Whistle blower reveals secret U.S. program to recruit, train, and provide visas to 'terrorists'

June 19, 2015
By Barrie Zwicker (Special to Truth and Shadows)Springmann cover
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW how sausages are made, don’t start reading Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World by Michael Springmann. The sausages in this case: the string of too-easily-swallowed accounts of bloody events in the “global war on terror,” served up daily with relish by the mainstream media. In reality these sausages are filled with tainted meat that’s making everyone sick.
Springmann is a brave whistle blower living in Washington, D.C. He’s written an accessible book, safe to digest, highlighting details of the corruption of the American Empire (and its accomplices, including Canada) as he experienced them from the inside during his years with the U.S. State Department.
While he served as a visa officer in the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for instance, he was obliged under threat of dismissal to issue visas to persons hired clandestinely by the CIA to become trained-in-the-USA terrorists. Most of these psychopathic thugs were clearly and legally unqualified to be issued visas. There is every reason to believe the “Visas for Terrorists” program remains fully operative today. It takes a lot of expendable terrorists to run a global terrorism op.
Springmann places his experiences both within the context of the historical roots of the U.S. Empire and within its current ongoing global destabilization project.
“This tale,” the author states near the beginning, “is a sordid sketch of backstabbing, disloyalty, double crosses, faithlessness, falsity, perfidy, sellouts, treachery, and betrayal.”
And that only covers the bureaucratic aspect. Even more sobering is his sketch of human rights violations: torture, assassinations, massacres including bombings of markets, invasions and occupations of countries, destabilization of nations and regions.
Then there’s the financial side: widespread criminality, resource theft, bribery, diversion of funds, illicit drug dealing and more.
Not to mention the flouting of international laws. This dimension includes gross infringements on national sovereignty, the casual violation of treaties and ho-hum everyday general lawlessness, risking even the threat of nuclear annihilation.
All this before taking into account the moral dimension, in which trashing the Ten Commandments is just an opening trifle.
“My story shows how things really work,” Springmann writes, correctly. In the book’s 250 pages he names names, dates, times and places – presumably opening himself up to lawsuits, should there be anything here that the individuals named deem libelous. They might think twice, however, since Springmann is a lawyer by profession and knows his way around the Empire’s capital – as well as some of its outlying ramparts such as Stuttgart, New Delhi and especially Jeddah.
Stinging in itself, Springmann’s book also can be read as an authenticating companion to Michel Chossudovsky’s Towards a World War III Scenario (2012) and The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” Against Humanity (2015). Along the way, both authors deal, to one extent or another, with the ideological, hubristic and increasingly bellicose role of the Harper government as handmaiden to the American Empire, including military involvements in Libya, Serbia and the Ukraine. Springmann necessarily refers very little to Canada, but to read his account of the cowardly and unnecessary rain of death inflicted on Libya, for instance, is to be obliged as a Canadian to think of Harper’s enthusiasm and pride in having this country share in the slaughter and destabilization carried out under the Orwellian “responsibility to protect” notion.
Springmann quotes Maximilian C. Forte who notes that before the attack Libya enjoyed the highest Human Development Index (a UN measurement of well-being) in all Africa. “After Western military forces destroyed the country the Index only records the steep collapse of all indicators of well-being. More Libyans were killed with intervention than without. It was about control, about militarizing Africa,” Forte argues.
What Springmann brings uniquely to the table is his firsthand knowledge of precisely how the USA recruits terrorists (no quotation marks needed), sends them to the USA for training and then deploys them to carry out murders, torture, bombings and more. The bloody mayhem carried out by these thousands of paid mercenaries – ostensibly beheading-habituated “jihadists” fighting against democracy, decency and the USA and its “allies – is planned, organized and funded by none other than the same USA and its allies. It’s a global false flag operation – the largest by far in history.
As Springmann on page 65 writes of the “Visas for Terrorists Program:”

This was not an ad hoc operation, conceived and carried out in response to a specific foreign policy issue. Rather, it was another of too many CIA efforts to destroy governments, countries, and politicians disfavored by the American “establishment” in its “bipartisan” approach to matters abroad. Whether it was opposing the imaginary evils of communism, the fictitious malevolence of Islam, or the invented wickedness of Iran, America and its intelligence services, brave defenders of “The City Upon A Hill,” sought out and created fear and loathing of peoples and countries essentially engaged in efforts to better their lives and improve their political world. Along the way, Agency-sponsored murders, war crimes, and human rights violations proved to be good business. Jobs for the Clandestine Service (people who recruit and run spies), sales of weapons and aircraft, as well as the myriad items needed to control banks, countries and peoples all provided income for and benefits to American companies.

That the American Empire has been able to carry out such a massive illegal program for so long is the saddest of commentaries on how deep the rot is, how effective the secrecy, how complicit the media.
As to the span of dangerous widespread deception, Springmann notes that Rahul Bedi wrote in Jane’s Defence Weekly on September 14, 2001 that beginning in 1980 “thousands [of mujahideen] were … brought to America and made competent in terrorism by Green Berets and SEALS at US government East Coast facilities, trained in guerilla warfare and armed with sophisticated weapons.”
The point is made repeatedly that Al Qaeda and now ISIS/ISIL/the Islamic State are essentially “Made in USA” entities, brought into being and organized for the Empire’s purposes. Among the elements that make possible such a vast fraud are deception, compartmentalization and secrecy. Springmann quotes attorney Pat Frascogna, “a man with FOIA expertise,” about secrecy and its purpose:

Thus whether it be learning the dirty and unethical business practices of a company or the secrets of our government, the same deployment of denials and feigning ignorance about what is really going on are the all-too-common methods used to keep the truth from the light of day.
Langley recruited the Arab-Afghans so clandestinely that the terrorists didn’t know they had been recruited. They thought that they had found a battlefield on their own, or through the Internet or through Twitter or through television. The Agency didn’t even bother to tell the non-CIA Americans involved in giving them US visas about they were doing…

Frascogna’s observation intersects with Springmann’s on-the-job experiences as a visa officer in Jeddah starting in 1987. Springmann was repeatedly overruled when he turned down disqualified applicants for U.S. visas. He writes:

As I later learned to my dismay, the visa applicants were recruits for the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union’s armed forces. Further, as time went by, the fighters, trained in the United States, went on to other battlefields: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. They worked with the American intelligence services and the State Department to destabilize governments the United States opposed. While it’s no secret, most knowledgeable people still refuse to talk about this agenda.

As Springmann learned, “the average percentage of intelligence officers to real diplomats at a given Foreign Service post is about one in three. My experience in Jeddah, Stuttgart, and New Delhi might place it higher—at least 50 percent, if not more.” According to the Anti-CIA Club of Diplomats: Spooks in U.S. Foreign Service [sic], a twelve-page, 1983 Canadian publication (see namebase.org), the percentage is 60 percent.
“At Jeddah,” Springmann writes, “to the best of my knowledge, out of some twenty US citizens assigned to the consulate, only three people, including myself, worked for the Department of State. The rest were CIA or NSA officials or their spouses.” Elsewhere Springmann suggests that essentially the CIA runs the State Department, and that this is true of many other U.S. government departments and agencies as well. It seems that it’s almost impossible to over-estimate the reach of the CIA’s tentacles or the overweening treason of its nonstop black ops and unconstitutional operations domestically.
Springmann toward the end of the book refers to the beginnings of the CIA. It’s interesting for this reviewer to think that he was 13 years of age in 1947 when U.S. president Harry Truman agreed with the National Security Council (NSC) to secretly create the CIA and NSA. I remember that in my teenage years a few of my peers said there “was something” called “the CIA.” This was around the time a few people also said there “was something” called “the Mafia.” The consensus was that both ideas were very far-fetched.
In 1948 Truman approved yet another NSC initiative, providing for “propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage,
demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerillas, and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.” That’s a tabula rasa if there ever was one: a license for lawlessness.
The CIA’s twisted hits have just kept coming. It’s worth noting that Truman didn’t singlehandedly initiate this monstrosity. The dark recesses of the Deep State, as Peter Dale Scott calls it, are where the demonic entity was spawned. Ever since, Frankenstein’s monster has been a harmless schoolboy by comparison.
To read of the rape of Libya with active Canadian military complicity makes for difficult reading. The lies are piled as high as the bodies, and these two categories are insuperably paired.
Equally sordid, especially in light of Stephen Harper’s enthusiasm for expanding the war on Russia (the economic sanctions and the diplomatic exclusion of Russia from the G8 are forms of warfare, not to mention decades of covert* military incursion by the West onto the territory of the former USSR and now the Russian Federation, as described in Visas for Al Qaeda) is to read some of the history of the Ukraine. “The West’s” meddling in the Ukraine has a long illicit pedigree. As Springmann writes:

