invasion of Iraq. If the deceptions are used to justify such wars were exposed earlier by a skeptical, independent, ferociously investigative media, we all would be living in a different world. Millions of horrible deaths and all the accompanying grief could have been avoided. And the military would have to put on bake sales to raise funds.
There always has been a yearning for peace among the normal everyday citizenry: finding meaningful work, marrying and raising a family, tilling the soil, writing poetry, inventing things, or — as Pierre Berton said was his favourite thing – “getting smashed with your friends.”
There are exceptions, but the horrible norm is that for wars to be launched, maintained or expanded the people have to be fooled. And history proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the most surefire way to accomplish that is to lumber them with an iconic outrage allegedly perpetrated by the designated “enemy” of the day. And we go on sinking ever further into the mire of deaths – the deaths of innocents, the death of promise for a better future, the death of honest history, the death of coming to grips with reality – because each new false flag op draws power from the fictions planted about all the previous ones.
And so the elites continue to hide their four aces in a rigged game. Their most closely guarded secret retains the potency of the first one. Remember, remember, the 5th of November, the 11th of September, Faulkner, and George Santayana’s comment that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
But today we also have to remember the future. Added to the false flag ops, false flag agents and false flag organizations of old are false flag digital organisms, sent to infect particular publics. One of the most recent of which I’ve become aware is a rogue individual or group identified as ” This tricky entity “FawkesSecurity” on Monday, October 22, released via YouTube and Pastebin a bomb threat against an unidentified U.S. Government building.
I for one smell digital gunpowder.
“FawkesSecurity” claims to be associated with the Anonymous collective. The threat of violence, however, goes against everything Anonymous says it stands for. Sources at Anonymous are denouncing “FawkesSecurity” and its bomb threat.
A report on this, from which I am quoting, can be found at
Following is an excerpt from the message of “FawkesSecurity:”
Dear citizens of the world, We are anonymous. As of today 200 kilograms of composite Nitroglycerin and commercial explosives have effectively been concealed in a government building, situated in the united states of America. on the 5th of November 2012 …we are anonymouswe are legionwe do not forgetwe do not forgiveon the 5th of November, you will expect us.
As the Examiner report says, “the video displays many of the standard trappings of associated with Anonymous [and yet] the threat of violence is completely out of step with the ethos that guides Anonymous.” The Examiner report adds:
“Multiple social media accounts have denounced FawkesSecurity and their bomb threat. Many speculate FawkesSecurity is a false flag operation conducted by government agents in an attempt to discredit Anonymous. Others speculate that FawkesSecurity is simply misguided, and unfamiliar with the bullet proof idea that is Anonymous.”
Whatever the case, those who wrote the text above can’t punctuate or capitalize worth a damn.
The digital and physical worlds are not separate. Agents of the state infest both. Although unlikely, if the threat by “FawkesSecurity” were to be carried out today, one outcome could be to seriously besmirch Anonymous. (The question of whether Anonymous itself might be a false flag op, or is, or could be infiltrated or otherwise manipulated, is one to be asked and answered further down the rabbit hole. Such is the ultra-elusive nature of “reality” today.)
We’ve come a long way from 1605 technically, but the general scheme is the same: deception rides high, wide and ugly.
Segments of this post were originally published in an op ed page piece the author had published on November 5th, 2005 in The Globe and Mail; others come from notes for a talk given by the author in London, Ontario November 5th, 2011.


  1. Fascinating article, I enjoyed every word of it.
    Yes, “remember, remember” all of these things that have created this false paradigm.

  2. I have long known of the deception, I have gained a great understanding through due diligence and reporters such as yourself.
    I filed a Statement of Claim (T-1395-12) in the Federal Registry, Me Vs. Her Majesty The Queen.
    She has binding obligation to uphold and protect my freedom of association and conscience, the Corporation of Canada is in breach of the public trust which has been given the force and effect of law (under de facto authority) through the shared principle of mutual benefit.
    I will find equitable relief by applying the law.

  3. Wow, very fascinating article Barrie. I also did not know about the anomalies regarding the gunpowder plot. These types of deceptions are nothing new. I look forward to hearing the archive of today’s Barrett show with yourself and Craig M. Oh, and happy birthday! Incidentally, Sept. 11 is the birthday of the guy who founded Cincinnati 9/11 Truth!

  4. Oh yea, Adam reminds me…
    Happy Birthday Barry!
    {although at “only” 66, I have heard the refrain enough times for my liking…Lol}

  5. “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” – A Einstein

  6. Listened to Kevin Barrett’s show.
    I think that the FBI “stings” which fostered, nurtured and created situations can justifiably be considered a false flag event. The terminology may not be strictly correct but the effect is a prolongation of the fear manufactured by 9/11.
    9/11 was alleged to have been a military precision operation carried out by Muslims against a multi billion dollar security state. 9/11 was meant to have been carried out by fanatics who sacrificed their lives without a second thought.
    In the Middle East there are multiple cases of suicide bombings, Iraqi police infiltrators who kill soldiers, truck bomb drivers, suicidal ambush raids against overwhelming odds, etc.
    9/11 is painted as the mother of all “Jihads”, yet in the 11 years since that day, how many attacks have there been on US soil bar the FBI “stings”?
    So why no low intensity campaign on US soil? Why not one single act of aggression in any form?
    A mortar attack on a Republican/Democrat rally? A suicide bombing at a major sports event? A grenade thrown? Car bombs? Assassinations?
    Is it because of an increase in security? Hardly.
    Military grade explosives aren’t needed (apart from suicide vests). In fact, bombs can be manufactured from legal ingredients readily available. The US is awash with legal and underground arms.
    So why no attacks?
    There are no shortage of volunteers (not the CIA invention of “Al Qaeda” but the millions of those genuinely affected by the US military occupation).
    There’s not the usual fear of getting caught that normally complicates matters.
    There should be no fear of repercussion as the the “aggressor” has already destroyed the country and murdered millions.
    There’s no fear of negative media coverage of a random massacre of innocent civilians as all US (and “western”) civilians are allegedly seen as legitimate targets.
    That’s why the FBI sets up these stings. 9/11 was a blatant false flag op and it would be even more glaringly obvious if the FBI didn’t set these hotheads up.

  7. Well, November 5th passed and so far as I know the threat of “200 kilograms of composite Nitroglycerin and commercial explosives [being] effectively … concealed in a government building, situated in the united states of America” and being exploded that day by “FawkesSecurity” did not occur. Granted the grammar and punctuation of the threat text from this person or persons did not make it entirely clear about the threat. Maybe next year. Meanwhile real people are blown apart in real explosions blamed for the most part on “Al Qaeda” (read “Muslim terrorists”), the shadowy perpetrators of which are as deceptive as “FawkesSecurity.”

    1. Great article Barrie except your ignorance of the National Socilaist Party and Hitler. Hitler was merely trying to extract Germany from the stranglehold of Bolshevik Jewish domination. Because of him and the Germanic bravery, we now have a Europe as we know it which is fading fast. The biggest lie we have ever been told is the 6 million one. Thanks to the brave and honest work of people like Erst Zundl, David Irving and Mark Weber of the Institute For Historical Revision we know exactly who, and what we are dealing with. Read ‘6 Million Lies’ on we were sold out by Churchill. Everything has been inverted. The battle now is for truth, freedom and the real narrative.

      1. Ginny,
        Hitler may have been no worse than the other “world leaders” of his time, but that doesn’t make his tyranny any more “honorable” than the rest of the warmongers at the table.

  8. “To accept opinions in their terms is to gain the good solid feeling of being correct without having to think.”~C. Wright Mills [The Power Elite, pg. 312]

