The 9/11 Post 11807

Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.

I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.

I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.

The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.

I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.

The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.

Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.

In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.

But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.

(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).

11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 104 105 106 107 108 134
  • Paul Barbara

    More dirty tricks and censorship with a possible ‘Pizzagate’ connection:

    ‘Breaking: Adams & Jones Taken Down by Google/CIA Prior to Big Event- Trump Needs to Beware’:

    ‘…The censorship of the Independent Media has begun in earnest by Jeff Bezos and Google.

    On my last radio show (2/19), Mike Adams revealed that he was contacted and was told “We will pay you $50,000 to provide us with damaging information against Alex Jones. If you do not help us, we will destroy you”.

    In the PM on February 22, 2017, Mike Adams reached out to me and informed me that Google’s search engines have removed all 140,000 pages of content from Natural News ( If the reader puts Natural News in the Google search engine, it comes back as This is Mike’s back up site which is a shell of his original site.

    Given the time proximity between the attempt to blackmail Mike Adams and Google’s takedown of one of one of the biggest websites in the Independent Media, it is too suspicious to be considered to be a mere coincidence. It is clear from just the circumstantial evidence, that entities representing Google tried to blackmail Mike Adams into providing damning information about Alex Jones and then when Mike did not respond, they took him down.

    In the same time frame, Alex Jones lost $3 million in Google advertising revenue which serves to validate the Mike Adams’ claim that he was indeed blackmailed in an attempt to destroy Alex Jones…..’

    ‘Mike Adams: Natural News, “everyone’s favorite über-quack #1 anti-science website”, stripped from Google’:

    Whether it’s Pizzagate-related or not, it’s bad news.

    • Clark

      Interesting that Alex Jones had $3 million to lose. How big can you get and still be considered part of the “alternative” media? Craig has never monetised his site and pays for its hosting out of his own pocket.

      • Clark

        $3 million from advertising is serious money. Such sites really need to be included under “corporate media”; with advertising revenue like that, there’s no way they can be called “independent”. You can see the incentive for sensationalising stories, just like the good old dead-tree Gutter Press.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark February 24, 2017 at 22:59
          Whatever you may think of Alex Jones, he does put out stuff that seriously upsets the PTB.
          And what about the other guy? Try searching ‘Mike Adams + Natural News’ – he exposed a lot of Corporation scams.
          The Empire is striking back.

          • Clark

            As usual, I think it’s considerably more complex. I don’t think there is a singular “Empire”. There are lots of powerful entities. Where their interests converge, they cooperate. Where their interests are in opposition, they compete and fight. They all warp information in their favour. Then there’s us lot with next to nothing, so we have to apply critical thinking as best we can.

            In this case, for instance, the CIA and Google are not the same thing. When Snowden’s material revealed that the NSA were tapping into Google’s traffic, Google switched over from http to https as quickly as possible to stop them. There then followed high-level meetings between the NSA and Google. You can guess what was probably going on. Google would have been saying “that’s our commercial property. You’ve been stealing it for years. You owe us x billion, and if you want any more you’ll have to buy it like our corporate clients do. Would you rather deal here or go to court?”

            Google will have been revising their systems since Trump got elected; they probably aren’t pleased about that. Dunno who’s looking for dirt on Alex Jones, but I wouldn’t jump to conclusions. And don’t assume any of these are “independent”. “Nutritional supplement” suppliers are Big Money, and often owned by pharmaceutical companies – they both sell pills, after all. And there’s plenty of money in climate change denial, much of it from the Koch Brothers (coal money) who are with Trump and his deputy Pence.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark
          February 24, 2017 at 22:59
          ‘Another example of how Infowars is being targeted due to political beliefs’:

          It should be up to the reader/viewer how much is sentaionalism and how much is useful information – and plenty of senstionalised material is in fact important.

          If Jones or the young lady in the video believe he/they are being censored, don’t you believe they have the right to say so? And are you not aware that the PTB do not like the alternative media, or individuals, being able to counter the ‘Fake News’ pumped out 24/7 by the MSM on behalf of their paymasters or Proprietors?

          How long before they censor 9/11 videos and articles, or NHS campaigns?

          • Clark

            Removing advertising revenue isn’t censorship. You may as well say that Google is censoring Craig, because they don’t pay him either.

            I’m having trouble watching that video because the Infowars site doesn’t respect publicly-licensed software, which is the only type I’ll use.

          • Clark

            No, I can’t get it to play from the Infowars site. If there’s a copy on YouTube, link to that and I’ll be able to watch it.

            I can tell you that the Infowars site is highly commercialised. My Javascript blocker NoScript produces a list of Javascript sources so long that it needs a scroll bar! It’s as bad as the Daily Mail or the Telegraph. I’m not going to let all that spyware run on my system.

  • Paul Barbara


    ‘…For the record the U.K. Authorities were notified of the horrors Beck endured when she first disclosed at almost 14. To understand UK authorities response-Google Kinkora 1400, Holly Greig Justice, & UK child sex abuse Inquiry. It’s a pattern of U.K. Authorities to not investigate. Ann has been notified about Beck’s videos. She knows. So does Lee. To understand the depth & connections Ann & Lee have, a team of 5 from US went to U.K. To investigate them & ended up in jail. The FBI had to be notified. We don’t know anything beyond that. Because I know Ann & Lee both are watching, I would like to ask Ann a few questions. “What part of ‘missing your daughter’ do you miss? The money? The videos? Violent rapes? Or the occasional sex you got to have with those who abused Beck?” FYI it wasn’t you they wanted but underage children you provided. ….’

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark February 25, 2017 at 02:58
    ‘How the CIA made Google – Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet’:

    ‘..INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’
    The origins of this ingenious strategy trace back to a secret Pentagon-sponsored group, that for the last two decades has functioned as a bridge between the US government and elites across the business, industry, finance, corporate, and media sectors. The group has allowed some of the most powerful special interests in corporate America to systematically circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law to influence government policies, as well as public opinion in the US and around the world. The results have been catastrophic: NSA mass surveillance, a permanent state of global war, and a new initiative to transform the US military into Skynet…’

    I don’t expect perfection from these sites, any more than I expect perfection from myself. But ‘….And don’t assume any of these are “independent”. “Nutritional supplement” suppliers are Big Money, and often owned by pharmaceutical companies – they both sell pills, after all…’ is a bit strong – Mike Adams’ ‘Natural News’ put out a lot of good infromation, about things like mercury and aluminium in vaccines, GMO’s, herbicides and pesticides, and so on. Did he make money selling or advertising supplements? Sure, but I would be extremely surprised if he doesn’t take a lot of the supplements he pushes himself.
    Anyhow, I’m switching from Google as my search engine, not that that will worry them.

          • Clark

            And if you want to avoid Google, tightening your browser’s cookie settings and installing a Javascript blocker will keep more information from them than just using a different search engine.

          • Clark

            “it searches using Google but anonymously, keeping you invisible to Google, so they can’t collect your data”

            You’d have to do a lot more than that to even approach invisibility from Google. Or Facebook, or any other company with comparably huge web presence. Nearly every page you visit retrieves elements and runs Javascript from such companies. With Firefox you can see what’s being called. First you need to enable the old-fashioned Menu Bar. Then click on its Tools menu item, point at Web Developer, and from the drop-down list produced click on Network. This opens a panel. Then refresh the page you’re on, and you’ll see the source addresses for all requests made from that page. You’ll see that this page, for instance, loads elements from,, and, besides, obviously, and that’s an extremely modest list compared to most sites, and my results above are with Javascript blocked.

            So your IP address is visible to Google via their font service just by visiting this page…

            If you can stand the hassle, you can combat all this by installing the Firefox add-on called RequestPolicy or similar, but it makes your browser much less convenient to use.

            Scroogled, a short story by Cory Doctorow:


          • Clark

            ” First you need to enable the old-fashioned Menu Bar. Then click on its Tools menu item, point at Web Developer, and from the drop-down list produced click on Network. This opens a panel”

            Or just press Ctrl+Shift+Q to open the Network panel.

        • Clark

          Hmmm. It’s a lot more than Google, and the main actor seems to be the Highlands Forum. From Part 1:

          – Total participants in the DoD’s Highlands Forum number over a thousand, although sessions largely consist of small closed workshop style gatherings of maximum 25–30 people, bringing together experts and officials depending on the subject. Delegates have included senior personnel from SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton, RAND Corp., Cisco, Human Genome Sciences, eBay, PayPal, IBM, Google, Microsoft, AT&T, the BBC, Disney, General Electric, Enron, among innumerable others; Democrat and Republican members of Congress and the Senate; senior executives from the US energy industry such as Daniel Yergin of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates; and key people involved in both sides of presidential campaigns.

          – Other participants have included senior media professionals: David Ignatius, associate editor of the Washington Post and at the time the executive editor of the International Herald Tribune; Thomas Friedman, long-time New York Times columnist; Arnaud de Borchgrave, an editor at Washington Times and United Press International; Steven Levy, a former Newsweek editor, senior writer for Wired and now chief tech editor at Medium; Lawrence Wright, staff writer at the New Yorker; Noah Shachtmann, executive editor at the Daily Beast; Rebecca McKinnon, co-founder of Global Voices Online; Nik Gowing of the BBC; and John Markoff of the New York Times.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ KingofWelshNoir February 25, 2017 at 08:17
    Still wouldn’t help if Google had taken the site you’re looking for of it’s search base.

    • KingofWelshNoir

      I don’t understand what you mean. Startpage searches Google anonymously on your behalf and hands you the results, so Google don’t see you. What’s the problem?

      By the way, I just used a tool called Takeout to download all the data holds on me. Scary. Everything I have ever watched on YouTube, everything ever searched for on Chrome…

      • Clark

        If Google doesn’t index a site, Google’s results won’t include it, so Startpage can’t inform you of it.

        Google develop Chrome, so Chrome includes Google’s spyware.

        However, Chrome is developed under an open-source public license and is therefore both legally and conveniently modifiable. Consequently, suitably competent users of Chrome modify it by removing the spyware, and re-release it as Chromium.

        As Richard Stallman says, “with freely licensed software, if the software is broken, the users will fix it”, and they have.

        • Clark

          Sorry, I got that back-to-front. Google develop and release Chromium under various licenses that respect freedom. Google then add various proprietary bits to Chromium, and release the result as Chrome.

      • Clark

        The other part of the problem is lack of anonymity. OK, Startpage won’t inform Google of your search term, but as soon as you browse to a result page, the odds are that Google or YouTube or Doubleclick or other Google subsidiaries or partners have elements on that page, so Google find out you visited it anyway.

  • Clark

    OK I’ve read Part 1 of Nafeez Ahmed’s How the CIA made Google.

    I don’t really understand the article’s concentration upon Google. The article documents lots of connections between US military and intelligence agencies and private sector IT companies, and Google is clearly just one of many. What it illustrates could be called the IT sector of the military-industrial complex. It’s interesting to see so many individual links revealed, but the information isn’t in an easily usable form. It’s unsurprising that such objectives are pursued, but the scale is daunting.

    I also noticed a conflict of the type I mentioned before:

    “Highlands Forum partner SAIC played a key role, among other contractors, in producing and administering the NSA’s XKeyscore, and was recently implicated in NSA hacking of the privacy network Tor”

    Well TOR was set up with funding from US Naval Intelligence. The idea was to provide a safe communication channel that could be used by Chinese and other dissidents to leak information without revealing their identity. Now the NSA are trying to break the protection TOR provides.

    Likewise with the Internet itself. ARPA (which became DARPA) helped to fund development of the original Internet protocols. The idea was to produce a communications system that was resistant to censorship. Now, other US intelligence departments are searching for ways to block communication on the Internet…

    …nothing is all one thing, all aligned towards a single goal. Objectives sometimes conflict, and sometimes converge.

    • Clark

      I’m on Part 2 now:

      “In the same year, we now know, Google had signed an agreement with the NSA giving the agency open-ended access to the personal information of its users, and its hardware and software, in the name of cyber security — agreements that Gen. Alexander was busy replicating with hundreds of telecoms CEOs around the country.

      – Thus, it is not just Google that is a key contributor and foundation of the US military-industrial complex: it is the entire Internet, and the wide range of private sector companies — many nurtured and funded under the mantle of the US intelligence community (or powerful financiers embedded in that community) — which sustain the Internet and the telecoms infrastructure; it is also the myriad of start-ups selling cutting edge technologies to the CIA’s venture firm In-Q-Tel, where they can then be adapted and advanced for applications across the military intelligence community. Ultimately, the global surveillance apparatus and the classified tools used by agencies like the NSA to administer it, have been almost entirely made by external researchers and private contractors like Google, which operate outside the Pentagon.”

      Which is exactly what I’ve been saying for years, though the scale does astound me. But yes, the Intel agencies essentially just buy the services they want from the private sector – so the private sector get your data – and get the chance to process and filter it – before government agencies do.