It seems that the CIA had problems [in the immediate post World War II period] distinguishing between underground groups and above-ground armies. Langley used Marshall Plan money to support a guerrilla force in the Ukraine, called “Nightingale.” Originally established in 1941 by Nazi Germany’s occupation forces, and working on their behalf, “Nightingale” and its terrorist arm (made up of ultranationalist Ukrainians as well as Nazi collaborators) murdered thousands of Jews, Soviet Union supporters, and Poles.

Even relatively recently, since the so-called Orange revolution in the Ukraine made events there eminently newsworthy, I can’t remember seeing in the mainstream media a single substantial article dealing with the historical relationships between the Ukraine and Russia going back to World War II, nor such an article laying out the history of the involvement –overt or covert – of “the West” in the Ukraine.
Instead, we see the surreal ahistorical likes of the top headline in The New York Times International Weekly for June 13-14, “Russia is Sowing Disunity,” by Peter Baker and Steven Erlanger. They report breathlessly in the lead paragraph: “Moscow is leveraging its economic power, financing European political parties and movements, and spreading alternative accounts of the Ukraine conflict, according the American and European officials.
True to the narrative of “the West” as a pitiful giant facing a powerful and expansionist Russia, the writers posit that the “consensus against Russian aggression” is “fragile.
The drift of this NYT yarn, typical of Western propaganda across the board, is that there remains in effect a behemoth “Soviet empire” surreptitiously shipping “Moscow gold” to dupes in “green movements” and so on. Even a former American national intelligence officer on Russia, Fiona Hill, now at the Brookings Institution, told the writers: “The question is how much hard evidence does anyone have?
Maybe this NYT propaganda, like its clones across the mainstream media, is not ahistorical after all. The story comes across rather as an historical relic of the Cold War – found in a time capsule in a fallout shelter – that the NYT editors decided to publish as a prank. A sausage.
* Military action by “the West” has not always been covert. Springmann notes that American and Japanese soldiers were dispatched to Russia in 1917 to squelch the fledgling Russian revolution. The soldiers were part of what was called the Allied Expeditionary Force. Winston Churchill for his part said: “We must strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib.” Springmann might have noted that Canadian soldiers were part of the AEF.


  1. So glad this guy wrote a book! I remember reading years ago his claims about how his authority was overridden when he was at the consulate in Jeddeh. Thanks for posting! –Paul

    1. I actually didn’t realize his story was known years ago. But I agree that it’s great he has put the whole story into a book, because no doubt it’s just as relevant to what’s happening today as it was when it happened.

      1. I’ve seen his account cited a few places. Seems like Michael Ruppert was maybe the first author I read who mentioned Springman’s story. I look forward to reading it! –Paul

    2. I am shamefully late in thanking all the wonderful people for their highly supportive comments about my book. I can only plead being caught up in marketing the book and fending off invalid criticism of it.
      I owe a great debt of gratitude to Barrie Zwicker and Craig McKee, the one for writing such a great review and the other for having the courage to publish it.

  2. In a way it shouldn’t matter but along with all the other damning info what does Springman have to say about 9/11 being an inside job? Indeed, it was he who said long ago how he was forced to grant visas to the 9/11 hijackers, which is powerful evidence for our side, but does he come out and say like David Ray Griffith or Craig McKee or Paul Craig Roberts or you Barrie, does he say it? You didn’t say he said it in your review and I am thinking that Springman like a number of other brave reporters and whistleblowers who out the CIA, who have the guts to say what they say but not guts enough to say, or even mention that the towers fall and the disappearing airliners and all the other shit I have been fretting over for 14 years was part of an inside job? I mean look at Snowdon, for crying out loud. Even he hasn’t said it. If weren’t for all the compelling info the truth movement has gathered I am compelled to begin to believe the incompetence theories of OTC, that 9/11 was a great big whoopsy.

    1. “If weren’t for all the compelling info the truth movement has gathered I am compelled to begin to believe the incompetence theories of OTC, that 9/11 was a great big whoopsy.”~Jimbo
      That sentence is an oxymoron. It has been 14 years man, when are you going to make up your mind?

      1. I think he is saying that he knows 911 was an inside job based on the evidence that the truth movement has uncovered. I’m not trying to put words in his mouth but I think that’s what he’s trying to articulate. I have a number of friends in real life who do not subscribe to the truth movement based on their paradigm, but probably would if they were to get over their laziness and fears and actually review the evidence. part of their world view is that people would talk, and when the whole Edward Snowden thing happened, I have little doubt that one of the thought that pops through their minds was, “I noticed he’s not taking advantage of his international spotlight to embrace the 911 truth movement. surely if those truthers had something to their claims, Snowden would be right on board. So this confirms my world view of 9/11 being a big whoops.”

        1. Sorry Gutsy, but your “interpretation” doesn’t make any more sense to me than the original oxymoron.
          If you actually take what Snowden says, he is not commenting on the truth of 9/11 being a state provocation or not. He is speaking from a higher perspective, perhaps out of a personal arrogance, that there are more important truths to be resolved within the information that he has provided himself.
          And regardless of that, what one knows from ones own studies must trump any other ‘opinion’, be it official ‘authorities’ or self proclaimed authorities.
          It is after all the evidence, not the opinions made about it that should interest the lucid and critically thinking mind.

        2. By the way the ‘big whoops,” is the most persistent Revetment of Intelligence Operations, their first fall-back position, combined with “Blowback”, enough confusion can be slathered over the conceptualization of what the evidence actually holds.
          The best method of research is to keep your eye on the ball; the real evidence, and refrain from chasing shadows.

    2. Venus Anadyomene
      As from a green zinc coffin, a woman’s
      Head with brown hair heavily pomaded
      Emerges slowly and stupidly from an old bathtub,
      With bald patches rather badly hidden;
      Then the fat gray neck, broad shoulder-blades
      Sticking out; a short back which curves in and bulges;
      Then the roundness of the buttocks seems to take off;
      The fat under the skin appears in slabs:
      The spine is a bit red; and the whole thing has a smell
      Strangely horrible; you notice especially
      Odd details you’d have to see with a magnifying glass…
      The buttocks bear two engraved words: CLARA VENUS;
      —And that whole body moves and extends its broad rump
      Hideously beautiful with an ulcer on the anus.

    3. I appreciate Jimbo’s comments. However, my book was focused on personal experience as well as extensive research on subjects in which I was knowledgeable, to wit: the U.S. government’s Visas for Terrorists Program and its creation of what I call the Arab-Afghan Legion.
      I did not issue visas to the 9/11 hijackers (Shayna Steinger did that) nor was I ever a CIA official. While there are innumerable questions about Sept. 11, I cannot possibly comment definitively on them–I am not a structural engineer or architect nor have I investigated the matter (of which I have little direct information)
      What is important in my book (and in Barrie Zwicker’s most kind review of it) is that it is a sordid tale of an unaccountable government manufacturing imaginary crises to destabilize and destroy free and independent states whose only crime is that they are different from America. People should focus on that and how to bring the U.S. government under control. To concentrate on minutiae or side issues, such as gun control, plays directly into the hands of people who want the status quo to continue.