  9. @Barrie Zwicker
    I doubt that it is ever going to be easy to piece together an account of events that happened 400 years ago and try to come to conclusions about it, as in the case of Guy Fawkes. You only have to look at the events of 911 which took place only 11 years ago to see how even basic facts about that event in that short length of time have become disputed and argued over -and this is in an information age when millions of people have all this quick and easy access to a huge amount of information. I just wonder at how easy it seems to be, in spite of all this easy personal access that people have to all of this information, that they can still be mis-informed and mislead about basic facts and how easy it seems to be to persuade people by distorted misrepresentations of the facts or by simply only presenting them with part of the facts
    An example from recent Youtube comments of just a few days ago. Someone pointed out that the collapse of WTC7 was expected for hours by the firefighters and someone else puts up a comment
    Quote: “Oh really – please send me where u found this information because that’s news to me as well as the rest of the world. If that is the case please show me where your information comes from because never in all my years of research into 9/11 have i ever come across any mention of Building 7’s collapse as being in any way expected (other then Silversteins later faux pas comment to “pull it” minutes before it blew up). Where is the proof to back ur statement up???”
    Someone researching 911 for years and they don’t know a simple basic fact that the firefighters were expecting the collapse of this building for hours beforehand. How could a basic fact like that not come to attention of someone researching these events? Maybe because people in the 911 truth movement hardly ever mention it or obfuscate it, or go on TV or radio interviews and don’t mention it, saying that WTC7 collapsed suddenly , in it’s own footprint with only tiny fires. Half the facts, and a distorted version of even those facts. When the information about this is pointed out to this commenter on Youtube though what is the reaction ?
    Quote: “Yep checked this Hayden guy out & wonder how much he got paid for such BS. For example: “Engineer at WTC Site Predicts Collapse of Building 7…Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008] WTC 7 will collapse at about 5:20 p.m.” and it did. More psychics – amazing – i have never read such crap in my life. Only 3 steel framed buildings have collapsed from fire in history all of which was on 9/11/01. I think u need to do some more research & take ur gullibility blinkers off!!! ”
    Deputy firechief Hayden, and all the other firefighters who say the same thing, now join the legion of liars and accomplices in the mass murder of their fellow firefighters and fellow citizens. But the truth must be preserved.
    As I’ve said in previous posts here , it’s the misrepresentation and one-sided and distorted presentation of evidence that to me is how the 911 truth movement started in the first place and has grown to extent it has. Presenting a subset of the facts and labelling the rest of the evidence as ‘the official story’, which is of course false. So since the official story is false then the alternative must be true and of course anyone who says otherwise is an ‘official story supporter’ , or someone ‘who makes apologies for the official story’ or ‘just believes what we were told’ or is ‘a shill’ or maybe even someone who hails from the pit of infernal damnation.
    I think people like yourself Mr. Zwicker , if you have been one of the more vocal and influential spokepersons of the 911 truth movement, have been one of the sources of this distorted presentation of the evidence, doing interviews and lectures where , whether deliberately or not, and lead people to distorted conclusions based on it. I think your initial reaction to the events of 911 , where you were saying by noon that day saying that it was ‘Reichstag fire 2001’ , is telling in itself. You knew basically nothing about what had happened that day with the FAA or NORAD or any other details of the events , yet you were prejudging it , without evidence. You talk a lot about psychology and peoples world view etc. and how their conclusions about events coinincide with that world view but seem to think that this could not also apply to you.

    1. A. Wright,
      You have got chutzpah, coming on here again with your same bilge, after never once facing up and addressing any of the issues brought to your attention.
      You speak of “prejudging” this event, when to anyone with visual acuity would know instantly that those towers did not “collapse” due to the air-crashes into them. Those towers erupted like volcanoes, they did not collapse. And this happened right in front of everybody watching on TV.
      That so many are so brainwashed that they bought the hypnotic dialog rather than seeing with their own eyes were looking at is testament that television is a trance inducing brainwashing machine.
      You speak utter bullshit. You do not grasp that the NIST Reports are PROVEN whitewashes and political cover-up. We have presented the facts to back this up consistently, and to you personally on too many occasions to go through these obviously futile attempts to get you to open your mind.
      You say:
      >”As I’ve said in previous posts here , it’s the misrepresentation and one-sided and distorted presentation of evidence that to me is how the 911 truth movement started..”
      And that is exactly correct Wright, it was the “misrepresentation and one-sided and distorted presentation”__not of evidence, but of a fabricated story from the “government” and the MSM, that is so full of holes that there is nothing left but tatters for dimwits such as yourself to dance around doing your wanking voodoo rituals.
      Yes indeed Wright, you certainly are, “someone who hails from the pit of infernal damnation.” An apologist for the most evil system to ever curse the face of this planet.

    2. An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]
      The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[4]
      Take special note of this Mr. Wright:
      “ some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.”
      From Wikipedia.

    3. Wright
      Any chance of answering the many posts you’ve hopped, skipped and jumped over??
      I can tell by reading that post that there are only two driving forces behind it.
      1. Convince yourself that the gubmint does actually have your back
      2. Having a pop at Barrie Zwicker. What is it? A brag back at that shithole JREF?
      I was going to start to discuss Building 7 but what’s the point? I’ll make this short and sweet.
      How the hell can you try and defend a half arsed pile of lies from the global mafia bought and paid for by corporate assholes when the very same people are raping and destroying everything in their path? Doesn’t matter if you’re a government loyalist or a “twoofer”, they’re going to bend us all over that barrel. Including your own family. And their families.
      I dare you to look at that family photo and say that you believe that they’re future is in safe hands. I fucking dare you.

    4. Come on Wright, you skunk walking smart-ass.
      I want you to tell me what “Full Spectrum Dominance” means.
      Do you really even understand the English language swill-for-brains?
      Is your dainty little manhood so timid that a few course insults hold you back? No, your cowardice is begat by your deep inner awareness that you know you are spun out of control and know not what the fuck you speak of. It takes you days and weeks to finally convince yourself of your delusions after getting the business from us here.
      You can’t answer simple questions, so you hide away, until the con man conning you inside has an idea and he/you type out some seeming plausible horseshit like your post above. We all see your junk junket here Wright.
      So take an easy step here, just define three simple words for us;
      Full Spectrum Dominance.

      1. Willy
        Wright will never wander off of his script.
        Barrie’s piece is just a small sample of our fake history. Centuries of “official stories” yet Wright is so blind that he points to the 9/11 official story as if it’s set in stone. As if it’s some sort of safety net. Even though it’s based on innuendo and a need for the individual to basically take their word for it. Documentation? Video? Images? Timeframes? Chain of custody? Sequence of events that don’t contradict? Manipulation of evidence? Removal of evidence? Censorship? Not necessary for Wright.
        He used some random alleged “debate” at YouTube about WTC7 to insinuate that firefighter foreknowledge that the building was coming down somehow, in his world, points to the official story being correct.
        Read and learn Wright
        There was innuendo and rumour all day about WTC7 after the towers had come down and hundreds of firefighters had lost their lives. Of course rumours had started.
        But there is one of many problems with this alleged foreknowledge. At what time were the alleged measurements of the building taken? And by who?
        They refuse to release this info even under FOIA.
        NIST claimed that “office fires alone” brought the building down and that structural damage from the North Tower had nothing to do with its collapse (2008). The first visible fire wasn’t seen until after 2pm (I also have visual evidence that there were virtually no fires before 2pm). It was seen travelling at a rate of 5 windows every 20 minutes until it eventually petered out. Then started on another floor in exactly the same manner.
        According to NIST the fireproofing for the columns would have held out for 3.5 hours before the necessary 600 degree C sustained heat ,which isn’t evident in any images, even started to affect the steel (never mind the fact that a eutectic mixture was identified in the rubble).
        Read and learn Wright
        So at what point did firefighters actually make this alleged call Wright? Both NIST and the firefighter rumours can’t be right can they?

      2. Yes OSS,
        Wright assumes great affinity for hearsay, after making a big deal out of “evidence”.
        The actual evidence that we have spoken to in great detail, and specifically pointed out to A. Wright, seems to be beyond his technical grasp. There is simply no doubt among the sane and informed that the NIST Report on WTC-7 is a scientific fraud – just as their Report on the WTC Towers.
        How many more times Wright continues to snipe on the 9/11 topic is anyone’s guess, although it would seem a reasonable person would be able to gather that the monkey jive simply will not fly here. He makes himself out the fool.

    1. Thank you, Dr. Fu. Are you having trouble reading because the light blue background turns the color of the outside border (dark blue)? I have been told this by another reader but I have not been able to see this problem myself.

  10. This came to my email box this morning:
    9/11: It’s Never Too Late for the Truth
    By Global Research
    Global Research, November 15, 2012
    Url of this article:
    This month, the Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF) is initiating a legal procedure against the perpetrators of 9/11 during and International Conference on “9/11 Revisited – Seeking the Truth”.
    It has been more than eleven years since that horrific day when so many lives were lost. Today, are we any closer to the real version of events of that tragedy?
    As Prof. Michel Chossudovsky wrote:
    “The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history, a decisive watershed, a breaking point.
    Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.
    September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. The post September 11, 2001 era is marked by the outright criminalization of the US State, including its judicial, foreign policy, national security and intelligence apparatus.
    9/11 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.
    A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.
    9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.
    In assessing the crimes associated with 9/11 in the context of a legal procedure, we must distinguish between those associated with the actual event, namely the loss of life and the destruction of property, from the crimes committed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 “in the name of 9/11″. The latter built upon the former. We are dealing with two related dimensions of criminality. The crimes committed in the name of 9/11 involving acts of war are far-reaching, resulting in the deaths of millions of people as well as the destruction of entire countries.”

    1. 9/11 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.

      The blatant coup in Libya comes to mind. Bosnia. Pakistan.
      And there’s something definitely choreographed about the Israeli attack on Gaza these past few days. Let’s see if the “Arab Spring” countries aren’t demonized if they speak out.
      They still have their US backed military leaders chomping at the bit in the background no matter who’s at the helm. Caught between a rock and a hard place.
      The muted response so far from these countries is very telling. And is why I’m dubious about the “Arab Spring”.

      1. Yea OSS,
        Being dubious of “Arab Spring” is well considered. It fits right into the template of the British Raj, a historically understood part of the colonial agenda.
        There is not a single ‘nation’ on planet Earth that is not under the control of the central power of the Illuminati Banking Cartel. All is theater…

    1. That’s interesting news Adam,
      I have always seen Ventura as an opportunist. The fact that he can host a television show is a strike against him as far as being a legitimate Truth seeker.
      He chooses his esoterica like pulling chits from a jar. Recently he drug David Icke over the coals with bad intent. Now he is “promoting” Wood???
      Fetzer said that “Ventura is a great asset to the Truth Movement”. That in itself is a black mark for Jesse in my book.

