9/11 Truth: World Trade Center Building Seven Was A ‘Controlled Implosion’. CNBC Anchor Ron Insana

Global Research, September 26, 2019
AE911Truth 25 September 2019

On the 18th anniversary of 9/11, CNBC senior analyst and former anchor Ron Insana went on Bernie and Sid In the Morning on New York’s 77 WABC Radio to share his haunting experience of that horrible day.

Approximately eight minutes into the interview, Insana made a statement regarding the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 — which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 — that is truly stunning, especially considering his access to the scene and his job as a prominent news anchor:

“Well, remember 7 World Trade had not yet come down. And so when I went down to the [New York Stock] Exchange that Wednesday morning [September 12], I was standing with some military and police officers, and we were looking over in that direction. And if it had come down in the way in which it was tilting, it would have wiped out everything from where it stood to Trinity Church to the Exchange to, effectively, you know, the mouth of the Hudson. And so there were still fears that if that building had fallen sideways, you were going to wipe out a good part of Lower Manhattan. So they did manage for one to take that down in a controlled implosion later on. And the Exchange was up and running the following Monday.” [Emphasis added.]

Before addressing questions about Insana’s timeline, let us establish the aspects of his story that are clear and unambiguous. First, he clearly identifies Building 7 as the building he is talking about. Second, he clearly states that Building 7 was taken down in a “controlled implosion,” which flatly contradicts the official explanation that it collapsed due to office fires.

Insana’s matter-of-fact remark is particularly significant because the manner in which he delivers it and the context in which he came to believe that Building 7 was brought down in a “controlled implosion” suggest that he was told this information and that it may have been fairly common knowledge at the scene. (The only other possibility is that he deduced it was a “controlled implosion” based on his own observation of it.) Indeed, Insana is not the only person to report that a demolition of Building 7 was being considered or was imminent.

For instance, FDNY Lieutenant David Restuccio told MSNBC’s Brian Williams just minutes after the collapse: “We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”

Another is volunteer EMT Indira Singh, who, in 2005, told radio host Bonnie Faulkner: “All I can attest to is that by noon or one o’clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.” Faulker replied, “Did they actually use the word ‘brought down,’ and who was it that was telling you this?” “The fire department, the fire department,” Singh answered. “And they did use the word ‘we’re going to have to bring it down.’”

Then there are the unidentified construction workers and law enforcement officers captured on video just moments before the collapse, saying: “You hear that?” “Keep your eye on that building. It’ll be coming down.” “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” “We are walking back. There’s a building about to blow up. Flame, debris coming down.”

Insana’s statement is all the more remarkable because it appears that he is unaware of the debunked official story of Building 7’s collapse — according to which office fires leveled a skyscraper for the first time in history — and of the controversy that this story has caused over the past 18 years. Insana might be surprised to learn that there is controversy at all, given what he appears to have been told during his reporting and given the manner in which Building 7 came down — namely, that of a perfectly executed controlled demolition.

 Image: Ron Insana, covered in pulverized concrete from the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers earlier that morning, reports from NBC’s studios on September 11, 2001.

Now for the confusing aspects of Insana’s timeline. Building 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. He says he went down to the Financial District on the morning of Wednesday, September 12, where he looked in the direction of Building 7.

There appear to be three ways to make sense of what he said (assuming he is speaking honestly, which there seems little reason to doubt).

One, when he talks about looking in the direction of Building 7, he could mean that he was looking at the debris pile of Building 7, which had already been brought down neatly into its own footprint. In this scenario, he and others were inferring that if the building had tipped over instead of having been brought down, which had already occurred, it would have done significant damage to the surrounding area.

Two, he may have gone down to the Financial District and had the conversation he describes before 5:20 PM on September 11, rather than on September 12. This scenario seems the least likely, though, because he is very specific about not going back down to the stock exchange until September 12, having already made his way up from the scene to NBC’s midtown headquarters by midday on September 11. (Insana’s first appearance in the studio on September 11 was around 12:41 PM, when he vividly described how the first tower had “started to explode.”)

Three, he may have observed the damage to Building 7 or somehow learned about it on September 11, but he is incorrectly placing that observation or the receipt of that information within his experiences on September 12. One possibility is that the conversation he remembers having with military and police officers and/or his observation of the damage to Building 7 actually took place before he left the scene on September 11.

One can only hope that Insana clarifies his story, but the real question for Insana and CNBC is this: Who told him that Building 7 was brought down in a “controlled implosion”? And, for the countless reporters and government officials who were at Ground Zero in the hours and days after the attacks, how many of them were told that Building 7 would be demolished or had been demolished, and why have they not come forward with that information?

Sadly, it is all too likely that the same media malfeasance that has managed to suppress the truth about the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 for 18 years will manage once again to ignore or explain away this newest revelation. But for those of us who exist in reality and care about truth, this revelation — which is merely one of countless corroborating pieces of evidence — will not be ignored or misconstrued.

The only correct way to understand this revelation is that Ron Insana — a reporter who intimately covered the events in New York City on 9/11, such that those events are seared into his mind and he received an Emmy nomination for his reporting — believes that Building 7 was brought down in a “controlled implosion,” most likely based on what he was told by authorities at the scene.

9/11 Truth: World Trade Center Building Seven Was A ‘Controlled Implosion’. CNBC Anchor Ron Insana

The Post 9/11 Era and The “Global War on Terrorism”: “You are Either with Us, or with the Terrorists”

Global Research, September 20, 2019
Guns and Butter

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history. a decisive watershed, a breaking point. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.

September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society.

A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.

Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” were set in motion. 

September 11, 2001 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.

Guns and Butter, WBAI  Radio, New York

click here (audio)

https://www.wbai.org/archive/program/episode/?id=5854

The transcript of this interview will be published shortly

***

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.

CIA Director George Tenet stated that same morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to plan  “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”

That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.

Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress, which the mainstream media chose to either dismiss or ignore. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.

Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?

Is there any proof to the effect that Osama bin Laden, the bogeyman, coordinated the 9/11 attacks as claimed in the official 9/11 narrative?