      1. “While there are innumerable questions about Sept. 11, I cannot possibly comment definitively on them–I am not a structural engineer or architect nor have I investigated the matter (of which I have little direct information)”
        That’s the rub. Direct information or not, how can you not know enough to at least, if not in your book, to comment here about the inside job aspect of 9/11? It’s in your wheelhouse. It’s all over the internet. Has been for years. And yet …. I would like to hear it from a guy like you, an actual government insider. It sounds to me like if you take that one step beyond laying out the shocking facts as you have into (shriek) speculating then you will lose something valuable like your current job or worse. But that is hard to believe when you have already so boldly written what you have. And if it is true that you don’t know about the 9/11 conspiracy you could not have come to a better site that Truth and Shadows.

        1. And if it is true that you don’t know about the 9/11 conspiracy you could not have come to a better site that Truth and Shadows.”~Jimbo
          I couldn’t agree more Mr Springmann, If you want to know what happened on 9/11, there is no better source for that on the web than Truth & Shadows. The stories and commentary here are quite sophisticated. Check it out, there is much to learn here…

      2. Hello Mr Springmann,
        Thank you for all of your efforts to bring the Visa issue to light. It is an important and illuminating piece of the overall puzzle that the 9/11 case is.
        You comment, ” People should focus on that and how to bring the U.S. government under control.”
        “As the incomparable historian of education John Taylor Gatto noted in his seminal essay, “The Public School Nightmare: Why fix a system designed to destroy individual thought?”
        Gatto was speaking to the system of Public Schooling in this particular instance. But one may apply his question/remark to the larger system itself, that is the core concept of “government”.
        My assertion is that ‘government is a racket’. I define “government” as the system that holds the monopoly on “legitimated use of force”. Such a system inevitably becomes the collectivist nightmare of ‘statism’.
        ~Willy Whitten \\][//

        1. I think the best place to start for Mr Springmann would be the most obvious and telling event that day; the demolition of WTC7.

      3. @J.Michael Springmann
        I think if you want to find out the facts about 911 especially about the avaiation aspect of the event , you should watch Barrie Zwickers internet videos made in early 2002 and in 2004 and listen to the numerous interviews he has given since. You should then check them against the actual facts to see how they stack up.

        1. “the actual facts”~Agent Wright
          And just what are these “actual facts” Wright? We have been waiting for years for a straight answer from you. All we ever get is the same gross generalities and your tepid arguments from authority.
          I am quite sure that Mr Springmann will see through your stooge mask.

          1. @hr1 I know what you are afraid of. The actual facts surely must be in Barrie Zwickers news specials..

          2. “The actual facts surely must be in Barrie Zwickers news specials..”~Agent Wright
            They certainly are Wright. So there is nothing I am “afraid of”. Especially your transparently lame game. The one that you have played out here for at least three years.
            If Mr Springmann wishes he can go through the many pages here on this site and review those facts as well as your desperate attempts at spinning them off into the official woowoo.
            Let him be my guest. We have several excellent expositions on the demolition of WTC7 right here on T&S. Especially the ones that take apart that phony NIST Report on Bldg 7.

          3. @Hr1 That is what you are afraid of, Mr. Springman going through Barrie Zwickers news specials from 2002 and 2004 and his many interviews since and comparing them with the facts. So instead you want him to go through the pages here to get the same distortions of the facts from you that Barrie Zwicker has been presenting from day one. I,m sure Mr. Springman will be impressed by Barrie Zwickers ,the plane flew over the Pentagon, idea.

          4. Look, Wright, you’ve been spewing crap about Barrie for quite a while now, and it’s always the same stuff. You’ve made your point, which, of course, I do not accept. Stick to the topic of the articles, not to your vendetta against Mr. Zwicker, or you’ll be gone. By the way, Barrie’s not the only one who believes a plane flew over the Pentagon.

          5. @Craig McKee Since what Mr. Springmann knows about the evidence about 911 has been brought up and commented on by Barrie Zwicker, suggesting where Mr. Springmann could find that evidence in Barrie Zwicker’s own news specials is hardly off topic, especially since you think they are a reliable source of information.
            I didn’t say Barrie Zwicker was the only one who thinks a plane flew over the Pentagon, but it is something he believes is true.
            The fact that Barrie Zwicker has made a comment here about me being an agent , maybe a double agent etc., sounds a bit off topic to me especially since I have never met Barrie Zwicker in my life, am not an have never been married to a Canadian, have never been to Calgary and have only twice been in Canada, on holiday, when I had never even heard of Barrie Zwicker let alone met him.

          6. “I,m sure Mr. Springman will be impressed by Barrie Zwickers ,the plane flew over the Pentagon, idea.”~Agent Wright
            The plane flying over the Pentagon is hardly Mr Zwicker’s idea by himself. The North of Citgo flight path demands that answer considering the trajectory of the plane compared to the damage path. And this is all explained in great detail on T&S as well.
            Your proposing that I am afraid of what Mr Springmann might discover here is utter bullshit Wright. This is more of your stooge spin – every word you write her is bullshit Wright.
            So I am not going to patronize your nonsense any further.

          7. I am appalled that anyone can question Barrie Zwicker’s journalistic ethics. I have had the distinct honor and pleasure of knowing him for years. Would to God that there were more real newsmen like him.

          8. Interesting about Mr. Wright.
            I first (and only) met him personally at his suggestion in Calgary around 2006-2007.
            We had a very pleasant conversation (about 9/11 probably mainly, of course) at a
            restaurant/bar. He came across as genuine and personable. As I recall, he said his wife was/is a Canadian, from Alberta.
            At some point later he began to come out as a blatant agent. Apparently his handlers have assigned him to target me.
            The odd part is that he does it so badly. It’s almost as if he’s a double if not a triple agent.
            Is he auditioning for a part in a movie based on a John Le Carre novel?

          9. What a funny surprise to find that Barrie has actually met the infamous Agent Wright!
            Barrie’s remark, “The odd part is that he does it so badly. It’s almost as if he’s a double if not a triple agent,” is interesting as well. As I have noticed that Agent Wright often seems like he is brain damaged, simply repeating something someone might say to him… and making no comment on it… At other times he is simply obnoxiously irrational under color of rationality.
            One thing is certain, Agent Wright is focused on Barrie Zwicker as his main target. Whatever is up, I am pretty certain Wright does have handlers. I would also posit he has a very unpleasant life because of whatever situation got him into the trade. Bribery and blackmail is business as usual where Wright’s game comes from.

          10. @Barrie Zwicker: Since I have never met you on any occasion anywhere maybe you would like to correct that statement you have made about me. If you are interested in actually debating the points i have brought here in Truth and Shadows ,which you have constantly avoided doing, then I am open to that in any forum you choose.

          11. Mr Zwicker:
            I would be remiss if I didn’t ask… Mr. Wright claims to have never met you. Would you mind clarifying your comment and expand on your recollection of your encounter? Are you sure it was this Wright? Because, as the Facebook link on his handle suggests, it is not his real name. – Thank you.

          12. @J.Michael Springman If you read my comment I was very specific about what I said Barrie Zwicker as I have always been. . If you do as I suggested you will see the point I am making.

          13. @J.Michael Springman If you read my comment I was very specific about what I said about Barrie Zwicker as I have always been. If you do as I suggested you will see the point I am making.

        2. I am not sure if quoting one’s own comment on the same blog is against commenting etiquette. But, I would like to share an excerpt from one of my comments not so long ago.