      1. Ventura and Alex Jones
        He claims WTC7 was brought down by DEW technology.
        Ventura to his credit gave the work of Pilotsfor911Truth airtime on his show but then ignored the NOC witnesses which he was aware of, and threw in the missile crap. Spice it up.
        Alex Jones has given neither airtime. And even when interviewing April Gallop insisted that a “projectile” struck the building. And Israel never gets a mention.
        WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. End of story.
        Now, one thing is to openly discuss everything across the board, but when tangible evidence is purposely sidelined for whatever reason, I smell doodoo.

      2. Hahaha…both of these guys are scientifically doofuses. An argument between two clowns. Ventura and Jones are both opportunist PR guys cranking up wacky carousels.

        1. I don’t think we should be so quick to laugh away Jesse Ventura. In fact, I think there’s too much laughing away going on for my taste. It gets like anyone who expresses an opinion that has been deemed “wacky” then is completely discredited as being a nut job or disinfo. One can’t say anything positive about any aspect of Wood’s book without being dismissed? I’m not defending her or her book but isn’t it possible that some elements of it might be useful even if some (or all) of her conclusions are completely wrong? Isn’t there any room for people to hold a different opinion – even if it appears to us to be wrong? Do we want to treat unpopular opinions the way CIT supporters were treated at 911blogger?
          Having said that, I’m not defending intentional disinfo peddlers. If we can identify those people through an examination of their tactics, then by all means we should. But just because one holds an unpopular view? I’m very uncomfortable with that.
          As for Ventura, he can be a bit of a loose cannon at times, talking about familiar aspects of 9/11 as if they just became public (when most of us have known about them for years). But it’s wrong to just write him off, especially when he is maybe the only 9/11 truther who regularly appears on national TV. At least he is not letting the public get away with thinking the whole 9/11 thing has faded away. His comments (not necessarily on the Jones interview posted here) might just spark interest in some to learn more. Jesse may not be perfect (certainly his knowledge of 9/11 isn’t) but we don’t have the luxury of cutting someone with that kind of visibility adrift. As for being scientific doofuses, most people are. But if we are open-minded and willing to learn we can still be part of the discussion. If, however, we make truly irresponsible statements that we know enough not to make then we have to take the criticism.
          I really think that mocking dismissal (especially when over-used) is very counterproductive. Strong criticism of someone’s views is fair game though.

      3. That was a thoughtful reply Craig.
        I can see where you are coming from in a certain sense. But personally, I am especially wary of “dedicated followers of fashion..”..those who get excited about a new fad because it seems to be “hep”.
        Just what is “The Truth Movement” if it’s not really the truth? Is it about “new and exciting ideas”? Does It have to be kept alive with a ‘new model’ each year, like all the PR regimes use? Does it really need “Pop Stars” like Ventura ‘branding’ it?
        As far as strong criticism…well quite a few of us here have made some very strong criticisms of Wood’s theories. I think definitive criticisms as well. While not all agree that this is so, it is nevertheless the type of critique you think is fair. Right? So if we extend that to include Ventura’s endorsement of Wood, it is then not simply “mockery” that we are using to criticize Ventura is it? It is simply pointing out what we have already determined {those of us so inclined to dismissing Wood’s theories}. Do we have to re-argue the nuts and bolts of something each and every time it comes up?
        I know these are just my opinions – they don’t have the stamp of CERTAINTY upon them. I am glad that there is the chance to speak to a variety of views. But I certainly cannot help but give what is honestly my point of view. I may be as “pushy” as Ventura and Jones in my own fashion…{???} bit I know in my heart I am sincere. Lol, they would probably say the same thing. What can you do?

        1. I’m not saying it needs pop stars necessarily, I’m saying that when you have a guy with great visibility supporting our cause, we should see what good can come from it before trashing it. As I said, he’s not perfect, and he is a “personality” but he is also saying things no one else in the mainstream media is saying. Exactly how cautious do we want to be after 11 years of being ignored?
          On Wood: I have no problem with the strongest of criticisms. I think you have to be very careful with the whole “guilt by association” thing. Ventura may be making an error when he supports Wood’s book, but that doesn’t mean we toss him out. I think you were mocking him with your “carousel” line.
          Clearly, I am not saying you have to re-argue anything. I’m saying that having so much of the dialogue that employs ridicule is doing harm – perhaps more harm than it is intended to mitigate. I believe in your right to express your opinion here freely. It is a right I allow myself, of course.
          P.S. Is it necessarily nutty to wonder whether some unconventional kind of explosive could have played a part in the destruction of the three WTC towers?

      4. Disclaimer: As the resident champion of DEW and Nuggets of Truth from Dr. Wood, let it be noted that I did not bring these topics up first in this thread. However, I will be the first to pervert it and bring up neutron nuclear DEW (directed energy weapons), which Mr. Rogue has help me craft into the very catchy PR phrase “neu nookiedoo.”
        Dear Mr. McKee,
        Thank you for that well written interjection into the discussion. If I didn’t know you better, I’d say that your posting was a fine introduction to my bat-shit crazy on “neu nookiedoo.”
        Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
        It is good and well that DEW, even if through Dr. Judy Wood and especially her textbook, gets promoted for its ability to at least plant the seed or to place a foot in the door of closed-minded thinking.
        Crafty Dr. Wood? Where she gets it wrong — for whatever reason — is not performing enough analysis of the energy source for her DEW. I am flat-out disappointed that her “scholarly textbook” did not do the equivalent of a “(online) literature review” of, say, the Anonymous Physicists, nor did she have a section to address criticism of things on her website of, say, Dr. Jenkins, both of which were well established before she re-purposed her 2006-and-getting-stale web content. Listing my disappointment in Dr. Wood’s textbook could go on, but I have hopes that if there is ever a revised version, she will take all of this criticism (and perversion of her work) and merge it in.
        Alas, if 9/11 being nuclear was indeed a line-in-the-sand that the government — even in its Q-Group and Cass Sunstein-inspired infiltration incarnations — was not ever going to cross willingly or without kicking-and-screaming and if parts of Dr. Wood’s textbook clearly belong in the disinformation category, then the fact that Dr. Wood does not address nuclear sources of energy for her DEW fits well into the tread line.
        Dear Mr. Rogue,
        I’ve said my peep. Let’s just leave this dangling here as somethign to wet the appetite for a “turkey” main course that I hope Mr. McKee will bake up.

      5. “P.S. Is it necessarily nutty to wonder whether some unconventional kind of explosive could have played a part in the destruction of the three WTC towers?”
        No I don’t think it nutty to wonder at all. But I believe that we should study the empirical evidence and come to our own conclusions as to what it proves.
        I have put countless hours into studying the evidence both political and physical of this case. I cannot claim to speak with authority – but I do claim to speak from a well formed base of knowledge.
        I must also say that I don’t consider this, dialog a game, as some seem to. I am not into this for ego gratification, I am just trying to figure out the truth of the situation as totally as possible. I consider the truth to be revealed by real evidence and a rational drawing together of such evidence as explanatory. Of course I rely on my own judgement. And I don’t make such judgments until I feel I actually understand the information I am considering. This is hard and ongoing work. Most of my days are filled with it, and the larger picture that the event fits into.
        This is a paradigm changing event, a long history precedes it and a continual march of effects have developed from it. It must be seen in the larger context as part of an overarching agenda. And this can only be adequately address by the study of the science of systems, this is what reveals the true architecture of modern political power.
        We cannot know where we stand, let alone which direction to step in until we understand this to some general degree.
        At any rate I appreciate that my passion for all of this is felt as overbearing. I will be more careful with my quips.

      6. Señor,
        If you listen to Jones and Ventura, Jones brings up “mini nukes” and Ventura emphatically says “no” but insists that Woods’ work entails “microwave” technology.
        I’ve watched you and Willy bat back and forth on this (more for the entertainment value because the debate is lost on me!).
        The problem I have is there apparently are multiple interpretations of what “DEW weaponry” actually is and what the evidence for each of these hypotheses
        actually is and what we should be looking out for.
        I don’t know if the “closed mindedness” remark was aimed at me, but if it is, I think it’s unfair as any contribution I’ve made is based on visual and witness testimony. For example, I’m not afraid to be thrown into the “pod people” pool as there is definitely an attached appendage on the craft that struck the second tower. And I haven’t denied that the penetration of the south tower was probably down to the weaponization of the aircraft (bunker buster technology).
        I’m even open to the possibility that the aircraft carried the payload to sever columns and initiate the chemical reactions on the upper floors. The way in which the south tower “snapped” along the path of the penetrating aircraft strongly indicates this to me.
        Anything beyond this point is open to observational interpretation. All I know is that the alleged culprit of jet fuel and steel expansion is bullshit.
        And that my 2cents on the physics of the actual destruction witnessed after the initiation of it is as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

      7. {3rd attempt}
        Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
        My quip about “closed-minded thinking” was aimed at the 9/11TM & public in general [and maybe at others for their stubbornness with regards to “nuggets of truth”], not you specifically. My apologies if it gave unintended offense.
        I have no immediate plans on listening to Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura on the subjects of Dr. Wood, DEW, nukes, and whatnot. I agree with the assessments made by others, that these two are showmen. They say and promote things for other reasons, like the shock value to draw audiences: to get eyeballs on the advertizing. I do not have a lot of faith in the depth of their scientific understanding. But please do not let my assessment take away from their important PR role of attracting a wider public audience and getting the public thinking about things outside-the-box.
        You hit the nail on the head with:

        The problem I have is there apparently are multiple interpretations of what “DEW weaponry” actually is and what the evidence for each of these hypotheses actually is and what we should be looking out for.