According to CBS news (Dan Rather, January 28, 2002), “Enemy Number One” was admitted to the urology ward of a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan. He could have been arrested at short notice which would have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as presidential speeches in the course of the last 18 years.

1. Osama bin Laden could not reasonably have coordinated the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed;

2. The hospital was under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts were known to both the Pakistani and US military.

 U.S. military and intelligence advisers based in Rawalpindi. were working closely with their Pakistani counterparts. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed, at the time, that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden were unknown. According to Rumsfeld:  “Its like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.

October 7, 2001: Waging America’s 9/11 War of Retribution against Afghanistan

The immediate response of the US and its allies to the 9/11 attacks was to the declare a war of retribution against Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting “terror mastermind” Osama bin Laden. By allegedly harboring bin Laden, the Taliban were complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for having waged an act of war against the United States.

Parroting official statements, the Western media mantra on September 12, 2001 had already approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in Afghanistan. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: “When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.

This decision was taken by the Bush-Cheney war cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption, “confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

On the following morning, September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan, invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

An act of war by a foreign nation (Afghanistan) against a member of the Atlantic Alliance (the USA) is an act of war against all members under NATO’s doctrine of collective security. Under any stretch of the imagination, the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon cannot be categorized as an act of war by a foreign country. But nobody seemed to have raised this issue.

Meanwhile, on two occasions in the course of September 2001, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels– offered to hand over Osama Bin laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by president Bush, on the grounds that America “does not negotiate with terrorists”.

The war on Afghanistan was launched 26 days later on the morning of October 7, 2001. The timing of this war begs the question: how long does it take to plan and implement a major theater war several thousand miles away. Military analysts will confirm that a major theater war takes months and months, up to a year or more of advanced preparations. The war on Afghanistan was already in the advanced planning stages prior to September 11, 2001, which begs the question of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

The repeal of civil liberties in America was launched in parallel with the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, almost immediately following 9/11 with the adoption of the PATRIOT legislation and the setting up of a Homeland Security apparatus, under the pretext of protecting Americans. This post-911 legal and institutional framework had been carefully crafted prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda is a US Intelligence Asset

Important to the understanding of 9/11, US intelligence is the unspoken architect of “Islamic terrorism” going back to the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.

Bin Laden was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerrilla training camp. Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. With religious textbooks produced in Nebraska, the number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.

“Houthi Attack” on Saudi Oil Fields – a False Flag? The Financial Reaction Was Immediate

Global Research, September 21, 2019

On Saturday morning, September 14, 2019, a few drones – were they drones or long-range missiles? – hit the Saudis most important two oil fields, set them ablaze, apparently knocking out half of the Saudi crude production – but measured in terms of world production it is a mere 5%. Could be made up in no time by other Gulf oil producers – or indeed, as the Saudis said, by the end of September 2019 their production is back to ‘normal’ – to pre-attack levels.

The financial reaction was immediate. Saudi stocks fell, the oil prices rose, then settled and later fell again. It was an immediate reaction of major banks’ algorithmic speculation with about 10,000 operational hits a second. A trial for larger things to come?

The Yemeni Shiites, the Houthis, immediately claimed credit for the attack, saying they sent some ten “suicide drones” to the major Saudi oilfields and processing center. US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, immediately and without a shred of evidence blamed Iran for the ‘terror attack’ – immediately more economic sanctions were imposed on Iran (Trump proudly said, the most severe ones ever put on a country), for an occurrence they had nothing to do with. – The Saudis, as if confused, held off on accusations. And as of this day, they refrain from accusing Iran. And this despite the fact that there is no love left between SA and Iran which would make blaming Iran a easy feat.

Also immediately following the attack, a high Iraqi Government official assured that the attack was launched from Iraqi soil, not from Yemen. But shortly thereafter Iraqi officials vehemently denied that they had anything to do with this attack. Yet, the launch location Iraq was “confirmed” by the leading Iraqi analyst based in the US, Entifadh Qanbar, President and Founder of the Future Foundation. The Asia Times says, he follows closely developments in his home country, and he has many associates feeding him with information that has proved more than once to be accurate. [Apparently], his information about the attack coming from Iraq is backed by prior history and by Pompeo’s clear declaration.

Here is the thing: Pompeo was never clear from where the attack was launched. He just blamed Iran. He then later, following Qanbar’s statement, joined the chorus, also saying the attack was launched from Iraq, that it was not originating from Yemen. Later the location was further defined as close to the Iranian border, from a “territory held by Iran sympathizing rebels”. No matter what, Iran remains the villain.

The Asia Times further reports,

[It] is growing more certain that the attacks on the Khurais oil fields and the Abqaig oil processing center in Saudi Arabia were launched from southern Iraq and not from Yemen by the Houthis. This was made clear by Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who said: “There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.”

If it all sounds like a big fabricated confusion, it’s because it is a big fabricated confusion. Iran is singled out; fingers pointing to Iran (except, miraculously those of Saudi Arabia), like a sledgehammer hitting Iran, again and again. – The mainstream media loves it. Today, a week after the attack, most nobody remembers the Houthis claiming responsibility – it was Iran. Period. The media blitz won.

But let’s look at this more carefully. The Saudis have about a 70-billion-dollar annual military budget, an armada of US missile defense systems – quite a sizable budget for a country that is studded with US military bases, receives permanent US military and logistics support, technical advice and on the ground defense systems – plus bombs and missiles delivered from the US, UK and France. How come the US-UK-France backed Saudi defense was unable to detect this, albeit, sophisticated drone (missile?) attack? Some say, too sophisticated for the Houthis? – Doesn’t that raise some questions?