  • Paul Barbara

    Another ‘Inside Job’, like 9/11, which shows that the US agencies will happily kill their own people, and also kill whistleblowers who try to expose the truth:

    ‘Requiem for the Suicided: Terrance Yeakey’:

    ‘WeAreChangeOklahoma – What did Sgt. Terrance Yeakey know?’:

    These videos show very clearly that Oklahoma City police Sgt. Terrance Yeakey was ‘suicided’ because he had learnt that the Oklahoma City bombing did not happen as the PTB and the MSM siad it did.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Rep. Kucinich’s HR 2977 Names Chemtrails As An ‘Exotic Weapon’:

    By Lorie Kramer [email protected] 1-10-2
    ‘….To see text of HR 2977:

    Rep. Kucinich’s Bill is also listed at this US Government site: ….’

    [Unfortunately, ‘…Representative Kucinich introduced HR 2799 and he was called aside and told to take it out and he did and he got very quiet about it. I cannot tell you enough that this is very dangerous thing to get in to. It is very dangerous to talk about this…’ ]
    ‘Chemtrails Explained by insider A C Griffith’:

    Bit like 9/11 – too hot to talk about for Parliamentarians, Senators and Congressmen.
    A C Griffith died in 2012, aged 72, from ‘complications’ after surgery… I found one obituary, but now I look for it again, I can’t find it.
    When Griffith talked about things he had worked on, like Chemtrails, he was fine; but his speculation Russia was behind Katrina, and that Israel ‘saved’ the US, was I think fed to him, in order to discredit his other work.
    The US had the motive, and ability, to steer Katrina, and also to blow the dykes. Cui Bono? They wanted to rid the area of ‘people of colour’, gentrify it, and use most of the Gulf coastline for oil-related purposes. At least, that’s my take!

    • Clark

      See, this is the problem. I went looking for evidence of “chemtrails”, and I couldn’t find anything. As I recall, there was a speculative patent with some very vague wording, a US government proposal for geo-engineering but no actual implementation, one independent sample taken followed by a misinterpreted lab test, one ancient photo of bottles outside an aircraft, a couple of recent photos of an aircraft with bottles in it which turned out to be a legitimate aircraft stability test, and a rather unfortunate Scandinavian Green politician who had fallen for this kind of “evidence”. And one genuine, secret MOD test over Norfolk decades ago which involved release of a radioactive tracer, which was a genuine scandal, but nothing to do with “chemtrails”.

      Now it took me ages to do that research, and life is just too short. Disseminating this sort of stuff discredits real causes, cf. The Boy Who Cried Wolf. You need to get organised, work with others to create a “Best Evidence” wiki which is bold enough to say so when causes turn out to be bunk.

      • Clark

        And to cap it all, you AGAIN insinuate that doctors killed the messenger! It’s no wonder that Google de-lists places like NaturalNews, because they’re always pushing AIDS denial and the “your doctor is out to kill you slowly” nonsense. That sort of stuff is dangerous, it kills people, so you can hardly blame Google for de-listing it.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark February 28, 2017 at 02:32
          I obviously have no proof, any more than I have proof of Barry Jennings’ or Danny Jowenko’s murder, but whenever a whistleblower or someone who is a ‘thorn in the side’ of the PTB die, I get extremely suspicious.
          If you had read ‘Hit List’ and ‘Dead Wrong’, both by Belzer and Wayne, I think you would too.
          As for Natural News, there is ample EVIDENCE of deliberately understimating, or not bothering to mention, serious dangers in new drugs, vaccines, pesticides and herbicides by the Big Pharma and Big Agri, and corresponding corruption by CDC, EPA, FDA etc.
          If you want, I’ll dig it up for you.

      • glenn_uk

        About “chemtrails” – I found nothing of interest there either, just a lot of hot air… or ice crystals, as the case may be.

        To spring this concept as simply part of the list of evidence, as clear, verified and evident as the observed exploding of at atom bomb, is problematic. I don’t know that “chemtrails” even exist – they appear to be “contrails” to my admittedly inexpert eye.

        Do you have any serious evidence to the contrary?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ glenn_uk February 28, 2017 at 02:52
          I suggest you check the links I sent to Clark at 04.39 . It will take no more than 40 minutes, and should at least give you pause for thought.

          Then there is this: ‘High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines, Geoengineering, And The Contrail Lie’:

          The importance of that is that if Dane Wiggington is right, that High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines (as are fitted in all large passenger airliners and military tankers) almost never create contrails, except in extreme circumstances, then what do you say to that?
          Dane Wiggington is very committed, and knowledgeable; but I have emailed Rolls Royce and Sukhoi (Russian airliner engine makers) asking them if such engines normally produce contrails. I have not yet received a reply from either, but I only emailed them a few days ago.

          But if Wiggington is right, then you can’t wish for more ‘serious evidence to the contrary’.

          • glenn_uk

            Paul: Have you received a reply from them yet? It’s been the best part of a month – I am interested in what you report back here – thanks in advance.

          • Clark

            I think it’s inevitable that aircraft engines produce contrails. They work by burning hydrocarbons (consisting of hydrogen bonded to carbon) with atmospheric oxygen, so the major reaction products must be carbon dioxide and water. Due to the high temperature of combustion, the water will be produced as vapour. In appropriate atmospheric conditions, it will condense and form a trail. The trail of increased humidity is always produced, even in conditions where it doesn’t condense and thereby become visible to human eyes.

            But even if engines didn’t produce water vapour, aircraft would still sometimes produce contrails. Air contains water vapour. The passage of an aircraft rapidly alters the pressure of the air immediately around it – if it didn’t, the wings couldn’t generate lift. The changes in pressure cause changes in temperature, so if the air is near the condensation point, condensation may occur forming a trail.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark February 28, 2017 at 02:24
        I doubt if you checked the links above; Kucinich, a hard-hitter, got scared off and removed his Bill.

        You searched and found ONE independent sample? There were dozens, and their ‘interpretation’ is not in doubt; I’ll find some but not at this hour!
        ‘…there was a speculative patent with some very vague wording…’ There were in fact numerous detailed patents.
        ‘…US government proposal for geo-engineering but no actual implementation…’ They are being implemented all right – but as A C Griffith said, it’s the highest secrecy program he has ever been involved in; he also said people have lost their lives over it.

        If you followed my links, it would not take you ages, and it would obviously be better info than you have ‘found’.

        But here are some extremely short (but sweet) video clips; take with a pinch of salt the ‘100% Proof’ blurb, but they are certainly hard to explain away!

        ‘ChemTrail Sprayer – 100% proof – filmed up close by AF pilots’: 
        Just 1 1 ½ minutes video clip – 

        Well, WHY does the ‘trail’ (spray) stop and start like that, if it’s just good ‘ole fashioned ‘contrails’? 

        ‘Airline Passengers Told To Lower Shades During Chemtrail Spraying’: 
        5 minute video

        Why on earth would the Captain and airline staff on an ordinary passenger flight ORDER passengers to lower the window blinds during the day? 
        Watch short video, and find out! 

        ‘4 engines,6 chemtrails,then 2 chemtrails – what the???’:
        3 ½ minute video clip

        ‘Chemtrails PROOF – NO DOUBT !!! 2014 / 2015 – HD’: 

        Just 1 ½ minute video clip – what is that pouring out of the wing-tip (NOT the engines, note – not a sign from them), Scotch Mist?

        Then this killer: ‘Geoengineering Whistleblower ~ Ex-Military ~ Kristen Meggan’:
        That’s 23 minutes, but still hardly ‘ages’.

        Looks a lot of links, but will only take about 40 minutes total for all of them.

        • Clark

          Paul, firstly I need to point out that from my point of view, YOU could be an agent (or maybe just someone misinformed by agents) with the objective of wasting the time of serious activists.

          Now, my adoptive father worked on aircraft in WWII – so propeller-driven aircraft, though that hadn’t occurred to me until I wrote that. He told me that aircraft produce vapour trails from their wing-tips due to sudden changes in air pressure produced by the aerofoil effect. For years I vaguely thought he was wrong, because when I watched airliners through binoculars I saw vapour trails from the engines. But now I see your comment:

          “4 engines,6 chemtrails,then 2 chemtrails – what the???”

          and immediately a non-chemtrail explanation occurs to me – four from the engines, two from the wing-tips, varying under different conditions. I haven’t watched any of these videos yet.

          Would you be prepared to discuss critical thinking with me?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark February 28, 2017 at 11:03
            WWII bombers caused large contrails, for reasons their engines were cooled by water (Dane Wiggington explains better than me).
            Rather than critical thinking, I’ll stick to 9/11 and other related filthy tricks that are being foisted on us. The answer to 2/4/6 chemtrails you posed will be obvious to you when you watch the video.
            As I explained, the total of the links I gave you last was less than 40 minutes; Under 20 if you ignore Kristen Megan (which you have had the opportunity of watching before).

    • Clark

      OK, I looked at evidence before and found nothing convincing, but it was a few years ago. Before I spend a similar amount of time again, I have some practical, logical questions.

      The shortage of evidence is supposedly because “chemtrails” are a super-secret project, so secret that people get killed. So how widespread can it be? We’re encouraged to believe that “chemtrails” are routinely produced by commercial aircraft, such that on some days the sky is criss-crossed by them. But this would require bulk manufacturing, transport and refilling of canisters, canister cycling at airports, fitting and maintenance of distribution equipment etc., all on an industrial scale. The necessary staff are all signed up on death-clause contracts, or what?

      There are aircraft tail-number spotters like train spotters, and observers like those who watch military airbases and, among other things, collate the movements of rendition flights. Do their forums support the case?

      I’m looking for a story that integrates with overall reality. Suggestive but disconnected anomalies probably have separate, unconnected explanations.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark February 28, 2017 at 10:39
      I’m not at all surprised at yet more crimes – the US Regime and it’s agencies are Murder Inc. on steroids. But you have to cut them some slack – after all, they are ‘Exceptional’, aren’t they?
      I’m glad it’s been brought to light, though.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Thought provoking review of the book

    ‘CHEMTRAILS, HAARP, and the “Full Spectrum Dominance” of
    Planet Earth’ by Elana Freeland, in issue 68 of Lobster Magazine.

    The article is studded with footnotes and references, and – to my admittedly untutored eye – seems to suggest there is definitely something to this phenomenon. It only takes two minutes to read.

    • glenn_uk

      KoWN: Thanks for that link. It appears to be the best of a fairly dubious collection, however it too has substantial lackings.

      It’s always the references, on which the actual arguments are based, that interest me. For instance, the first really relevant reference (the first two dealt with the sort of nonsense often presented by chemtrail’ers, which gives the whole thing a bad name) was this one:

      However, that didn’t work and simply referred one back to the main page :

      That was even after allowing for spaces, removing them, and specifically trying to get a search engine to find that reference within the site. It wasn’t found. The search feature on that site itself doesn’t work.

      Next, we had this link (from the tinyurl in reference #3):

      Unfortunately, that doesn’t meet its billing either. It refers to discussions by a group of scientists of the possibility of geoengineering and so forth, but _all_ the claims about Chemtrails were unsupported allegations by protesters (who apparently needed no evidence themselves for their convictions).

      Moving on a bit, because I wanted something more substantial, your book apparently claims it was admitted in Parliament that these tests are already being carried out! Furthermore, ‘those carrying out tests do so in secrecy’ . Shocking stuff!

      So let’s check this fascinating reference, see it in full context:

      Page 38:
      “We consider that a ban, even a short-term ban, on all SRM geoengineering testing would prevent work on geoengineering as “Plan B”. It may well also be unenforceable and be counter-productive as those carrying out tests do so in secrecy.”

      Uh huh. So they’re not _really_ fessing up to saying these tests are carried out in secrecy, but rather that a ban would probably be unenforceable, because anyone actually doing so, would do it on the quiet.

      Loses a bit of its impact, once the full context is known, wouldn’t you say?

      It goes on like this. I regard reading stuff like that as a waste of my time, because the authors are clearly shoe-horning bits from here and there into “evidence”, just hoping the casual reader won’t bother checking the truth of what they claim.

      Thanks anyway.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ glenn_uk February 28, 2017 at 23:34
        I agree with you about the ‘references’ in the book REVIEW (I wasted a lot of time slogging through a lot of them, after finding them, which was often difficult in itself); but Coles specificaly states that his references are not from Elana Freeland’s book.

        There are a number of very short videos which I linked to above, on February 28, 2017 at 04:39, in a comment to Clark, which are difficult to explain (though one of them, ‘Chemtrails PROOF – NO DOUBT !!! 2014 / 2015 – HD’: I now have reservations about – I suspect it may be ‘fuel dumping’ ).

        Then there is the following: ‘Geoengineering Whistleblower ~ Ex-Military ~ Kristen Meggan’:

        This woman is either outright lying, or chemtrail spraying is going on, and is highly classified.

    • glenn_uk

      KoWN: I should have made it much more clear… I wasn’t saying _you_ were wasting my time with this reference. It is wasting our time collectively, having people run around after inconsequential nonsense when there is much that is real to be seriously concerned about.