        It isn’t just DEW but also “nuclear weaponry” where multiple interpretations frame the phrase differently and introduce scope misunderstandings, and it is usually in a manner to make nuclear 9/11 seem ridiculous rather than plausible.
        You gave a summary of the program with:

        Jones brings up “mini nukes” and Ventura emphatically says “no” but insists that Woods’ work entails “microwave” technology.

        This illustrates my point. They are both partly right, but when they exclude or dismiss each other’s points, they both become wrong, because it means they have not grasped the true wider boundaries of nuclear and direct energy weapon themes.
        We have to divest ourselves of the notion of all DEW being laser-beams emitted by some apparatus, like how the active denial system works and missiles are zapped from the sky. Likewise, we have to divest ourselves from the notion that all nuclear weapons go boom with massive shock & heat waves and have the exact same radiation signatures for what is emitted and what lingers.
        Look up ERW (enhanced radiation weapons) which includes neutron bomb.

        A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon. They have X-ray mirrors and radiation case made of chromium or nickel that allow the neutrons to escape. The mirrors are what help steer the energy is useful directions. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.

        To see the progression of weapons technology, look up (1) Davey Crocket (1960) and its small tactical size. (2) Big Ivan (1961), the largest nuclear detonation ever: it directed its energy upwards, and had small and quickly dissipated amounts of lingering radiation. (3) Project Excalibur and X-Ray Laser that were research projects of Star Wars in the 1980’s.
        Dr. Wood’s textbook does have disinformation in it, like how it does not consider nuclear themes very well. But it has a wealth of evidence and nuggets of truth that, in the game of 9/11 Tetris, can be ordered to fit the other theories’ stacks with fewer gaps. After all, ERW is a type of DEW.
        I also recommend studying Jeff Prager’s work. His larger eMagazine have a few hundred pages and seem pretty slick: Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. I have not read these cover-to-cover and word-for-word to know whether or not it has disinformation. But I have read enough to mine nuggets of truth, particularly from his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], and they help solidify my beliefs in a nuclear 9/11.
        Mr. RuffAdam has invited Mr. Rogue and you to collaborate on a “decisive debunk of DEW thoeries.” He wrote:

        I have failed to fully explain and illustrate for the uninitiated (such as Jesse Ventura) exactly why and how Judy Wood’s theory is wrong. I am going to change that.

        Make sure that Mr. RuffAdam isn’t too quick to sweep away nuggets of truth buried in Dr. Wood’s work that scream for re-purposing. Also, a forewarning is that crafty Dr. Wood does not offer many theories into definitive causes or methods; what she does is plant evidence in plain sight and hint of other mechanisms, the importance being to get people to think outside-the-box. In my estimation Dr. Wood gets it wrong by not adequately addressing the nuclear theme and by inserting disinformation (e.g., her hot-spot chapters.) I’ll spare you having me list other deficient areas in Dr. Wood’s work that I’ve discovered. I am glad that at least one of you (Mr. Rogue) has Dr. Wood’s textbook; perhaps he will loan his copy out or pay-it-forward in partial fulfillment of conditions that will “get a monkey off his back.”
        One area where Dr. Wood gets it right is in talking about the disassociation of matter when describing the pulverization of the towers. I connect this with “neu nookiedoo.” Given that multiple ERW are technically DEW devices, I will be most curious how a “decisive debunk of DEW thoeries” by the collaboration will be successful. I hope it doesn’t play word games with overly big brooms to sweep too much into the dustbin.

  11. Señor El Once should have no fear of my infringing upon his words in any way whatsoever.
    I have nothing at all to say to or about the man again.

  12. Well I have to say at this point that I have been remiss and negligent in my 9/11 truthing for a long while now. I have failed to fully explain and argue my case on many occasions. I have no excuses to offer except to say that I am tired of re-arguing points that have been dealt with years ago. One such issue where I have been negligent due to my “burn out” is the DEW issue. I have failed to fully explain and illustrate for the uninitiated (such as Jesse Ventura) exactly why and how Judy Wood’s theory is wrong. I am going to change that.
    I do not want to hijack this thread however and so I will not do so here. Suffice it to say that I agree with both Mr. McKee and HR1 on some aspects of what they each had to say about Ventura and his embrace of Judy Wood. On the one hand I have to say I was VERY dissapointed that Jesse did this last episode and gave time to Wood to express her misinformation (possibly disinformation). I cannot deny that I have lost much of my respect for Ventura because of this incident and incidentally for his ill treatment of David Icke. No I do not endorse Icke’s reptillian theories. On the other hand I agree that we should not toss Ventura aside just because he did get caught up in some clever misinformation. We cannot do that while at the same time not doing our part to detail the issues with Wood’s theories.
    I therefore propose that those of us who wish to collaborate on a decisive debunk of DEW thoeries do so and send that off to Jesse to consider. We can also post that debunk prominently and give opportunity for Wood herself or her supporters to challenge our work. From then onward we can simply provide the link to that debunk instead of re-arguing the case over and over. I want to do this ONCE more and never again. I did this years ago on the Randi Rhodes blog but that vast archive was lost and all my careful work debunking DEW’s was lost as well. This time I intend to keep a copy myself.
    I ask HR1 and OSS specifically if they would like to collaborate with me on such a project? If so simply request from Craig my e-mail address which I hereby authorize him to give you both. I have some debunks in my memory that are not in print anywhere to my knowledge which I think should be put out again. Anyway let me know if either of you are interested. I will do it myself as best I can if you are both busy but I know it will be much better if you both participate. Perhaps after this we can knock out a few other bogus theories too.

    1. Adam,
      I know what you mean about being frustrated at having to address the same arguments over and over. Unfortunately, I think that to some degree this is unavoidable. What I’ve tried to express in the last couple of comments is not that we should embrace theories that have no merit, but rather than we not end up spending more time arguing against them than we do arguing against the official story.
      Having said that, I think your idea of putting together a debunk of Wood’s theories is a great idea. I’d much rather see strong arguments addressing her theories rather than only hearing dismissal or ridicule. If you do produce this paper rebutting DEW, I would be open to publishing it here in addition to wherever else you might want to submit it.

      1. Hi Craig,
        I have thought about what you state as your reservations to arguing against the “questionable” theories as opposed to arguing against the official story.
        That is why I think the very beginning of a paper such as proposed by Adam Ruff, should be a clarification argument against the official theory to begin, a recap of why the official story cannot possibly be true.
        I intend my 3rd essay on DISINFORMATION: NEW WAVE 9/11 PSYOP, to begin with such a recap argument against the official story too.
        Perhaps, if this project gets underway, you might be interested in giving some editorial input as well..?

      2. Guys (no pun intended), if you don’t mind, I’d rather sit this one out. I’ve a project already on the boil (that’s been gathering dust for 3 years now) and I need to sort it out.
        I’m looking forward to seeing what you come up with though as I’ve never really dug into the area in question.

    2. Hi Adam,
      I am most interested in your proposition. I have in fact already begun an essay of my own, which is to be part 3 of my series being posted to COTO. I have been putting this series together rather quickly – not as an end-all, but as something to get things going.
      The first two can be found here:
      I had just begun putting together notes for the essay on ‘nukes and DEW’. I see that they should be a combined topic. I will do the heavy work on the nuke issue if you or OSS, don’t feel like taking it on.
      Although I have this format I have used with the others, I am completely open to how you guys would like to put the combined effort together.
      Craig is welcome to send you my email address as well.

    3. I would like to articulate why I feel that Ventura’s treatment of Icke was unfair and uncalled for. David Icke is speaking to theological issues, not empirical facts. He is not pretending to be a scientist.
      I am not one who buys into the reptilian thing so much either. However on a theological plane such a thing may be so in some sort of analog to what the tensions of this time/space continuum consists of.
      I have been fascinated by such issues as ancient archaeology, the Great Pyramids, the fields of nuclear glass in Iraq…in theology, and where all of these ancient myths derive.
      This is an area where speculation is much more acceptable to me. It is in the modern era where I demand more empirical and scientific proofs. 9/11 happened in our own era, it should therefore be studied in such a scientific and rational manner.
      This is why I think Ventura has crossed two sins into a crass cross. He has embraced a scientific fraud {in my opinion} and he has attacked a sincere researcher on the other hand.
      I don’t wish to make anything in the proposed essay a commentary on Ventura. I think the idea of sending it to him is great, but not as a personal challenge to him. I would rather a persuasive argument win him over.