Who wins? – Yes, the table is turning and the Houthis are now on the winning side. And they clearly have taken strength. Yemen has lost tens of thousands of people, including thousands and thousands of children through bombs, famine and diarrheal diseases, including a massive cholera epidemic, in an unjust and unprovoked war that started in early 2015, carried out by Saudis as a proxy for the Washington and Pentagon handlers.
Many of the debris of weapons you find on the ground in Yemen say ‘Made in USA’ – which would lead you to conclude that America is at war with Yemen, not the Saudis. Yemen occupies a strategic geographic and geopolitical location and must not be ruled by a people-friendly government, let alone by a socialist leaning government, as the Houthis are. Besides, Yemen may have huge deep off-shore oil reserves.

Isn’t it logical that the Houthis hit back to defend themselves to eventually reach an end to the war and its indescribable atrocities? – Isn’t it weird that the misery and tens of thousands of Yemeni deaths in an unjust and purely criminal aggression instigated by the US, carried out by Riyadh and lasting already for more than 4 years, that this monstrous aggression pales in the mainstream media, as compared to two blazing Saudi oil fields?  Doesn’t that say a lot about our programed to the core western brains, our sense of humanity, what’s left of it?

The biggest winner may be Washington. They have a new devastating blame on Iran – more sanctions, more justification to launch a direct confrontation against Iran – possibly through Israel, or the NATO forces; the “neutral” international killing machine – an amalgam of spineless Europeans and Canada, who love to dance to the tunes of Washington – hoping to get some crumbs of the loot at the end of the day, before the empires falls.

But there is more. Almost unrelated, but if you look closer the dots click and connect. And that’s where the ‘false flag’ comes in. It is indeed very possible that the attack, by drones or missiles was launched out of Iraq – either directly by US forces, or by US-trained terrorist groups.

The US has countless military bases in Iraq. A false flag, i.e. an attack at one of the major energy resources the world still uses to economically survive – hydrocarbons – will definitely enhance the planned ‘new’ economic crisis that is ‘over-due’ and has begun trickling down the melting pillars of western social infrastructure – unemployment on the rise (the real figures), to hit the western world in full swing in 2020 and counting – a financial crisis sustained by astronomical energy prices – what better scenario to shuffle more wealth from down to up, from the poor to the rich? – This attack on the Saudi oil fields may be just the beginning of more to come. Wall Street is trained in capitalizing on “crisis oil”.

In parallel with this Houthi or non-Houthi attack, according to many economists’ assessments – a crisis worse than 2008 / 2009, has indeed already been launched, as worldwide GDP growth is already slowing way beyond expectations. The year 2020 and the following years, may perhaps go down in history as the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It may also be the last one under the current western fiat money system.

But how to construct the crisis? The dollar hegemony is faltering rapidly – trust in the US economy is in freefall. The smart heads of neoliberal thinking, FED, IMF, ECB, are at a loss of finding the ‘right solution’ – but yes, the principle of looting the poor for the benefit of the rich must go on. In the last ten years, enough hard and social capital has been accumulated – social welfare, pensions, health services, public education and infrastructure, social and physical – for the kleptocrats to shuffle some trillions upwards, and let the working class start from scratch again. The example Greece is a demonstration in a crystal ball. The IMF, ECB and European Commission (EC) are to be proud of their achievement.

There is confusion and uncertainty. The FED just lowered the interest rate by 0.25% down to a range of 1.75% – 2%, with Chairman Jerome Powell’s incoherent explanations, clearly under pressure from President Trump, who wants to be reelected next year – hoping to defer a major crisis. At the same token, the lead interest in other western countries, are adjusted to reflect the FED’s decision. In Switzerland, where the Swiss Franc is one of the assets of refuge in cases of crisis, the Central Bank just decided to leave interbank rates at minus 0.75%, in line with other western central banks.  Listening to central bankers, there is not going to be any significant change in low or minus interest rates in the foreseeable future. An economic aberration if ever there was one!

People – bank on it! Borrow and invest at no cost like there is no tomorrow. Help building the bubble of debt – when it bursts, you know what happens – and burst it will. It’s just a matter of time.

Yet, there seems to be an indecision – indicating a major dollar crisis is looming, but nobody quite knows how ‘major’ and how it will pan out and where; quite unusual for these heads of wisdom, running the financial globe’s kingdom.

Madame Christine Lagarde, changing ship from the IMF to the ECB (European Central Bank), the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, and the former New York Federal Reserve Bank chiefBill Dudley, hinted that the United States might have to give up her dollar dominance, the backbone for her world hegemony – and let it be replaced by a kind of Special Drawing Rights (SDR), in which the dollar might still have a dominant role, but, albeit, it would no longer be seen as a untrustworthy fiat Ponzi scheme.

The decadent dollar would be hidden among the other currencies of the basket, presumably the British Pound, the Euro, the Japanese Yen and the Chinese Yuan – if the pattern of the current IMF SDR basket was to be followed. The hegemonic power of the dollar might be hidden, so that the world’s “worries” vis-à-vis the western dollar dominated economy, could be at least partially and temporarily mitigated (see Will the IMF, Federal Reserve, Negative Interest Rates and Digital Money Kill the Western Economy? https://www.globalresearch.ca/will-the-imf-the-federal-reserve-negative-interest-rates-and-digital-money-kill-the-western-economy/5689200.

—-

What does all that have to do with the Yemeni attack on the Saudi oil fields?

Everything.

The reduction of the Saudi crude production – cut in half, though amounting only to 5% of world production – would under normal circumstances hardly affect significantly the world petrol price – unless it becomes the subject of speculation, which it obviously will, a justified “high risk” speculation. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and others are experts in the matter, doing the bidding for the FED, IMF, ECB, BIS – the western instruments behind the dollar system – let it milk as much as it can, before biting the dust – letting it shuffle as much as it can from the bottom to the top, as is usual for a manufactured economic crisis. Mind you, they ALL are and have been manufactured for at least the last 100 years.

While the uncertainty about (western) global interest rates prevails – a major attack on a couple of Saudi oil fields is an ideal reason for letting oil prices skyrocket. It could make for an ideal ‘false flag’; a win-win for Washington: sustaining the manufactured economic crisis with an attack on major oil fields (maybe the first of others to come) – and – a good new reason to blame Iran – another good reason to go to war with Iran. But will the Trump Administration dare?