          “….So, in walks Wright, or one of the other usual suspects, drops some sort of recycled stink bomb, and the discussion quickly takes a familiar turn in the direction of a cockfight. You can prove him wrong, or impose and nsult the hell out of him with your comments, but what does he care really??? He just goes away, having worn the other cocks out, diluted the discussion and inflicted a few wounds… “


          1. Proving Wright wrong…. An interesting proposition. Has a ring of newspeak to it.
            The truth is, Mr. Wright, I neither have the capability nor any interest in doing what you are asking me to do. I have been reading your input on these pages for god knows how long, and feel I have developed a pretty good understanding of your style, tactics, intentions and purpose.
            I will not go into a point by point analysis of my perception of you here. But, if anything, the amount of verbal abuse you seem to be able to tolerate from most of the regulars on an almost daily basis seems to speak volumes to your determination about stirring the pot here at T&S even though your success rate in being able to convince anyone is around zero.
            I am not suggesting that you do (or should) care about my perception of your A.Wright persona… But if you’d care to explain what your position is about this blog in particular, and 9/11 truth in general, I would be very interested to hear. Because, for me, whether you are wright or wrong about any or all of your comments takes a distant second place, way behind the issue of your motives and how you see your own function here at T&S.

          2. @lilaleo Just as a limited response to your post for now..
            “the amount of verbal abuse you seem to be able to tolerate from most of the regulars on an almost daily basis seems to speak volumes..”
            What it speaks volumes for is the low level of debate and paucity of the arguments against what I say. Resorting to verbal abuse is a sign of something and it’s not that of logical intelligent argument or a desire to engage in it. I try not to resort to it since personal abuse is something anyone can engage in. It proves nothing. Of course also the regulars here can engage in pretty much any personal abuse they like ,but different rules apply to me.

          3. “..but different rules apply to me.”
            There are no rules Wright, only sincerity and bullshit. And again you have dropped a load of bullshit on T&S. And you will frame this comment as “verbal abuse”, but it’s not. It is just another sincere statement of truth.
            You don’t “tolerate” anything Wright. You whine and bitch and moan while pretending at “logical intelligent argument”.
            Lilaleo’s remarks were meant to convey that the “regulars” here see through your bullshit games. You are a transparent apologist for the lies and deception of illegitimate authority; a common toadyboy, a pathetic stooge. We’ve got you pegged, deal with it.

          4. @HR1 That’s a relief , I thought it was personal abuse and Lilaleo thought so too. I’m glad that , as usual, you were able to interpret someone elses comments for me. When is the personal abuse going to start? That’s the thing anyone can do remember, and it doesn’t prove anything , except the desire not to engage in logical or intelligent argument.

          5. I seem to have left my comments open to interpretation. And, two very different ones at that…
            If I had to choose between the two, I’d be leaning towards HR1’s, but it is not entirely that, either.
            A. Wright…
            Here’s a blog… Penned, edited and moderated by one of the most credible, respected people/writers in the field of 9/11 research and analysis. He maintains his site with dignity, fairness, and perseverance. As for the frequent commenters and followers of the blog, they seem to be pretty much a bunch of passionate, well intended characters, some of whom also write, research and simply exercise critical thinking in observing the world around them. Having been in this “quest for truth” for long enough time, and having amassed tremendous amount of information and knowledge, most of them have a sharp eye for bullcrap, and they do not hesitate to quash (and usually obliterate) any disinfo, misinfo, provocation, trolling, shilling, etc. with fair, fact and evidence based arguments. But, also, especially those who have lost all patience, reply with a keyboard-lashing with four letter words (In HR1’s case, sometimes 12-22 letter words ;-})
            So… In this context, my question to you is “Why exactly are you here?” If I did not have a deep suspicion about your motives, I’d say I actually much prefer a blog with some dissenting opinion (and facts?). Since he does not block or ban anyone, I assume Craig does as well… But….
            Do you feel that there is some ulterior motive to all this fact-finding and commentary here on this blog so you feel you need to watch it and correct it when necessary?
            Do you follow other 9/11 related venues and make similar arguments there as well, or is this the blog of choice for you?
            In all the time you have been following and contributing to this blog, do you recall having made a successful argument and changed Craig’s or other commenters’ opinion? Do you remember any instances of changing your own opinion after having read something here?
            Do you feel that, if, by chance, your above comment (which is open to interpretation by the way) has some validity to it, that your countless and persistent comments of the past will also gain some credibility?
            By the way, these are not rhetorical questions.
            So, knowing the history of your discourse, I do not believe the “verbal abuse” I mention is due to the content of your comments, or the unwillingness to argue with your comments on people’s part. Perhaps you feel that this kind of exclusionary behavior by the T&S crowd somehow validates your stance on the issues discussed. I would argue that it does not…
            I’m almost certain that if you brought to the table something that actually challenges or pokes holes in what people know and believe in, you will most certainly receive a rebuttal at the very least. Certain people might be more resistant to challenging new info (especially coming from you), but I can assure you that there are many people here who would recognize it as a valid point or argument, and treat it as such if, indeed, it is a valid point. After all, the 9/11 truth, or any truth for that matter, is not dependent on minute details, or what any one individual says or has said in the past.
            By default, more people are wrong more times on any given subject than the other way around. The whole point is that one needs to recognize it, admit it and act on it when they are faced with contrary facts, opinion, etc. But, in almost 15 years, after having witnessed history unfold, after being exposed to ALL you read on this blog and elsewhere, the fact that you have not seen anything wrong with the official narrative and all the lies surrounding the event, not even an ounce, is where you lose ALL your credibility in front of people who take pride in their critical thinking, research, impartiality and passion for seeking truth. Unless you can make a convincing argument about how you have managed to stick to the absurdness of this official narrative after all these years, you have none of these attributes, nor any credibility in my book.

          6. How about free coffee & donuts for all to compensate for putting up with your tepid bullshit?

    4. Jimbo raises a great question when he asks: “In a way it shouldn’t matter but along with all the other damning info what does Springmann have to say about 9/11 being an inside job?”
      I’m glad the author himself has waded in, in response, on this site.
      For my part, as the reviewer in this case, I made a more or less conscious decision to either relate this book to 9/11Truth in a substantial way, or leave out mention altogether. I’m not sure that was wise. If I were doing the review again (which in part I’m doing here) I might have chosen a middle course.
      I’d noted while reading the book that there were only two references to 9/11. (BTW I’m one of those who reads book indexes closely because they’re so revealing both for what they include and perhaps especially for what’s omitted. The index of Springmann’s book accordingly omits mention of 9/11 but contains 136 mentions of the CIA. That IMHO is a commendable plus.)
      The first reference is indirect. Springmann quotes from the book Triple Cross by Peter Lance. I am not a fan of Lance and did not become one on the basis of his quotes in Visas for Al Qaeda.
      To digess somewhat Lance is quoted as holding that the downing of TWA flight 800 in 1996 was accomplished by a bomb aboard. Anyone who has read chapter 5 of Into the Buzzsaw, edited by Kristina Borjesson, cannot come away with any other conclusion than that the cover-up involved was of the fact that the doomed flight was hit by a U.S. Navy missile. The bomb theory fails totally and exonerates the American military. It appears it was gross incompetence, but the massive multi-agency coverup that followed was anything but incompetent. It was surely one of the worst lying cover-your-ass operations in history.
      Then Springmann quotes Lance is as writing that the 9/11 Commission report was a “gover-up” intended to “fit [the] limited story the commission staff was prepared to tell.” In other words, on 9/11 Lance appears to be LIHOP. Not good enough.
      When I came to the second reference, on page 62, I first wrote “oh oh.” The relevant paragraph goes:
      “Small beginnings? Unconnected events? Maybe. But, from tiny acorns, mighty oaks do, indeed, grow. For example, consider all those visas I was required to issue in Jeddah, the place where the September 11 hijackers got their papers to come to the United States. Are some really large buildings missing from New York’s skyline?”
      I realized he was endorsing the official story. But my notes continue — verbatim: “he saw the details [issuance of passports to terrorists] up close. But in this mike is like the blindfolded man trying to figure out what an elephant is. Other places he names the elephant. HOWEVER, his proof of the Jeddah Operation could explain why Saudis were blamed for 9/11. Jeddah was not only the spigot for funneling black-bearded middle eastern types named mohammed el this and that, to be trained in the USA on how to murder and more. It also provided a handy list of patsies. In a word, it appears to have been a matter of bureaucratic convenience, since there apparently was a shortage of afghan terrorists-in-training.”
      But that was it for 9/11. I went on to read the whole book and decided to give Springmann a pass, since I’d be taking a tiny fragment of his book (essentially, his acceptance of “September 11 hijackers”) and having to build an edifice of criticism on it.
      I have a framework for my rationale in this case and some others like it. Brutally condensed, it’s my view that those who don’t come out as Truthers fall into several categories.
      One is the truly ignorant. Then there are those who know or suspect something is wrong with the official story but won’t say so, or look further, etc. These folks IMHO are best considered within a framework of psychological analysis, such as that conducted by Frances Shure. This analysis involves fear, denial, self interest, etc., etc.
      Then there are those who know but make a strategic decision to stay mum. I’m thinking (and assuming) particularly of Snowden. These would be those who possess very important otherwise-unheard and/or unpublished info, the disclosure of which is their main agenda (or even their raison d’etre). They are not dumb; they know what happens to Truthers. We are vilified, etc. and neutralized or worse in the conventional zeitgeist. So they make a determination that to protect their main agenda they have to take a pass endorsing 9/11T until some indeterminate future time and/or situation.
      There’s much more to my determination/invention of these categories and my assessments as to how and why various people fit into the various ones. I’ll only add here that the worst category comprises those who not only are not Truthers but who put down Truthers (and therefore truths) viciously. And the worst of the worst in this category are the left gatekeepers, and the worst individual in this category is Noam Chomsky. (I wrote 15,000 words in my book Towers of Deception for the chapter entitled “The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left.”
      Springmann has with some humility stated that he has not yet studied 9/11 to an extent that he feels competent or justified in pronouncing upon it. But it’s notable that he’s never to my knowledge bad-mouthed a Truther, but rather is favourably disposed to us.
      I’ve reached the general conclusion that some good people have important information and opinions to share, other than on the subject of 9/11. If they proceed courageously to do so, and do not in any way attack Truthers, I’m not prepared to be judgmental about the place they’re in or the path they’ve chosen. We have our hands full enough dealing with the nay-sayers, the vicious anti-Truthers, the supporters of the blood-stained establishment and the like. My guess is that if Mike Springmann decides to home in on 9/11 evidence he’ll emerge from the process as much a Truther as you and me, Jimbo.
      Meanwhile, I’ll march within anyone going in the general direction of truth and justice and regarding that Mike Springmann has made a hell of a contribution with Visas for Al Qaeda.