      1. I agree that such a paper should not be a challenge to Ventura but rather a well thought out and decisive debunk of the errors and falacies in her work that he can look at and consider. I don’t think he should be mentioned at all in the paper. I do agree that a brief statement in the beginning explaining why the official story cannot be true would be perfect. As to combining this with a debunk of mini nukes I have no problem with that since there are multiple pieces of evidence which disprove both theories. I can do some of the heavy lifting with DEW since I have already spent so much time on it in the past it should not be too difficult. One idea I have is to debunk Wood’s statements from the Ventura show using the actual clips. That might get Ventura’s attention.

      2. I am sorry to hear from Onesliceshort that he is busy at this time and will not be involved. I would however ask for his assistance in supplying the URLs of various videos that are posted on previous threads on this blog. I will specify those I am looking for as best I can after going back through the threads.

  13. September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War Committed “In the Name of 9/11″
    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
    The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history, a decisive watershed, a breaking point.
    Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.
    September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. The post September 11, 2001 era is marked by the outright criminalization of the US State, including its judicial, foreign policy, national security and intelligence apparatus.
    9/11 mythology precipitates the World into barbarity.

    Given narrative controls signaled in this paper [CIA.1967. ‘Countering Criticism of the Warren Report’: an original incarnation of Sunstein/vaudville [sic] ‘Conspiracy Theory’ paper] whereby 2.[d]; “the safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of Probabilities into Certainties” is required to maintain OCT,
    we can reasonably assume:
    1. no-plane 2. no-CD 3. anti-CIT hypotheses are coordinated expressions “guarding against the transformation of probability [ie:Planes/CD/No boeing@Pentagon] into certainty’.
    Probability into Certainty.
    Any proper 911investigation HAS to contest the first ‘most probable’ forensic/eye witness evidence, which, from basic policing standpoint is, by PRECEDENT:
    1. actual airstrike DID occur on Towers one and two with type and control of aircraft yet to be determined
    2. A controlled demolition utilizing various implosive/explosive techniques involving ‘high-end’ incendiary/explosive material technologies WAS exercised on WTC complex -including WTC6 but Towers 1 and 2 and WTC7 FREE FALL predominant expression.
    3. ‘something OTHER than a Boeing 757-223’ caused explosive events at Pentagon .

  15. I have mixed feelings about being the one to launch the derail of the thread which was meant to discuss Barrie’s excellent essay about the Gunpowder Plot truth. I only did it because this is probably the most watched 9/11 truth blog these days, and I felt there was nowhere else to give the heads up, and this blog is not like 911blogger and other sites where users can submit individual blog entries. (Plus, the comments section was going slowly at first, the ones that actually pertained to Barrie’s article.)
    It’s finally been uploaded. Here is the “Nikola Tesla Death Ray” episode, Season 3 Episode 2:

    1. Adam Syed,
      I wouldn’t say this discussion is too far off the mark of Barrie’s article. After all, his article is based on false flags throughout history, and that is exactly what 9/11 was and is.
      And I consider this TV show a part of the false flag, whether it is Ventura’s intent or not.

  16. I have found that many people are baffled, and perhaps intimidated by the term “Hegelian Dialectic”, often thinking it is some deep philosophical concept that needs years of philosophy classes to decipher. I just received this comment on another blog, I thought I would share my response here, it is brief, but I think it aptly illustrates the gist of it:
    >”Hegellian dialectic goes right by me”~Cinnamon
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    It is not hard to understand at all. You just have to grasp a simple concept.
    Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis. It is a cycle, each synthesis is a new thesis, a naturally arising antithesis arises at the same moment.
    The next struggle of thesis v antithesis ensues until a new synthesis resolves it, and on and on.
    As the Hegelian Diametric is a manufactured one with an end goal in mind; which is the Total State, or the State as God, as Hegel framed it, the final state of the full cycle then is that the final synthesis is the Total Global State, what is often called the New World Order.
    We witness this as the Thesis as ‘crisis’ one that has been manufactured by those running the system. The resolution of the crisis is inherent in that crisis, but framed as a duality by the PR surrounding the crisis. One ‘side’ would resolve the crisis in a certain fashion, the other ‘side’ would resolve it in a seeming different fashion, but inherent in each resolution is the strengthening of the authority of the state.
    We saw this recently in the ‘crisis’ of the Presidential elections, both sides portraying the choice as a crisis if their candidate did not win. But the candidates do not differ in substance, but merely in style and appearances. Both are agents of state power, and will increase it by their adherence to the agenda.
    Thus one step further to the final Total State.

  17. Since we never heard back from Mr. Wright {surprise surprise}…I will answer the simple question I asked of him:
    “Full Spectrum Dominance,” is a Euphemism for Totalitarian Despotism.
    ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ is also the basis of the military-industrial system that is in control of Amerika today. This is prima facea and any argument made against it is preposterous:
    Amerika is a Totalitarian Police State masquerading as a “democracy”. “Liberty and Justice” are officially void here. This isn’t something that is “about to happen”, this is how it has been for decades. It may have been more subtle in bygone days but it has been their behind a flimsy facade all along.

  18. The clip above is just SAD. Detracts from empirical/forensic evidence/data available for presentation right now that known explosive/incendiary technologies produced the observable building behavior.

    1. This is a great point Fremo,
      ‘Signature Characteristics’ of physical events is a primary basis for forensic science. “Profiling” is not limited to the MO, etc of ‘suspects’ in terms of only human actors, but is applicable to all ‘actors’ – as those mechanisms by which actions are propagated.
      That the destruction of the towers displays such signature characteristics of explosive demolition in so many aspects is simply undeniable. That a new and unique mechanism such as DEW could reasonably mimic these distinct signature characteristics is a dubious assertion when all are taken into account. Handwaving, such as “all loud booms are not necessarily explosives ” is spurious when applied to the very specific evidences to explosions with the signature characteristics; as described by first hand witnesses, and in the record both visual and sonic.
      First, coming to these conclusions as to the explosive nature of the destruction of the towers, we then proceed to the evidence portrayed in the aftermath. Are there mitigating anomalies that contest such firm conclusions reached in the first stage of our analysis? This is where the controversy begins, and where the onus would naturally be on the side of those claiming such challenging anomalies to defeat the original conclusions beyond reasonable doubt, reached in the first stage.
      Another point is the question of the likelihood that the perpetrators would stage the event in such a way as to use exotic weapons, but add the signature characteristics of an explosive demolition to throw researchers off track. This hardly solidifies as reasonable when one considers that the slight of hand was meant to fool the audience into believing that the airplane strikes led to the destruction of the towers combined with “jet fuel fires”. It must be recalled that the official story is not ‘explosive demolition’, but a gravity induced “collapse”.
      As an outline, this is the reasoning I put forward in a positive argument for the controlled demolition of the WTC complex. It is because I have this positive thesis that I feel is reasonably conceived, that I counter an antithesis that I see as ill conceived.

    2. Mr. Rogue writes:

      That the destruction of the towers displays such signature characteristics of explosive demolition in so many aspects is simply undeniable.

      The key phrase is “so many aspects.” It does not match all aspects. Explosive demolition does not account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. For this alone, another mechanism must be sought.
      However, other aspects of the destruction have off-kilter signatures from what would be expected from explosive demolition. For example, when the brissance of explosives is cranked up to account for pulverization, it results in deafening decibel signatures that weren’t present. Doing the math on explosive quantities required for pulverization and hot-spot duration results in amounts and logistics that aren’t reasonable.
      More clues that other mechanisms must be sought: Tritium, tritium, tritium. Or how about a proper analysis of the dust: Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]:

      The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance.
      The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.
      The USGS report shows Barium and Strontium present and in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships.
      The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionucleide daughter products.
      The dust samples provide an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists, such as Dr. Jones, should have seized this data to analyze it and determine exactly what type of device produced it.

      Mr. Rogue writes:

      That a new and unique mechanism such as DEW could reasonably mimic these distinct signature characteristics is a dubious assertion when all are taken into account.

      It isn’t a dubious assertion (a) if the statement of “what is mimicing what” is malframed from the get-go, because even explosive demolition doesn’t match the signature of what was observed [tritium, dust] and (b) if the proper scope of directed energy weapons (DEW) is given short-shrift and malframing.
      Mr. Rogue asks with a deliberate PR spin:

      Are there mitigating anomalies that contest such firm conclusions reached in the first stage of our analysis? This is where the controversy begins, and where the onus would naturally be on the side of those claiming such challenging anomalies to defeat the original conclusions beyond reasonable doubt, reached in the first stage.

      The answer to his question is yes and is linked above as the analysis of the dust. In addition, we have the words of Dr. Steven Jones who came to those “firm (?) conclusions” who wrote recently: “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).”
      The onus is now on conventional explosive demolition to account for those anomalies, plus all of the anomalies present in Dr. Wood’s textbook. Here is a picture of a core column that was bent into a horseshoe. How does explosive demolition explain it? Or these:
      Steel Beam Bent Like a Horseshoe
      Multiple pieces bent
      twisted beam 3
      twisted beam 2
      twisted beam 1 and rolled up carpet
      The Steel Doobies
      Mr. Rogue writes:

      Another point is the question of the likelihood that the perpetrators would stage the event in such a way as to use exotic weapons, but add the signature characteristics of an explosive demolition to throw researchers off track. This hardly solidifies as reasonable when one considers that the slight of hand was meant to fool the audience into believing that the airplane strikes led to the destruction of the towers combined with “jet fuel fires”. It must be recalled that the official story is not ‘explosive demolition’, but a gravity induced “collapse”.