      But it’s actually quite interesting to look at the references by which someone claims to have made a case.

      The references are non-existent half the time, or utterly irrelevant. When they really are on point, that reference in itself is worth looking at. Does it actually claim what the original author attributed to it? If so (and such cases are surprisingly rare!), it’s worth going on to look at that references’ references.

      You might think you’re disappearing for good down these rabbit-holes, but they are remarkably self-referential, and become familiar after a while. When you find yourself scratching your head about who put who’s reference down first, that’s a good sign that additional refs have been slammed in to bolster the original construct – by all the supposed authorities claiming the point!

      I think they want to drown people, or at least impress them, with the sheer number of references. Some of them might be onto something, but I suppose it’s human nature (or at least mine) to give up on a narrative if you know the storyline is dubious in the extreme, and has already told a few whoppers along the way.

      Disappointingly often, it looks like it’s simple deception. Wilful self-deception or not, who can say. The anti-vaxxers are the worst culprits here, there is a remarkably small circle of people – many of which are clearly corrupt – claiming each other as reference against an entire establishment of evidence.

      The religiously inspired, or industrially-sponsored deception on behalf of the denial industry, follow the same pattern. You can usually find some notorious, cranky or corrupt individual gets referred to time and again in a given subject. Someone with a veneer of credibility holding a rather whacked out view is like gold-dust to this cottage industry of, well, fake science I suppose.

      • KingofWelshNoir

        No need to explain, I was not offended by your reply. I’m agnostic on the issue and suspect 99% of chemtrail reports are misidentified contrails. However there does seem to be a large body of evidence that the militaries of the world are all engaged in weather modification for military purposes and some of that almost certainly includes spraying stuff into clouds and the atmosphere. By getting caught up in the ‘is it is isn’t it a chemtrial’ debate, we may be overlooking something potentially far more serious. What do you make of this article, by the same chap, that outlines the history of military weather modification. It’s long but you can easily skim it.

        Thoughts, anyone?

        (Preferably with the ad homs.)

  • Kempe

    Chemtrails now? Is there any tripe you people won’t believe?

    Dane Wigginton is talking out of his backside. The method of engine cooling is irrelevant. Here is a picture of B17’s making contrails. The B17 had air-cooled engines.

    All aircraft engines will produce contrails at altitude. They burn hydro-carbon fuel of one type or another in the presence of oxygen. The carbon combines with the oxygen to produce CO and CO2 and the hydrogen combines with the oxygen to produce H2O, water, in vapour form. As this meets with the cold air at high altitude it condenses out into droplets which create condensation or vapour trails.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
    The Regulation of Geoengineering Fifth Report of Session 2009–10’

    ‘….Cloud Albedo It has been proposed that the Earth could be cooled by whitening clouds over parts of the ocean.42…’

    Well, that is exactly what we see if we ‘Look Up’; I have even heard people who have never heard of ‘Chemtrails’ complain that the sky is ‘whitened’, and we no longer get the deep blue skies of old.

  • Paul Barbara

    Here is a pretty good interview with Elana Freeland, but there are a couple of howlers in it:
    There was a picture at 36:31 with a burning plane and overwritten ‘CIA operated aerial spray plane carrying ‘mutated’ swine flu virus shot down in China December 2009′. I wasted some time looking for links, and finding none referring to the headline, and given it talked of ‘reports from the Kremlin’, I thought I’d check out Sorcha Faal, a notorius BS site – sure enough that is where it had originated.
    Another big mistake: the airline pilot’s demo shown at 40:28 actually had placards to do with an employment issue; someone altered them to chemtrail placards.

    ‘”Chemtrails, HAARP, and the “Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth”:

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘NASA: The End Of Mankind “Leaked Document” 2013’:

    In that video, various official documents are discussed, including the following:
    ‘Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars An Introduction Programming Manual Operations Research Technical Manual TW-SW7905.1 ‘:

    It’s quite a long document, but well worth reading. I’ll just show the ending, which shows just how our ‘Leaders’ regard us:

    Factor I
    As in every social system approach, stability is achieved only by understanding and accounting for human nature (action/reaction patterns). A failure to do so can be, and usually is, disastrous.

    As in other human social schemes, one form or another of intimidation (or incentive) is essential to the success of the draft. Physical principles of action and reaction must be applied to both internal and external subsystems.

    To secure the draft, individual brainwashing/programming and both the family unit and the peer group must be engaged and brought under control.
    Factor II – Father
    The man of the household must be housebroken to ensure that junior will grow up with the right social training and attitudes. The advertising media, etc., are engaged to see to it that father-to-be is pussy-whipped before or by the time he is married. He is taught that he either conforms to the social notch cut out for him or his sex life will be hobbled and his tender companionship will be zero. He is made to see that women demand security more than logical, principled, or honorable behavior.

    By the time his son must go to war, father (with jelly for a backbone) will slam a gun into junior’s hand before father will risk the censure of his peers, or make a hypocrite of himself by crossing the investment he has in his own personal opinion or self-esteem. Junior will go to war or father will be embarrassed. So junior will go to war, the true purpose not withstanding.
    Factor III – Mother
    The female element of human society is ruled by emotion first and logic second. In the battle between logic and imagination, imagination always wins, fantasy prevails, maternal instinct dominates so that the child comes first and the future comes second. A woman with a newborn baby is too starry-eyed to see a wealthy man’s cannon fodder or a cheap source of slave labor. A woman must, however, be conditioned to accept the transition to “reality” when it comes, or sooner.

    As the transition becomes more difficult to manage, the family unit must be carefully disintegrated, and state-controlled public education and state-operated child-care centers must be become more common and legally enforced so as to begin the detachment of the child from the mother and father at an earlier age. Inoculation of behavioral drugs [Ritalin] can speed the transition for the child (mandatory). Caution: A woman’s impulsive anger can override her fear. An irate woman’s power must never be underestimated, and her power over a pussy-whipped husband must likewise never be underestimated. It got women the vote in 1920.
    Factor IV – Junior
    The emotional pressure for self-preservation during the time of war and the self-serving attitude of the common herd that have an option to avoid the battlefield – if junior can be persuaded to go – is all of the pressure finally necessary to propel Johnny off to war. Their quiet blackmailings of him are the threats: “No sacrifice, no friends; no glory, no girlfriends.”
    Factor V – Sister
    And what about junior’s sister? She is given all the good things of life by her father, and taught to expect the same from her future husband regardless of the price.
    Factor VI – Cattle
    Those who will not use their brains are no better off than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jelly-fish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same.’

    • Clark

      Paul, either you’re pulling our leg, or someone has successfully pulled yours. That is a satirical piece, apparently by a very embittered engineer. These are disclosed documents:

      So are you in agreement with the “document” you posted, and utterly opposed to all science and government?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark March 2, 2017 at 09:03
        I’ve only just seen your comment, and have to go out urgently. I’ll check it out when I return.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark March 2, 2017 at 09:03
        I’ve now had a look at your ‘links’, which I find have nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
        I have no reason not to believe the documents I linked to are anything other than genuine, and the mere fact you don’t seem to agree means didlly squat to me, without some evidence or good reason.

        ‘…So are you in agreement with the “document” you posted, and utterly opposed to all science and government?…’
        Well, yes for the first part (though what it has to do with the second part escapes me), and separately I am totally opposed to the fake ‘Democracy’ we share with the States and other countries, and totally against the ‘science’ that foists inadequately tested voodoo foods, pesticides, vaccines, herbicides and nano-technology on us for their profit, and our loss.

        • Clark

          What the documents have to do with your comment is that they are examples of genuine documents for you to compare with the satirical piece which you quoted from. The JTRIG document was leaked by Edward Snowden, and the DoD document was obtained by very persistent use of FOIA requests by Judicial Watch. My hope is that you will learn to tell the difference and stop confusing the independent infosphere with blatant distractions, because there are already far too many distractions in the mass media. God knows we don’t need any more; they provide cover for the mendacious by wasting the time of independent observers.

          But of course it may be your intention to do exactly that. I note your remark “Rather than critical thinking, I’ll stick to 9/11 and other related filthy tricks that are being foisted on us”, but without critical thinking it is impossible to tell a filthy trick from a distraction; are you trying to encourage wild goose chases?

          Q – “…So are you in agreement with the “document” you posted, and utterly opposed to all science and government?…”

          A – “Well, yes for the first part (though what it has to do with the second part escapes me)…”

          Quotes from your “document”:

          Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.

          All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control.

          That looks like an anti-science statement to me. Yet disclosure and publication are at the heart of the scientific process, and the vast majority of scientific knowledge is public. You probably don’t like Wikipedia either, yet it’s entirely based on public sources and the editing process couldn’t be much more transparent. If you don’t understand “the methodology of the bookkeeping” then you are free to learn it, but it isn’t being hidden.

          But even more hypocritical, they pay taxes to finance a professional association of hit men collectively called politicians…

          That’s just the most obvious example, but throughout, the “document” criticises “government” as a merely the means of controlling people, with far less criticism of the private sector. I have plenty of criticisms of governments, particularly their more secretive departments, but nevertheless there is more public influence upon governments than there is upon private companies. The inadequate protections from corporations that we do have come from governments.

          Yes, I know democracy is dysfunctional. This needs to be countered by greater involvement from the public, but the “document” projects such universal cynicism that it’s more likely to put people off.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 3, 2017 at 12:48
            ‘…That’s just the most obvious example, but throughout, the “document” criticises “government” as a merely the means of controlling people, with far less criticism of the private sector. I have plenty of criticisms of governments, particularly their more secretive departments, but nevertheless there is more public influence upon governments than there is upon private companies. The inadequate protections from corporations that we do have come from governments.
            Yes, I know democracy is dysfunctional. This needs to be countered by greater involvement from the public, but the “document” projects such universal cynicism that it’s more likely to put people off.’

            Haven’t you yet got your head around that the Banksters and Corporations run the governments (at least in the West), not the public? If you still don’t understand that, there’s little hope of you’re understanding complex issues.

            You dismissed my post, on your say-so, of it being: ‘…That is a satirical piece, apparently by a very embittered engineer….’ – no proof, no links, just on a supposition (possibly something you’ve picked up on a ‘debunking’ site, which you are ashamed to link to).
            If an article, book or video appears to be authentic, failing proof otherwise, I regard it as genuine.
            I have occasionally fallen prey to a spoof article or site, and reposted it. I am more careful because of my mistakes in the past. But if something rings true, and I can find no reputable evidence to it not being true, I run with it.
            If you don’t like that, too bad.
            But just dismissing it out of hand because it upsets your apparent ‘love fest’ with the PTB doesn’t wash with me.

          • Clark

            “possibly something you’ve picked up on a ‘debunking’ site, which you are ashamed to link to…

            – your apparent ‘love fest’ with the PTB”

            Bollocks, Paul. I’m knackered today because I was on the demonstration in support of the NHS yesterday.

            The fact is, us ordinary folk still have more influence over our governments than we do over private companies. Our influence has been eroding for decades, with a few wins on our side, too, such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), WHICH, please note, exerts public power upon governments, and NOT upon the private sector.

            I agree, as voters we have insufficient influence over our governments. The power of lobbying, Big Money and the “revolving door” has been increasing steadily.

            BUT WE MUST NOT GIVE UP! It is pointless to dismiss government as merely the puppet of finance and corporatism, because, short of revolution (and be careful what you wish for), GOVERNMENT PROVIDES THE GREATEST INFLUENCE WE HAVE.

            We will get nowhere bombarding our representatives with complaints about invented stories, “scandals” that do not exist! We will merely trash our own credibility, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT CERTAIN PARTIES WANT. Why do you trust these stories; how do you know where they come from? Some PR company is probably inventing them, or helping them get exposure. Certainly it was the corporate “news” media that popularised the false MMR scandal; Tony Blair and his wife were absolutely central to it.

  • Clark

    A true friend is one who is honest enough to tell you things about yourself that you would rather not hear.

    The dynamic of (for want of a better term) conspiracy theory is the opposite. The participants back up each other’s folly, and disparage any who challenge.

    Such self-reinforcing dynamic is not limited to conspiracy theory; it can manifest in any group, and in extreme form leads to totalitarianism.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark March 2, 2017 at 09:28
      ‘…The dynamic of (for want of a better term) conspiracy theory is the opposite….’
      You seem to have fallen for that overly used term hook, line and sinker. For your information:
      ‘“Conspiracy Theory”: Foundations of a Weaponized Term’:
      ‘Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research

      “Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

      Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question……’
      So perhaps, next time, try to find the ‘..better term..’, rather than the discussion ending bulldozer ‘conspiracy theory’ retort.
      And, just for your elucidation, ‘conspiracies’ have been around since Adam and Eve; we are subject to them 24/7. Real conspiracies, not ‘boogey man’ CIA constructs (and the CIA know full well what real conspiracies are all about, being quite proficient in them).

      • Clark

        I wrote: “for want of a better term…”

        Yes, I know the term is misused. It also has a legitimate use; it describes a particular mindset that will repeat and amplify, and in many instances fabricate material to support, false stories that are usually anti-government.