In today’s world, economic progress is still measured in linear GDP output which, in turn, depends largely on available (and affordable) energy. Once the hydrocarbon damage or shortage is known or predictable in term of escalating oil prices – pundits claim it could exceed the100 dollar mark, decisions on how to deal with interest rates are much easier. Combine this with ongoing trade wars, real wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, economic strangulations left and right, regime change efforts, refugee issues – you have the perfect scenario for the next crisis.

To this you may add the Soros-driven massive around-the-globe climate hype, but I mean a ferocious climate propaganda machine, the highly publicized “Greta Crowd”, the “Friday for Future” school strike movement, and more, much more, prompting a special UN Climate Conference – 23 September. As Carla Stea from Global Research pointedly asks: Has the UN become a Wall Street Asset? (https://www.globalresearch.ca/united-nations-becoming-public-relations-asset-wall-street/5689620).

All of this with the specific objective of collecting enormous sums of special ‘climate taxes’, for everything that moves and that our usual climate “scientists” are connecting with global warming, or more politically correct “climate change”. There is talk about the revival of some kind of the infamous “carbon fund”. Most of day-in-day-out manipulated westerners will happily pay the extra “fee” to clear their minds of ‘guilt’ and go on with life. Never mind, that climate change is a natural phenomenon and is primarily nature-driven, as Mother Earth has done for the four billion years of her existence.

—–

This fits well with the attacks on the Saudi oil fields – who knows, others may follow – as the destruction, or disruption of the flow of vital hydrocarbon energy resources serves the Bigger Picture – bringing about a major worldwide economic depression. And by now, we know, that every recession-depression brings more misery to the poor and makes the rich richer.

So, ‘cui bono’ – is as usual the western corporate military and financial elite. Therefore, a false flag attack on the Saudi Oil fields – of course with the Saudis in collusion, is not as far-fetched as one might believe at first glance. Last Saturday’s attack may be just the first one of a serious of misdeeds on the Middle Eastern oil industry – to drive oil prices up – a solid support to the well-prepared financial crisis.

This is first-rate economic terrorism. The dollar may survive a few years longer, while the children of Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua – you name it – will continue to be exposed to man-made misery no end. – Let’s stop this criminal western shenaniganism now! – Let’s disconnect our economies from the west, of those who are aware and awaken, and turn to the East, where the future is.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

First published by the New Eastern Outlook – NEO

9/11 Truth: Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative

Global Research, September 06, 2019

“It is my firm belief that 9/11 skeptics—and true skeptics of any paradigm-shifting and taboo subject—who publicly expose lies and ‘naked emperors’ are heroes …They have suffered the ridicule and wrath of those emperors, their minions, and the just plain frightened…In our American society, many of our authority figures routinely lie to us, but nonetheless, many citizens continue to look to them for truth and safety—especially when fear is heightened.

This strong tendency to believe and obey authority is another obstacle with which skeptics of the official 9/11 account must contend…By unquestioningly believing and obeying authority, we make very bad decisions, which often negatively affect others. This can be equally true for the four human proclivities studied by social psychologists: doublethink, cognitive dissonance, conformity, and groupthink.” – Frances Shure, clinical psychologist and early skeptic of the official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory that two hi-jacked commercial jet planes caused three concrete, steel-reinforced towers to explode into fine dust and collapse into their own footprints in less than 12 seconds.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” – Carl Sagan

“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth … For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.” — Patrick Henry – March 23, 1775

“It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them. … “What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.  …  Propaganda must always be essentially simple and repetitious. The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly… it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”– Joseph Goebbels, German Nazi “Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment”

“We’ll know that our disinformation campaign has worked when everything the American public believes is false.” — William Casey, Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director at his first staff meeting, 1981

“Image of the World Trade Center’s South Tower as it explodes, from top to bottom, into fine dust and severed steel columns. Within the next 12 seconds much of the tower blows away and the rest collapses into its own footprint into a relatively small pile of debris. The arrow points to one of the exploding “squibs” from one of the multitude of pre-planted demolition charges that are intended to section all the massive steel 110 story columns (4 inches thick at their bases) which allowed the building to fall straight down rather than falling sideways and causing damage to adjacent structures or people. This image is typical of what it looks like when standard controlled demolitions take down high-rise buildings in the most cost-effective manner possible. In the 100 year history of skyscrapers, the only tall buildings that have ever fallen down without controlled demolitions (allegedly) were the 3 World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 – and they all happened on 9/11/2001!. ” (Check out  www.ae911truth.org for everything you need to know about the many anomalies that conclusively disprove the “official”, CIA-, Pentagon- White House- Mainstream Media-approved conspiracy theories about what happened of 9/11.)

***

The question posited by the title of this article, explores the dilemma faced by truth-seekers who have the facts that totally refute the Big Lies about 9/11/2001 about which the mainstream media, their elected representatives in Congress, their presidents and the Deep State refuse to debate.

These “9/11 Truthers” have been unfairly labeled “conspiracy theorists” (a pejorative term invented by the CIA after the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963 raised all sorts of skepticism doubting the official story blaming “the single shooter”).

This courageous group of truth-seekers have been attempting to inform and enlighten individuals and institutions that have chosen to disregard and/or disbelieve the overwhelmingly documentable evidence that proves that pre-planted controlled demolition charges – and not airplanes – pulverized into fine dust the three WTC towers on 9/11/01.

The corollary of course is that the three towers could not have bee demolished by anybody other than insiders using explosives.

Given that the alleged planes that allegedly hit 2 of the towers were commercial planes (that of course contained no explosives), no other conclusion can be drawn than that the explosives that brought down the three skyscrapers had been pre-planted in the manner of classical controlled demolitions, which are the only way that concrete, steel-reinforced, high-rise buildings can be efficiently demolished.

It is obvious to many folks who were alive and aware in the era of the assassinations of the 1960s (the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King) that 9/11/01 was a false flag operation that has seriously (and intentionally, according to the Project for the New American Century – google it) destabilized the Middle East and the world and justified the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And, of course the rapid passage of the Patriot Act by the bamboozled US Congress ensured that the United States took another step closer to becoming an armed police state, by seriously curtailing the civil liberties of its citizens.