      This is unfounded speculation on Mr. Rogue’s part regarding the characteristic of mechanism A being added to mask or hide the use of mechanism B. Until convinced by properly applied science to all of the evidence, my firm belief is that neutron nuclear DEW (or ERW or neutron bombs — multiple for each structure) decimated the WTC. Their audio signature would have been slight. If any masking was performed, it was that the innards of the towers were decimated by ERW devices aimed upwards milli-seconds before the outer steel walls were chunked at their bolts by, say, NT. Among other things, this would have helped contain any side-effect EMP. [Vehicle damage to cars on West Broadway and the parking lot indicate where this EMP might have slipped out.]
      The fact that neutron nuclear DEW would not necessarily have had a loud decibel signature fits in well with Dr. Sunder from NIST who argued against explosive demolition [in favor of a gravity pile-driver] by saying (paraphrased): “The amount of explosives needed to demolish the towers would have resulted in deafening sounds, which were not heard on 9/11. Thus, explosive materials were not (the primary destructive mechanism) used.”
      Mr. Rogue writes:

      It is because I have this positive thesis that I feel is reasonably conceived, that I counter an antithesis that I see as ill conceived.

      A most interesting choice of words that I can only label has hypnotic PR spin.
      “Reasonably conceived” has to address all of the evidence, with reasonable quantities no less. Mr. Rogue’s positive thesis does not.
      The antithesis that Mr. Rogue labels “ill-conceived” is only so from the framing he puts around it from his limited understanding of both DEW and varients of nuclear weapons (ERW).

  19. It’a a pity that Barrie Zwicker hasn’t addressed any of the points I brought up about the misleading and distorted version of events of 911 that he presents to others , since as far as I’m aware he has never addressed them or even been challenged on them. To me, someone who regards themselves as having high journalistic standards should be prepared to address those issues especially when they are at the same time criticising and even denigrating other journalists for lacking these same high standards.

      1. @Craig McKee
        Barrie Zwicker wrote this article about Guy Fawkes, which I presume is intended to be an attempt to give an accurate account of the events of 400 years ago and Guy Fawkes involvement in them. I don’t know if that’s the case and we will probably never know, but as I pointed there is not much reason to have confidence in it being an accurate account when , only 11 years after the events of 911 people can take the evidence of those events and create totally different and opposing conclusions as to who was responsible or how it was carried out etc. What hope is there that people 40 years or 400 from are going to be able to come to conclusions about it ? When I see someone like Barrie Zwicker presenting evidence about 911 , actually only months after the event , evidence that is still up on the internet and that people are actually still commenting on and ‘tweeting’ about, and it is an inaccurate and distorted version of parts of the evidence, then I think that is something that should be addressed, by Barrie Zwicker, if no one else. This is especially the case if this is evidence that is key to him reaching his conclusions and to his intention to influence the conclusions of others. If he puts up videos on the internet with inaccurate information then he can put up video correcting it, especially if he is interested in the truth.

      2. “Wright”

        actually only months after the event , evidence that is still up on the internet and that people are actually still commenting on and ‘tweeting’ about, and it is an inaccurate and distorted version of parts of the evidence, then I think that is something that should be addressed

        Says the guy who has never once shown nor indicated any problem whatsoever with the OCT which even some of the most diehard government loyalist douchebags have had to acknowledge!
        I’d say that’s more obnoxious and dishonest than a few “tweets” from people new to the information on 9/11.
        Your hypocrisy knows no ends. And to demand a reply??? Hahabahaha…Jeebus.
        I told you Craig. This is nothing more than a “scalp” that this cretin wants to parade before some other soulless entities on a JREFesque forum somewhere. Hell the guy even “debates” at YouTube! Why? Because links, evidence and debunks of the OCT are impossible to post there. This guy wallows in wordsmithery and being able to turn tail when cornered, only to reappear at a later date spewing the same bile.
        One on one Wright, I’ll tear you a new one.

    1. This is astonishing bullshit you are into now Wright,
      You feel that Barry Zwicker has some obligation to answer your foolish assertions personally, when you have not offered any counter argument to what you have claimed is wrong with Barrie’s position.
      Others have proven here on this very page that it is you yourself who are presenting the “misleading and distorted version of events of 911.” We have explained in great detail how that is, and you have chosen to ignore all that, and continue your mewing.
      So, you have had your chance throughout this entire thread, to make an argument as to WHY you claim that Zwicker is wrong about the timeline, but have so far failed to make a proper case for yourself. Why Would Mr. Zwicker bother with such a trifling shit as yourself?
      The fact of the matter is that the timeline of the lack of air response that Barrie has spoken to is correct, and no matter how long you wail that it is wrong it won’t change the facts.
      I would say, if this were my forum to moderate, that the next time you want one of your comments published here, it would damn well better contain a convincing argument supporting the official version of the air response. You haven’t even attempted such, you simply continue to insist the government story is correct because they say so.

  20. Uranium is a naturally occurring substance in the environment in the trace levels found in the WTC Dust. The “fission pathway” is nothing but it’s natural breakdown as goes on in the Earth environment day in day out everywhere. There simply was no unusual radiation whatsoever in the WTC aftermath.
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm … Yttrium is found in soil in concentrations between 10 and 150 ppm…Yttrium is used in the production of a large variety of synthetic garnets,[51] and yttria is used to make yttrium iron garnets (Y3Fe5O12 or YIG), which are very effective microwave filters.[4] Yttrium, iron, aluminium, and gadolinium garnets (e.g. Y3(Fe,Al)5O12 and Y3(Fe,Ga)5O12) have important magnetic properties.[4] YIG is also very efficient as an acoustic energy transmitter and transducer.[52] Yttrium aluminium garnet (Y3Al5O12 or YAG) has a hardness of 8.5 and is also used as a gemstone in jewelry (simulated diamond).[4] Cerium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (YAG:Ce) crystals are used as phosphors to make white LEDs.[
    Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm (fresh weight), with cabbage having the largest amount.[40] With up to 700 ppm, the seeds of woody plants have the highest known concentrations.[40]
    The most important use of yttrium is in making phosphors, such as the red ones used in television set cathode ray tube (CRT) displays and in LEDs.[5] Other uses include the production of electrodes, electrolytes, electronic filters, lasers and superconductors; various medical applications; and as traces in various materials to enhance their properties.”

    1. This posting addresses two my Mr. Rogue’s postings on his home thread, but wasn’t posted there. Mr. Rogue promised to delete any comments of mine on threads that he owns. A portion of one of those COTO postings was re-posted here, but I’ll start with the one that wasn’t. I can only speculate that its purpose was to keep his COTO crew-cuts in line, and has Mr. Rogue getting all hysterical:

      How much more shit are you going to allow this shitheaded clown Señor stir-up? Are you seriously incapable of banning? This has gone too far. Do something. … This is absurd. How long are you going to let this go on?

      I enjoyed Mr. Rogue’s “The Nuclear-Dew Hybrid”, mostly for his his creative use of adjectives and crafty phrases: “science fiction, hazy idea, vague suppositions, false assumptions, convulsive idea, wildly convoluted, …” These are very clever PR hypnotic assertions. Was they are noted and categorized as clever descriptions, the remainder of his posting become weak on substance and specifics.
      I got a bit annoyed when he wrote:

      It is now claimed that there is another type of weapon that destroyed the WTC, one that I have termed; ‘Nookiedoo’, and the author who has designed this weapon in his imagination has adopted the phrase.

      Whereas Mr. Rogue has attempted to belittle the concept of neutron nuclear DEW (known more formally as neutron bombs or enhanced radiation weapons (ERW)] by coining the phrase “nookiedoo”, in fact the phrase that I prefer inserts some German (where “neu” = “new”) and becomes “neu nookiedoo”, where “neu” does double-duty by referring to “neutron”, a type of short lived radiation that can do some really debilitating things when expelled with great energy and targeted in a usefully destructive manner.

      The DEW weapon that is proposed … is somehow driven by a nuclear reaction… a “pulse” weapon is his latest assertion.

      I’ve never stated anything about a “pulse” weapon. I thank Mr. Rogue for potentially giving away this inside information for me to research, kind of jumping the gun as it were. But before I jump onto that bandwagon, let it be known how Mr. Rogue has purposely shoved erroneous words into my mouth as a strawman for him to knock down.
      I’ll brush aside Mr. Rogue’s claims of “false assumptions,” in part because he has no intellectual basis for applying that, and in part because the game is “9/11 Tetris” where the evidence can be oriented in different fashions to support multiple theories.
      Mr. Rogue writes:

      This addendum will address the nuclear aspects that are claimed to support the Nookiedoo idea, as well as the idea that there was any nuclear aspect at all in the WTC destruction.