  3. Hello Barrie,
    Thanks for this excellent book review. Like others who have commented here, I too wonder about such whistleblowers who “only go so far.” Snowden and Assange are particular disappointments. But given what Snowden revealed (videos of Americans indiscriminately gunning down Iraqi civilians, the mass spying program, etc.), he at least as my partial respect.
    Plus, such individuals as Springmann and Snowden give much credence to us in the 9/11 Truth Movement without directly acknowledging us. I would love for Mr. Springmann use his position of credibility to talk about the demolitions of the 3 WTC buildings, and the plane crashes that didn’t occur at the Pentagon or in Shanksville, but the fact that he talks of the CIA/NSA clandestinely recruiting and training the terrorists should stop and give pause to any level-headed person. Most non-truthers likely regard the idea of our forces actually recruiting and training the terrorists to be as far-fetched an idea as the controlled demolitions or the staged scene at the Pentagon. Honestly, look at how many Truthers (myself included) started our journey down the rabbit hole with Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004. While that film overtly promoted “incompetence,” it threw enough facts at you about 9/11 circumstantial evidence that a reasonable person could jump to the LIHOP conclusion. From there, they researched 9/11 more in depth, discovered DRG, stumbled on In Plane Site and Loose Change and Boom! They were fired-up truth activists.
    However, Mr. Springmann gives us a gift with this book, in that he uses his ex-CIA status to reveal how these “Islamic terrorist” boogeymen are recruited and trained by US (and its allies) clandestine forces. (I say this based on Barrie’s review; I’m guessing most of us here, perhaps ALL of us here besides Barrie, haven’t read the book.)
    Some months back on Facebook, I posted a meme about how we generally should be skeptical of the government because they’ve been known to lie in the past. I think this meme might have alluded to either Tonkin or maybe the 1953 CIA Iran coup. A friend of a friend responded (I’m paraphrasing; these aren’t exact words): “Yes, it’s true the US government hasn’t told the truth all the time, but we definitely do need to be using our military power in the here-and-now, since ISIS is terrorizing the region by beheading people.”
    It is my hope, and an unlikely one to come true, that this individual will read this book review thanks to my sharing of it, and if so, this person needs to read the following about 100 times:
    “The point is made repeatedly that Al Qaeda and now ISIS/ISIL/the Islamic State are essentially “Made in USA” entities, brought into being and organized for the Empire’s purposes. Among the elements that make possible such a vast fraud are deception, compartmentalization and secrecy.”

    1. “……. Like others who have commented here, I too wonder about such whistleblowers who “only go so far.” Snowden and Assange are particular disappointments. But given what Snowden revealed (videos of Americans indiscriminately gunning down Iraqi civilians, the mass spying program, etc.), he at least as my partial respect.” – Adam Syed
      Adam, we don’t really know each other (although, as a long time reader of this blog, I feel I know you) but, I can assure you that Snowden is very much undeserving of even your “partial respect”.
      Blowers seem to come in all sorts colors and stripes, and it is usually extremely difficult to determine which team they are batting for. I do not claim to be able to overcome this difficulty, but there are a few aspects of the phenomenon that I can recognize.
      Some, like Snowden and Assange, blow their whistles so hard, and enjoy the benefit of full media echo chamber, that one can’t help thinking that they are tasked with drowning the sound of the many small whistles being blown all over the place by lesser known, less publicized people.
      In the cases of both of these men, they have been catapulted to stardom by the significance given to them by the media, as well as our own government. Whereas, for true whistleblowers, the official reaction is to publicly ignore and character-assassinate, and privately intimidate, threaten and/or eliminate. The compromised media billed both men as nothing short of geniuses, and they were both allowed to get up on the world stage and propagate their altruistic motives, and were crowned with the term “hero” for the consumption of disgruntled masses.
      It would also be fair to say that the revelations of neither of these characters have done any real harm to the global power structure, and have yielded zero actionable info, produced no arrests, and exposed zero truth on matters that really matter.
      As to the question of why some whistle blowers “only go so far”… Once again, the reasons for this are multiple and the intentions vary. A lot of the “limited” whistle blowers do not even attempt to know everything and support every conspiracy theory because they know well that this would easily put an end to their credibility when any one of those “theories” is successfully discredited. This approach could be considered diametrically opposite to the practice of the famous professor charlatans and water purification systems and seed salesmen out there, who don’t think for a moment before they endorse any kookie theory no mater how scientifically unsound. While the charlatans’ and the disinfo agents’ motive is to discredit the developing narrative by poisoning the well, the well-intended whistle blowers’ intention is to make sure they guard the credibility of the nugget of truth they are exposing.
      But, then again, there are also “limited” whistle blowers who are tasked with exposing a certain amount to gain credibility and become the forever-gate-keeper of the area they are meant be exposing. I am not really certain what the actual numbers may be, but it certainly feels like the majority of whistle-blowers who survive the process are in this category. The frustrating part is that it is almost impossible to know… For example, I suppose we can agree that true revelations about the CIA could only come from an insider (current or past). But, since it is said “you don’t leave the company unless the company leaves you”, the same exact attribute, being an ex-CIA operative, also brings about the suspicion that s/he may still be operating under agency instructions.
      I do not know enough to comment on Mr. Springmann’s revelations, although I do remember his comments about the visas from way back when. I remember thinking that this info, no matter how truthful and incriminating of the CIA helps give credibility to the 19 hijacker narrative, enforcing the official storyline that muslim terrorists were the ones to have carried out the hijackings and the attacks. I am assuming that many of us have encountered people who find CIA’s actions “understandable” since they were fighting terrrrizm, and that the attacks were simply a blow back… Not unlike how people who are too scared to peek into the rabbit hole accepting that Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA on one hand, but explain away everything by saying “they turned on us” on the other.