That series of programmed events started a state of perpetual US-led wars in the Mideast (wars that only benefited our one ally in the area [Israel]. It also ensured the lucrative future of America’s military-industrial-congressional complex and global weapons manufacturers.

These self-perpetuating – and ultimately bankrupting – wars have destroyed and are continuing to destroy the physical and psychological well-being of the tens of thousands of duped patriot soldiers (and their families) as well as the millions of unarmed innocents that were victimized by the lethal, often indiscriminate weaponry of our military. Also victimized forever were their cultures, their religions, their economies and the very planet that militarism is making uninhabitable.

And, it must be mentioned, our illegal and ill-advised military aggressions have raised up billions of mortal enemies all around the world whose enmity and justified desire for revenge will never be quenched until “the Great Satan” is finally beaten.

The dilemma raised by the title question, “Why Do Good People Remain Silent”, has been faced throughout the history of the world by a multitude of truth-seekers and truth-tellers long before the events of 9/11. A short list of American examples that have shaped world history was enumerated in the previous two Duty to Warn columns, which are available at (See this).

The “bamboozle quote” from Carl Sagan above should help any thinking person to understand one of the psychological reasons why both human and inhuman entities (such as corporations and the corporate-controlled press) so readily accept – and even promote – Big Lies; and then, when the truth comes out that thoroughly refutes the lies, these entities refuse to admit that they have been bamboozled.

One expects major corporate media networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal (not to mention the Duluth News-Tribune) to refuse to admit that they are shills for the Deep State or their corporate advertisers or just being duped by them, but even the more honorable BBC, PBS, NPR and MPR do the same by continuously using the phrase “terrorist attacks on 9/11” instead of telling the truth. Perhaps, if one could only get through to these unaccountable and unreachable talking heads, they might at least claim that they were unaware of what is blatantly obvious to most unbiased observers.

The quotes from Hitler and Goebbels could have easily been made by J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, Allen Dulles’ CIA and right-wing politicians like the odious politicians during the McCarthy, leftist witch-hunt era, not to mention any number of the pro-militarization, pro-war, pseudo-patriotic “my country right or wrong” types that profitably occupy Wall Street, War Street and Washington, DC.

Those realities should help us understand how the misleaders of militarily powerful empires are able to manipulate the “Good Germans” of every nationality into believing Big Lies.

Anyone who isn’t a 9/11 Skeptic or a Boeing 737 Skeptic or a Vaccine Safety Skeptic isn’t Paying Attention (or has been Duped by or is a Shill for Corporate Power).

Clinical psychologist Frances Shure, who was an early skeptic of the official White House conspiracy theories has experienced her share of criticism from those who tend to implicitly trust their leaders. Her story, in a 9-part series on the subject, discusses the psychological background about how public opinion and beliefs can be manipulated. The series can be found here.

It is painful being an artificially demeaned and unfairly criticized “conspiracy theorist” about 9/11. Even though the 9/11 Truth-tellers have the scientific truth behind them, they have been mistreated by the mass media as a despised out-group for the past 18 years.

Being a 9/11 truth-teller is like being a black-listed anti-fascist author, writer or musician during Hitler’s thousand-year Reich or during the proto-fascist American McCarthy era of the 1950s.

One has to sympathize with Galileo who was persecuted by the authoritarian church when he proved that the earth revolved around the sun when 99.9% of the world believed that the sun revolved around the earth – because it said so in the bible.

I personally empathize with the Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis who proved in the mid-1800s that washing or sterilizing one’s hands before delivering a baby resulted in a dramatic decrease in post-delivery deaths of new mothers from “child-bed fever”. 99.9% of physicians at the time often delivered babies between performing autopsies without washing their hands. His discovery never caught on with the profession, although midwives understood the wisdom and washed their hands prior to deliveries. The midwive’s patients had 10 times fewer deaths from infection than the doctor’s patients. Dr Semmelweis, just like many other dissident physicians to follow, was ostracized by his arrogant and ignorant profession for promoting such a radical notion and, labeled as being mentally ill, died in disgrace in a mental institution a few years later.

Cognitive Dissonance and 9/11

One major psychological factor that helps explain why the Cheney/Bush White House’s official conspiracy theory has become so ingrained is the concept of cognitive dissonance. A good YouTube discussion of the title question – by a number of psychologist colleagues of Frances Shure – can be seen here. I highly recommend watching it.

I wrote a Duty to Warn column devoted to the subject of cognitive dissonance in 2013. It has been archived here.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the article:

“Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological or emotional discomfort felt when one is confronted with new information or a new reality that contradicts one’s deeply held beliefs.

“When there are conflicting, mutually exclusive beliefs, intelligent, open-minded and thoughtful people that have not been victimized by significant psychological trauma during their upbringing, are usually willing to change their minds by re-evaluating their prior stances, looking carefully and honestly at the new evidence, reassessing the credibility of both positions and then making a decision to adopt or reject the new information, depending on the evidence before them.

“Close-minded, distracted, uninformed, addicted, ignorant, too-busy, overly obedient, uber-patriotic, co-opted or radically conservative people may not have the time, inclination, intelligence or political will (or courage) to look at the available new evidence that runs contrary to their old, ingrained beliefs. Therefore, they may unconsciously or reflexively reject the new information, even if the evidence is overwhelmingly and provably true.”

Not too many people that live in punitive, militarized empires have the courage to do what the whistle-blowing boy did when he saw that his emperor had no clothes on. Not too many people want to be truth-tellers in a nation whose governmental bodies imprison, expel, black-lists or bans truth-tellers and their stories and suppresses every truth that threatens national security and corporate security or profitability.

