The Federal Reserve Cartel and The House of Rothschild

The Federal Reserve Cartel: Freemasons and The House of Rothschild

By wmw_admin on June 10, 2011

by Dean Henderson – Global Research June 8, 2011

Part two of a four-part series

In 1789 Alexander Hamilton became the first Treasury Secretary of the United States.  Hamilton was one of many Founding Fathers who were Freemasons.  He had close relations with the Rothschild family which owns the Bank of England and leads the European Freemason movement.  George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Ethan Allen, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Brown and Roger Sherman were all Masons.

Roger Livingston helped Sherman and Franklin write the Declaration of Independence.  He gave George Washington his oaths of office while he was Grand Master of the New York Grand Lodge of Freemasons.  Washington himself was Grand Master of the Virginia Lodge.  Of the General Officers in the Revolutionary Army, thirty-three were Masons.  This was highly symbolic since 33rd Degree Masons become Illuminated. [1]

Populist founding fathers led by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Thomas Paine- none of whom were Masons- wanted to completely severe ties with the British Crown, but were overruled by the Masonic faction led by Washington, Hamilton and Grand Master of the St. Andrews Lodge in Boston General Joseph Warren, who wanted to “defy Parliament but remain loyal to the Crown”.  St. Andrews Lodge was the hub of New World Masonry and began issuing Knights Templar Degrees in 1769. [2]

All US Masonic lodges are to this day warranted by the British Crown, whom they serve as a global intelligence and counterrevolutionary subversion network.  Their most recent initiative is the Masonic Child Identification Program (CHIP).  According to Wikipedia, the CHIP programs allow parents the opportunity to create a kit of identifying materials for their child, free of charge. The kit contains a fingerprint card, a physical description, a video, computer disk, or DVD of the child, a dental imprint, and a DNA sample.

The First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774 under the Presidency of Peyton Randolph, who succeeded Washington as Grand Master of the Virginia Lodge.  The Second Continental Congress convened in 1775 under the Presidency of Freemason John Hancock.  Peyton’s brother William succeeded him as Virginia Lodge Grand Master and became the leading proponent of centralization and federalism at the First Constitutional Convention in 1787.  The federalism at the heart of the US Constitution is identical to the federalism laid out in the Freemason’s Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723.  William Randolph became the nation’s first Attorney General and Secretary of State under George Washington.  His family returned to England loyal to the Crown.  John Marshall, the nation’s first Supreme Court Justice, was also a Mason. [3] 

When Benjamin Franklin journeyed to France to seek financial help for American revolutionaries, his meetings took place at Rothschild banks.  He brokered arms sales via German Mason Baron von Steuben.  His Committees of Correspondence operated through Freemason channels and paralleled a British spy network.  In 1776 Franklin became de facto Ambassador to France.  In 1779 he became Grand Master of the French Neuf Soeurs (Nine Sisters) Lodge, to which John Paul Jones and Voltaire belonged.  Franklin was also a member of the more secretive Royal Lodge of Commanders of the Temple West of Carcasonne, whose members included Frederick Prince of Whales.  While Franklin preached temperance in the US, he cavorted wildly with his Lodge brothers in Europe.  Franklin served as Postmaster General from the 1750’s to 1775 – a role traditionally relegated to British spies. [4]

With Rothschild financing Alexander Hamilton founded two New York banks, including Bank of New York. [5]  He died in a gun battle with Aaron Burr, who founded Bank of Manhattan with Kuhn Loeb financing.  Hamilton exemplified the contempt which the Eight Families hold towards common people, once stating, “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many.  The first are the rich and the well born, the others the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge and determine right.  Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share of government.  They will check the unsteadiness of the second.”[6]

Hamilton was only the first in a series of Eight Families cronies to hold the key position of Treasury Secretary.  In recent times Kennedy Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon came from Dillon Read (now part of UBS Warburg).  Nixon Treasury Secretaries David Kennedy and William Simon came from Continental Illinois Bank (now part of Bank of America) and Salomon Brothers (now part of Citigroup), respectively.  Carter Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal came from Goldman Sachs, Reagan Treasury Secretary Donald Regan came from Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America), Bush Sr. Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady came from Dillon Read (UBS Warburg) and both Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Bush Jr. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came from Goldman Sachs.  Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner worked at Kissinger Associates and the New York Fed.

Thomas Jefferson argued that the United States needed a publicly-owned central bank so that European monarchs and aristocrats could not use the printing of money to control the affairs of the new nation.  Jefferson extolled, “A country which expects to remain ignorant and free…expects that which has never been and that which will never be.  There is scarcely a King in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh – get first all the people’s money, then all their lands and then make them and their children servants forever…banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.  Already they have raised up a money aristocracy.”  Jefferson watched as the Euro-banking conspiracy to control the United States unfolded, weighing in, “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions begun at a distinguished period, unalterable through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery”. [7[

But the Rothschild-sponsored Hamilton’s arguments for a private US central bank carried the day.  In 1791 the Bank of the United States (BUS) was founded, with the Rothschilds as main owners.  The bank’s charter was to run out in 1811.  Public opinion ran in favor of revoking the charter and replacing it with a Jeffersonian public central bank.  The debate was postponed as the nation was plunged by the Euro-bankers into the War of 1812.  Amidst a climate of fear and economic hardship, Hamilton’s bank got its charter renewed in 1816.

Old Hickory, Honest Abe & Camelot

In 1828 Andrew Jackson took a run at the US Presidency.  Throughout his campaign he railed against the international bankers who controlled the BUS.  Jackson ranted, “You are a den of vipers.  I intend to expose you and by Eternal God I will rout you out.  If the people understood the rank injustices of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning.”