    1. “I will say this much now, this situation is much bigger than one 21 year old kid hopped up on personal hate. It has all the hallmarks of an organized provocation.”
      That is where my mind went as soon as I heard. I didn’t want to think that and chose to think this was a lone nut racist and that was that.
      Nonetheless (sigh), I just checked at the Memory Hole Blog where Dr. Tracy shows that 29 million dollars has already been paid from the govt. to the victims’ families, the implication being hush money. Further down in the letters is a video showing how the Charlotte SC office of Homeland Security scheduled an active shooter drill for around the time of the actual shooting. There’s more there. Oh man.
      What gets me, or what I don’t get is they say mass shootings like Charlotte and Sandy Hook are staged to provoke an outcry for more gun control. 9/11 truthers say 9/11 was staged to get the country behind war and that makes sense. (Though I tend to think it was an elaborate heist.) Is it because I favor gun control that I find that excuse weak tea? Or are the conspiracy theorists fishing for a reason and … How about gun control? Or is it really about gun control?

      1. “Or are the conspiracy theorists fishing for a reason and … How about gun control? Or is it really about gun control?”~Jimbo
        It is as it is always; about the agenda of divide & conquer, which is driven by the Hegelian Dialectic, which is a cycle of manipulated controversies and resolutions which has created perpetual war and a perpetual strategy of tension.
        This issue is about “gun control” only as far as a confused controversy plays out having to do with many aspects. One aspect is that of convincing the people that there are no inalienable rights to Liberty, that such rights are negotiable, that they can be compromised. They cannot be compromised.
        One can be deluded to the point that one can think that they can give up such inalienable rights, one can fail to grasp the responsibility of holding such rights as precious, but one cannot avoid inalienable rights or inalienable responsibility. But one can live in error for a lifetime and die enslaved to ones own ignorance; wherein one never finds the peace of mind of truth.
        Liberty is not an INVENTION of Revolution. Liberty is the DISCOVERY of enlightened Reason.
        Again, the core issue of domestic events and the milieu they take place within is the Strategy of Tension. The perpetual angst that keeps your mind muddled with petty fears and neurosis. Clear thinking is impossible while in this state of mind, this trance induced by the high tech Public Relations Regime, with it’s dogma of pathology.
        Jimbo, you seem to be “fishing” for answers, or a path to follow to find those answers. The question is whether you have the capacity to grasp such answers. Whether you can deal with first principles. Whether you can grasp that you cannot bargain away your Liberty.
        Where does the right to self defense derive Jimbo? Is it a grant from “government”? Is it contingent on a ‘license’ from “authority”? Is it a right ‘given’ by a ‘constitution’? By a “Bill of Rights”?
        Think about it.

      2. “Gun control” is a very deceptive term in itself. It comes down to who do you want to control the guns, the government or the people? Which is more dangerous? Why do people need guns? Is it for hunting purposes? Is it for protection from criminals? Why do the people need guns? Why was the right to keep and bear arms put into the US Constitution? I think I have an answer for those questions. I think that people who advocate for “gun control” have not really thought through those questions and so will find my answer abrasive perhaps.
        The simple answer for why I think “gun control” is absolutely insane is because of the fact of (democide). That is also the reason the founding fathers made sure to include the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They put that as the most important right we have after free speech so that we have a chance to defend ourselves against a government gone mad. The right to keep and bear arms is there so we have a chance of removing from power such a tyrannical government.
        With that in mind it becomes obvious how dangerous and foolish it would be for “we the people” to give control of guns to the government. You are literally giving control of guns to the very entity that poses by far the greatest threat to your life and liberty.
        Mao was a proponent of “gun control” and under his rule 77,000,000+ people were put to death.
        Stalin was a proponent of “gun control” and under his rule 62,000,000+ people were put to death.
        Hitler was a proponent of “gun control” and under his rule 21,000,000+ people were put to death.
        It is estimated that in the 20th century approximately 260,000,000 people were put to death by governments which far surpasses deaths because of war and combat. In almost all cases of democide the people killed were disarmed and unable to fight back.
        So respectfully Jimbo I think it is literally crazy to advocate for “gun control” here in the USA where the government has already demonstrated they have no compunction about mass imprisonment or mass murder of Americans. Gun control is literally handing guns over to the “control” of the government. The same government that was behind 9/11 and is currently behind the effort to cover-up the truth about 9/11.
        Please Jimbo re-think your advocacy of gun control. Just so you know it Jimbo, myself and many others, consider “gun control” advocates to be a direct threat to our very survival, which is why some say “from my cold dead hands” will you take my guns. I will NOT under any circumstances give my guns up especially to government. They have encroached FAR too much on our right to keep and bear arms as it is. End rant.

        1. I understand your argument and I have heard it before and I won’t argue. But getting back to my point, do you think SH and now possibly Charlotte were staged in order to create a groundswell for gun control?
          Oh, in another forum I heard a good rebuttal for my thinking the 29 mil was “hush money.” Apparently these victim compensation funds are common things and free for politicians to use as they wish and to set the amounts they wish. In a dramatic case such as Charlotte I can just see some senator saying hell, give them a bundle. My constituents will love me for it.

          1. “do you think SH and now possibly Charlotte were staged in order to create a groundswell for gun control?”~Jimbo
            Possibly. But the certain thing is that the “story” of such events are spun managed… and you still do not understand that “gun control” is at the core of it “mind control” — the powers that be don’t want to take the guns away – they want everybody killing each other! What is the practical and one-the-ground real effect every time the gun control rhetoric goes into high gear?
            Huge numbers of guns and ammunition is sold, that is what happens. Do you think the social engineers aren’t aware of this predictable “action/reaction”?
            You have to pay attention to what actually goes on before you can propose reasons for the things that happen.
            And of course there is no authority granted to the government by the Constitution for “victim compensation” – it is just more collectivist bullshit.

        2. actually your history is off with respect to gun control. The ‘founding fathers’ included the 2nd amendment at the insistence of the southern states which each had ‘militias’ to ‘recover’ runaway slaves. They were afraid that the feds wouldn’t go after their slaves and that their militias would be disbanded. There is explicit history on this–it is not a debate. The amendment exists to enable slaveowners to use firearms to kidnap escaped slaves period. None of this crap about defending ourselves from a government gone mad. That was a latter invention of gun advocates.

          1. “actually your history is off with respect to gun control. The ‘founding fathers’ included the 2nd amendment at the insistence of the southern states which each had ‘militias’ to ‘recover’ runaway slaves.”~Sancho Trout
            I see that you too are one of those ignorant dolts who doesn’t grasp what “Inalienable’ means.
            The 2nd Amendment does not GRANT the right to bear arms. No one can grant the right to the means of self defense, it is a natural right that is part of each individual’s heritage by simply being born a human being.
            If you think your ‘Opinion’ means shit when it comes to MY inalienable rights, you, your fucking “government”, and any ‘majority’ can go fuck themselves. You think this is harsh Sancho? You don’t like straight talk? You wanna play academic bullshit with me on these issues? Well I’m getting sick of this tepid fucking argument.
            There is no legitimate “government”, it’s a racket. Until you people grow up and realize you don’t need your mommy and daddy, nor your nanny state, then you will be a mind-slave to one system or another.
            How much harder core does this Maximum Security State have to get before you fucking wake up? They got you by the balls! What? Are you sedated? You can’t feel them squeezing???
            The clock is ticking, wake up and smell the bullshit!

          2. Thank you MrBoz,
            Carl T. Bogus, what a perfect name for someone spouting this bogus constitutional theory.
            Bogus is obviously ignorant of the principles of unalienable rights like the fools that buy into his bullshit.

          3. sorry, i thought i was addressing a person who wanted to conduct a reasoned discussion. My mistake. Please calm down, you will give yourself a heart attack and then the Maximum Security State won’t get to do whatever you think they want to do to you. Blessings.

          4. “sorry, i thought i was addressing a person who wanted to conduct a reasoned discussion.”~Sancho Trout
            I can only be reasonable in discussions with reasonable people. I have had enough of pretenders, and the delusional. Reasoned argument is wasted on such as yourself.
            You misjudge and do not comprehend what is put before your very eyes. You think I am excited, that I need to “calm down”. I am calm. I am simply frank and to the point.
            Yes, your mistake remains. You still don’t get it.

          5. hadmatter,
            Thank you!
            This presentation by Mark Passio is superb and excellent. If the reader will go back through my comments on self defense, they will see that I have made many of these same points.
            The definition of a “state” is superb in this presentation; a Free State of Being… not a state as in a area of land or the area within a border, nor a “country”.

          6. OK now I have watched the entire video and can say that it is outstanding and a must watch for all Americans and other free people of planet Earth. Excellent complete deconstruction of the 2nd amendment including the reasons for it being written into the Constitution and the reasons the right to keep and bear arms should never EVER be infringed upon. I now offer the video above posted by hadmatter as my total response to sancho and to the gun control issue in general. Any person who believes in ANY “gun control” needs to watch this video and learn why it is such a monumentally bad idea.

          7. IN CONTEXT
            It seems apparent that Hadmatter, Mr Ruff, MrBoz, Fremo & myself agree, and that We hold these Truths to be Self Evident; that human beings are endowed with certain Unalienable Rights.
            The explanation that holds together Mark Passio is this natural and self evident truth of the Unalienable Rights of Liberty.
            The major obstacle to this realization of this Truth is of course, Lollipop History, and the false myths that pass for history in official academia and as spread by the Public Relations Regime.
            The real issue at hand is the psywar waged against the Unalienable Individual by the propagandists of Collectivism.
            Once this issue is grasped in its entirety; the source of the Power of the State will be identified, as this issue is the Context that this present Paradigm is immersed in.

        1. wasn’t done yet…hit enter to log in and it posted! Anyway–i don’t think anyone in the deep state gives a bleep about gun control. 9/11 was all about controlling Iraqi oil, closing down the Iraqi effort to sell oil in euros not dollars and taking the downturn in conflict up a huge notch after the Clinton years. The end of the cold war closed down the spigot of taxpayer funds, so there had to be a replacement. BINGO!!! 3 birds, one stone: unite Americans behind invasion of Iraq (yes, i know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but that didn’t stop them, did it?); rearm for a major conflict and 3.) shut down American democratic privileges thru the so called Patriot Act and make everyone VERY AFRAID so they could continue to do what they wanted without any interference from the public. They are expanding the fear of terrorists to our own soil through Sandy Hook and Charleston–beware–we are about to lose more right to peaceably assemble. I don’t think gun control is in the mix at all. I think the deep state is getting ready to emerge in its full glory and we will be an openly militarized state under martial law. No more pretense of a democracy needed. They got everything they wanted in 9/11. Our goose is cooked! They don’t even care about this book getting out–that’s how confident they are that they are in full control.

  4. Mr.Springman’s book solidifies the evidence chain. Is invaluable because it establishes that part in the conspiracy.
    But down here in La La – In the amercian 5th-eye satellite I live; the ‘truth’ is a passing newspaper page shouting “Saudi financed 9/11 US attacks.” – then nothing. The TIMES. Fairfax. June 6th. ‘world’ section front page large color photograph of the towers being struck:
    ‘S A U D I f i n a n c e d 9 / 1 1 U S a t t a c k s .” ‘Limited hangout’ not-withstanding.
    Our ‘prime’ minister – ‘the smiling assassin’ – was IN Saudi Arabia at the time, negotiating his next slippery deal, buying off the sheik with 900 live sheep. I kid you not. ‘Our” soldiers are somewhere in the festering pit of Iraq; incomprehensibly illegal wars built on the back of WMD-amercian 911 deception.
    Yet, here was fairfax telling us loud and clear: “Saudi financed 9/11” ! 14 years of alQaeda. OSAMA. Caves and illusive quarry thrown against this headline of 911 CULPABILITY
    – passed on by without a murmur. nzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    Mr Springman’s book is essential for the record, but what struck me was ‘the truth’ lives at another altitude. And I thought,one day, I’m going to read the headline ‘9/11 was an inside job’, and the neighborhood, lifting it’s collective head a moment will say “I thought those buildings came down funny,’
    and that will be it.
    I can assure you, unless life itself is a dream, this was not one.

  5. Sancho I respectfully disagree with you about the reasons behind the 2nd amendment. If you consider the history of what happened on Lexington green and the shot heard around the world it is clear what motivated the shot revolution and the 2nd amendment. I think your analysis suffers from selective sourcing. The British coming to seize weapons caused the revolution.

    1. Also sancho your comment about the deep state taking over is all the more reason to keep and bear arms. How will you be able to resist such a takeover without guns? How will you prevent yourself and your loved ones from becoming victims of the next democide without a gun? 911 truthers may just be the next group labeled as enemy combatants you know.

      1. You are right though sancho about the founding fathers not being perfect. Still though the constitution is the greatest attempt at real liberty for the average man ever divised. If only we lived up to the ideals in the constitution we would be the greatest country on earth. As it is today there is no respect at all for the constitution and we really live under a fascist dictatorship.

    2. I noted that the assertions were UNsourced myself. I mean really- what use would NORTHERN citizens have for firearms? Feeding their families? Being surrounded by wild animals and Native tribes like the ‘peaceful’ tribes of the Iroqois Confederacy who were essentially having their lands and food sources stolen from them by those very Founding Fathers? How would muskets, rifles, and shotguns be of any use to early US citizens?

  6. DHS ‘Charleston Active Shooter Threat Training Drill’ 15 – 19 June 2015
    Posted: 22 Jun 2015 09:00 PM PDT
    “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) conducted an ‘active shooter’ training drill (an exercise on how to handle a situation with an ‘active shooter’ on scene) on the *same day* (17 June 2015) and *same city* (Charleston, South Carolina) that an active shooter opened fire at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, killing nine people.”

    1. My first instinct was AHA! But in the comments, just after the ones which blame the Jews, is a sober one which says to look and see there are other drills in a number of other cities where there were no shootings on those days and so I will veer from the conspiracy track for now and just assume what happened is what they are saying happened.

      1. piggybacking on a singe government drill taking place wouldn’t be much of a cover now would it Jimbo? You need it to seem like ‘coincidence’, it is more convincing if there are other drills that don’t have a real incident attached. Perhaps your first and basic instinct was right, and you bought the bait to confuse something that is elementary true: the was in fact an active shooter drill happening in Charleston when a real event intervened.

        1. Okay, after some cogitation I will veer back toward the path based upon what is not being said about the drill. Wouldn’t it be a scoop for, say, a Charlotte newspaper to feature a story that coincident to the church shooting there was a Homeland Security live shooting drill? If only to stop internet speculation a reporter might inquire as to where and when the drill happened. And further, hey, this is an interesting story that the government runs these drills and there are internet rumors about them and how nearly they happen with actual events, what could be up with that? Of course that won’t happen except in the conspiracy net where something this significant can be ignored.
          And to your point, it is a fair one but it would be fairer if we actually knew the nature of all these drills, and that is where a legit news outlet with better access to the government would be helpful.

          1. Well Jimbo, your current reply is certainly reasonable enough for me. I think that the coincidence of an active shooter drill needs to be more focused and defined to be relevent as well, as it is only one integer to the equation. Until such information is available, I would look into other aspects of the incident. Some of these may be these ‘web searches’ Roof was allegedly making, his actual contacts, this 900 plus page ‘Manifesto’ supposedly written by a 21 year old kid… How ‘original’ is this “manifesto”? Is it largely a cut and paste of other’s idea’s? Is it just a compilation of other racist nutjob writings?
            I don’t know the answers to these things. I am just remarking on what a serious open source investigation would entail. Personally, I am not inclined to do this digging on every incident that comes along. If anyone here has some vested interest in this case, perhaps they can follow through.

          2. I think we literally cannot trust a single word that comes out of the mouths of “officials” in our government or from MSM reporters. Therefore we cannot even safely conclude that Roof wrote any of the “manifesto”. We cannot conclude Christopher Dorner really killed cops or wrote a “manifesto” either. The truth could be the polar opposite of what we have been told. Dorner could have been a courageous whistle blower who was assassinated for all we really know. Our information is coming from a tainted source and is therefore worse than useless, it is quite possibly misleading on purpose. The point is that it is very dangerous to accept ANY PART of an official story as being true because the “officials” telling that story are proven pathological liars.

      2. The “a-ha!” moment is an expectation that is seldom fulfilled. At least not in the way TV shows and movies portray investigation processes and results.
        The drill phenomenon has been carefully researched by many since we found out about NORAD being busy with drills of hijacking and planes crashing into buildings on the day of 9/11 and the bombing drill in London on 7/7. Since then, the question of whether or not there was a drill about a similar scenario in each of the alleged false flag or psyop shootings has been on top of the top ten questions to ask list.
        And, as it is the case everywhere in the conspiracy circles, the research on this aspect of the incidents has been either prevented by holding information, or muddied up or watered down with false claims, misinfo and disinfo and an oceanful of red herrings.
        If indeed these incidents are staged, choreographed or simply massaged to take place by the pentagon and the CIA (as many suspect), it would also mean that what we are dealing with here is not some “rogue” elements in the government, but the entire military industrial complex and all of its tentacles that reach as far in as local churches, schools, local governments, hollywood, media, etc. with their scientifically developed compartmentalization. Therefore, we would also have to recognize the sheer complexity that the conception, scripting, casting, execution, arrest, arraignment, trial, and the cover up require. Yes, now that they are on a “fast track” towards their endgame and now that they are operating with multiple franchises, they are getting sloppier and more obvious every day. Even then, it’d be a mistake to expect this highly sophisticated machinery to leave behind blinking neon arrows pointing towards the A-ha factor.
        By the way, even if we are to assume that all these drills are well-intended and benign, judging by the number of the drills carried out on any given day in this country, it would also be fair to say that all that training has yielded absolutely no successful results, and there is yet to be a single incident where the trained armed forces have managed to prevent any of the shootings and/or bombings.
        So, looking for an obviously direct link between a drill and a shooting will ultimately fail. After all, the perpetrators are reading the same sites as we are, and they arguably have more full time people on the job studying the sincere truthers’ findings and theories than the number of sincere truthers. The machinery we speak of is a learning entity. And, as opposed to the sincere truthers, they are organized, disciplined, well structured, determined, and operate extrajudicially with unlimited funds.
        Most people seem to jump to the conclusion that the MO the drill/event follows is that the drill is made to go live. However, although it may have been used before or sometimes, this type of shortcut explanation leaves a lot to be answered.
        If you factor in the presumed handlers, sliders, drivers, coordinators, crisis actors, fake witnesses, media correspondent and cameramen, post-event spokespersons, police chiefs and officers, a “psyop” like the Roof shooting would require anywhere between 20-100 people at the very least. There is only one says way of mobilizing this many people, most of whom are probably military officers and law enforcement personnel. And that is to organize a drill with a script that is closely or loosely similar to the actual event, get the team in the general geographic area, house them bath them, feed them, alert law enforcement of the activity (which would cover and prevent getting caught), move function freely in the area before the event, and disappear into the “real world” smoothly right after.
        In any case, all of this, as fascinating as it may be to know about, is somewhat irrelevant. The real truth, as usual, is in the pudding. To the discerning eyes and ears, the script that the MSM unfolds on us within minutes after each incident, the song that they sing in perfect harmony, which is then joined by the government agencies, politicians and even the president, all point to a psyop perpetrated on the people as part of a concerted effort to break the social fabric of the society, create false paradigms for people to waste their well intended emotions on, keep the population busy discussing racial and sexual discrimination so that they won’t realize the true nature of the beast.
        All of the lifeboats are long gone, but the blacks and the whites are fighting on the deck of the Titanic, and gays, lesbians and the heterosexuals are arguing whether or not Bruce Jenner should be allowed to escape with the women and children.

        1. I really enjoyed reading your comment above Lilaleo, very prescient. This false paradigm that this planet wallows in at the moment is defined quite well as a global pathological society.

          1. Thank you, Willy. And it seems like, besides the loss of life in the current cycle and the threat of loss of many more in the next, the true, long term and permanent danger is exactly what you mention: The building of a zombie-like pathological society that is ever-so-easily controlled, pacified and fooled into going along with the most horrendous manipulations. One quick comparison between the pre WWI and post WWII German societies could easily demonstrate how long the pathologies embedded and woven into a society when done with this level of brainwashing and conditioning can persist.

      1. While we are on the subject here of “just so far” journalism and the Charlotte shooting I was listening today to a three week old podcast of NPR’s “On The Media,” a show I like because they do go after some very bad actors and it is also a show that often gets so close to the truth I have their cigar in hand but once again OTM, no cigar. Anyway, they were talking about the Charleston shooting and were official story all the way and it pissed me off when they mentioned how as proof of Roof’s racism being the motive there was a photo of Roof with a confederate flag on his Facebook page. Okay, Bob, (the host) I thought, but while you were looking at the page did you not see most of his Facebook friends were blacks? Is that not an anomaly OTM usually mentions? What am I saying. They probably never saw his actual FB page since it had been mysteriously removed and were just echoing the OCT line. Nonetheless, I still like the show. They murder the bankers.

  7. Defeating the Globalists – James Corbett – International Forecaster – April 11 2015
    The premise is simple enough. The banksters and their cronies want what every tyrant throughout history has wanted: world domination. To achieve that end, they are working feverishly to undermine the nation-states that have served as the building blocks of global geopolitics for centuries.
    The answer, too, seems perfectly simple. If the globalists want to undermine the nation-state through regional government, then we must work against them by preserving the nation-state and fostering national pride in the population.
    Although this answer is satisfying in its simplicity, it is also fundamentally wrong. Regionalism and nationalism are not opposites, as this formula suggests, but different sides of the same coin. And that coin is weighted so that any battle between these two ideas is always going to come to the same conclusion: global government.

    1. It should work. I do get a ton of spam in that account since it’s posted publicly so there’s always a danger something will be missed but I try not to let that happen. But you have my personal email, so why wouldn’t you use that?

      1. I get a message that it is a dead address from my gmail account.
        Send me an email from your personal account if you would.
        Thanks, Willy

  8. CIA & the Phony War on Terrorism
    “Today we mark twelve years since the terrible attacks that shook our Homeland on September 11, 2001 – a tragedy that had a profound impact on our Agency, the Nation, and the world. While much work still needs to be done on the counterterrorism front, CIA officers should be proud of the many, many contributions they have made since 2001. Indeed, the CIA now works more closely than ever with its domestic and foreign partners to thwart the plans of al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups. And we will always hold dear the memory of those lost to terrorism on that day and in the years since.”
    —DCIA John O. Brennan, Message to the Workforce, September 11, 2013
    America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group
    By Garikai Chengu
    Global Research, May 20, 2015
    Global Research 19 September 2014
    Originally published by GR in September 2014
    “Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
    The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
    The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
    The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
    During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
    Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.”~Chengu

  9. Watch these videos and tell me this isn’t a police state. keep in mind, Sandra Bland is now dead, having died in custody.
    Who is this fuckin’ goon cop? What is this pig’s name? He belongs on a Public Enemy list!
    Pigs like this should automatically be prosecuted for taking a subject off camera of the car’s webcam.
    That she ended up dead should be added to the rap of a goon like this.
    All of us live in jeopardy in this police state gone mad.

Leave a Reply

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