        Until you recognise the mindset you remain vulnerable to it, and can be used as ammunition to be fired from the weaponised term.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark March 3, 2017 at 12:58
          ‘…and in many instances fabricate material to support, false stories that are usually anti-government….’
          Surely you’re not suggesting I make things up? I obviously did not write the above report, and you have shown absolutely zero evidence that it is a fabrication. Until you do, if you can, I stand by it as genuine.

          • Clark

            Paul, reasoning from evidence works the other way around. Evidence must be provided to support an assertion, because anyone can assert anything.

            For instance, I might assert that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun, roughly between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. You can’t disprove it, because a teapot is too small and dark to be found in all that empty. But there is no evidence for this teapot…


            You really need to learn about critical thinking.

          • Clark

            The CIA document seems genuine enough.

            PLEASE tell Paul that his ‘Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars An Introduction Programming Manual Operations Research Technical Manual TW-SW7905.1′ “document” is a satirical piece not a document! Please help sanity prevail.

        • Node

          These two questions are as relevant today as they were in January when you avoided answering them. I’ll stop asking them when you stop giving me cause.

          Quote from Jan 23 :

          You repeatedly use the label “conspiracy theorist” to mock and disparage other posters. You did it to me earlier today. Two questions :

          1) Bearing in mind the history of the label, how does it fit with your sanctimonious bleating about debating honesty?
          2) Bearing in mind that the label is equally applicable to you, are you not a hypocrite?

          • Clark

            Node, the “mock and disparage” are in your mind, not mine. I’m trying to get people to think more rigorously, to save them from discrediting important issues by associating them with bunk. Read my reply to Paul again:

            “Until you recognise the mindset you remain vulnerable to it, and can be used as ammunition to be fired from the weaponised term”

          • Clark

            Do you not see? That a term can be used in two senses is something I cannot change. I’m just one person. Even if I use some other term, the popular uses will continue. The best I can do is attempt to point out the mindset which makes misuse of the term effective.

        • lysias

          It isn’t a conspiracy theory, because they insisted Oswald acted alone, but the lone nut theory on the JFK assassination with its magic bullet is a classic case of a fabricated case, and it is not anti-government.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘US EPA Scientist Fired For Trying To Tell The Truth About Climate Engineering And Fluoridated Water’:

    ‘……My name is Michael Davis, I was employed as an Environmental Engineer for nearly 16 years in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Programs Branch of the Water Division in Region 5, Chicago of the USEPA. I was terminated as a public servant performing a public service for raising the issues of anthropogenic deposition of aluminum due to atmospheric geoengineering. ..’

    Of course, the guy could be lying!!!

  • Paul Barbara

    A very good example of just how ‘Regulatory Agencies’ (which are supposed to protect people) are in reality working largely on behalf of the Corporations:

    ‘Wireless wake-up call | Jeromy Johnson | TEDxBerkeley’:

    ‘Protect Your Family from EMF Pollution’:

    Plenty of studies there for the ‘scientists’ and ‘sticklers for facts’!
    Try ‘debunking’ (or linking to one of the notorious ‘disinfo/muddy the waters’ bought and paid for ‘debunking’ sites).

    But heck – they must be just ‘conspiracy theories’; our governments would never allow these agencies to suppress safety studies, or to allow obviously biased Corporation-funded or otherwise compromised ‘studies’ which would allow dangerous technologies or products to harm the people, would they?

    Well why not, when they lie to generate wars which kill hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people; contaminate countries with Depleted Uranium which poisons the earth and water (and people, animals and crops) for billions of years (DU has a half life of nearly 4 1/2 billion years), spray Agent Orange over vast areas of Vietnam, which is still killing people and horribly deforming countless babies; add industrial waste highly poisonous flouride in drinking water; bring our NHS to breaking point, while voting billions for Trident
    and unlimited dosh for illegal wars, and so on and so forth? And there are people who trust their governments to protect them?
    Well, there’s an old saying: ‘There’s one born every minute’.

    • Paul Barbara

      Oh, I forgot: and of course they also commit atrocities on their own people, in order to blame others as either a ‘casus belli’ or an excuse for more draconian snooping and loss of civil rights. But heck, you carry on believing they’ve got your interests at heart.

      • Emmanuel Goldstein

        Fascism Anyone?

        Analysis of seven fascist regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

        1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

        2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

        3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

        4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

        5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

        6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

        7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

        8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

        9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

        10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

        11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

        12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

        13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

        14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

        Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

    • Clark

      Paul, you shouldn’t assume that “debunking” sites are all “paid for by the government”.

      “Bunk” means nonsense or disinformation. “Debunking” an issue means removing the nonsense – defluffing your tumble-drier shouldn’t mean the same as scrapping it (though it seems to for a lot of the better off these days).

      For instance, you wrote: “DU has a half life of nearly 4 1/2 billion years” – which shows that you don’t understand the relationship between half-life and radiation intensity. Uranium is highly toxic for chemical reasons, because it’s a heavy metal, not because of any association with the nuclear industry.

      About half-life. Radiation is produced when an unstable atom decays. Think of it like a box of bullets which go off spontaneously at random. Half-life is the time for which a type of bullet has a 50/50 chance of going off.

      So let’s say we have two boxes of bullets. Box A contains 1200 “Type A” bullets that have a half-life of an hour. Box B contains 1200 “Type B” bullets that have a half-life of a million years. So we start our clock. In the next hour, 600 bullets are going to go off from box A; that’s one every six seconds on average, so you’d best stay away from box A or you’re likely to get hit. What about box B? Well about 600 bullets are going to go off in a million years; that’s less than one per millennium. Long half-life means low radioactivity.

      DU is less radioactive than natural uranium found in rocks. That does NOT make it OK – it’s an utterly horrible chemical and should be banned for munitions. But criticising it because it has a long half-life is to attack a non-target. Br’er Rabbit – “Oh please don’t throw me in the thicket”…

  • Paul Barbara

    Brilliant video and links – spells it all out neatly AND it is by widely respected people like Sibel Edmonds, James Corbett and Cynthia McKinney – that will help bring people over to believing Pizzagate is real:

    ‘The People’s Campaign: The Real Hastert Case- All in One Place’:

    As many of us believed already, the reason the governments, Parliaments, Congress, Senate, Police, Judiciary etc. are so lopsidedly corrupt and perverted is because they are the ones that are chosen for positions of power, precisely because they can be controlled by blackmail (or bribery, but that is not such a hold as blacmail).

  • Paul Barbara

    Anoother thing about Pizzagate – mmany of you won’t be aware that Pizza joints, particularly on the East Coast of the US, were often run by the mob, and were used for money laundering and heroin staging posts.
    Pizza / Italian / Mafia – hardly a surprise they’re ‘still at it’ (big time crime and corruption).

  • Clark

    Re: “chemtrails”; you may get more informative results with the following search term:

    stratospheric aerosol injection

    The proposed purpose is mitigation of global warming. There are a number of relevant Wikipedia articles, with many references:

    Airliners could use lower-quality sulfur-rich fuels on higher altitudes. That approach would utilize regular flights and enable airlines to use cheaper fuels on long-distance flights. It would require using separate fuel tanks for takeoff and landing in populated areas, due to toxicity and olfactory sensations of sulfur oxides. This can be achieved in many airliners without difficulty, since they already have separate and selectable wing and fuselage fuel tanks

    It occurs to me that airline companies are major producers of greenhouse gasses, and have global reach. It is possible that they have instigated policies of burning high sulphur fuel at higher altitudes in a deliberate attempt to reduce global warming, reasoning that the lower the warming, the less regulatory controls may be imposed upon them. High sulphur fuel is also cheaper, so it’d seem doubly advantageous for the airlines.

    Letting the airlines do it and suppressing information about it would be a cheap option for governments, rather like the way mass surveillance has been outsourced.

    Other Wikipedia pages that might provide helpful references (I haven’t checked):

    Some possibly relevant US government bills from the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board article:

    S.1807 –
    H.R.3445 –
    S.517 –
    H.R.2995 –

    • Clark

      (…my previous experience makes me pessimistic – I expect the conspiracy theorists* on this thread are too lazy to follow my links and do any vaguely meaningful research, and would rather watch sensationalised YouTube videos instead).

      * (note to Node – yes, in this case I am indeed mocking and disparaging – as a spur in the hope of provoking a more diligent approach. Acting like conspiracy theorists is a choice).

      • Paul Barbara

        If you were in the States in 1963 I’m sure you would have joined the CIA-led MSM chorus of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ over JFK, because to have raised questions about the assassination would clearly have been ‘anti-government’, which seems anathema to you.
        It is pointless chasing after government sources for Chemtrails, as they deny it is being done.
        Also re ‘sulphur rich fuels’, that would not account for the aluminium, barium and strontium, or the various organic materials that have been identified as having been sprayed.

        • lysias

          I was in the States in 1963, and I regret to say I believed in the Warren Commission’s report at the time. It took me some years to recognize what a pack of lies it was, as eventually even a congressional committee concluded. Nevertheless, incredibly, there are still those who believe in it.

          From experiences like that, I learned not to trust governments. As I.F. Stone said, “All governments lie.”

        • Clark

          “…would clearly have been ‘anti-government’, which seems anathema to you”

          Bollox. Listen up. I am not going to believe stuff without good evidence. Did you hear that? I’ll shout it for your benefit, since you seem to have your ears stuffed.


          Anyone can make up anything and put it on YouTube. I’m not gong to believe stuff just because that stuff seems anti-government to you. Why do I have to keep repeating this? I SEE NO POINT IN ACCUSING GOVERNMENTS OF STUFF THAT IS JUST MADE UP, BECAUSE IT’S COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, LIKE THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF.

          Over and over again you’ve seen me criticise government secrecy, condemn government criminality and war-mongering, and post documents that reveal covert policy. What is your problem? And it is YOUR problem. You insist that I believe stuff that is simply invented or somehow I’m supporting government criminality.

          Paul, there are LOADS of people who think critically. Every time you go on like this at one of them, or when one of them witnesses you going on at me, you give the impression that people opposing the establishment are credulous fanatics. Governments and corporations hold vast power and wield mighty tools like secret services and PR companies. If you want to counter that you need a SOLID case, not a load of ill-supported bunk.

          Haven’t you ever heard of a ruse? Among other similar things, it’s a military tactic to get the enemy to waste their resources attacking a false target.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark March 6, 2017 at 08:56
        Another point – is it not a good thing to be skeptical of anything the governments or MSM tell us, as it has been abundantly clear that they ‘speak as their belly guides them’, and lie whenever it suits their purposes?

        • Clark

          You’re sceptical of government and mass “news” media. Great; so am I. But I’m also sceptical about everyone else, too. You never know who’s working for whom, or who’s getting funded to push bunk, or who’s just being a useful idiot.

          There’s only one effective remedy and that’s CRITICAL THINKING.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 6, 2017 at 20:27
            Fine; I’m OK with that; but pray tell why you believe the government and MSM versions, without the same ‘Critical Thinking’ and EVIDENCE (yes, I have a caps lock too!).
            You assume anything against the government narrative is bs, unless there is evidence. But you don’t require the same standard for the governments and MSM.
            Comprende? Of course alternative positions cannot always provide ‘evidence’, but they can provide a more plausible account of what is being discussed.
            Did you take note of lysias March 6, 2017 at 17:01 comment? You haven’t responded, is why I ask…

          • Clark

            I read Lysias’ comment. The original official account of Kennedy’s assassination looks like a cover-up to me. Beyond that, the amount of detail I’d have to study to gain a more meaningful insight looks daunting.

            “You assume anything against the government narrative is bs, unless there is evidence. But you don’t require the same standard for the governments and MSM”

            I don’t assume the mass media to be a puppet of government. I regard media organisations as powers in their own right. Repeatedly, the “papers” stir up the public, usually about some non-issue, and consequently some government is forced into “doing something”. John Major and the Dangerous Dogs Act come to mind as a particularly well-defined microcosmic example – that was based on what, four or five incidents over a year? While four thousand who died on the roads went unmentioned. “Immigrants”, “drugs” and “welfare scroungers” are all well-worn but far more nebulous stories that have been trotted out consistently over decades. But another is the MMR/autism hoax, also basically fabricated by the “papers”.

            It seems to me that almost nothing is as simple as it might look at first glance, and an unfortunate aspect of human nature is our craving for simple explanations. Media sensationalism appeals to that craving, and that pitfall applies just as much to “alternative” as to “mass” media.

    • glenn_uk

      That’s the thing, Clark. People will scoff and ridicule you for mentioning stuff like this. How could little ol’ us have any effect at all on this massive, long-standing Earth?

      That’s despite little ol’ us having destroyed most of the Earth’s forests. And eliminated most of the life in the sea. And having a biomass equal to the rest of the animal kingdom combined. And pumping out 10s of gigatonnes of CO2 each year. And so on… a mere knocking on 10 Billion of us? What possible influence could we really be having? What??

      • Paul Barbara

        @ glenn_uk March 6, 2017 at 23:39
        Gotta agree with the thrust of your argument.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark March 6, 2017 at 21:18
      Are you sure about that? Governments allow scam private ‘Central Banks’ to screw us up with ‘Fiat currency’, allowing them to ‘call the tune’ on what politicians and governments can do, what wars they should declare, but should be defunded (NHS) and what should be funded (wars and Trident). ‘Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws’ (Amschel Rothchild).

      • Clark

        Governments are failing to provide the solutions to global dangers, but some form of government is the only possible source of many of those solutions. There’s much more to this reply, but I’ve no time right now.

        “Things will get worse before they get better”.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark March 7, 2017 at 09:45
          ‘…“Things will get worse before they get better”.

          I wish I had your confidence. I believe it’s going to get worse till Judgement Day.

        • Clark

          Things don’t always get worse. Deception, exploitation and oppression develop and encroach; injustice accumulates until some sort of reaction is provoked, which permits and forces sufficient people to focus on sorting out some solution or improvement. A different form of organisation emerges to control the problem, but immediately the forces of exploitation begin learning and exploiting its vulnerabilities, and so the cycle repeats, getting slowly worse until the next crisis and whatever solution arises.

          The trouble is, over some decades various problems have become global in scale, and some of the potential crises could destroy all civilisation or the biosphere. If that’s what you mean by Judgement Day, we really need to avoid it.

          Truth, Justice, Peace.

          • Clark

            Oh, you believe in a “hands-on” god. You can probably guess my attitude – I haven’t seen evidence for such.

            Which religion do you believe? Do you practice?

            I advise against assumptions about “Clark’s atheism”. Typical atheists find my outlook annoyingly mystical, but people who think of themselves as ‘mystical’ or ‘spiritual’ accuse me of “faith in the materialist belief system”. My actual position is that answers to the deep questions may be incomprehensible to human minds, but can be approached through observation and self-assessment. I meditate a bit, and regard psychedelic experience as valuable.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 8, 2017 at 10:29
            I am an ex-Catholic non-denominational Christian. I don’t go to any churches (except to meetings if held in a church.
            The problems of the world, ‘False Flag’ terrorism and wars, increasing surveillance, government and MSM lies, poisoning of our atmosphere, environment, water; GMO’s, TTIP etc., which most people and preachers will not believe, or take a stand on (though obviously some agree with some of those problems), means I would be twiddling my thumbs, wasting my time, at a service, wondering how on earth they can be so thick.
            I have no problem at all with atheists or agnostics, or people of other faiths. I believe they are mistaken, that is all.
            I was on the ‘Hippy Trail’ overland to India in 1967, for ten months. I tried everything available, including LSD.
            I’m an ‘Acid head’!

          • Clark

            Have you read The Spire by William Golding? I recommend it.

            What do you think of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies? I call that political exploitation of religion.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 8, 2017 at 12:05
            I haven’t read ‘The Spire’, and I’m unlikely to; I’ve got too big a backlog of books to get through as it is.

            ‘..What do you think of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies? I call that political exploitation of religion….’
            They are not religious at all; like the Western ‘Christians’, they are Luciferians, and have sold their souls for power and wealth. King Saud was serviced by an MK-ULTRA Monarch Program sex slave; they are extreme hypocrites, engaging in all kinds of abominations, whilst ordering extremely brutal amputations, beheadings whippings and stonings on the people.
            They are also heavily into paedophilia, like their Western counterparts.

          • Clark

            The Spire is just a novel, and quite a short one. It explores issues involving faith, necessity and one’s relationship with God.

            I doubt that powerful Saudis etc. consider themselves ‘Luciferian’. I expect that many of them consider themselves rather righteous, most think they’re striking the best compromise available in a wicked world, and a few act very pious while cynically exploiting others’ belief in order to manipulate them and wield power. And remember that all of them have been indoctrinated, intimidated and brutalised by the very system that they now perpetuate.

            It’s a common problem with religions. They motivate some to conscientiousness, but many just persist half-heartedly following on from their upbringing, and many justify their sense of self-righteousness from feeling they know some great truth which lesser mortals wilfully ignore.

            Saudi Arabia etc. projects power worldwide through sponsorship of mosques, literature and imams, and neocon elements mainly from the US, UK and Israel exploit that for geopolitical advantage. This is not widely understood because the major “news” media do little to inform about it.

          • Clark

            Regarding 9/11, I think that predominantly Saudi hijackers is a viable element of the attacks; Saudi-inspired brutalisation and indoctrination from birth is certainly capable of producing suitable extremists, and their like are seen in other contexts – the Libyan and Syrian conflicts etc. However, it looks very unlikely that such extremists could have succeeded without assistance from within various US authorities.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Italian Supreme Court President Writes Book Linking Bilderberg to Operation Gladio and the CIA’:

    “The Bilderberg Group is behind the so-called ‘strategy of tension,’ and therefore the massacres,” says Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court as he makes references to a document written more than 40 years ago – and which was almost lost- during the promotion of his new book, “La repubblica delle stragi impunite,” which translates to “The republic where massacres go unpunished.”,,,,,’

    ‘…The 40-year-old document

    In his book, Ferdinando Imposimato also speaks of the Bilderberg Group, mentioned in a document written by Emilio Alessandrini in 1967 -more than 40 years ago. “In this document, which I have quoted literally, it is mentioned that the Bildenberg Group is one of the biggest promoters of the strategy of tension, and therefore also behind the massacres. Here’s what Bilderberg does: It rules the world and democracies in an invisible way, influencing the democratic development of these countries.”

    It is important for Italians to know this, for some of their countrymen are among the members of this group and the Trilateral Commission, like of Mario Monti, the current Prime Minister, John Elkann, Chairman of Fiat Group, Pier Francesco Guarguaglini, former president of Finmeccanica or Marco Tronchetti Provera, chairman of Pirelli, also Enrico Letta, vice secretary of the Democratic Party….’

    CIA, Gladio, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission – he only left one major player out – the Vatican.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark March 8, 2017 at 15:19
      ‘…Regarding 9/11, I think that predominantly Saudi hijackers is a viable element of the attacks; Saudi-inspired brutalisation and indoctrination from birth is certainly capable of producing suitable extremists…’
      Au contraire; if you check the so-called ‘hijackers’ lifestyles (a good source is the Italian 9/11 documentary ‘Zero’) you do not see fanatics, but actors – laying false ‘Red Herring’ trails to feed the proposed ‘government narrative’ which they would trot out after the ‘event’.

      • Clark

        Paul, what I’m saying is that a proportion of people brutalised under such a regime as the Saudi’s will develop in such a way as to be capable of atrocities like 9/11 – you only have to look at what Libya has become, atrocities by the “moderate rebels” (read extremists infiltrated through Turkey) in Syria, ISIS etc. It’s that ideology that churns out those sort of extremists, and “our side” finds it advantageous to arm, train and fund them. THAT needs pointing out, and facing up to. Our governments’ support of it needs to be stopped.

        Beyond that, all sorts of people want to push all sorts of odd stories about 9/11. I’m just one person; just digging through the nonsense written about the Twin Towers was enough to do me in. I can’t sift through so much stuff. As much as it irritates Node, there IS a “conspiracy theory” mindset which generates and amplifies bunk. If you want to be believed, if you want to make a difference, you need to be much more rigorous, you need to present a much stronger case. You need to weed out the bunk, because each time a critical thinker encounters it, you lose credibility and you lose their attention.

        One rule I’d suggest; if you find that academia doesn’t even bother discussing your theory, you’re probably off track, or there needs to be some very sound explanation for why. Contrast the anti-vax arguments with the electromagnetic radiation arguments, for instance, or the Twin Tower and Building 7 arguments, or the chemtrails arguments versus the geoengineering arguments. In each case, the former has been dismissed by the academic community, whereas the latter field is active.

  • George Ruskin

    If the towers had collapsed there would have been in each case a mound of matter, roughly equivalent in mass to the standing structures, but differently organised. Through those mounds of matter there would surely have been a search for survivors, perhaps lasting many weeks. Instead the buildings and all their contents had disappeared, largely pulverised. How this could have happened without some kind of explosive energy being applied to the structures, additional to that caused by the impact of the planes, is beyond me. Who might have been responsible, or how, I can have absolutely no idea. But t seems it will be left to future generations to look back at all this and ask the very simple, stark questions.

    • Bobm

      I commented a while ago that, in my thought experiment:
      had the planes alone been responsible, and
      had the damaged levels ceased to have the necessary supportive capacity,
      the upper levels would have:
      -dropped a bit, and, either
      –lodged on the lower stories, or
      —fallen off.
      Glad to see another person joining the club.

    • Clark

      George Ruskin, March 8, 19:29

      “Through those mounds of matter there would surely have been a search for survivors, perhaps lasting many weeks”

      Within hours, the US government declared it an “act of terrorism”, which enabled them to order clean-up operations without the usual crime-scene investigations.

      The debris didn’t mysteriously vanish. Thousands of truck-loads were hauled from the site, and thick dust had to be cleared from miles around. The degree of pulverisation was found to be consistent with the energy released in the collapse. I estimate that the energy released when the internal collapse hit ground exceeded ten tonnes of TNT, and the initial gravitational potential energy of just the floor slabs exceeded sixty tonnes of TNT. Any conceivable addition of explosives would be pretty minor compared with that; for instance, the Canary Wharf bomb was under two tonnes.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark March 8, 2017 at 15:04
    ‘…. And remember that all of them have been indoctrinated, intimidated and brutalised by the very system that they now perpetuate….’
    I don’t know what gives you that idea – they are pampered ‘Royal Families’ whose origins, power and protection come from Western powers, in return for repressing their own people and selling out to the West. They would all be overthrown were it not for the West’s protection. A scumbag Briton even arranged for a state-of-the-art torture chamber to be built in Bahrain, and of course ‘elite’ military, police and ‘security services’ from these and many other countries (especially Latin American ones) in torture techniques by the Yanks.

    ‘…Saudi Arabia etc. projects power worldwide through sponsorship of mosques, literature and imams, and neocon elements mainly from the US, UK and Israel exploit that for geopolitical advantage…..’
    They do that not of their own volition, but at the instigation of America; Fethullah Gülen is another (and he lives protected in the States!). They provide Western proxy forces to destabilise Russia and China, and as proxies for the US to use to effect ‘Regime Change’ in the Middle East.

    • Clark

      Paul, the collusion with Western powers that you describe is very real, but your demarcation between the Saudi ruling families and the people is too “us and them”. No one is as separate from their social environment as that; there are progressive chains of command and influence. Besides, Saudi Wahhabism pre-dates US-Saudi cooperation, and Saudi Arabia has its own ambitions. Westerners do not have a monopoly on evil; the propensity for deception and violence lurks in every human, or else what was Jesus preaching about?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark March 8, 2017 at 23:52
        As you will see, the ‘Kingdom’ was only set up in 1932, and America’s relations with the ‘House of Saud’ began in the 1930’s; oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938 ( )

        Frontline: House of Saud

        Martin Smith
        Wednesday, February 9, 2005; 11:00 AM
        The House of Saud has controlled every aspect of Saudi life and politics since the kingdom was established in 1932. But outside the Desert Kingdom, little is known about Saudi Arabia’s secretive royal family. In “House of Saud,” Frontline explores how the Al Saud family maintains its hold on power in the face of growing tensions between Islam and modernity. Through interviews with members of the royal family, government officials and other experts from Saudi Arabia and the U.S., the two-hour documentary also traces America’s relations with the Saudi royal family from their first alliance in the 1930s through Sept. 11 and beyond to the present day.

        The Saudi King may well not have been a ‘Luciferian’ before the massive oil revenue started to accrue, but he certainly is now.

        Any Saudi Wahhabism certainly wasn’t exported world-wide before the Yanks got control of the Saudi King, and directed his efforts in that direction.

        ‘…Westerners do not have a monopoly on evil…’

        Of course you are right there; but I have lived and traveled in many Arab and Muslim countries, and I know that Muslims are in general far more genuine in following their religion (be it right or wrong) than peoples of other faiths I have encountered.
        They would not allow the abominations of their leaders against the faith, and repression of the people, to stand, but for the Western support and training of the police, ‘Security Services’ and military, and back-up if required.

        ‘…your demarcation between the Saudi ruling families and the people is too “us and them”…’

        Surely the demarcation is great enough in the US, Europe and the US; how much greater in those Feudal Monarchies?
        At least here we can openly denounce our ‘Dear Leaders’, even the Queen, but try that in one of the Mid-East ‘Monarchies’!

        • Clark

          Something I find very disturbing is that they hold both Medina and Mecca.

          Hydrocarbons are the most energy-dense form of chemical energy usable in an oxygen atmosphere; liquid hydrocarbons are the best form of portable power available on Earth. If there were no hydrocarbons to extract we would have had to synthesize them to achieve our current population. Of course, we have no suitable infrastructure for that. The fighting and corruption will continue until such infrastructure is manufactured. The alternative is mass starvation and consequent war.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 9, 2017 at 01:19

            The PTB, mostly the Banksters, have already decided to use famine, wars and artificially produced pandemics to cull humanity by 85/95%. I won’t try to find the links, it would take me some time and if you read them at all you would probably dismiss them for one reason or another.
            There are much better sources of energy and motive power, but they have been suppressed (like the plywood car designs which were bought up by big Corporations and then shelved; they prefer to pump out shiny great ‘gas guzzlers’ and small but expensive fancy metal cars.

          • Clark

            Oh people always think of cars. Cars, cars cars. It’s people’s obsession with the personal. Humanity will have no problem getting by without the cars; I’d be well glad to be rid of the damn things.

            But we can’t get by without tractors, combine harvesters, trucks, ships, aircraft, earth-movers, chain saws – the technology upon which our population has burgeoned. It’s not motive power that’s the issue; bicycles can do that. It’s mobile power, where energy density is the critical issue. A combine harvester burns forty litre of diesel per hour. I’ve never heard of any technology to rival that, except nuclear, which has security problems and doesn’t scale down well.

          • Clark

            Bankers fuck things up plenty, but the population crisis isn’t their fault more than anyone else’s. Our population has overshot.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 9, 2017 at 01:25
            I started to read it, and almost immediately thought ‘Whoa up!’; this is a typical puff piece, so I checked on the author Eddy, and sure enough he was one of the original formers of the CIA, Marine Corps and Intel agent.
            Ask Cathy O’Brien what ‘King’ Saud was really like….certainly not a good Muslim!
            The Yanks wanted him on side (had he not ‘come across’, he would have been ‘Regime Changed’; buttering up costs nothing.

            ‘William Alfred “Bill” Eddy, Ph.D., Col., USMC (March 9, 1896 – May 3, 1962) was a U.S. minister to Saudi Arabia (1944–1946), university professor and college president (1936–42), and United States Marine Corps officer—serving in World War I and World War II, and U.S. intelligence officer.

            After serving in World War I, Eddy had an academic career as a literary scholar and professor of English, at Dartmouth College and the American University in Cairo. He was later president of both Hobart College and William Smith College (1936–42). Dr. Eddy returned to military service just before the start of World War II, serving as an intelligence officer. From 1943 to 1945, he was the U.S. Minister to Saudi Arabia, a consultant for the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) and an instrumental figure in the development of the United States’ relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. He was a key figure in the formation of the CIA.

            In 2008 Arabian Knight: Colonel Bill Eddy USMC and the Rise of American Power in the Middle East, the first biography on Bill Eddy, was published by Selwa Press. It is written by the Middle East specialist, author and Washington Post journalist Thomas Lippman……’

          • Clark

            So far as I’ve been able to discover, that’s the only account of the signing of the Quincey Agreement. The agreement itself is not common knowledge – it’s a “secret treaty” – and Eddy is played down as merely a ‘marine’.

            No, not a good Muslim; a Wahhabist. That’s what the torture programme was for; false confessions to smear the blame across all Islam, creating the broad, ill-defined target suitable for perpetuating war, while simultaneously concealing the role of the specific sect allied to the neocons:


            “At that point I hoped I was involved in something so I could admit to it and relieve myself of writing about every practicing Muslim I ever met, and every Islamic organisation I ever heard of. It would have been much easier to admit to a true crime and say that’s that”

          • Clark

            I wrote “…the signing of the Quincey Agreement”, but I think in fact nothing was signed or even written down. A verbal agreement, and thus deniable – very CIA, eh?

            Sorry, it’s Quincy, no “e”.

            Well-sourced information about it can’t be removed from Wikipedia because that breaks Wikipedia’s rules, but someone has managed to shuffle it off onto an obscure page where you’d never find it unless you’re good at searching:


  • Paul Barbara



    ‘WHEREAS the Bush-Cheney administration’s public interpretation of the 9/11 attacks has had radical, largely negative, consequences for the United States of America and the world as a whole; and
    WHEREAS the official investigations of these attacks that have been carried out thus far were led by individuals closely aligned with, or even employed by, the Bush-Cheney administration; and
    WHEREAS the conclusions of these investigations differ radically from those that have been reached by independent researchers with various kinds of professional expertise; and
    WHEREAS organizations of such researchers—including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and Veterans for 9/11 Truth—have called for a new, truly independent, investigation; and
    WHEREAS we believe it is long past time for political leaders to heed these calls;
    THEREFORE we, the undersigned members of Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, ask President Barack Obama to authorize a new, truly independent, investigation to determine what happened on 9/11.’

    58 Political Leaders have already signed the petition (names on website, link above).

    • Paul Barbara

      ‘Military Officers for 9/11 Truth’: (The list includes NCO’s):

      ‘Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Commander of Aircraft Maintenance and Logistics.
      Aircraft Accident Investigator. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career.
      Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.

      Founding Signer Commissioned and Non-commissioned U.S. Military Officers petition calling for a new investigation of 9/11

      Personal statement of support:

      “In my first position paper, titled The Precautionary Principle, [see below] written shortly after the attacks on NYC and the Pentagon, I cautioned readers against a rush to judgment, although the immediate evidence suggested the crime had been an inside job. As the years went by, a virtual mountain of physical evidence was collected by hundreds of highly qualified investigators — evidence sufficient to convince any dedicated Grand Jury that the horrendous events of 9/11 were clearly an inside job. The Precautionary Principle no longer applies. It is time to positively conclude that a well-orchestrated and obviously pre-planned cover-up of the worst mass murder in our country’s history began immediately following the deaths of 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001. Nearly nine years later the criminal cover-up continues. Fortunately for our country, our judicial system provides no statute of limitations for treason, first degree murder, and terrorism.” ………..

      (This is followed by over three hundred more officers and NCO’s; I didn’t notice very many of them wearing tin foil hats…..)

      • Paul Barbara

        ‘Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth’:

        ‘As medical professionals, we are dedicated to the service of humanity; to alleviating suffering, to improving health, and to preserving life. We are horrified by the terrorist acts of 9/11 and the senseless suffering and loss of life resulting from them.

        The terrorist acts of 9/11 resulted in the immediate deaths of 3,000 emergency service workers and innocent citizens. The inhalation of toxic dust in the weeks following 9/11 will result in the premature deaths of additional thousands of rescue and construction workers and New York residents. The acts of 9/11 have been further used to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of military personnel and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

        As medical professionals, we are trained in science and logical reasoning. We are appalled by the lack of scientific rigor and the substantial omissions and blatant distortions in the official account of 9/11 as embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and related government documents.

        We are not alone in our concerns about the validity of the 9/11 Commission Report. A group of 25 senior U.S. intelligence services and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to the U.S. Congress expressing similar concerns and their desire for a new investigation. Several very senior CIA veterans have called the 9/11 Commission Report “a cover up” and “a joke” and have called for a new investigation…….’

        • Paul Barbara

          ‘Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth’:


          We, the members of Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, believe that whereas:

          There is incontrovertible publicly available evidence since 9/11/01 that the official account of the events of that day is incomplete and fraught with errors;

          The 9/11 Commission Report inadequately answered, and in numerous cases even failed to address, many of the most important questions that were called to its attention;

          The blatant disregard of extensive compelling evidence that clearly refutes the official account raises rational suspicion of intentional deception by agents of the U.S. Government;

          U.S. Government policies have been, and continue to be, founded upon assumptions about the events of 9/11 that are likely to be erroneous;

          Life-threatening maladies caused by toxic environmental conditions at Ground Zero in New York City persist today and will continue to develop in the future; and

          The perpetrators of the heinous crimes against humanity that were committed on 9/11 have still not been brought to justice.
          Therefore, we, the members of Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, call for a new and independent investigation into the events of 9/11/01 by a duly constituted legal body with the authority to subpoena and require testimony under oath, and with authority to prosecute if criminal activity is discovered, so that the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity can at last be brought to justice.

          Signed by the following 156 medical professionals: …….’

    • Clark

      Yes, I followed a few of the links from pl911truth to the sites of the other groups of professionals, and all seem to be presenting better arguments than the Twin Tower demolition theories. Hmmm… Odd that the weakest case seems to bask in the brightest spotlight.

  • Paul Barbara

    Re chemtrails:
    Here are a few of the results of rainwater analyses:

    LIMS #: 4391
    Location: Lerwick, UK
    Date: June 5, 2015

    pH: 5.0 
    Aluminium: 20.0 µg/L
    Barium: <10.0 µg/L
    Strontium: <0.10 mg/L
    Titanium: <0.10 mg/L
    Manganese: 2.0 µg/L
    Iron: 20.00 µg/L
    Copper: <10.0 µg/L
    Zinc: <10.0 µg/L
    Arsenic: <0.2 µg/L
    Sulphate: 2.57 mg/L

    LIMS #: 4321
    Location: Horsens, Denmark
    Date: March 15 – 21, 2014

    pH: 6.4 
    Aluminium: 100.0 µg/L
    Barium: <10.0 µg/L
    Strontium: <0.10 mg/L
    Titanium: <0.10 mg/L
    Manganese: 29.0 µg/L
    Iron: 200.00 µg/L
    Copper: 60.0 µg/L
    Zinc: 160.0 µg/L
    Arsenic: 0.4 µg/L
    Sulphate: 3.72 mg/L

    LIMS #: 4309
    Location: Wallasey, UK
    Date: February 12, 2014

    pH: 5.7 
    Aluminium: 40.00 µg/L
    Barium: <10 µg/L
    Strontium: <0.1 mg/L
    Titanium: <0.1 mg/L
    Manganese: 3.0 µg/L
    Iron: 40.0 µg/L
    Copper: <10 µg/L
    Zinc: 30.0 µg/L
    Arsenic: <1.0 µg/L
    Sulphate: 1.9 mg/L

    LIMS #: 4133
    Location: Leigh, UK
    Date: September 24, 2012

    pH: 4.19 
    Aluminium: <10.00 µg/L
    Barium: <10.00 µg/L
    Strontium: <0 mg/L
    Titanium: <0 mg/L
    Manganese: 1.0 µg/L
    Iron: <10.0 µg/L
    Copper: <10.0 µg/L
    Zinc: <10.0 µg/L
    Arsenic: <0.1 µg/L
    Sulphate: Not detected

    LIMS #: 4326
    Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
    Date: March 21 – 23, 2014

    pH: 5.6 
    Aluminium: 20.0 µg/L
    Barium: <10.0 µg/L
    Strontium: <0.10 mg/L
    Titanium: <0.10 mg/L
    Manganese: 6.0 µg/L
    Iron: 60.00 µg/L
    Copper: <10.0 µg/L
    Zinc: 20.0 µg/L
    Arsenic: 0.4 µg/L
    Sulphate: 2.35 mg/L

    LIMS #: 4155
    Location: Canonstown, UK
    Date: October 31, 2012

    pH: 5.5 
    Aluminium: <10.00 µg/L
    Barium: <10.00 µg/L
    Strontium: <0 mg/L
    Titanium: <0 mg/L
    Manganese: <1.0 µg/L
    Iron: <10.0 µg/L
    Copper: <10.0 µg/L
    Zinc: <10.0 µg/L
    Arsenic: 0.2 µg/L
    Sulphate: <5 mg/L

    Not just one or two fudged or misinterpreted results – remember the results are measured and set down on the records by the Laboratories, not by the sample takers. The results difer quite a bit, because they were taken over wide areas, and on different dates.

    • Clark

      OK, if something’s amiss it can’t have gone unnoticed. Find appropriate discussions among atmospheric scientists.

      Presumably, there are limits to what a conspiracy can keep hidden. Either a few people keep a few localised facts covered up, OR human nature itself is so spineless and corrupt that millions of people are helping to cover up things which are openly measurable and/or deducible, and which are presumably as detrimental to them and their families as to everyone else.

      If it’s the latter, then human nature itself is the problem, and any conspiracies are just symptomatic of that.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark March 9, 2017 at 11:16
        Huge numbers of people DO cover things up (Manhattan Project). Just as an example, take the Pentagon. As is clear from Norman Mineta’s testimony, Cheney did not order the ‘plane’ shot down; as is also clear, the ‘plane’ had been expected (otherwise how would there have been orders covering it before hand?
        ‘…Essential to this debate is the video testimony of the Secretary for Transportation, Norman
        Mineta, to the 9/11 Commission. He entered the bunker under the White House and saw that
        the Vice President, Dick Cheney, was already there. A young man came in and said to
        Cheney “The plane is 50 miles out”. He came in again and said “The plane is thirty miles out”,
        and when it got down to 10 miles out the young man also said “Does the order still stand?”
        and Cheney angrily confirmed that it did. Shortly after this something dramatic happened at
        the Pentagon. There is little doubt that Cheney had it in his hand to shoot down this plane but
        had a reason not to do so. ….’
        125 people died in the ‘attack on the Pentagon.

        The Pentagon has about 2,600 people working there; yet only one person, to my knowledge, has spilled the beans.
        She was military, and had been ordered to bring her young child with her, instead of dropping her child off at the nursery as usual; they were both injured, the child quite badly. She tried to sue the government, but was not surprisingly unsuccessful.
        Yet all the people in the Pentagon knew Cheney did not even order an alarm when the ‘plane’ was ten miles out, and after he was already in his bunker.
        Yet they all (except above mentioned lady and Mineta) stayed schtum, despite losing 125 colleagues.
        People are afraid to risk their jobs, lose promotion opportunities, even lose their lives.

        • Clark

          Paul, whatever happened with Norman Mineta is NOT evidence for “chemtrails”.

          With apologies to Node, this is an aspect of how “conspiracy theorists” think and argue. As soon as there’s any kind of reasonable objection to a “conspiracy theory”, they change track onto a different one. Consequently, no “conspiracy theory” is ever followed to a conclusion, nothing is ever ruled out, and so the “conspiracy theories” just accumulate and proliferate.

          DISPROOF is at the heart of scientific method and rational analysis. It is constructive that hypotheses are proposed, but the other part of the process is equally necessary.
          – – – – –
          The Manhattan Project is an entirely inappropriate comparison. That was deliberately organised to be secret, the heart of the project was methodically isolated from the public. Of the hundred thousand or so employed by the project, the vast majority had no idea what they were contributing to, and less than a hundred knew the actual objective. Until bombs were tested, it had no widespread effects in the world at large. This was entirely different from releasing substances into the atmosphere, and then somehow silencing any atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, soil and water analysts, and health professionals who happen to notice the effects. The scale of the required secrecy would be orders of magnitude greater for “chemtrails”. It would also need to be imposed on those who discovered it, rather than stipulating secrecy when signing up employees.

          So, again, please point me to the discussions of the effects of “chemtrails” among appropriate professional and scientific groups. OR come clean and declare that you distrust all scientists and professionals on principle; ie. you are anti-science, OR admit that “chemtrails” are just a silly “conspiracy theory” with no validity.

    • Kempe

      So there’s aluminium in rainwater and from that we’re supposed to take a huge leap of faith and believe it’s being deliberately sprayed from aircraft and not the result of general industrial pollution or simply because aluminium is one of the most abundant minerals on the planet.

      You’re going to have to do better than that.

      • Paul Barbara

        If you had followed the Mount Shasta rainwater, snow and pondwter, tests, you would know that it’s not just aluminium, which is as you say one of the most abundant minerals on the planet, but nano-aluminium, which does not exist in nature at all, and was only manufactured fairly recently. Also, that all the heavy metals tested had been found in astronomically increased proportions to previous norms.
        You’re not by any chance a covert member of the Royal Society of Lemmings and Ostriches, are you? I’ve heard rumours the three wise monkeys have also applied for membership

        • Clark

          Paul, is the ad-hominen really necessary?

          This is the other major aspect of the “conspiracy theorist” dynamic; insult and ridicule any who present an objection. I’ll repeat that DISPROOF is fundamental to rational inquiry.

        • Kempe

          Nano aluminium has a range of industrial uses and could’ve got into the atmosphere by a number of routes.

          Define previous norms.

        • Clark

          I’ve spent a couple of hours exploring chemtrailsprojectuk where the “rainwater test results” were published, and the site seems very dubious. For instance, they cite Dr Bill Deagle claiming to be an “insider whistleblower”, but he also pushes his own “alternative remedies”, and elsewhere has reportedly come out with this:

          From my contacts in the NSA, they were operationally ordered by the Jesuits through Project Omega, which is the final implementation of the project conceived by the Nazis before the Second World War in the 1930s. Project Omega’s a super intelligence agency that oversees all intelligence agencies on the planet. Their underground facilities are in Colorado. It was completed under the operational directorship of George Herbert Walker Bush””

          He claims that “Project Omega” “is run by both human and non-human entities”.

          Chemtrailsprojectuk also promotes denial of global warming, citing the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which was set up by Siegfried Fred Singer and associated with the Heartland Institute. Singer has held consultancies with Ford, General Motors, Exxon, Shell, Unocal and Lockheed Martin.

          In its FAQ section, chemtrailsprojectuk claims that a “beneficiary of chemtrailing” is Agenda 21. This is the daft “conspiracy theory” which claims that the United Nations is engaged in a cull of the majority of the human population. The Agenda 21 theory is pretty obviously a ruse that benefits corporations by seeding suspicion of international regulatory bodies.

          – – – – – –

          I’ve raised this repeatedly but not once got a response. Just about every “conspiracy theory” I’ve looked into seems to be promoted by right-wing, pro-corporate interests or through right-wing US talk radio, and attempts to spread suspicion undermining alternative and left-leaning causes. We’ve all heard of “controlled opposition”; well, these “conspiracy theories” seem to be just that. Climate science, international regulation of corporate activities, Noam Chomsky, Julian Assange, Amy Goodman and Democracy Now – I’ve repeatedly seen attempts to discredit all of these, all based upon “conspiracy theories”.

    • Clark

      Paul Barbara, March 9, 08:41:

      LIMS #: 4133
      Location: Leigh, UK
      Date: September 24, 2012

      Strontium: <0 mg/L
      Titanium: <0 mg/L

      LIMS #: 4155
      Location: Canonstown, UK
      Date: October 31, 2012

      Strontium: <0 mg/L
      Titanium: <0 mg/L

      – – – – – –
      Less than none? Shurely shome mishtake.

      And why are the other strontium and titanium results apparently so insensitive compared with the other reading?

      • Paul Barbara

        Perhaps because under normal circs (no aerosol spraying) there wouldn’t be any strontium or titanium in the rainwater.
        These results were from a laboratory’s analysis; labs don’t regularly ‘make big mistakes’ over something that should be second nature, easy-peezee bread and butter work.

        • Clark

          “…labs don’t regularly ‘make big mistakes’ “

          It depends on the lab; mainstream journalists soon found “the lab that always returns positive results” when they wanted a scandal about MRSA to bash the NHS with.

          “Less than zero” and the weird changes in the ranges for strontium and titanium show that something dodgy has happened here, more than once, either from the lab, the people reporting the results or the people compiling the website.

          But no, just accept it anyway, because it might help to confirm one of your theories.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 15, 2017 at 15:21
            Why one earth should either the lab or the people reporting the results, or the website compiling them, do something as making strontium ‘dissapear’ from some results, when the people backing the geoengineering conspiracy (and it is just that, insofar as the perps and planners are denying it, and clearly there are more people than one, thus ‘conspiracy’, without the ‘theory’.

          • glenn_uk

            Clark: “It depends on the lab; mainstream journalists soon found “the lab that always returns positive results” when they wanted a scandal about MRSA to bash the NHS with.

            I remember this one – Chemsol, wasn’t it? Run by some dude with a non-accredited correspondence course PhD from America. The “expert” that the newspapers loved to use, because he always gave them the results that made a good story – a fellow with no microbiology background, qualifications or training, who worked out of a small garden shed.

            Ben Goldacre went on about this, concluding – with some despondency – that humanitarian graduates in the media think that “science” is entirely arbitrary, made up nonsense – and it’s just a question of who you ask. Because they understand nothing about science (and thinking about it is too hard), they are intellectually offended. They think they can pick up a “result” from anywhere they like, and nobody can gainsay it with their clever words, because it’s all a game – it doesn’t actually mean anything.

            In short, because the journalists and scare-mongers don’t understand it, they conclude the scientists don’t understand it either.

          • Clark

            Paul Barbara,16:45:

            “Why one earth should either the lab or the people reporting the results, or the website compiling them, do something as making strontium ‘dissapear’ from some results…”

            Who cares? There’s obviously something wrong with “less than zero”, and that’s all we need to know to conclude that this set of results aren’t trustworthy. Science and rational analysis are about disproof, elimination…

            Glenn_uk, 19:29: Chemsol. Yep, that’s him. Thanks.

          • glenn_uk

            Clark: It got even better than that. The Chemsol dude, who returned a positive MRSA result for any swab you provided, also had a side-line in selling some snake-oil (a detergent of some form) which was guaranteed to rid you of the MRSA contamination he’d just identified!

          • Clark

            “also had a side-line in selling some snake-oil…”

            It’s often the case, isn’t it? The anti-vaxers just happen to be selling “anti-viral” something-or-other, and the “cancer is a conspiracy” crowd have herbs and berries that “detoxify the body and strengthen the immune system”.

            Not that the “other side” are inherently any better. Have you seen the US TV adverts for pharmaceuticals? Horrifying. I’m glad governments restrict this sort of thing on our side of the Atlantic.

          • glenn_uk

            Clark: “Have you seen the US TV adverts for pharmaceuticals?

            It’s far worse than you could imagine.

            People queued up in the local pharmacy to get a consultation with the dispensing chemist, who was well versed on what could be prescribed without an actual doctor writing it. If a pharmacist recommended it, you were able to buy more powerful medicines than your usual “over-the-counter” variety, so people used them because doctors were so expensive.

            It’s a good thing indeed we don’t have adverts for them – I’m just surprised our last few governments haven’t seen fit to introduce this wonder of the free market over here.

          • Clark

            “I’m just surprised our last few governments haven’t seen fit to introduce this wonder of the free market over here”

            Is it to do with EU rules?

    • Paul Barbara

      I believe his testimony to the 9/11 Commission is the definitive one. Mineta may well have been ‘lent on’ to spread different versions, because his original testimony was so damning.

      • Clark

        But it isn’t just his testimony that matters, is it? It also has to fit into the timeline involving everyone else.

        But no, just accept it anyway, because it might help to confirm one of your theories.

        You do this over and over, and then wonder why I might be reluctant to investigate another six assertions…

  • Clark

    Yesterday evening, an acquaintance in the village invited me round and showed me an episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, apparently originally broadcast on Discovery but now no longer available on that channel (“Censored from TV!!!” says its title on YouTube). It was about the US Department of Homeland Security, Fusion Centers, so-called “FEMA Camps”, the hundreds of thousands of coffins I’ve encountered rumours of. It presents what is called the US Marshal Law or Concentration Camp Conspiracy Theory, and a theory that the US government might start epidemics as a pretext to imposing marshal law. The video also featured Alex Jones. Links to a copy in three parts:

    It was interesting to see the evidence upon which so much Web material is based.

    Good points; The video highlights crony contracts to Halliburton, domestic spying and profiling, overreach and lack of accountability of the Department of Homeland Security and its Fusion Centers, evasiveness and patronising attitude of officials and Congresscritters; excessive powers and unconstitutional nature of State of Emergency and National Security legislation.

    Bad points: The evidence presented is hopelessly insufficient for the extraordinary claims made; ridiculously over-dramatised and sensationalised; misleading and highly suggestive visuals edited to almost subliminally impart false impressions; the coffins seem to be just a manufacturer’s stock and the “concentration camps” were actually various rather mundane facilities; pitched to appeal to and incite fear of federal government in members of the US Right, Religious Right, anti-abortionists, anti-tax campaigners, gun enthusiasts etc.

    Though presenting some important and valid points, the video is a sort of anti-government propaganda in which a mid-popularity media outfit uses a celebrity to amplify false memes commonly referred to as “conspiracy theories”. The laws and facilities presented certainly could and probably would be used if any of the alleged plots were perpetrated, but no evidence was presented of any intent to perpetrate them.

    Certainly, crony contracts should be axed, the laws should be repealed and the Department of Homeland Security should be greatly scaled down, reigned in and made accountable. But inducing paranoia in the US Right seems an unethical, hazardous and rather patronising method of generating pressure against the Federal Government.

    • Clark

      The leads in the video can be difficult to follow because of very brief camera shots, etc. Here are the notes I made, along with official designations of the facilities videoed:


      Rex 84, under Reagan by Colnel Oliver North
      H. R. 645 states that six FEMA Camps will be built in the US.

      Congressman Jim Gerlach, Pennsylvania, co-sponsor of H.R. 645
      Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee, co-sponsor.

      Ventura: “The Feds gave $385,000,000 to a Halliburton subsidary (KBR) to build the detention centers”.

      72 Fusion Centers coordinate FBI, CIA, State Police, Local Police; collaboration between 55 agencies.

      Mike German, FBI Special Agent 16 years, now with American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says that photography, videoing, drawing diagrams and “expressing extreme views” have all been monitored by Fusion Centers, and points out lack of oversight and accountability.

      Operation De-Fuse, John Bush.

      Lance Clem – Homeland Security spokesman said that Fusion Centers are managed separately, and not under the oversight of Federal Government.

      Stewart Rhodes, constitutional watchdog, describes Executive Order 11 January 2010 which establishes the Council of Governors as “the Executive branch now claiming the ability to use its military authority to execute the laws here at home”.

      Buildings / notices shown:

      Morgan County public safety complex.

      State of Ohio Emergency Operations Center / Joint Dispatch Facility:
      Emergency Management Agency, State Highway Patrol,
      ~ of natural Resources, Department of Transportation

      Colorado Intelligence Analysis Center.

      “Concentration camps” – Facilities and notices shown:

      CCA T. Don Hutto Residential Center, Texas: its officially declared use is to confine immigrants including families awaiting change in their immigration status. Alex Jones said it is also designated as a Civil Unrest Center, and 11000 acres are under control of the DoD.

      Notice seen from car-park reads “Access to Van Norman Reservoir Complex must be made through security gates located on Rinaldi St and Sepulveda Blvd”. Said to be used as a police driving training centre.

      Terminal Island Detention Center – a prison that is used by US Customs to detain illegal immigrants prior to deportation.


      Madison, Georga – Vantage Products (Convington, Georga) storage facility. Combining video evidence with Google Maps I estimate about 100,000. “According to company Vice President of Operations Michael Lacey, there are approximately 50,000 vaults in storage in Madison”. Vantage Products, formerly Hercules, defense contractor with ties to Halliburton.

      • Clark

        A section of ex-CIA John Stockwell’s 1987 lecture “The Secret Wars of the CIA” (linked by Paul Barbara on the next page of comments) provides some relevant information:

        “They’re building detention centers. There were 8 kept as mothballs under the McLaren act after World War II, to detain aliens and dissidents in the next war, as was done in the next war, as was done with the Japanese people during World War II. They’re building 10 more, and army camps, and the… executive memos about these things say it’s for aliens and dissidents in the next national emergency….

        – FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by Loius Guiffrida, a friend of Ed Meese’s…. He’s going about the country lobbying and demanding that he be given authority, in the times of national emergency, to declare martial law, and establish a curfew, and gun down people who violate the curfew… in the United States.”

    • Clark

      Points I personally wish to make:

      * With mainstream TV like this, you can see why “conspiracy theories” get popular,

      * I hope you feel that I have given this due consideration and not dismissed it out-of-hand,

      * Node, have I managed to be more appropriate in my use of the term “conspiracy theory”?

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark March 12, 2017 at 23:38
      ‘…generating pressure against the Federal Government.’
      You certainly seem to have a rosy view of the ‘Federal Government’.

      I don’t; Having been involved in Human Rights campaigns against the most sickening atrocities by gangs of thugs trained by the USG to foment coups and torture, rape and murder countless citizens of countries whom the USG wanted to control in order to pillage their raw materials, oil and gas, control vast acreages of farmland for plantations, I have come to understand just how evil they are.

      Just for the crack, tell me which of the following you don’t believe was a ‘False Flag’ or variation:
      ‘Mr. Polk’s War’: deliberate flouting of Internationally settled border between Texas and Mexico; with the US sending 3,500 troops into Mexico as a ‘defensive measure’. Abe Lincoln got the nickname ‘Spotty Lincoln’ because he wanted to know exactly where the clash between the US troops and Mexican forces occurred; it was on Mexican territory, but Polk insisted it was on American territory.

      The sinking of the Maine, in Havana harbour; the Americans blamed the Spanish, saying they had planted a mine on the ship, and this led indirectly to war, but if was later proven the explosion was an internal one. Cui bono?

      Pearl Harbour: although obviously it was Japan that attacked, FDR wanted them to attack. His National Security Adviser came up with an eight-point plan that would force Japan’s hand, and draw them to attack the US. FDR wanted to get into WWII, and Japan was the obvious method. The eight-point plan was rolled out; it took a year, but Japan realised teh Americans would keep putting on pressure till ultimately they would have to make war with them, so decided on a ‘sneak attack’.
      But the US had virtually all the Japanese codes broken, knew their plans, and even plotted their journey across the Pacific; but they did not warn Pearl Harbour. They wanted a blood-bath, in order to get the American public to welcome the entry into the war (before Pearl, only 16$ of Americans wanted to enter the war). FDR’s plan worked like a charm; some 2,400 US sailors died, and a million Americans joined up under arms the next day.

      ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ Lie; this was a non-existent attack, said to have been carried out by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on two US destroyers. It was used to justify massive US intervention (previously there had been thousands of so-called US ‘advisers’ ‘assisting’ the South Vietnamese, but LBJ wanted to massively escalate the conflict, thus the sham.

      USS Liberty: LBJ again, in conjunction with Israel. The plan was for the Liberty to be sent into International waters off Sharm al Sheikh, where Israel would attack and sink it, leaving no survivors. It was to be blamed on Egypt, and US planes were going to nuke Egypt in retaliation.

      The PNAC ‘call’ for a new Pearl Harbour was made with the truth of Pearlk well known to the PNAC; LBJ had used the same Pearl Harbour analogy when speaking to the Deputy Israeli Ambassador (who was doubtless the Mossad Head of Station) before the Liberty attack. Great inside joke, for these evil creatures.

      Operation Red Rock, Cambodia. Americans blew up a large part of the Cambodian Air Force, and made it look like the Viet Cong had done it, in order to get Prince Sihanouk ‘off the fence’. It worked.

      • Clark

        “You certainly seem to have a rosy view of the ‘Federal Government”

        Why do you think that? Seriously, where have I praised the US Federal Government? Do I have to endorse, for instance, David Icke’s assertion that they’re extraterrestrial reptilians in order to be considered critical?

        Look, you’ve done it again; you’ve changed the subject – this time, onto SIX different subjects!

        What does it matter what I know of any of them? Does my ignorance, or lack of it, make it a good idea for celebrities and media organisations to make US Gun-Nuts more paranoid than they already are?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark March 15, 2017 at 15:21
          No, you haven’t praised the government – but you have time and time again accused posters of being ‘against the government’. As you are probably aware, I have never endorsed Icke’s ‘shape-shifting lizard’ baloney, and though he undoubtedly does propagate a lot of very good stuff, I am seriously suspicious of his motives. I believe he knows the ‘extraterrestrial reptilians’ business is just that, a ‘BS Business’. I regard him as a kind of gatekeeper, though one who does push the packet probably more than the PTB would like.

          I didn’t change the subject at all – I was simply trying to find out if you were aware of all these matters.
          By the way, I realised I made a mistake re LBJ didn’t use the Pearl Harbour analogy when speaking to the Deputy Israeli Ambassador, Ephraim ‘Eppy’ Evron; he used the Gulf of Tonkin analogy (which of course LBJ had pulled off).

          ‘… What does it matter what I know of any of them? Does my ignorance, or lack of it, make it a good idea for celebrities and media organisations to make US Gun-Nuts more paranoid than they already are?’

          If you knew of them, you would be far more inclined to believe they had just pulled the same stunt on 9/11, rather than thinking it would be out of the question for various reasons.
          I support the so-called ‘Gun Nuts’, though it does clash with my Christian beliefs. These people are not on the whole ‘Nuts’ at all (though of course some will be, by the law of averages). They are supported by the US Constitution.
          And the reason the US PTB keep pulling ‘atrocities’ and ‘atrocity hoaxes’ is to get the American people to back them in withdrawing their rights to bear arms, just as Hitler and many other repressive governments have done, in order to more smoothly attain their plan for dominance.
          The US Constitution had checks and balances, and one was the right of citizens to take up arms against a repressive government. The other checks and balances have been annihilated: Congress, the Senate, POTUS, SCOTUS and the media have all been totally compromised, by bribery, blackmail or the very real threat of assassination.
          Somewhere above you have included anti-tax campaigners; what you don’t seem to know is that the taxes are ILLEGAL
          I refer you to Aaron Russo’s ‘America: ‘Freedom To Fascism’:
          Another excellent video where Aaron Russo was interviewed not long before his death, also covers the tax business briefly, but is extremely informative about 9/11: ‘Historic Interview with Aaron Russo’:
          I don’t expect you will watch them.

          • Clark

            “If you knew of them, you would be far more inclined to believe they had just pulled the same stunt on 9/11, rather than thinking it would be out of the question for various reasons.”

            There are two points here.

            Firstly, no, I don’t think it’s out of the question, but I think you’re not thinking clearly when you say “they [meaning the US government] had just pulled the same stunt on 9/11”. No, the US government didn’t do 9/11 in any meaningful sense. Nowhere will you find a debate or a vote by the Congress or the Senate about doing 9/11. I’ll bet my life that there are no internal policy documents or memos about how to arrange 9/11. That doesn’t mean that people within government weren’t involved. It means that any who were involved plotted in secret, acting outside the authority of government. Treason, in other words. The same goes for the CIA; I’ll bet my life that 9/11 was never an official CIA operation, but the internal secrecy of the CIA may have hidden conspiracy.

            Secondly, no. One other crime, or six other crimes, should have no bearing upon our consideration of the crime in question. That’s how it works in law, and in rational analysis. You have to judge each crime on evidence strictly relevant to it, or you are likely stitch up the wrong party and let the guilty get away with it. That’s why it’s

            Truth, Peace, Justice.

          • Clark

            I’m very glad to live in a country with gun control, and I’m very glad that tax is collected to fund such things as education and the NHS.

          • Clark

            I think I watched an interview with Aaron Russo months ago. Is he the film maker who gave an interview shortly before he died, or was that someone else? Among other things, he spoke about an organised extortion mob and bent police who eventually drove his club out of business.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 15, 2017 at 21:37
            You’re right about ‘the Government’ not debate or vote in Congress or Senate, but the ‘Deep State’ decided they would do it. Who precisely that included I don’t know, but there are many logical contenders, like Cheney, G. H W Bush, Rumsfeld and many of the ‘Neocons’.
            It was like Wesley Clark explained about bringing down ‘seven Governments in five years’, it was a coup. a ‘policy coup’ he called it. As he said, no government discussions had been taken about it.
            We can agree about that.
            ‘..One other crime, or six other crimes, should have no bearing upon our consideration of the crime in question. That’s how it works in law, and in rational analysis. You have to judge each crime on evidence strictly relevant to it, or you are likely stitch up the wrong party and let the guilty get away with it…’
            You are right there too; but the government is so corrupt, laws have no bearing on them. People are taken prisoner and tortured and murdered, with no evidence even proffered against them, never mind tested in a court of law. And though some of the Congress and Senate might not approve, they stay silent and let the abominations continue.
            I don’t believe it requires absolute proof before they are pronounced guilty; ‘Cui Bono, ability, and motive, as well as corruption and lies, will suffice me to judge them guilty.
            At least one International Panel of Jurists has found the US guilty; I believe it was in Malaysia (perhaps the reason they seem to have a fleet of ‘disappearing’ and crashing planes.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 15, 2017 at 23:18
            Yes, that’s the guy. But it wasn’t the mob, it was just the police who did the extortion.
            And the main point of the interview (though there was a lot of important aspects) was what Nick Rockefeller had told him was going to happen, which fitted 9/11 to a ‘T’.
            He was a great guy; RIP Aaron.

          • Clark

            The “Deep State” certainly exists in some sense, but not in the same way as a government. The “Deep State” is our term, as people who aren’t part of it, to refer to something which we cannot see clearly. But those within what we call the “Deep State” wouldn’t consider themselves part of any such organisation. Even if dosed with some 100% effective “truth drug”, a member wouldn’t say, for instance, “yes, I’m a voting member of the Council of what you call the Deep State, and I chair its sub-committee on false-flag target selection”.

            Rather, these people are members of other powerful organisations and lobby groups that do exist, like the ATC and AIPAC, or hold powerful positions within corporations and secret organisations. What we call the “Deep State” is an informal network of influence.

            This doesn’t place all “members” on the same side – each is on his or her own side. Many of their interests must conflict, but many more must converge, and when various members’ interests do intersect, they can communicate through the informal network.

            This is why rigorous evidence examination is vital. Every criminal act that gets attributed wrongly is a criminal act that some other bastards have got away with. The chance of being held accountable for one’s actions is an effective deterrent. The chance that some random associates might get the blame is just more gambling of the type such people are effectively addicted to.

          • Clark

            As I remember the Aaron Russo interview, Nick Rockefeller told him something was going to happen, and in response US forces would be “looking for Arabs in caves” or something like that, but described nothing about the targets or the form of the coming event.

            And that, I think, is how informal networks operate. The Bush/neocon administration had no need to know what was going to happen, and any specific foreknowledge could only incriminate them. All they needed to know was that a major attack on US soil was coming, so that they could have their legislation and policy coup all ready to deploy at the critical moment.

      • Clark

        Paul Barbara, seriously, do YOU have a rosy view of the US Right? The gun lobby, Christian fundamentalists, anti-abortionists, anti-tax campaigners, global warming deniers; the sort of people the Jesse Ventura programme is designed to appeal to?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark March 15, 2017 at 15:25
          I do not support the US ‘Right’, though some of them I am in agreement with on some issues. Christian Fundamentalists as generally understood, I am against (the sort of ‘Christians’ that look forward to Armageddon, and support Israel with that idea in mind). Abortion is not an easy subject, and I believe there are times when it is justified, but not just as a means to live loose lives. Anti-tax campaigns I support; they are right, but I will not personally risk the consequences of government sanctions. I believe Global Warming is upon us, but I realise that many genuine people take a different view.
          Broadly speaking I like and agree with Jesse Ventura, but not totally.

1 104 105 106 107 108 134

Comments are closed.