      Actually, his addendum did not address the nuclear aspects; just another hand-wavey hand-job. We should relish how he tries to take nuclear supposition off of the table with the innuendo that there might not have been any nuclear aspects at all in the WTC destruction. Yeah, well… tritium, tritium, tritium proves that wrong, as do the dog-and-pony-shows in the government reports that try to explain these away, but only after re-defining trace level of tritium to be 55 times greater than it should have been. Begs the question of what levels were truly measured that went through pre-juking to get where they ended up.
      Within Mr. Rogue’s “The Nuclear-Dew Hybrid,” he creates an elaborate fantasy:

      That the perpetrators decided to blow up the WTC with nuclear weapons, or a beam weapon, but they would do this in such a way as made it appear that it was an explosive demolition by chemical explosives, even though they were trying to convince the general public that the buildings “collapsed do to air-crashes and jet fuel fires”.

      Wrong on so many fronts.
      The perpetrators wanted the destruction to appear as a natural pile-driving decimation by gravity. Period. The advantage of using neu nookiedoo is that it is thorough (even zapping the aircraft) and it is not as loud as the equivalent explosive demolition. And this fact is what enabled Dr. Sunder of NIST to proclaim with a straight face and no lying ticks on camera why conventional chemical explosives and incendiaries were not the primary cause of the decimation. The fact that some secondary explosives were used [e.g., to separate the steel exterior walls milli-seconds after the insides were neutron radiated into dust] and left a small but noteworthy signature is really beside the point, because that signature is disproportionate with what would be expected if conventional chemical explosives and incendiaries were the primary mechanisms.
      Proceeding on to Mr. Rogue’s next postings from November 20, 2012 at 7:02 pm and somewhat mirrored on T&S. Ignore the fact that Mr. Rogue attributes to me quotes from Jeff Prager. Check out this skew:

      Bullshit, Uranium is a naturally occurring substance in the environment in the trace levels found in the WTC Dust. The “fission pathway” is nothing but it’s natural breakdown as goes on in the Earth environment day in day out everywhere. There simply was no unusual radiation whatsoever in the WTC aftermath.

      The fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium is known. Mr. Rogue should provide the levels at which Uranium is found in the environment. The point is that all were found in abnormal quantities. Therefore, enjoy Mr. Rogue’s dog-and-pony-show.
      Mr. Rogue does a valient effort with Yttrium in making it seem benign and somewhat common. He just hasn’t connected the measured levels (in the dust) to the content in the towers. I have to admit that its usage in cathode ray tube (CRT) displays and LEDs is took some effort. But simple math can extrapolate the amount per CRT and the number of CRTs per floor and then effectively determine what should be expected in the dust… and it comes up short. Something else was its source… [Joke] Like maybe in leftover cabbage in the employee refrigerators. [/Joke]
      Mr. Rogue writes this pitch-perfect curve-ball:

      It is only in the crazed delusions of those ignorant of this subject who claim that there is ANY indication on a “nuclear device”, this is the reason nuclear scientists such as Dr. Jones have not “seized” the data which in fact show with certainty that there were no such “nuclear devices”.

      If there were NO indication of a “nuclear device”, there would have been no tritium messured, no report stating such, and no further skewing by Dr. Jones. The fact is that we had the three. They by themselves are inconclusive. But you add to them the 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks of, say, unextinguishable under-rubble fires, the massive energy requirements of pulverization, anomalous vehicle damange, the demolition of the Banker’s Trust Building, first responder ailments, the destruction of evidence, … Well…
      Mr. Rogue added to the above “Señor El Once is an idiot.”
      This idiot happens to see how all of these connect together really well into a “neu nookiedoo” framework.
      Lurker readers should question Mr. Rogue’s eifer and motivation for constantly trying to say that the 9/11 Tetris blocks do not stack with tighter gaps as a nuclear event and that conventional chemcial explosives — that address neither Titrium nor the under-rubble hot-spots — somehow makes more sense to those — unlike me — who aren’t idiots.
      BTW, many of the quotes that Mr. Rogue tries to attribute to me? Well, they were actually contained within blockquotes with a source link preceeding them. They are not my words. Kind of turns the mirror on who is an idiot.
      Because Mr. Rogue claims to be a recluse and anti-socialite, I hope he enjoys Thanksgiving lounging around in his Scooby-Doo underwear in his dear old Mum’s basement while composing lots of COTO & T&S postings to offer damage control to the above. Meanwhile, I’ll be off-line and enjoying myself.

  21. Also off topic, but I have no idea how else to converse with T/S members about the hot issue in the news, namely the mid-east conflict.
    I’ve noticed that with a lot of people within my profession, the classical music performance profession (which includes lots of Jews), the sentiment often tilts towards Israel, and sometimes strongly so. I have often wondered about the “cultured” Germans supporting crimes against humanity. Now I know. People I know, who are very otherwise educated and “cultured,” are so very off the mark on this issue. A prominent professor of piano, at one of the country’s top schools of music, shared the following personal letter with her friends on FB (boldings and stuff in brackets mine].

    Dear Friends and Family,
    Eugene and I share each of your concerns and compassion for the deaths of innocents in the Gaza-Israeli conflict. To see a young mother crying over having lost her two children brought me to tears and I hate that this is happening.
    I also am praying and crying about my sons in Israel coming under rocket fire from Hamas. Sasha was in an underground shelter at his fiancee’s home on Friday during Shabbos and felt the explosions as the earth shook around him, and heard the sounds of bombs exploding nearby. This has been an ongoing occurrence over the years, but the American media does not report it.
    I don’t want to lose one of my children either, and I also pray that the Israeli Defense Forces are able to take out all of the Hamas rocket launching points before either or both of my sons are killed. Israel has to protect it’s population and I know from being there of the extraordinary lengths they are taking to avoid civilian casualties. Israel would prefer to not have to launch a ground invasion, but it’s either from the air or from the ground if Hamas continues sending the rockets into Israel.
    Hamas’s charter is to destroy Israel and every living Jew in the world. [Oh for fuck’s sake, spare us the Schindler’s List theme song.] Can Israel negotiate with such an enemy? I don’t see how this is possible. What is Israel to do in this case? What would each of us do if confronted with such a situation in defending our loved ones and country?
    Iranian missiles are being used and supplied by an Iranian leader who is determined to destroy the Zionists as he often says, and this along with a Hamas charter that is to destroy every Jew does not give me much hope for a negotiated settlement. Murder is immoral, but killing in self-defense is not murder. Hamas wants to murder Jews!! I have pasted Michael Oren’s Op-Ed in today’s New York Times below for a much better explanation of what Israel is facing than any I might provide.
    I am convinced that this often heard saying is as true today as it was in 1948: If the Islamist/Arab world disarmed there would be peace. If Israel disarmed, there would be no more Israel.

    One more time…

    If the Islamist/Arab world disarmed there would be peace. If Israel disarmed, there would be no more Israel.

    I wonder if I should slip a copy of Experts Speak Out under her door at the university. Clearly she must also believe the evil AAA-rabs destroyed the WTC.
    Yes, yes, westerners. Stay stuck in your New York Times / BBC induced trance: Those murderous, ruthless, evil AAA-rabs simply won’t leave alone those poor, hapless, defenseless Jews.
    That posting makes me so angry I can barely type anything intelligible atm.

    1. In regard to this I Totally agree. Listening to Obama talk about ‘ rights of citizens under fire of rockets’ all I could see was the WALL, barbed wire, armed guards in uniforms, the drones, F16’s and the traumatized brutalized faces of Palestine. Carrying their dead children thru burning streets in a rush of panic and loss just as those others in ghettos before them ran; no where to hide from the fascist bully boys surrounding; no one to help them in their lost heart. Just platitudes dripped from jay Carney’s lips onto shoes of patent leather., the ‘west’ turning its head the other way for ‘thanks’ giving……. who would they thank for this thankless occupation, of a people starved and hounded on their own land. Being robbed everyday? Perhaps the God for that does live under Bostonian roofs.

      1. Yes Fremo,
        I wanted to speak as well to the idea of “enjoying Thanksgiving”. I haven’t enjoyed Thanksgiving for many long years, since the truth of the history of the ‘holiday’ sunk in for me. Everyone here knows that story and I need not expand on that here. Even those who understand that the original Thanksgiving was in thanks of a successful genocidal act against Native Americans, still go along with the program because of social and family pressures, and you know…”what’s the big deal, it’s just a generic holiday bla bla bla”…but it is more than that isn’t it, this year the “thanks giving” is taking place during a continuing genocide, and the Amerikans are’n’t really even turning away from it but are in fact cheering it on. Feasting atop the burial mounds of the Native Americans, while gloating over the murder/rape of Palestine as a background prayer to their meal.
        This so-called “holiday” is taking place on the anniversary of another event, and it is this event that I shall be contemplating and perhaps mourning, as we should mourn the original ‘Thanksgiving’ event…
        49 years ago today there was a coup d’etat in this nation, that took place in Dallas, Texas. A President was killed in a brutal public ritual, and a pretender took his place. It was this event that put us on a steady course to this sinister totalitarian police state that has come to almost complete fruition today.
        So, yes indeed, “Enjoy Thanksgiving” this year…

    2. Yes Adam,
      My friends and I have been discussing this newest outrage by the shitty little terror state called “Israel”.
      The way it is presented in mainstream news is simply infuriating. This is a joint US-Israel psychopathic exercise. This is really painful for with anyone with a conscience – and the purposefully ignorant are not excused, they are as culpable as the murderers themselves.
      This is a powerful and moving video:
      “The lesson of the Holocaust is not that Jews are special. It is not that Jews are unique. It is not that Jews are eternal victims. The lesson of the Holocaust is that when you have the capacity to halt genocide and you do not, no matter who carries out that genocide or who it is directed against, you are culpable.” ~Chris Hedges
      The Attack on Gaza Is Not War – It Is Murder –Chris Hedges

    3. Kevin Barrett’s response to that letter:

      Funny how someone can be a pathetic brainwashed moron and still play piano.
      I would have thought such a person could barely chew gum and walk.