Hitler got his timid or privileged “Good Germans” – who lived outside the concentration camps – to believe the Big Lie that “Arbeit Macht Frei” (“work makes one free” even inside a concentration camp) and that his dictatorship would last a thousand years. Citizens of supposedly democratic societies like America’s are told that “The Truth Shall Make You Free”, that “The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword” and that “The Arc of History Bends Towards Justice”. Don’t believe it, unless lots of courageous citizen take action and demand justice. Otherwise, those noble thought are just cunning lies to calm the people.

Without a body of dissenters, whistle-blowers and courageous people of conscience (like the multitude of banned 9/11 truth-seekers and antiwar, anti-globalist, anti-fascist activists) that are willing to go up against the conscienceless, the profiteers, the globalists, the fascists, the militarists, the racists, the corporate polluters, the economic exploiters, the bankers and the sociopathic corporations those exploiters will continue to grow in power, wealth and influence – fouling our planetary nest as they go. I would hate to see them succeed.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr Kohls writes regularly about a variety of issues that includes corporatism, globalism, militarism, economic oppression, racism and fascism. He is a member of Medical Professionals for 911 Truth. Besides the website for Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (www.ae911truth.org) the following websites are excellent: this and this.

Trump cancels planned meeting with Putin at G20 over Russia-Ukraine flare up

5c001c39fc7e93c9778b4592

© Reuters / Grigory Dukor

US President Donald Trump has cancelled a scheduled meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin which was due to take place at the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires on Saturday.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Based on the fact that the ships and sailors have not been returned to Ukraine from Russia, I have decided it would be best for all parties concerned to cancel my previously scheduled meeting….

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

….in Argentina with President Vladimir Putin. I look forward to a meaningful Summit again as soon as this situation is resolved!

23.6K people are talking about this

Trump had previously cast doubt over whether the meeting would take place, telling the Washington Post on Wednesday that “maybe” he would cancel the tete-a-tete, citing the recent confrontation between Russian and Ukrainian military vessels in the Kerch Strait.

Three Ukrainian Navy vessels were apprehended by Russia trying to cross between the Black Sea and the Azov Sea on Sunday. While Kiev said it had informed Russia of the crossing, Moscow said it had not received notification.

Leaving the White House for Argentina on Thursday, Trump told reporters he “probably” would meet with Putin at the summit, but said he would make a decision after receiving a briefing on the plane.

Shortly after, Trump tweeted that “it would be best for all parties concerned” to cancel the meeting with Putin “based on the fact that the ships and sailors have not been returned to Ukraine.”

Trump said he looked forward to a “meaningful summit” when the “situation is resolved.”

ALSO ON RT.COM‘Kiev would get away even with eating babies’: Putin says Kerch Strait standoff is a provocation

 

Responding to Trump’s decision, the Kremlin said it had received no confirmation of the cancellation through official channels. A Kremlin spokesperson said if the meeting is off, however, Putin will have a few free hours for other important meetings.

It’s not the first time uncertainty has surrounded whether a meeting between the two leaders would take place. In fact, it seems to happen frequently.

Just three days before the pair met in Helsinki in July, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating alleged“collusion” between Trump and Russia announced grand jury indictments against 12 Russian military officials for their alleged roles in interfering in US domestic politics. That move prompted White House officials to suggest Mueller was trying to derail the Helsinki meeting.

READ MORE: Thumbs up! Putin shakes hands with Trump and Melania during WWI ceremony in Paris (PHOTOS)

There were also conflicting reports about a possible meeting between the two leaders in the days before Armistice Day commemorations in Paris last month. In the end, the two reportedly had a brief conversation behind the scenes and shook hands publicly after French organizers changed the seating arrangements at the last minute to avoid having the pair seated next to each other.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/445167-trump-cancels-planned-meeting-putin/

Malaysian Airlines MH17 as a Prism of Disaster. Ukraine and the New Cold War

Global Research, November 28, 2018
mh17-400x225

Relevant to unfolding events in Ukraine, this article was first published on July 25, 2018

The uproar in the West, and in the United States in particular, that followed the summit meeting between presidents Trump and Putin in Helsinki on 16 July last, fits into the intense anti-Russian campaign that had been going on for many years. A key moment in that campaign was the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014. That tragic event, in which all 298 people on board perished, allows us a view of a far broader set of large-scale historical developments. 

These developments include the NATO advance into the former Soviet bloc and the actual USSR, with the EU in tow; the resurrection of a strong, directive state in Russia after a decade of economic plunder and social degradation; the energy connection between Russia’s Gazprom and EU countiries, and the slow coming together of resurgent Russia with China and other members of the loose blocs formed between them, such as the Eurasian Union and the BRICS countries. My book analyses this larger context; with respect to the actual downing it tries to come as close as possible on the basis of established facts, on which one can then meaningfully base further hypotheses and inquiry. 

The February 2014 regime change in Kiev placed state power in the hands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and anti-Russian billionaires intent on removing the country from the post-Soviet orbit and reorienting it to the West. Like other successor states of the multi-national USSR,  Ukraine then began to fracture as a result of Western forward pressure. The US State Department through assistant secretary Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt, played key roles in the coup d’état; after its successful completion, followed by the secession of Crimea and an armed uprising in the eastern Donbass area, the NATO command joined in. Hacked e-mails of NATO commander General Philip Breedlove reveal that the war party in the United States and NATO began to elaborate a strategy that would make Ukraine the testing ground for a trial of strength with Russia and China from late March onwards. The re-incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation was exploited to evoke the spectre of an expansionist Russia threatening invasion on several fronts. After all, the Russian Federation Council had authorized Putin to deploy troops abroad in response to threats, basically to protect Crimea from the new regime in Kiev (an authorization revoked again on 24 June, to facilitate a ceasefire). 

Breedlove, commander of US Eucom (European Command, one of nine regional US military commands spanning the globe) and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Saceur), envisaged two fronts in the ‘Russian invasion’, the Baltic states with their large Russian minorities, and Ukraine. From the  correspondence of 5 and 6 April between Phillip Karber and General Wesley Clark, a former NATO Saceur, it emerges that they were already advising Kiev forces in eastern Ukraine before the Donbass had actually risen in revolt. Karber is the ex-CEO of the aerospace consultancy, BDM, and president of the Washington think tank founded by it, the Potomac Foundation. One major line of his activity was to assist former Soviet bloc countries in their quest for NATO membership and the coup regime in Kiev sought his advice too. A US Marines veteran himself, Karber in his e-mails to Breedlove reported positively on Ukrainian army units deployed on the ‘northeastern front’ (no fighting had erupted yet). 

On 6 April, government buildings in Donetsk and other cities were occupied by local  residents fearful of the forces unleashed by the ultra-nationalist coup in Kiev. For one of Karber’s and Clark’s correspondents the occupations were ‘the beginning of the second phase of the scenario for the Russian invasion in our country’ (after Crimea). Clark forwarded this information to Nuland and Pyatt an hour later. Thus, the narrative of the ‘Russian invasion’ reached the highest echelons of the Western war party early on and it remains the framework in which events in Ukraine are being interpreted.

Wesley Clark also wrote to Nuland that the US should make a statement supporting a military operation to regain control of the east, urging her to ignore possible German objections. Still on the 12th, he asked Breedlove whether NATO could arrange a statement blaming Moscow for the violence in the Donbass because ‘the Ukrainians [might otherwise] lose control of the narrative’. Clark then elaborated on the general geopolitical situation, giving further insights into why the war party in the US believed that Ukraine was to be ‘held’ and chosen as a battle ground to confront Russia and China. Claiming that ‘Putin has read US inaction in Georgia and Syria as US “weakness”,’ Clark went on to explain that ‘China is watching closely. China will have four aircraft carriers and airspace dominance in the Western Pacific within 5 years, if current trends continue. And if we let Ukraine slide away, it definitely raises the risks of conflict in the Pacific … If Russia takes Ukraine, Belarus will join the Eurasian Union, and, presto, the Soviet Union (in another name) will be back. … Far easier to [hold] the line now, in Ukraine than elsewhere, later.’

On the weekend of 13 to 14 April, CIA Director John Brennan was in the Ukrainian capital. The attack against the insurgency, the ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’, began right after Brennan’s visit; armed volunteers hurried to the east to join the fighting, as the regular army’s appetite and readiness were limited, in spite of $2 billion in credit guarantees granted to the Kiev regime by the Obama administration. 

Image result for Andrej Parubiy

In early May, massacres in Odessa and Mariupol worked to snuff out the beginnings of an uprising in the south. Later that month, Andrej Parubiy, appointed as secretary of the crucial National Security and Defence Council (NSDC), visited NATO headquarters for confidential talks. Parubiy was one of the founders of the fascist party of independent Ukraine, commander of its military wing, and responsible for the random killings at the Maidan central square in Kiev that preceded the coup; today he is the speaker of the Kiev parliament.  On the 25 th Petro Poroshenko was elected president in a pre-cooked election to give the coup a veneer of legitimacy. A few days before, US Vice President Biden’s Washington office announced that the US and NATO allies would hold naval exercises in the Black Sea in July, codenamed ‘Breeze’.

To the dismay of the Donbass rebels, the Russian government recognised the presidential election and on the margins of D-Day celebrations in Normandy in June, Poroshenko agreed with Putin to start talks on a ceasefire in the rebellious provinces.  However, later that month a threatening demonstration in Kiev by volunteer battalions demanded the immediate resumption of the civil war. On the 30th of June, following a four-hour NSDC meeting with Parubiy, Interior Minister Avakov, and others whose followers were demonstrating outside, Poroshenko was compelled to declare that the ceasefire would be lifted and a new offensive launched. In spite of a last-minute attempt by EU ministers to prevent a resumption of the fighting, a barrage of accusations from Washington, denouncing Moscow’s supposed interference in Ukraine, worked to encourage Kiev. 

For NATO, there was a lot at stake. With a summit in Wales coming up in September, the trope of a ‘Russian invasion’ had become vital to the survival of the alliance after the Afghanistan debacle. French and German hesitations (they did not join the NATO manoeuvres in the Black Sea in July, although there were two French ships in the area) were of little concern to Washington and London. According to Mike Whitney, writing in CounterPunch, Putin had to be demonized as a ‘dangerous aggressor’ and disqualified as a business partner, a reference to the energy links between Russia’s Gazprom and its clients in the EU. Indeed  Whitney wrote (seven days before the downing of MH17), the United States ‘has a very small window to draw Putin into the fray, which is why we should expect another false flag incident…  Washington is going to have to do something really big and make it look like it was Moscow’s doing.’ 

But did Washington indeed ‘do something really big’, or are we looking at a coincidental prediction? 

In my book I list all the possible types of weapons that may have been used; who had them, what was their operational status, and so on. Karber actually reported to Breedlove in detail about the state of the Kiev air force available for the Anti-Terrorist Operation. Yet ultimately I stick to an agnostic position, because there is no way to ascertain who actually pulled the trigger; even though all signs point to the Kiev regime and possibly Western, especially US and NATO advisers at hand. 

Nevertheless, by listing all the elements that have been established, one gets a factual foundation on which certain scenarios can be meaningfully based. Let me try out one here, leaving aside the broader context of the energy struggles and the determination, articulated by Wesley Clark, to militarily confront the Eurasian and BRICS blocs (and Russia and China in particular) and turn the Ukrainian civil war into a proxy contest. 

Ukraine ceded the direction of the official investigations to the Netherlands whilst retaining a veto on their outcomes. The investigations maintain that the pro-Russian Donbass rebels, or even the Russian military, shot down the plane by using a single Buk SA-11 medium-range surface-to-air missile. Now if one doubts this, and there are good reasons for it, the question arises why the plane broke up in mid-air. 

First: was it a Buk, as NATO and its echo chamber, the mainstream media, insist? Several military experts familiar with air defence from Soviet times have gone on record that a Buk hit would have made the Boeing explode into a fireball. They refer to the enormous kinetic energy of the impacting shrapnel (small metal pellets) and to examples such as Buk hits in the 2008 war to recapture its breakaway South Ossetia by Georgia. The Russian Ministry of Defence also questioned the Buk theory on the grounds of the impact damage and referred to certain types of air-to-air missiles used by supersonic fighter planes in the Ukrainian air force (I leave aside that Russia never developed a consistent narrative contesting the Western/NATO account). 

What if the cockpit, riddled with holes (the Dutch Safety Board’s final report of October 2015 estimates that some 800 shrapnel pieces hit it), was not struck by a Buk missile but by an air-to-air missile fired from an Ukrainian jet (the rebels had no planes), possibly also by cannon fire?  An air-to-air missile has a much smaller warhead and a shrapnel count more than ten times smaller than a Buk (which contains 7,800 pieces or more). In that case the question might arise why the cockpit broke off in mid-air; the main fuselage, with the wings and the engines intact, flew on for a few minutes, before breaking up into pieces too. This latter break-up can be explained from the amputation of the cockpit section from the hull, but why did that occur? 

One of the most knowledgeable bloggers on this issue has claimed that the cargo of almost one and a half tons of lithium ion batteries may have caused this fatal rupture. The DSB states in its final report that there was one battery on board and that it was properly packed—1,376 kilos! In fact the plane was a flying bomb, according to Victor Ettel, an expert on the science and manufacture of lithium ion batteries—and he was speaking on Flight MH370, on which there was a cargo of only a few hundred kilos of them, and which Malaysia Airlines mysteriously lost in the previous March. The batteries on board MH17, more than six times the load of MH370, were packed in seven large batches in three containers, most of it stowed in the front cargo section right behind the cockpit (a smaller batch in the rear), with the bill of lading marked ‘urgent’. Clearly, not ‘one battery’ of which the DSB speaks. 

In the picture below, the (much smaller) battery cargo of MH370 gives an indication of this location; in the DSB report one can see that the cockpit section broke off roughly where the bulk of the batteries were stowed. I stress that this is conjecture, but why did the DSB choose to lie about the lithium ion cargo? 

 In the Internet debate on this issue, the leading Dutch expert on the battery issue, who also advised me when I worked on the book, comments that the attack on the cockpit may have triggered a fire (lithium ion batteries are highly flammable) and such a fire produces high explosive hydrocarbon gases. He then writes,

‘Someone should ask logistics [at] Schiphol, this is one of the things the DSB should have been doing. The fact they didn’t is an unbelievable lack of competence (or deliberate ignorance) from their part. It was known from early 2013 on that these kind of batteries could pose a severe risk to airplanes when something unintended happens.’  

As I write in the book, the batteries had been flown to Schiphol by TNT from Grâce-Hollogne airport near Liège, where there is a distribution centre for them (a subsidiary of a UK company). The Ukrainian national airline, owned by the anti-Russian oligarch, Ihor Kolomoiskiy, flies three times per week to this airport, but I found no indication that there was something here to pursue further. What I did find, was that an Israeli-owned company, ICTS, headquartered at Schiphol, has developed the Advanced Passenger Screening with which the details of every flight are reported to the US authorities under existing anti-terror laws. ICTS International NV was established under Dutch law in 1982 by former members of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, and El Al security agents. Few companies are so directly involved with the terrorism/counter-terrorism complex as ICTS. Its subsidiary, Huntleigh USA, shared security duties at Boston’s Logan Airport, from where the two planes that were hijacked and later claimed to have hit the Twin Towers, took off on 11 September 2001. ICTS also permitted the Nigerian student, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallah, to slip past Schiphol’s normally stringent security with explosives sown in his underwear on Christmas Day 2009 and board a Northwest Airlines plane. Quite a record… and yet we don’t know, it may all be coincidence. 

Even so: why did the DSB not delve into these matters and instead chose to lie about the battery cargo? Why did Malaysia Airlines remove the cargo manifest in which the batteries are listed, from its website? There are many more such questions that can be raised. Again, my aim in the book was to list all the elements that we can be certain about, so that meaningful speculation beyond them becomes possible and pertinent hypotheses may be formulated. Then it may take only one more piece of evidence, one witness statement, one new, unbiased investigation, and we will have come much closer to establishing the real reasons why MH17 was shot down. 

*

Prof. Kees van der Pijl is fellow of the Centre for Global Political Economy and Emeritus Professor in the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex.


Flight MH17, Ukraine and the new Cold War

Title: Flight MH17, Ukraine and the New Cold War (Prism of disaster)

Author: Kees van der Pijl

ISBN: 978-1-5261-3109-6

Publisher: Manchester University Press

Pages: 208

Price: £18.99

Click here to order.

 

Malaysian Airlines MH17 as a Prism of Disaster. Ukraine and the New Cold War

The Language of 9/11 Unmasked: Edward Curtin

Global Research, November 25, 2018
The Mind Renewed 23 November 2018
911attacks

We welcome to the programme the writer and lecturer Edward Curtin,who teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, for a conversation on his research into the subject of September 11, 2001, and in particular his analysis of the language used of that event in terms of a hypothesised deep-state policy of linguistic mind control.

We also discuss the very important book 9/11 Unmasked by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, recently published by Olive Branch Press, which Edward Curtin particularly recommends for its scholarly approach.

“9/11 Unmasked is the result of a six-year investigation by an international review panel, which has provided 51 points illustrating the problematic status of all the major claims in the official account of the 9/11 attacks, some of which are obviously false. Most dramatically, the official account of the destruction of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 could not possibly be true, unless the laws of physics were suspended that day. But other claims made by the official account—including the claims that the 9/11 planes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers, that one of those hijackers flew his plane into the Pentagon, and that passengers on the planes telephoned people on the ground—are also demonstrably false. The book reports only points about which the panel reached consensus by using the “best-evidence” consensus model employed in medical research. The panel is composed of experts about 9/11 from many disciplines, including physics, chemistry, structural engineering, aeronautical engineering, and jurisprudence.”—Interlink Books

Listen to the interview below.

Audio Player

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The Language of 9/11 Unmasked: Edward Curtin