Jackson won the election and revoked the bank’s charter stating, “The Act seems to be predicated on an erroneous idea that the present shareholders have a prescriptive right to not only the favor, but the bounty of the government...for their benefit does this Act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly.  Present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with government.  Should its influence be concentrated under the operation of such an Act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the independence of our country in war...controlling our currency, receiving our public monies and holding thousands of our citizens independence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.  It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government for selfish purposes...to make the rich richer and more powerful.  Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by acts of Congress.  I have done my duty to this country.”[8]

Populism prevailed and Jackson was re-elected.  In 1835 he was the target of an assassination attempt.  The gunman was Richard Lawrence, who confessed that he was, “in touch with the powers in Europe”. [9] 

Still, in 1836 Jackson refused to renew the BUS charter.  Under his watch the US national debt went to zero for the first and last time in our nation’s history.  This angered the international bankers, whose primary income is derived from interest payments on debt.  BUS President Nicholas Biddle cut off funding to the US government in 1842, plunging the US into a depression.  Biddle was an agent for the Paris-based Jacob Rothschild. [10]

The Mexican War was simultaneously sprung on Jackson.  A few years later the Civil War was unleashed, with London bankers backing the Union and French bankers backing the South. The Lehman family made a fortune smuggling arms to the south and cotton to the north.  By 1861 the US was $100 million in debt.  New President Abraham Lincoln snubbed the Euro-bankers again, issuing Lincoln Greenbacks to pay Union Army bills. 

The Rothschild-controlled Times of London wrote, “If that mischievous policy, which had its origins in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost.  It will pay off its debts and be without debt.  It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce.  It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world.  The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America.  That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” [11]

The Euro-banker-written Hazard Circular was exposed and circulated throughout the country by angry populists.  It stated, “The great debt that capitalists will see is made out of the war and must be used to control the valve of money.  To accomplish this government bonds must be used as a banking basis.  We are now awaiting Secretary of Treasury Salmon Chase to make that recommendation.  It will not allow Greenbacks to circulate as money as we cannot control that.  We control bonds and through them banking issues”.

The 1863 National Banking Act reinstated a private US central bank and Chase’s war bonds were issued.  Lincoln was re-elected the next year, vowing to repeal the act after he took his January 1865 oaths of office.  Before he could act, he was assassinated at the Ford Theatre by John Wilkes Booth.  Booth had major connections to the international bankers.  His granddaughter wrote This One Mad Act, which details Booth’s contact with “mysterious Europeans” just before the Lincoln assassination.

Following the Lincoln hit, Booth was whisked away by members of a secret society known as Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC).  KGC had close ties to the French Society of Seasons, which produced Karl Marx.  KGC had fomented much of the tension that caused the Civil War and President Lincoln had specifically targeted the group.  Booth was a KGC member and was connected through Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin to the House of Rothschild.  Benjamin fled to England after the Civil War. [12]

Nearly a century after Lincoln was assassinated for issuing Greenbacks, President John F. Kennedy found himself in the Eight Families’ crosshairs.  Kennedy had announced a crackdown on off-shore tax havens and proposed increases in tax rates on large oil and mining companies.  He supported eliminating tax loopholes which benefit the super-rich.  His economic policies were publicly attacked by Fortune magazine, the Wall Street Journal and both David and Nelson Rockefeller.  Even Kennedy’s own Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, who came from the UBS Warburg-controlled Dillon Read investment bank, voiced opposition to the JFK proposals. [13]

Kennedy’s fate was sealed in June 1963 when he authorized the issuance of more than $4 billion in United States Notes by his Treasury Department in an attempt to circumvent the high interest rate usury of the private Federal Reserve international banker crowd.  The wife of Lee Harvey Oswald, who was conveniently gunned down by Jack Ruby before Ruby himself was shot, told author A. J. Weberman in 1994, “The answer to the Kennedy assassination is with the Federal Reserve Bank.  Don’t underestimate that.  It’s wrong to blame it on Angleton and the CIA per se only.  This is only one finger on the same hand.  The people who supply the money are above the CIA”. [14]

Fueled by incoming President Lyndon Johnson’s immediate escalation of the Vietnam War, the US sank further into debt.  Its citizens were terrorized into silence.  If they could kill the President they could kill anyone.

The House of Rothschild

The Dutch House of Orange founded the Bank of Amsterdam in 1609 as the world’s first central bank.  Prince William of Orange married into the English House of Windsor, taking King James II’s daughter Mary as his bride.  The Orange Order Brotherhood, which recently fomented Northern Ireland Protestant violence, put William III on the English throne where he ruled both Holland and Britain.  In 1694 William III teamed up with the UK aristocracy to launch the private Bank of England.

The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street- as the Bank of England is known- is surrounded by thirty foot walls.  Three floors beneath it the third largest stock of gold bullion in the world is stored. [15] 

The Rothschilds and their inbred Eight Families partners gradually came to control the Bank of England.  The daily London gold “fixing” occurred at the N. M. Rothschild Bank until 2004.  As Bank of England Deputy Governor George Blunden put it, “Fear is what makes the bank’s powers so acceptable.  The bank is able to exert its influence when people are dependent on us and fear losing their privileges or when they are frightened.”[16]

Mayer Amschel Rothschild sold the British government German Hessian mercenaries to fight against American Revolutionaries, diverting the proceeds to his brother Nathan in London, where N.M. (Nathan and Mayer) Rothschild & Sons was established.  Mayer was a serious student of Cabala and launched his fortune on money embezzled from William IX- royal administrator of the Hesse-Kassel region and a prominent Freemason.

Rothschild-controlled Barings bankrolled the Chinese opium and African slave trades.  It financed the Louisiana Purchase.  When several states defaulted on its loans, Barings bribed Daniel Webster to make speeches stressing the virtues of loan repayment.  The states held their ground, so the House of Rothschild cut off the money spigot in 1842, plunging the US into a deep depression.  It was often said that the wealth of the Rothschilds depended on the bankruptcy of nations.  Mayer Amschel Rothschild once said, “I care not who controls a nation’s political affairs, so long as I control her currency”.

War didn’t hurt the family fortune either.  The House of Rothschild financed the Prussian War, the Crimean War and the British attempt to seize the Suez Canal from the French.  Nathan Rothschild made a huge financial bet on Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, while also funding the Duke of Wellington’s peninsular campaign against Napoleon.  Both the Mexican War and the Civil War were goldmines for the family.

One Rothschild family biography mentions a London meeting where an “International Banking Syndicate” decided to pit the American North against the South as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy.  German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck once stated, “The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War.  These bankers were afraid that the United States…would upset their financial domination over the world.  The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed.”  Rothschild biographer Derek Wilson says the family was the official European banker to the US government and strong supporters of the Bank of the United States. [17] 

Family biographer Niall Ferguson notes a “substantial and unexplained gap” in private Rothschild correspondence between 1854-1860.  He says all copies of outgoing letters written by the London Rothschilds during this Civil War period “were destroyed at the orders of successive partners”. [18]

French and British troops had, at the height of the Civil War, encircled the US.  The British sent 11,000 troops to Crown-controlled Canada, which gave safe harbor to Confederate agents.  France’s Napoleon III installed Austrian Hapsburg family member Archduke Maximilian as his puppet emperor in Mexico, where French troops massed on the Texas border.  Only an 11th-hour deployment of two Russian warship fleets by US ally Czar Alexander II in 1863 saved the United States from re-colonization. [19] 

That same year the Chicago Tribune blasted, “Belmont (August Belmont was a US Rothschild agent and had a Triple Crown horse race named in his honor) and the Rothschilds…who have been buying up Confederate war bonds.”

Salmon Rothschild said of a deceased President Lincoln, “He rejects all forms of compromise.  He has the appearance of a peasant and can only tell barroom stories.”  Baron Jacob Rothschild was equally flattering towards the US citizenry.  He once commented to US Minister to Belgium Henry Sanford on the over half a million Americans who died during the Civil War, “When your patient is desperately sick, you try desperate measures, even to bloodletting.”  Salmon and Jacob were merely carrying forth a family tradition.  A few generations earlier Mayer Amschel Rothschild bragged of his investment strategy, “When the streets of Paris are running in blood, I buy”. [20]

Mayer Rothschild’s sons were known as the Frankfurt Five.  The eldest – Amschel – ran the family’s Frankfurt bank with his father, while Nathan ran London operations.  Youngest son Jacob set up shop in Paris, while Salomon ran the Vienna branch and Karl was off to Naples.  Author Frederick Morton estimates that by 1850 the Rothschilds were worth over $10 billion. [21]  Some researchers believe that their fortune today exceeds $100 trillion.

The Warburgs, Kuhn Loebs, Goldman Sachs, Schiffs and Rothschilds have intermarried into one big happy banking family.  The Warburg family- which controls Deutsche Bank and BNP- tied up with the Rothschilds in 1814 in Hamburg, while Kuhn Loeb powerhouse Jacob Schiff shared quarters with Rothschilds in 1785.  Schiff immigrated to America in 1865.  He joined forces with Abraham Kuhn and married Solomon Loeb’s daughter.  Loeb and Kuhn married each others sisters and the Kuhn Loeb dynasty was consummated.  Felix Warburg married Jacob Schiff’s daughter.  Two Goldman daughters married two sons of the Sachs family, creating Goldman Sachs.  In 1806 Nathan Rothschild married the oldest daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, a leading financier in London. [22]  Thus, Merrill Lynch super-bull Abby Joseph Cohen and Clinton Secretary of Defense William Cohen are likely descended from Rothschilds.

Today the Rothschild’s control a far-flung financial empire, which includes majority stakes in most world central banks.  The Edmond de Rothschild clan owns the Banque Privee SA in Lugano, Switzerland and the Rothschild Bank AG of Zurich.  The family of Jacob Lord Rothschild owns the powerful Rothschild Italia in Milan.  They are founding members of the exclusive $10 trillion Club of the Isles – which controls corporate giants Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Barclays, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, BHP Billiton and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials. [23]

The Club of the Isles provides capital for George Soros’ Quantum Fund NV – which made substantial financial gains in 1998-99 following the collapse of currencies of Thailand, Indonesia and Russia.  Soros was a major shareholder at George W. Bush’s Harken Energy.  The Club of Isles is led by the Rothschilds and includes Queen Elizabeth II and other wealthy European aristocrats and Nobility.[24]

Perhaps the largest repository for Rothschild wealth today is Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG – a secretive Swiss-based bank holding company.  By the late 1990s scions of the Rothschild global empire were Barons Guy and Elie de Rothschild in France and Lord Jacob and Sir Evelyn Rothschild in Britain. [25] 

Evelyn was chairman of the Economist and a director at DeBeers and IBM UK. 

Jacob backed Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California gubernatorial campaign.  He took control of Khodorkovsky’s YUKOS oil shares just before the Russian government arrested him.  In 2010 Jacob joined Rupert Murdoch in a shale oil extraction partnership in Israel through Genie Energy – a subsidiary of IDT Corporation. [26] 

Within months, Sarah Palin had hired former IDT executive Michael Glassner as her chief of staff. [27]  Is Palin the Rothschild choice in 2012?

Notes

[1] The Temple & the Lodge. Michael Bagent & Richard Leigh. Arcade Publishing. New York. 1989. p.259

[2] Ibid. p.219

[3] Ibid. p.253

[4] Ibid. p.233

[5] The Robot’s Rebellion: The Story of the Spiritual Renaissance. David Icke. Gateway Books. Bath, UK. 1994. p.156

[6] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.51

[7] Fourth Reich of the Rich. Des Griffin. Emissary Publications. Pasadena, CA. 1978. p.171

[8] Ibid. p.173

[9] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 2000. p.68

[10] The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Eustace Mullins. Bankers Research Institute. Staunton, VA. 1983. p.179

[11] Human Race Get Off Your Knees: The Lion Sleeps No More. David Icke. David Icke Books Ltd. Isle of Wight. UK. 2010. p.92

[12] Marrs. p.212

[13] Idid. p.139

[14] Ibid p.141

[15] Icke. The Robot’s Rebellion.  p.114

[16] Ibid. p.181

[17] Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty. Derek Wilson. Charles Schribner’s Sons. New York. 1988. p.178

[18] The House of Rothschild. Niall Ferguson. Viking Press New York 1998 p.28

[19] Marrs. p.215

[20] Ibid

[21] “What You Didn’t Know about Taxes and the Crown”. Mark Owen. Paranoia. #41. Spring 2006. p.66

[22] Marrs. p.63

[23] “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor”. The New Federalist. 1994

[24] “The Secret Financial Network Behind ‘Wizard’ George Soros”. William Engdahl. Executive Intelligence Review. 11-1-96

[25] Marrs. p.86

[26] “Murdoch, Rothschild Invest in Israeli Oil Shale”. Jerusalem Post. November 22, 2010

[27] “Sarah Palin hires chief of staff for PAC”, Huffington Post. February 2011

Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries.  His Left Hook blog is at www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com

Our Noble Warriors

March 18, 2012

Montecristo – Edited by Pandora Pushkin, Darkmoon.me March 16, 2012

 

The official line for the atrocity carried out in Kandahar has now been clearly established: a US soldier went off base alone in the night and proceeded to kill 16 civilians in a nearby village before setting fire to the bodies.

Tensions were already inflamed over the burning of the Quran by American soldiers, and following on from the revelation of “kill teams” collecting body parts as “trophies” and the leaked footage of troops urinating on dead Afghans.

The latest line from the US government on the killings has been to discuss at length the mental state of the gunman. Initially, he was described as being possibly “deranged” at the time of the shootings; then, it was stated that he had suffered a “mental breakdown”, yet another soldier from Fort Lewis-McChord to have buckled under the strain of warfare and gone on a killing spree — a considerably more common trait for US soldiers than their NATO allies.

Additional reports have since emerged pointing to a “traumatic brain injury”.

So far, nothing seems out of the ordinary with this narrative – until you include the eyewitnesses.

According to PakTribune: “One Afghan father who said his children were killed in the shooting spree accused soldiers of later burning the bodies.” Reuters were told by witnesses that “a group of US soldiers” arrived at the village and were responsible for the killings.

Resident Haji Samad said:

They [the Americans] poured chemicals over their dead bodies and burned them … I saw that all 11 of my relatives were killed, including my children and grandchildren.

A neighbour, Agha Lala, added, “They were all drunk and shooting all over the place.”

Afghan children on their way to school…only too aware that they, too, could one day fall victims to the psychopaths in uniform who have occupied their country.

The official response from the US came shortly after: “Based on the preliminary information we have this account is flatly wrong,’ the official said. ‘We believe one US service member acted alone, not a group of U.S. soldiers.”

No information has been provided to refute the testimony of the eyewitnesses, who also described shots being fired from several directions.

As Afghan lawmaker Abdul Rahim Ayubi observed,

It is not possible for only one American soldier to come out of his base, kill a number of people far away, burn the bodies, go to another house and kill civilians there, then walk at least 2 kilometers and enter another house, kill civilians and burn them.

Local Panjwai councilman, Abdul Ghani, corroborated the unlikelihood of a single shooter, stating, “The villagers said they were hearing machine gun fire and pistol fire from different directions.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai to America: “You killed our children!”

While objectively-speaking the evidence would point towards multiple shooters, once again the media have taken the pronouncements of unnamed “US officials” as gospel truth.

The official line has been set in stone: in print and on the TV news channels.

As for the eyewitness accounts of drunken troops killing over a wider area, firing wildly, urinating on the dead bodies and then burning them—that, predictably, has been expunged from the record and gone down the Orwellian memory hole.

It never happened. 

------------------------------------------------------

Madness is not the reason for this massacre

By Robert Fisk on March 18, 2012

Robert Fisk – Independent March 17, 2012

A villager points to where his family were shot in their own home. 

I’m getting a bit tired of the “deranged” soldier story. It was predictable, of course. The 38-year-old staff sergeant who massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, near Kandahar this week had no sooner returned to base than the defence experts and the think-tank boys and girls announced that he was “deranged”. Not an evil, wicked, mindless terrorist – which he would be, of course, if he had been an Afghan, especially a Taliban – but merely a guy who went crazy.
This was the same nonsense used to describe the murderous US soldiers who ran amok in the Iraqi town of Haditha. It was the same word used about Israeli soldier Baruch Goldstein who massacred 25 Palestinians in Hebron – something I pointed out in this paper only hours before the staff sergeant became suddenly “deranged” in Kandahar province.
“Apparently deranged”, “probably deranged”, journalists announced, a soldier who “might have suffered some kind of breakdown” (The Guardian), a “rogue US soldier” (Financial Times) whose “rampage” (The New York Times) was “doubtless [sic] perpetrated in an act of madness” (Le Figaro). Really? Are we supposed to believe this stuff? Surely, if he was entirely deranged, our staff sergeant would have killed 16 of his fellow Americans. He would have slaughtered his mates and then set fire to their bodies. But, no, he didn’t kill Americans. He chose to kill Afghans. There was a choice involved. So why did he kill Afghans? We learned yesterday that the soldier had recently seen one of his mates with his legs blown off. But so what?
The Afghan narrative has been curiously lobotomised – censored, even – by those who have been trying to explain this appalling massacre in Kandahar. They remembered the Koran burnings – when American troops in Bagram chucked Korans on a bonfire – and the deaths of six Nato soldiers, two of them Americans, which followed. But blow me down if they didn’t forget – and this applies to every single report on the latest killings – a remarkable and highly significant statement from the US army’s top commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, exactly 22 days ago. Indeed, it was so unusual a statement that I clipped the report of Allen’s words from my morning paper and placed it inside my briefcase for future reference.
Allen told his men that “now is not the time for revenge for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in Thursday’s riots”. They should, he said, “resist whatever urge they might have to strike back” after an Afghan soldier killed the two Americans. “There will be moments like this when you’re searching for the meaning of this loss,” Allen continued. “There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge, now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your discipline, remember who you are.”
Now this was an extraordinary plea to come from the US commander in Afghanistan. The top general had to tell his supposedly well-disciplined, elite, professional army not to “take vengeance” on the Afghans they are supposed to be helping/protecting/nurturing/training, etc. He had to tell his soldiers not to commit murder. I know that generals would say this kind of thing in Vietnam. But Afghanistan? Has it come to this? I rather fear it has. Because – however much I dislike generals – I’ve met quite a number of them and, by and large, they have a pretty good idea of what’s going on in the ranks. And I suspect that Allen had already been warned by his junior officers that his soldiers had been enraged by the killings that followed the Koran burnings – and might decide to go on a revenge spree. Hence he tried desperately – in a statement that was as shocking as it was revealing – to pre-empt exactly the massacre which took place last Sunday.
Yet it was totally wiped from the memory box by the “experts” when they had to tell us about these killings. No suggestion that General Allen had said these words was allowed into their stories, not a single reference – because, of course, this would have taken our staff sergeant out of the “deranged” bracket and given him a possible motive for his killings. As usual, the journos had got into bed with the military to create a madman rather than a murderous soldier. Poor chap. Off his head. Didn’t know what he was doing. No wonder he was whisked out of Afghanistan at such speed.
We’ve all had our little massacres. There was My Lai, and our very own little My Lai, at a Malayan village called Batang Kali where the Scots Guards – involved in a conflict against ruthless communist insurgents – murdered 24 unarmed rubber workers in 1948. Of course, one can say that the French in Algeria were worse than the Americans in Afghanistan – one French artillery unit is said to have “disappeared” 2,000 Algerians in six months – but that is like saying that we are better than Saddam Hussein. True, but what a baseline for morality. And that’s what it’s about. Discipline. Morality. Courage. The courage not to kill in revenge. But when you are losing a war that you are pretending to win – I am, of course, talking about Afghanistan – I guess that’s too much to hope. General Allen seems to have been wasting his time.

IMPORTANT - KONY 2012: State Propaganda for a New Generation

KONY 2012: State Propaganda for a New Generation

on March 16, 2012

Vigilant Citizen – March 13, 2012

The overnight viral sensation KONY 2012 brought worldwide awareness to the African war criminal Joseph Kony. Beneath this commendable cause, lies however an elaborate agenda that is presented in the video in a very manipulative way. We’ll look at the agenda behind KONY 2012 and how it uses reverse psychology to not only justify a military operation in Africa, but to actually have people demand it.

KONY 2012 is a viral sensation that swept the entire world in less than 24 hours. Its main subject is the African rebel leader Joseph Kony, his war crimes and the clearly defined “movement” to stop him.  Countless celebrities have endorsed the movement, news sources have reported it and social media is buzzing with it. While the problem of guerrilla warfare and child soldiers has plagued Africa for decades, and several documentaries have already been produced regarding the issue, this particular 29-minute video made managed to obtain mass exposure and support.

KONY 2012 is less of a documentary than it is a highly efficient infomercial that is tailor-made for the Facebook generation, using state-of-the-art marketing techniques to make its point. Young people like “underground movements” and want to feel like they are changing the world. KONY 2012 taps into these needs to bring about something that is not “hip” or “underground” at all: A military operation in Uganda. Not only that, it urges the participants of the movement to order stuff, to wear bracelets that are associated with an online profile and to record their actions in social media. This makes KONY 2012 the first artificially created movement that is fully track-able, monitor-able and quantifiable by those who engendered it. In other words, what appears to be a movement “from the people” is actually a new way for the elite to advance its agenda.

A Propaganda Experiment

The video begins with an interesting statement: “The next 27 minutes are an experiment. But in order for it to work, you have to pay attention”. It is an experiment as it tests a new, groundbreaking way to get an agenda accepted by the Facebook generation. In the past, when the government needed to justify the invasion of a country, the President would sit in front of the camera and tell the public why war should be declared in this area of the world. In the case of KONY, the military agenda is disguised as grassroots activism, where the US army entering Uganda would be perceived as a “victory of the people”, effectively reversing the communications model.

Towards the end of the video, an image is displayed explaining how decisions (and messages) start from the top of the pyramid (the elite) and are communicated to the masses through mass media and such.

Due to the advent of social media, the above diagram has become a lot less effective to get a message across to the young generation. It is not CNN reports and the President addressing the nation anymore, it is about “liking” Facebook pages and viral YouTube videos. This is where messages now come across. Always studying, analyzing and exploiting the most effective ways to persuade public opinion, KONY 2012 appears to be an attempt to test out the effectiveness of a “viral” propaganda campaign. By creating this “movement” and making young people actually DEMAND the U.S. government intervene in Africa, the masterminds behind this campaign would manage the impossible: Reversing the propaganda model in order to make it emanate from the people. By doing so, the elite’s agenda is not only accepted by the masses, it is perceived as a victory by them.

"We are living in a new world" indeed. The KONY 2012 logo aptly represents how a viral video and social media can reverse the propaganda model. Don't be fooled however. Power is still not in the hands of the base of the pyramid ... far from it. It is all about appearances.

When the war on Iraq was declared, a great portion of young Americans opposed the war. How is it they are now begging the government to send troops to Africa? A simple video, specifically conceived for the Facebook generation did the trick. As it is the case in most campaigns to justify a war, the first goal was to identify a bad guy.

Identifying the Bad Guy

By associating Kony with Bin Laden and Hitler in this poster, KONY 2012 is promoting war.

I have absolutely no intention of defending Joseph Kony or to say “he’s not that bad”. He, along with many other guerrilla factions across Africa, has committed despicable atrocities. However, the problem of child soldiers has existed for decades and there are literally hundreds of Joseph Konys across the African continent. In some cases, some of the armies are actually funded by Western countries. If we would truly go to the root of the issue, we’d discover that Africa has been plagued with the problem of warring factions and rebel guerrillas ever since Western forces “liberated” their colonies and divided the continent of Africa according to Western interests. Indeed, instead of setting the boundaries of each country according to the geographic location of the ethnic groups and tribes that live there, countries were created according to the economic needs of colonizing forces such as Great Britain, France and others. The net result is: A bunch of artificial countries that each contain several tribes, ethnic groups, languages and religions. When one group takes power, the others are repressed, which leads to violence and rebellion. Add to the mix extreme poverty due to resources being siphoned out of Africa by Western countries and you’ve got a breeding ground for merciless warlords. As long as this problem exists, Joseph Konys will continue to emerge in Africa.

But the video mentions none of this. All it says is that arresting Kony would “make the world better”. KONY 2012 is all about identifying a bad guy, “making him famous” and have people demand his death by U.S. forces. Fixing the true cause of problems in the third world has never been on the Agenda. But picking out a “bad guy” to justify military action has always been part of it. If in the case of Saddam Hussein, “facts” (that ultimately proved false) were given to justify the invasion of Iraq. A different technique is being used with Kony, one that originates from advertising.

Any marketing specialist will tell you: “Facts don’t sell, emotions do”.  The first part of KONY 2012 solely addresses emotions. It is about making the filmmaker likeable, showing gut-wrenching images of African kids in pain, in misery and in despair. Then, the turning point: Joseph Kony is the cause of all of this. Not centuries of exploitation and devastation by Western forces in Africa that lead to chaos, lawlessness and poverty. No, it’s Kony. That bastard. George Clooney is really mad at him right now. He even tweeted about it.

Another marketing strategy is to appeal to the lowest common denominator. In other words, to get a message across, one must address the audience as if it was made of kids. KONY 2012 does exactly this by ridiculously oversimplifying the problem and explaining it to an actual child – who represents the viewers.  This is not surprising though, as this is how the masses are perceived by the higher ups.

Here's what this scene implies: "Look, dumb-ass, even this little kid gets it. So you better get it.

Once the viewers had their emotions stirred, got infantilized and had the problem spelled out to them as if they were in kindergarten, the table is set for the true goal of the video: Defining the agenda.

Defining the Agenda

KONY 2012 is a movement backed by some of the world’s most powerful entities and has precise goals. As the movie’s intro states, it is an experiment. It is an opportunity to create a movement that can be fully trackable, quantifiable and manageable through social media whose culmination is a U.S. military intervention in Uganda. The carrying out of this mission will not only be perceived as a victory, it will restore young people’s faith in democracy. What the members of this movement might not realize is that they are helping the advancement of the elite’s agenda towards a New World Order.

This poster aptly summarizes how the Illuminati works. Political parties are irrelevant as both work towards the same Agenda.

The second part of the movie let’s go of emotions and describes to the viewers what the elite expects from them. U.S. troops are already in Uganda, but, according to the movie, Kony “changed his tactics”… Damnit Kony, you and your sneaky tactics. Apparently, high tech satellites, unmanned drones and all kinds of radars are not enough to catch this guy. Nope, in order to catch him, a complicated plan, involving the purchase of an “Action Kit” and the registering an ID bracelet on a website is required. Makes sense.

Those who want to "Stop Kony" are required to wear a bracelet bearing a unique code which needs to be registered at a website. Of course, personal information is requested.

Once the bracelet is registered, members can associate it with their Facebook account, which will keep track of all KONY-related actions. The end result is: every single member of KONY 2012 will be known, identified and easily tracked – with constantly updated information. All of this data will of course be collected, scrutinized and stored by those in charge.

Furthermore, members are asked to contribute a “few dollars a month” to TRI, an organization whose ultimate goal is American military intervention in Uganda.

TRI's logo is an inverted "Peace" sign. In symbolism, an inverted sign means that it stands for the opposite of the regular sign. In other words, TRI is about war. Peace does not involve "equipping" and "training" government forces to fight rebel factions. As the novel 1984 states, WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

To support the cause and to make it popular, a bunch of elite-sponsored artists and politicians have been enlisted, including Lady Gaga, Jay-Z, Rihanna, Oprah, George Clooney, Bono, etc. While some of them might be genuinely concerned about problems in Africa, most of them are pawns of the elite that are used to promote its agenda.

After going past the celebrities and the emotions, the end result of this campaign is simple and steeped in real politik: Since the fall of rival superpower USSR, Western forces have sought to bring down and to control regional powers around the world, mostly in third countries. Uganda is part of that plan. The same way the spectre of Bin Laden was used to invade Afghanistan, Kony is being used to enter Uganda.

The video clearly shows what is the goal of this "movement": U.S. troops taking charge of the Ugandan army, the same way it took charge of the Iraqi, Libyan and other armies in the past few years.

In Conclusion

KONY 2012 is a cleverly orchestrated campaign specifically aimed at today’s youth, the future citizens of the world. Using state-of-the-art techniques and new technologies, the campaign is a first attempt at “reverse propaganda”, where the agenda APPEARS to emanate from the people. By using emotions, irrational thoughts and superficial explanations, KONY 2012 attempts to trick well-meaning people, who desire to make a positive change in the world, to instead fuel a gigantic war machine that is controlled by the world’s elite.

Is KONY 2012 trying to eradicate child-soldiers or is it attempting to create a new kind of child-soldiers?

Right….

-------------------------------------------

Kony 2012 campaigner Jason Russell detained for masturbating in public

By wmw_admin on March 17, 2012

Paul Harris – Guardian.co.uk March 16, 2012

One of the co-founders of Invisible Children, the San Diego-based charity which is campaigning for the arrest of Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony, has been hospitalised after police said he was detained for being naked and masturbating in public.

Jason Russell, 33, was picked up by police in San Diego at around 11.30am on Thursday after receiving numerous calls from the public about a man vandalising cars, being apparently under the influence of a substance and making sexual gestures while wearing only his underwear.

According to local TV station NBC, San Diego police spokeswoman Lieutenant Andra Brown told a press conference in the city that Russell was co-operative as he was detained by officers. “He was no problem for the police department. However, during the evaluation we learned that we probably needed to take care of him. So officers detained him and transferred him to a local medical facility for further evaluation and treatment,” she said.

Invisible Children has shot to fame in recent weeks after one of the videos that it produces in order to publicise the atrocities of Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army went viral. Viewed more than 76m times, the video gave a high profile to the group’s cause, but also put the tiny charity at the centre of global scrutiny.

Critics have condemned the group for a perceived lack of transparency in its financial records and for over-simplifying a complex issue. They accused the group of being fame-seeking and of having an overtly western focus on what is a regional African problem. Some also pointed out the group had taken large donations from rightwing Christian fundamentalists groups in the US, who have also funded anti gay-rights causes.

However, the group and its many defenders mounted a strong defence, detailing its financial history and saying that their sole aim was to highlight a dreadful and ongoing human rights cause that had garnered little attention for decades. They were also hailed for using social media to engage young people in social activism.

Scores of support groups have sprung up all over the US and the world and a resolution of support for the groups’ aims has even been introduced in Congress. The group is planning a day of mass action in protest at Kony for next month that aims to distribute more than a million posters bearing the logo Kony 2012 across the US.

A brief statement by the group in the wake of Russell’s arrest said that being at the centre of a massive media storm may have taken its toll. “Jason Russell was unfortunately hospitalised suffering from exhaustion, dehydration and malnutrition. He is now receiving medical care and is focused on getting better,” said Invisible Children’s chief executive Ben Keesey in the statement.

“The past two weeks have taken a severe emotional toll on all of us and that toll manifested itself in an unfortunate incident yesterday. Jason’s passion and bis work have done so much to help so many and we are are devastated to see him dealing with this personal health issue.”

------------------------------------------------

911 - Gerard Holmgren - A THEORY

A THEORY

A THEORY – not certain, just floating the idea.
By Gerard Holmgren
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=82

I’m starting to think that S11 was an even more audacious psy-op than any of us imagined. That the ultimate purpose was not so much to get people to believe the official story as such but , but to plunge them into intellectual senility in the process of dealing with it. Of couse, the middle ranking perps like Bush desperately need to people to believe the official story and he’ll fight tooth an nail for that, but he’s just a pawn in the game too. The people pulling his strings have just let him loose in the lions cage and they don’t really care whether he wins or not. It’s the trauma of the fight that’s important.


I think it works this way. When I first got into S11 activism, I had a theory that there would be about 10 % of the population who would automatically assume that the govt did it, even if they didn’t have any evidence and about 10 % who would never believe it, no matter how much evidence they got. That leaves 80% which are open to persuasion. About half of these would be easy to convince if they got good evidence. The other half would range from difficult to extremely stubborn, but not hopeless.


So I figured that if the 40% of the population who would be easy to convince got targeted with good info, that would give you 50% and from there, the weight of majority pressure would start wearing down the other 40 % who were difficult but not completely closed.


I was dead wrong. It may have seemed like a sensible analysis in the pre S11 world, but the event itself changed that. It gave people stark choices. The official story required either that one descended into total intellectual senility in order to still believe it – perhaps deliberately made ridiculous for that very purpose – or else that one keep ones intellect alive but destroy almost everything that one had previously believed about how society works.


If the real story had just been a kind of hover between LIHOP and criminal negligence as promoted by Ruppert, then people probably would have been able to fit that into their existing social models. So it wouldn’t have had the destructive effect.


But the cartoon like nature of the script left no middle ground. Destroy all your social paradigms or destroy your intellect in defending them.


I naively expected that most people would choose to keep their intellect alive and shift their social paradigm in accordance with what the evidence told them. But the perps knew better. They were so confident that most people would rather trash their intellect in order to hang on to the basics of their political beliefs, that they deliberately gave them a story which required lunacy in the true sense of the word to believe.


It was a plot to drive the entire world insane, and completely destroy intellectual standards. Once this crack has been opened in the collective intellect, once people have openly and brazenly endorsed complete intellectual insanity for the purpose of hanging on to old paradigms, then the gate is open is to promote total insanity across the board.


So the official story challenges everyone. Those who can come to terms with LIHOP, then face the challenge of believing that no plane hit the pentagon and that the towers were demolished. Those who get past that face the challenge of remote controlled planes and non existent flights and faked passenger lists. Those who get past that face the challenge of it all just being a snuff movie – no planes and the Naudet foreknowledge. Gradually ,people fall away as it gets too much for them. Thus we see people like Brian Salter who were spot on through LIHOP and MIHOP- lite and then suddenly went completely insane, when pushed past his limit. Likewise Huffscmidt. Other people fell away earlier. But at whatever stage they fall away, there still remains a cartoon to believe in, one which they have to go insane to believe.


Once the insanity has been embraced, then the world can be flooded with any insanity they want and people have no intellectual capacity intact to deal with it.



So S11 itself is just a social and intellectual primer to set people up for whatever is next. Guilty govts are expendable in the process if the insanity takes the form of some kind of limited hangout 911truth religion – just as long as people can’t think any more.

911 - Why they didn't use planes

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml


Why they didn't use planes


Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.

911 - CONNECTING THE DOTS ON 9/11: NO PLANES

CONNECTING THE DOTS ON 9/11: NO PLANES

http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/2006/03/connecting-dots-on-911-no-planes-of.html

OF COURSE, at first blush, the idea that no real planes were used in 9/11 seems absurd.

But when ALL the evidence is taken into account, it is the only reasonable conclusion.

So let's go through it piece by piece---

BY ITSELF, videos that show conflicting plane paths for the second hit do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps a network created footage because they were too cheap to buy footage, or wanted more dramatic footage than what was available. But clearly these videos show the south tower exploding. If planes were added in-- what happened to THE REAL PLANE in the video?

BY ITSELF, weird anomalies in photos and videos of the second hit do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps there was something strange in the air that day that made the plane look strange. But is this really a convincing explanation?

BY ITSELF, the fact that the second plane completely melted into the south tower, without slowing, or distorting or breaking or exploding upon impact does not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps that is just the way a fast large bodied jetliner impacts a steel frame building-- even though it defies physics and examples of other plane crashes.

BY ITSELF, the fact that CNN footage of the second hit shows signs of editing and signs of sloppy bluescreen technology do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps CNN had good reason to alter the video, though it is not at all clear what these reasons might be.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the airplane wings and tail cut through large steel columns on the WTC wall do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. But it sure is strange that the fuel carried in the wings was never ignited by the impact of the wings on these large columns. And it sure is strange the huge tail section, which breaks off quite easily in other plane crashes, slid into the building without a hitch.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the south tower fireball came out all on one side of the building, even though the plane hit straight on and just slightly off-center, do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. But it sure is strange, particularly in comparison to the North tower hit, where explosions came out all sides of the building.

BY ITSELF, the fact that very few airplane parts were found at any 9/11 crash site do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Sure, perhaps these were incredibly violent plane crashes that tore up the plane much more than in "normal" crashes-- but it still does make one wonder, since typically plane crashes are quite violent but still leave plenty of parts on the ground.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the few airplane parts were found at any 9/11 crash site were not verified to make sure they matched the plane that officially crashed at that site does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. After all, why does the government need to prove anything to anyone?

BY ITSELF, the fact that officially, no black boxes were found in the rubble at the WTC, does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Even though these boxes are incredibly sturdy and meant to survive the worst plane crashes, the fact that FOUR of these boxes (two per plane) vanished at Ground Zero only shows how destructive the unusual collapses of the two towers was.*

BY ITSELF, the fact that the official flight path of the Pentagon crash is impossible does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it does make one wonder what really happened.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the official story of the crash of UA93 makes absolutely no sense does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it makes you wonder what the hell the government is lying about.

BY ITSELF, the fact that flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled to fly on 9/11 does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it sure tends to support that flights 11 and 77 were not involved in the attacks.

BY ITSELF, the fact the passenger lists for the four 9/11 planes are highly suspect, does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it makes you wonder why we can't have the truth.

BY ITSELF, the fact that it is highly doubtful terrorists training on small prop planes and flight simulators could have piloted the planes so effectively on 9/11 does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps they got REALLY lucky.

BY ITSELF, the fact that terrorists armed at most with knives, boxcutters and fake bombs took over four large jets with not one of eight pilots notifying air traffic control of a hijacking by any standard means does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps they got REALLY REALLY lucky. But how much luck can we reasonably expect for the terrorists on that day?

BY ITSELF, the fact that officially, forty minutes after two hijacked jets attacked New York City, a third hijacked plane flew hundreds of miles before penetrating Washington DC airspace to attack the Pentagon WITHOUT AIR FORCE INTERCEPTION-- this does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps NORAD just had a REALLY REALLY BAD DAY. But when can we simply laugh at the absurdity of the official story?

BY ITSELF, the fact that the media lies about what the government does all the time, and covers for the government all the time, does not prove no plane was used on 9/11. But certainly the media is capable of covering up and disseminating such a huge lie.

BY ITSELF, the fact that 9/11 has all the features of a highly sophisticated covert operation that was years in the works and was an operation that clearly aided geopolitical goals of the US does not prove no plane was used on 9/11. But it would support the idea that the 9/11 planners would know how difficult and therefore risky it would be to control real hijackings and real aircraft.

So, indeed-- all these things BY THEMSELVES do not prove that 9/11 was carried out without real planes.

But together, all the evidence presented here points to the idea that-- NO REAL PLANES WERE USED IN 9/11.

What WAS used for the 9/11 attacks?

My current hypothesis is pre-planted bombs and missiles (possibly cloaked missiles). However, the whole POINT is that the whole operation rested on the idea of making it LOOK as though planes were used. Thus, a few plane parts were planted, videos were faked, "witnesses" were coached, hijacked plane paths were faked, hijackings were faked, cockpit radio transmissions were faked, plane passenger lists were created with fake IDs and passenger/crew phone calls were faked. Possibly a real Boeing jet flew near each 9/11 crash site to act as a decoy.** Some real passengers were likely killed on 9/11 or given new identities.

Doesn't the scale of this operation make it seem highly implausible?

Clearly 9/11 was a very large complicated operation, with many interconnecting parts. I think the whole thing could have been done with perhaps 50-100 key operatives who knew much of the plot. These people would be subject assassination if they spoke out. Some of them may have been killed on 9/11 itself. Other people would be involved but not know the whole story and might even think what they were doing was innocuous (FBI agents for instance).

Is my theory hard to believe?

Yes. Of course!

But what is even harder to believe is the official 9/11 story-- particularly in light of the evidence presented above.


*My theory is that the planes attacking the WTC meme was planted so effectively by TV imagery that there was no attempt to plant boxes at the WTC. Whereas at the Pentagon and Shanksville, there were more immediate doubts about whether a plane had crashed there, and so the black box story was fabricated for these two sites. Later, when some in the 9/11 skeptic movement started to doubt if normal planes hit the WTC, stories were planted in the underground media that black boxes WERE found but that their existence was kept secret by the FBI.

**Interestingly, the timing of the attacks were such that in theory ONE JET could have flown by the WTC north tower to mimic flight 11, then overflown Manhattan and turned around and came back to mimic flight 175, then this same jet could have hightailed it to Washington DC to fly over the Pentagon, then would still have had time to get to the Shanksville area to mimic flgiht 93. Researcher Woody Box has found that a Boeing 767 was "stolen" on 9/11, which could have been used for this purpose-- as well as to send radio transmissions from the "hijacked jets". Finally, this idea is supported by the fact that, as documented in the 9/11 commission report, air traffic controllers initially thought flight 11 continued flying after flying by Manhattan.