  22. Speaking of false flags.
    Statistically, 90% of rockets fired from Gaza toward the stolen and occupied land called Israel occur immediately after an assassination of Hamas Officials in Gaza by IDF.
    Knowing that reactive potential; and also at this moment Amercian political hiatus post-erection…sorry, election, and obligatory feasting in celebration of First nation holocaust, we see odious bibi up for re-erec….sorry, election; and knowing that ‘Leaders favor WAR because WAR favours Leaders’, a carefully premeditated and targeted action by IDF triggered by the murder of Ahmed Jabari [cease-fire agreement in pocket], with retaliation from Gaza 90% certain, would be arranged as COVER for the systematic obliteration of social infrastructure, important individuals, media not complying with neoconazionist agenda and further brutal traumatizing of the ghetto population-especially CHILDREN- of Gaza in effort to make their lives so fckn miserable they ‘will leave’. Followed by comic “hillary-obama’ routine cease-fire approaches once the real murder has been done.
    hidden behind ‘retaliatory’ ‘defence of freedom’ branding. the theater of the damned.

    1. Re: Israel
      What was bizarre for me was when I had to watch MSM and how all of the newsdesk monkeys could look down the lens with that hollow, whore stare and calmly announce that “3 Israelis have been killed and 140 Palestinians” as if those 3 lives were equal to 140 (a quarter of which were children).
      And how they censored all images of the poor kids between 6 weeks and 6 years old lying on cold slabs. If they were English, American or French white kids there would have been outrage (or would there?) or a wholesale milking of the event.
      In one segment just after the death tolls were announced, there followed the news of a court case where a toddler had been murdered by drug addict parents in England and they were (rightly) painted at monsters.
      There wasn’t even a flicker of consternation in their eyes.

  23. I’ve posted this post in several places. It makes sense of the word false flag and what’s going on with 9/11, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and the Boston Marathon Attack. I shared it with a friend who lives in England. I didn’t know England celebrates this holiday that commemorates this. Did you know Prince Charles had another mistress? very sad. I guess some people care enough about her, they think others need to know about this, beside knowing about Princess Diana. Do you know much about Freemasonry? Are the royal family really Christians or freemasons?,_Baroness_Tryon

  24. You left my posts. I checked. You moderated them. Thanks so much. I hate lies. So many people are deceived. This subject came up again.
    If you read the article…it seems, English archaeologists have discovered “demon traps” under the floorboards of one of Britain’s most important historic houses.
    Acquired by the Archbishops of Canterbury in the 15th century and gifted to Henry VIII and remodeled in the 17th century by the Sackville family, the house was the birthplace of poet and gardener Vita Sackville-West and the setting for Virginia Woolf’s novel Orlando.
    Government propaganda, orchestrated by James I, blamed the Catholic conspirators as being in service to Satan, paving the way to widespread accusations of demonic forces and witches at work.
    “King James I had a keen interest in witchcraft and passed a witchcraft law, making it an offense punishable by death and even wrote a book on the topic entitled Daemonologie,” James Wright, buildings archaeologist at MOLA, said.
    That last part is what caught my attention! You see, even in the 17th century….people knew the Catholic Church was run by devils! WOW! Well, that’s not all.
    The carvings included criss-crossed lines, interlocking V-shapes to invoke the protection of the Virgin Mary, and scorch marks made by directly burning the timber with a candle.
    Guy Fawkes, and the mask of his likeness, has been romanticized in movies, in news and at protests around the world. Most recently, the mask has been used during the populist Occupy protest and the hacker group Anonymous has released numerous videos using the Fawkes likeness.
    “Guy Fawkes Night, celebrated by the burning in effigy of a would-be regicide, continues the earlier [pagan] tradition of burning effigies of the evil spirits of the past old year.” (4)
    This is the pagan Festival and otherwise known as The Greenman and/or Burning Man Festivals.
    I’m not on facebook. But this where she got some the information.

  25. The fez is one of the most recognizable symbols of Shriners International, and was adopted as the Shriners’ official headgear in 1872. Named after the city of Fez, Morocco, the hat represented the Arabian theme the fraternity was founded on. It also serves as an outward symbol of one’s membership in the fraternity. Much like the white apron worn by Masons as a symbol of their brotherhood, the fez is worn only by Shriners as a symbol of their membership in this unique fraternity.

  26. That You Tube above is not the movie “V for Vendetta” It’s Naomi Wolfe’s documentary. I agree with some of her stuff. They are trying to repeat what happened in Germany WWII, here. This is the United States, with a diverse group of people. That’s the difference.
    Naomi Wolfe is a feminist. She was very anti-Sarah Palin and George Bush. They both claimed to be “Born Again Christians” Sarah Palin was another huge hoax. Naomi Wolfe wrote the book “Give me Liberty”.

  27. This Retired WWII Paratrooper Colonel tried to warn the United States about these kinds of things. His group was called “The Committee to Restore the Constitution”.
    Lieutenant Colonel Archibald E. Roberts was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the U.S. Army on 19 December 1942 and served as a paratrooper in the 11th Airborne Division. In 1959 he served as the information officer for Major General Edwin Walker who was the commander of the 24th Infantry Division in Germany.[3] Roberts wrote and directed the program “Pro Blue” troop information program in 1959.[4] It was named after the color of some Army maps.[5] General Walker was relieved of command in 1961 after the accusation that he and LTC Roberts had distributed John Birch Society literature to troops under them in that program.
    Roberts was forced out of the Army after 18 years of service because he made a political speech to the Daughters of the American Revolution. This prevented him from collecting his retirement pay. He successfully sued the Army for reinstatement.[6] Colonel Roberts remained active in right wing political activities for many years after his retirement.[7] This includes many appearances on Denver area talk radio shows. He is the author of The Most Secret Science.[8] This book claims that there is ancient science of control of large populations by a small ruling class.
    I’m not a Alex Jones fan.
    Conspiracy expert and broadcaster Bill Cooper explains the masonic assassination of JFK here. Bill Cooper was murdered in November 2001, and replaced with controlled opposition Masons Alex Jones and David Icke. Cooper was described as “the most dangerous radio host in America”, by notorious Mason Bill Clinton.
    The power of the Secret Government over the news media continues unabated. During the time of the Watergate scandal, major scandals of the past were reviewed; but the torture and murder of Captain William Morgan in 1826, from which developed an anti-Mason political party which challenged Freemason Andrew Jackson for the presidency (General Jackson was involved with the Bell Witch) and the murder of Joseph Smith the Mormon prophet, which resulted in the men of the Mormon Church withdrawing from “Freemasonry” — were major scandals that were ignored.
    The Kennedy assassination has to do with Masonic Sorcery and the information I present in these pages is well-known to certain news agencies who have chosen to suppress it, just as the motivation for the assassination has been plunged into cryonic secrecy; for facts concerning the assassination are supposed to be revealed in the future, which is a matter of public knowledge. That freeze — wait — revive plan is part of the master plan of Masonic Sorcery.

  28. You pretend as if there was no conflict between Spain and England before the Gunpowder Plot, and it was a ruse to provoke wars. While Anglo-Spanish wars followed (DECADES later – the plot was 1605, the first conflict with Spain after it – provoked by Spain in an attack on King James’ then-married daughter Elizabeth’s Royal German husband – began in 1625) you seem to conveniently forget about that little “Spanish Armada” thing. Remember that? Which happened over a decade earlier? And the fact that Spain and England had been in UNINTERRUPTED WAR for two decades BEFORE the Gunpowder Plot.
    It’s funny – when history gets in the way of a good conspiracy theory, isn’t it? Feel free to edit this out – just like reality and history.

  29. RMS Lusitania Lie , Pearl Harbour “surprise” Lie, Oswald killed JFK Lie, Gulf of Tonkin incident Lie, 9/11 Lie, Invasion of Iraq Lie, Ukraine Revolution Lie, Syria Revolution Lie, ‘War on (of) Terror’ Lie not to mention the dozens of coups,regime changes, assassinations and invasions on the pretext of bringing “Democracy and Freedom” while killing millions! Why would the moon landing be any different?
    American Moon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *